大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 52.35

52.35

疏後「問論云」下，解妨難，先難、後答。於中五：一反詰以成，謂十地皆說，何以初地偏受說名？二「故知」下，正示通義。五塵皆色，色獨受名。初地在初，論偏名說。三「若以論云」下，引例反成。論主既云初地所攝有其八分，前六既通，七何不通？若前六不通，應獨為初地入定，不應通舉十地名體，三家五請應唯請初。前六既通，七通何爽？四「是知八中」下，結示正義，後一即校量勝分。五「又下說」下，重遮外難。恐有難云：下文論云已說請分，自此已下正說初地，明知說局。從「既有初地說分」下，是疏通難，以論例釋初地有說、地地有說。復應更有難云：若許說通，則此一品唯有九分，無四十八。亦應答云：隨地別科有四十八，十地通說為九無失。

On the Commentary's following passage starting from "Question: The Treatise says...": Resolving doubts and difficulties, first comes the objection, then the answer. Within this there are five: (1) interrogating inversely to establish it, meaning since all ten stages are expounded, why does the first stage alone receive the name of "expounding"? (2) From "therefore know" downward, directly demonstrating the universal meaning. All five sense-objects are form (rūpa), yet form alone receives the name. The first stage is at the beginning, so the Treatise particularly names it "expounding." (3) From "if based on what the Treatise says" downward, citing an example to inversely establish it. Since the treatise master says that which is subsumed under the first stage has its eight divisions, and since the first six are universal, why would the seventh not be universal? If the first six were not universal, entering samādhi should have been exclusively for the first stage, and he should not have universally mentioned the names and essences of the ten stages; the five requests of the three houses should have only requested the first. Since the first six are universal, how could the seventh being universal be faulty? (4) From "one knows that among the eight" downward, concluding and demonstrating the correct meaning; the latter one is the comparative superiority division. (5) From "furthermore, the expounding below" downward, repeatedly warding off external objections. Fearing there might be an objection saying: "The text of the Treatise below says that the requesting division has already been expounded, and from here downward is the proper expounding of the first stage, which clearly shows that expounding is restricted." From "since there is the expounding division of the first stage" downward is the Commentary resolving the difficulty, using the Treatise by analogy to explain that the first stage has an expounding, and stage by stage each has an expounding. Furthermore, there might be another objection saying: "If one allows expounding to be universal, then this one chapter would only have nine divisions, not forty-eight." One should also answer: "Classified separately according to each stage, there are forty-eight; expounded universally across the ten stages, making nine is without fault."