大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.38

56.38

疏「若云初念則能斷後念方究竟」下，第四結彈古義，即遠公解。前解經云：治必階漸，非定始終，故云非初亦非中後。正論其果，斷在窮終，不得說言非初中後。今乃據果反談昔因。因時不頓，是故說言非初中後。下釋論言「非初智斷亦非中後」，云非初智獨斷，中後亦然，通取三時方能盡結。次釋論「若爾云何斷」。如燈焰非初中後，前中後取。不異毘曇一念有燒，始終方盡，治結同然。若依《成實》，一念不燒，相續方然，治結亦爾。若依大乘，慧心明勝一念能斷，但相續始終方盡究竟，故經說言「念念具足一切助道」。於一念中尚能具足一切道品，何有不能斷除煩惱？但相續始終方盡究竟，是故今說前中後取。如義正知，名之為取。釋曰：此公雖明大乘慧勝，要明具足三時，始終方斷。故疏不依，但依前為正義，約性相無礙釋云：今依其義開為兩關難，令同彼毘曇、成實。謂應問言：為初念即斷，後念方究竟耶？為初念不斷，積至後念方能斷耶？依初則同毘曇，依後則同成實。一念具足道品，何所證耶？又但成於斷惑之義，不知斷而不斷，不斷煩惱入涅槃義，故結彈云「莫失宗旨」。

The Commentary states from "If one says that the initial moment of thought can eradicate [it], and only the subsequent moment of thought brings it to completion" onwards: fourth, concluding with a criticism of the ancient interpretation, namely Master Huiyuan's explanation. Earlier, in explaining the sūtra, he said: The antidote must be graduated; it is not fixedly [only] the beginning or the end. Therefore [the text] says: "neither initial nor intermediate nor subsequent." Properly discussing its fruit, eradication lies at the ultimate end; one must not say it is neither initial, intermediate, nor subsequent. Now, based on the fruit, it refers back to discuss the past cause. At the time of the cause it is not sudden; therefore it says: "neither initial, intermediate, nor subsequent." Below, in explaining the Śāstra's statement "it is not eradicated by the initial wisdom, nor by the intermediate or subsequent," he says that it is not that the initial wisdom alone eradicates it, and the intermediate and subsequent are also like this; it encompasses all three times to finally exhaust the fetters. Next, explaining the Śāstra's "If so, how is it eradicated?": Just as the flame of a lamp is not [merely] initial, intermediate, or subsequent, yet it is taken as preceding, intermediate, and subsequent. This is no different from the Abhidharma's [view that] a single moment of thought has burning, and only from beginning to end is it exhausted; the counteraction of fetters is the same. If according to the Satyasiddhi, a single moment does not burn, and only the continuity burns; the counteraction of fetters is also like this. If according to the Mahāyāna, the wisdom-mind is distinct and superior, able to eradicate in a single moment, yet only through the continuity from beginning to end is it exhausted and perfected; thus the sūtra says: "Moment to moment fully equipped with all the aids to the path." If even within a single moment of thought it can be fully equipped with all the path-factors, how could it be unable to eradicate afflictions? Yet only through the continuity from beginning to end is it exhausted and perfected; for this reason it is now said that it is taken as preceding, intermediate, and subsequent. Knowing correctly in accordance with the meaning is termed "taking." Expounding: Although this master explained that Mahāyāna wisdom is superior, he insisted on explaining that it must be complete in the three times, and only from beginning to end is it eradicated. Therefore the Commentary does not follow [him], but relies on the preceding as the correct meaning, explaining in terms of the unobstructed nature and characteristics: Now, relying on his meaning, we open two horns of dilemma to challenge it, making it identical to that of the Abhidharma and the Satyasiddhi. That is, one should ask: Is it that the initial moment immediately eradicates, and only the subsequent moment brings it to completion? Or is it that the initial moment does not eradicate, and only by accumulating to the subsequent moment can it eradicate? If one follows the first, then it is identical to the Abhidharma; if one follows the second, then it is identical to the Satyasiddhi. As for a single moment being complete with the path-factors, what is there to realize? Moreover, it merely establishes the meaning of eradicating afflictions, without knowing the meaning of eradicating without eradicating, and entering nirvāṇa without eradicating afflictions. Therefore the concluding criticism says: "Do not lose the fundamental principle."