大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 36.43

36.43

疏「然此中相望有四對法」下，二別會通。於中又二：先通明義類、後「一多相望應成四句」下別釋前法類中一多之義。於中三：初正說四句、次類釋餘會、後例釋餘義。今初。「經中欲顯一多相即故」等者，顯經中不盡之由。若云不離一樹而升一天，難思之相不顯；若言不起一樹而升一切忉利天者，則不能顯本會圓遍；若言不離一切樹而升一切天，則無一多無礙之相。故唯出初句。下法慧例云十方悉亦然，方有升一切句即俱多句。疏「升釋天既爾」下，二類釋餘會。

Regarding the commentary's passage, "However, considered in relation to each other, here there are four pairs of phenomena..." onward: this is the second, a specific integration. Within this, there are again two: first, generally clarifying the categories of meaning; afterward, from "Considered in relation to each other, the one and the many should form four propositions..." onward, specifically explaining the meaning of the one and the many in the previous categories of phenomena. Within this, there are three: first, correctly stating the four propositions; next, explaining the remaining assemblies by analogy; finally, explaining the remaining meanings by analogy. Now for the first. "In the sūtra, it wishes to reveal the mutual identity of the one and the many, therefore..." and so forth: this reveals the reason why the sūtra was not exhaustive. If it said 'without leaving the one tree, he ascended to the one heaven', the inconceivable characteristic would not be manifested. If it said 'not rising from the one tree, he ascended to all Trāyastriṃśa Heavens', it could not reveal the complete pervasiveness of the original assembly. If it said 'without leaving all trees, he ascended to all heavens', there would be no characteristic of the unobstructedness of the one and the many. Therefore, it only brings out the first proposition. Below, Fahui's analogous statement that 'in the ten directions it was also like this' provides the proposition of 'ascending to all', which is the proposition of 'both being many'. Regarding the commentary's passage, "Ascending to the heaven of Śakra being so..." onward: this is the second, explaining the remaining assemblies by analogy.