大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.15

6.15

疏「約釋迦為主」下，第二救破四異。彼疏破云「又四異中，眾處兩異皆違經說，七處並是娑婆界故（上破處異）。」又云「〈出現品〉云十方諸佛讚普賢言能說此法，今此會中有佛剎微塵眾生發菩提心故。〈發心品〉中云亦同此說。準此故知有地前器（此上破眾異）。是故此師所立多違教理，甚難依也（此結破也）。」彼破二異，今疏通二異：後一是救《刊定》破處異；初一是遮有餘師破其主異，謂恐有破云：下經既云「或名釋迦牟尼，或名毘盧遮那。」明知二主不異，何言主異？故今通云：釋迦為主，但是三身中化身；遮那為主，則十身具顯。化身乃是十身之一，故云「必具釋迦」。是則總別異也，何言不異？

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'Taking Śākyamuni as the lord' downward: the second part defends against the refutation of the four differences. That commentary's refutation states: 'Furthermore, among the four differences, the two differences regarding assembly and location both contravene the sūtra's statements, because the seven locations are all the Sahā world (this refutes the difference in location).' It also states: 'The "Appearance Chapter" says that the buddhas of the ten directions praised Samantabhadra, saying that he was able to expound this Dharma, and that in this assembly sentient beings as numerous as the dust motes of buddha-lands gave rise to bodhicitta. The "Arousing the Mind Chapter" also contains a statement identical to this. Based on this, we know that there are vessels prior to the stages (this refutes the difference in assembly). Therefore, what this master has established mostly contravenes doctrine and principle, and is extremely difficult to rely upon (this concludes the refutation).' He refuted two differences, and now the Commentary resolves two differences: the latter defends against the Kanding's refutation of the difference in location; the former fends off other masters who refuted the difference in lord, namely fearing that someone might refute it by saying: 'Since the sūtra below states, "He is sometimes named Śākyamuni and sometimes named Vairocana," it clearly shows that the two lords are not different; why say there is a difference in lord?' Therefore, it resolves this by saying: Śākyamuni as lord is merely the nirmāṇakāya among the three bodies; Vairocana as lord fully manifests the ten bodies. The nirmāṇakāya is merely one of the ten bodies, hence it is said, 'He necessarily possesses Śākyamuni.' This, then, is a difference between the whole and the part; how could one say they are not different?