大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.2

65.2

疏「第三迷真起妄」下，文前有五：一標章。二「論云」下，論主假設外徵。「謂當相」下，疏釋論。三「故經意」下，以經之意答論假徵。四「然成答相三」下，徵二別相。五「略有五異」下，答顯包含。於中，先別明、後「有斯五」下總結。前中，第一約所迷有異。前迷無我，即迷真空。此迷真實智，即是妙有，以有文云「不了第一義故」。二約起次不同，可知。三約世有通局。言「義取亦通五世」者，後段當明。言「此唯三世」者，此句標也。「以名色等唯約現故」者，出所以也。前段名色等五就種為義，則是二世；後列五果皆約現行，即果酬昔因。依於果上復起愛取招後生死，則有三世。今此段中既唯約現，故但有三。「義取亦通一世」者，至下當知。疏「四前文欲明三世並備」者，第四約緣有隱顯。言「於無明中」下，出備相也。無明在於過去說有愛取，則備三惑矣。行即是有，未潤名行，潤即有故。二業必依七苦，別說為五，總說為二故。此明過去備十二矣。但舉經文「無明之中說有愛取」，例餘必有。言「於現在中說無明故」者，明現在之中具十二也。現在愛取之內既有無明，則三惑具矣，則所潤有行，已同過去有於二支無明行也。現在八支，居然可知。增長衰變亦具生老死矣。

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Third, deluded about the real and giving rise to the false,' and so forth, before the text there are five points: First, marking the section. Second, from 'The Treatise says' onward, the author of the Treatise poses a hypothetical external question. From 'namely, in its own characteristic' onward, the Commentary explains the Treatise. Third, from 'Therefore the sūtra's intention' onward, it answers the Treatise's hypothetical question with the intention of the sūtra. Fourth, from 'However, the three characteristics of the completion of the answer' onward, it questions the different characteristics of the two. Fifth, from 'There are briefly five differences' onward, the answer reveals its comprehensiveness. Within this, it first explains them individually, and then from 'Having these five' onward it generally concludes. In the former, first, according to differences in what is deluded about: the preceding was deluded about selflessness, which is being deluded about true emptiness; this is deluded about real wisdom, which is wondrous existence, because there is a text stating 'not understanding the ultimate truth.' Second, according to the difference in the order of arising, which can be understood. Third, according to the temporal scope, having breadth and restriction: The statement that 'in meaning it also extends to the five periods' will be clarified in a later section. The statement that 'this is only three periods' is the thesis of this phrase. 'Because name-and-form, etc., are considered solely in terms of active manifestations' brings out the reason. In the preceding section, name-and-form and the other five were treated in terms of seeds, which makes two periods; the subsequent enumeration of the five fruits is entirely considered in terms of active manifestations, which is the fruit recompensing past causes. Based on the fruit, craving and grasping are further aroused to incur subsequent birth and death, and thus there are three periods. Now, since this section considers solely active manifestations, there are only three. That 'in meaning it also extends to one period' will be known below. Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Fourth, the preceding text wished to clarify that the three periods are fully present together,' fourth, according to conditions having the concealed and the revealed: The statement 'within ignorance' onward brings out the characteristics of full presence: ignorance being in the past while craving and grasping are spoken of as present means the three afflictions are fully present. Formations are precisely existence: before being moistened they are called formations, and when moistened they are existence. The two karmas necessarily rely on the seven sufferings, spoken of separately as five and spoken of generally as two. This clarifies that the past is fully endowed with the twelve. It merely brings up the sūtra text, 'within ignorance, craving and grasping are said to exist,' to exemplify that the rest must also be present. The statement, 'because ignorance is spoken of within the present,' clarifies that within the present the twelve are complete. Since within present craving and grasping there is ignorance, the three afflictions are complete, and then the formations that are moistened and become existence already match the past in possessing the two branches of ignorance and formations. The present eight branches are obviously known. Increase, decay, and change also fully contain birth, aging, and death.