[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) › 24.70 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 24.70 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 24.70 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [24.70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.24.70) 疏「於上諸處」下，總結能遍。上之四重但所遍故。於中三：初正結遍身、二「此處入定」下類通、三「故約主定」下後解妨難。謂有難云：別明入定，佛前唯一普賢。今此結通，何以一一佛前各有多耶？疏中含有二義：一正約主伴、二遍明即入。初主伴中，謂為主須一，為伴必多。難云：此中普賢應不為伴。故應答云：若為伴時，亦得有多。二者即由上義故，此一者是即多之一，故疏云「一切一故」。彼類通中多是全一之多，故疏云「一一切故」。前是舉一結多，此是即一即多。前是通辯緣起相由，今明力用交徹，一有一切等故。普賢身不可思議，略有三類：一隨類身，隨人天等見不同故；二漸勝身，乘六牙象等相莊嚴故；三窮盡法界身，帝網重重無有盡故。今當第三，含有前二。 > Regarding the Commentary's phrase "above in those places" and so on, it summarizes in general that which is capable of pervading, because the four tiers above are merely that which is pervaded. Within this there are three parts: first, directly concluding with the pervasion of the body; second, from "entering samādhi at this place" onward, generalizing and applying the principle; third, from "therefore, regarding the samādhi of the host" onward, resolving objections. That is, an objection asks: When specifically explaining the entry into samādhi, there was only a single Samantabhadra before the Buddha; now in this concluding generalization, why are there many before each and every buddha? The Commentary contains two points: first, directly regarding host and retinue; second, pervasively explaining identity and interpenetration. First, in "host and retinue": for the host there must be one, whereas for the retinue there must be many. The objection says: Here, Samantabhadra should not be the retinue. Therefore one should reply: When serving as retinue, there may also be many. Second, precisely due to the meaning above, this "one" is the one that is identical to the many, hence the Commentary says "because all are one." In that generalization, the "many" are the many that completely constitute the one, hence the Commentary says "because one is all." The former adduced the one to conclude with the many; this is identity of one and many. The former generally explained the mutual conditioning of dependent origination; this clarifies the interpenetration of power and function, because where there is one, there are all, and so forth. Samantabhadra's bodies are inconceivable, and comprise briefly three kinds: first, bodies according with classes \[of beings\], because human and heavenly beings and so forth see them differently; second, gradually superior bodies, because they are adorned with marks such as riding a six-tusked elephant; third, bodies exhausting the dharmadhātu, because \[they are like\] Indra's net, layer upon layer without end. Now it is the third, which encompasses the preceding two. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 24.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.24.69) - [Next: 24.71](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.24.71) - [Up: 24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.24) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.24.70) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.24.70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.24.70) · Pramāṇa