大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 55.31

55.31

疏「自下第三如來加請」，疏文有四：初來意、二釋名、三揀別、四釋文。初中二：先正辨來意、二通妨難。今初，故論云「若請者非尊、法非殊勝，聖者則不說。」釋曰：此是反明。若也順說，由請者尊故，顯所說勝，剛藏則說。二「前來為分」下，二通妨難。於中二：先通伏難、後通躡跡難。然遠公總有五門分別：一能加佛異、二所加不同、三加業有異、四加相不等、五加請分差，今疏皆具。而文中先通伏難者，謂有問言：前來已加，今何復加？此為復重難之。答：此有二，一前未具故、二所為別故。前中，先出不具足，意云：為分主伴，由主威力，令十方佛加，故前身口不同諸佛。次正顯未具，即唯辨意加，謂承佛神力及加因中毘盧遮那本願威神，今長行光照為身加，偈頌請說為口加，故具三業加相方具。此即遠公第三加業有異。疏「又前默與威神」下，第二所為別故。亦應問言：前何不具，今方具耶？答云：留此身口，發起請法故。言「令有加請」者，前主佛加，令得諸佛加。既得佛加，出定說本，故便有請。則前主佛加為諸佛加因及三家請因；今主佛加，加即是請，故不同也。此即遠公第五加請分差。

Regarding the Commentary's stating, "Next is the third: the Tathāgata's empowering request": the Commentary's text has four parts: first, the purpose; second, explaining the name; third, distinctions; fourth, explaining the text. The first has two: first, directly distinguishing the purpose; second, resolving objections. Now, regarding the first: therefore the treatise states, "If the requester is not revered and the Dharma is not exquisite, the holy one will not speak." Explanation: This is an elucidation by contrary. In affirmative terms: because the requester is revered, it shows that what is expounded is supreme, and Vajragarbha then speaks. Second, from "preceding was for the sake of differentiation" onward: resolving objections. In this there are two: first, resolving an implicit objection; second, resolving a follow-up objection. Master Huiyuan distinguishes five headings in total: first, differences in the empowering Buddhas; second, differences in those who are empowered; third, differences in the karma of empowerment; fourth, inequality in the marks of empowerment; fifth, differentiation in empowerment and requesting. The present Commentary contains them all. In the text, first resolving the implicit objection: there is a question stating, "Having already empowered previously, why empower again now?" This raises a question regarding the repetition. Answer: There are two reasons: first, because previously it was not complete; second, because the objective is different. In the first, first setting forth the incompleteness, the meaning is: to differentiate between host and retinue, through the host's majestic power the Buddhas of the ten directions are caused to grant empowerment; hence, previously, body and speech were not like those of the Buddhas. Next, directly showing the incompleteness, namely only distinguishing mental empowerment: relying on the Buddha's spiritual power and empowering through the power of Vairocana's original vow in the causal stage. Now, the prose light illumination is bodily empowerment, and the verse requesting speech is oral empowerment; thus, endowed with the three karmas, the marks of empowerment are fully complete. This is Master Huiyuan's third: differences in the karma of empowerment. Regarding the Commentary's stating from "Furthermore, previously granting majestic power in silence" onward: this is the second, because the objective is different. One might also ask: "Why was it incomplete before, and only complete now?" The answer is: reserving body and speech to initiate the request for the Dharma. The phrase "causing there to be empowerment and request" means: the previous host Buddha's empowerment caused him to receive the empowerment of all Buddhas. Having received the Buddhas' empowerment, he emerged from samādhi to state the root, and thus there came to be the request. Therefore, the previous host Buddha's empowerment was the cause for all Buddhas' empowerment and the cause for the request by the three parties; now, the host Buddha's empowerment is itself the request, and hence they are not the same. This is Master Huiyuan's fifth: differentiation in empowerment and requesting.