大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 79.4

79.4

Regarding the Commentary's "Second, explaining the name," the commentary's text is divided into three: first, the correct explanation; second, from "If restricted only to transformation..." onward, concluding with a critique of ancient interpretations; third, from "However, 'coming' is precisely 'manifestation'..." onward, harmonizing with the six compound analyses. In the first part, there are four: 1. A general explanation. 2. From "Although the Tathāgata..." onward, concluding what came before and introducing what follows. 3. From "If based on the dharmakāya..." onward, the specific explanation. However, as for the dharmakāya, if discussing dharma upon the recompense [body], one should say that tathatā emerging from entanglement is the manifestation of the dharmakāya; now, taking emergence from entanglement as the recompense, and approaching it directly upon the essence, it therefore says "constantly manifests according to principle." The remaining two can be known. 4. From "Now, taking the newly [awakened] Buddha..." onward, fusing and harmonizing the explanations. Therein are two: first, harmonizing the three bodies and the ten bodies; next, harmonizing the chapter title to substantiate the previous meaning. In the former part, there are three: first, contrasting the dharma and recompense [bodies]; second, contrasting the true and the responsive; third, concluding with the fusion of the three and the ten. Now, the first: the statement "the newly [awakened] Buddha and the originally accomplished [Buddha] have never had two essences" approaches the dharma from the recompense, like an image emerging from a mold: the image is fundamentally originally accomplished, and therefore there are not two essences. The statement "in the newly accomplished and original Buddha, dharma and recompense seem divided" approaches the recompense from the dharma, like gold forming an image: gold and image seem divided, because there is gold that has not yet formed an image. Now that the image is formed, they seem divided into two. The former contrast is non-difference; this contrast is non-oneness; non-oneness is non-difference, so it says they seem divided, while ultimately there are not two essences.