大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 84.75

84.75

Regarding the commentary's statement, "From the dharmas and metaphors above downward": second, it resolves objections. Within this are three: first, it summarizes the preceding text to serve as the basis for the objection; second, the objection; third, the explanation. In the second, it cites three sūtras and presents two objections: first, it cites the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* to object to the absence of present conditions. When it says "whether cognition or abandonment": that sūtra fully states, "Whether a srotāpanna's cognition or abandonment, all are the bodhisattva's anutpattikadharmakṣānti. Whether a sakṛdāgāmin's cognition or abandonment, all are the bodhisattva's anutpattikadharmakṣānti. Whether an anāgāmin's cognition or abandonment, all are the bodhisattva's anutpattikadharmakṣānti. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas are also separately differentiated: whether their cognition or abandonment, all are the bodhisattva's anutpattikadharmakṣānti." The concluding objection below can be understood. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Furthermore, from the sūtra on Mañjuśrī's rounds downward": next it cites two sūtras to object to not allowing them to hear. This single sūtra is only briefly cited in terms of its meaning. If cited in full, its title is the *Sūtra of Mañjuśrī's Rounds*. Because the sūtra recounts that Mañjuśrī made rounds through the rooms of five hundred monks and found them all in quiet concentration, it was titled after this. At the end, he cross-examined Śāriputra to reveal profound prajñā. He asked Śāriputra, saying: "I saw you at that time sitting cross-legged alone in a room, subduing your body. Were you practicing meditation or not?" [Śāriputra] replied: "I was sitting." [Mañjuśrī] raised the objection: "Were you practicing meditation because you wished to cause what has not yet been abandoned to be abandoned?" and so forth. Based on this, he extensively revealed the principle of essential emptiness and non-attainment. At that time, the five hundred monks arose from their seats and proclaimed aloud before the World-Honoured One: "From this day forward, we do not need to see Mañjuśrī's body again, nor do we need to hear his name. We should quickly leave such places far behind. To whatever dwelling places belong to Mañjuśrī, we must not go. Why is this? Because Mañjuśrī speaks of afflictions and liberation as having a single characteristic," and so forth. Śāriputra asked Mañjuśrī to resolve it for them, and Mañjuśrī said: "Because in reality there is no Mañjuśrī to be apprehended. If in reality there is no Mañjuśrī to be apprehended, he also cannot be seen," and so forth. He taught the Dharma extensively for them; four hundred monks exhausted their defilements and attained the fruit, while one hundred slandered further, sank into hell, and later attained the Way again. It is fully as stated therein. Hence it says: "five hundred monks heard it and did not believe." The meaning is: why does this assembly not allow them to hear it even if they do not believe? Regarding the commentary's statement, "Sadāparibhūta in the *Lotus Sūtra* also caused them to hear": the intention of citing this is the same as the preceding. This is the "Chapter on Bodhisattva Sadāparibhūta" in the sixth fascicle. Sadāparibhūta paid homage everywhere to the four assemblies, saying: "I do not hold you in contempt; you are practicing the bodhisattva path and will all become buddhas." That is, he proclaimed the principle that all sentient beings possess buddha-nature and that the Tathāgata's vision and knowledge are equal, in order to cause them to hear. Some among the crowd struck and threw staves, sticks, potsherds, and stones at him, and for a thousand kalpas they entered Avīci to endure great suffering and distress; emerging from hell, they again met Sadāparibhūta's teaching and transformation, becoming Bodhisattva Bhadrapāla and others. Since in both sūtras they were caused to hear it, and a temporary slander ultimately became a benefit, why is it not so now?