大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.20

7.20

In the commentary, from “As for this master establishing his doctrines” onward, the second [part] examines their conformity and conflict. This also has two [subdivisions]: first, an intelligent assessment of conformity and conflict, beginning with conformity, and later, from “Yet, the Tripiṭaka teaching” onward, examining conflict. Because the name is prone to confusion, Jingfa brought forward four kinds of faults against it: First, the fault of overly conflating with the Mahāyāna, since the Mahāyāna also possesses a tripiṭaka, and so [it too] would have to be called a Tripiṭaka teaching. Second, the fault of the Mahāyāna lacking a tripiṭaka, since it is not called [the Tripiṭaka teaching]. Third, the fault of directly contravening the supreme teaching, as it says that one must not draw close to scholars of the Hinayāna tripiṭaka—where the phrase “Hinayāna” serves to distinguish it from the Mahāyāna, clearly showing that the tripiṭaka does not solely belong to the Hinayāna. Fourth, the fault of indeterminacy, since among the Hinayāna schools there are those that do not establish three [baskets]; for example, the Sautrāntika school establishes only the two baskets of Sūtra and Vinaya, while others establish five baskets, as the Tattvasiddhi establishes a miscellaneous basket and a bodhisattva basket outside the three. Because these four faults exist, [the commentary] generally grants their refutation. Saying “the name seems to conflate with the Hinayāna” precisely grants the first fault; however, the following [sections] will resolve them all.