大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.27

8.27

疏「是故」下，令物除執。常說權實，亦莫執之。此即求那跋摩遺文偈也。謂有偈云「諸論各異宗，修行理無二。競執有是非，達者無違諍。」亦如脇尊者對迦膩色迦王云「如析金杖，況以爭衣。爭衣則衣終不別，析金則金體不殊。」是故依之修行，無不獲益耳。疏「大集五部雖異」者，謂五部僧。故《涅槃》三十三亦云「五部互生是非，長沒三惡道。」疏「涅槃各說身因」者，即第三十五經云「善男子！如來所說十二部經，或隨自意說、或隨他意說、或隨自他意說。云何名為隨自意說？如五百比丘問舍利弗云：『大德！佛說身因。何者是耶？』舍利弗言：『諸大德！汝等亦各得正解脫，自應識之，何緣方作如是問耶？』有比丘言：『大德！我未獲得正解脫時，意謂無明即是身因，作是觀時得阿羅漢果。』復有說言：『大德！我未獲得正解脫時，謂愛無明即是身因，作是觀時得阿羅漢果。』或有說言：『行識名色六入觸受愛取有生飲食五欲，即是身因。』爾時五百比丘各各自說己所解已，共往佛所，稽首佛足，右繞三匝禮拜畢已，却坐一面，各以如上己所解義向佛說之。時舍利弗白佛言：『世尊！如是諸人，誰是正說？誰非正說？』佛告舍利弗：『善哉善哉！一一比丘無非正說。』舍利弗言：『世尊！佛意云何？』佛言：『舍利弗！我為欲界眾生說言：父母即是身因。如是等經，名隨自意說（云云）。』」釋曰：意取各隨自說者，為隨自意。今疏所引，不取隨自意義，但取皆正說言。五百雖異皆為正說，二宗小別並合佛教，故不應是非。故海東曉公云：「如言而取，所說皆非。得意而談，所說皆是。」則貴在得意亡言耳。餘可知。

From the commentary's "Therefore" onward, it causes beings to eliminate attachment. Even when constantly speaking of provisional and real, one must not attach to them. This is the verse left behind by Guṇavarman. That is, there is a verse which says: "The treatises each have different tenets, / But in practice the principle is not two. / Contending attachments produce right and wrong; / Those who have penetrated are free from dispute." It is also like the Venerable Pārśva replying to King Kaniṣka: "Just as breaking a golden staff [leaves each part gold], or comparing it to contending over a garment: in contending over the garment, the garment is ultimately not different; in breaking the gold, the essence of the gold is not distinct." Therefore, if one cultivates in accordance with them, none will fail to obtain benefit. Regarding the commentary saying "Although the five divisions in the Mahāsaṃnipāta are different," this refers to the monks of the five divisions. Thus the thirty-third [fascicle of the] Nirvāṇa also says: "The five divisions mutually generate disputes of right and wrong, sinking forever into the three evil destinies." As for the commentary saying, "In the Nirvāṇa, each expounds the cause of the body," this refers to the thirty-fifth fascicle of the sūtra, which says: "'Good son, the twelve divisions of scripture spoken by the Tathāgata are spoken either according to his own intention, according to others' intentions, or according to both his own and others' intentions. What is meant by speaking according to his own intention? Like when five hundred monks asked Śāriputra: "Venerable sir! The Buddha spoke of the cause of the body. What is it?" Śāriputra said: "Venerable sirs! Each of you has also attained right liberation; you ought to know it yourselves. For what reason do you now ask such a question?" One monk said: "Venerable sir, when I had not yet attained right liberation, my thought was that avidyā was the cause of the body; practicing this contemplation, I attained the fruit of an arhat." Another monk said: "Venerable sir, when I had not yet attained right liberation, I held that craving and avidyā were the cause of the body; practicing this contemplation, I attained the fruit of an arhat." Another said: "Formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, food and drink, and the five desires are the cause of the body." At that time, after the five hundred monks had each spoken their own understanding, they went together to the Buddha's presence, bowed their heads at the Buddha's feet, circumambulated him three times to the right, finished making obeisance, and sat to one side, each presenting their understanding as above to the Buddha. Then Śāriputra said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, among these people, whose is the correct explanation? Whose is not the correct explanation?" The Buddha told Śāriputra: "Excellent, excellent! Not one of the monks is not speaking correctly." Śāriputra said: "World-Honoured One, what is the Buddha's meaning?" The Buddha said: "Śāriputra, for the beings of the desire realm, I say that father and mother are the cause of the body. Such scriptures as these are called speaking according to one's own intention (and so forth)."'" Explanation: The intention takes each speaking according to their own [understanding] to be "speaking according to one's own intention." What the commentary cites here does not take the meaning of "speaking according to one's own intention," but only takes the phrase "all are correct explanations." Although the five hundred were different, all were correct explanations; the minor differences of the two tenets both accord with the Buddha's teaching, so one should not dispute right and wrong. Thus Master Xiao of Haedong said: "If taken literally according to words, all that is said is wrong; if discussed having grasped the intended meaning, all that is said is right." Thus value lies in grasping the meaning and forgetting the words. The rest can be understood.