大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.18

7.18

疏「又此四教」下，第二辯其所釋，揀異餘師。餘師或云：《般若》是空教，《法華》是中道教，《涅槃》是常住教。此是圓教、此是偏教、局定一經。今則不爾、故云「一部之中容有多故」。而言容有者，不必具多，或一或二或三或四。故彼師云：三藏但謂明小，故方等對，謂呼《淨名》等為方等教，對小說大；《般若》帶，謂帶小說大；《華嚴》兼，兼別說圓；《法華》無復兼但對帶，唯說圓教。但者唯一教，對則具四。如《淨名》云「諸仁者！是身無常、無強無力無堅，速朽之法不可信也」等，即藏教也。迦延章云「不生不滅是無常義」等，即通教也。富樓章云「無以穢食置於寶器，無以瑠璃同彼水精。」大非小分，即別教也。如須菩提章云「不斷婬怒癡，亦不與俱。不壞於身而起一相，不滅癡愛起於明脫」等，皆即圓教，故具四也。《般若》部中唯有三教，無前藏教，已被訶破，不為彼故。《華嚴》兼者，以寄位修行，行布羅列，兼斯一分故。《法華》唯此一事實，故更無餘教。而《涅槃》十仙果證羅漢者，具於四教。若爾，寧異方等？雖有四教而皆知常住，故得異前垂入涅槃，意欲普收故得具四，如文有之。

In the commentary, from “Furthermore, these four teachings” onward, the second [part] explains what is interpreted, distinguishing it from [the views of] other masters. Other masters might say: the Prajñāpāramitā is the teaching of emptiness, the Lotus Sūtra is the teaching of the Middle Way, and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is the teaching of eternal presence; [or that] this is the perfect teaching and that is the biased teaching, rigidly fixing each single sūtra. Here, however, that is not the case; hence [the commentary] says: “Within a single text, multiple [teachings] may be contained.” Saying that they “may be contained” means that it does not necessarily contain all of them, but rather one, two, three, or four. Therefore, that master said: the Tripiṭaka solely reveals the Hinayāna; hence the Vaipulya “confronts” it—meaning that texts such as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa are called the Vaipulya teaching, which confronts the Hinayāna to explain the Mahāyāna; the Prajñāpāramitā “carries” it, meaning it carries along the Hinayāna to explain the Mahāyāna; the Buddhāvataṃsaka “combines” it, combining the separate to explain the perfect; and the Lotus Sūtra no longer combines, stands solely, confronts, or carries, but explains only the perfect teaching. “Solely” means only a single teaching, whereas “confronts” contains all four. For example, when the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, “Virtuous ones! This body is impermanent, without strength, without power, without solidity; a rapidly decaying thing that cannot be trusted,” and so forth, this is the Tripiṭaka teaching. When the chapter on Kātyāyana says, “Non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence,” and so forth, this is the shared teaching. When the chapter on Pūrṇa says, “Do not place impure food into a precious vessel; do not equate lapis lazuli with crystal,” where the great is not of a kind with the small, this is the separate teaching. As when the chapter on Subhūti says, “Neither severing lust, anger, and delusion, nor consorting with them; not destroying the body yet giving rise to the single characteristic; not extinguishing delusion and craving yet giving rise to clarity and liberation,” and so forth—these are all the perfect teaching; hence all four are present. Within the Prajñāpāramitā corpus there are only three teachings; the former Tripiṭaka teaching is absent, because it had already been rebuked and refuted and [that text] was not spoken for them. The Buddhāvataṃsaka “combines” it because it projects stages of practice, laying them out in graduated sequence, thus combining that part. The Lotus Sūtra has “only this one real matter,” and therefore contains no other teaching. As for the ten ṛṣis in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra who attained the fruition of arhatship, [that sūtra] contains all four teachings. If so, how does it differ from the Vaipulya? Although it contains all four teachings, [its audiences] all know the eternal presence; thus it is distinguished from the former, because, being on the verge of entering nirvāṇa, the intent was to gather all universally, so that it came to contain all four, as is evident in the text.