大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 79.71

79.71

疏「後消經意」下，第二釋經文。於中有三：初略明，即雙標遮表。二「故晉經」下，引證雙證遮表。既言知心無量，則有心矣，言無最失。疏「云何深玄」下，第三廣釋，即雙釋遮表。即分為二：第一釋寄遮顯深、第二釋寄表顯深。前中四：初明偏語不能盡理、二結性相二門難思、三明總具性相不可別彰、四明不即不離故難顯說。今初，略有四對：一有無者，即別對二宗。二染淨，即法相宗。三一異者，通對二宗。四情非情，亦對二宗。初對義者，事即理故非有，理不失事故非無。二染淨對，淨約絕相，染約契性。言「不斷性惡」者，惡同以心性為性，若斷性惡則斷心性。性不可斷，亦猶闡提不斷性善。三一異對，通對二宗。即體之相能包，即相之體一味。四情非情對，亦對二宗。即用之體同色，即體之用徹幽。言「無殊色性」者，即《起信論》云「以知色性即智性故，說名智身。以知智性即色相故，說名法身遍一切處。」又〈梵行品〉云「知一切法即心自性故，情非情性曾何異體。」

Regarding the commentary's statement from "Next, analyzing the intent of the sūtra" downward: this is the second part, explaining the sūtra text. Within this are three: first, a brief explanation, which sets forth both negation and affirmation; second, from "Hence the Jin text..." downward, citing proof to confirm both negation and affirmation. Since it says knowing that mind is immeasurable, mind exists; to say it is absent is the greatest error. Regarding the commentary's statement, "How is it profound and mysterious?" downward: this is the third part, an extensive explanation, which explains both negation and affirmation. It is divided into two: first, explaining the revelation of profundity through negation; second, explaining the revelation of profundity through affirmation. In the first part there are four: first, showing that one-sided statements cannot exhaust the principle; second, concluding that the two approaches of nature and characteristics are inconceivable; third, showing that fully possessing both nature and characteristics cannot be manifested separately; fourth, showing that being neither identical nor separate makes it difficult to express. Now, regarding the first, there are briefly four pairs: First, existence and nonexistence, which separately correspond to the two schools. Second, defilement and purity, which corresponds to the Dharma-characteristic school. Third, unity and difference, which comprehensively corresponds to the two schools. Fourth, sentient and insentient, which also corresponds to the two schools. Regarding the meaning of the first pair: because phenomena are precisely principle, it is not existent; because principle does not discard phenomena, it is not nonexistent. As for the second pair, defilement and purity: purity is considered in terms of absolute transcendence of marks; defilement is considered in terms of tallying with the nature. The statement "not severing the evil of the nature" means that evil equally takes the nature of mind as its nature; if one severed the evil of the nature, one would sever the nature of mind. Nature cannot be severed, just as an icchantika does not sever the good of the nature. As for the third pair, unity and difference, it comprehensively corresponds to the two schools: the characteristics identical to essence can encompass all, while the essence identical to characteristics is of a single taste. As for the fourth pair, sentient and insentient, it also corresponds to the two schools: the essence identical to function is identical with form, and the function identical to essence penetrates the profound. The phrase "not distinct from the nature of form" refers to what the Awakening of Faith says: "Because one knows the nature of form is precisely the nature of cognition, it is called the cognition-body. Because one knows the nature of cognition is precisely the mark of form, it is called the dharmakāya pervading all places." Moreover, the 'Chapter on Pure Conduct' says: "Because one knows all dharmas are precisely the intrinsic nature of mind, how could the nature of sentient and insentient ever be of different substances?"