大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 28.26

28.26

疏「今謂新舊」下，申今正義。於中二：先以〈十忍〉答頂、後通以四品答頂。前中七：一正將十忍答頂問。二言「十頂者」下，會釋二名。三「故十忍」下，引文為證。四「亦猶」下，引例成立。五「不爾」下，反以釋成。六「設欲」下，釋無十難。難云：若開頂問，十句即圓；若以忍答頂，句則唯九。故今答云：脫於十信，十句成矣。七「十信雖未成」下，會通上難。難云：我先用二義不開十信，一文證、二理證。今欲開信，雙乖文理。故今通之，乃有數意：一對前立理。前明闕於四義不立信位，今明不必成位，四義無遺。二「德用殊勝」下，上以文證，今亦文答。上引但明信位不開，今明何必要開？而不妨有問。何者？十願、十藏非是別位，得為問端；信不成位，何妨有問？又藏願等寄他會答，尚有別問；十信法門別一會答，解行德能三品宏深，豈合無問？疏「若將」下，第二會通。以四品答於頂問，以信住行等皆有多品，總將四品共答頂問，於理無違。若爾，古以〈僧祇〉、〈壽量〉而答頂問，應不乖理。彼以局取，又不收忍，今總收四，與昔全乖。頂乃通名，忍等別稱，故不同也。此解最妙，亦能傍通一難。難云：引四善根，忍頂不同。今何將忍以酬頂問？故為總釋。則以等覺因位之極通稱為頂，不全同四，故上引之，義相類故。

On the commentary’s "Now I hold that in both the new and old [translations]" and below, this is to set forth the present correct position. Within this, there are two parts: first, using the "Ten Kṣāntis" to answer the summits, and second, comprehensively using four chapters to answer the summits. In the former, there are seven parts: first, directly taking the ten kṣāntis to answer the question on the summits; second, from "As for the ten summits" and below, reconciling and explaining the two names; third, from "Therefore the ten kṣāntis" and below, citing textual passages as proof; fourth, from "It is also like" and below, citing parallels to establish it; fifth, from "Otherwise" and below, explaining and establishing it conversely; sixth, from "Even if one wished" and below, resolving the objection concerning the absence of ten [questions]. The objection states: "If one expands the question on the summits, the ten sentences are complete; if one answers the summits with kṣāntis, there are only nine sentences." Thus it now answers: "If one has omitted the ten faiths, the ten sentences are completed." Seventh, from "Although the ten faiths have not yet formed [a stage]" and below, reconciling the objection above. The objection states: "I previously used two meanings not to expand the ten faiths: first, textual evidence; second, evidence of principle. Now you wish to expand the faiths, which goes against both text and principle." Therefore, reconciling it now, there are several meanings: first, responding to the principle established earlier. Earlier, it explained that lacking four meanings, the stage of faith is not established; now, it explains that it does not necessarily have to form a stage, and the four meanings are without omission. Second, from "Its virtues and functions are exceptionally superior" and below, where above it cited textual evidence, here it also answers with texts. What was cited above merely explained that the stage of faith is not expanded; now it explains why it must be expanded, and yet there is no obstacle to questioning it. Why? The ten vows and ten treasuries are not distinct stages, yet they can serve as the starting point of questions; if faith does not form a stage, what prevents there being a question? Moreover, the treasuries, vows, and so forth are answered by being lodged in other assemblies, yet they still have distinct questions; the Dharma-gate of the ten faiths is answered in an independent assembly, with the three chapters on understanding, practice, and virtuous capabilities being broad and deep—how could it be fitting to lack a question? On the commentary's "If one takes" and below, this is the second reconciliation: answering the question on the summits with four chapters. Because faiths, abodes, practices, and so on all comprise multiple chapters, taking the four chapters collectively to answer the question on the summits does not violate principle. If so, then the ancients' answering the question on the summits with the "Asaṃkhyeya" and "Life Span" chapters ought not to violate principle. [However,] they selectively adopted them and did not include kṣāntis; now, collectively including all four completely diverges from the past [views]. "Summit" is a generic name, while "kṣānti" and the rest are specific designations; hence they are not the same. This explanation is most wonderful, and can also collaterally resolve an objection. The objection states: "Citing the four roots of goodness, kṣānti and summit are not the same. Why now use kṣānti to respond to the question on the summits?" Therefore, it provides a comprehensive explanation: taking the culmination of the cause stage of equal awakening as generically called "summit," it is not entirely identical to the four [roots of goodness]; thus it was cited above because their meanings are analogous.