[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 6.6 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.6 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.6) 疏「其分教者」下，釋分教中乃有十意：前五對前五義，後五顯過於前。疏「一、理雖一味」等者，謂今欲分教，非欲分理。迷於權實，寧契佛心？二中，一音但是教本，非即是教，教乃在機。隨機不同，今分彼教。故《淨名》云「佛以一音演說法，眾生各各隨所解。」今分隨所解耳。其猶長風是一，百竅異吹。豈以一風不殊，便謂百竅齊響？一雨，亦就佛說。三草，即就機殊。今分三草教殊，非析一雨令異，故經云「雖一地所生、一雨所潤，而諸草木各有差別。」以一音一雨義相不異，故但說一音。三中「本意未申」者，如佛本為一大事出現於世，四十餘年未顯真實，今分一代時教，豈妨判有淺深？言「隨他意語」者，佛有三語：一隨自意語，說自所證一實等故；二隨他意語，一向方便引眾生故；三隨自他意語，半稱自證、半隨機故。今分後之二語，不分初一隨自意也。四中「言有通別」者，如前所引，此通隨聞異解；有不通者，就此分之。如說人空法有，斯即小乘，不可名大。若說二空，此可名大，不得名小。說有五性非是一性，說一性處非是說五。如是等文無容異解，故須分之。五中，有二義故，雖分權實，不成枝派。一「善會佛意」，所說權教乃是隨宜，所說實者稱理究竟。二「有開顯」者，說彼權教是方便門，說於實教是真實相。不謂方便為真實，則方便門開知實理之普周，則真實相顯。故《法華經》云「此經開方便門示真實相。」今能開顯故，不滯枝派。約佛施張故，須分權實。 > Regarding the passage from the Commentary's "Those who classify the teachings" onward: in explaining the classification of teachings, there are ten points. The first five correspond to the preceding five points, while the latter five show superiority over what came before. Regarding the Commentary's words "First, although principle is of one flavor," and so on: this means that now we wish to classify the teachings, not to divide principle. Confused about the provisional and the real, how could one accord with the Buddha's intent? In the second point, the single voice is merely the source of the teaching, not the teaching itself; the teaching resides in the capacities. In accordance with the differences among capacities, we now classify those teachings. Thus the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, / and sentient beings each understand according to their capacity." Now we merely classify according to what is understood. This is like the great wind being one, while a hundred hollows whistle differently: could one, because the single wind does not differ, claim that the hundred hollows sound in unison? The single rain is also spoken in terms of the Buddha. The three kinds of herbs are spoken in terms of the differences among capacities. Now we classify the differences in teaching for the three herbs, without dividing the single rain to make it different. Therefore the sūtra states: "Although born of one earth and moistened by one rain, the herbs and trees each have their distinctions." Because the meanings and characteristics of the single voice and the single rain are not different, it merely speaks of the single voice. In the third point, "the original intent has not yet been declared": as the Buddha originally appeared in the world for the sake of one great matter, yet for over forty years did not reveal the real truth, when we now classify the teachings of his lifetime, how does that prevent judging them as shallow or profound? As for the words "speech according to the intent of others": the Buddha has three kinds of speech: first, speech according to his own intent, because he speaks of the One Reality and so forth that he himself realized; second, speech according to the intent of others, because he solely uses skillful means to guide sentient beings; third, speech according to both his own and others' intents, because it half matches his own realization and half accords with capacities. Now we classify the latter two kinds of speech, without classifying the first, which is speech according to his own intent. In the fourth point, "words have both general and specific \[senses\]": as cited before, this refers generally to different understandings according to what is heard; as for what is not general, we classify according to it. For example, speaking of the emptiness of persons and the existence of dharmas is Hinayāna and cannot be named Mahāyāna. If speaking of the two emptinesses, this can be named Mahāyāna and cannot be named Hinayāna. Teaching that there are five natures is not teaching a single nature, and where a single nature is taught, it is not teaching five natures. With texts such as these, there is no room for differing interpretations; therefore they must be classified. In the fifth point, because there are two meanings, although one divides the provisional and the real, it does not form secondary branches. First, "skillfully harmonizing with the Buddha's intent": the provisional teaching spoken is according to suitability, while the real teaching spoken accords with principle and is ultimate. Second, "having opening and revealing": speaking of that provisional teaching is the gate of skillful means; speaking of the real teaching is the true mark. Not mistaking skillful means for the real, the gate of skillful means is opened; knowing the pervasive universality of the real principle, the true mark is revealed. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra states: "This sūtra opens the gate of skillful means and shows the true mark." Now, because it can open and reveal, it does not become stranded in secondary branches. In terms of the Buddha's deployment, one must distinguish the provisional and the real. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.5) - [Next: 6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.7) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.6.6) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.6) · Pramāṇa