大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.2

65.2

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Third, deluded about the real and giving rise to the false,' and so forth, before the text there are five points: First, marking the section. Second, from 'The Treatise says' onward, the author of the Treatise poses a hypothetical external question. From 'namely, in its own characteristic' onward, the Commentary explains the Treatise. Third, from 'Therefore the sūtra's intention' onward, it answers the Treatise's hypothetical question with the intention of the sūtra. Fourth, from 'However, the three characteristics of the completion of the answer' onward, it questions the different characteristics of the two. Fifth, from 'There are briefly five differences' onward, the answer reveals its comprehensiveness. Within this, it first explains them individually, and then from 'Having these five' onward it generally concludes. In the former, first, according to differences in what is deluded about: the preceding was deluded about selflessness, which is being deluded about true emptiness; this is deluded about real wisdom, which is wondrous existence, because there is a text stating 'not understanding the ultimate truth.' Second, according to the difference in the order of arising, which can be understood. Third, according to the temporal scope, having breadth and restriction: The statement that 'in meaning it also extends to the five periods' will be clarified in a later section. The statement that 'this is only three periods' is the thesis of this phrase. 'Because name-and-form, etc., are considered solely in terms of active manifestations' brings out the reason. In the preceding section, name-and-form and the other five were treated in terms of seeds, which makes two periods; the subsequent enumeration of the five fruits is entirely considered in terms of active manifestations, which is the fruit recompensing past causes. Based on the fruit, craving and grasping are further aroused to incur subsequent birth and death, and thus there are three periods. Now, since this section considers solely active manifestations, there are only three. That 'in meaning it also extends to one period' will be known below. Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Fourth, the preceding text wished to clarify that the three periods are fully present together,' fourth, according to conditions having the concealed and the revealed: The statement 'within ignorance' onward brings out the characteristics of full presence: ignorance being in the past while craving and grasping are spoken of as present means the three afflictions are fully present. Formations are precisely existence: before being moistened they are called formations, and when moistened they are existence. The two karmas necessarily rely on the seven sufferings, spoken of separately as five and spoken of generally as two. This clarifies that the past is fully endowed with the twelve. It merely brings up the sūtra text, 'within ignorance, craving and grasping are said to exist,' to exemplify that the rest must also be present. The statement, 'because ignorance is spoken of within the present,' clarifies that within the present the twelve are complete. Since within present craving and grasping there is ignorance, the three afflictions are complete, and then the formations that are moistened and become existence already match the past in possessing the two branches of ignorance and formations. The present eight branches are obviously known. Increase, decay, and change also fully contain birth, aging, and death.