大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.4

6.4

疏「殊途同歸」者，《周易》云「天下殊途而同歸，百慮而一致。」謂若千逕九逵王城不二，九流百氏大道寧差。今疏借用，乃通三義：一約教，始隨機異故殊途，終歸顯實故一致；二約機則異，就理常一；三體外無權，權即是實，故殊途同致也。疏「二、一音普應一雨普滋」者，一音即是《淨名》，一雨即《法華．藥草喻品》，謂三草二木不同，同承一雨之潤；五性三乘不一，法雨一味無差故。彼經云「如來知是一相一味之法，所謂解脫相、離相、滅相、究竟涅槃常寂滅相，終歸於空」等。疏「三、原聖本意為一事故」者，亦是《法華》中意。故彼經云「過去諸佛以無量無數方便，種種因緣譬喻言詞，而為眾生演說諸法，是法皆為一佛乘故。」一佛乘者，即華嚴矣。又云「我此九部法，隨順眾生說，入大乘為本，以故說是經。」皆為一事也。疏「四、隨一一文眾解不同」者，此通明諸經。如經說一無常，或有解者以生滅代謝故云無常；或云無彼常故名為無常；或云不生不滅名為無常；或即無法可常也；或云真如一法隨染淨緣轉變不常故名無常。或聞無常，便知對常以說無常，非常非無常，以為中道等。明知隨人解不同也。又苦集滅道四名則同，隨機解殊，乃有四種。又《涅槃》云「十二因緣，下智觀者得聲聞菩提，中智觀者得緣覺菩提，上智觀者得菩薩菩提，上上智觀者得佛菩提。」又如一乘，五教機解不同，三諦差別。《中論》偈云「因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦名為假名，亦是中道義。」即有多人解不同也。或云：既言因緣所生，那得即空？要須析因緣盡，方乃會空。呼十方空為即空。亦名為假名者，有為虛弱，勢不獨立。假眾緣成，從緣故假，非施權之假。亦是中道義者，離斷常故名為中道，非佛性中道。若作此解者，雖三句皆空，尚不成即空，況即假即中？此生滅四諦中義也。或云：因緣所生法，不須破滅，體即是空。而不得即假即中；設作假中，皆順入空。何者？諸法皆即空，無主宰故。假亦即空，假施設故。中亦即空，離斷常二邊故。此三番語異，俱順入空，退非二乘析法、進非別圓，乃是三獸度河之意耳。或謂即空即假即中，三種邐迤各各有異。三種皆空者，無主故空、虛設故空、無邊故空。三種皆假者，同有名字故假。三種皆中者，中真、中機、中實故。謂空名中者，約真諦故。假名中者，就機設化，不住化不化故。中名中者，約一實諦之中道故。此得別失圓。或謂即空即假即中，雖三而一、雖一而三，不相妨礙。三種皆空者，言思道斷故。三種皆假者，但有名字故。三種皆中者，即是實相故。但以空為名，即具假中，悟空即悟假中。餘亦如是。是知隨聞一法起種種解，圓機受教無教不圓，偏機受教圓亦偏矣。既隨一文異解，何須分判不同。疏「五、多種說法成枝流」者，上義亦傍該諸經，今正引當經立理。〈法界品〉云「法欲滅時有千部異、千種說法」等，何不尋條以得根，便欲派本而為末，渾純源之一味，成澆薄之枝流。

