大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.54

6.54

疏「若開權顯實」下，第三明取昔廢昔之意。謂有問言：若會三歸一者，為會昔三而為一耶？為會昔三歸今一耶？故今釋云：明俱上二義。先明會三為一，則會取昔三，後明會於昔三歸今之一，以廢昔三立今之一故。約會取，則昔小亦取，況昔大耶？以其理不可分，行是佛因故。若約廢昔，則昔大亦廢，況於小耶。以其約教虛設，果亦虛指，故並廢也。然開廢等言，有通有局。若約局者，約教則廢三立一，三教虛設故。約理則開三顯一，言有三理覆於一極，開元無三理，一極自彰。約行則會三為一，三乘之行皆佛因故。約果則會三歸一，三乘之因同歸一果故、三乘之果非究竟故。若約通者，唯廢一種，則約於教，開會等言並通四種，今疏從此言約開三顯一。「則三即是一」者，若約理者，昔說三理謂各別證。今會法身是同，更無異味。昔言有三是方便門，則閉於一實？今云無三，則一理自顯，故云此經開方便門、示真實相。若約行者，昔說三乘之行，行各不同，諦緣度等隨修各異。今並得為佛因，謂三行別，則方便之門閉於一實；今會為一，則方便門開，一實顯矣。故云「汝等所行是菩薩道」。若約果者，昔說三果不同，是方便門閉於一實。今云三果虛設，唯有極果無上菩提，心生歡喜自知作佛，則實相顯矣。今疏先明會三為一。於中二：先正明、後「故彼經云」下引證。引二文證：一引〈藥草喻品〉證小行即是佛因、二〈引信解品〉證大行是其所有。良以小乘昔有二種下劣之心，一謂自行不成佛，故《法華》云「我等同入法性，云何如來以小乘法而見濟度。」又云「金色三十二，十力諸解脫，同共一法中，而不得此事。」皆名小行不得佛也。故今引〈藥草〉以會之。二謂大行非己分故。故《淨名》云「一切菩薩聞此法者應大欣慶，一切聲聞皆應號泣聲振三千。」又云「我等何為永絕其根，於此大乘已如敗種。」皆明大行非己分也，故今引〈信解〉以示之。今初。引〈藥草喻〉中文云「迦葉當知，以諸因緣種種譬喻開示佛道，是我方便。諸佛亦然。今為汝等說最實事：諸聲聞眾皆非滅度，汝等所行是菩薩道，漸漸修學悉當成佛。」釋曰：諸聲聞等皆非滅度者，是廢小果。漸漸修學悉當成佛，是歸實義。今但引汝等所行是菩薩道會行之言者，欲明三即是一之義。若約果者，三果皆成佛因，而非佛果，不得云三即是一。又皆非滅度，是下廢權之意耳。

