華嚴法界玄鏡 2.49

2.49

釋曰：釋文亦三：初標所依、次釋、三結。初中，但一望多，有攝有入。次通有四句下，釋，以一望一切，故一在初。然第六門亦一望多，但有容遍二句，而無攝入。第七門但多望一，有攝有入亦唯二句。今第八門雖一望一切，而一與多俱為能攝能入，得交涉名。又交涉者，前第七門多能攝一，即多亦為能入；今第八門多攝於一，所攝之一亦能攝多。故能攝之多却為所攝，故入一中得交涉名。既一之與多俱為能攝能入，便有四句，雖似八句，二二合故，故但四句，四句皆具攝之與入。第一句云一攝一切一入一切者，謂上句一為能攝、一切為所攝，而所攝一切亦得為能攝，即上能攝之一却為所攝，故上之一却入一切之中，故云一入一切。第二句云一切攝一一切入一者，上句一切為能攝、一為所攝，而所攝一亦為能攝，故上之一切却為所攝，云一切入一，此句但反上第一句耳。三即以一望他一。四即第三句中一切復望別一切，以其四句為能攝邊同理之包，為能入邊同理之遍故。又四句皆由與理非一非異故，由與理非一，有一多體可為攝入；由與理非異，便能攝入。若以十鏡為喻，一鏡為一，九鏡為多，謂初句云一攝一切一入一切者，應云一鏡攝九鏡一鏡入九鏡。謂上一鏡為能攝，則九鏡為所攝，而所攝九鏡亦為能攝，故上能攝之一鏡却入九鏡之中，云一鏡入九鏡。下三例然。第二句云一切攝一一切入一者，應云，九鏡攝一鏡九鏡入一鏡。謂上九鏡為能攝，則一鏡是所攝，以所攝一鏡亦為能攝，故上能攝之九鏡却入所攝一鏡中，云九鏡入一鏡。第三句一攝一法一入一法者，應云一鏡攝一鏡一鏡入一鏡。謂第一一鏡攝第二一鏡，第一一鏡亦入第二一鏡。第四句云一切攝一切一切入一切者，應言十鏡各攝於九鏡十鏡皆入於九鏡。而所入所攝但云九鏡者，留一為攝入故。言有本云後二句入在頭者，云一入一法一攝一法，一切入一切一切攝一切，以不例前故，依現本四句皆攝在初。

Commentary: The explanation also has three parts: first, indicating what it relies upon; second, explaining it; third, concluding. In the first part, it is only looking from the one to the many that there is taking in and entering. Next, under “Generally, there are four propositions...”, it explains it: because it looks from the one to all, the one comes first. However, the sixth gate also looks from the one to the many, but it only has the two propositions of accommodating and pervading, and lacks taking in and entering. The seventh gate only looks from the many to the one, and having taking in and entering it also has only two propositions. Now the eighth gate, although looking from the one to all, has both the one and the many as capable of taking in and capable of entering, and thus receives the name “mutual involvement”. Furthermore, as for mutual involvement: in the previous seventh gate, the many could take in the one, which meant the many were also capable of entering; now in the eighth gate, the many take in the one, and the one that is taken in can also take in the many. Thus, the many that are capable of taking in conversely become that which is taken in, and therefore their entering into the one receives the name “mutual involvement”. Since both the one and the many are capable of taking in and entering, there are four propositions. Although they resemble eight propositions, because two and two are combined, there are only four propositions, each fully possessing taking in and entering. The first proposition says, “the one takes in all, and the one enters all”: that is to say, in the first clause the one is capable of taking in and all are that which is taken in, while all that are taken in also become capable of taking in, so that the one that was capable of taking in above conversely becomes that which is taken in; therefore, the one above conversely enters into all, and thus it says, “the one enters all”. The second proposition says, “all take in the one, and all enter the one”: in the first clause all are capable of taking in and the one is that which is taken in, while the one that is taken in also becomes capable of taking in, so that all above conversely become that which is taken in, saying “all enter the one”; this proposition is merely the reverse of the first proposition above. The third looks from one to another one. The fourth looks from all in the third proposition again to another all, because for these four propositions, on the side of being capable of taking in they are identical to principle’s encompassing, and on the side of being capable of entering they are identical to principle’s pervading. Furthermore, the four propositions all arise from being neither identical nor different from principle: by being not identical to principle, there are the essences of one and many that can perform taking in and entering; by being not different from principle, they can perform taking in and entering. If we use the ten mirrors as an analogy, one mirror is the one, and nine mirrors are the many. When the first proposition says, “the one takes in all, and the one enters all”, it should say: one mirror takes in nine mirrors, and one mirror enters nine mirrors. That is to say, the one mirror above is capable of taking in, so the nine mirrors are that which is taken in; and the nine mirrors taken in are also capable of taking in, so the one mirror that was capable of taking in above conversely enters into the nine mirrors, saying “one mirror enters nine mirrors”. The lower three follow this pattern. The second proposition says, “all take in the one, and all enter the one”; it should say: nine mirrors take in one mirror, and nine mirrors enter one mirror. That is to say, the nine mirrors above are capable of taking in, so the one mirror is that which is taken in; because the one mirror taken in is also capable of taking in, the nine mirrors above that were capable of taking in conversely enter into the one mirror that is taken in, saying “nine mirrors enter one mirror”. In the third proposition, “the one takes in one phenomenon, and the one enters one phenomenon”, it should say: one mirror takes in one mirror, and one mirror enters one mirror. That is to say, the first one mirror takes in the second one mirror, and the first one mirror also enters the second one mirror. The fourth proposition says, “all take in all, and all enter all”; it should say: the ten mirrors each take in nine mirrors, and the ten mirrors all enter into nine mirrors. That what is entered and what is taken in are only called nine mirrors is because one is reserved for taking in and entering. As for the statement that “some versions place ‘entering’ at the head of the latter two propositions”, it means they say: “the one enters one phenomenon, the one takes in one phenomenon; all enter all, all take in all”. Because this is not consistent with the preceding, we follow the current text, where taking in is placed first in all four propositions.