大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 28.26

28.26

On the commentary’s "Now I hold that in both the new and old [translations]" and below, this is to set forth the present correct position. Within this, there are two parts: first, using the "Ten Kṣāntis" to answer the summits, and second, comprehensively using four chapters to answer the summits. In the former, there are seven parts: first, directly taking the ten kṣāntis to answer the question on the summits; second, from "As for the ten summits" and below, reconciling and explaining the two names; third, from "Therefore the ten kṣāntis" and below, citing textual passages as proof; fourth, from "It is also like" and below, citing parallels to establish it; fifth, from "Otherwise" and below, explaining and establishing it conversely; sixth, from "Even if one wished" and below, resolving the objection concerning the absence of ten [questions]. The objection states: "If one expands the question on the summits, the ten sentences are complete; if one answers the summits with kṣāntis, there are only nine sentences." Thus it now answers: "If one has omitted the ten faiths, the ten sentences are completed." Seventh, from "Although the ten faiths have not yet formed [a stage]" and below, reconciling the objection above. The objection states: "I previously used two meanings not to expand the ten faiths: first, textual evidence; second, evidence of principle. Now you wish to expand the faiths, which goes against both text and principle." Therefore, reconciling it now, there are several meanings: first, responding to the principle established earlier. Earlier, it explained that lacking four meanings, the stage of faith is not established; now, it explains that it does not necessarily have to form a stage, and the four meanings are without omission. Second, from "Its virtues and functions are exceptionally superior" and below, where above it cited textual evidence, here it also answers with texts. What was cited above merely explained that the stage of faith is not expanded; now it explains why it must be expanded, and yet there is no obstacle to questioning it. Why? The ten vows and ten treasuries are not distinct stages, yet they can serve as the starting point of questions; if faith does not form a stage, what prevents there being a question? Moreover, the treasuries, vows, and so forth are answered by being lodged in other assemblies, yet they still have distinct questions; the Dharma-gate of the ten faiths is answered in an independent assembly, with the three chapters on understanding, practice, and virtuous capabilities being broad and deep—how could it be fitting to lack a question? On the commentary's "If one takes" and below, this is the second reconciliation: answering the question on the summits with four chapters. Because faiths, abodes, practices, and so on all comprise multiple chapters, taking the four chapters collectively to answer the question on the summits does not violate principle. If so, then the ancients' answering the question on the summits with the "Asaṃkhyeya" and "Life Span" chapters ought not to violate principle. [However,] they selectively adopted them and did not include kṣāntis; now, collectively including all four completely diverges from the past [views]. "Summit" is a generic name, while "kṣānti" and the rest are specific designations; hence they are not the same. This explanation is most wonderful, and can also collaterally resolve an objection. The objection states: "Citing the four roots of goodness, kṣānti and summit are not the same. Why now use kṣānti to respond to the question on the summits?" Therefore, it provides a comprehensive explanation: taking the culmination of the cause stage of equal awakening as generically called "summit," it is not entirely identical to the four [roots of goodness]; thus it was cited above because their meanings are analogous.