大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 76.34

76.34

Regarding the commentary's "a single hair matching the dharmatā" and so forth: this text is also an elliptical cross-reference. If stated fully, both the lands and the pore possess both the meaning of matching the nature and the characteristic of non-destruction. Here, in the case of the hair, the meaning of matching the nature is taken, and hence it is like the dharmatā having nothing outside it; in the case of the lands, the characteristic of non-destruction is taken, and hence they do not pervade the hair that matches the nature, and so the words "the one who has awakened" are added. There is yet another meaning, which is also an elliptical cross-reference: placing the one who has awakened on the hair reveals that the lands exist due to delusion. In delusion, there are partitions; in awakening, there are no boundaries. The former meaning is discussed directly in terms of phenomena; the latter takes phenomena in reference to the person; this can be seen upon reflection. Regarding the commentary's "because inner and outer dependent origination are neither identical nor separate": there are also two meanings. First, in terms of the inner and outer jointly forming dependent origination: because they are not identical, there are the enterer and the entered; because they are not separate, they can interpenetrate. Second, in terms of inner and outer dependent origination being neither identical to nor separate from the true dharmatā: this again has two meanings. First, because the inner and outer are not identical to the dharmatā, there are the enterer and the entered; because they are not separate from the dharmatā, the hair can contain and the lands can completely enter. Second, the hair, in terms of not being separate from the dharmatā, contains [all] in accordance with the principle; the lands, in terms of not being identical to the dharmatā, do not pervade the pore. Reflecting on this constitutes contemplation. However, among the ten sections, in one section the number is mentioned and in another it is not; not mentioning it is out of a desire for brevity, while mentioning it stems from concern over losing the sequence.