大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 26.72

26.72

疏「所列十事」下，二對前會釋。於中亦四：一總顯不同；二「若別別相望」下互出同異；三「皆顯十」下彰互所以；四「何以起具？前有此無」下牒問釋成，聖即問也。問意云：一種起具等五，此無前有；方所等五，此有前無。從「前段總明」下，答也。答中，對上牒起具問。而下結云「餘可思準」者，即是結例餘四。但用何等世界住言，總通五難。劫住即是果，起具是因，此通易了，餘四猶難。謂清淨佛出，劫住轉變，正是果相，正辯果住，何得全無？今云無者，清淨方便亦是約因。又不通染，今則通染。又不語因，佛住約人，今此辯剎，故亦無之。劫住轉變，此二竪明。今語現住，亦非此要，故略不說。

Regarding the commentary's phrase "The ten items listed," this is the second, reconciling and explaining against what precedes. Within this there are also four: first, generally revealing the differences; second, from "If mutually compared individually" onward, bringing out similarities and differences with one another; third, from "All reveal ten" onward, making clear the reason for their alternation; fourth, from "Why is it that the instruments of arising are present before but absent here?" onward, citing the question to explain and establish it; the quotation is the question. The gist of the question says: The five such as the instruments of arising of a seed are absent here and present before; the five such as location are present here and absent before. From "The previous section generally clarifies" onward is the answer. Within the answer, it responds to the above-cited question on the instruments of arising. And the conclusion below, stating "The rest may be deduced by reflection," is drawing an analogy for the remaining four. Merely using words about how worlds abide generally resolves the five objections. The abiding of kalpas is the result, while the instruments of arising are the cause; this resolution is easy to understand, but the remaining four are still difficult. That is to say, the purity of the Buddha's appearance, and the abiding and transformation of kalpas, are precisely the characteristics of the result; since it is precisely discerning the abiding of the result, how could they be completely absent? In now saying they are absent, the upāya of purity is also in terms of cause. Furthermore, [the previous] did not apply to defilement, whereas the present applies to defilement. Furthermore, it does not speak of causes; the Buddha's abiding is in terms of persons, whereas the present text discerns kṣetras, hence these are also absent. The abiding and transformation of kalpas are both explained vertically. The present text speaks of present abiding, which is also not essential here, so it is omitted and not mentioned.