大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 58.8

58.8

疏「四舉因顯相」下，疏文有二：先釋經文意；後「五怖畏」下開義別釋，不次第釋經，而取義類以釋。於中分二：先總彰五畏之果、後彰五畏之因及明離義。前中，但揀濫相，即為釋文。於中三：初揀死不活。二「死約愛於善道」下，揀死惡道。此因上第三第四依身，故為此揀。上三有濫，所以揀之。惡名學易德故不釋。三「但說五者」下，通妨辨攝。謂有問言：怖畏多種，謂打縛等，豈不畏耶？何但說五？故為此通，則五無不攝。如打縛等，即不活死畏所攝等。疏「此怖畏因略有二種」下，第二彰怖畏因及明離義。文中三：初引論總明、二分別解釋、三總以結示。今初，觀下釋文，二因自顯。疏「然此二因」下，分別解釋。於中二：先通、後別。別從相顯，通約義兼，故明通中即別所揀。謂善根微少，別為後二之因，今通為前三之因。「不活等」者，等取死及惡名邪智愛著，別是前三之因，今通為後二之因。「畏大眾等」，等取惡道。疏「若取相顯」下，二別配。於中三：初雙標。二「邪智即是」下釋初因。於中四：一牒釋論文、二「愛著於我」下別配三因、三「無我我所」下彰離、四「然不活」下會釋經文。疏「後二因」下，三釋後因。文中二：先因、後「今具福」下辨離。疏「故初三離」下等，三總以結示。

Regarding the Commentary's "Fourth, raising the causes to reveal the characteristics" onwards: the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, explaining the intention of the sūtra text; afterward, from "five fears" onwards, unfolding the meaning to explain specifically, not explaining the sūtra sequentially, but taking categories of meaning to explain. Within this there are two parts: first, generally displaying the results of the five fears; second, displaying the causes of the five fears and clarifying the meaning of freedom [from them]. In the former, merely discriminating ambiguous characteristics constitutes the textual explanation. Within it there are three parts: 1. Distinguishing death and failure to survive. 2. From "Death relates to attachment to the wholesome destinies" onwards, distinguishing death and the evil destinies. This is based on the third and fourth above relying on the body, which is why this distinction is made. The above three have ambiguities, which is why they are distinguished. Ill repute easily learns virtues, so it is not explained. 3. From "Only stating five" onwards, resolving objections and discerning subsumption. That is, someone asks: "Fears are of many kinds, such as being beaten and bound, etc.; are these not feared? Why only speak of five?" Therefore, this is resolved, showing that none are unincluded among the five: like being beaten and bound, etc., they are subsumed under the fear of failure to survive and death, etc. As for the Commentary's "These causes of fear are briefly of two kinds" onwards: second, displaying the causes of fear and clarifying the meaning of freedom. In the text there are three parts: 1. Citing the treatise to explain generally; 2. Distinguishing and explaining; 3. Concluding and demonstrating generally. Now first, observing the explanatory text below, the two causes are naturally evident. As for the Commentary's "However, these two causes" onwards: distinguishing and explaining. Within it there are two: first, general; second, specific. The specific is based on the characteristics being evident; the general relates to the meaning being inclusive, so clarifying the general is precisely what the specific distinguishes. That is, slight roots of goodness is specifically the cause of the latter two, but now generally the cause of the former three. "Failure to survive, etc." includes death, ill repute, and attachment born of mistaken knowledge; specifically they are the cause of the former three, but now generally the cause of the latter two. "Fearing the assembly, etc." includes the evil destinies. As for the Commentary's "If taking evident characteristics" onwards: second, specifically assigning them. Within it there are three: 1. Jointly indicating both; 2. From "Mistaken knowledge is..." onwards, explaining the first cause. Within it there are four: i. Citing and explaining the text of the treatise; ii. From "Attachment to self" onwards, specifically matching the three causes; iii. From "Without self and what belongs to self" onwards, showing freedom; iv. From "However, failure to survive" onwards, harmonizing and explaining the sūtra text. As for the Commentary's "The latter two causes" onwards: 3. Explaining the latter causes. In the text there are two: first, the cause; afterward, from "Now possessing merit" onwards, discerning freedom. As for the Commentary's "Therefore the first three are freed from..." and so forth: 3. Concluding and demonstrating generally.