大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 62.20

62.20

疏「後二句自利行」者，疏文有五：一正釋經文。二「煩惱影取生死」下，以理會經。三「菩提之智」下，通影取菩提難。恐有難云：涅槃性盡，可云無所有盡。菩提非性，何言無所有盡？故以符理，全同涅槃。四「然是世諦」下，通。約順理解釋上難，以約理釋濫前如智故，故通云異。異相云何？其猶相見道中亦觀非安立諦，而是後得。此亦如是，雖觀於如，而是教智。「又後二句」下，更顯別理。自有兩意：一即四出偈，謂觀前際後際故，即本有今無、本無今有，觀無所有盡，即三世有法無有是處，第五經疏已廣分別。後「亦是」下，觀緣生觀。然上十智正觀如來教化之智，智之別相必由所觀，不觀所觀安識佛智？佛智證彼內法，四地菩薩亦如是證。思之。

Regarding the Commentary's "The latter two phrases are practices of self-benefit": the text of the Commentary has five parts: first, directly explaining the sūtra text; second, from "Affliction implicitly takes saṃsāra" below, harmonizing the sūtra through principle; third, from "Cognition of bodhi" below, resolving an objection against implicitly taking bodhi. For it was feared there might be an objection saying: "Since the nature of nirvāṇa is exhausted, it can be called the exhaustion of non-existence; but bodhi is not an [exhaustible] nature, so how can it be called the exhaustion of non-existence?" Therefore, to conform with principle, it is completely identified with nirvāṇa. Fourth, from "However, this is conventional truth" below, resolving: it resolves the above objection in accordance with principle, and since explaining in terms of principle conflates with the previous cognition of suchness, it therefore resolves this by stating they are distinct. What is the characteristic of their distinction? It is just as in the path of seeing with characteristics one also contemplates non-established truth, yet it is subsequent attainment [cognition]. This is also like that: although it contemplates suchness, it is teaching-cognition. From "Furthermore, the latter two phrases" below, it further reveals a distinct principle. This inherently has two meanings: first, it is the verse of four departures, meaning because of contemplating the prior limit and the posterior limit—that is, originally existing and now non-existent, originally non-existent and now existing—contemplating the exhaustion of non-existence means that for conditioned dharmas to exist in the three times is impossible; this was already extensively analyzed in the commentary to the fifth fascicle. Later, from "It is also" below, contemplating through the contemplation of dependent arising. However, the above ten cognitions directly contemplate the Tathāgata's cognition of teaching and transforming; the specific characteristics of cognition must depend on what is contemplated—without contemplating what is contemplated, how could one recognize the Buddha's cognition? The Buddha's cognition realizes that internal dharma, and the bodhisattva of the fourth bhūmi realizes it likewise. Reflect on this.