大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.16

6.16

Regarding the Commentary's text, 'The location of Sahā does not yet fuse the Lotus Treasury, but the location of the Lotus Treasury necessarily fuses Sahā': this resolves the Kanding's refutation of the difference in location. In other places, the Royal City and Śrāvastī are not said to be the Lotus Treasury and Sahā; now, saying that the seven locations naturally have two meanings makes them identical to the Lotus Treasury: first, in terms of the branch-and-root division, the seven locations are also within the thirteenth tier of the Lotus Treasury world; second, in terms of purity and defilement penetrating through, the ground of the country of Magadha is adamantine, and when the first chapter was expounded, the Lotus Treasury world trembled in six ways. That commentary's preface states: 'The realm embraces purity and defilement; Sahā quakes and the Lotus Treasury trembles.' Is this not the location of the Lotus Treasury being fused? Therefore, we know that in refuting the difference in location, he contradicted his own statement. As for why it does not defend against the refutation of the difference in assembly, it is because the Kanding's refutation was most inappropriate. In discussing the difference in assembly, he merely said: Śākyamuni's sūtras universally encompass the triyāna, whereas Vairocana's sūtra exclusively encompasses bodhisattvas. Thus, he refuted that position on the basis of the distinction between universal and exclusive, citing ordinary beings giving rise to the mind—how could they not be vessels for the bodhisattva [teaching], especially since the arousal of the mind in this sūtra is profoundly deep? As for the difference in preaching, others did not refute it, so it is not defended here.