Regarding the Commentary's words "different paths lead to the same destination": the Book of Changes states, "In the world, different paths lead to the same destination, and a hundred deliberations result in a single accord." This means that just as thousands of tracks and nine thoroughfares lead alike to the royal city, how could the nine schools and hundred philosophers diverge from the Great Way? The Commentary now borrows this phrasing to encompass three meanings: first, in terms of the teachings, they initially vary according to capacity and thus follow "different paths," but ultimately return to revealing the real and thus achieve "a single accord"; second, they differ in terms of capacities, but in terms of principle they are ever one; third, outside the essence there is no provisional, and the provisional is itself the real—hence "different paths lead to the same destination." Regarding the Commentary's words "Second, a single voice universally responds, and a single rain universally nourishes": the single voice is from the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and the single rain is from the "Parable of the Medicinal Herbs" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra. This means that the three kinds of herbs and two kinds of trees differ, yet alike receive the moisture of the single rain; the five natures and three vehicles are not identical, yet the Dharma rain is of one flavor without distinction. That sūtra states: "The Tathāgata knows this Dharma of a single characteristic and a single flavor—namely, the characteristic of liberation, the characteristic of detachment, the characteristic of cessation, the characteristic of ultimate nirvāṇa, constantly quiescent and ceased, ultimately returning to emptiness," and so forth. Regarding the Commentary's words "Third, tracing back to the Sage's original intent, it was for the sake of one matter": this is also the intent of the Lotus Sūtra. Thus that sūtra states: "Past Buddhas, using immeasurable and countless skillful means and various causes, conditions, parables, and words, expounded the dharmas for sentient beings; these dharmas are all for the sake of the One Buddha Vehicle." The One Buddha Vehicle is none other than the Avataṃsaka. It also states: "These nine divisions of Dharma of mine are taught in accordance with sentient beings; taking entry into the Great Vehicle as the root, I therefore teach this sūtra." All are for the sake of one matter. Regarding the Commentary's words "Fourth, with each single text, the assembly's understandings differ": this applies generally to the various sūtras. For instance, when a sūtra speaks of a single "impermanence," some understand it as impermanence because arising and ceasing alternate; some say it is called impermanence because of the absence of permanence; some say unarisen and unceasing is called impermanence; some hold that there is simply no dharma that could be permanent; or some say that the single dharma of tathatā, transforming and not remaining constant according to defiled and pure conditions, is therefore called impermanent. Or some, hearing "impermanence," immediately know that impermanence is taught in opposition to permanence, and take neither-permanent-nor-impermanent to be the Middle Way, and so forth. One clearly knows that understandings differ according to the person. Furthermore, while the four names of suffering, origination, cessation, and path are identical, according to the varying capacities of understanding, there are four kinds. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "Regarding the twelve links of dependent origination, those who contemplate with lesser wisdom attain śrāvaka bodhi; those who contemplate with middling wisdom attain pratyekabuddha bodhi; those who contemplate with superior wisdom attain bodhisattva bodhi; and those who contemplate with supreme wisdom attain Buddha bodhi." Again, as with the One Vehicle, the five teachings have different understandings according to capacity, with distinctions among the three truths. A verse in the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Dharmas arisen from conditions, / I declare to be emptiness; / it is also a conventional designation, / and also the meaning of the Middle Way." Here, many people have different understandings. Some say: Since it says "arisen from conditions," how could it be identical to emptiness? One must completely analyze causes and conditions to their end, and only then harmonize with emptiness. They refer to the emptiness of the ten directions as "identical to emptiness." "Also a conventional designation" means that the conditioned is insubstantial and weak, lacking the power to stand independently. Formed by a concourse of conditions, it is conventional because it derives from conditions—not the conventionality of setting up provisional means. "Also the meaning of the Middle Way" means that being free from annihilation and permanence is called the Middle Way—not the Middle Way of the Buddha-nature. If one adopts this understanding, although all three phrases are empty, it does not even constitute "identical to emptiness," much less "identical to the conventional" or "identical to the middle." This is the meaning within the arising-and-ceasing four noble truths. Or some say: Dharmas arisen from conditions do not need to be destroyed; their essence is identical to emptiness. Yet they cannot attain "identical to the conventional" and "identical to the middle"; even if they construct the conventional and the middle, both concordantly enter into emptiness. Why? All dharmas are identical to emptiness because they lack a master. The conventional is also identical to emptiness because it is conventionally posited. The middle is also identical to emptiness because it is free from the two extremes of annihilation and permanence. These three turns of phrasing differ, yet all concordantly enter into emptiness; stepping back, they are not the analysis of dharmas by the two vehicles, and stepping forward, they are not the separate or perfect [teachings]—this is simply the meaning of the three animals crossing the river. Or some consider "identical to emptiness, identical to the conventional, identical to the middle" to unfold progressively, each being distinct from the others. That all three are empty means: empty because of lacking a master, empty because of being insubstantially posited, empty because of lacking extremes. That all three are conventional means: conventional because they equally have names. That all three are the middle means: because of the middle of the true, the middle of the capacity, and the middle of the real. Calling emptiness "the middle" is based on the absolute truth. Calling the conventional "the middle" is based on establishing transformation according to capacity, abiding neither in transformation nor non-transformation. Calling the middle "the middle" is based on the Middle Way of the single real truth. This grasps the separate but misses the perfect. Or some consider "identical to emptiness, identical to the conventional, identical to the middle," though three, to be one, and though one, to be three, without obstructing each other. That all three are empty is because the path of words and thoughts is cut off. That all three are conventional is because they merely have names. That all three are the middle is because they are identical to the true mark. Merely taking emptiness as the name, it already possesses the conventional and the middle; awakening to emptiness is awakening to the conventional and the middle. The others are likewise. From this one knows that, according to what single dharma one hears, various understandings arise: when a perfect capacity receives the teaching, no teaching is not perfect; when a biased capacity receives the teaching, even the perfect becomes biased. Since different understandings follow from a single text, what need is there to divide and judge differences? Regarding the Commentary's words "Fifth, multiple modes of teaching the Dharma branch off into secondary streams": the above points also indirectly encompass various sūtras; here, it properly cites the present sūtra to establish the principle. The "Dharmadhātu Chapter" states: "When the Dharma is about to perish, there will be the differences of a thousand schools, a thousand modes of teaching the Dharma," and so forth. Why not trace the branches to find the root, instead of seeking to divert the source into tributaries, muddying the single flavor of the pure origin and turning it into a depleted, shallow branch stream?