大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 36.18

36.18

疏「第三對理事無礙」等者，即約經文從定起，對於後半以作義。疏文有三：初正明、次「以所觀」下出所以、三「亦應」下反例。初中，疏文但作初偈，不作後偈。若具應云：欲了真理，應從理觀起，而反從事觀起。謂前偈示現色性是事，則色塵中三昧起，義當理觀也。後偈說眼無生無有起是理性，則前眼根起定心不亂義當事觀。出所以，可知。疏「亦應將境事理對根理事以辨無礙」者，三反例。此意稍隱，先應問言：上辨二定但云亦合將根事對於境理，今何雙言將境事理對根理事？故應答言：以上二定不能自別，要因起觀方知事理。如眼入定未知何定，以見塵上了色差別是其事觀，欲令無礙故。說根中入定是其理定，境入根起既了根性空，故說境中入於事定。則經文中已辨根理對於境事，故但合例以將根事定對於境理。今此二觀不因定別，根上境上各有二觀，謂根入定即於境上從理觀起而分別事，於色入定即於根上從事觀起分別於理。經文已有此二，未於境上從事觀起分別於理，及與根上從理觀起分別於事。若作偈者，應云：於眼根中入正定，於色塵中事觀起，說色無生無有起，性空寂滅無所作。及於色塵中入正定，於眼根中理觀起，分別一切上妙眼，諸天世人莫能知。斯則境上事起觀理，以對根上理起觀事，故云「亦應以境事理對根理事以辨無礙」也。

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The third pair: non-obstruction of principle and phenomena,' and so forth: this constructs the meaning by taking the sūtra text's 'arising from samādhi' in correlation with the latter half [of the verses]. The text of the Commentary has three parts: first, directly explaining; next, from 'because the contemplated' onward, presenting the reason; and third, from 'one should also' onward, making an inverse parallel. In the first part, the Commentary's text only deals with the first verse and does not deal with the second verse. If stated completely, it should say: Wishing to understand the true principle, one ought to arise from the contemplation of principle, yet conversely arises from the contemplation of phenomena. This means that in the preceding verse, manifesting the nature of visible form is phenomenal, and thus the arising of samādhi within the visible form dust functionally corresponds to the contemplation of principle. In the second verse, saying that the eye is unproduced and has no arising is the nature of principle, and thus the preceding [phrase] 'arising from samādhi in the eye organ with a mind undistracted' functionally corresponds to the contemplation of phenomena. The explanation of the reason is clear. The Commentary states, 'One should also correlate the phenomenal and noumenal sense objects with the noumenal and phenomenal sense organs to distinguish non-obstruction': this is the third part, making an inverse parallel. This intent is somewhat concealed, so one should first ask: 'Above, in distinguishing the two samādhis, it merely said that one should also correlate the phenomenal sense organ with the noumenal sense object; why does it now speak of both, correlating the phenomenal and noumenal sense objects with the noumenal and phenomenal sense organs?' Hence one should reply: 'Because the above two samādhis cannot distinguish themselves; one must rely on the arising of contemplation to know phenomena and principle. For example, when entering samādhi in the eye, one does not yet know what kind of samādhi it is; because upon seeing the sense object one understands the distinctions of visible form, this is the contemplation of phenomena. In order to make it unobstructive, it says that entering samādhi within the sense organ is a samādhi of principle. In entering in the sense object and arising in the sense organ, since one understands that the nature of the sense organ is empty, it says that one enters into phenomenal samādhi within the sense object. Thus the sūtra text has already distinguished the noumenal sense organ in correlation with the phenomenal sense object; therefore it was only proper to draw a parallel by correlating the phenomenal samādhi of the sense organ with the noumenal sense object. Now these two contemplations do not depend on samādhi to be distinguished; on both the sense organ and the sense object there are two contemplations each. That is, entering samādhi in the sense organ, one arises from the contemplation of principle in the sense object to differentiate phenomena; entering samādhi in visible form, one arises from the contemplation of phenomena in the sense organ to differentiate principle. The sūtra text already contains these two, but it has not yet [included] arising from the contemplation of phenomena in the sense object to differentiate principle, nor arising from the contemplation of principle in the sense organ to differentiate phenomena.' If one were to compose verses, they should say: 'Entering right samādhi within the eye organ, / The contemplation of phenomena arises within the visible form dust; / Declaring that visible form is unproduced and has no arising, / Its nature is empty, quiescent, and without activity. / And: entering right samādhi within the visible form dust, / The contemplation of principle arises within the eye organ; / Differentiating all supreme, wondrous eyes, / Such that gods and worldly people cannot know them.' This, then, is arising in phenomena on the sense object to contemplate principle, in correlation with arising in principle on the sense organ to contemplate phenomena; hence it says, 'One should also correlate the phenomenal and noumenal sense objects with the noumenal and phenomenal sense organs to distinguish non-obstruction.'