大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.20

7.20

疏「此師立義」下，第二辯順違。復二：初聰明順違，初順、後「但三藏教」下辯違。以名濫故，故靜法與作四種過：一濫涉大乘失，以大乘亦有三藏，應名三藏教故。二大無三藏失，以彼不名三藏故。三特違至教失，彼云不得親近小乘三藏學者，有小乘言揀異大乘故，明知三藏不唯屬小。四有不定失，以小乘諸部有不立三故。如經量部但立經律二藏故。有立五藏，《成實》三外立於雜藏及菩薩藏故。以有此四失故，總許其破。云「名似小濫」，正許初失，然下皆為通。

In the commentary, from “As for this master establishing his doctrines” onward, the second [part] examines their conformity and conflict. This also has two [subdivisions]: first, an intelligent assessment of conformity and conflict, beginning with conformity, and later, from “Yet, the Tripiṭaka teaching” onward, examining conflict. Because the name is prone to confusion, Jingfa brought forward four kinds of faults against it: First, the fault of overly conflating with the Mahāyāna, since the Mahāyāna also possesses a tripiṭaka, and so [it too] would have to be called a Tripiṭaka teaching. Second, the fault of the Mahāyāna lacking a tripiṭaka, since it is not called [the Tripiṭaka teaching]. Third, the fault of directly contravening the supreme teaching, as it says that one must not draw close to scholars of the Hinayāna tripiṭaka—where the phrase “Hinayāna” serves to distinguish it from the Mahāyāna, clearly showing that the tripiṭaka does not solely belong to the Hinayāna. Fourth, the fault of indeterminacy, since among the Hinayāna schools there are those that do not establish three [baskets]; for example, the Sautrāntika school establishes only the two baskets of Sūtra and Vinaya, while others establish five baskets, as the Tattvasiddhi establishes a miscellaneous basket and a bodhisattva basket outside the three. Because these four faults exist, [the commentary] generally grants their refutation. Saying “the name seems to conflate with the Hinayāna” precisely grants the first fault; however, the following [sections] will resolve them all.