[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 22.13 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.13 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.13 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [22.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.13) 疏七釋文中，疏文有三：初總辯宗意、二「第一偈」下正釋、三「然上十力」下重以諸門料揀。二中，一一文內皆分為二：先名義、後釋文。名義中，或二或三，至文當知。今第一力中有三：一釋名。即因果相當，名之為處。若不相當，名為非處。二「其作業者」下，即作業。第二偈業力中，初釋名；二「與初何別」下，次辯差別也。初力約所造、自業約能造，此猶未了，云何能所。謂以人望業，已殺等竟。此殺等業必招於果，名為所造。此人若行於殺，必墮地獄，此名能造。即上自業，各隨善惡而感果故，即是作業。第三偈根力中，先釋名；「及能於彼」下，二明作業。其「於此正知」，向上釋智力字、向下釋能作業。下皆準之。第四勝解智中，初釋名；二「令捨」下，作業；三「此與前」下，三辯差別。此有二解：一約宿現起別，故《智論》云「以二種欲，作上下根因緣故。」《十地論》中別歎根欲，如「有根無欲，能解不樂；有欲無根，雖聞不解。」二「論云」下，二即《瑜伽》揀依根起樂即是根力。正分別欲樂，即名解力。第五界力中，先釋名體、二「性即種子」下辯差別。於中二：先正釋、後解妨。今初。先引《智論》，於義可知；後引《瑜伽》，應有問言：勝解力中亦知彼解當成此種，與此界性有何別耶？故疏答云：照解起種即是解力，但照種子即是界力。然《智度論》即明種現內外之殊，《瑜伽》即解兼種現性唯種子。 > Regarding the commentary's seventh part, explaining the text, the commentary text has three parts: first, generally discerning the central intent; second, from "The first verse..." downward, correctly explaining; third, from "However, regarding the above ten powers..." downward, re-evaluating through various gates. In the second part, within each text it is divided into two: first, name and meaning; second, explaining the text. Within name and meaning, there are either two or three, as will be known when reaching the text. Now, within the first power there are three: first, explaining the name: that causes and effects correspond is called the possible (sthāna); if they do not correspond, it is called the impossible (asthāna). Second, from "Its operation..." downward is the operation. In the second verse on the power of karma: first, explaining the name; second, from "How does it differ from the first?" downward, next discerning the difference. The first power is in terms of what is done, while one's own karma is in terms of the doer; this is still not understood as to what doer and done mean. That is, viewing karma in relation to the person, having already killed, etc., this karma of killing and the like will inevitably incur a retribution, which is called 'what is done.' If this person commits killing, he will inevitably fall into hell; this is called 'the doer.' This is the above 'one's own karma,' because each incurs retribution according to good or evil, which is its operation. In the third verse on the power of faculties: first, explaining the name; from "and being able to..." downward, second, clarifying the operation. Its "correctly knowing regarding this" explains the words 'cognition power' upwards, and explains 'able to operate' downwards. The following are all modeled on this. In the fourth, the cognition of resolute faith: first, explaining the name; second, from "causing them to relinquish..." downward, the operation; third, from "This and the previous..." downward, third, discerning the difference. Here there are two explanations: first, in terms of the difference between past and present arising, hence the Upadeśa states: 'Because the two kinds of desire serve as the causes and conditions for superior and inferior faculties.' The Daśabhūmika-śāstra separately praises faculties and desires, as in 'having faculties without desire, one can understand but does not delight; having desire without faculties, although hearing, one does not understand.' Second, from "The treatise states..." downward, the second is the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\] distinguishing that delight arising relying on faculties is the power of faculties; correctly discriminating desire and delight is called the power of resolute faith. In the fifth, the power of realms: first, explaining the name and essence; second, from "nature is seed..." downward, discerning the difference. Herein there are two: first, correctly explaining; second, resolving an objection. First: first citing the Upadeśa, whose meaning can be known; next citing the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\], where someone might ask: in the power of resolute faith, one also knows that their resolute faith will form this seed; what difference is there between that and the nature of realms here? Therefore the commentary answers: illuminating resolute faith as giving rise to seeds is the power of resolute faith; merely illuminating seeds is the power of realms. However, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa clarifies the distinction between seed and present manifestation, internal and external, while the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\] holds that resolute faith encompasses both seed and present manifestation, whereas nature is solely seed. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 22.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.12) - [Next: 22.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.14) - [Up: 22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.22.13) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.13) · Pramāṇa