大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 58.8

58.8

Regarding the Commentary's "Fourth, raising the causes to reveal the characteristics" onwards: the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, explaining the intention of the sūtra text; afterward, from "five fears" onwards, unfolding the meaning to explain specifically, not explaining the sūtra sequentially, but taking categories of meaning to explain. Within this there are two parts: first, generally displaying the results of the five fears; second, displaying the causes of the five fears and clarifying the meaning of freedom [from them]. In the former, merely discriminating ambiguous characteristics constitutes the textual explanation. Within it there are three parts: 1. Distinguishing death and failure to survive. 2. From "Death relates to attachment to the wholesome destinies" onwards, distinguishing death and the evil destinies. This is based on the third and fourth above relying on the body, which is why this distinction is made. The above three have ambiguities, which is why they are distinguished. Ill repute easily learns virtues, so it is not explained. 3. From "Only stating five" onwards, resolving objections and discerning subsumption. That is, someone asks: "Fears are of many kinds, such as being beaten and bound, etc.; are these not feared? Why only speak of five?" Therefore, this is resolved, showing that none are unincluded among the five: like being beaten and bound, etc., they are subsumed under the fear of failure to survive and death, etc. As for the Commentary's "These causes of fear are briefly of two kinds" onwards: second, displaying the causes of fear and clarifying the meaning of freedom. In the text there are three parts: 1. Citing the treatise to explain generally; 2. Distinguishing and explaining; 3. Concluding and demonstrating generally. Now first, observing the explanatory text below, the two causes are naturally evident. As for the Commentary's "However, these two causes" onwards: distinguishing and explaining. Within it there are two: first, general; second, specific. The specific is based on the characteristics being evident; the general relates to the meaning being inclusive, so clarifying the general is precisely what the specific distinguishes. That is, slight roots of goodness is specifically the cause of the latter two, but now generally the cause of the former three. "Failure to survive, etc." includes death, ill repute, and attachment born of mistaken knowledge; specifically they are the cause of the former three, but now generally the cause of the latter two. "Fearing the assembly, etc." includes the evil destinies. As for the Commentary's "If taking evident characteristics" onwards: second, specifically assigning them. Within it there are three: 1. Jointly indicating both; 2. From "Mistaken knowledge is..." onwards, explaining the first cause. Within it there are four: i. Citing and explaining the text of the treatise; ii. From "Attachment to self" onwards, specifically matching the three causes; iii. From "Without self and what belongs to self" onwards, showing freedom; iv. From "However, failure to survive" onwards, harmonizing and explaining the sūtra text. As for the Commentary's "The latter two causes" onwards: 3. Explaining the latter causes. In the text there are two: first, the cause; afterward, from "Now possessing merit" onwards, discerning freedom. As for the Commentary's "Therefore the first three are freed from..." and so forth: 3. Concluding and demonstrating generally.