大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.15

22.15

疏「謂非唯佛智如空」等者，此有二種超勝之相。尋常界力，但以佛智能知能所不同。今云佛智平等如虛空，則眾生之界皆是如來智中之物。此為一勝。二者智能包納，猶是智類。今毛孔頓現，則細色能收，良以色性智性融無礙故。以性融相，為華嚴宗之界力也。第六至一切處道力中，先釋名體。「若出離行不出離行」者，標也。「如行有漏」下，別顯。《瑜伽》又云「如貪行者修不淨觀等，名遍趣行。又趣一切五趣之門；或諸外道沙門婆羅門，各各異見品類諸行；或此世他世無罪趣行，名遍趣行。」名下之事，即為作業。二「若知如是」下，次辯差別。先對界辯異。意云：從性起行，即屬性攝。但觀其行，即屬趣行。次「初力」下，對初力辯異，有二義，可知。然對他辯自，自亦作業。第七偈禪定力。初釋名。《瑜伽》名為淨慮解脫等持等至智力。「佛善知」下，結成智力即為作業。二「此與」下，二辯差別。此中有問云：自業有三，一罪、二福、三不動。不動業即是禪定，與此何別？亦應答言：業通定散。今唯約定，居然不同。今疏所通是《瑜伽》意。若唯知定體，即是自業。知定體用，便是禪力。第八偈宿住力中，初名兼顯作業；二「瑜伽」下，辯差別也。謂有問言：宿住智中知彼修因，則與遍趣何異？答中有三：初依《瑜伽》正答。謂唯知因是遍趣行，兼能知果即宿住攝。言「名姓苦樂等事」者，《瑜伽》知過去所有自體，有八言說句：一如是名、二生類、三種姓、四飲食、五受苦樂、六長時、七久住、八壽量邊際。今但列三，等取餘五。二「此與智論」下，引《智論》難。三「故應通云」下，疏家為答。「瑜伽為對」下，出《瑜伽》宿住無有因。意若以等字收之，於理可也。第九偈天眼力。初釋名，亦即作業；二「知前際」下，辯差別，可知。文中五眼十眼，並如〈離世間品〉。第十偈漏盡力中，初釋名，即為作業；二「文中」下，釋文。以漏盡無濫，故不辯差別。餘習有四，謂貪、瞋、癡、慢。貪習如迦留陀夷，嗔習如身子，癡習如周利槃特，慢習如畢陵伽婆蹉。曾無有教說見疑習氣，見有習氣不見理故。通說或有耳。

Regarding the Commentary's 'Meaning it is not merely that the Buddha's cognition is like empty space' and so forth: this has two kinds of transcendent characteristics. Ordinary power of knowing realms merely takes the Buddha's cognition as capable of knowing, with the active knower and the known being distinct. Now it states that the Buddha's cognition is impartial like empty space, so the realms of sentient beings are all objects within the Tathāgata's cognition. This is the first superiority. Second, that cognition can encompass and contain them still pertains to the category of cognition; now, they are simultaneously manifested in a single pore, so fine form can contain them, truly because the nature of form and the nature of cognition merge without obstruction. Merging characteristics through nature constitutes the Avataṃsaka school's power of knowing realms. In the sixth, the power of knowing the paths leading to all destinies, first the name and essence are explained. 'Whether practices of renunciation or practices not of renunciation' presents the topic. From 'such as practicing the contaminated' onward, it is explained specifically. The *Yogācārabhūmi* also states: 'Such as one prone to greed cultivating the meditation on impurity and so forth is called practice leading everywhere; also, the gates leading to all five destinies; or the various practices of different views of non-Buddhists, śramaṇas, and brāhmaṇas; or practices of blameless destiny in this world or other worlds—these are called practices leading everywhere.' The matters under this name constitute its operational function. Second, from 'If one knows such' onward, the distinction is made. First, it is distinguished against realm. The meaning is: if practice arises from nature, it belongs to the purview of nature; if one merely observes its practice, it belongs to practices leading to destinies. Next, from 'the first power' onward, it is distinguished against the first power; there are two meanings, which can be understood. However, distinguishing oneself against others also constitutes an operational function. The seventh verse concerns the power of meditative absorption. First, the name is explained. The *Yogācārabhūmi* calls it the cognitive power of meditative absorptions, liberations, samādhis, and samāpattis. From 'the Buddha well knows' onward, concluding it as cognitive power constitutes the operational function. Second, from 'this and...' onward, the distinction is made. Here, there is a question: 'Personal karma is of three kinds: first, demerit; second, merit; third, non-moving [karma]. Non-moving karma is precisely meditative absorption; how does it differ from this?' One should also reply: 'Karma is pervasive across absorption and distraction. Here it is taken solely in terms of absorption, so it is manifestly distinct.' The Commentary's resolution follows the intention of the *Yogācārabhūmi*: if one merely knows the essence of absorption, it is personal karma; if one knows both the essence and function of absorption, it is the power of meditative absorption. In the eighth verse on the power of past lives, first the name also reveals the operational function; second, from '*Yogācāra*' onward, the distinction is made. That is, someone asks: 'In the cognition of past lives, one knows their cultivated causes; how then does this differ from [the power of paths] leading everywhere?' In the reply there are three parts: first, the direct reply based on the *Yogācārabhūmi*. Knowing only causes is practice leading everywhere, whereas also knowing fruits is subsumed under past lives. Regarding 'name, clan, suffering, pleasure, and such matters,' the *Yogācārabhūmi* lists eight verbal expressions for knowing all past identities: first, such a name; second, type of birth; third, clan; fourth, food and drink; fifth, experiencing suffering and pleasure; sixth, long duration; seventh, abiding long; eighth, boundary of lifespan. Here only three are listed, with 'and such' encompassing the remaining five. Second, from 'This and the *Upadeśa*...' onward, the objection from the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* is cited. Third, from 'Therefore one should resolve it by saying...' onward, the commentator provides the answer. From 'The *Yogācāra* contrasts...' onward, it shows the intention behind the *Yogācārabhūmi*'s past lives lacking cause; if it is subsumed by the word 'and so forth,' it is logically admissible. In the ninth verse on the power of the divine eye, first the name is explained, which also constitutes the operational function; second, from 'knowing the past' onward, the distinction is made, which can be understood. The five eyes and ten eyes in the text are all as in the 'Chapter on Transcending the World.' In the tenth verse on the power of exhaustion of outflows, first the name is explained, which constitutes the operational function; second, from 'in the text' onward, the text is explained. Because exhaustion of outflows allows no confusion, no distinction is made. The remaining residual traces are four: greed, anger, delusion, and conceit. The residual trace of greed is like that of Kālodayin; the residual trace of anger is like that of Śāriputra; the residual trace of delusion is like that of Cūḍapanthaka; the residual trace of conceit is like that of Pilindavatsa. No teaching has ever spoken of residual traces of views and doubts, because if there were residual traces of views, one would not see reality. Broadly speaking, perhaps there could be.