大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.11

74.11

第三宿住通。「皆以菩薩得九世眼如見現在故」下，此釋知義。而云見者，是知見也。此上正明。二「若不爾」，下反難成立。三「若但曾經」下，遮救。謂恐救云：昔曾見事，事則雖滅，見種猶存，故得知耳。「是則」下，為遮此救，文有三破：一奪破。謂但見心不見法故，所見不同，豈見現心名宿住智？二「又曾不經」下，縱破。縱許有種能知見者，昔不經事應不知見。謂昔為人，何能普見？今得宿智，廣遠皆知。三「又但見現在」下，結成，即乖名破。

Third, the superknowledge of past abodes. From "All because the bodhisattva attains the eye of the nine periods, seeing them just as one sees the present" onward, this explains the meaning of knowing. That it says "sees" means cognitive seeing. The above directly clarifies it. Second, from "If not so" onward, it establishes it by counter-challenge. Third, from "If it were only what was formerly experienced" onward, it fends off a defense. That is, fearing someone might defend: "Events seen in the past—although the events are destroyed, the seeds of seeing still persist, so they can be known." From "Then it would be" onward, to fend off this defense, the text has three refutations: First, a privative refutation. That is, because one would only see mind and not see things; since what is seen is different, how could seeing the present mind be called the cognition of past abodes? Second, from "Moreover, what was never experienced" onward, a concessionary refutation. Even conceding that there are seeds capable of cognitive seeing, what was not experienced in the past should not be cognitively seen. That is, having been human in the past, how could one see universally? Now having attained the cognition of past abodes, one knows far and wide. Third, from "Moreover, merely seeing the present" onward, concluding, this is a refutation based on violating the name.