大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.66

37.66

疏「以彼經中」下，第二敘昔順違。於中三：初出昔解之源、二正申昔解、三辨有違。今初。然具論經云諸佛皆同一號加汝威神，此是盧舍那佛本願力故加。二「古人」下，正申昔解。昔人見上諸佛威神加而得定，下云此是盧舍那佛本願力故加，加因分明，故分二因；亦例此經，後二皆加因耳。而言「轉為加因」者，不連上因是得定因，故云轉為。亦展轉義，得定由諸佛加，佛加由主佛本願力，故云展轉。三「便令」下，辨有違。違相云何？正由得定無三因故。無之何過？違文理故。何名違文？舉其二文：一違「又」字。夫言又者，復重之義，下之所列同是定因，則得言又，又是此因故。既上是定因，下是加因，何用「又」字？二違結文。既列三因竟，云入此三昧令汝說法，明知此三者皆定因也。然此經文「令汝」二字在三昧下，今疏乃安三昧上者，有二義故：一以義迴。既云善根力故入此三昧，則知令汝義合在上。二者以行向二品為例，十行亦先列四因竟，即云令汝入是三昧而演說法。十向亦是列四緣，後即云令汝入是三昧而演說法。以此故知，理必後三通定因也。從「非唯違經文理」下，結破。言違文者，已如上說。言違理者，自無善根，主佛不加，何能入定？「亦乖論釋」者，論釋同號佛加，云何故同號金剛藏加？如來願力故。何故如來作如是願？顯示多佛故，又此三昧是法體故。汝今既以願屬遮那，彼顯願因云此三昧是法體，明知為三昧故發願而加，則顯願為三昧因矣。下疏正釋，更出其相。

Regarding the Commentary's statement "Because in that sūtra..." onwards: the second part recounts past views regarding accordance and contradiction. Therein are three: first, bringing forth the source of the past interpretation; second, properly setting forth the past interpretation; third, discerning that there is a contradiction. Now for the first: the treatise sūtra states in full that the Buddhas all have the same name and empower you with spiritual power; this is empowerment through the fundamental vow-power of Rocana Buddha. Second, from "Ancient scholars..." onwards, it properly sets forth the past interpretation. Past scholars saw that above, through the spiritual empowerment of the Buddhas, one attained samādhi, and below it says this was empowerment through the fundamental vow-power of Rocana Buddha; the causes of empowerment being clear, they divided them into two causes; they also analogized to this sūtra, holding that the latter two are both causes of empowerment. As for saying "turn to become causes of empowerment": not being connected to the above cause as the cause of attaining samādhi, it says "turn to become." It also has the sense of sequential transmission: attaining samādhi is due to the empowerment of the Buddhas, and the Buddhas' empowerment is due to the fundamental vow-power of the host Buddha; hence it says "sequential transmission." Third, from "It then causes..." onwards, it discerns that there is a contradiction. What is the characteristic of this contradiction? Precisely that attaining samādhi would lack three causes. What fault is there in lacking them? It contradicts both the text and principle. What is meant by contradicting the text? Two passages are cited: First, it contradicts the word "further" (yòu). The word "further" has the meaning of repetition; if what is listed below are equally causes of samādhi, then one may say "further," because it is further this cause. Since the former is a cause of samādhi and the latter is a cause of empowerment, what use is the word "further"? Second, it contradicts the concluding text. Having finished listing the three causes, it says: "Entering this samādhi causes you to preach the Dharma"; this clearly shows that these three are all causes of samādhi. However, in this sūtra text, the two characters "causes you" (lìng rǔ) are below "samādhi", whereas the present Commentary places them above "samādhi" because of two meanings: First, transposed according to meaning: since it says "through the power of roots of goodness entering this samādhi," one knows that the meaning of "causes you" properly belongs above. Second, taking the two chapters on Practice and Pariṇāmanā as an analogy: the Ten Practices also first finishes listing the four causes and then immediately says "causes you to enter this samādhi and expound the Dharma." The Ten Pariṇāmanās also lists the four conditions and afterwards immediately says "causes you to enter this samādhi and expound the Dharma." From this we know that in principle the latter three must generally be causes of samādhi. From "Not only does it contradict the text and principle of the sūtra..." onwards, it concludes the refutation. Contradicting the text has already been stated above. As for contradicting principle: if one lacked roots of goodness oneself and the host Buddha did not empower, how could one enter samādhi? Regarding "It also runs counter to the treatise's explanation": the treatise explains the empowerment by the Buddhas of the same name, asking, "Why do the Buddhas of the same name, Vajragarbha, grant empowerment? Because of the Tathāgata's vow-power. Why did the Tathāgata make such a vow? To reveal the manifold Buddhas; furthermore, because this samādhi is the essence of the Dharma." Now, since you ascribe the vow to Vairocana, and that text reveals the cause of the vow by saying "this samādhi is the essence of the Dharma," it clearly shows that it is for the sake of samādhi that vows are made and empowerment granted; this then shows that the vow is the cause of samādhi. Below, the Commentary properly explains and further brings forth its characteristics.