[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) › 56.17 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.17 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [56.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.17) 疏「自下第三許說分齊」，疏文分二：先顯意總科、後「今初」下依文正釋。於中二：初釋說儀、後釋說意。前中二：先舉論釋經；後「觀十方佛」下，疏釋。論自有二意：一以無慢對佛、不偏對機，佛請不說，便是自高；今承力說，安敢慢乎？二「亦可」下，意欲顯通，却以無慢對機、不偏對佛。疏「欲令大眾」下，釋說意。疏文有四：一依經釋。然疏示說正地該通二大，遠公以示說為說大、正地為義大，乃成穿鑿。二「若準論」下，引論釋。三「以前說主」下，疏釋論經中重增之言。四「如何得此踊悅」下，顯喜意。於中四：一徵以總釋、二「義名所以」下釋二大名、三「聞於二大」下結成踊悅、四「然二大體」下彰其體性。於中二：先總標、後「遠公」下別顯二師。遠公云：「證道所表即是地法者，證道約人，契會地法本自有之。猶十二緣，以法就人三世流轉，廢人論法性相常定。」疏「賢首」下，此師文三：初正明二大、二「然其後解」下對前揀異、三「古德因此」下明可說不可說。於中二：前總、後別。前中言「下論自明」者，論意因分為可說、果分不可說，舉論此文即奪古德。從「非無眉目」下，縱成古義，妙理無妨故。 > On the Commentary's text from “From here below, the third is the scope of consenting to expound”: the text of the Commentary divides into two: first, revealing the intent and providing the overall outline; next, from “Now first…” onward, directly explaining according to the text. In this there are two \[parts\]: first, explaining the etiquette of exposition; next, explaining the intent of exposition. In the former there are two: first, citing the treatise to explain the sūtra; next, from “Contemplating the Buddhas of the ten directions…” onward, the Commentary's explanation. The treatise itself has two intentions: 1. Taking absence of pride toward the Buddhas, and not being partial toward the audience: if requested by the Buddhas and not expounding, that would be arrogance; now expounding by relying on their power, how could one dare to be proud? 2. From “Alternatively…” onward: desiring to show thoroughness, it conversely takes absence of pride toward the audience, and not being partial toward the Buddhas. On the Commentary's text from “Desiring that the great assembly…” onward: explaining the intent of exposition. The text of the Commentary has four parts: 1. Explaining according to the sūtra. However, the Commentary's presentation of the exposition and the grounds proper encompasses both Greatnesses; Master Yuan took the presentation of the exposition to be the Greatness of the Teaching and the grounds proper to be the Greatness of the Meaning, which ends up being far-fetched. 2. From “According to the treatise…” onward: citing the treatise to explain. 3. From “Because the previous master of exposition…” onward: the Commentary explains the words “repeatedly increasing” in the treatise and sūtra. 4. From “How is this joy obtained…” onward: revealing the sense of rejoicing. In this there are four: i. inquiring to explain generally; ii. from “The meaning of the name…” onward, explaining the names of the two Greatnesses; iii. from “Hearing the two Greatnesses…” onward, concluding with the arising of joy; iv. from “However, as for the essence of the two Greatnesses…” onward, revealing their essential natures. In this there are two: first, generally indicating; next, from “Master Yuan…” onward, specifically revealing the two masters. Master Yuan said: “That which is indicated by the path of realization is precisely the dharmas of the grounds. The path of realization concerns the person, whereas the tallying with the dharmas of the grounds exists inherently. It is like the twelve links of dependent origination: applying the dharmas to the person, they transmigrate through the three times; setting aside the person to discuss the dharmas, their nature and characteristics are eternally fixed.” On the Commentary's text from “Xianshou…” onward: this master's text has three \[parts\]: first, directly clarifying the two Greatnesses; second, from “However, his later interpretation…” onward, distinguishing it from the former; third, from “Ancient masters therefore…” onward, clarifying the expressible and the inexpressible. In this there are two: first general, then specific. In the former, stating “the treatise below clarifies this itself” means that according to the treatise, the causal stage is expressible and the fruitional stage is inexpressible; citing this text of the treatise directly refutes the ancient masters. From “not without some outline…” onward, it conditionally grants the ancient meaning, because there is no obstacle to the wondrous principle. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 56.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.16) - [Next: 56.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.18) - [Up: 56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.56.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.17) · Pramāṇa