大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 34.44

34.44

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Because the classes of sentient beings belong to Buddhas differently": third, it jointly concludes and explains. It explains and accomplishes the above meaning of shared and unshared. All the above is the text of the treatise; only the phrase "because they belong to Buddhas differently" quotes the meaning of that treatise, which fully states: "Classes of sentient beings have, from beginningless time, their dispositions naturally bound to one another; either many belong to one, or one belongs to many; therefore, the beings transformed are shared or unshared. Were it not so, multiple Buddhas dwelling long in the world, each engaging in toil, would truly be without benefit, because one Buddha is able to benefit all beings." Explanation: from "were it not so" onward is the text of that treatise, refuting the views of other masters. However, there should also be "many belonging to many" or "one belonging to one"; that they are absent from the text is an abbreviation. Moreover, that treatise says, "from beginningless time dispositions are naturally so"; now, although we adopt its meaning of shared and unshared, it is merely in terms of forming conditions, not necessarily naturally so. In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, there are the opinions of three masters: the first says that all are shared, because each and every one saves all, etc.; the second says they are unshared, because the classes originally belonging [to them] are distinct, as when Maitreya and Śākyamuni served Tiṣya Buddha together, and that Buddha, seeing that those to be transformed by Śākyamuni would ripen first, entered samādhi for him, causing him to forget to lower one foot for seven days while praising the Buddha with verses, thus surpassing Maitreya to achieve completion nine kalpas earlier—how could this not be distinct? The third says that there are both shared and unshared: if exclusively shared, what use would there be for multiple Buddhas? If exclusively unshared, one should not serve multiple Buddhas wishing to save all, nor should one entrust the sentient beings one transforms to later Buddhas. Now the Cheng weishi lun follows this third correct view, briefly refuting the proponents of "all shared," but not refuting "unshared." In the verses, the Commentary briefly clarifies four points: first, previously the oneness of cause was used to challenge the difference of fruits; now this fully clarifies the single characteristic of cause and fruit.