大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.55

6.55

The Commentary's words, "What was previously taken out and brought in was known to the son," constitute the second [citation], which cites the text of the "Belief and Understanding" chapter. The text says: "Then after a short time, the father knew that his son's mind was gradually becoming unobstructed and broad, that he had accomplished great aspirations and despised his former frame of mind. When he was near death, he summoned his son and assembled his relatives, the king, ministers, kṣatriyas, and householders. When all had gathered, he declared himself: 'Gentlemen, you should know that this is my son, born of me. In such-and-such a city he abandoned me and fled, enduring hardship and toil for more than fifty years. His original name was so-and-so, and my name is so-and-so. Formerly, in that city, I searched for him with sorrow, and suddenly here I encountered and recovered him. This is truly my son, and I am truly his father. Now all the property and wealth that I possess are completely owned by my son; what was previously taken out and brought in was known to the son.'" Explication: The above text refers to bequeathing the family estate, which corresponds to preaching the Lotus Sūtra. "All the property and wealth" refers to the myriad practices and myriad virtues. "What was previously taken out and brought in" points back to the earlier passage: "I now have abundant gold, silver, and precious treasures, with warehouses full to overflowing. You know all of how much within them should be taken and given." This is an analogy for the Venerable Subhūti expounding the Prajñā[pāramitā]. "Taking and giving" is indeed taking out and bringing in. Converting others externally through the Dharma is called "taking out"; the merit of conversion reverting to oneself is called "bringing in." That is to say, practices of self-benefit and benefiting others are all as in the Prajñā[pāramitā] and other [sūtras]. Now in the Lotus [Sūtra], it merely shows that the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision are what he possesses, and does not elaborate on the various practices. The present Commentary wishes to integrate the three causes into one single cause; therefore it cites both texts to demonstrate the integration of practices, omitting the rest without citing them.