大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 57.21

57.21

疏「第三示說分齊」下，疏文分四：一標大意；二「半偈之中」下，對經會論；三「於中上句」下，牒經解釋；四「然因果二分」下，釋因果義。於中二：初總辯順違、後申正義。前言「古有多釋」者，有云：十地有二義。一約教所安立，十地法門在聞者識上以義顯現，名為因分，因此表離言之義故；二者正詮十地證入，十地正行離諸言教所安立相，說名果分。由此因分言所表故，是故因分可說，果分不可說。釋曰：此釋理似可通，而因分義成、果義不顯。又似影像教則可說、本質教則不可說。有云：於一證智不壞相邊可言說故，名為因分。相即無相，言教不及邊，名為果分。故此二分非一非異。釋曰：此解則似下文不說無相。又唯約一證論說不說、教行不言故。又說與不說縱許得成，因果不顯，故疏並略之。

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'Third, showing the scope of the explanation' downwards, the Commentary's text is divided into four parts: first, indicating the general import; second, from 'Within half a verse' downwards, matching the sūtra to the treatise; third, from 'Within it, the upper line' downwards, taking up the sūtra to explain it; fourth, from 'However, regarding the two portions of cause and fruition' downwards, explaining the meaning of cause and fruition. Within this fourth part there are two: first, generally discerning conformity and divergence; second, setting forth the correct meaning. In the former, where it says 'In antiquity there were many explanations': some said that the ten grounds have two meanings. First, in terms of what is established by the teaching, the Dharma-gates of the ten grounds appear through meaning upon the consciousness of the listener, which is called the causal portion, because relying on this manifests the meaning that is beyond words. Second, directly explicating the realization-entry into the ten grounds: the authentic practice of the ten grounds is free from the characteristics established by words and teachings, and is called the fruition portion. Because this causal portion is manifested by words, the causal portion can be spoken of, whereas the fruition portion cannot be spoken of. I explain: this explanation appears plausible in principle, yet while the meaning of the causal portion is established, the meaning of fruition is not apparent. Moreover, it resembles saying that the image-teaching can be spoken of, while the archetype-teaching cannot be spoken of. Some said: with respect to a single realization-cognition, the aspect where characteristics are not destroyed can be spoken of, and is called the causal portion. Characteristics are themselves non-characteristics; the aspect beyond the reach of verbal teachings is called the fruition portion. Therefore, these two portions are neither identical nor different. I explain: this interpretation would resemble the text below not speaking of the unconditioned. Furthermore, it discusses speakability and unspeakability solely with respect to a single realization, without addressing teaching and practice. Moreover, even if speakability and unspeakability were granted to hold, cause and fruition would remain unclarified; hence the Commentary omits them all.