<!-- Pramāṇa, a library of Indian primary sources · https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.22 -->

[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 59.22

# 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59.22

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59.22

- **Language:** Classical Chinese

### [59.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.22)

第三果校量。疏「三明分齊」等者，疏文有四：初總標分齊，即修非修分別，以修以報各為分齊。二「行修唯在」下，二約當地初後相望論其分齊，即上二義遍不遍故。三「又初二後一」下，約有無論分齊。四「又初二果」下，約法果論分齊。此意正為論主通妨，謂安國法師以見二果之後有結文故，便以前二果唯是地法，後二方是果法，即出心故。故今為通，前二通法通果，為法易見，後有結故；為果難見，故論判屬果。「不得此意」下，結彈安國。

> Third, the evaluation of the fruits. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Third, explaining the scope," and so forth: the commentary's text has four parts. First, it generally indicates the scope, which is the distinction between cultivation and non-cultivation, taking cultivation and retribution as their respective scopes. Second, from "Cultivation of practice resides only in..." onward, it discusses their scope in relation to the beginning and end of the stage itself, which is based on whether the above two meanings are pervasive or non-pervasive. Third, from "Moreover, the first two and the last one..." onward, it discusses the scope in terms of presence and absence. Fourth, from "Moreover, the first two fruits..." onward, it discusses the scope in terms of dharma and fruit. The intention here is specifically to resolve a difficulty on behalf of the treatise master: Master Anguo, seeing that there was a concluding text after the two fruits, maintained that the first two fruits were solely dharmas of the stage and only the latter two were fruit dharmas, which are the emerging minds. Therefore, it is resolved here that the first two apply both to dharmas and to fruits; as dharmas they are easy to see because of the concluding text that follows, but as fruits they are difficult to see, and therefore the treatise determined that they belong to the fruits. From "failing to understand this intention" onward, it concludes by criticizing Anguo.  
> — English (machine translation) (machine translation)

- [Previous: 59.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.21)
- [Next: 59.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.23)
- [Up: 59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59)

## Translations (1)

- [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.59.22) — English, machine translation

---
Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.22) · Pramāṇa
