大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 68.22

68.22

疏「亦可對前十三昧心」者，遠公云：「此九別句即十空三昧。以法空、第一義空合故，故九攝十。九中亦四：初四就前觀以說不壞，次一就前不放逸以說不壞，次一就前得增上以說不壞，後三就前因事以說不壞。」今初，疏云「一信理決定」者，論云「一信觀不壞」，即就前入空三昧以明不壞，以論經前云「信空三昧故」。二疏云「行堪調柔」者，即論「堪受不壞」，此就前法空及第一義空三昧以說不壞，取有心息能入法空、第一義空，故論云「堪受於空不著」，經云「純善不著於空」，即第一義空。疏加「行」字，即前觀二空之行。三即論云「於密處不驚不怖不壞」，就前大空以說不壞。阿賴耶識微密難測，名為密處。經云「甚深」，於密能入，故稱不怖。四即論「自乘不動不壞」，就前合空以明不壞。行合如來藏，故自乘不退。五即論「發精進不壞」，就前不放逸第一義空三昧以明不壞。能起行修，故云精進，故疏云「勝進無息」。六即論「離慳嫉破戒垢不壞」，就前得增上起空三昧以明不壞。前就行德，今就斷德。前約利他，今約自利。然論經云「淨心故」，約斷釋。今經云「廣大心」，廣即悲心、大即智心，是二利心，二心相導故。「泯絕自他」下三不壞，就前三種因事以明不壞，但七八前却以第六總明悲智，今七八別明悲智，前後俱通故。七即論廣利益眾生不壞，於前教化眾生因事不捨離空三昧明不壞。八即論上求勝解脫不壞，就前智障淨因事如實不分別空三昧明不壞，義如前說。九即論化眾生行不壞，就前願取有因事離不離空三昧明不壞，帶空涉有，故云方便相應。然疏雖恐繁文，不具配屬，釋文之中皆已含具。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "It may also be aligned with the minds of the ten samādhis above," Master Huiyuan says: "These nine specific phrases are the samādhis of the ten emptinesses. Because the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of the ultimate truth are combined, the nine subsume the ten. Among the nine there are also four: the first four explain indestructibility in terms of the preceding contemplation; the next one explains indestructibility in terms of the preceding diligence; the next one explains indestructibility in terms of the preceding attainment of superiority; the final three explain indestructibility in terms of the preceding causal circumstances." Now, as for the first, the commentary says: "First, faith in principle is decisive." The treatise says: "First, the indestructible faith in contemplation," which explains indestructibility in terms of previously entering the samādhi of emptiness, because the treatise sūtra previously stated "due to faith in the samādhi of emptiness." Second, the commentary says: "Practice is capable of being supple." This corresponds to the treatise's "indestructible adaptability." This explains indestructibility in terms of the preceding samādhis of the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of the ultimate truth: grasping at existence in the mind ceases, and one is able to enter the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Thus the treatise says, "adaptable to emptiness without attachment"; and the sūtra says, "purely good and without attachment to emptiness," which is the emptiness of the ultimate truth. The commentary adds the word "practice," which refers to the preceding practice of contemplating the two emptinesses. Third corresponds to what the treatise calls "indestructibility without shock or fear in the secret place," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding great emptiness. The ālāyavijñāna is subtle, secret, and difficult to fathom, hence it is called the secret place. The sūtra says "profound"; being able to enter the secret, it is termed without fear. Fourth corresponds to the treatise's "indestructibility through non-movement in one's own vehicle," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding harmonious emptiness. Practice accords with the tathāgatagarbha, hence one does not regress in one's own vehicle. Fifth corresponds to the treatise's "indestructibility through arousing vigour," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding samādhi of the emptiness of the ultimate truth through diligence. Being able to arouse practice and cultivation, it is called vigour; hence the commentary says, "supreme progress without cessation." Sixth corresponds to the treatise's "indestructibility through abandoning the defilements of stinginess, jealousy, and broken precepts," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding samādhi of emptiness aroused by attaining superiority. The former concerned the virtue of practice, whereas this concerns the virtue of severing. The former was regarding benefiting others, whereas this is regarding self-benefit. However, the treatise sūtra says "due to a pure mind," explaining it in terms of severing. The present sūtra says "a vast mind"; vast is the mind of compassion, and great is the mind of cognition. These are the minds of the two benefits, and the two minds guide each other. The three kinds of indestructibility from "annihilating self and other" downward explain indestructibility in terms of the three preceding causal circumstances, except that the seventh and eighth reverse order: because the sixth generally explained compassion and cognition, now the seventh and eighth explain compassion and cognition separately, and both orders are viable. The seventh is the treatise's indestructibility of broadly benefiting sentient beings, explaining indestructibility in not relinquishing the samādhi of emptiness in the preceding causal circumstance of transforming sentient beings. The eighth is the treatise's indestructibility of seeking supreme liberation above, explaining indestructibility in the samādhi of emptiness that truly does not differentiate in the preceding causal circumstance of purifying cognitive hindrances, the meaning of which is as stated before. The ninth is the treatise's indestructibility of the practice of transforming sentient beings, explaining indestructibility in the samādhi of emptiness that is free and not free in the preceding causal circumstance of vowing to take up existence; carrying emptiness while engaging existence, it is therefore said to accord with expedient means (upāya). Thus, although the commentary avoided tedious text and did not assign each fully, the explanatory text already contains and provides them all.