大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.5

74.5

疏「一他心二天眼」等者，以經無總列，故今列名。文中有四：一列別名。二「此十皆言智通」下，辨其通稱。通名神通，已如上說。今但釋智字，便當出體。「若隨相」下，辨智差別。三「此十亦是」下，對六開合。但看前列次第，在文易了。四「然小乘」下，通妨難。謂有難言：十通全異可分權實，十六之殊既依六開，何能過六？故今釋云：名數小異，義旨全乖。文有三節：一明小乘、二辨三乘、三釋一乘。言「小乘智用有分」者，宿命但知八萬劫事，天眼但見三千世界，天耳、他心、神足皆局三千之內，漏盡不盡所知，故云有分。「三乘平遍」，明其不盡重重。一乘重重，居然有異。如天眼見塵中之剎剎中之塵、塵剎之佛，佛身毛孔塵剎重重。彼重重剎中如來說法，天耳皆聞。彼中眾生，他心盡了。一念即知多剎，況局八萬之中一塵，即往剎無窮，況局三千之內。三明雖知因起，未盡重重，故云「尚越彼明」，況於三乘小乘六通之境。次有難云：若爾：但明六通而義有異，已揀權實，何要十耶？故云託事顯圓，故開為十，十十法門是本宗故。疏「標云他心」下，疏文有二：一釋名、二辨相。文中有三：初能所合釋，智為能緣、他心為所緣。二「直就所緣」，去能就所釋。三「若所若王」下，顯智寬狹。

As for the commentary's "First, others' minds; second, the divine eye" and so forth: because the sūtra does not list them completely, they are now enumerated by name. In the text there are four parts: First, enumerating the individual names. Second, from "These ten are all termed superknowledges of cognition" onward, distinguishing their common designation. The designation "superknowledge" has already been explained above. Now we merely explain the word "cognition," which brings forth its essence. From "If according to characteristics" onward, it distinguishes the differentiations of cognition. Third, from "These ten are also" onward, their expansion and contraction in relation to the six. One need only look at the sequence listed previously, and it is easily understood in the text. Fourth, from "However, the Hīnayāna" onward, resolving objections. That is, there is an objection: "If the ten superknowledges were completely different, one could divide provisional and real; but since the difference between ten and six is based on an expansion of the six, how could they surpass the six?" Therefore it now explains: The names and numbers differ slightly, but the doctrinal import diverges completely. The text has three sections: first, clarifying the Hīnayāna; second, distinguishing the triyāna; third, explaining the ekayāna. The statement "The Hīnayāna's cognitive function has limits" means: past abodes know matters of only eighty thousand kalpas; the divine eye sees only three thousand worlds; the divine ear, others' minds, and psychic power are all confined within three thousand; and the exhaustion of outflows does not exhaust the knowable; hence it is said to have limits. "The triyāna is equally pervasive" clarifies that it does not exhaust layers upon layers. The ekayāna is layered upon layer, clearly being different. For instance, the divine eye sees lands within dust motes, dust motes within lands, and the Buddhas of dust lands; the hair-pores of a Buddha's body contain layers upon layers of dust lands. When the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma in those layered lands, the divine ear hears it all. As for the sentient beings therein, the knowledge of others' minds completely comprehends them. In a single thought-moment it knows multiple lands, so how could it be confined to eighty thousand? In a single dust mote, it proceeds to infinite lands, so how could it be confined within three thousand? Although the three clarities know causal arising, they have not exhausted the layers upon layers; hence it is said that "they still surpass those clarities," how much more so the realms of the six superknowledges of the triyāna and Hīnayāna! Next, there is an objection: "If so, merely clarifying the six superknowledges with differing meanings already sifts out provisional and real; why is there a need for ten?" Therefore it says that relying on matters reveals the complete; hence they are expanded into ten, because ten times ten dharmic gates are the fundamental tenet. As for the commentary's "Marking them as 'others' minds'" and below, the text of the commentary has two parts: first, explaining the name; second, distinguishing the characteristics. In the text there are three: First, combining the grasper and the grasped in explanation: cognition is the grasping, and others' minds are the grasped. Second, "Directly approaching the grasped," removing the grasper and explaining according to the grasped. Third, from "Whether grasped or king [of mind]" onward, revealing the breadth and narrowness of the cognition.