大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 52.28

52.28

疏「第四釋文」下，然下用論小異於古，謂論先具牒經文，後以論釋。遠公先委釋經，後復釋論。後人多取遠公釋論之文，不觀前文釋經之處，故多闕略。今皆對會，二處釋文，為一異也。二昔人或釋經竟後牒論釋，或復牒論而後釋論。今則經中易者則直用論為疏釋之，或令義顯加一兩字。若經文難，則先釋經，後引論釋。若論難者，先牒論文，後方疏釋。或先取論意以解經文，後引論證，為二異也。三晉經論經及今唐本三經，不同賢首釋晉。遠公釋論，後人但取以釋今經。若不善會，時有差失。今同則不明，異則通會，為三異也。四古德隨難釋論，而不具用意，令經論相對而講，故無論本釋經不盡。後人則多牒論，又不委釋論，語既難對，於論本講之尤難。今則歎易皆牒，難者則釋。設有不引，彼論易了。故有論無論，講皆無滯，為四異也。已知文意，次正釋文。疏文分二：先總科判、後隨文釋。前中，若準遠公就經分判，有其二義：一寄人顯德、二就法分別。初中復二：一約化主、二約助化，此二各具體相用三。化主三者，佛成正覺顯證法體，次七日思惟以彰德相。下論云「思惟因緣，顯不共法故。」後金剛藏入三昧下，彰其德用。二就金剛藏助化三者，初入三昧顯證法體，諸佛同加顯德勝相故。下諸佛相與讚歎，乃能入是大乘三昧。起分已下，是其德用。釋曰：此上各三，深有所以。以非釋法，故略不明。今疏科文即是就法分別耳。疏文分二：先傍論依經科、後「為四十八」下依論約義科。前中又二：先正科判、後明次第。前中復二：先前後襵疊科。從後襵之則有三重，若從前數應為四段：一此界說地、二結通十方、三菩薩證成、四偈頌總攝。

On the Commentary's passage starting from "Fourth, explaining the text": However, the following application of the Treatise differs slightly from the ancient [masters]. That is to say, the Treatise first fully quotes the sūtra text and then explains it with the Treatise. Venerable [Hui]yuan first meticulously explained the sūtra, and then further explained the Treatise. Later people mostly adopted Venerable Yuan's text explaining the Treatise without looking at the preceding passages explaining the sūtra, hence there were many omissions. Now both are brought together and compared; the explanation of the text in both places is the first difference. Second, the ancients either, after finishing the explanation of the sūtra, quoted the Treatise to explain it, or quoted the Treatise and then explained the Treatise. Now, what is easy in the sūtra is explained directly using the Treatise as the commentary, or adding one or two words to make the meaning evident. If the sūtra text is difficult, the sūtra is explained first, and the Treatise is cited afterward to explain it. If the Treatise is difficult, the Treatise text is quoted first, and then commented on and explained. Or, the intent of the Treatise is taken first to interpret the sūtra text, and then the Treatise is cited as proof. This is the second difference. Third, the Jin sūtra, the Treatise sūtra, and the current Tang version—these three sūtras—differ; Xianshou commented on the Jin [version], and Venerable Yuan commented on the Treatise, yet later people merely took them to explain the current sūtra. Without skillful collation, there would occasionally be errors. Now, where they are identical, no explanation is given; where they differ, they are reconciled and synthesised. This is the third difference. Fourth, the ancient masters explained the Treatise according to the difficulties without fully having an intentional plan, so as to lecture on the sūtra and Treatise in mutual confrontation; thus without the text of the Treatise, their explanation of the sūtra was incomplete. Later people, on the other hand, frequently quoted the Treatise without meticulously explaining the Treatise; the expressions already being difficult to match, lecturing on the text of the Treatise itself was all the more difficult. Now, both the easy and the difficult are quoted; those that are difficult are explained. Even if some are not cited, that Treatise is easy to understand. Thus, whether with or without the Treatise, lecturing proceeds without obstruction. This is the fourth difference. Having understood the intention of the text, next is the formal explanation of the text. The text of the Commentary divides into two: first, a general classification; next, explaining in accordance with the text. In the former, if based on Venerable Yuan's division of the sūtra, there are two meanings: (1) relying on the person to reveal virtue; (2) making distinctions in terms of Dharma. Within the first there are also two: (a) regarding the main transforming teacher; (b) regarding the assisting transformers. These two each possess the three: essence, characteristic, and function. The three of the main transforming teacher are: the Buddha attaining true awakening reveals the essence of the realized Dharma; next, seven days of contemplation display the characteristics of his virtues—the Treatise below states, "Contemplating causes and conditions reveals the unshared dharmas"; afterward, from Vajragarbha entering samādhi downward displays their virtuous function. Second, the three regarding Vajragarbha's assistance in transformation are: first, entering samādhi reveals the essence of the realized Dharma; the common empowerment of all Buddhas displays the superior characteristics of his virtues, hence below, all Buddhas mutually praise him for being able to enter this Mahāyāna samādhi; from the section on arising downward is their virtuous function. The explanation says: each of these three above has a profound reason. Because it is not an explanation of Dharma, it is omitted and not clarified. The divisions made in the present Commentary are simply distinctions made in terms of Dharma. The text of the Commentary divides into two: first, classifying by secondary reference to the Treatise based on the sūtra; second, from "making forty-eight" downward, classifying according to meaning based on the Treatise. In the former there are also two: first, the formal classification; next, clarifying the sequence. In the former there are again two: first, the front-to-back folded classification. Folding it from the back, there are three folds; if counting from the front, there should be four sections: (1) expounding the stages in this realm; (2) concluding and pervading the ten directions; (3) the bodhisattvas' verification; (4) verses summarising all.