大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 52.65

52.65

疏「故不可」下，第三結彈古人。先直非；後「若此已」下，出其所以，成後復重。疏「餘如第三會辯」者，彼處廣顯差當，故略敘少分。一者十住中，古人以初一為定因；後三轉為加因，亦非是定因。二者前自問云：加之與定何先何後？若先定後加，則不應言「汝能入是三昧，此是諸佛共加於汝。」若先加後定，則不應在三昧分。後又散心不能受加，古人通云加定一時，故疏前難云：為因不成，不同俱有因義，加定可分故。示正義云：加有二種，謂冥加在前，顯居定後等，故云餘如彼疏。

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Therefore it is impermissible' downward, this is the third part, concluding by rebuking the ancient masters. First, it directly negates [their view]; afterwards, from 'If this has already' downward, it shows the reason, showing that what follows would be redundant. As for the Commentary's statement: 'The rest is as analyzed in the third assembly,' because that place extensively reveals what is divergent and what is fitting, it only briefly relates a small part here. First, in the ten abodes, the ancient masters took the first one as the cause of concentration, and the subsequent three were shifted to become causes of empowerment, not being causes of concentration either. Second, it previously asked itself: between empowerment and concentration, which comes first and which comes after? If concentration is first and empowerment is after, then it should not say: 'You are able to enter this samādhi; this is the joint empowerment of you by all the Buddhas.' If empowerment is first and concentration is after, then it should not be placed after the samādhi section; furthermore, a scattered mind cannot receive empowerment. The ancient masters resolved this by saying that empowerment and concentration are simultaneous. Therefore, the Commentary previously objected: this fails to establish the cause, unlike the meaning of simultaneous cause (sahabhū-hetu), since empowerment and concentration can be distinguished. Indicating the correct doctrine, it says: empowerment is of two kinds, namely unseen empowerment before and manifest empowerment residing after concentration, etc. Therefore, it says that the rest is as in that Commentary.