大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.14

6.14

疏「然華嚴」下，第二遮破釋成。謂《刊定記》不許此師立義，先破總名、後破四異。今為昔通，則遮其破耳。文即分二：先救總名、後救四異。今初至「故云屈曲」，是救其破於總名。彼疏破中，先牒義竟，云「若爾，《涅槃》、《法華》、《維摩》、《楞伽》、《密嚴》、《勝鬘》、《佛藏經》等皆釋迦說，應不明於如來藏性實相法界等（此破屈曲，以有平道故）。《華嚴》、《梵網》既舍那說，何故《華嚴》說於四諦，〈普賢行〉等品中皆云隨諸眾生所應調伏作如是說？又〈問明〉、〈淨行〉、〈梵行〉三賢十地，〈離世間〉、〈入法界〉等諸品之中不應皆說對治行法等（此破平道，以有屈曲故也）。」今疏云「雖有隨諸眾生各別調伏」者，此牒其破平道教中屈曲之文。疏「皆是稱性一時頓演」者，釋成是其平道之義，以稱性之巧，無邊差別皆是平道。又一時頓演不同屈曲，說權之時不說實、說實之時不說權，說四諦唯為小乘、說六度唯被菩薩，故一切並陳尤顯平道。又說隨眾生者，說於世尊餘處隨機，非此經中是隨機說。疏「涅槃等雖說一極」者，此牒其破屈曲教中有平道之文。疏「或對權實」下，釋成是屈曲之義。言屈曲者，非是有真如法性即非屈曲，但取隨機隱顯為屈曲耳。此上二句，是約《法華》明是屈曲。昔權今實、破三顯一，明權則未說實、說實必廢於權，不同《華嚴》權實齊彰、一時頓用，故名屈曲。疏「或會異歸同」下，約《涅槃經》以明屈曲。《涅槃》會昔有餘之義，同歸一味涅槃，先異後同，亦成屈曲。不同《華嚴》，若同若異、空不空等一時頓演。又云一切如來或說不說者，古德共云：日月燈明佛，晨旦說法華，中夜便滅度。則《法華》之外，非是別時更說《涅槃》。謂人根利故，聞《法華》竟，不復須說《涅槃》，則《涅槃》或說不說，謂或有國土唯說三乘，究竟不破；或有國土唯說一乘，無三可破。則知《法華》亦有說不說。不同《華嚴》云「我不見有一佛國土，其中如來不說此法。」明是平道。

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'However, as for the Avataṃsaka' downward: the second part refutes the criticisms and establishes the correct interpretation. This means that the Kanding ji did not accept the doctrine established by this master, first refuting the general designations and subsequently refuting the four differences. Now, in resolving this on behalf of the earlier master, it simply fends off those refutations. The text is divided into two: first, it defends the general designations; second, it defends the four differences. Now, the section up to 'hence it is called winding' defends against his refutation of the general designations. In that commentary's refutation, having first quoted the thesis, it says: 'If so, since the Nirvāṇa, Lotus, Vimalakīrti, Laṅkāvatāra, Ghanavyūha, Śrīmālā, and Buddhapiṭaka Sūtras were all spoken by Śākyamuni, they ought not elucidate the tathāgatagarbha nature, the true aspect, the dharmadhātu, and so forth (this refutes the 'winding' category on the grounds that it contains the level path). Since the Avataṃsaka and Brahmajāla were spoken by Rocana, why does the Avataṃsaka explain the four truths, and why do chapters such as 'Samantabhadra's Conduct' all state that he expounds in this way in accordance with how sentient beings should be subdued? Furthermore, in chapters such as 'Clarifying Questions', 'Pure Conduct', 'Brahma Conduct', the three grades of worthies, the ten stages, 'Transcending the World', and 'Entering the Dharmadhātu', it ought not consistently expound practices that serve as antidotes (this refutes the 'level path' category on the grounds that it contains the winding).' Now, when the Commentary states, 'Although there are individual subduings according with various sentient beings,' this quotes the passage refuting the winding within the level path teaching. When the Commentary states, 'All are simultaneously and suddenly expounded in accordance with the [true] nature,' this establishes the meaning of its being the level path; for through the skillfulness of according with the nature, boundless differences are all the level path. Furthermore, expounding simultaneously and suddenly differs from the winding, where when provisional teachings are spoken, the ultimate is not, and when the ultimate is spoken, the provisional is not; where the four truths are taught solely for the Hīnayāna, and the six perfections are taught solely to guide bodhisattvas. Therefore, that all are presented together even more clearly manifests the level path. Furthermore, speaking of 'according with sentient beings' refers to the World-Honoured One according with capacities elsewhere, not that this sūtra constitutes speaking according with capacities. When the Commentary states, 'Although the Nirvāṇa and others speak of the single ultimate,' this quotes the passage refuting the level path within the winding teaching. When the Commentary states, 'Either contrasting the provisional and the ultimate' downward, this establishes the meaning of its being winding. Saying 'winding' does not mean that if it possesses tathatā and dharmatā it is not winding; it merely refers to concealing and revealing according to capacities as being winding. These preceding two lines clarify that it is winding based on the Lotus Sūtra. Formerly provisional, now ultimate; destroying the three and revealing the one: when clarifying the provisional, the ultimate had not yet been spoken, and speaking the ultimate necessarily abandons the provisional; it is not like the Avataṃsaka, where provisional and ultimate are equally manifest and simultaneously and suddenly applied, and hence it is called winding. When the Commentary states, 'Or gathering the disparate to return to the identical' downward, it clarifies the winding based on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. The Nirvāṇa gathers the former meanings of remainder and returns them together to the single flavor of nirvāṇa; disparate first and identical later, this also constitutes winding. It is not like the Avataṃsaka, where whether identical or disparate, empty or non-empty, and so forth, they are all simultaneously and suddenly expounded. Furthermore, regarding the statement that 'all Tathāgatas either speak or do not speak it,' past virtuous masters unanimously said: 'Candrasūryapradīpa Buddha expounded the Lotus Sūtra at dawn and entered extinction in the middle of the night.' Thus, apart from the Lotus Sūtra, he did not expound the Nirvāṇa at any other time. This means that because people's faculties were sharp, after hearing the Lotus Sūtra, there was no need to expound the Nirvāṇa; thus the Nirvāṇa is either spoken or not spoken. This means that in some lands, only the triyāna is taught and never ultimately dismantled, while in other lands, only the ekayāna is taught and there are no three to be dismantled. Thus we know that the Lotus Sūtra is also either spoken or not spoken. It is not like the Avataṃsaka, which states: 'I do not see a single buddha-land where the Tathāgata does not expound this Dharma.' This clarifies that it is the level path.