大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.12

8.12

Regarding the commentary's passage from "If one claims that the Lotus Sūtra belongs to the second period" downward: sixth, citing various sūtras and treatises to refute attempts to rescue [the doctrine of] the fixed nature. Within this there are two parts: first, directly taking up and refuting [the argument]; second, concluding with their previous error. In the first part, there are again two: first, taking up the rescuing words; second, from "why" downward, refuting through objection. In the first: regarding the words "belongs to the second period", they did not establish it as a teaching of the second period per se; rather, because they considered the One Vehicle to be an intentional teaching, its meaning corresponded to the second period teaching of the Saṃdhinirmocana. Furthermore, because the Lotus Sūtra forcefully refutes the three vehicles and speaks of the One Vehicle, it corresponds to the second period. Regarding the words "in order to guide the undetermined": they cited the tenth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, where a verse states: "In order to attract and guide one category, and sustain the rest, due to the undetermined gotra, the Buddhas speak of the One Vehicle," and so forth. That [text] has ten intentions, and this verse has two: first, in order to attract and guide one category of śrāvakas of undetermined nature; second, in order to sustain bodhisattvas of undetermined nature lest they retreat from vigor. Here only the first intention is taken, hence saying 'in order to guide those of undetermined nature'. 'All attain [Buddhahood]' is the meaning of the One Vehicle. Since it did not state that those of fixed nature do not attain it, it is an intentional [teaching]. If one makes this statement, then the commentary's "Why do they themselves classify the Lotus Sūtra as the third period?" refutes it through objection. Their commentary on the Lotus Sūtra cites the sūtra stating: "We today have obtained what was never before had; not what we previously hoped for, yet now we have obtained it of ourselves"—this is the teaching of the third period. Furthermore, it concludes below: "In order to reveal the true teaching of the third period, this sūtra was spoken." Relying on these two passages, they classify the Lotus Sūtra as the third period; yet in terms of explaining the One Vehicle as an intentional teaching, the Lotus Sūtra ends up being the second period again. Within their own school's formulation, doctrine and statements contradict each other. The commentary's "Who would dare classify the Lotus Sūtra as non-definitive?" refutes their attempt to rescue [their position]. For fear that they might salvage it by saying: "Even if it is treated as non-definitive based on implicit intention, what fault is there?", it promptly objects: "Who would dare classify it as non-definitive?" Because classifying it as non-definitive is slandering the sūtra, and one must fear incurring painful retribution. Merely through not believing that all will become Buddhas, that itself is slandering the sūtra. Why must one disbelieve the written characters and rolls of the sūtra to slander it? It is simply due to not believing the words 'You all shall become Buddhas'.