Regarding the commentary's phrase "If in terms of opening the provisional and revealing the real": third, clarifying the intention of adopting the past or discarding the past. That is to say, there is a question asking: "If one integrates three to return to one, is it integrating the past three to become one? Or is it integrating the past three to return to the present one?" Therefore, it is now explained: it clarifies that both of the above two meanings are present. First, clarifying integrating three to become one adopts the past three through integration; next, clarifying integrating the past three to return to the present one is because of discarding the past three to establish the present one. In terms of integrating and adopting, then the past Hīnayāna is also adopted, not to mention the past Mahāyāna; because its principle cannot be divided and its practices are the causes of Buddhahood. If in terms of discarding the past, then the past Mahāyāna is also discarded, not to mention the Hīnayāna; because they are fictitiously established in terms of teaching and their fruits are also fictitiously indicated, they are therefore both discarded. However, words such as opening and discarding have general and specific senses. If in terms of the specific: in terms of teaching, then one discards the three and establishes the one, because the three teachings were fictitiously established. In terms of principle, then one opens the three and reveals the one: the claim that there are three principles concealed the single ultimate; once opened, originally there are no three principles, and the single ultimate manifests on its own. In terms of practice, then one integrates the three to become one, because the practices of the triyāna are all the causes of Buddhahood. In terms of the fruit, then one integrates the three to return to the one, because the causes of the triyāna converge together in a single fruit, and because the fruits of the triyāna are not ultimate. If in terms of the general: only the single item of discarding applies strictly to teaching, whereas words such as opening and integrating apply generally across all four categories; the present commentary follows this when speaking in terms of opening the three and revealing the one. Regarding "then the three are precisely the one": if in terms of principle, the past explanation of three principles assumed that each was realized separately. Now, integrating them, the dharmakāya is identical and there is no longer any disparate taste. The past statement that there were three was a gate of upāya, which closed off the one real. Now it states that there are no three, so the one principle manifests of itself; hence it is said that this sūtra opens the gate of upāya and reveals the characteristic of reality. If in terms of practice, the past explanation of the practices of the triyāna held that each practice was different; the truths, conditions, perfections, and so forth were each cultivated differently. Now they are all able to serve as the causes of Buddhahood; to consider the three practices distinct was for the gate of upāya to close off the one real; now they are integrated into one, so the gate of upāya is opened and the one real is revealed. Therefore it says: "What you have practiced is the bodhisattva path." If in terms of fruit, the past explanation of the three fruits being different was the gate of upāya closing off the one real. Now it states that the three fruits were fictitiously established, and there is only the ultimate fruit of anuttarabodhi; with joy arising in their minds, they know of themselves that they will become Buddhas, and the characteristic of reality is revealed. Now the commentary first clarifies integrating three to become one. Within this, there are two: first, stating it directly; next, starting from "Therefore that sūtra states," citing proof. It cites two textual passages as proof: first, it cites the "Chapter on the Parable of the Medicinal Herbs" to prove that Hīnayāna practice is precisely the cause of Buddhahood; second, it cites the "Chapter on Faith and Understanding" to prove that the Mahāyāna practice is what they possess. Truly, because the Hīnayāna formerly had two kinds of inferior minds: first, they thought their own practice could not achieve Buddhahood, hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "We equally entered into the dharmatā, so why did the Tathāgata use the Hīnayāna Dharma to deliver us?" It also says: "The golden color, the thirty-two [marks], / The ten powers, and all the liberations— / Though sharing together in the single Dharma, / We did not obtain these matters." These all describe that Hīnayāna practice cannot achieve Buddhahood. Therefore, the "Medicinal Herbs" is now cited to integrate it. Second, they thought the Mahāyāna practice was not their own share. Hence the Vimalakīrti says: "All bodhisattvas who hear this Dharma should be greatly joyful, and all śrāvakas should wail with voices shaking the three thousand [realms]." It also says: "Why have we severed its roots forever, and regarding this Mahāyāna are already like spoiled seeds?" These both clarify that the Mahāyāna practice was not their own share, so "Faith and Understanding" is now cited to show this. Now to address the first: the passage cited from the "Parable of the Medicinal Herbs" states: "Kāśyapa, you should know that using various causes, conditions, and varied parables to open and reveal the Buddha path is my upāya. All Buddhas are also like this. Now for you all I preach the most real matter: all the śrāvaka assembly are not extinguished; what you have practiced is the bodhisattva path, and through gradual cultivation and study all will become Buddhas." Explanation: "All the śrāvakas and so forth are not extinguished" discards the small fruit. "Through gradual cultivation and study all will become Buddhas" is the meaning of returning to the real. Now it only cites the words integrating practice, "what you have practiced is the bodhisattva path," because it wishes to clarify the meaning that the three are precisely the one. If in terms of the fruit, the three fruits all become causes of Buddhahood rather than the fruit of Buddhahood, so one cannot say that the three are precisely the one. Furthermore, "all are not extinguished" carries the intention below of discarding the provisional.