華嚴法界玄鏡 2.11

2.11

釋曰：此約事四句，前問所無，今影出之。前喻却有，喻云：一波全匝大海時，諸波亦各全匝，互不相礙，先舉一波以望於海，故是就事四句。故前標云多事無礙故。若別為問者，應問云：一事遍於理時，餘事亦遍理不？若亦遍者，則理有重重；若不遍者，多事則不如理。故今答云：多事如理，同理而遍，則無重重。何以故？理無二故，但事同理即無分限，故云遍耳。於中第一句，一事遍不礙多事遍；第二句，多事遍不礙一事遍；第三句，諸法同時遍；第四句，一多之相歷然。問：理望於事，在一事為在內，在多事為在外。今事望理，以何為內外邪？答：亦以一事為內，多事為外。若爾，何異前門理望於事？答：前門先舉理遍於事，名理望事。今門先舉事遍於理，名事望理，故分二門。本意但問多事遍理，一事遍不？前門答之。又問一事遍理，多事遍不？故用此門答之。通相皆以事為內外，故前門中但有一重之問，即第一句，一事全遍理，故在內；不礙一一亦遍理，故即在外。以其一多皆即理故，故云全遍，非有多理與事遍也。故第四句云彼此相望非內非外，以前約理，第四但以性非一切，居然非內非外。今此約事望理，理無內外，何有非一非異？故言既不壞相。要須一事之中非是一切，一切事中非是一故，方成第四，故須彼此相望非內非外。已釋第一相遍對竟。

Explanation: These four phrases regarding phenomena were not present in the earlier question, but now are brought out implicitly. In the earlier simile, however, they were present; the simile said: when a single wave completely encompasses the great ocean, all waves also each completely encompass it, mutually not obstructing one another. First, it brings up a single wave to view it in relation to the ocean; hence these are the four phrases concerning phenomena. Therefore earlier it stated: “because multiple phenomena are unobstructed.” If one were to make a separate question, one should ask: when a single phenomenon pervades principle, do other phenomena also pervade principle or not? If they also pervade, then principle would have multiple layers; if they do not pervade, then multiple phenomena would not accord with principle. Therefore now it answers: multiple phenomena accord with principle, and pervade identically with principle, so there are no multiple layers. Why is this? Because principle is non-dual; simply, when phenomena are identical with principle, they have no boundaries or limits, hence they are called “pervading.” Within this, the first phrase: the pervasion of one phenomenon does not obstruct the pervasion of multiple phenomena; the second phrase: the pervasion of multiple phenomena does not obstruct the pervasion of one phenomenon; the third phrase: all phenomena simultaneously pervade; the fourth phrase: the characteristics of the one and the many are distinct. Question: When principle is viewed in relation to phenomena, being in one phenomenon is being within, and being in multiple phenomena is being without. Now when phenomena are viewed in relation to principle, what is considered inside and outside? Answer: It also takes one phenomenon as within, and multiple phenomena as without. If so, how does this differ from the previous gate of principle viewed in relation to phenomena? Answer: The previous gate first brought up principle pervading phenomena, named “principle viewed in relation to phenomena.” The present gate first brings up phenomena pervading principle, named “phenomena viewed in relation to principle,” hence they are divided into two gates. The original intent only asked: when multiple phenomena pervade principle, does one phenomenon pervade or not? The previous gate answered it. Furthermore, it asked: when one phenomenon pervades principle, do multiple phenomena pervade or not? Therefore it uses this gate to answer it. Generally, all take phenomena as inside and outside, so in the previous gate there was only a single layer of questioning—namely the first phrase: one phenomenon completely pervades principle, hence it is within; this does not obstruct each and every one also pervading principle, hence it is immediately without. Because the one and the many are both identical to principle, it is said to completely pervade; it is not that there are multiple principles that pervade along with phenomena. Therefore the fourth phrase states: “viewed from one to another, they are neither within nor without.” Previously concerning principle, the fourth merely took the nature as not being all, so it is naturally neither within nor without. Now here regarding phenomena viewed in relation to principle, principle has no inside or outside; how could there be neither identical nor different? Therefore it says: since their characteristics are not destroyed, it is necessary that within one phenomenon it is not all, and within all phenomena it is not one, only then completing the fourth; hence it must be that “viewed from one to another, they are neither within nor without.” The explanation of the first pair of mutual pervasion is finished.