大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 9.33

9.33

疏「然取多分」下，遮外難也。恐有難云：既破昔人，不許指於一經以為一教。如何前立教中，亦云如《法華》等？故今通云：從多分說，所以略指，實不局判一經以為一教故。下出所以，云以一經中容具多故。上來開合遍收，理無不盡，依此亦可總判教言。若唯為一，難見淺深，非判教也。若欲判者，當漸開之。且分為二：一方便教、二真實教。故《法華》云「開方便門，示真實相。」亦即半滿。又方便即隨他意語，真實即隨自意語。又方便是三乘，真實是一乘。然諸經中對小顯大，即以二乘為方便，大乘為真實。若對權顯實，則以三乘為方便，一乘為真實。則於方便之中更分為二：一小乘、二大乘。就真實中亦分為二：一行布、二圓融。行布即始終之教，圓融即是圓教。又小乘居然是別，大乘之中有多差別。一直顯一乘，如《華嚴》。二開權顯實，如《法華》。三會權歸實，如《涅槃》。四斥權讚實，如《淨名》、《思益》。五權實雙明，如諸《般若》。六帶權說實，亦如《般若》。七帶實明權，亦如《般若》。《勝鬘》小似《法華》，《央掘》小似《涅槃》。於上七中，有似其類之經，各以類攝。若就大乘分宗，亦可有四：一法相差別宗，多說相故。二相想俱絕宗，多約性故。三性相無礙宗，事理相即故。四圓融具德宗，以理融事故。故如來聖教意趣無邊，不可局執。今且依於古勢，如疏明耳。

The commentary's words, "However, taking the majority..." and so forth, ward off external objections. It was feared that someone might object: "Since you have already refuted predecessors and do not allow pointing to a single sūtra as constituting a single teaching, how is it that in the preceding establishment of teachings you also say 'like the Lotus Sūtra,' and so on?" Therefore, it is now resolved by saying: "It is stated in terms of the majority; this is why it was briefly pointed out, for in truth it is not definitively judged that a single sūtra constitutes [only] one teaching." Below, the reason is brought forth, stating that a single sūtra can accommodate many. Up to this point, the expansions and mergers encompass everything completely, and the principle is exhausted without remainder. Based on this, one can also classify teachings comprehensively. If one posits only one, it is difficult to see depth and shallowness, and it would not be a classification of teachings. If one wishes to classify them, one should gradually expand them. For the moment, they are divided into two: first, the provisional teaching; second, the real teaching. Thus the Lotus Sūtra says: "Opening the door of provisional means, showing the mark of reality." This is also the half and the full. Furthermore, the provisional refers to words spoken in accordance with the minds of others, while the real refers to words spoken in accordance with one's own mind. Furthermore, the provisional is the triyāna, and the real is the ekayāna. However, when sūtras reveal the great in contrast to the small, they take the two vehicles as provisional and the Mahāyāna as real. If they reveal the real in contrast to the provisional, they take the triyāna as provisional and the ekayāna as real. Thus, within the provisional, they are further divided into two: first, the Hīnayāna; second, the Mahāyāna. In terms of the real, they are also divided into two: first, sequential arrangement; second, perfect interfusion. Sequential arrangement is the initial and final teachings; perfect interfusion is the perfect teaching. Furthermore, the Hīnayāna is distinctly different as a matter of course, while within the Mahāyāna there are many distinctions: 1. Directly revealing the ekayāna, as in the Avataṃsaka. 2. Opening the provisional to reveal the real, as in the Lotus Sūtra. 3. Converging the provisional into the real, as in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. 4. Denouncing the provisional and praising the real, as in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and the Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchā. 5. Elucidating both the provisional and the real together, as in the various Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. 6. Conveying the provisional while teaching the real, likewise as in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. 7. Conveying the real while elucidating the provisional, likewise as in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. The Śrīmālādevī is somewhat similar to the Lotus Sūtra; the Aṅgulimālīya is somewhat similar to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Among the seven above, sūtras that resemble these categories are each subsumed under their respective type. If doctrines are distinguished in terms of the Mahāyāna, there may also be four: 1. The doctrine of the distinction of dharmalakṣaṇas, because it speaks mostly of characteristics. 2. The doctrine of the cessation of both marks and conceptualizations, because it is mostly based on the nature. 3. The doctrine of the non-obstruction of nature and marks, because phenomenon and principle are mutually identical. 4. The doctrine of perfect interfusion possessing all virtues, because principle interfuses phenomena. Therefore, the purports of the Tathāgata's sacred teachings are boundless and must not be rigidly clung to. For now, following the old paradigm, it is explained as in the commentary.