大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 19.44

19.44

疏「若理不可通」下，別示方軌。如下萬字非字虛空無形，引梵以正，斯引得矣。「譯人意近則會之以晉經」者，如今經云「以是發心當得佛故」，引晉經云「以是發心即是佛故」。譯人意謂即佛，恐濫果佛，故云當得。若爾，上云初發心時便成正覺，何異即佛？況下復云「即得如來一身無量身」等，豈唯「當成」為是？是知即佛，約圓融門；當成，但是行布之意。今以行布釋於圓融，故言意近，須引晉經以成正理。又如〈出現品〉菩提章云「於一切義無所觀察」，但得寂義。故引晉經「解一切義」，則止觀具矣。如是等文其類多矣，許可引斥；今此文中廣引梵本，言異意同，故成繁長。

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'If the principle cannot be made coherent' onward, it separately demonstrates the standard method. As in the case below where the character wan [卍] is not a character and empty space is formless, citing the Sanskrit to correct it is an instance where citing is justified. Regarding 'If the translator's intention was narrow, harmonize it with the Jin sūtra': as in the present sūtra which says 'Because by this aspiration one will attain Buddhahood', one cites the Jin sūtra saying 'Because by this aspiration one is identical with the Buddha'. The translator's mind thought that 'identical with the Buddha' might be confused with the resultant Buddha, hence he said 'will attain'. If so, when it was said above that upon first giving rise to the mind one immediately attains correct awakening, how is that different from being identical with the Buddha? Moreover, when it further says below 'one immediately attains the Tathāgata's single body and immeasurable bodies' and so forth, how could only 'will attain' be correct? From this we know that 'identical with the Buddha' is spoken in terms of the approach of perfect fusion, whereas 'will attain' is merely the intent of gradual progression. Now, explaining perfect fusion by means of gradual progression is why it is called a narrow intention, and one must cite the Jin sūtra to establish the correct principle. Furthermore, as in the 'Manifestation Chapter' in the section on bodhi, it says 'having no observation regarding all meanings', which only captures the meaning of quiescence. Therefore, citing the Jin sūtra's 'understanding all meanings', cessation and contemplation are both complete. Passages such as these are very numerous, and in such cases citing to criticize is permissible; in the present text, however, extensively citing the Sanskrit text involves different phrasing but the same meaning, hence it becomes tedious and protracted.