大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.45

6.45

Regarding the commentary's "This classification is entirely based on the ritual of conversion" and so forth: second, distinguishing agreement and contradiction. Within this, this sentence points out the basis upon which he established the teachings: they were established based on the ritual of conversion, not on the Dharma or on capacities, and so on. As for saying "entirely," this is in contrast to Guangtong before him. Guangtong's three teachings were: first, based on the ritual of conversion; second, based on the converting doctrine; third, based on matching capacities. Now this master's establishment is solely based on the ritual of conversion. Regarding the commentary's "According to the Dharma, there are only the Great and the Small" and below: directly distinguishing agreement and contradiction. If there are only the Great and the Small, then there is no distinction between the half and the full [teachings], and it also fails to encompass the meaning comprehensively. Regarding the commentary's "However, the Lotus Sūtra opened and revealed the root and branch for a particular category [of beings]": this passage explains the sūtra's intention to resolve an objection. Fearing someone might object: "Establishing doctrines based on the Lotus Sūtra is the ultimate teaching; how could one not rely on it?" Therefore, it is now explained: it is simply that the person who established this teaching did not grasp the intention of the Lotus Sūtra. The Lotus Sūtra spoke in this way specifically for a category of people clinging to the Small. That is, they clung to the three and doubted the one, and clung to the Small and doubted the Great; therefore, to open the gate of expedient means and reveal the true characteristic—the true characteristic being solely the Buddha's wisdom, and clinging to the Hinayāna being the gate of expedient means—it was not intended to synthesize the sacred teachings of his entire lifetime. If all before the Lotus Sūtra were considered the branch Dharma-wheel, then sūtras such as the Prajñā[pāramitā], Vimalakīrti, and Śrīmālā would all be prior to the Lotus Sūtra; considering what comes before to be branches would depreciate the various Mahāyāna scriptures. Furthermore, the sūtra merely says, "except for those who had previously trained and studied in the Hinayāna"; thus one clearly knows that the sūtra's intention was not to designate the Prajñā and others as branches.