大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 9.14

9.14

Regarding the Commentary's statement below from "fundamental and subsequent": this is the eighth [contrast], on the severance and realization between the cognizing [cognition] and cognized [object], namely the sense of non-identity within the distinction of identity and difference. Because it clarifies severance and realization, it also speaks of taking objects as conditions: the fundamental [cognition] takes conditions as the real, while the subsequent [cognition] takes conditions as the conventional. "Figuratively described as double contemplation" means that it is also said that comprehending the conventional derives from realizing the real. The two cognitions doubly contemplate the real and the conventional; because in that school the two cognitions do not merge and the two objects are not identical, when precisely in double contemplation, they constantly illuminate separately. Regarding "the difference in severing afflictions": the fundamental cognition severs latent defilements confused about principle, while the subsequent cognition severs latent defilements confused about phenomena. Dharmapāla says: "Because it does not directly realize [principle], it lacks the capacity to sever latent defilements confused about principle. Yet, because it non-erroneously realizes conventional characteristics, it can also permanently sever latent defilements confused about phenomena." Therefore the Yogācārabhūmi says: "On the stage of the path of cultivation, there is the supramundane path of severance and the mundane-and-supramundane path of severance." According to the handed-down explanation: the fundamental substance can sever both kinds of latent defilements, those confused about principle and those confused about phenomena, whereas the subsequent cognition only severs latent defilements confused about phenomena. When severing confusion about principle, it contemplates the objective realm of principle; when severing confusion about phenomena, it contemplates the objective realm of phenomena; thus they are not identical. Since it is said that the fundamental [cognition] possesses the meaning of double severance, it is therefore called double contemplation. Since the subsequent [cognition] does not sever confusion about principle, it reverts to separate illumination; it is not like the dharmatā [teaching, where] one severance is the severance of all. The text of the Commentary here speaks elliptically. If speaking in terms of severing afflictions, it should say: it is figuratively described as double severance, yet in reality it is separate severance. Regarding "realizing unconditioned principle by means of conditioned cognition": this is spoken solely in terms of the fundamental [cognition's] severance of afflictions. Above it clarified the severance of afflictions; here it analyzes the realization of principle. Previously, regarding taking conditions as objects to sever afflictions, it addressed non-identity solely in terms of what is contemplated; now, regarding this realization of principle, it clarifies the meaning of non-identity by correlating the mind and the object in terms of the realized and what realizes. The cognition that realizes is conditioned, while the principle that is realized is unconditioned; hence they are not identical.