大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 79.98

79.98

疏「有引向所揀」下，即舉邪顯正。謂法相師以水輪中證有無性，地獄深坑證有定性趣寂二乘。「不觀」已下，破其妄引。疏有三節：初指經中却收之義、二引第十等有喻意、三「減損佛性」下以理結勸。謂唐三藏創自西迴，薦福寺有一人大德不肯修敬。後因見日照三藏遠涉流沙廣取經論，誠曰劬勞。然減損佛性，增足煩惱。未知與聖意相應，不言減損佛性者，以五性之中唯一性半有佛性耳，謂菩薩性及不定性之半，以不定性容有無故。餘三性半一向言無，謂一無種性人、二定性聲聞、三定性緣覺，言一半者即不定性中或無是也。言「恐謗一乘」者，以罪怖之。然《法華經》特稱妙者，以佛昔說三乘五性，今《法華》云一乘一性，謂一切眾生有如來知見，更無餘性，故惟一乘。《涅槃》云佛性者名為一乘，以凡是有心定當作佛，故唯一乘。《法華》又云「唯此一事實，餘二則非真，終不以小乘，濟度於眾生。」又第四云平等大慧。又彼疏自立一乘為宗，及其立義定有五性，却以一乘而為方便。此豈不是謗一乘耶？謗一乘罪，《法華》具明，事不可輕。如增上慢，不信不輕皆作佛言，即為謗耳。

Regarding the Commentary's statement from "There are those who cite what was distinguished earlier..." onward, this presents the heterodox to reveal the orthodox. This refers to the masters of the Characteristics of Dharmas (Dharmalakṣaṇa) using the water wheel to prove that some have no nature, and using the deep pit of hell to prove that there are those of determinate nature who tend toward quiescence in the two vehicles. From "Not observing..." onward, it refutes their erroneous citations. The Commentary has three sections: first, pointing out the meaning of reclaiming [them] within the sūtra; second, citing the intent of the similes in the tenth [fascicle], etc.; third, from "deprecating buddha-nature..." onward, using principle to conclude with an exhortation. This refers to when the Tang Tripiṭaka Master [Xuanzang] first returned from the west, a certain venerable elder at Jianfu Monastery refused to show him reverence. Later, upon seeing Tripiṭaka Master Divākara crossing the flowing sands from afar to extensively bring back sūtras and treatises, he genuinely called it laborious. However, [he held that Xuanzang's school] deprecates buddha-nature and increases afflictions. Not knowing whether it accords with the holy intent, the reason it is called deprecating buddha-nature is that among the five natures, only one and a half natures possess buddha-nature—namely, the bodhisattva nature and half of the indeterminate nature, because the indeterminate nature can either have it or not. The remaining three and a half natures are definitively said to lack it—namely: 1. persons without gotra; 2. śrāvakas of determinate nature; 3. pratyekabuddhas of determinate nature; and the "one half" refers to the possible absence within the indeterminate nature. As for "fearing disparagement of the One Vehicle," it frightens them with the fault [of doing so]. The Lotus Sūtra is uniquely praised as "wondrous" because the Buddha formerly taught the triyāna and five natures, but now the Lotus teaches the One Vehicle and one nature, stating that all sentient beings possess the vision and knowledge of the Tathāgata and there is no other nature; hence there is only the One Vehicle. The Nirvāṇa says that buddha-nature is named the One Vehicle, because whoever has a mind is destined to become a buddha; hence there is only the One Vehicle. The Lotus also says: "Only this one matter is real, / The other two are not true; / I never use the small vehicle / To deliver sentient beings." Furthermore, the fourth [fascicle] speaks of the impartial great wisdom. Furthermore, their commentary itself establishes the One Vehicle as the primary tenet, yet when establishing doctrines, it insists there are five natures, conversely taking the One Vehicle as upāya. Is this not disparaging the One Vehicle? The Lotus fully clarifies the offense of disparaging the One Vehicle; the matter cannot be taken lightly. Like those of overweening pride who do not believe Sadāparibhūta's words that all will become buddhas, this constitutes disparagement.