大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.26

8.26

Regarding the commentary's passage beginning with "Above, with respect to the two tenets," this is the third section, harmonizing the two tenets so that they do not contradict each other. Now, regarding this harmonization: fearing that later students might each grasp at right or wrong and thereby generate faults, he harmonizes them again. Although he harmonizes them, provisional and real are not lost. Herein there are three parts: first, a general introduction; later, from "Namely, in terms of capacity" onward, the direct harmonization. The statement "in terms of the Dharma, it is one" does not refer to the Buddha's instructional Dharma, for the instructional Dharma also provisionally teaches the triyāna. Thus, what is called Dharma here is the Buddha's knowledge and vision, the exemplary Dharma of the ekayāna. As for the commentary saying, "By newly perfumed [seeds] there are five, while originally existent there are no two," according to the Dharmalakṣaṇa [school], those who posit newly perfumed [seeds] also say there are five, and those who posit originally existent [seeds] also say there are five. Here we borrow their terminology without following their doctrinal meaning. That is, sentient beings encounter conditions that perfume the seed-natures of the triyāna, as well as the indeterminate and natureless, hence there are five. How so? Associating solely with śrāvakas, one develops the determinate nature of a śrāvaka. Associating solely with pratyekabuddhas, one develops the determinate nature of a pratyekabuddha. Thus, in the "Sukhavihāra" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, not permitting close association with śrāvakas is for fear of being perfumed into acquiring their nature. If one associates solely with bodhisattvas, one develops the determinate nature of a bodhisattva. If one associates with all three vehicles, one becomes a person of indeterminate nature. This is just like people today who, exclusively practicing dhyāna, precepts, or wisdom, develop a determinate nature, whereas practicing the three disciplines together makes them of indeterminate nature, because they do not determinately adhere to one side. If one does not associate with the three vehicles at all, one becomes natureless, extremely difficult to instruct. Hence we know that the perfuming into five seed-natures is described as distinct based on a long duration of time. As for "originally existent there are no two": the originally existent Buddha-nature does not admit of differentiation in its principle; therefore it is said that whoever possesses a mind is certain to become a Buddha—it is not that there are originally five seed-natures. As for the commentary saying "If entering into principle...", true principle is quiet and vast, not belonging to any number; using the "one" to dismiss the "three," once the three perish, the one is dismissed as well. When words are exhausted and deliberation ceases, what is real and what is provisional? The essence is fundamentally quiet and vast: which is three and which is one? Thus the Dharmapada says: "The manifold and myriad forms / Are sealed by a single phenomenon." This uses the one to dismiss the many. It also says: "The one is also not a one; / It is in order to break all numbers. / Those of shallow wisdom cling to phenomena, / Calculating the one to be a one." This uses non-one to dismiss the one. Therefore, both three and one must be eliminated. As for the commentary saying, "If viewed in terms of the Buddha's pedagogical method, he can teach three or teach one": according with the capacities of beings, he teaches the triyāna; once they have been seasoned for a long time, he teaches the one. Thus the sūtra below says: "In some lands he teaches one vehicle, / In some two, three, four, or five, / And thus up to immeasurability." Explanation: If there are even immeasurable [vehicles], how much more so three and one!