大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 13.16

13.16

疏「二佛在眾生」等者，眾生即因，因稱法界，法界攝法無遺，故眾生亦攝無遺矣。次「故出現」下，引證。後「此明佛證」下，解釋。謂如來何以不離生心？釋云：眾生心中真如是佛所證故。若爾，但是平等之理，何足為玄？故復次云：本覺無異故。謂佛本覺與眾生本覺無有二體，同一覺故。本覺即法身故，法身同故。「以始」下，若爾法身體同，眾生未證，佛證法身，復何相預？故次云：以始同本，總在眾生心中。謂《起信》既言始覺同本覺，無復始本之異。生佛本覺既同，今佛始覺同本時，全同眾生本覺，是故全在眾生心中矣。復有問云：約體雖同，相用自別，豈得全同？故次云：從體起用，用不異體。體既眾生之體，用豈離於眾生？故依體起用，即是眾生心中真如用大，更無別佛。若爾，《起信論》中已有此義，何以獨名《華嚴》為別教耶？故次釋云：《起信》雖明始本不二、三大攸同，而是自心各各修證，不言生佛二互全收。是則用《起信》之文，成《華嚴》之義，妙之至也。疏文可思。

Regarding the commentary's "Second, the Buddha is within sentient beings" and so forth: sentient beings are the cause; the cause accords with the dharmadhātu, and the dharmadhātu subsumes dharmas without remainder; therefore sentient beings also subsume [dharmas] without remainder. Next, under "Hence the 'Manifestation' [chapter]", it cites proof. After that, under "This clarifies the Buddha's realization", it explains: why is the Tathāgata not separate from the minds of sentient beings? The explanation says: the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings is what the Buddha has realized. If so, this is merely the principle of equality—how is it sufficient to be profound? Therefore it next says: because original enlightenment is not different. This means that the Buddha's original enlightenment and sentient beings' original enlightenment do not have two essences, for they share the same awakening. Original enlightenment is precisely the dharmakāya; hence the dharmakāya is identical. Under "Through initial [enlightenment]", [one might ask]: if the dharmakāya is identical in essence, but sentient beings have not yet realized it while the Buddha has realized the dharmakāya, how do they concern each other? Therefore it next says: through initial enlightenment being identical to the original, it is entirely within the minds of sentient beings. This means that since the *Awakening of Faith* says that initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment, there is no longer any difference between initial and original. Since the original enlightenment of sentient beings and the Buddha is already identical, now when the Buddha's initial enlightenment is identical to the original, it is completely identical to sentient beings' original enlightenment; therefore, it is entirely within the minds of sentient beings. Again, someone asks: although they are identical in terms of essence, their characteristics and functions are naturally distinct—how could they be entirely identical? Therefore it next says: function arises from essence, and function is not different from essence. Since the essence is the essence of sentient beings, how could the function be separate from sentient beings? Therefore, arising function based on essence is precisely the greatness of function of tathatā within the minds of sentient beings, with no other Buddha. If so, this meaning is already present in the *Awakening of Faith*; why is the *Avataṃsaka* alone designated as the distinct teaching? Therefore it next explains: although the *Awakening of Faith* clarifies the non-duality of initial and original and the identity of the three greatnesses, these are the individual practice and realization of one's own mind, and it does not say that sentient beings and the Buddha completely subsume each other. Thus, using the text of the *Awakening of Faith* to establish the meaning of the *Avataṃsaka* is supremely wonderful. The commentary's text should be contemplated.