大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.53

6.53

Regarding the commentary's phrase "If in terms of integrating the provisional": second, the intention of integrating two or integrating three. That is to say, there is a question asking: "If so, is it integrating three, or is it integrating two? If either is supposed, what is the flaw?" Both have faults. If one integrates three to return to one, the past should have no real; if one integrates two to return to one, the past should have no provisional. If there is no provisional, then the doctrine of four vehicles is not established; if there is no real, then it does not suppress the noble teachings of the past. This is the intention of Guangzhai. If making the objection of the Northern school, one should say: "Since the past possessed the real, the doctrine of integrating two to return to one is clear." Therefore, it is explained for them: integrating two and integrating three both possess reason. The two meanings of the provisional and real of the past also both remain; hence it is stated thus.