華嚴法界玄鏡 2.9

2.9

釋曰：此就理中文一先正明，後結與礙。今初，即答前無邊理性全遍一塵時，外諸事處為有理性？為無理性？今第二句正答明餘處有，即釋喻中大海全遍一波時，不妨舉體全遍於諸波。其第一句，兼明在一切中時，亦全在一塵。前略無問，若為問者，應云：理性全在諸法時，為全在一塵不？今此明全在一塵，以遍一切豈揀一塵？第三句明其總遍內外，此是恒理，故亦無問。若問，應云：為齊遍不？第四句雙非，亦非遍義，故不為問。義理無妨故，具出四句。後前三下，結成無礙，亦酬前結難義甚相違之言。內外無礙，故不相違。

Explanation: In this section on principle, the text first directly clarifies, and afterwards concludes with the absence of obstruction. Now first, this answers the previous: when the boundless nature of principle completely pervades a single dust particle, is there the nature of principle at the locus of other external phenomena, or is there no nature of principle? Now the second phrase directly answers, clarifying that it exists at other loci, which explains in the simile: when the great ocean completely pervades a single wave, it does not hinder its entire essence from completely pervading all waves. Its first phrase additionally clarifies that when it is within all, it is also completely in a single dust particle. Previously it was omitted and there was no question; if one were to make a question, one should say: when the nature of principle is completely within all phenomena, is it completely in a single dust particle or not? Now this clarifies that it is completely in a single dust particle, for since it pervades all, how could it exclude a single dust particle? The third phrase clarifies that it universally pervades inside and outside; this is constant principle, hence also there was no question. If questioned, one should say: does it equally pervade or not? The fourth phrase negates both, and is also not the meaning of pervasion, hence it was not made a question. Because the meaning and principle have no impediment, all four phrases are fully set forth. Afterwards, from “The first three...” onward, it concludes the non-obstruction, and also responds to the previous concluding objection that “the meanings are exceedingly contradictory.” Inside and outside are unobstructed, hence they do not contradict.