大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 25.6

25.6

疏「二即所知塵境」者，此有二義：一塵即微細之塵，知其相虛，又能容納故，及為物因，如八地中知微塵差別智。二即六塵境故，亦名微塵境故。安國云：「謂色等五塵界，是現量境，五識親證都無塵相。如來藏中頓現身器，而無塵相。六七妄想，謂有我法想所現相，是分別變。分別變相，但可為境而無實用，如日發焰帶微塵而共紅，非實紅也。如水澄清含輕雲而俱綠，非實綠也。如觀本質，知畫像而非真。若了藏性，悟塵境而為妄。故經云『非不證真如，而能了諸行，皆如幻事等，似有而非真。』故法界微塵以為三昧。」釋曰：此義易了，亦非經宗，故疏含有；而釋之似巧，故抄引之。

Regarding the Commentary's phrase "second, it is the dust-objects of cognition": this has two meanings. First, "dust" is subtle dust particles; because one knows their characteristics are empty, and furthermore can contain [universes], and they serve as causes for things, as in the wisdom knowing the distinctions of minute dust particles in the eighth stage. Second, it is the objects of the six sense-dusts, which are also called realms of minute dust. Master Anguo says: "The realms of the five dusts such as visible forms are objects of direct perception; the five consciousnesses intimately realize them without any mark of dust. Within the tathāgatagarbha, bodies and vessels appear suddenly, yet without marks of dust. The false imaginings of the sixth and seventh [consciousnesses], which consider there to be notions of self and phenomena, are manifested characteristics that are transformed by conceptual discrimination. Characteristics transformed by conceptual discrimination can only serve as cognitive objects and lack real function, just as when the sun emits blazing light bearing minute dust so that both appear red, it is not truly red; just as when water is clear and pure, holding light clouds so that both appear green, it is not truly green. Just as when looking at the original model, one knows the painted portrait is not real; if one understands the nature of the storehouse, one awakens to the dust realms as false. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Not without realizing tathatā / can one comprehend all formations / to be like illusory matters and so on, / seeming to exist yet not real.' Therefore the minute dust particles of the dharmadhātu are taken as samādhi." Exposition: This meaning is easily understood, and is not the central tenet of the sūtra; however, the Commentary encompasses it, and because the explanation seems clever, the subcommentary cites it.