大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.30

56.30

疏「釋此有二義」下，開章廣釋。於中相翻，疏文有四：一定斷處以開三關；二「此三惑智」下，依關立過；三「若爾」下，假問徵起；四「若依唯識」下，正彰斷義。二中，「謂智先起」有四過者，一本因斷惑得無漏智，今智先起則不斷惑，自成無漏。二智既先起，惑猶在故，不能斷惑。煩惱二過者，一智已先起，煩惱猶在，故後滅時是自滅耳。二惑在不礙智起，故不障聖道。惑智各二，故有其四。疏「智後同時各具四過」者，併出二關。言智後者，即前為惑先，滅智後生耶？言四過者，初明二惑：一惑自先滅過，由智未生而惑滅故；二不障聖道過，惑先已滅不礙智故。此惑二過。智二過者，一智有自成無漏過，惑已先滅，智不斷惑故。二不能滅惑過，惑已先滅，無可滅故。言同時者，即惑智同時，亦有四過。智二過者，既與惑俱，惑不干智，故自成無漏，亦不斷惑。惑二過者，既與智俱，故不障聖道。與智俱時，惑猶在故，後若斷時亦自滅耳。疏「如燈不破闇」下，約喻以明，通經及論。「又涅槃」下，引經法說成上法喻，並如下明。

On the commentary's "In explaining this, there are two meanings" and below: this opens the chapter to explain extensively. Within this, considering the alternatives, the commentary's text has four parts: first, determining the locus of severing so as to establish three barriers; second, from "These three afflictions and cognitions" below, formulating faults based on the barriers; third, from "If so" below, presenting a hypothetical inquiry to raise [the issue]; fourth, from "If relying on Consciousness-Only" below, properly demonstrating the meaning of severing. In the second part, regarding the four faults of "cognition arising first": first, originally one attains undefiled cognition because of severing afflictions, but if cognition arises first, then without having severed afflictions it naturally becomes undefiled; second, since cognition has arisen first and affliction is still present, it cannot sever affliction. The two faults regarding afflictions are: first, cognition having already arisen first and affliction still remaining, when it ceases later it simply ceases by itself; second, the presence of affliction not impeding the arising of cognition, it therefore does not obstruct the noble path. There being two each for affliction and cognition, there are four. As for the commentary's "Cognition being subsequent and simultaneous each have four faults," it sets forth the two barriers together. By "cognition being subsequent," is this the previous case where affliction is first, so that affliction ceases and cognition is born subsequently? Regarding the four faults: first, to clarify the two for affliction: 1. the fault of affliction naturally ceasing first, because affliction has ceased while cognition has not yet arisen; 2. the fault of not obstructing the noble path, because affliction having already ceased beforehand does not impede cognition. These are the two faults of affliction. The two faults of cognition are: 1. the fault that cognition has naturally become undefiled, because affliction having already ceased, cognition does not sever affliction; 2. the fault of being unable to extinguish affliction, because affliction having already ceased beforehand, there is nothing left to extinguish. By "simultaneous," it means when affliction and cognition are simultaneous, there are also four faults. The two faults of cognition are: since it is concurrent with affliction and affliction does not interfere with cognition, it naturally becomes undefiled, and also does not sever affliction. The two faults of affliction are: since it is concurrent with cognition, it does not obstruct the noble path; and being concurrent with cognition, since affliction is still present, if it is severed later, it also simply ceases by itself. As for the commentary's "Like a lamp not destroying darkness" and below: it clarifies this by way of an analogy, which applies to both sūtras and treatises. As for "Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]" and below: it cites the teaching of the sūtra to establish the above teaching and analogy, all of which will be clarified below.