大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.2

31.2

疏「初來意」等者，疏文有二：先標、後「通謂」下釋。通中二：一分來意，直盡第七會來；二「生解因中」下，唯明下三品來意。於中二意：一依古德信住合明；二「又正答十信」下，即疏意別明，唯答十信，以第二會初十問之中脫十信問，故今三品答之，不答住也。然賢首意，始教別開信位。如梁《攝論》云「如須陀洹見道前四位，謂燸、頂、忍、世第一；菩薩道前四位亦爾，謂十信、十住、十行、十迴向。」又彼論及《佛性論》皆云地前修四種行，謂十信修信樂大乘行、十解修般若行、十行修三昧行、十迴向修大悲行，如其次第即是四位故。又為除四類障正使故，即此四位，謂初除闡提不信障、二除外道我執障、三除聲聞畏苦障、四除獨覺捨大悲障。又信成淨德因種，解成我德因種，行成樂德因種，迴向成常德因種。又《仁王經》寄四輪王，謂鐵、銅、銀、金。以上教義，故知十信亦成位也。若終教，十信但是十住方便，自無別位。謂《仁王》釋三賢云十信、十止、十堅心，十信即住故。今疏不論成位不成位，皆以三品別答，信問別一會答，合有問故，已如前說。疏「二釋名」，疏文二：先得名、後「雖諸」下釋名。前中，先總釋、後「然問有二」下別釋。於中三：一約論通、二分賓主、三約法理。今初。問即是難，明即是答。今對彼難問，故答稱明。此明局在答者，而有二義：一顯理為明，此明屬自；二「明亦」已下，破闇為明，此約答他，令他明故。疏「又長行」下，第二約賓主。問唯屬問，明通問答。言「使答者亡言」者，如緣起甚深中問云：心性是一，何以種種？若云緣令種種，何以復不相知？逆遮其救，使其亡言。言「使答者易釋」者，謂問意言：既是一性，何以種種？欲言種種復不相知，故答意云：由不相知能成種種，種種無性即不相知，故不乖一性。即答者易釋也。疏「又明即法明」下，第三約法理釋，亦是約教義說。謂問即是教，釋有往復，故明即法。明是義所攝，謂十甚深為十種法明。就此法明，又約心境，法即是境、明即是心，以智慧明照二諦法，故云法明。第四釋文。疏「前中以十菩薩各主一門」下，疏文有三：初約十甚深、次示別理、後正釋文。前中二：先列十名。然此十甚深，即遷禪師所立，今古同遵；後「此十甚深」下，明次第。言「緣起深理總該諸法」者，若染若淨，染淨交徹無不攝故。《攝論》中云「菩薩初學，應先觀諸法如實因緣，以成正信及正解故。」

