大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.48

7.48

疏「然此二三時」下，第二辯順違。然藏和尚《起信疏》「問云：此二三時可和會不？自答云：無會無不會。無會者，各各為人悉檀。悉檀者，《智論》云義宗也。諸佛說故，並是聖教，隨緣益物，何須會之，故云無會。言無不會者，即可會也。今會此義，有其二門：一約攝生寬狹、言教具闕以明了不了；二約益物漸次、顯理增微以明了不了。初中二：一約攝生寬狹者，《深密》宗中，初唯為小、次唯為大，此二時中狹故非了；第三時中普為發趣一切乘者，寬故為了。二約言教具闕者，初唯說小、次唯說大，各有所闕故非了義；於第三時具說三乘，具故為了。第二門內亦有二意：初約益物漸次者，謂《妙智經》意，初唯益小，故非了義；次雖通益大小，不能令趣寂二乘得大菩提，故非了義；第三時中普得大益，方為了義。二顯理增微者，初說緣生實有、次說假有，故非了義；第三時中顯理至空，會緣相盡，故為了義。」依此會釋二宗，各有了不了義。此賢首意。謂約初門，則法相宗為了、法性宗非了；若約後門，則法性宗為了、法相宗非了。既皆二義了、二義不了，於理則齊。今觀賢首之意，多明法性。何者？有二義故。一以攝生寬狹對益物漸次，則攝生寬為了，不及益物唯大為了。以言教具闕對顯理增微，則言教具為了，不及顯理相盡為了。思之可知。二者言中雖云各有二了有二不了，《深密》宗中二種了義亦成不了。何者？如攝生中，以第二時唯攝大為不了、第三時具攝為了者，則得純金，何如雜鐵？純菩薩眾，何如凡小同居？《法華》唯為菩薩，何如昔日被三？是故應云唯攝大機為了、總攝三根為不了。又如言教具闕中，以第二時不具為不了、第三具說三乘為了者，言皆闕典應為不了、雜以無稽應當是了。純賣真金應為貧士、瓦木雜貨應為富商。《法華》唯說一乘，何如昔開三異？是故應云唯說一極方為了義、雜說三乘即為不了。上二本是法相宗為了，今皆成不了。後二又或法性是了，則四不了皆屬前宗，四種了義皆在法性。恐法相者是非心生，故疏不引之，乃別謂和會耳。疏文分二：先總明順違、後各別會釋。今初分三：初總非前立，謂既俱聖教，不可受一非餘；二互相違，不可二文雙取，故云不能。二「深密經意」下會釋二經。恐有問言：若並不許，其如二經有文，如何會釋？故今為顯二經之意各有所為，不可偏執，偏執則互相違。三「得斯意」下結成和會。若得經意，二家俱得；受一非餘，則二家俱非，故離之則兩傷、合之則雙美。

