大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.29

74.29

From the commentary's "Furthermore, these three forbearances" onward: second, discriminating between the comprehensive and the restricted, first comprehensive, then restricted. In the comprehensive there are three parts: first, properly showing the comprehensive. Second, from "If in terms of their corresponding stages" onward, showing by contrast that they are not restricted: that is, according to the Bodhisattvabhūmi, sound belongs to the stage of provisions, the forbearance of accord belongs to the stage of preparatory practice, and anutpattikadharmakṣānti belongs to direct realization, so it says the three forbearances are clearly distinct. They are clearly distinct and not the same. From "Because they should not" onward, it concludes the meaning of not being restricted. Third, from "Accord is only according with principle" onward, it resolves objections. In the text there are two objections. The first direct objection states: "The stage of preparatory practice accords with anutpattikadharmakṣānti, hence it is called the forbearance of accord; if one does not view it in terms of stages, how can there be a forbearance of accord?" Thus it now resolves it by saying: "accord" has two meanings. First, according with anutpattikadharmakṣānti, which is preparatory practice; now it is according with the principle of non-arising, so it is not in terms of stages. Next, pursuing this implication, the objection states: "If so, how is it different from non-arising?" Next, from "The forbearance of accord generally accords with phenomena and principle" onward, it resolves the objection: since it generally accords with phenomena and principle, it is not like non-arising which only accords with principle. From "The sūtra says" onward, it cites the sūtra to corroborate this. However, non-arising differing from accord has yet another meaning: namely, only according with the non-arising of principle, defilement and cognition do not arise. Wishing to show that the forbearance of accord differs from both of these two meanings, it simply takes both according with phenomena and principle as sufficient to distinguish the two. Furthermore, the commentary's statement above that "the former two are comprehensively the preparatory practices for non-arising" refers to the preparatory practices spoken of for this equal awakening itself, and is not like the earlier view that took the three forbearances as clearly distinct.