大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.57

7.57

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "If according to the Faxing school" onward, the commentary text also has two parts: first it marks the tenet upheld, and afterwards, from "the Lotus [Sūtra]" onward, it cites evidence to establish it. There are ten long sections: 1. Citing the Lotus Sūtra to clarify both the single vehicle (ekayāna) and the single nature; 2. Citing the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to clarify that the vehicle and nature mutually complete each other; 3. Citing the Lotus Sūtra again to clarify that there is no [permanent] entry into quiescence; 4. Citing fascicle nine of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to clarify that there is no lack of [Buddha-]nature; 5. Citing sūtras and explaining treatises to conclude and establish the orthodox doctrine; 6. Extensively citing various sūtras to refute rescue attempts [advocating] fixed natures; 7. Citing the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to refute rescue attempts [advocating] the lack of nature; 8. Citing the Lotus Sūtra to refute rescue attempts [advocating] entry into quiescence; 9. Explaining the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra to reconcile the expedient nature of the one vehicle; 10. Using the Lotus Sūtra to conclude the refutation and establishment. Now, as for the first [section], it has two parts: first, correctly establishing the one vehicle; second, establishing the one nature to explain and complete the one vehicle. First, regarding the former: "In the Buddha lands of the ten directions..." and so forth is the verse from the first chapter, the "Upāyakauśalya" chapter. The first three lines correctly establish [it], and the fourth line resolves doubts. Regarding "there is neither a second nor a third," there were many explanations in antiquity. Master Dacheng said: "The second is the second [vehicle], the third is the third [vehicle]; because the Bodhisattva Vehicle is superior, it is the first." This was Master Daosheng's idea, but it did not exhaust its import. Master Daosheng said: "'Second' means the second vehicle; 'third' means the third vehicle; there should also be no first." The first does not run contrary to what makes it great, so it is not non-existent. Since there is neither second nor third, the first is also discarded. The idea is: today's one vehicle has a profound and abstruse import, which is why it is called "great." That which makes it great is the profundity of its principle. In the past, the Great Vehicle among the three vehicles had not yet merged, so the remaining two were established as provisional. In terms of compassion and wisdom, the myriad practices do not run contrary to the "one" of today; hence he says that because it does not run contrary to what makes it great, it is not non-existent. Regarding "since there is neither second nor third, the first is also discarded": in the past, three were spoken of; since the [other] two are not established, how could the great [alone] survive? Because it did not encompass the two vehicles, and also because it was provisionally designated, it is also just like neither the sheep nor deer [cart] being obtained, as explained in the four vehicles of Guangzhai. According to the view of Tiantai and others: "there is no second" means there are not the two vehicles of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; "there is no third" means that altogether there are none of the three vehicles of the past, because none of them are real. Since the tenets and expositions differ, one may accept or reject them at will. In terms of the sūtra's intent, it only establishes the one real as the true destination, and mentions neither second nor third, admitting neither, regardless of great or small. It is like saying that in the world this person stands alone with no peer to compare with him; it is not necessary to specifically point to the two persons Zhang and Wang. The following line resolves doubts. The doubt asks: If there is only one, why did he preach three in the past? Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "In some lands one vehicle is preached, or two, or three, or four, or five, up to immeasurable." Therefore, it is now explained: If by the Tathāgata's upāya, then any number is acceptable. The ten directions' lands and the past preaching of three were merely expedients, not the real truth. Moreover, the subsequent passage of the sūtra says: "Merely using provisional names, I guide sentient beings." Regarding the Commentary's "Also saying: 'Initially using the three vehicles...'" and so forth: this cites the second fascicle of the sūtra to reaffirm that the three are all provisional. If fully cited, the sūtra says: "Just as that elder initially used three carts to entice his sons, and afterwards gave them only a great cart, adorned with treasures and foremost in peace and safety, yet that elder was without the fault of falsehood; the Tathāgata is also like this, free from falsehood: initially preaching the three vehicles to guide sentient beings, and afterwards delivering them solely through the Great Vehicle." Explanation: These texts all clarify that the former three are provisional and the later one is real; even if the two are reconciled to return to the one, the three are still expedients, and only the one is real.