大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 70.38

70.38

Regarding the commentary's statement, 'The third, innate' downwards: first generally explaining, and afterwards, from 'the first three lines' downwards, specifically explaining the three sections. Within these three, since the first line is general, it is both that which binds and that which is bound; that is, the second is that which binds, and the third is the deluded mind that is bound. Now for the first: the treatise itself explains that which is bound, saying, 'Mutually sharing the same matter, mutually relying on one another, because they are not separated.' Now the commentary takes the intended meaning and expands its explanation, using the treatise's 'sharing the same matter' to explain the sūtra's 'innate'. Saying 'arising is precisely matter' has two meanings: first, wherever 'innate' is spoken of, there must be two entities. Affliction is one; with what entity is it innate? It arises simultaneously with the matter of the deluded mind. Second, arising is the arising of defilement; then affliction is co-present with the matter of arising. From 'However, separate from delusion' downwards: using the treatise's 'mutually relying' to explain the sūtra's 'not abandoning'. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'The second, dormancy and activation sharing one meaning': specifically clarifying that which binds. Just as in the world when binding a thief, whether using rope or chains, one asks what binds him. From 'meaning the underlying tendencies (anuśaya) are that which binds' downwards: bringing out the essence of that which binds. From 'the active manifestations are due to the underlying tendencies' downwards: explaining the meaning of its binding. Afflictions bind the mind, and the underlying tendencies bind afflictions, just as when a hemp rope binds a person, by being put into water the rope is made to bind tightly. However, regarding 'Below distinguishing the underlying tendencies' and so forth: resolving the objection of mutual confusion. The underlying tendencies here are the same as those below, so the intent of the reply is: this is from the perspective of underlying tendencies being the cause of delusion, whereas below directly reveals the underlying tendencies; thus they are not confused. Master Yuan says: 'Underlying tendencies have two meanings: first, the meaning of binding, which applies to both nature and activation; second, the meaning of pursuing, which is restricted to being established in nature. Here it is from the perspective of binding.' This is also a plausible principle. However, the anuśaya below also has [the meaning of] binding, so one should simply rely on the commentary. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'The third, concomitant with the mind' downwards: this specifically cites that which is bound. However, although specifically revealing that which binds and that which is bound, they necessarily entail each other, like a rope binding a person. If one speaks of what entity binds, that is speaking solely of that which binds, but there must be the person who is bound. If not, how could it receive the name of binding? Just as saying what person is bound, there must be an entity that binds. Therefore, the subsequent two lines each combine that which binds and that which is bound, with the second primarily taking that which binds, and the third primarily taking that which is bound; reflect on this. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'Matter is precisely the true mind': bringing out the essence of that which is bound, which is the intrinsically pure mind. From 'If bound' downwards: the characteristic of being bound. Moved by the wind of avidyā, not maintaining its own nature, it forms the defiled mind. Defiled yet undefiled, it is called the purity of the mind's nature. Regarding the phrase 'showing that it can be liberated': if it were definitively defiled, it could not be liberated; therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: 'If origination had a fixed nature, / Having not been severed previously, / How could it be severed now?'