大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.57

7.57

疏「若法性宗」下，疏文亦二：先標所宗、後「法華」下引證成立。長分十段：一引《法華》，雙明一乘一性。二引《涅槃》，明乘性相成。三重引《法華》，明無趣寂。四引《涅槃》第九，明無無性。五引經釋論，結成正義。六廣引諸經，遮救定性。七引《涅槃》，遮救無性。八引《法華》，遮救趣寂。九釋《勝鬘》，會一乘方便。十以《法華》結成破立。今初，分二：先正立一乘、後立一性釋成一乘。今初。「十方佛土中」等者，即第一〈方便品〉偈。上三句正立，第四句釋疑。言「無二亦無三」者，古有多說。大乘法師云：二即第二，三即第三，以菩薩乘勝，故為第一。此即生公意，而未盡其旨。生公云：「二者第二乘，三者第三乘，亦應無第一。」第一不乖所以大，故不無之。既無二三，一亦去矣。意云：今日一乘深有玄致，所以稱大。所以大者，義理深也。昔三乘中大乘既未融，餘二則立為權。若約悲智，萬行不乖今日之一，故云不乖所以大，故不無之。言既無二三一亦去者，昔說有三，二既不立，大豈獨存？以不收二乘故，又權指故，亦同羊鹿俱不得故，如光宅四乘中說。若天台等意，無二者，無有聲聞緣覺之二乘。無三者，總無昔日三乘，以皆非實故。宗說不同，任情去取。若望經意，但立一實為真趣，舉二三皆悉不許，不論大小。如說世間此人獨立，更無與比，非要別指張王二人。下句釋疑。疑云：若唯有一，昔何說三？又《華嚴經》云「或有國土說一乘，或二或三或四五，如是乃至無有量。」故今釋云：若以如來方便，則多少皆得。十方國土及昔說有三，是方便耳，非真實也。又次下經云「但以假名字，引導於眾生。」疏「又云初以三乘」等者，此引第二經，重成三皆是權。若具引者，經云「如彼長者，初以三車誘引諸子，然後但與大車，寶物莊嚴安隱第一。然彼長者無虛妄之咎。如來亦復如是，無有虛妄，初說三乘引導眾生，然後但以大乘而度脫之。」釋曰：此文皆明先三是權、後一為實，縱饒會二歸一，亦是三為方便，唯一為實耳。

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "If according to the Faxing school" onward, the commentary text also has two parts: first it marks the tenet upheld, and afterwards, from "the Lotus [Sūtra]" onward, it cites evidence to establish it. There are ten long sections: 1. Citing the Lotus Sūtra to clarify both the single vehicle (ekayāna) and the single nature; 2. Citing the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to clarify that the vehicle and nature mutually complete each other; 3. Citing the Lotus Sūtra again to clarify that there is no [permanent] entry into quiescence; 4. Citing fascicle nine of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to clarify that there is no lack of [Buddha-]nature; 5. Citing sūtras and explaining treatises to conclude and establish the orthodox doctrine; 6. Extensively citing various sūtras to refute rescue attempts [advocating] fixed natures; 7. Citing the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to refute rescue attempts [advocating] the lack of nature; 8. Citing the Lotus Sūtra to refute rescue attempts [advocating] entry into quiescence; 9. Explaining the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra to reconcile the expedient nature of the one vehicle; 10. Using the Lotus Sūtra to conclude the refutation and establishment. Now, as for the first [section], it has two parts: first, correctly establishing the one vehicle; second, establishing the one nature to explain and complete the one vehicle. First, regarding the former: "In the Buddha lands of the ten directions..." and so forth is the verse from the first chapter, the "Upāyakauśalya" chapter. The first three lines correctly establish [it], and the fourth line resolves doubts. Regarding "there is neither a second nor a third," there were many explanations in antiquity. Master Dacheng said: "The second is the second [vehicle], the third is the third [vehicle]; because the Bodhisattva Vehicle is superior, it is the first." This was Master Daosheng's idea, but it did not exhaust its import. Master Daosheng said: "'Second' means the second vehicle; 'third' means the third vehicle; there should also be no first." The first does not run contrary to what makes it great, so it is not non-existent. Since there is neither second nor third, the first is also discarded. The idea is: today's one vehicle has a profound and abstruse import, which is why it is called "great." That which makes it great is the profundity of its principle. In the past, the Great Vehicle among the three vehicles had not yet merged, so the remaining two were established as provisional. In terms of compassion and wisdom, the myriad practices do not run contrary to the "one" of today; hence he says that because it does not run contrary to what makes it great, it is not non-existent. Regarding "since there is neither second nor third, the first is also discarded": in the past, three were spoken of; since the [other] two are not established, how could the great [alone] survive? Because it did not encompass the two vehicles, and also because it was provisionally designated, it is also just like neither the sheep nor deer [cart] being obtained, as explained in the four vehicles of Guangzhai. According to the view of Tiantai and others: "there is no second" means there are not the two vehicles of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; "there is no third" means that altogether there are none of the three vehicles of the past, because none of them are real. Since the tenets and expositions differ, one may accept or reject them at will. In terms of the sūtra's intent, it only establishes the one real as the true destination, and mentions neither second nor third, admitting neither, regardless of great or small. It is like saying that in the world this person stands alone with no peer to compare with him; it is not necessary to specifically point to the two persons Zhang and Wang. The following line resolves doubts. The doubt asks: If there is only one, why did he preach three in the past? Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "In some lands one vehicle is preached, or two, or three, or four, or five, up to immeasurable." Therefore, it is now explained: If by the Tathāgata's upāya, then any number is acceptable. The ten directions' lands and the past preaching of three were merely expedients, not the real truth. Moreover, the subsequent passage of the sūtra says: "Merely using provisional names, I guide sentient beings." Regarding the Commentary's "Also saying: 'Initially using the three vehicles...'" and so forth: this cites the second fascicle of the sūtra to reaffirm that the three are all provisional. If fully cited, the sūtra says: "Just as that elder initially used three carts to entice his sons, and afterwards gave them only a great cart, adorned with treasures and foremost in peace and safety, yet that elder was without the fault of falsehood; the Tathāgata is also like this, free from falsehood: initially preaching the three vehicles to guide sentient beings, and afterwards delivering them solely through the Great Vehicle." Explanation: These texts all clarify that the former three are provisional and the later one is real; even if the two are reconciled to return to the one, the three are still expedients, and only the one is real.