大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.60

37.60

疏「略辨六意」者，前三取下論勢，然其三意大同小異。異相云何？一是所證法體，欲說此法要，須心冥此體。「二非證不說」者，揀異未證之人，亦許心合法故。「三非思量境」者，絕思方說，亦通未證故。言大同者，絕思則證，證則契體。四觀機則識病所宜，審法則知藥功力。不觀人根不應說法，不審而說理事或乖。應病與藥，令得服行矣。五散心，不堪諸佛加故。六菩薩常定，但為物軌。菩薩將說尚須入定，況凡夫耶。

Regarding the Commentary's statement "Briefly distinguishing six meanings": the first three adopt the momentum of the treatise below; however, these three meanings are largely the same with minor differences. What are the differing characteristics? The first is the essence of the dharma to be realized: wishing to preach the essentials of this dharma, one must inwardly merge with this essence. Regarding "Second, without realization one does not preach": this excludes those who have not realized it, and also allows that the mind conforms to the Dharma. Regarding "Third, it is not an object of discursive thought": only upon cutting off thought does one preach, which also applies to those who have not yet realized it. Regarding their being largely the same: cutting off thought entails realization, and realization accords with the essence. Fourth, observing the faculties entails knowing what is suitable for the illness, and examining the Dharma entails knowing the efficacy of the medicine. If one does not observe people's capacities, one should not preach the Dharma; preaching without examination may cause principle and phenomena to conflict. One prescribes medicine according to the illness so that they may take it and practice. Fifth, a distracted mind cannot endure the empowerment of the Buddhas. Sixth, bodhisattvas are constantly in samādhi, [entering it] merely to serve as a model for beings. If even a bodhisattva about to preach must still enter samādhi, how much more so an ordinary person?