大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.44

6.44

Regarding the commentary's "The intention is to clarify that nowadays" and below: second, in resolving objections, the author of the Kandingji raised two objections: first, collectively objecting to gradual and sudden; second, specifically objecting to the round. The first objection states: "If both the immature and mature capacities of the gradual capacity are gradual, and both the immature and mature capacities of the sudden capacity are sudden, then gradual and sudden can be differentiated. Since you say that the not-yet-mature is called gradual and the already-mature is called sudden, then for a single gradual capacity, there is only the difference between immature and mature, with no distinct sudden meaning. Or, that one capacity should possess both gradual and sudden capacities, because the immature must reach maturity and the mature must come from the immature; or, capacities at all times should all be gradual capacities, because there is none that does not proceed from the immature to maturity."

Explication: This first objection against his gradual and sudden itself contains three objections: first, the objection that gradual and sudden are not differentiated; second, the objection that a single capacity possesses both; third, the objection that there is no sudden capacity. The first is general, and the latter two are specific. Now for the first: with this single resolution, all three objections are dispelled. As in the first objection, the Kanding[ji] determined gradual and sudden by capacity, and thus had this objection. Now, if gradual and sudden are not determined by capacity, how could there be this objection? That is to say, for an immature capacity, gradually expounding the Dharma methods is called gradual; for a mature capacity, suddenly expounding the Dharma methods is considered sudden. How can one object by saying that both immature and mature are sudden? Thus, the first objection is dispelled. Since it is not defined in terms of capacity, how can one object by claiming that the immature must reach maturity, that the mature must come from the immature, and so on? Thus, the second and third objections are dispelled.

Moreover, this objection would overturn the teaching he himself established below. He established four teachings, stating: "The third teaching corresponds to the bodhisattva of initial aspiration, and the fourth teaching corresponds to the final aspiration that recognizes the tathāgatagarbha." Furthermore, he resolved this himself by saying: "Initial and final are designated according to the superiority or inferiority of the faculty, not according to the initial and final stages of cultivation in time." Since you take the superiority or inferiority of capacity to be initial and final, why should this master be prevented from taking the superiority or inferiority of capacity to be immature and mature? Therefore, in raising this objection, he lost the ancient intention.

Regarding the commentary's "The words 'reaching higher' implicitly include the stages before the bhūmis" and so forth: this resolves his second objection against the round teaching. His objection states: "Since it says 'sharing in the stages of the Buddha's realm,' then those prior to the bhūmis would not be capable of hearing this sūtra, which would contradict the chapter on 'Appearance' where sentient beings numerous as dust motes in Buddha-lands arouse the bodhicitta."

Explication: Because he conflated "reaching higher" and "sharing in the stages of the Buddha's realm" into a single meaning, he raised this objection. Now, providing this resolution: "reaching higher" refers to before the bhūmis, and "sharing in the stages of the Buddha's realm" refers to upon the bhūmis; therefore, it does not contradict the text of the chapter on "Appearance," nor does it lose the great principle. How much more so when at the initial arousing of the mind one immediately achieves correct enlightenment—how could that person not share in the stages of the Buddha's realm?

Regarding the commentary's "At the end of the Sui and beginning of the Tang" and below: the third master. In the initial primary presentation, it is entirely based on the fifth [fascicle] of the Lotus Sūtra, namely the chapter on "Emerging from the Earth." Because in that [chapter], the bodhisattvas who emerged inquired: "World-Honoured One! Have you few illnesses and few worries, and are you at ease? Are those to be delivered easy to transform? Do they not cause the World-Honoured One weariness?" Thus the Buddha replied: "Just so, just so, good sons! The Tathāgata is at ease, with few illnesses and few worries; all sentient beings are easy to convert and deliver, without weariness. Why is this? Because from life to life all these sentient beings have constantly received my teaching, and have also made offerings to, revered, and planted roots of goodness under past Buddhas. When all these sentient beings first saw my body and heard what I taught, they all believed and accepted it, entering the Tathāgata's wisdom—except for those who had previously trained and studied in the Hinayāna. Such people as these I now also cause to hear this sūtra and enter the Buddha's wisdom."

Now, the commentary cites the sūtra and divides it according to meaning into three turnings of the wheel. This master considers the root Dharma-wheel to be the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, because when the Buddha first achieved correct enlightenment, he suddenly proclaimed it. As for the branch Dharma-wheel, because they could not be transformed by the root, he differentiated and expounded the three within the one Buddha-yāna as the branches—that is, referring to all that after the Avataṃsaka and before the Lotus Sūtra as the branches. The third is the Lotus Sūtra, considered as gathering the branches.