大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59.83

59.83

疏「此言覆藏之語」者，細尋可知。疏「即不破壞行，此唯約心」者，謂若有離間之心發言，則成離間。今無此心，故無離間過。無離間心，即是離間對治。而論標云「一對治離、二果行離」竟，便云「對治離者，謂不破壞行，一者心、二者差別。」乍觀此文，則似論主就對治離中分心及差別。然論意以對治離難解，故別釋云「謂不破壞行，一者心、二者差別。」自是雙釋對治及果行章。故下釋文牒心釋對治明不破壞行，牒差別釋果。故疏以心屬於對治，以其差別屬果行也。

Regarding the Commentary's "These words of concealed speech": if examined in detail, it can be understood. Regarding the Commentary's "Namely, non-destructive conduct; this is solely with respect to the mind": if one utters speech with a mind to create discord, then it constitutes divisive speech. Now, lacking this mind, there is no fault of divisive speech. The absence of a divisive mind is precisely the antidote to divisive speech. Yet after the treatise sets out, "First, relinquishment through the antidote; second, relinquishment of fruitional action," it immediately says, "Relinquishment through the antidote refers to non-destructive conduct; first, mind; second, distinction." At first glance, this text seems as though the treatise master divides mind and distinction within relinquishment through the antidote. However, because the treatise's meaning of relinquishment through the antidote is difficult to understand, it separately explains: "It refers to non-destructive conduct; first, mind; second, distinction." It naturally explains both the sections of the antidote and of the fruitional action together. Therefore, the subsequent explanatory text takes up "mind" to explain the antidote, clarifying non-destructive conduct, and takes up "distinction" to explain the fruition. Therefore, the Commentary assigns "mind" to the antidote and assigns "distinction" to fruitional action.