大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 9.14

9.14

疏「根本後得」下，第八能所斷證，即離別中不即義也。因明斷證，復說緣境。根本緣真，後得緣俗。「義說雙觀」者，亦言了俗由於證真。二智雙觀真俗，以其宗中二智不融，二境不即，故正雙觀時而常別照。言「斷惑別」者，根本智斷迷理隨眠，後得智斷迷事隨眠。護法云：「不親證故，無力能斷迷理隨眠。而於安立相無倒證故，亦能永斷迷事隨眠。」故《瑜伽》說「於修道位中有出世斷道、世出世斷道。」相傳釋云：正體能斷迷理迷事二種隨眠，後得但斷迷事隨眠。斷迷理時即觀理境，斷迷事時即觀事境，故不即也。既言根本有雙斷義，故說雙觀。後得既不斷於迷理，還成別照，不同法性一斷一切斷也。此中疏文影略而說。若約斷惑，應云義說雙斷而實別斷。言「以有為智證無為理」者，唯約根本斷惑而說。上明斷惑，此辯證理。前緣境斷惑，但就所觀以論不即；今此證理，就能所證心境相對，明不即義。能證之智則是有為，所證之理即是無為，故不即也。

Regarding the Commentary's statement below from "fundamental and subsequent": this is the eighth [contrast], on the severance and realization between the cognizing [cognition] and cognized [object], namely the sense of non-identity within the distinction of identity and difference. Because it clarifies severance and realization, it also speaks of taking objects as conditions: the fundamental [cognition] takes conditions as the real, while the subsequent [cognition] takes conditions as the conventional. "Figuratively described as double contemplation" means that it is also said that comprehending the conventional derives from realizing the real. The two cognitions doubly contemplate the real and the conventional; because in that school the two cognitions do not merge and the two objects are not identical, when precisely in double contemplation, they constantly illuminate separately. Regarding "the difference in severing afflictions": the fundamental cognition severs latent defilements confused about principle, while the subsequent cognition severs latent defilements confused about phenomena. Dharmapāla says: "Because it does not directly realize [principle], it lacks the capacity to sever latent defilements confused about principle. Yet, because it non-erroneously realizes conventional characteristics, it can also permanently sever latent defilements confused about phenomena." Therefore the Yogācārabhūmi says: "On the stage of the path of cultivation, there is the supramundane path of severance and the mundane-and-supramundane path of severance." According to the handed-down explanation: the fundamental substance can sever both kinds of latent defilements, those confused about principle and those confused about phenomena, whereas the subsequent cognition only severs latent defilements confused about phenomena. When severing confusion about principle, it contemplates the objective realm of principle; when severing confusion about phenomena, it contemplates the objective realm of phenomena; thus they are not identical. Since it is said that the fundamental [cognition] possesses the meaning of double severance, it is therefore called double contemplation. Since the subsequent [cognition] does not sever confusion about principle, it reverts to separate illumination; it is not like the dharmatā [teaching, where] one severance is the severance of all. The text of the Commentary here speaks elliptically. If speaking in terms of severing afflictions, it should say: it is figuratively described as double severance, yet in reality it is separate severance. Regarding "realizing unconditioned principle by means of conditioned cognition": this is spoken solely in terms of the fundamental [cognition's] severance of afflictions. Above it clarified the severance of afflictions; here it analyzes the realization of principle. Previously, regarding taking conditions as objects to sever afflictions, it addressed non-identity solely in terms of what is contemplated; now, regarding this realization of principle, it clarifies the meaning of non-identity by correlating the mind and the object in terms of the realized and what realizes. The cognition that realizes is conditioned, while the principle that is realized is unconditioned; hence they are not identical.