大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 72.16

72.16

Fourth, from "Within the Mahāyāna" downward, [the text] directly explains the characteristics of Dharma and inductive [cognition] in the Mahāyāna, which is the explanation of the [sūtra] text. In this there are two parts: first, positing both Dharma and inductive [cognition] together; second, from "Dharma cognition contemplates suchness" downward, individually explaining the four characteristics. The Treatise states: "1. Directly perceptual cognition." In the Commentary, first direct perception is explained; later, from "it means contemplating differences" downward, the reason for establishing it as direct perception is explained, which is the meaning in the Treatise's re-explanation. However, the Treatise sūtra states: "Through the unhindered cognition of Dharma, one knows the differences among all dharmas without destroying upāya." Explanation: "without destroying upāya" is "non-difference" in the present sūtra. The Treatise re-explains: "Herein, Dharma cognition means knowing the differences in the truths without difference in upāya; because Dharma cognition's differences do not destroy upāya." Explanation: knowing the differences in the truths explains knowing the differences among dharmas in the sūtra. The two truths not being identical is called the differences among dharmas. Saying "without difference in upāya" explains "without destroying upāya." From "Dharma cognition" downward, it repeats the sūtra text to match it, hence grasping the meaning by stating: the differentiated two truths are identical with suchness and not different. Being identical with suchness is precisely the reason for non-difference. Second, from "Inductive cognition contemplates" downward, unhindered meaning is explained. The two characters "inductive cognition" are from the Treatise; from "contemplates" downward is the Commentary's explanation, which is also the meaning in the Treatise's re-explanation. That sūtra states: "Through unhindered cognition of meaning, with inductive cognition one truly knows the differences among all dharmas." Explanation: this is inverted compared to the present text. The Treatise re-explains: "Inductive cognition means: truly differentiating, and the rest can likewise be known by inferring that true differences in the truths are knowable." Explanation: by means of what is presently known, one analogously infers all dharmas; hence it says "likewise." In the Commentary, grasping the meaning, the cognition that contemplates the preceding ability to contemplate and truly differentiate is precisely truly differentiating. From "analogously inferring the rest" downward, it explains the Treatise's "the rest can likewise be." From "analogously inferring what" downward, it poses a question and explains. Because inductive cognition truly knows the differences in the truths, this accords with the sūtra saying "differences are true." Since "true" is below, difference is precisely true, which directly explains and accords with the aforementioned two truths being identical with suchness. Understanding the suchness of the two truths is precisely truly knowing differences in the truths. Examining it closely, it is easy to see. "3. Cognition of the upāya of wishing to attain" is from the Treatise. Below the character "means," it explains that realizing the ultimate truth is called "attaining." Because wishing to advance toward realization must rely on conventional truth as an upāya. The Treatise sūtra states: "Through unhindered cognition of expressions, because of worldly cognition and correct view, one knows how to expound the Dharma." The Treatise's re-explanation does not explain this phrase; the Commentary explains correct view in terms of the path of seeing characteristics. The words "4. Cognition of attainment" are from the Treatise. Below the character "means," it explains by grasping the meaning of the Treatise. The Treatise re-explains: "The upāya of ultimate cognition is not inverted, distinct from [mere] delight in exposition, as should be known." Because the Treatise sūtra states: "Unhindered cognition of delight in exposition expounds through the correct upāya with ultimate cognition." Therefore the Treatise quotes it. In the Commentary, it first explains the Treatise's "not inverted"; next, from "hence it says" downward, it concludes by matching the sūtra; later, from "it can be verified" downward, it explains the names established by the Treatise.