大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.48

7.48

Regarding the commentary's "However, these two sets of three periods" onward: this is the second [section], discussing concurrence and contradiction. In the Upādhyāya Fazang's Commentary on the Awakening of Faith, "it asks: 'Can these two sets of three periods be reconciled or not?' He himself answers: 'There is no reconciliation, and there is no non-reconciliation. "There is no reconciliation" means that each is a siddhānta for individual persons.' Siddhānta: the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says it means doctrinal tenet. Because all were spoken by the Buddhas, they are all sacred teachings, benefiting beings in accordance with conditions; why must they be reconciled? Hence it says 'there is no reconciliation.' Saying 'there is no non-reconciliation' means that they indeed can be reconciled. Now, in reconciling this meaning, there are two approaches: first, explaining the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the breadth or narrowness of beings gathered and the completeness or deficiency of the verbal teaching; second, explaining the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the gradual stages of benefiting beings and the prominence or subtleness of revealing the principle. Within the first, there are two points: first, in terms of the breadth or narrowness of beings gathered, in the doctrine of the Saṃdhinirmocana, the first [period] is solely for the small, and the next is solely for the great; because these two periods are narrow, they are non-definitive. The third period is universally for those who set out on all vehicles; because it is broad, it is definitive. Second, in terms of the completeness or deficiency of the verbal teaching, the first solely expounds the small and the next solely expounds the great; because each has a deficiency, they are of non-definitive meaning. In the third period, it fully expounds the three vehicles; because it is complete, it is definitive. Within the second approach, there are also two points: first, in terms of the gradual stages of benefiting beings, that is, according to the meaning of the *Mahāprajñā Sūtra*, the first solely benefits the small, hence it is of non-definitive meaning; the next, although generally benefiting both the great and the small, cannot cause the two vehicles inclined to quiescence to attain great bodhi, hence it is of non-definitive meaning; in the third period, they universally attain the great benefit, and only then is it of definitive meaning. Second, as for the prominence or subtleness of revealing the principle, the first speaks of conditioned arising as substantially real, and the next speaks of it as nominally existent, hence they are of non-definitive meaning; in the third period, it reveals the principle as ultimate emptiness, resolving conditioned characteristics into exhaustion, hence it is of definitive meaning." Reconciling and interpreting the two traditions according to this, each has definitive and non-definitive meanings. This is Xianshou's intention. That is to say, in terms of the first approach, the Faxiang tradition is definitive and the Faxing tradition is non-definitive; if in terms of the latter approach, the Faxing tradition is definitive and the Faxing tradition is non-definitive. Since both have two meanings that are definitive and two meanings that are non-definitive, in principle they are equal. Now examining Xianshou's intention, he largely illuminates the Faxing. Why so? Because there are two meanings: First, comparing the breadth and narrowness of gathering beings against the gradual stages of benefiting beings, having the breadth of gathering beings as definitive is inferior to having benefiting beings solely as the great as definitive. Comparing the completeness and deficiency of the verbal teaching against the prominence and subtleness of revealing the principle, having the completeness of the verbal teaching as definitive is inferior to having the revealing of the principle unto the exhaustion of characteristics as definitive. If one contemplates this, it can be known. Second, although the words state that each has two definitives and two non-definitives, the two kinds of definitive meaning in the Saṃdhinirmocana's tradition also turn out to be non-definitive. Why so? As in gathering beings, taking the second period's solely gathering the great as non-definitive and the third period's fully gathering [all] as definitive: how could obtaining pure gold compare to impure iron? How could a community of pure bodhisattvas compare to ordinary beings and the small residing together? The Lotus Sutra is solely for bodhisattvas; how could it compare to formerly addressing the three? Therefore, one should say that solely gathering beings of great capacity is definitive, while generally gathering the three faculties is non-definitive. Furthermore, as in the completeness and deficiency of verbal teachings, taking the second period's incompleteness as non-definitive and the third's fully expounding the three vehicles as definitive: words all deficient in canons should then be non-definitive, and those mixed with the unfounded should then be definitive; one who solely sells genuine gold should then be a poor man, while one with miscellaneous goods of tile and wood should then be a wealthy merchant. The Lotus Sutra expounds only the one vehicle; how could it compare to formerly opening the distinctions of the three? Therefore, one should say that expounding only the single ultimate is truly of definitive meaning, while heterogeneously expounding the three vehicles is non-definitive. The above two were originally definitive for the Faxiang tradition, but now both turn out to be non-definitive. The latter two, moreover, are definitive for the Faxing; thus the four non-definitives all belong to the former tradition, and the four kinds of definitive meaning all reside in the Faxing. Fearing that those of the Faxiang [tradition] would give rise to a mind of right and wrong, the commentary does not quote this, but merely states reconciliation. The text of the commentary divides into two: first, generally clarifying concurrence and contradiction; second, individually reconciling and explaining. Now, the first divides into three: first, generally negating the earlier establishment, meaning that since both are sacred teachings, one must not accept one and reject the other; second, mutually contradictory, one cannot adopt both texts simultaneously, hence it says "cannot"; second, from "The intent of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra" onward, reconciling and explaining the two sūtras, fearing someone might ask: "If neither is accepted, yet given that the two sūtras have textual passages, how are they to be reconciled and explained?" Thus now, to reveal that the intentions of the two sūtras each have that which they address, one must not be one-sidedly attached; if one is one-sidedly attached, they mutually contradict; third, from "Understanding this intent" onward, concluding the reconciliation: if one grasps the sūtras' intent, both masters are accommodated; if one accepts one and rejects the other, then both masters are faulted; hence separating them harms both, while uniting them benefits both.