大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.26

31.26

疏「然此流注」下，第二別示不相知相。謂欲顯不相知理，故寄前後流異成其十門。若不說前後之流，將何不相知耶？一河之水不出前後，則千里九曲皆悉無性，不相知矣。然雖十義，本唯二流，成兩重能所。前流望引為能、望排為所，後流望排為能、望引為所。以斯四義相參成十。初及第三以為所故無性無知。二四兩門約不相到。五六二門約無二體，以後流是能排即所引故，前流是所排即能引故。七八約緣成故無二，謂七中能排是後、所排是前。言「亦無二」者，要有所排方有能排，此二相成故亦無二。八約能引亦然。九十約不俱故無知者，然其能排是後、能引是前，而言不得俱者，後為能排，前須為所排，不得即此名為能引。義門別故，名為不俱。第十句例此，前流為所排時，後流須為能排，不得為所引，故云不俱。

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "However, in this continuous flow": this is second, separately revealing the characteristics of not knowing one another. That is to say, desiring to reveal the principle of not knowing one another, it relies on the difference between the preceding and succeeding streams to establish its ten approaches. If one does not speak of the preceding and succeeding streams, by what means would they not know one another? The water of a single river does not go beyond before and after, and thus across a thousand li and nine bends, it is wholly devoid of nature and does not know one another. However, although there are ten meanings, fundamentally there are only two flows, forming two layers of active and passive. The preceding stream, viewed with respect to drawing forward, is active; viewed with respect to pushing, it is passive. The succeeding stream, viewed with respect to pushing, is active; viewed with respect to drawing forward, it is passive. Integrating these four meanings produces the ten. The first and the third take being the passive as the reason for being devoid of nature and devoid of knowing. The two approaches, the second and fourth, are based on not reaching each other. The two approaches, the fifth and sixth, are based on the absence of two distinct essences, because the succeeding stream being the active pusher is precisely the passive drawn, and the preceding stream being the passive pushed is precisely the active drawer. The seventh and eighth are based on being conditioned-formed, hence not being two: that is, in the seventh, the active pusher is the succeeding, and the passive pushed is the preceding. As for the statement 'there are also no two', there must be the passive pushed for there to be the active pusher; these two mutually establish each other, hence there are also no two. The eighth, based on the active drawer, is likewise. As for the ninth and tenth being based on not being simultaneous and therefore having no knowledge: now, the active pusher is the succeeding, and the active drawer is the preceding; and regarding the statement that they cannot be simultaneous, when the succeeding is the active pusher, the preceding must be the passive pushed, and cannot at that very moment be called the active drawer. Because the semantic approaches differ, they are called 'not simultaneous'. The tenth line is patterned after this: when the preceding stream is the passive pushed, the succeeding stream must be the active pusher, and cannot be the passive drawn, hence it is said to be 'not simultaneous'.