[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 8.35 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.35 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.35 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.35) 疏「頓詮此理」下，解妨難。此有二難：一者《刊定記》難和尚云「上所引經，當知此並亡詮顯理，復何將此立為能詮？若此是教，更何是理？」今為通此，故云頓詮此理，故名頓教。謂所詮是理，今頓說理，豈非能詮？夫能詮教皆從所詮以立，若詮三乘即是漸教，若詮事事無礙即是圓教。豈以所詮是理，不許能詮為教耶？何得難言「更何是理」？迷之甚矣。又復難言「若言以教離言，故與理不別者，終圓二教豈不離言？若許離言，總應名頓，何有五教？若謂雖說離言不礙言說者，終圓二教亦應名頓，以皆離言不礙言故。」今疏不救者，以賢首不如此立，何用救耶？但用一句之言，諸難皆破。故知形雖入室，智未昇堂。亦由曾不參禪，致使全迷頓旨。疏「天台所以不立」下，通第二難。謂有問言：此之五教摸榻天台，初即藏教、二即通教、三即別教、第五名同。天台既不立頓，何用此中別立？故今釋云：若全同天台，何以別立？有少異故，所以加之。天台四教皆有絕言，四教分之故不立頓。賢首意云：天台四教絕言，並令亡筌會旨。今欲頓詮言絕之理，別為一類之機。不有此門，逗機不足。即順禪宗者，達磨以心傳心，正是斯教。若不指一言以直說，即心是佛何由可傳？故寄無言以言，直詮絕言之理，教亦明矣。故南北宗禪，不出頓教也。 > Regarding the commentary's "suddenly expounding this principle" onward: resolving objections. Here there are two objections. The first is that the Kandingly (Record of Decisive Corrections) objected to the Preceptor \[Fazang\], saying: "Regarding the sūtras cited above, you should know that these all discard the explicator to reveal the principle; how can you further posit this as the explicator (teaching)? If this is teaching, what else is principle?" Now, to resolve this, \[the commentary\] says: "Suddenly expounding this principle, it is therefore named the sudden teaching." This means that what is expounded is the principle; now, suddenly expounding the principle, how is it not an explicator? All explicating teachings are established on the basis of what is expounded: if it expounds the triyāna, it is the gradual teaching; if it expounds the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena, it is the complete teaching. How could one disallow the explicator from being a teaching simply because what is expounded is principle? How can one object by saying, "What else is principle?" The confusion is extreme! Furthermore, it objected, saying: "If you say that because the teaching transcends words it is not different from principle, then do the final and complete teachings not also transcend words? If you admit that they transcend words, they should all be named 'sudden'; why would there be five teachings? If you maintain that although they speak of transcending words, this does not obstruct words, then the final and complete teachings should also be named 'sudden', because both transcend words without obstructing words." The present commentary does not rescue this, because Xianshou did not establish it in that way; why bother rescuing it? With just a single sentence, all objections are demolished. Thus we know that although his body entered the master's room, his wisdom had not yet ascended the hall. This was also because he had never practiced Chan, which caused him to be completely deluded about the sudden purport. Regarding the commentary's "The reason Tiantai did not establish it" onward: this resolves the second objection. That is, someone asked: "These five teachings copy Tiantai: the first is the Pitaka teaching, the second is the Shared teaching, the third is the Distinct teaching, and the fifth shares the same name. Since Tiantai did not establish a 'sudden' \[teaching among them\], why establish it separately here?" Therefore, it is now explained: if it were completely identical with Tiantai, why establish it separately? Because there is a slight difference, it was added. The four teachings of Tiantai all possess the transcendence of words; because he apportioned them among the four teachings, he did not establish the sudden. Xianshou's intention was: the transcendence of words in Tiantai's four teachings all causes one to discard the fish trap and meet the intention. Now, wishing to expound suddenly the principle that transcends words, it is specifically for one category of capacity. Without this approach, matching capacities would be incomplete. This accords with the Chan lineage: Bodhidharma's transmission from mind to mind is precisely this teaching. If one did not point with a single word to speak directly, how could "the mind itself is Buddha" ever be transmitted? Therefore, by lodging in wordlessness through words, directly expounding the principle of transcending words, the teaching is also made clear. Hence the Chan of both the Northern and Southern lineages does not go beyond the sudden teaching. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.34) - [Next: 8.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.36) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.8.35) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.35) · Pramāṇa