Regarding the commentary's "However, these two sets of three periods" onward: this is the second [section], discussing concurrence and contradiction. In the Upādhyāya Fazang's Commentary on the Awakening of Faith, "it asks: 'Can these two sets of three periods be reconciled or not?' He himself answers: 'There is no reconciliation, and there is no non-reconciliation. "There is no reconciliation" means that each is a siddhānta for individual persons.' Siddhānta: the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says it means doctrinal tenet. Because all were spoken by the Buddhas, they are all sacred teachings, benefiting beings in accordance with conditions; why must they be reconciled? Hence it says 'there is no reconciliation.' Saying 'there is no non-reconciliation' means that they indeed can be reconciled. Now, in reconciling this meaning, there are two approaches: first, explaining the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the breadth or narrowness of beings gathered and the completeness or deficiency of the verbal teaching; second, explaining the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the gradual stages of benefiting beings and the prominence or subtleness of revealing the principle. Within the first, there are two points: first, in terms of the breadth or narrowness of beings gathered, in the doctrine of the Saṃdhinirmocana, the first [period] is solely for the small, and the next is solely for the great; because these two periods are narrow, they are non-definitive. The third period is universally for those who set out on all vehicles; because it is broad, it is definitive. Second, in terms of the completeness or deficiency of the verbal teaching, the first solely expounds the small and the next solely expounds the great; because each has a deficiency, they are of non-definitive meaning. In the third period, it fully expounds the three vehicles; because it is complete, it is definitive. Within the second approach, there are also two points: first, in terms of the gradual stages of benefiting beings, that is, according to the meaning of the *Mahāprajñā Sūtra*, the first solely benefits the small, hence it is of non-definitive meaning; the next, although generally benefiting both the great and the small, cannot cause the two vehicles inclined to quiescence to attain great bodhi, hence it is of non-definitive meaning; in the third period, they universally attain the great benefit, and only then is it of definitive meaning. Second, as for the prominence or subtleness of revealing the principle, the first speaks of conditioned arising as substantially real, and the next speaks of it as nominally existent, hence they are of non-definitive meaning; in the third period, it reveals the principle as ultimate emptiness, resolving conditioned characteristics into exhaustion, hence it is of definitive meaning." Reconciling and interpreting the two traditions according to this, each has definitive and non-definitive meanings. This is Xianshou's intention. That is to say, in terms of the first approach, the Faxiang tradition is definitive and the Faxing tradition is non-definitive; if in terms of the latter approach, the Faxing tradition is definitive and the Faxing tradition is non-definitive. Since both have two meanings that are definitive and two meanings that are non-definitive, in principle they are equal. Now examining Xianshou's intention, he largely illuminates the Faxing. Why so? Because there are two meanings: First, comparing the breadth and narrowness of gathering beings against the gradual stages of benefiting beings, having the breadth of gathering beings as definitive is inferior to having benefiting beings solely as the great as definitive. Comparing the completeness and deficiency of the verbal teaching against the prominence and subtleness of revealing the principle, having the completeness of the verbal teaching as definitive is inferior to having the revealing of the principle unto the exhaustion of characteristics as definitive. If one contemplates this, it can be known. Second, although the words state that each has two definitives and two non-definitives, the two kinds of definitive meaning in the Saṃdhinirmocana's tradition also turn out to be non-definitive. Why so? As in gathering beings, taking the second period's solely gathering the great as non-definitive and the third period's fully gathering [all] as definitive: how could obtaining pure gold compare to impure iron? How could a community of pure bodhisattvas compare to ordinary beings and the small residing together? The Lotus Sutra is solely for bodhisattvas; how could it compare to formerly addressing the three? Therefore, one should say that solely gathering beings of great capacity is definitive, while generally gathering the three faculties is non-definitive. Furthermore, as in the completeness and deficiency of verbal teachings, taking the second period's incompleteness as non-definitive and the third's fully expounding the three vehicles as definitive: words all deficient in canons should then be non-definitive, and those mixed with the unfounded should then be definitive; one who solely sells genuine gold should then be a poor man, while one with miscellaneous goods of tile and wood should then be a wealthy merchant. The Lotus Sutra expounds only the one vehicle; how could it compare to formerly opening the distinctions of the three? Therefore, one should say that expounding only the single ultimate is truly of definitive meaning, while heterogeneously expounding the three vehicles is non-definitive. The above two were originally definitive for the Faxiang tradition, but now both turn out to be non-definitive. The latter two, moreover, are definitive for the Faxing; thus the four non-definitives all belong to the former tradition, and the four kinds of definitive meaning all reside in the Faxing. Fearing that those of the Faxiang [tradition] would give rise to a mind of right and wrong, the commentary does not quote this, but merely states reconciliation. The text of the commentary divides into two: first, generally clarifying concurrence and contradiction; second, individually reconciling and explaining. Now, the first divides into three: first, generally negating the earlier establishment, meaning that since both are sacred teachings, one must not accept one and reject the other; second, mutually contradictory, one cannot adopt both texts simultaneously, hence it says "cannot"; second, from "The intent of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra" onward, reconciling and explaining the two sūtras, fearing someone might ask: "If neither is accepted, yet given that the two sūtras have textual passages, how are they to be reconciled and explained?" Thus now, to reveal that the intentions of the two sūtras each have that which they address, one must not be one-sidedly attached; if one is one-sidedly attached, they mutually contradict; third, from "Understanding this intent" onward, concluding the reconciliation: if one grasps the sūtras' intent, both masters are accommodated; if one accepts one and rejects the other, then both masters are faulted; hence separating them harms both, while uniting them benefits both.