大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 19.36

19.36

疏「未盡其源」下，辯順違。文雖順論，不知諸論且約一相，便將寂照敵對真俗，故是有乖。疏「以令照真不得名照，照俗之時不得即寂故」者，出其有乖所以。由以寂對真，故單照真時無照；以照對俗，故單觀俗時無寂。故統收經論中意，或以理觀對於事止，謂契理止妄是也。或事觀對於理寂，謂無念知境是也。或事觀對於事寂，謂觀於一境心不動搖是也。或理觀對於理寂，忘心照極是也。略舉其四，廣如〈賢首品〉。此由約單觀，若約雙融事理，如下疏文。若依古釋，則全無事止亦無理觀，云何更得三觀一心三止齊運？若云約真則境智無二、約俗則境智非一，斯則有理。而其結云「境則空有無二，智則寂照雙融」，明知還融前照事之觀契理之寂耳。更請細詳。

Regarding the commentary from "has not exhausted its source" onward, it analyzes accordance and discordance. Although the text accords with the treatise, not knowing that treatises provisionally rely on a single characteristic, it directly opposes quiescence and illumination against the true and the conventional, and is therefore in error. The commentary states: "Because making illumination of the true unable to be called illumination, and at the time of illuminating the conventional it cannot be immediately quiescent," which presents the reason why it is in error. Because quiescence is matched with the true, when solely illuminating the true there is no illumination; because illumination is matched with the conventional, when solely contemplating the conventional there is no quiescence. Therefore, taking together the intentions in the sūtras and treatises: sometimes contemplation of principle is matched with calming regarding phenomena, which is tallying with principle to halt delusion; sometimes contemplation of phenomena is matched with quiescence regarding principle, which is knowing the realm without thought; sometimes contemplation of phenomena is matched with calming regarding phenomena, which is contemplating a single realm while the mind does not waver; sometimes contemplation of principle is matched with quiescence regarding principle, which is forgetting the mind and illuminating the ultimate. Four are briefly cited; they are treated extensively as in the "Chapter on Xianshou." This is based on single contemplation; if based on the mutual merging of phenomena and principle, it is as in the commentary text below. If one relies on the ancient interpretation, there would be no calming regarding phenomena at all, nor contemplation of principle; how could one further achieve the three contemplations in one mind and the three calmings operating simultaneously? If one says that in terms of the true, realm and wisdom are non-dual, and in terms of the conventional, realm and wisdom are not one, this would be reasonable. But its conclusion says, "The realm is emptiness and existence being non-dual, and wisdom is quiescence and illumination mutually merged"; we clearly know it merely merges the previous contemplation illuminating phenomena with the quiescence tallying with principle. Please examine this in closer detail.