大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.65

64.65

疏「此中應為立過」下，第二依因明立量破，疏文已具。然總意云：謂第一義我是有法，凡應同聖是宗法。以我是持自性法，有彼，凡應同聖宗中法。法與有法和合為宗。因云：以有第一義中實我智故。同喻，如生盡聖人。上三支已具，凡應同聖。此句合結應云：生盡聖人有實智，生盡聖人是聖人，凡夫既有實我智同彼聖人。是聖人而言生盡者，遮不定過。若但云聖人，恐有難云：為如須陀洹七反受生之聖人耶？為如羅漢我生已盡之聖耶？故定取後句。大乘頓悟八地已上即同羅漢，漸悟初地許其生盡。從凡既同聖，例成一過。凡應同聖，是雜亂過。今無聖人，是斷滅過。

Under the commentary's phrase "Herein, one should set up the flaw," this is the second, refuting by setting up an inference according to hetuvidyā; the commentary's text is already complete. However, the general intent says: the ultimate truth self is the subject (dharmin), and ordinary beings should be identical to noble ones is the property to be proved (sādhyadharma). Because the self is an entity holding its own nature, having that, ordinary beings should be identical to noble ones is the property in the thesis. The property and the subject combine to form the thesis (pakṣa). The reason (hetu) says: because there is the cognition of a real self within the ultimate truth. The homologous example (sādharmyadṛṣṭānta) is: like a noble one whose births are exhausted. The above three members are already complete: ordinary beings should be identical to noble ones. The application and conclusion for this phrase should say: noble ones whose births are exhausted possess real cognition; noble ones whose births are exhausted are noble ones; since ordinary beings possess the cognition of a real self, they are identical to those noble ones. One speaks of noble ones as "having births exhausted" to ward off the fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika). If one merely said "noble ones," one fears there might be an objection saying: Is it like the noble one of the srotāpanna who undergoes rebirth up to seven times, or like the noble one of the arhat whose births are already exhausted? Therefore it definitely takes the latter phrase. In the Mahāyāna, sudden awakening from the eighth bhūmi and above is identical to the arhat; in gradual awakening, on the first bhūmi it is accepted that their births are exhausted. Since ordinary beings are identical to noble ones, it analogously accomplishes a flaw: ordinary beings should be identical to noble ones is the flaw of confusion (saṃkara); now that there are no noble ones is the flaw of annihilationism (uccheda).