大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.23

8.23

疏「是知趣寂」下，三結成正義。《法華》已前有二意，故說有趣寂。一為好滅之者，且順其心，謂彼念言：「大患莫若於有身，故滅身以歸無。勞勤莫先於有智，故絕智以淪虛。」然則智以形倦、形以智勞，輪轉修途，疲勞莫返，不如寂滅，諸患永亡。故順彼機，言有永寂。二者為恐怖不定小乘、怯弱菩薩，倦於廣利且欲息心，使聞永寂聲聞一沈涅槃永不復起，便生怖畏、懼見小乘，由此策心還行大道。有斯二益，權說有之。不曉隨宜，執為究竟，故法華之會廣破昔非，三根聲聞皆與記別，不在此會亦為宣陳。若實是聲聞，必信一乘之說；若不信者，增上慢人。第一周中猶云「除佛滅後，現前無佛。」以佛滅後解一乘義者難得其人，故許不信。及第三周，即言「餘國決定受化」。明文若此，何用偏執？故言皆是《法華》前意耳。

The Commentary states: "From this it is known that entering quiescence..." and below; this is the third part, establishing the correct doctrine. Prior to the Lotus [Sūtra], there were two intentions behind speaking of entering quiescence. First, for the sake of those who delight in extinction, it provisionally accorded with their minds. It addresses their thought: "There is no greater calamity than possessing a body, hence one extinguishes the body to return to nothingness. There is no greater toil than possessing knowledge, hence one cuts off knowledge to sink into emptiness." Thus, knowledge is exhausted by the form, and the form is worn out by knowledge; wandering the long path of saṃsāra, exhausted without return, it is better to attain quiescent extinction where all afflictions permanently vanish. Therefore, according with their capacity, [the Buddha] taught that there is eternal quiescence. Second, for the sake of terrifying the indeterminate Hīnayāna and timid bodhisattvas who are weary of broad benefiting and wish to rest their minds, making them hear that a śrāvaka who enters eternal quiescence sinks into nirvāṇa never to arise again causes them to produce dread and fear towards adopting the Small Vehicle, thereby spurring their minds to return to the practice of the Great Path. Because of these two benefits, it was provisionally stated to exist. Failing to comprehend this adaptability to circumstance and clinging to it as ultimate, the assembly of the Lotus [Sūtra] broadly overturned past errors, granting predictions to śrāvakas of all three capacities, and proclaiming it even for those not present in this assembly. If one is truly a śrāvaka, one will certainly believe the teaching of the single vehicle; if one does not believe, one is a person of overweening pride. In the first cycle it still says, "Except after the Buddha's passing, when no Buddha is present." Because after the Buddha's passing it is difficult to find someone who understands the meaning of the single vehicle, non-belief is allowed. When it comes to the third cycle, it explicitly states: "In other lands they definitely receive transformation." With clear passages such as these, why cling to a biased view? Hence it is said that these were all intentions prior to the Lotus [Sūtra].