大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.44

6.44

疏「意明今時」下，二解妨難中，謂《刊定記》主有其二難：一合難漸頓、二別難於圓。第一難云：若漸根生熟俱漸、頓根生熟俱頓，則漸頓可分。既云未熟名漸、已熟名頓，此則於一漸根但生熟為異，無別頓義。或應彼一有漸頓二根，生必至熟、熟必從生故；或應一切時皆是漸根，無有不從生至熟故。釋曰：此第一難其漸頓，自有三難：第一漸頓不分難、第二一根具二難、第三無有頓根難。初一是總，後二是別。今初。為此一通，三難皆遣。如第一難，《刊定》以根定於漸頓則有此難。今不以根定於漸頓，何有此難？謂為其根生，漸說法門，名之為漸；為於根熟，頓說法門，則以為頓耳。何得以生熟俱頓難耶？則第一難遣矣。既不約根，何得以生必至熟、熟必從生等難耶？則第二第三難遣矣。又為此難遣下自所立教。彼立四教云：第三教當初心菩薩，第四教義當終心識如來藏者。又自通云：初心者約機勝劣名其初終，非約修行初終時位。汝既以根勝劣為初終，何妨此師亦以根勝劣為生熟耶？故為此難，失古意也。疏「上達之言義兼地前」等者，通彼第二難於圓教。彼難云：既云分階佛境，則地前無有堪聞此經，則違〈出現品〉佛剎微塵數眾生發菩提心。釋曰：彼以上達、分階佛境，合為一義，故為此難。今為此通，則上達為地前、分階佛境為地上，故不違〈出現品〉文，亦不失於大理。況初發心時便成正覺，豈非分階佛境之人？疏「隋末唐初」下，第三師，先正立中，皆依《法華經》第五，即〈從地涌出品〉。以彼中涌出菩薩問訊云：「世尊！少病少惱，安樂行不？所應度者受化易不？不令世尊生疲勞耶？」故佛答云：「如是如是。諸善男子！如來安樂，少病少惱，諸眾生等易可化度，無有疲勞。所以者何？是諸眾生世世已來常受我化，亦於過去諸佛供養尊重種諸善根。此諸眾生，始見我身、聞我所說，即皆信受入如來慧，除先修習學小乘者。如是之人，我今亦令得聞是經入於佛慧。」今疏引經，便以義隔成於三輪。此師以根本法輪是《華嚴經》，始成正覺頓宣說故。其枝末法輪，是以根本化之不得，便於一佛乘分別說三為枝末者，即指《華嚴》已後、《法華》已前並為枝末。三即法華，以為攝末。

Regarding the commentary's "The intention is to clarify that nowadays" and below: second, in resolving objections, the author of the Kandingji raised two objections: first, collectively objecting to gradual and sudden; second, specifically objecting to the round. The first objection states: "If both the immature and mature capacities of the gradual capacity are gradual, and both the immature and mature capacities of the sudden capacity are sudden, then gradual and sudden can be differentiated. Since you say that the not-yet-mature is called gradual and the already-mature is called sudden, then for a single gradual capacity, there is only the difference between immature and mature, with no distinct sudden meaning. Or, that one capacity should possess both gradual and sudden capacities, because the immature must reach maturity and the mature must come from the immature; or, capacities at all times should all be gradual capacities, because there is none that does not proceed from the immature to maturity."

Explication: This first objection against his gradual and sudden itself contains three objections: first, the objection that gradual and sudden are not differentiated; second, the objection that a single capacity possesses both; third, the objection that there is no sudden capacity. The first is general, and the latter two are specific. Now for the first: with this single resolution, all three objections are dispelled. As in the first objection, the Kanding[ji] determined gradual and sudden by capacity, and thus had this objection. Now, if gradual and sudden are not determined by capacity, how could there be this objection? That is to say, for an immature capacity, gradually expounding the Dharma methods is called gradual; for a mature capacity, suddenly expounding the Dharma methods is considered sudden. How can one object by saying that both immature and mature are sudden? Thus, the first objection is dispelled. Since it is not defined in terms of capacity, how can one object by claiming that the immature must reach maturity, that the mature must come from the immature, and so on? Thus, the second and third objections are dispelled.

Moreover, this objection would overturn the teaching he himself established below. He established four teachings, stating: "The third teaching corresponds to the bodhisattva of initial aspiration, and the fourth teaching corresponds to the final aspiration that recognizes the tathāgatagarbha." Furthermore, he resolved this himself by saying: "Initial and final are designated according to the superiority or inferiority of the faculty, not according to the initial and final stages of cultivation in time." Since you take the superiority or inferiority of capacity to be initial and final, why should this master be prevented from taking the superiority or inferiority of capacity to be immature and mature? Therefore, in raising this objection, he lost the ancient intention.

Regarding the commentary's "The words 'reaching higher' implicitly include the stages before the bhūmis" and so forth: this resolves his second objection against the round teaching. His objection states: "Since it says 'sharing in the stages of the Buddha's realm,' then those prior to the bhūmis would not be capable of hearing this sūtra, which would contradict the chapter on 'Appearance' where sentient beings numerous as dust motes in Buddha-lands arouse the bodhicitta."

Explication: Because he conflated "reaching higher" and "sharing in the stages of the Buddha's realm" into a single meaning, he raised this objection. Now, providing this resolution: "reaching higher" refers to before the bhūmis, and "sharing in the stages of the Buddha's realm" refers to upon the bhūmis; therefore, it does not contradict the text of the chapter on "Appearance," nor does it lose the great principle. How much more so when at the initial arousing of the mind one immediately achieves correct enlightenment—how could that person not share in the stages of the Buddha's realm?

Regarding the commentary's "At the end of the Sui and beginning of the Tang" and below: the third master. In the initial primary presentation, it is entirely based on the fifth [fascicle] of the Lotus Sūtra, namely the chapter on "Emerging from the Earth." Because in that [chapter], the bodhisattvas who emerged inquired: "World-Honoured One! Have you few illnesses and few worries, and are you at ease? Are those to be delivered easy to transform? Do they not cause the World-Honoured One weariness?" Thus the Buddha replied: "Just so, just so, good sons! The Tathāgata is at ease, with few illnesses and few worries; all sentient beings are easy to convert and deliver, without weariness. Why is this? Because from life to life all these sentient beings have constantly received my teaching, and have also made offerings to, revered, and planted roots of goodness under past Buddhas. When all these sentient beings first saw my body and heard what I taught, they all believed and accepted it, entering the Tathāgata's wisdom—except for those who had previously trained and studied in the Hinayāna. Such people as these I now also cause to hear this sūtra and enter the Buddha's wisdom."

Now, the commentary cites the sūtra and divides it according to meaning into three turnings of the wheel. This master considers the root Dharma-wheel to be the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, because when the Buddha first achieved correct enlightenment, he suddenly proclaimed it. As for the branch Dharma-wheel, because they could not be transformed by the root, he differentiated and expounded the three within the one Buddha-yāna as the branches—that is, referring to all that after the Avataṃsaka and before the Lotus Sūtra as the branches. The third is the Lotus Sūtra, considered as gathering the branches.