華嚴法界玄鏡 2.39

2.39

The Explanation states: The text has three parts: first, the direct explanation; second, concluding with the analogy; third, mutual resonance and unobstructedness. Now, regarding the first: because the preceding single phenomenon contains principle, and all other phenomena are not different in essence from the principle that is contained, they are all within the single phenomenon in accordance with the principle that is contained. As for saying 'not identical with principle', in the previous gate it was not different from principle and, identical with principle, it pervaded. In this gate, it also contains in conformity with principle, so it is likewise not different. Because the characteristic of the one is not destroyed, there can be that which contains; in contrast to the preceding 'not different', it is therefore said to be 'not identical'. Below, in the section on universal and restricted, it reveals that the second [gate] also does not destroy characteristics. From 'For example, a single fine dust particle…' onward, it brings out the characteristics of a phenomenon containing. Second, from 'As with a single dust particle…' onward, it concludes with the analogy. Third, from 'Because these phenomena and principle…' onward, is the mutual resonance and unobstructedness. In terms of the gate of broad containment, there are these four propositions; here, that which contains and that which is contained do not go beyond the one and the many, intertwining to form four. On the side of that which contains, all possess the meanings of being neither identical with nor different from principle: because of being not identical, it has an essence that serves as that which contains; because of being not different, it has a function that is able to contain. On the side of that which is contained, it is considered solely in terms of the meaning of being not different from principle. For instance, in the first, 'one within one': because the prior 'one' does not destroy characteristics, it has an essence that can contain, and because it is not different from the principle of the subsequent 'one', it can then contain the subsequent 'one'. And because the subsequent 'one' is not different from the principle of the prior 'one', it is within the prior 'one' in accordance with the principle that is contained, because apart from principle there are no phenomena. Second, 'one within all': because the 'all' does not destroy characteristics, it has an essence that can contain, and because it is not different from the principle of the 'one' below, it can contain the 'one' below. Because the 'one' below is not different from the principle of the 'all' above, it is within the 'all' above in accordance with the principle of its own 'one' below. Third, 'all within one': because the 'one' does not destroy characteristics, it can serve as that which contains, and because it is not different from the principle of the 'all' below, it can contain all; because the 'all' that is contained is not different from the principle of the 'one' above, it is within the 'one' above in accordance with the principle of its own 'all'. Fourth, 'all within all': because the 'all' above does not destroy characteristics, it has an essence that can contain, and because it is not different from the principle of the 'all' below, it contains the 'all' below; because the 'all' below is not different from the principle of the 'all' above, it is within the 'all' above in accordance with the principle of the 'all' below. Therefore it concludes: 'Each has its reason.' The preceding second gate is the meaning of broad pervasion, and this third gate is the meaning of total inclusion; the general title of this contemplation is already complete in them. The seven gates below are none of them separate from these two meanings of broad pervasion and total inclusion.