大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 38.47

38.47

疏「現在生界未盡」下，辨現在無佛義。此師計云：一切如來因地發願度盡眾生，生界不盡不取正覺。現見眾生沈淪九有，故知諸佛未合有成，成則違誓。從「今有佛者」下，通妨難。難云：若爾，今十方世界諸佛出現，何得言無？答云：皆是菩薩，應成佛耳。此師之計最為孟浪，謗無諸佛，理實難容。若爾，云何通於違誓之義？古有多釋。一云：本擬度生，未期成佛，積行淳著行催自成，如撥火杖，本欲燒草、不欲燒杖，撥草既多，任運燒盡。故三論師詺為不自在佛，不欲成佛而自成故。有云：成佛若不化生，可違本誓。成竟亦化眾生，豈違本誓？難云：化生之義雖許得存，盡竟方成其義何在？豈得不違？如實義者，諸佛皆有悲智二門，以大悲故窮未來際無成佛時，故菩薩闡提不成佛也；以大智故，念念速成。又欲化盡諸眾生界，自須速成方能廣化，不懼違誓盡竟成言。又了眾生之本如，故化而無化，是則常成亦常不成，亦常化生而常無化。悲智自在，何局執耶，此乃傍來，亦是人情好難問故。今許三世皆悉有佛，故下結云「謬說為無，正說為有。」

Regarding the commentary's: "At present the realm of sentient beings is not yet exhausted," and so forth, this distinguishes the meaning of there being no Buddha at present. This master asserts: All Tathāgatas, when making vows on the causal ground, vow to deliver all sentient beings completely; if the realm of sentient beings is not exhausted, they will not attain correct awakening. Now, seeing that sentient beings are sinking in the nine realms of existence, one knows that the Buddhas ought not yet to have attained [awakening]; if they have attained it, they have violated their vows. From "as for there being Buddhas now" on down, objections are resolved. The objection asks: If so, when Buddhas now appear in the worlds of the ten directions, how can one say there are none? The reply states: They are all bodhisattvas who ought to become Buddhas. This master's assertion is utterly reckless; denying the existence of the Buddhas is truly intolerable in principle. If so, how is the meaning of violating the vow resolved? The ancients had many explanations. One says: Originally intending to save sentient beings without expecting to attain Buddhahood, through the maturation and deepening of accumulated practices the momentum of practice brought about attainment on its own. It is like a fire poker: originally intended to burn grass and not to burn the poker, but through stoking the grass so much, it naturally burns away. Therefore the Sanlun masters called this the "non-autonomous Buddha," because without desiring to attain Buddhahood, it was attained on its own. Another says: Attaining Buddhahood without transforming sentient beings would indeed violate the original vow. If after attainment one still transforms sentient beings, how does that violate the original vow? The objection asks: Although the meaning of transforming sentient beings is allowed to stand, where is the meaning of attaining it only after [sentient beings] are completely exhausted? How could it not be a violation? According to the true meaning: All Buddhas possess the two approaches of compassion and wisdom. Through great compassion, to the end of future time there is no time of attaining Buddhahood; thus bodhisattvas and icchantikas do not attain Buddhahood. Through great wisdom, they attain it swiftly from thought-moment to thought-moment. Furthermore, desiring to transform the entire realm of sentient beings completely, they must swiftly attain it themselves before they can broadly transform them, with no fear of violating the vow or the words about attaining only after exhaustion. Moreover, understanding the fundamental tathatā of sentient beings, they transform yet there is no transformation; thus they constantly attain and constantly do not attain, and constantly transform sentient beings while constantly having no transformation. Being unconstrained in compassion and wisdom, why be rigidly attached? This is an incidental point, and also arose because human inclination delights in raising difficult questions. Now, it is acknowledged that there are Buddhas in all three periods of time; hence it concludes below: "Erroneously explained as non-existence, correctly explained as existence."