大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.66

64.66

Under the commentary's phrase "Next, inversely questioning the second phrase," this is the second inverse question: if one is free from this attachment, there is no place of birth. Within the text there are two: first, presenting; afterwards, under "Furthermore," taking up the treatise to explain. However, the treatise merely says: "If within the ultimate truth there truly were a characteristic of a self, if one were free from attachment to self, one should constantly be born in the world." Now the commentary also has a twofold explanation, whose text is slightly different from the previous, and is divided into three: first, explaining through the dynamic of concession and deprivation in the Śataśāstra; second, explaining by setting up an inference according to hetuvidyā; third, citing the sūtra to conclude both and question back in order to refute. In the first: conforming to the previous treatise, there should also be three, yet the text is somewhat brief, and together with the commentary makes three: first, affirming and fixing what is grasped; second, "if one were free from this attachment to self, one should constantly be born in the world," which is directly questioning according to principle; third, under "because it does not correspond to reality," the commentary explains the treatise's intent, which is identical to the previous second part, inversely conceding and positing. And the treatise implies this in the previous phrase "if one were free from this attachment": it means that within the ultimate truth there is truly a self taken as the true principle; now being free from attachment to self does not correspond to the principle, which is identical to the ordinary person's false grasping contrary to principle. Thus it is conceded and established.