大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.36

56.36

疏「若爾三時無斷」下，二明不斷斷義。於中二：先舉論文、後「此舉喻釋成」下疏解經論。此中亦有古義，至下結彈中明，今但直就性相無礙以解正義。於中二：一釋論、二引證。今初，言「經文正顯證智」者，此中義大是不可說故，唯顯甚深。論主若不性相雙明，豈知是斷惑義？疏「故大品云」下，第二引證證成。論主如燈焰義，然《大品經》具云「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！菩薩為用初心得菩提？為用後心得菩提？初心不在後心，後心不在初心。心法不俱，云何善根增益能得菩提？』佛反問言：『譬如然燈，為用初焰燋炷？為用後焰燋炷？』須菩提白佛言：『世尊！非初焰燋炷，亦非離初焰。後焰亦爾。』佛問須菩提：『炷為燋不？』須菩提白佛言：『實燋。』佛合喻云：『菩薩不用初心得菩提，亦不離初心。後心亦爾。從初發意行般若，具十地，得菩提。』」經已分明。況論釋云「佛以甚深因緣法答。所謂不但初心得，亦不離初心得。所以者何？若但初心得不以後心者，菩薩初發心便應是佛。若無初心，云何有第二心第三心？以初心為根本因緣。亦不但後心亦不離後心者，是後心亦不離初心，若無初心則無後心。初心集種種無量功德，後心即具足，故能斷煩惱習，得無上菩提。合喻準法，此中燈喻菩薩道，炷喻無明等煩惱焰。如初地相應智慧，乃至金剛三昧相應智慧燋，喻無明等煩惱燋。亦非初心智焰，亦非後心智焰，而無明等燋，成無上道。」彼既云非初不離初等，則非唯但取相續之義故，故論云甚深因緣。又彼經中法喻影略，法說得菩提，喻說斷煩惱，二義相成，同故引證。疏「涅槃二十九」等者，然《涅槃》云「念念滅者即是空義。」由念念滅是無性故，不同小乘。何以得知？彼經初師子吼問云：「眾生五陰空無所有，誰有受教修集道者？」佛便以此經答云：「雖念念滅，而有修道。」明知念念滅即是空故，義符今論性相雙明。

On the commentary's "If so, the three periods are without severing" and below: second, clarifying the meaning of severing without severing. Within this are two parts: first, citing the treatise text; later, from "This brings up an analogy to explain and establish" and below, the commentary interprets the sūtras and treatises. Here there are also ancient interpretations, which will be clarified below in the concluding censure; now it simply explains the correct meaning directly in terms of the non-obstruction of nature and characteristics. Within this are two parts: 1. explaining the treatise; 2. citing proof. In the first, regarding "the sūtra text properly reveals realizing-cognition": because the meaning here is great and ineffable, it exclusively reveals what is extremely profound. If the author of the treatise did not clarify both nature and characteristics, how could one know it is the meaning of severing afflictions? On the commentary's "Hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says" and below: second, citing proof to establish it. The author of the treatise uses the meaning of the flame of a lamp; yet the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-sūtra states in full: "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! Does a bodhisattva attain bodhi by means of the initial thought, or does he attain bodhi by means of the subsequent thought? The initial thought is not in the subsequent thought, and the subsequent thought is not in the initial thought. Mental factors do not coexist; how can wholesome roots increase and attain bodhi?' The Buddha asked in turn: 'For example, in lighting a lamp, does it scorch the wick by means of the initial flame, or does it scorch the wick by means of the subsequent flame?' Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! It is not that the initial flame scorches the wick, nor is it apart from the initial flame. The subsequent flame is also like this.' The Buddha asked Subhūti: 'Is the wick scorched or not?' Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'It is truly scorched.' The Buddha matched the analogy, saying: 'A bodhisattva does not attain bodhi by means of the initial thought, nor is he apart from the initial thought. The subsequent thought is also like this. From first generating the aspiration, practicing prajñā, perfecting the ten stages, he attains bodhi.'" The sūtra is already clear. How much more so when the treatise explains: "The Buddha answered with the extremely profound Dharma of causes and conditions. That is, not only does one attain it by the initial thought, nor does one attain it apart from the initial thought. Why is this? If one attained it only by the initial thought and not by the subsequent thought, the bodhisattva upon first generating the thought would immediately be a Buddha. If there were no initial thought, how could there be a second thought or a third thought? Taking the initial thought as the fundamental cause and condition. 'Neither only the subsequent thought, nor apart from the subsequent thought' means that this subsequent thought is also not apart from the initial thought; if there were no initial thought, there would be no subsequent thought. The initial thought accumulates various immeasurable merits, and the subsequent thought is replete with them, so it is able to sever affliction-habits and attain anuttarabodhi. Matching the analogy according to the Dharma: here, the lamp analogizes the bodhisattva path, the wick analogizes the flames of afflictions such as avidyā. Like the wisdom corresponding to the first bhūmi, up to the wisdom corresponding to the vajrasamādhi scorching, it analogizes the scorching of afflictions such as avidyā. It is neither the flame of cognition of the initial thought nor the flame of cognition of the subsequent thought, yet avidyā and the like are scorched, accomplishing the unsurpassable path." Since that [text] says it is not the initial, not apart from the initial, and so forth, it does not merely take the meaning of continuity alone; therefore the treatise calls it extremely profound causes and conditions. Moreover, in that sūtra, the teaching and the analogy complement each other: the teaching speaks of attaining bodhi, and the analogy speaks of severing afflictions; the two meanings mutually establish each other, and being identical, it is cited as proof. Regarding the commentary's "Nirvāṇa, fascicle twenty-nine" and so forth: yet the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "Ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment is precisely the meaning of emptiness." Because ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment has no intrinsic nature, it is not like the Hīnayāna. How is this known? At the beginning of that sūtra, Siṃhanāda asked: "Sentient beings' five aggregates are empty and have nothing at all; who is there to receive instruction and cultivate the path?" The Buddha then answered him with this sūtra: "Although they cease from thought-moment to thought-moment, there is the cultivation of the path." Know clearly that ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment is precisely emptiness, so the meaning tallies with the present treatise's simultaneous clarification of nature and characteristics.