大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 81.44

81.44

疏「佛華嚴者，萬行披敷嚴法身故」者，釋佛華嚴三昧。華者，菩薩萬行也，以因能感果故。言如華嚴者，行成果滿，契合相應，垢障外消，證理圓潔，隨用讚德，故稱嚴也。三昧者，理智無二，交徹鎔融，此彼俱亡、能所斯絕故。亦可華即是嚴，理智無礙故。華嚴即三昧，以行融離見故。華即是嚴，一行頓修一切行故。華嚴三昧，一行即多，而不礙一故。華嚴即三昧，以定亂雙融故；三昧即華嚴，理智如如故。晉經云「一切自在難思議，華嚴三昧勢力故。」此即據行為言，名華嚴三昧，如〈賢首品〉。疏「前皆有加」下，上略釋文，此下對前料揀。然有二意：前意自他對說、後意亦通伏難。難云：前釋入定，云為受佛加故。今無佛加，何須入定？故為此通。結云「多端」，不可例難。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "As for 'Buddha-Avataṃsaka', it is because the myriad practices open and adorn the dharmakāya", this explains the Buddha-avataṃsaka-samādhi. "Flower" (hua) refers to the bodhisattva's myriad practices, because causes can induce results. Saying "like flower-adornment" means that when practices are accomplished and fruit is fulfilled, matching and corresponding, defilements and hindrances externally dissolve, and realization of principle is completely pure; praising virtue in accordance with its function is therefore called "adornment". As for "samādhi", principle and wisdom are non-dual, thoroughly interpenetrating and fusing; this and that are both obliterated, subject and object completely severed. Alternatively, the flower is itself the adornment, because principle and wisdom are unobstructed. Avataṃsaka is itself samādhi, because through practice one fuses and leaves views behind. Flower is itself adornment, because a single practice頓 suddenly cultivates all practices. In Avataṃsaka-samādhi, a single practice is itself the many, without obstructing the one. Avataṃsaka is itself samādhi, because concentration and disturbance are mutually fused; samādhi is itself Avataṃsaka, because principle and wisdom are as such. The Jin translation of the sūtra says: "All sovereignty is inconceivable, / due to the power of the Avataṃsaka-samādhi." Here it speaks based on practice and is called Avataṃsaka-samādhi, as in the Chapter on the Worthy Leader. Regarding the commentary's passage from "Previously all had empowerment..." onwards, above it briefly explained the text; below this, it evaluates it against what preceded. There are two intents: the first is spoken in terms of self and other; the second also resolves a hidden objection. The objection states: "The earlier explanation of entering samādhi said it was to receive the Buddha's empowerment. Now that there is no empowerment from the Buddha, why must one enter samādhi?" Therefore this explanation is made. It concludes with "manifold aspects"; one cannot object based on analogy.