大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.35

8.35

Regarding the commentary's "suddenly expounding this principle" onward: resolving objections. Here there are two objections. The first is that the Kandingly (Record of Decisive Corrections) objected to the Preceptor [Fazang], saying: "Regarding the sūtras cited above, you should know that these all discard the explicator to reveal the principle; how can you further posit this as the explicator (teaching)? If this is teaching, what else is principle?" Now, to resolve this, [the commentary] says: "Suddenly expounding this principle, it is therefore named the sudden teaching." This means that what is expounded is the principle; now, suddenly expounding the principle, how is it not an explicator? All explicating teachings are established on the basis of what is expounded: if it expounds the triyāna, it is the gradual teaching; if it expounds the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena, it is the complete teaching. How could one disallow the explicator from being a teaching simply because what is expounded is principle? How can one object by saying, "What else is principle?" The confusion is extreme! Furthermore, it objected, saying: "If you say that because the teaching transcends words it is not different from principle, then do the final and complete teachings not also transcend words? If you admit that they transcend words, they should all be named 'sudden'; why would there be five teachings? If you maintain that although they speak of transcending words, this does not obstruct words, then the final and complete teachings should also be named 'sudden', because both transcend words without obstructing words." The present commentary does not rescue this, because Xianshou did not establish it in that way; why bother rescuing it? With just a single sentence, all objections are demolished. Thus we know that although his body entered the master's room, his wisdom had not yet ascended the hall. This was also because he had never practiced Chan, which caused him to be completely deluded about the sudden purport. Regarding the commentary's "The reason Tiantai did not establish it" onward: this resolves the second objection. That is, someone asked: "These five teachings copy Tiantai: the first is the Pitaka teaching, the second is the Shared teaching, the third is the Distinct teaching, and the fifth shares the same name. Since Tiantai did not establish a 'sudden' [teaching among them], why establish it separately here?" Therefore, it is now explained: if it were completely identical with Tiantai, why establish it separately? Because there is a slight difference, it was added. The four teachings of Tiantai all possess the transcendence of words; because he apportioned them among the four teachings, he did not establish the sudden. Xianshou's intention was: the transcendence of words in Tiantai's four teachings all causes one to discard the fish trap and meet the intention. Now, wishing to expound suddenly the principle that transcends words, it is specifically for one category of capacity. Without this approach, matching capacities would be incomplete. This accords with the Chan lineage: Bodhidharma's transmission from mind to mind is precisely this teaching. If one did not point with a single word to speak directly, how could "the mind itself is Buddha" ever be transmitted? Therefore, by lodging in wordlessness through words, directly expounding the principle of transcending words, the teaching is also made clear. Hence the Chan of both the Northern and Southern lineages does not go beyond the sudden teaching.