大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 10.13

10.13

疏「一理遍於事」下，第二別釋十門，即為十別。一一門中多先正釋、後會前義。即前性相，不同中十對之義，或一門會一義、或二門同會一義、或一門以會多義，至文當知。又十對中唯會法性，以是同教一乘義理分齊故。如前云三乘一乘別，今但會一乘；五性一性別，今但會一性。十對皆然。今初。第一門不會，至第二門一時會故。疏中三：初標門。次「謂無分限」下，正釋。謂理不可分，故無分限；事隨緣別，故分位歷然。而不相雜，故得相遍。今明理不異事，故遍事中。後「故一一纖塵」下，結成遍義。若不全遍，則理可分；事不全攝，亦不即理。如一纖塵，事事皆爾。正遍此時，不妨遍餘，故亦非餘處無理。全此全彼，亦非二理。

From the Commentary's "First, principle pervades phenomena" onward is the second, separately explaining the ten gates, which constitutes ten separate sections. Within each and every gate, it mostly first explains directly and later harmonizes with the preceding meanings. That is, regarding the meanings of the ten pairs in the previous differences between nature and characteristics, either one gate harmonizes one meaning, two gates together harmonize one meaning, or one gate harmonizes multiple meanings, as will be known when reaching the text. Furthermore, among the ten pairs, it only harmonizes dharmatā, because it is the boundary of the principles of the one vehicle of the shared teaching. As previously stated that the triyāna and the one vehicle are distinct, now it only harmonizes the one vehicle; the five natures and the one nature are distinct, now it only harmonizes the one nature. The ten pairs are all like this. Now, the first: the first gate is not harmonized [here], because it will be harmonized all at once when reaching the second gate. In the Commentary there are three [parts]: first, indicating the gate; next, from "Namely, lacking limits" onward, directly explaining: principle cannot be divided, hence it lacks limits; phenomena are differentiated in accordance with conditions, hence their stages and positions are distinct; yet they are not intermingled, and therefore achieve mutual pervasion. Now it clarifies that principle is not different from phenomena, hence it pervades phenomena. Finally, from "Therefore, each and every fine dust mote" onward, concluding and establishing the meaning of pervasion: if it did not pervade entirely, then principle would be divisible; if phenomena did not entirely subsume it, they would not be identical to principle either. As with a single fine dust mote, so it is with every phenomenon. While directly pervading this, it does not obstruct pervading the rest; therefore, it is also not the case that there is no principle elsewhere. Entirely this and entirely that, yet they are not two principles.