大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.35

74.35

疏「然彼論無空」下，第二經論對辨。然論望經略有四異，疏有三節：初明有無；二「而影是鏡像」者，是顯名異；三「更有映質」下，辨其開合。於中有二：先辨論開所由，由義異故；後「今經以義」下，明經合所以，以類同故。更有一意：為成十故。以加三法，故合此三，下文當說。然若唯為成十，何不合在於餘喻中？故疏但顯類同之義。言「至下當知」者，即影喻中廣開其相。四者經論次第而有前却，經為對前三種法故，次不同論。下釋具出，易故此無。

On the passage in the Commentary beginning with "However, that treatise lacks space": second, comparing and discerning between the sūtra and the treatise. Looking at the treatise in relation to the sūtra, there are roughly four differences, and the Commentary has three clauses: first, explaining presence and absence; second, "while 'shadow' refers to a mirror image", which reveals differences in terminology; third, beginning with "Moreover, there is that which obscures the archetype", distinguishing their separation and combination. Within this there are two: first, discerning the reason why the treatise separates them, which is because their meanings differ; second, beginning with "Now the sūtra, based on meaning", clarifying the reason why the sūtra combines them, which is because their types are the same. There is another meaning: to complete the count of ten. Because three dharmas were added, these three were combined, as will be explained below. However, if it were solely to complete ten, why not combine them into other similes? Therefore, the Commentary only demonstrates the meaning of being of the same type. When it says, "It should be known below", it refers to extensively dividing their aspects under the simile of the shadow. The fourth is that the order of the sūtra and the treatise has a reversal; because the sūtra corresponds to the preceding three dharmas, its sequence is not the same as the treatise. The explanation below sets this out in full; because it is easy, it is omitted here.