大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.36

74.36

On the passage in the Commentary beginning with "Master Huiyuan": fourth, recounting Master Huiyuan, which has four parts: 1. taking the gist to recount the past [view], 2. discerning its accordance and discordance, 3. posing a hypothetical question and giving the correct explanation, 4. concluding the detailed to follow the concise. Now for the first. Master Huiyuan explained these seven similes based on the two truths: the first six are conventional; knowing the conventional is unreal, it is therefore said to be like an illusion; knowing the conventional is provisional existence, it is therefore said to be like a mirage; knowing the conventional arises from the mind, it is therefore said to be like a dream; knowing sound is unreal, it is therefore said to be like an echo; knowing the conventional exists temporarily, it is therefore said to be like lightning; knowing that transformations lack substance, it is therefore said to be like an apparition. The last one is knowing the ultimate; knowing that the ultimate is free from characteristics, it is therefore like empty space. The first six are the emptiness of the conditioned; the last one is the emptiness of the unconditioned. Because the first six similes are mostly the same as Master Guangtong and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the Commentary does not cite them, but merely takes his general idea. The eight similes of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha are based on the other-dependent nature, and therefore do not establish space. The present sūtra includes space, clearly illustrating the unconditioned. In the Commentary, beginning with "It is not without reason": second, discerning accordance and discordance. The first clause accords with reason: compared to the other similes, space resembles the unconditioned. From "Yet it contradicts" onward, it discerns its discordance with the text, because the simile of space in the text is broader. In the Commentary, beginning with "If so": third, posing a hypothetical question and giving the correct explanation. The intent of the query first says: since his view contradicts the text, how does [the Commentary] itself explain it? Beginning with "That doubt", this is the correct explanation of the Commentary. It adopts the force of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to explain the simile of space. Although it is absent in that treatise, supposing it were present, it should be as I explain it. In the Commentary, beginning with "The remaining meanings": fourth, concluding the detailed to follow the concise. The detailed explanation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha has already been cited above, and the text of the separate chapter has already been briefly provided in the notes.