大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.4

6.4

Regarding the Commentary's words "different paths lead to the same destination": the Book of Changes states, "In the world, different paths lead to the same destination, and a hundred deliberations result in a single accord." This means that just as thousands of tracks and nine thoroughfares lead alike to the royal city, how could the nine schools and hundred philosophers diverge from the Great Way? The Commentary now borrows this phrasing to encompass three meanings: first, in terms of the teachings, they initially vary according to capacity and thus follow "different paths," but ultimately return to revealing the real and thus achieve "a single accord"; second, they differ in terms of capacities, but in terms of principle they are ever one; third, outside the essence there is no provisional, and the provisional is itself the real—hence "different paths lead to the same destination." Regarding the Commentary's words "Second, a single voice universally responds, and a single rain universally nourishes": the single voice is from the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and the single rain is from the "Parable of the Medicinal Herbs" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra. This means that the three kinds of herbs and two kinds of trees differ, yet alike receive the moisture of the single rain; the five natures and three vehicles are not identical, yet the Dharma rain is of one flavor without distinction. That sūtra states: "The Tathāgata knows this Dharma of a single characteristic and a single flavor—namely, the characteristic of liberation, the characteristic of detachment, the characteristic of cessation, the characteristic of ultimate nirvāṇa, constantly quiescent and ceased, ultimately returning to emptiness," and so forth. Regarding the Commentary's words "Third, tracing back to the Sage's original intent, it was for the sake of one matter": this is also the intent of the Lotus Sūtra. Thus that sūtra states: "Past Buddhas, using immeasurable and countless skillful means and various causes, conditions, parables, and words, expounded the dharmas for sentient beings; these dharmas are all for the sake of the One Buddha Vehicle." The One Buddha Vehicle is none other than the Avataṃsaka. It also states: "These nine divisions of Dharma of mine are taught in accordance with sentient beings; taking entry into the Great Vehicle as the root, I therefore teach this sūtra." All are for the sake of one matter. Regarding the Commentary's words "Fourth, with each single text, the assembly's understandings differ": this applies generally to the various sūtras. For instance, when a sūtra speaks of a single "impermanence," some understand it as impermanence because arising and ceasing alternate; some say it is called impermanence because of the absence of permanence; some say unarisen and unceasing is called impermanence; some hold that there is simply no dharma that could be permanent; or some say that the single dharma of tathatā, transforming and not remaining constant according to defiled and pure conditions, is therefore called impermanent. Or some, hearing "impermanence," immediately know that impermanence is taught in opposition to permanence, and take neither-permanent-nor-impermanent to be the Middle Way, and so forth. One clearly knows that understandings differ according to the person. Furthermore, while the four names of suffering, origination, cessation, and path are identical, according to the varying capacities of understanding, there are four kinds. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "Regarding the twelve links of dependent origination, those who contemplate with lesser wisdom attain śrāvaka bodhi; those who contemplate with middling wisdom attain pratyekabuddha bodhi; those who contemplate with superior wisdom attain bodhisattva bodhi; and those who contemplate with supreme wisdom attain Buddha bodhi." Again, as with the One Vehicle, the five teachings have different understandings according to capacity, with distinctions among the three truths. A verse in the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Dharmas arisen from conditions, / I declare to be emptiness; / it is also a conventional designation, / and also the meaning of the Middle Way." Here, many people have different understandings. Some say: Since it says "arisen from conditions," how could it be identical to emptiness? One must completely analyze causes and conditions to their end, and only then harmonize with emptiness. They refer to the emptiness of the ten directions as "identical to emptiness." "Also a conventional designation" means that the conditioned is insubstantial and weak, lacking the power to stand independently. Formed by a concourse of conditions, it is conventional because it derives from conditions—not the conventionality of setting up provisional means. "Also the meaning of the Middle Way" means that being free from annihilation and permanence is called the Middle Way—not the Middle Way of the Buddha-nature. If one adopts this understanding, although all three phrases are empty, it does not even constitute "identical to emptiness," much less "identical to the conventional" or "identical to the middle." This is the meaning within the arising-and-ceasing four noble truths. Or some say: Dharmas arisen from conditions do not need to be destroyed; their essence is identical to emptiness. Yet they cannot attain "identical to the conventional" and "identical to the middle"; even if they construct the conventional and the middle, both concordantly enter into emptiness. Why? All dharmas are identical to emptiness because they lack a master. The conventional is also identical to emptiness because it is conventionally posited. The middle is also identical to emptiness because it is free from the two extremes of annihilation and permanence. These three turns of phrasing differ, yet all concordantly enter into emptiness; stepping back, they are not the analysis of dharmas by the two vehicles, and stepping forward, they are not the separate or perfect [teachings]—this is simply the meaning of the three animals crossing the river. Or some consider "identical to emptiness, identical to the conventional, identical to the middle" to unfold progressively, each being distinct from the others. That all three are empty means: empty because of lacking a master, empty because of being insubstantially posited, empty because of lacking extremes. That all three are conventional means: conventional because they equally have names. That all three are the middle means: because of the middle of the true, the middle of the capacity, and the middle of the real. Calling emptiness "the middle" is based on the absolute truth. Calling the conventional "the middle" is based on establishing transformation according to capacity, abiding neither in transformation nor non-transformation. Calling the middle "the middle" is based on the Middle Way of the single real truth. This grasps the separate but misses the perfect. Or some consider "identical to emptiness, identical to the conventional, identical to the middle," though three, to be one, and though one, to be three, without obstructing each other. That all three are empty is because the path of words and thoughts is cut off. That all three are conventional is because they merely have names. That all three are the middle is because they are identical to the true mark. Merely taking emptiness as the name, it already possesses the conventional and the middle; awakening to emptiness is awakening to the conventional and the middle. The others are likewise. From this one knows that, according to what single dharma one hears, various understandings arise: when a perfect capacity receives the teaching, no teaching is not perfect; when a biased capacity receives the teaching, even the perfect becomes biased. Since different understandings follow from a single text, what need is there to divide and judge differences? Regarding the Commentary's words "Fifth, multiple modes of teaching the Dharma branch off into secondary streams": the above points also indirectly encompass various sūtras; here, it properly cites the present sūtra to establish the principle. The "Dharmadhātu Chapter" states: "When the Dharma is about to perish, there will be the differences of a thousand schools, a thousand modes of teaching the Dharma," and so forth. Why not trace the branches to find the root, instead of seeking to divert the source into tributaries, muddying the single flavor of the pure origin and turning it into a depleted, shallow branch stream?