大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.16

6.16

疏「娑婆之處未融華藏，華藏之處必融娑婆」者，此通《刊定》破處異也。餘處王城舍衛，未言即是華藏娑婆；今云七處自有二義，故同華藏：一約本末分岐故，七處亦是華藏界中第十三重之內。二約淨穢該徹，則摩竭提國其地金剛，說初品時華藏世界六種震動。彼疏序云「剎該淨穢，娑婆震而華藏動。」豈不華藏之處融耶？故知破其處異，自違己說也。所以不救破眾異者，由《刊定》破最不當故。彼眾異中但云：釋迦經中通被三乘，遮那經中唯被菩薩，則通局之殊而破彼義，乃引凡夫發心豈非菩薩之器，況此經發心又甚深故。其說異一種，他人不破，故此不救。

Regarding the Commentary's text, 'The location of Sahā does not yet fuse the Lotus Treasury, but the location of the Lotus Treasury necessarily fuses Sahā': this resolves the Kanding's refutation of the difference in location. In other places, the Royal City and Śrāvastī are not said to be the Lotus Treasury and Sahā; now, saying that the seven locations naturally have two meanings makes them identical to the Lotus Treasury: first, in terms of the branch-and-root division, the seven locations are also within the thirteenth tier of the Lotus Treasury world; second, in terms of purity and defilement penetrating through, the ground of the country of Magadha is adamantine, and when the first chapter was expounded, the Lotus Treasury world trembled in six ways. That commentary's preface states: 'The realm embraces purity and defilement; Sahā quakes and the Lotus Treasury trembles.' Is this not the location of the Lotus Treasury being fused? Therefore, we know that in refuting the difference in location, he contradicted his own statement. As for why it does not defend against the refutation of the difference in assembly, it is because the Kanding's refutation was most inappropriate. In discussing the difference in assembly, he merely said: Śākyamuni's sūtras universally encompass the triyāna, whereas Vairocana's sūtra exclusively encompasses bodhisattvas. Thus, he refuted that position on the basis of the distinction between universal and exclusive, citing ordinary beings giving rise to the mind—how could they not be vessels for the bodhisattva [teaching], especially since the arousal of the mind in this sūtra is profoundly deep? As for the difference in preaching, others did not refute it, so it is not defended here.