大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 57.11

57.11

疏「第二一偈類地行微」等者，然遠公復云：「後之三偈以佛果法類顯地實。」意云：前二涅槃是佛所行故難，言說類於地實亦難說聞。雖有此理，前之四偈曾不說於佛果之相，但指涅槃菩薩得者，是佛所行之涅槃故。故今疏云以上地智類顯地行為甚微妙。故論釋行云「謂是檀等，非地實故。」疏中二：先總科、後「初中」下牒釋。釋上半中三：初出偈意、次「寂即同相」下別釋、三「何不直說」下徵釋可知。釋下半所類中五：一正釋、二舉論、三「言境界觀」下疏釋論、四「設地是體」者揀濫、五「將此地智」下重釋論。四中正揀遠公所類是其地實，以前論言「地者境界觀」，疏作加行觀釋，故今縱之云：設令地是地實，境界觀非是加行是地實者，意取地實所起之行，非取地實。故論云「行謂同行，以其地實即是證智，同彼檀等差別行故。」明知取行耳。

Regarding the commentary's "The second single verse analogizes the subtlety of the practice of the grounds" and so forth: Master [Hui]yuan further said, "The latter three verses analogize and reveal the reality of the grounds through the qualities of the Buddha fruit." His idea was: the former two nirvāṇas are the sphere of the Buddha and therefore difficult to speak of, and by analogy the reality of the grounds is also difficult to speak of and hear. Although there is this reasoning, the previous four verses never spoke of the characteristics of the Buddha fruit; they only pointed out that the nirvāṇa attained by bodhisattvas is the nirvāṇa practiced by Buddhas. Therefore the present commentary states that by means of the wisdom of the higher grounds, it analogizes and reveals the practice of the grounds as extremely subtle. Hence the treatise explains "practice" by saying: "It refers to the practices of giving (dāna) and so forth, not the reality of the grounds." In the commentary there are two parts: first, a general topical outline; and afterwards, from "In the first" onward, citing and explaining the text. In explaining the upper half there are three parts: first, stating the verse's intention; next, from "quiescent is the characteristic of identity" onward, specifically explaining; third, from "Why not speak directly?" onward, examining and explaining, which can be understood. In explaining the lower half which is analogized, there are five: (1) directly explaining, (2) citing the treatise, (3) from "speaking of the contemplation of objects" onward, commenting on the treatise, (4) "supposing the ground is the essence," selecting and eliminating confusion, (5) from "taking this wisdom of the ground" onward, re-explaining the treatise. In the fourth, it directly selects and eliminates Master Yuan's view that what is analogized is the reality of the grounds. Because the earlier treatise said, "The ground is the contemplation of objects," and the commentary explained it as the preparatory contemplation, now it concedes: even granting that the ground is the reality of the grounds, and that the contemplation of objects is not preparatory [contemplation] but the reality of the grounds, the intention takes the practice arising from the reality of the grounds, not the reality of the grounds itself. Hence the treatise states: "Practice refers to concordant practice, because the reality of the grounds is just the realizing wisdom, which is concordant with those differentiated practices of giving and so forth." One clearly knows that it takes practice.