大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.14

66.14

疏「二約大悲隨順」下，此文有六：一標觀名。故論徵云「云何餘處求解脫耶？」二「謂凡夫愚癡」下，引論釋相。三「經明唯是」下，以論意引經而為對治，我我等中求為非，於心等求為是。四「亦同淨名」下，引例為釋。即〈問疾品〉因問空室之由，尋末歸本有三重問答：一問空當於何求？答曰：當於六十二見中求。又問六十二見當於何求？答曰：當於諸佛解脫中求。又問：諸佛解脫當於何求？答曰：當於一切眾生心行中求。然尋古釋，略有三意。第一意云：執見乖空，則顯空非是見；佛解脫中無見，則知見非解脫。眾生心中無佛解脫，當知諸佛解脫中，則非眾生親契空矣。即生公意。二云：空智因於見生，則空智無性，無性故智空。諸佛解脫而非有邪，因正生邪亦空矣。諸佛解脫因悟眾生心行，則解脫空矣。三者約其空體無二，所以互求理無不遍。此意近於今經，今經正明於真妄心求，見妄性空，悟本真體，如下當釋。

As for the Commentary's "Second, in terms of great compassion following along" and so on, this text has six parts: first, marking the name of the contemplation. Hence the treatise asks, "Why seek liberation in other places?" Second, from "namely, foolish worldlings" onward, citing the treatise to explain the characteristics. Third, from "the sūtra clarifies that it is solely" onward, using the treatise's intent to cite the sūtra as the antidote: seeking within self, self's [possessions], and so forth is incorrect; seeking within the mind and so forth is correct. Fourth, from "it is also identical to the Vimalakīrti" onward, citing a precedent as an explanation. That is, in the chapter "Inquiring after Illness", because of the question about the cause of the empty room, tracing the branches back to the root, there are three rounds of questions and answers: First, it asks, "Where should emptiness be sought?" It answers, "It should be sought within the sixty-two views." Again it asks, "Where should the sixty-two views be sought?" It answers, "They should be sought within the liberation of all buddhas." Again it asks, "Where should the liberation of all buddhas be sought?" It answers, "It should be sought within the mental activities of all sentient beings." However, investigating ancient explanations, there are roughly three interpretations: The first interpretation says: grasping at views contradicts emptiness, which shows that emptiness is not views; within the Buddha's liberation there are no views, which shows that views are not liberation. Within the minds of sentient beings there is no Buddha's liberation; one should know that within the liberation of all buddhas, sentient beings do not directly tally with emptiness. This is Master Sengzhao's interpretation. The second says: empty wisdom arises dependent on views, so empty wisdom has no intrinsic nature; having no intrinsic nature, wisdom is empty. Is the liberation of all buddhas not an existent? Based on the correct, the false arises, so it is also empty. The liberation of all buddhas arises from awakening to sentient beings' mental activities, so liberation is empty. The third says: in terms of the essence of emptiness being non-dual, the mutual seeking between them is universally pervasive in principle. This interpretation is close to the present sūtra. The present sūtra precisely clarifies seeking within the true and false minds: seeing that the nature of delusion is empty, one awakens to the fundamental real essence, as will be explained below.