[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 54.63 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 54.63 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 54.63 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [54.63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.54.63) 疏「三請次第者」下，第三明次第。初上首請、次「由前二止」下大眾請、後「聽說理窮」下如來加請。今初，「眾首」下，第四別釋上首。於中有四：初辨三請意、二通妨、三科判、四釋文。今初，自有二意：一順世得中故、二「以止有三」下，對止須三故。上意通諸經，下意正是今意。言「抑揚當時」者，三止皆抑，三請皆揚。謂初止通抑不堪，次止正明法深難受，後止劣者不堪，故皆抑也。請皆揚者，初請怪默騰疑，有疑欲問；次請歎眾堪聞；後請雙歎人法，皆是揚也。夫請法者必歎人歎法，歎法有教有證，歎人歎說歎聽，故請儀具矣。疏「二家助成各唯一請」者，第二通妨。謂有問言：若三有表，餘何不三？通意可知。疏「然依三請」下，第三科釋。疏「今初」下，第四釋文。疏「雖似初二徵默所由」者，文具二意：前意約所歎分別，歎說歎聽，故分為二；後釋約徵請分別，徵請互有故。依前判言互有者，如初二中何故不說？即正顯徵默所由。既云何故不開演？亦是請說，為順眾欲。如後三中，「此眾皆欲聞，願為分別說」，正是請順欲說。若為宣說，眾疑即除。相視恭敬義，兼徵默。故論經云「迭共相瞻住，一切咸恭敬」，即上句，正是怪默意也，故云互通。歎說歎聽則不互有，故依前判。疏合為徵問之辭。總言何故不解釋，細論，何故是徵問之辭，不解釋是徵問之相，中間淨覺是徵問所以，故疏合云「謂有中間淨覺無過，何故不解釋耶。」疏「聖德雖多」下，釋偏歎所以。「具能所治」下，別釋淨義。 > Regarding the commentary's "As for the sequence of the three requests" below: this third \[section\] clarifies the sequence. First is the request by the leader; next, from "Due to the two previous halts" below, is the request by the assembly; finally, from "When listening and speaking have exhausted the principles" below, is the additional request by the Tathāgata. Now, in the first, from "The assembly's leader" below, is the fourth \[section\], which separately explains the leader. Herein are four parts: first, identifying the intent of the three requests; second, resolving an objection; third, sectioning the text; fourth, explaining the text. Now, the first itself has two intents: first, because conforming to worldly \[custom\] accords with the mean; second, from "Because halts are three" below, because there must be three to counter the halts. The former intent is common to various sūtras, while the latter intent is specifically the present intent. Regarding the phrase "Suppression and exaltation at that time": all three halts are suppressions, and all three requests are exaltations. That is to say, the first halt generally suppresses those who are incapable; the second halt specifically clarifies that the Dharma is deep and difficult to receive; the final halt is because the inferior are incapable—therefore all are suppressions. That the requests are all exaltations: the first request is astonished at the silence and gives rise to doubt, having doubt and wishing to question; the second request praises the assembly as capable of hearing; the final request praises both the persons and the Dharma—all are exaltations. When requesting the Dharma, one must praise the persons and praise the Dharma: praising the Dharma has \[both\] teaching and realization; praising the persons has \[both\] praising the speaker and praising the listeners. Hence the protocol of request is complete. Regarding the commentary's "The two groups who assist each make only one request": this is the second \[part\], resolving an objection. That is, someone might ask: If three has a symbolic meaning, why do the others not make three? The intent of resolving this can be known. Regarding the commentary's "However, relying on the three requests" below: this is the third \[part\], sectioning and interpreting. Regarding the commentary's "Now the first" below: this is the fourth \[part\], explaining the text. Regarding the commentary's "Although it seems that the first two inquire into the reason for silence": the text contains two intents. The former intent is differentiated in terms of what is praised, praising the speaker and praising the listeners, hence divided into two. The latter explanation is differentiated in terms of inquiry and request, because inquiry and request mutually overlap. In terms of the former division stating that they mutually overlap: as in the first two \[lines\], "Why do you not speak?" directly reveals the reason for inquiring about the silence. Since it says, "Why do you not unfold and expound it?", this is also requesting speech in order to conform to the desires of the assembly. As in the latter three \[lines\], "This assembly all wishes to hear, / We pray you will analyze and explain it," this is directly requesting speech conforming to desire. If it is proclaimed, the assembly's doubts will be eliminated. The sense of "looking at one another with reverence" also partakes of inquiring about the silence. Therefore the Śāstra's sūtra text says: "Alternately gazing at one another, / All are reverent." The first line precisely conveys the meaning of being astonished at the silence, hence it is said to mutually overlap. Praising the speaker and praising the listeners do not mutually overlap, and therefore it follows the former division. The commentary combines them into words of inquiry. In general it says, "Why do you not explain?"; in detail, "Why" is the phrasing of the inquiry, "do not explain" is the form of the inquiry, and the pure awareness in between is the reason for the inquiry. Hence the commentary combines them, saying: "It means that there is intermediate pure awareness free from fault; why do you not explain?" Regarding the commentary's "Although sacred virtues are many" below: it explains the reason for exclusively praising \[this\]. From "Possessing both the antidote and that which is countered" below: it separately explains the meaning of purity. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 54.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.54.62) - [Next: 54.64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.54.64) - [Up: 54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.54) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.54.63) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.54.63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.54.63) · Pramāṇa