大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.12

8.12

疏「若謂法華是第二時」下，第六引諸經論，遮救定性。於中二：先正牒破、後結成前非。今初，又二：先牒救詞、後「何以」下難破。今初。言「是第二時」者，彼不立為第二時教，由謂一乘是密意說，義當《深密》第二時教。又以《法華》盛破三乘說於一乘，故當第二時耳。言「為引不定」者，彼引《攝論》第十，偈云「為引攝一類，及任持所餘，由不定種性，諸佛說一乘」等者。彼有十意，此偈有二：一為引攝一類不定性聲聞故、二為任持不定性菩薩恐退精進故。今但取初意，故云為引不定性故。一切悉成，即一乘義。既未說定性不成，故是密意。若作此說者，疏「何以自判《法華》為第三時」者，難破也。彼《法華疏》引經云「我等今日得未曾有，非先所望而今自得。」第三時教也。又下結云「為顯第三時真實之教，故說此經。」據上二文，則判《法華》為第三時；約明一乘是密意說，則成《法華》復為第二。一宗自立，義語相違。疏「誰敢判於《法華》為不了耶」者，即遮救也。恐彼救言：設依密意為不了者，復有何過？故便難云：誰敢判為不了？以判不了即是謗經，恐招苦報。但由不信皆當作佛，即是謗經。豈要不信文字經卷故謗不輕？但由不信汝等皆當作佛言耳。

Regarding the commentary's passage from "If one claims that the Lotus Sūtra belongs to the second period" downward: sixth, citing various sūtras and treatises to refute attempts to rescue [the doctrine of] the fixed nature. Within this there are two parts: first, directly taking up and refuting [the argument]; second, concluding with their previous error. In the first part, there are again two: first, taking up the rescuing words; second, from "why" downward, refuting through objection. In the first: regarding the words "belongs to the second period", they did not establish it as a teaching of the second period per se; rather, because they considered the One Vehicle to be an intentional teaching, its meaning corresponded to the second period teaching of the Saṃdhinirmocana. Furthermore, because the Lotus Sūtra forcefully refutes the three vehicles and speaks of the One Vehicle, it corresponds to the second period. Regarding the words "in order to guide the undetermined": they cited the tenth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, where a verse states: "In order to attract and guide one category, and sustain the rest, due to the undetermined gotra, the Buddhas speak of the One Vehicle," and so forth. That [text] has ten intentions, and this verse has two: first, in order to attract and guide one category of śrāvakas of undetermined nature; second, in order to sustain bodhisattvas of undetermined nature lest they retreat from vigor. Here only the first intention is taken, hence saying 'in order to guide those of undetermined nature'. 'All attain [Buddhahood]' is the meaning of the One Vehicle. Since it did not state that those of fixed nature do not attain it, it is an intentional [teaching]. If one makes this statement, then the commentary's "Why do they themselves classify the Lotus Sūtra as the third period?" refutes it through objection. Their commentary on the Lotus Sūtra cites the sūtra stating: "We today have obtained what was never before had; not what we previously hoped for, yet now we have obtained it of ourselves"—this is the teaching of the third period. Furthermore, it concludes below: "In order to reveal the true teaching of the third period, this sūtra was spoken." Relying on these two passages, they classify the Lotus Sūtra as the third period; yet in terms of explaining the One Vehicle as an intentional teaching, the Lotus Sūtra ends up being the second period again. Within their own school's formulation, doctrine and statements contradict each other. The commentary's "Who would dare classify the Lotus Sūtra as non-definitive?" refutes their attempt to rescue [their position]. For fear that they might salvage it by saying: "Even if it is treated as non-definitive based on implicit intention, what fault is there?", it promptly objects: "Who would dare classify it as non-definitive?" Because classifying it as non-definitive is slandering the sūtra, and one must fear incurring painful retribution. Merely through not believing that all will become Buddhas, that itself is slandering the sūtra. Why must one disbelieve the written characters and rolls of the sūtra to slander it? It is simply due to not believing the words 'You all shall become Buddhas'.