大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 79.77

79.77

疏「合中謂諸乘」下，疏文有三：初正釋文。二「豈不依心及依理」者，設難也。依心約法相宗，依理約法性宗。三「豈不向言王所無二」下，釋通。此釋依心；後「良以佛智」下，釋依理義。於中四：初正釋、二引例、三引證、四舉況。今初。即〈迴向〉，經云「無有智外如為智所入，亦無如外智能證於如。」今但通上豈不依理難，故但引前句。謂彼難云：上言唯如如及如如智獨存，則智依如矣。何言無依？故今釋云：智外無如，故無所依。然彼〈迴向〉經文自有三意：一約如體性空，故智外無如；智體性空，故如外無智。二如智一味，同一真體，安得智外更有如耶？三約事事無礙，舉一全收。今但用初二意以酬難竟，後意即在第四舉況之中。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "In the synthesis, it means the vehicles..." downward: the commentary text has three parts: first, directly explaining the text; second, "Does it not rely on mind and rely on principle?" posits an objection. Relying on mind concerns the Dharma-characteristic school; relying on principle concerns the Dharma-nature school. Third, from "Did we not earlier say king and mental factors are non-dual?" downward, it resolves the objection. This resolves relying on mind; afterward, from "Truly because the Buddha's cognition..." downward, it explains the meaning of relying on principle. Within this are four: first, direct explanation; second, citing an analogous case; third, citing proof; fourth, raising an a fortiori comparison. Now for the first: this is the "Pariṇāmanā [Chapter]," where the sūtra says: "There is no tathatā outside cognition entered into by cognition, nor is there cognition outside tathatā that can realize tathatā." Now it merely resolves the preceding objection about whether it does not rely on principle, and therefore only cites the former clause. That is, that objection states: "Above it was said that only suchness and the cognition of suchness exist alone; then cognition relies on suchness. Why say it has no reliance?" Hence it now explains: "Outside cognition there is no tathatā, and therefore it has nothing upon which to rely." However, that passage in the "Pariṇāmanā [Chapter]" intrinsically contains three meanings: First, in terms of the nature of the essence of tathatā being empty, outside cognition there is no tathatā; the essence of cognition being empty, outside tathatā there is no cognition. Second, tathatā and cognition are of a single taste, sharing the same true essence; how could there be another tathatā outside cognition? Third, in terms of the unimpeded interpenetration of phenomenon and phenomenon, adducing one fully gathers all. Now it merely uses the first two meanings to finish answering the objection, while the latter meaning is contained within the fourth, raising an a fortiori comparison.