大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.23

8.23

The Commentary states: "From this it is known that entering quiescence..." and below; this is the third part, establishing the correct doctrine. Prior to the Lotus [Sūtra], there were two intentions behind speaking of entering quiescence. First, for the sake of those who delight in extinction, it provisionally accorded with their minds. It addresses their thought: "There is no greater calamity than possessing a body, hence one extinguishes the body to return to nothingness. There is no greater toil than possessing knowledge, hence one cuts off knowledge to sink into emptiness." Thus, knowledge is exhausted by the form, and the form is worn out by knowledge; wandering the long path of saṃsāra, exhausted without return, it is better to attain quiescent extinction where all afflictions permanently vanish. Therefore, according with their capacity, [the Buddha] taught that there is eternal quiescence. Second, for the sake of terrifying the indeterminate Hīnayāna and timid bodhisattvas who are weary of broad benefiting and wish to rest their minds, making them hear that a śrāvaka who enters eternal quiescence sinks into nirvāṇa never to arise again causes them to produce dread and fear towards adopting the Small Vehicle, thereby spurring their minds to return to the practice of the Great Path. Because of these two benefits, it was provisionally stated to exist. Failing to comprehend this adaptability to circumstance and clinging to it as ultimate, the assembly of the Lotus [Sūtra] broadly overturned past errors, granting predictions to śrāvakas of all three capacities, and proclaiming it even for those not present in this assembly. If one is truly a śrāvaka, one will certainly believe the teaching of the single vehicle; if one does not believe, one is a person of overweening pride. In the first cycle it still says, "Except after the Buddha's passing, when no Buddha is present." Because after the Buddha's passing it is difficult to find someone who understands the meaning of the single vehicle, non-belief is allowed. When it comes to the third cycle, it explicitly states: "In other lands they definitely receive transformation." With clear passages such as these, why cling to a biased view? Hence it is said that these were all intentions prior to the Lotus [Sūtra].