大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 27.6

27.6

疏「此彼相入亦頌趣入」者，故上疏中釋趣入義，以為此解。於中有二：先略屬偈文、後「皆入而無入」下通釋。二偈入無入言，唯前偈中有義通後偈，故致「皆」言。總有三意：初一反釋，通緣起相由及法性融通二門。約緣起門者，凡緣起法要有三義：一諸緣各異義、二互遍相資義、三俱存無礙義。今云「入則壞緣起」者，反釋不入。入則失緣，則無諸緣各異之義。言「不入則壞性用」者，反釋入義。則不得不入，不入則不得力用交徹，故無互遍相資之義，則壞用也。若具入不入，則俱存無礙，成緣起門。言法性融通門者，即性之一字。凡法性融通，要不壞相而即真性，入則壞緣起者無可相入，不入則壞性者則性不遍一切法，故由不壞相而能普遍方是法性融通義也。二「又要由不入方能入耳」者，即順釋也。亦通二門，唯就相說。若約緣起門，要由諸緣歷然不入，方能相資遍相入耳。若約法性融通門者，要由事相歷然，方隨理融入一切法，故說若唯約理無可即入。三「又約體空」下，亦順明，而雙約性相。上第一義，相即不入、性即能入。今此一義，獨相獨性俱不能入，要二相融方能入，故言若約體空則無來無入者，是若唯約性無可即入義。言「約相不壞如本無差」者，即若唯約事不能即入。上二皆是不入之義。言「以性融相故得互入」者，即釋入義，是顯正義。謂不異理之一事全攝法性時，令彼不異理之多事隨所依理，皆於一中同時現等。一事攝理既爾，多事攝理亦然。則一事隨所依理，皆於多中同時頓現，故得互入，是為法性融通門。如義分齊。

Regarding the commentary's: “This and that mutually entering also verses ‘approaching and entering’”: thus in the commentary above, in explaining the meaning of “approaching and entering,” it took this interpretation. In this, there are two parts: first, briefly linking it to the verse text; afterwards, from “all entering yet without entering” onwards, generally explaining it. The words “entering and without entering” in the two verses are only found in the former verse, but their meaning extends to the latter verse, which is why the word “all” is used. In total, there are three meanings. The first is a contrary explanation, covering both the approach of the mutual conditionality of conditioned arising and the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā. Regarding the approach of conditioned arising: all dharmas of conditioned arising fundamentally have three meanings: first, the meaning that the various conditions are each distinct; second, the meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual assistance; third, the meaning of simultaneous coexistence without obstruction. Now, when it says, “If they enter, it destroys conditioned arising,” this is a contrary explanation of “not entering.” If they entered, they would lose conditions, and there would be no meaning of the various conditions each being distinct. The statement “if they do not enter, it destroys the function of the nature” is a contrary explanation of the meaning of “entering.” Then they cannot but enter; if they did not enter, there would be no thorough penetration of power and function, so there would be no meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual assistance, and this would destroy function. If it possesses both entering and not entering, then they simultaneously coexist without obstruction, establishing the approach of conditioned arising. As for the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā: this refers to the single word “nature.” Whenever the dharmatā interpenetrates, it fundamentally must not destroy characteristics while being identical to the true nature. If entering destroys conditioned arising, there would be nothing to mutually enter; if not entering destroys the nature, then the nature would not pervade all dharmas. Therefore, by not destroying characteristics and yet being able to pervade universally, this is truly the meaning of the interpenetration of the dharmatā. Second: “Furthermore, it must be by not entering that they are able to enter”: this is the direct explanation. It also covers both approaches, but is explained solely in terms of characteristics. If regarding the approach of conditioned arising, it must be that the various conditions are distinct and do not enter, that they are then able to mutually assist and pervade to mutually enter. If regarding the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā, it must be that phenomena are distinct, that they then follow principle to blend into all dharmas; hence it is said that if one considers only principle, there is nothing that could be identical or enter. Third: from “Furthermore, regarding the emptiness of the essence,” onwards: this is also a direct explanation, yet treats nature and characteristics jointly. In the first meaning above, characteristics meant not entering, and nature meant being able to enter. Now, in this meaning, characteristics alone or nature alone are both unable to enter; only when the two blend together are they able to enter. Therefore, saying that “if regarding the emptiness of the essence, there is no coming and no entering” is the meaning that if one considers only nature, there is nothing that could be identical or enter. The statement “regarding characteristics not being destroyed, they are undifferentiated as in the original” means that if one considers only phenomena, they cannot be identical or enter. Both of the above are the meaning of “not entering.” The statement “blending characteristics through nature, they thereby achieve mutual entering” explains the meaning of “entering” and reveals the correct meaning. That is to say, when a single phenomenon, which is not different from principle, fully subsumes the dharmatā, it causes those many phenomena, which are not different from principle, in accordance with the principle upon which they rely, to all simultaneously appear within the one, and so on. If a single phenomenon subsuming principle is like this, many phenomena subsuming principle are likewise so. Then a single phenomenon, in accordance with the principle upon which it relies, simultaneously and suddenly appears within the many; therefore, they achieve mutual entering. This is the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā, as in the differentiation of meanings.