大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 19.17

19.17

疏「四約乘無二乘不共教故」等者，此段有四：一正明。二「下為顯法」下，通妨。謂有難言：若無二乘，第九會中何得有耶？答云：為顯法耳。次又難云：若為顯法則有二乘？答云：亦不見聞，與無同故。三「智論云」下，引證云，明無小乘是不共義。四「或大乘經」下，四重通妨難，正通智論、兼通正義。謂有問言：現有唯列小而是大乘，如《金剛經》，那言前列小但是小乘經耶？答云：為引攝故。《智論》就其大略，故唯列小乘，是小乘經。如《金剛經》等別是一理耳。言或唯列大亦非一乘，謂主伴不具者，即如《楞伽》等是也。

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Fourth, in terms of vehicle, there are no two vehicles, because it is an unshared teaching," and so forth: this section has four parts: first, directly explaining. Second, from "Below, in order to reveal the Dharma" downward, resolving an objection. That is, an objection states: If there are no two vehicles, how could they be present in the ninth assembly? The answer is: It is merely to reveal the Dharma. Next, another objection states: If it is to reveal the Dharma, then the two vehicles are present? The answer is: They also neither see nor hear, which is identical to absence. Third, from "The *Dazhidulun* states" downward, citing evidence to clarify that the absence of the Hinayāna is the meaning of being an unshared [teaching]. Fourth, from "Or Mahāyāna sūtras" downward, resolving objections in four tiers, directly resolving the *Dazhidulun* and concurrently resolving the correct meaning. That is, someone asks: There are cases where only the Hinayāna is listed and yet it is a Mahāyāna text, as in the *Vajracchedikā*; why say that listing the Hinayāna first means it is solely a Hinayāna sūtra? The answer is: It is for the purpose of guiding and gathering. The *Dazhidulun* speaks in terms of the general case, so listing only the Hinayāna means it is a Hinayāna sūtra. Texts like the *Vajracchedikā* operate on a distinct principle. When it says that listing only the Mahāyāna is also not the One Vehicle, meaning that host and companion are not fully present, texts like the *Laṅkāvatāra* and others are examples of this.