大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 83.5

83.5

The commentary states: "Now the first is the manifestation of the fruit..." Below, the commentary's text has six parts: 1. harmonizing with the preceding text; 2. explaining the meaning of "seeing"; 3. explaining according to the text; 4. concluding generally with perfect interfusion; 5. subsuming them into pairs; 6. generally revealing what is contained. Now as for the first: "What is seen here is the previous ten Buddhas" refers to the fifty-third fascicle at the end of the chapter on "Ten Faiths". However, the Tanxuan ji cites the Dharmasaṃgīti-sūtra: "The bodhisattva enters ten kinds of dharmas and is able to know all Buddhas. What are the ten? They are the Buddha of accumulated vapors, the Buddha of karmic retribution, the Buddha of samādhi, the Buddha of vows, the Buddha of mind, the Buddha of reality, the Buddha of identity, the Buddha of transformation, the Buddha of offerings, and the Buddha of images." And so forth, up to extensive explanations. If one wishes to harmonize them: "accumulated vapors" is, in meaning, equivalent to the "Buddha of following aspirations," because they are originally accumulated and one desires to see them. "Karmic retribution" is the Buddha of karmic retribution. The next three are entirely identical to the Buddha of reality, whose meaning corresponds to the dharmadhātu. The "Buddha of identity" is the fundamental nature, because the fundamental nature is identical. "Transformation" is nirvāṇa. "Offerings" is complete enlightenment. "Images" is the sustaining presence. Second, from "However, regarding the explanation of seeing here..." onward, it explains the meaning of seeing the Buddha. In this there are also three parts: first, a direct explanation; second, from "If a bodhisattva..." onward, a demonstration by contrast; third, from "Nor may one..." onward, refuting an attempt to salvage the argument. It is feared that someone might rescue the position by saying: "Half may be taken from the perspective of what can see, such as the unattached Buddha, etc.; half may be taken from the perspective of what is seen, such as arising, etc. How would this not be coherent?" Therefore, it now refutes this by stating: One must not take half as the subject and half as the object, causing people to be confused, leaving no way to grasp the meaning, and rendering the ten meanings of seeing disordered.