大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 4.9

4.9

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Next, explaining the two sets of four propositions on pervasive and restricted...": first it introduces, and afterwards it explains. In the explanation, the first four propositions are discussed in terms of a single flat layer, while the latter four propositions are discussed in terms of layer-upon-layer mutual inclusion. Furthermore, the first four discuss pervasiveness and restriction by contrasting the person with the place, whereas the latter four discuss pervasiveness and restriction solely in terms of the place of expounding. Among the former, the first two propositions are discussed solely in terms of characteristics: first, that the sūtra was expounded in seven places in this world; second, that it was expounded simultaneously in all kṣetras throughout the ten directions. Third, because characteristics follow the nature, the single is able to pervade, as in the "Chapter on Awakening through Light," which says: "Just as in this place the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, is seen sitting on the lion throne of the Lotus Treasury, so in all worlds throughout the ten directions, each has one hundred koṭis of Jambudvīpas and one hundred koṭis of Tathāgatas likewise seated." This clarifies that one assembly pervades all, not that there are separate Buddhas in each of those places. Fourth is reverting to the equality of principle. Among the latter four propositions, the first is based on the gate of broad containment: phenomena contain principle, and because phenomena and principle are unobstructed, a single realm, being identical to principle, can subsume all. Second is based on the gate of ubiquity: phenomena are ubiquitous like principle, causing this single realm, following the principle upon which it relies, to enter into all kṣetras. Third is because broad containment is ubiquity: precisely at the time of subsuming, it is able to enter that, because these two gates have no separate essence. Fourth is the gate of obliterating distinctions into equality: because both are unattainable within the dharmadhātu.