大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 85.16

85.16

As for the Commentary's phrase '"wealth" mostly belongs to [the category of external] support', there is also the wealth of Dharma, which is why it says 'mostly'. Regarding the Commentary's text from 'Now first, because [he has] already generated the resolve' onward, the Commentary text has three parts: first, it states the overall reason for the teaching; second, from 'this bodhicitta' onward, it raises a question; third, from 'of old there have been many explanations' onward, it provides an explanation. Within this [third part] there are four points: 1. It narrates the [explanations of] ancient antiquity. 2. From 'some say that the ancients are not worth relying on' onward, it narrates the [position of] late antiquity, refuting the ancients and setting up their own view. 3. From 'however, this master' onward, it refutes that late antiquity [view], having two intentions: first, through a concessive refutation, showing that it does not differ from the ancients—'late antiquity' refers to the Kanding ji; second, from 'further, taking this text as proof' onward, through a decisive refutation, showing that the cited proof is hard to rely upon, because it contradicts other texts. 4. From 'the Worthy says' onward, it narrates the [position of] middle antiquity, taking it as the orthodox meaning. Within this there are also four points: first, it directly narrates the ancient meaning; second, from 'if so' onward, it narrates the ancient establishment [of the doctrine], precisely defining, among the three lives above, what stage the present life of understanding and practice is—hence it first asks itself, and from 'namely, being in faith' onward, it answers itself; third, from 'this single explanation' onward, the Commentary discerns concordance and contradiction, wherein it first directly grants that it accords with principle, and then, from 'however, there is still' onward, the Commentary corrects its explanation, because the previous ancient explanation again seemed to contradict what preceded it (that is, previously having settled on the three lives, this life is merely understanding and practice rather than realization and entry, yet when arriving at the later explanation, it speaks of lodging in the bhūmis, which are stages—how could they not be realization? Hence now it is corrected: simultaneously and頓 [instantaneously] possessing them is indeed the third life of realization and entry, also making gradual and sudden thoroughly interpenetrate); fourth, from 'the deva son of hell' onward, the Commentary cites sūtra passages to prove and establish the orthodox meaning, concluding with a critique of the Kanding [ji]. Within this there are again two parts: first, direct proof; second, from 'why is it that Sudhana' onward, it critiques the past [commentator], within which there are three points: 1. directly critiquing his explanation; 2. from 'further, to fix it as the first bhūmi' onward, rigorously scrutinizing his explanation; 3. from 'one must not hold a narrow view' onward, concluding that it has contradictions. As for the Commentary's phrase 'the rest are all afflictions that are aroused', the foregoing first explained the first line; from 'foolish and deluded' onward it explained the fifth line; from 'Māra kings' onward it explained the seventh line; from 'ignorant youth' onward it explained the eighth line. Now 'the rest' refers to the second, third, fourth, and sixth lines. From 'yet the three realms' onward, it explains the second and third lines. It elides the explanation of the fourth and sixth lines: the fourth looks toward the fifth, the fifth being the root of initiating karma, while the fourth is the craving that moistens karma; the sixth pertains to both initiating and moistening, namely, as in the sixth bhūmi, obscured by avidyā, moistened by the water of craving, and irrigated by pride, the sprout of name-and-form is produced. Regarding 'suffering and its origin', the first, third, and eighth lines are the fruits of suffering; the remaining five are all the origin. Karma is omitted, but is subsumed within the Māra kings and the subsequent two verses on practicing evil. As for the Commentary's phrase 'losing the correct and practicing the evil', this is because actions are initiated based on the preceding avidyā. Furthermore, the first three lines are the afflictions that arouse karma, and are also afflictions concomitant with karma. The fourth line is the karma aroused. The first line of the subsequent verse is the affliction that obscures karma: because the preceding two are deluded about the self and what belongs to the self, confronting what belongs to the self through the self, three afflictions are produced: 1. toward what has not yet been attained, one produces deceit and delusion; 2. toward what cannot be attained, one produces jealousy; 3. toward what has already been attained, one then produces stinginess and arrogance. These latter three faults reside within the obscuring of karma. The blindfolding of the eyes by doubt is precisely what directly enables the creation of karma: doubting whether there is a fruit or no fruit and not seeing the future, one therefore creates evil karma; not seeing present suffering, one therefore creates wholesome karma. Therefore, the three bad destinies below are the fruits of evil karma; 'the various destinies' pertains generally to wholesome karma.