大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.24

8.24

疏「又勝鬘經云」下，第九會一乘方便之言。意云：若隨欲說不是方便是真實者，即定有三乘。既隨欲說是方便說非真實者，則明唯有一乘，故云「即是一乘」。則隨彼所欲而方便說，便為一句。此是一乘，所以下云「即是一乘無有二乘」。此意正顯一乘之義。諸公錯讀，乃云「而方便說即是一乘」，故謂一乘而為方便，斯定誤矣。若以名中一乘大方便者，此是巧化攝物運濟方便，非是真實假設方便。故生公云：「理本無言，假言而言，即是方便。」疏「又彼經中」，更引《勝鬘》餘文，證成一乘真實可知。疏「設有方便之言」者，復縱破之。莫論《勝鬘》無一乘方便之言，設縱有一乘是方便之言者，亦是《法華》之前方便說耳。及至《法華》亦復破三歸一也。況復經無此言，何須強執？

The Commentary states: "Moreover, the Śrīmālā-sūtra says..." and below; this is the ninth part, reconciling the statement that the single vehicle is an expedient. The meaning is: If expounding according to inclinations were not an expedient but the truth, then there would definitely be three vehicles. Since expounding according to inclinations is an expedient teaching and not the ultimate truth, it clearly indicates there is only the single vehicle; hence it says "which is the single vehicle." Thus, "speaking expediently according to what they desire" forms one phrase. This is the single vehicle; therefore, below it says "which is the single vehicle, there are no two vehicles." This meaning directly demonstrates the purport of the single vehicle. The various masters misread it, reading it as "and speaking expediently is itself the single vehicle," and thus considered the single vehicle itself to be an expedient; this is definitively mistaken. If we speak of the great expedient of the single vehicle in its name, this is the skillful expedient of converting and gathering sentient beings to ferry them across, not an expedient posited provisionally against the ultimate truth. Hence Master Daosheng said: "Principle is fundamentally without words; relying on words to express it is itself an expedient." The Commentary says "Moreover, in that sūtra," further citing other passages from the Śrīmālā to prove that the single vehicle is the ultimate truth, as is easily known. As for the Commentary stating "Even if there were words of expedience," this again provisionally refutes it: Not to mention that the Śrīmālā contains no statement that the single vehicle is an expedient, even if we were to grant that it contained words saying the single vehicle is an expedient, it would also be an expedient statement prior to the Lotus [Sūtra]. Once reaching the Lotus [Sūtra], it again overturns the three to return to the one. How much less so when the sūtra has no such words—why insist on obstinately clinging to it?