Regarding the Commentary's statement "First, the purpose of its occurrence," and so forth, the text of the Commentary has two parts: first it marks [the outline], and later from "Generally speaking..." onward it explains. In the general [explanation] there are two parts: first, the purpose of occurrence of the division, which extends directly through the seventh assembly; second, from "In the cause that generates understanding..." onward, it clarifies only the purpose of occurrence of the lower three chapters. Within this there are two intentions: first, relying on the ancient masters, faith and the abodes are clarified together; second, from "Moreover, it directly answers the ten faiths..." onward, this is the Commentary's specific explanation, which answers only the ten faiths. Because the question on the ten faiths was omitted from among the initial ten questions of the second assembly, these three chapters now answer it, not answering the abodes. However, in Xianshou's view, the initial teaching separately establishes the stages of faith. As the Liang *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* states: "Just as there are four stages prior to the path of seeing for a srotāpanna—namely, warmth, summits, receptivity, and the supreme worldly dharma—so too there are four stages prior to the path of the bodhisattva: namely, the ten faiths, ten abodes, ten practices, and ten pariṇāmanās." Furthermore, that treatise and the *Buddha-nature Treatise* (*Buddhagotra-śāstra*) both state that prior to the bhūmis one cultivates four kinds of practice: the ten faiths cultivate the practice of having faith in and rejoicing in the Mahāyāna, the ten understandings cultivate the practice of prajñā, the ten practices cultivate the practice of samādhi, and the ten pariṇāmanās cultivate the practice of great compassion; because in this order they are precisely the four stages. Moreover, in order to eliminate the principal entanglements of the four classes of hindrances, these four stages are established: namely, the first eliminates the icchantika's hindrance of disbelief; the second eliminates the non-Buddhists' hindrance of grasping at self; the third eliminates the śrāvaka's hindrance of fearing suffering; and the fourth eliminates the pratyekabuddha's hindrance of abandoning great compassion. Furthermore, faith forms the causal seed of the virtue of purity, understanding forms the causal seed of the virtue of self, practice forms the causal seed of the virtue of bliss, and pariṇāmanā forms the causal seed of the virtue of eternity. Moreover, the *Benevolent Kings Sūtra* (*Kāruṇikarāja-sūtra*) lodges [them] in the four wheel-turning kings: namely, iron, copper, silver, and gold. Based on the above doctrinal meanings, one knows that the ten faiths also constitute stages. If according to the final teaching, the ten faiths are merely the upāyas of the ten abodes and do not themselves have separate stages. This is because the *Benevolent Kings [Sūtra]* in explaining the three worthies speaks of ten faiths, ten cessations, and ten steadfast minds, so the ten faiths are precisely the abodes. The present Commentary, without debating whether they constitute stages or not, in all cases uses the three chapters to answer them separately; because the question on faith is answered in a separate assembly and ought to have a question, as was explained earlier. Regarding the Commentary's statement "Second, explaining the title," the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, how it gets its title; and later from "Although the various..." onward, explaining the title. In the former part, it first explains generally, and later from "However, there are two questions..." onward it explains specifically. Within this there are three points: first, considering it in terms of the treatise; second, distinguishing guest and host; third, considering it in terms of the principle of dharmas. Now for the first: Questioning is posing a difficulty; clarifying is answering. Now, in response to those difficult questions, the answer is called "clarification." This clarification is restricted to the respondent, yet it has two meanings: first, revealing the principle is clarification, which belongs to oneself; second, from "Clarification is also..." onward, shattering darkness is clarification, which is considered in terms of answering others so as to make others clear. In the Commentary, from "Moreover, in the prose..." onward is the second: distinguishing guest and host. The question belongs solely to the questioner, while clarification pertains to both question and answer. As for "causing the respondent to be speechless," it is like in the question on the profundity of dependent origination which says: "The nature of the mind is one; why is it manifold? If one says conditions make it manifold, why then do they not know each other?" This anticipatorily refutes his rebuttal, causing him to be speechless. As for "causing the respondent to explain easily," it means the intent of the question says: "Since it is of one nature, why is it manifold? If one wants to say it is manifold, they again do not know each other." Therefore, the intent of the answer says: "Because they do not know each other, they are able to form the manifold; the manifold has no self-nature, which is precisely not knowing each other, and thus does not contradict the single nature." Thus it is easy for the respondent to explain. In the Commentary, from "Moreover, 'clarification' is the clarification of dharmas..." onward is the third: explaining in terms of the principle of dharmas, which also speaks in terms of teaching and meaning. That is to say, the question is the teaching; the explanation involves exchange; therefore clarification is the dharma. Clarification is subsumed under meaning: namely, the ten profundities are the ten kinds of clarification of dharmas. With regard to this clarification of dharmas, it is further considered in terms of mind and object: dharma is the object, and clarification is the mind. Because the light of wisdom illuminates the dharmas of the two truths, it is called the clarification of dharmas. Fourth, explaining the text. In the Commentary, from "In the former, because the ten bodhisattvas each preside over one gate..." onward, the text of the Commentary has three parts: first, considering the ten profundities; next, indicating the specific principles; and finally, directly explaining the text. In the former there are two: first, listing the ten names. Now, these ten profundities were formulated by Chan Master Qian, and both past and present adhere to them. Later, from "These ten profundities..." onward, it clarifies the sequence. As for "The profound principle of dependent origination universally covers all dharmas," whether defiled or pure, defiled and pure interpenetrate so that nothing is not encompassed. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: "When a bodhisattva first trains, they should first contemplate the true causes and conditions of all dharmas, in order to accomplish correct faith and correct understanding."