大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 82.53

82.53

The Commentary states: "Therefore in the Upadeśa there is the stage of the eight persons": this proves that the preceding text is the candidate for the first fruit. Examining the ten stages above, the third, the eight persons, is located in the uninterrupted path of the path of seeing. Hence fascicle 59 states: "The stage of the eight persons refers to: in the path of seeing the truths, 1. the follower by faith; 2. the follower by Dharma; 3. the srotāpanna who is born in the three realms of existence for at most six or seven lifetimes; 4. the srotāpanna whose afflictions are extinguished in this lifetime and attains the state of an arhat; 5. the srotāpanna of family-to-family (kulaṃkula), who enters nirvāṇa after being born for three lifetimes; 6. the interim srotāpanna; 7. except for the third, those remaining who enter nirvāṇa in the interim; 8. those abiding in the six abidings of unimpededness and five liberations; these eight are all candidates for the srotāpanna."
Explanation: This means that within the candidate for the first fruit there are eight kinds of persons, hence it is called the stage of the eight persons, not solely 'the eighth'. However, when viewed in relation to the seven preparatory stages, these eight persons are all the eighth. Both meanings are established: that is, it is named both 'the eighth' and 'the stage of the eight persons'; hence the Commentary cites it to prove and establish the candidate for the first fruit. In relation to the fifth below being the first fruit, this being the candidate for the first fruit makes the sequence distinctly clear.
If one only took the patience with the Dharma of suffering, on what basis would the remaining seven patiences be excluded? Furthermore, on what basis would the fourteen minds not be taken? Furthermore, in all fifteen minds one has not yet attained the fruit; why would the treatise author singularly use the patience with the Dharma of suffering as a premise for an objection? Master Lin's establishing it as the candidate for the first fruit does not conflict with the principle. Yet counting from the superior progression also lacks justification. The correct doctrine is as stated previously.