大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 76.11

76.11

Regarding the commentary's "Because the reflection in the mirror is apart from the archetype": this is the second part, distinguishing differences with respect to the similes. It clarifies that this mirror reflection receives the name of "retribution" because the fruit is distinct from the cause, just as the reflection is outside the body. From "The preceding reflection against the archetype" downward, it distinguishes how the former differs from this. The sun and moon are in the sky, and the shadow and light are on the body; the body serves as an analogy for the cause, and so the manifested phenomena can be together with the cause. The commentary says: "Hence it serves as an analogy that although the various consciousnesses arise supported by objects, their difference and independence lie in themselves, not in the objects." This corresponds to the earlier statement that although it follows the sun and so forth, the shadow ultimately follows the body; this is explained in terms of a general analogy for all consciousnesses. If one takes the light and shadow as an analogy for the bodhisattva manifesting a body, then the shadow following the body's differences does not lie in the sunlight, meaning that the body's having differences arises from itself, not from the bodhisattva's sun of wisdom making it differ. Master Rui says: "Form does not enter the mirror, yet under the illumination of light it exists; the world is also like this, receiving karmic shadows. Those who do not know this / will long suffer its guilt. / If one can awaken to this, / one returns the spirit to the mother of qi." Regarding the commentary's "Among them, oneness and difference, union and separation generally reveal the meaning of reflection": this discriminates between the general and particular among the various pairs in the sūtra. This applies to all three reflections, hence it is said to "generally reveal." Next, from "In streams and currents" downward, it clarifies only the reflection of the moon in water. Regarding the commentary's "However, oneness and difference pertain to this reflection and that reflection": it self-discriminates the different doctrinal points of the two pairs, showing that there is no fault of repetition. "This reflection and that reflection" means: if the moon in the river were one with the water, it could not be in the stream; if it were different from the water, the difference between river and stream would entail two moons. Regarding "Union and separation pertain to the reflection versus the water": if the water and the reflection were united, when the water flows the moon should also flow; if the water and the reflection were separated, away from the water there should still be a reflection. Furthermore, regarding "union and separation," the meaning of "union" also involves two things, like two palms clapping together. "Oneness and difference" is not like this: "oneness" has no pair, like ice becoming water; if the reflection were different from the water, the moon could emerge from the water. If the reflection were one with the water, wherever there is water there would be the moon, and it could not shift. The meaning of union and separation does not differ from the previous explanation. Regarding the commentary's "It does not apply to the two reflections": this is because it pertains solely to the moon in the water, not applying to the mirror reflection or to the reflection cast by an archetype. This is because the text merely says "streams, currents, pools, and wells." Regarding "the moon reflecting on the Huai's current": thus the Wen Xuan says "the moon reflecting on the clear current."