大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 36.43

36.43

Regarding the commentary's passage, "However, considered in relation to each other, here there are four pairs of phenomena..." onward: this is the second, a specific integration. Within this, there are again two: first, generally clarifying the categories of meaning; afterward, from "Considered in relation to each other, the one and the many should form four propositions..." onward, specifically explaining the meaning of the one and the many in the previous categories of phenomena. Within this, there are three: first, correctly stating the four propositions; next, explaining the remaining assemblies by analogy; finally, explaining the remaining meanings by analogy. Now for the first. "In the sūtra, it wishes to reveal the mutual identity of the one and the many, therefore..." and so forth: this reveals the reason why the sūtra was not exhaustive. If it said 'without leaving the one tree, he ascended to the one heaven', the inconceivable characteristic would not be manifested. If it said 'not rising from the one tree, he ascended to all Trāyastriṃśa Heavens', it could not reveal the complete pervasiveness of the original assembly. If it said 'without leaving all trees, he ascended to all heavens', there would be no characteristic of the unobstructedness of the one and the many. Therefore, it only brings out the first proposition. Below, Fahui's analogous statement that 'in the ten directions it was also like this' provides the proposition of 'ascending to all', which is the proposition of 'both being many'. Regarding the commentary's passage, "Ascending to the heaven of Śakra being so..." onward: this is the second, explaining the remaining assemblies by analogy.