大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 16.29

16.29

As for the commentary's "Furthermore, the above ten flowers sequentially adorn the ten Buddhas": this is the second [section], explaining the meaning separately, because they accomplish one Buddha through the same [degree of] salvation. As for "the unhindered nature of the general and the specific": it unifies the above two, because the serial progression (xingbu) and total interpenetration (yuanrong) are both unhindered. Regarding the commentary from "There are further ten meanings" downward: the third [section] speaks in terms of mutual adornment. Within this there are two parts: first, specifically relying on ten meanings and five pairs to mutually adorn one another; second, gathering them into four propositions to reveal mutual adornment. Now, the first ten meanings can be understood from the text. However, they also derive their names from specific explanations. Furthermore, regarding the meaning of interpreting the title within the explanation of the name: if considered from the perspective of total interpenetration, they are all karmadhāraya compounds (chaye shi); if considered according to their distinct characteristics, they are all tatpuruṣa compounds (yizhu shi). For example, the first uses the cause to adorn the fruit, which is the "Buddha of flower adornment"; the second is the "flower adornment of the Buddha"; the third is the "great vaipulya of the Buddha's flower adornment"; the fourth is the "Buddha's flower adornment of the great vaipulya"; the fifth is the "vaipulya of the great"; the sixth is the "great of the vaipulya"; the seventh is the "direction/method (fang) of the great"; the eighth is the "great of the direction/method"; the ninth is the "sūtra of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-mahāvaipulya"; the tenth is the mutual adornment of the various causal practices, which contains many meanings—namely, the discipline of generosity, the generosity of discipline, the wisdom of meditative absorption, the meditative absorption of wisdom, and so forth. The previous four form pairs, whereas the latter one does not form a pair: one can only adorn the sūtra with the "great," etc., but one cannot adorn the "great," etc., with the sūtra; thus it does not form a pair. It is also because of the desire to reveal the mutual adornment of the various causal practices.