大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 52.65

52.65

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Therefore it is impermissible' downward, this is the third part, concluding by rebuking the ancient masters. First, it directly negates [their view]; afterwards, from 'If this has already' downward, it shows the reason, showing that what follows would be redundant. As for the Commentary's statement: 'The rest is as analyzed in the third assembly,' because that place extensively reveals what is divergent and what is fitting, it only briefly relates a small part here. First, in the ten abodes, the ancient masters took the first one as the cause of concentration, and the subsequent three were shifted to become causes of empowerment, not being causes of concentration either. Second, it previously asked itself: between empowerment and concentration, which comes first and which comes after? If concentration is first and empowerment is after, then it should not say: 'You are able to enter this samādhi; this is the joint empowerment of you by all the Buddhas.' If empowerment is first and concentration is after, then it should not be placed after the samādhi section; furthermore, a scattered mind cannot receive empowerment. The ancient masters resolved this by saying that empowerment and concentration are simultaneous. Therefore, the Commentary previously objected: this fails to establish the cause, unlike the meaning of simultaneous cause (sahabhū-hetu), since empowerment and concentration can be distinguished. Indicating the correct doctrine, it says: empowerment is of two kinds, namely unseen empowerment before and manifest empowerment residing after concentration, etc. Therefore, it says that the rest is as in that Commentary.