大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.16

8.16

疏「明知深密」下，第二結成前非。欲將《深密》三時定斷一切佛法，理不盡故。「以未居最後故」者，以約時判，未是窮終之極唱故。如世後勅破於前勅，《涅槃》、《法華》居於最後，故能決了有餘義耳。若爾，不信《深密》，豈不謗於《深密經》耶？故下釋云：深密別為一類之機，故非無理，以諸餘經雖未終極，各隨一類皆不相違。「義如前說」者，如前敘西域中最後會通也。

The Commentary states: "Thus it is known that the Saṃdhinirmocana..." and below; this is the second part, concluding that the former [position] is flawed. Attempting to use the three periods of the Saṃdhinirmocana to definitively judge all the Buddha's teachings is logically incomplete. As for "because it does not stand at the very end," judged temporally, it is not the ultimate and final proclamation. Just as in the world a later edict revokes a former edict, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] and the Lotus [Sūtra] stand at the very end, and thus are able to resolve and determine the remaining meanings. If so, does not disbelieving the Saṃdhinirmocana amount to slandering the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra? Hence the text below explains: The Saṃdhinirmocana was spoken specifically for a particular class of capacities, so it is not without principle. Although the other sūtras are not the ultimate end, each accords with a specific class, and none contradicts the others. As for "the meaning is as explained before," this refers to the final reconciliation explained previously in the section on the Western Regions.