大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.25

6.25

Regarding the commentary's section from "The aforementioned various masters" onward, this is the second part, which assesses compatibility and incompatibility. Within this there are three parts: first, a general explanation of compatibility and incompatibility; second, a specific refutation of what violates principle; and third, a conclusion establishing compatibility and incompatibility. In the first part, because the aforementioned masters, from the divisions into two up to five periods, all put the Hīnayāna first and the Mahāyāna later, they did not add the indeterminate [teaching]. This invited the objection that the Mahāyāna was present from the beginning; yet even though some added the indeterminate, obstacles still remained. Adding the indeterminate avoids the objection that the Mahāyāna was present from the beginning, but objections arise regarding all the designations and meanings they established. As for the statement "briefly revealing the obstacles of the five periods," it refutes them from the latter end. Since the five periods are refuted, the four, three, and two periods are also entirely refuted; hence it says, "the rest can be known by analogy."