大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.29.2

3.29.2

答：汝見染淨不可進趣謂無法者，此義不然。 為破此疑故，經云「如幻夢等。 」若法並無者，云何有處夢、有處不夢？ 驗此即知，一切諸法不定是無，故論云「我非有相。 」所以為破我無唯言無我者，此為離我不住無我故。 緣成幻事此不同上見，此即以有破無。 又云：所以我前起八種見，為不盡理，以無破有。 復起一見，又不盡理，已有破無。 我今體尋不可偏有無取，今具成二義，此可當理。 答：如外所見，由不越情。 所以知？ 如所見境，無義非有義、有義非無義。 據其理也，即無是有，有無是一。 為破此疑故，經云「有無不二。 」言不二者，法不自住，應緣成起。 復不是緣，故成果法。 尋其諸法不越自他，自他不住，即事辨空。 若如見有無，此由不越自他兩際，故論云「成壞故。 」所以但言成壞者，謂成壞即空，故不別求。 當知不二平等之法，非除滅有無說為不二，此即如實。 即驗所謂有無名為戲論。 亦非有無二法之中別立一法以為不二，不俱取同上，以因緣法有無同體各非自性，說彼無法以為有故，有即非有； 還即說彼有法為無，無則非無。 有非有故，無外更無別有為二； 無非無故，有外更無無法為二，故曰有無不二。 又復說彼有無之法為不二故，亦無不二自性可取，此破有無雙計。 第三結文，有二可知，義相如論耳。 上約十二入明所軌法，下約十二緣生辨所依觀門。 問：上明法唯約十二入，下諸觀門何為偏在緣生？ 答：攝法取寬，故約十二入以通依正； 今約觀門，攝外從內故局緣生。 此文有二：一就初住以明不住，即總立宗； 二「作是念」下約彼正住以開觀門，即別釋也。 前地劣故，正住地中方名不住； 此地勝故，初住地中即名不住。 初文有二：一觀法相等牒前起後。 言法相者，牒前文中十平等法，隨順牒前得入六地，此依論，經可准之； 二「復以勝大悲」下正顯不住。 於中通下六句分別：一釋其名，對前觀故，說此為復。 大悲首者，念眾生心，拔苦為悲、悲增曰大。 大悲增者，求心愍至稱曰增上，亦可求於增上果故名為增上，為求佛智利眾生故名曰大悲。 言滿足者，離有為心，厭有為故觀察緣起，觀之窮盡名為滿足。 此即經論二處不同。 若依論文，為有四句：即以第四生滅一句，依前三門以成行相。 若依經本，第三即生滅，即用生滅為滿足觀。 據經論二處，即有二意釋生滅門：一依論者，所謂眾生菩提因緣並是有為，今以智知，故云觀生滅； 二依經者，因緣之法順生逆滅，本為救生，故云大悲。 又若依經，成四句亦得，可知也。 二明三心次第之義，乘前觀空法，便念眾生虛妄所纏，故先起悲； 以悲念故，求佛智慧欲以利益，故起第二； 佛智必由離過所成，故起第三。 三就自利、利他分別，前一利他，後二自利。 四護煩惱、護小分別，前二護小，後一護煩惱。 五就因果，初後攝因，第二求果。 六不住分別，初一利他，不住涅槃； 後二自利，不住世間。 二就正住別辨觀門，初通經論科簡觀門、第二釋義。 初門有三：一就經科、二就論科、三將經論相對分文。 就經科中，初別明十觀、二重結之。 十觀是何？ 一因緣分次第、二「三界虛妄」下明一心所攝、三「無明有二種」下明自業助成、四「無明令行不斷」下不相捨離、五「無明愛取」下三道行、六「無明行是過去」下明觀先後際、七「無明行乃至六入」下明三苦集、八「無明因緣行生」下辨因緣起、九「無明因緣是生縛」下辨因緣生滅縛、十「無明因緣是隨順有」下是隨順無所有盡觀。 於中並各有順逆觀，即為二也。 經文如此。 二次就論科。 論家就此十番觀中，三門分別：一就厭離有為心中觀十二因緣，此即是前滿足生滅門。 二就「深念眾生心中觀十二緣」下，說為悲隨順觀。 言隨順者，此即起悲隨順緣生，即是前悲為首。

Answer: If you maintain that because defilement and purity cannot be pursued or entered upon, phenomena are nonexistent, this is incorrect. To refute this doubt, the sūtra states: 'Like illusions, dreams, and the like.' If phenomena were entirely nonexistent, why would dreaming occur in some instances and not in others? Examining this makes it clear that phenomena are not determinately nonexistent. Therefore, the treatise says: '[They] lack the characteristics of a self.' The reason why it solely states 'no self' in order to refute the nonexistence of a self is to transcend the self without abiding in selflessness. Dependent arising producing illusory affairs is not the same as the view above; this refutes nonexistence through existence.

Again, [an interlocutor] may say: 'My previously generating eight kinds of views failed to exhaust the truth, refuting existence through nonexistence. Then generating another view also failed to exhaust the truth, refuting nonexistence through existence. Now, examining their essence, one must not grasp onesidedly at existence or nonexistence; now both aspects are fully realized, and this should conform to the truth.'

Answer: What is seen as external still does not transcend conceptual feeling. How is this known? In the objective realm as seen, the meaning of nonexistence is not the meaning of existence, and the meaning of existence is not the meaning of nonexistence. According to the principle, nonexistence is precisely existence; existence and nonexistence are one. To refute this doubt, the sūtra says: 'Existence and nonexistence are non-dual.' Saying 'non-dual' means that phenomena do not abide of themselves, but arise in response to conditions. Furthermore, they are not [identical with] conditions, and therefore fruit-dharmas are formed. Investigating these phenomena, they do not exceed self and other; self and other do not abide, and emptiness is discerned right in phenomena. If one views existence and nonexistence in this way, it is because one does not transcend the two limits of self and other; hence the treatise states: 'Because of coming to be and ceasing.' The reason it mentions only coming to be and ceasing is that coming to be and ceasing are themselves empty, so one does not seek elsewhere.

One should know that the non-dual, equal Dharma is not spoken of as non-dual by eliminating existence and nonexistence; this is as it truly is. Thus it is verified that the so-called 'existence and nonexistence' are conceptual proliferations. Nor is another phenomenon separately posited between the two phenomena of existence and nonexistence to be 'non-dual'—one does not grasp both together, just as above. Because conditioned phenomena of existence and nonexistence share the same essence and each lacks intrinsic nature, to speak of that nonexistent phenomenon as existent means that existence is precisely non-existence; and in turn, speaking of that existent phenomenon as nonexistent means that nonexistence is precisely not nonexistence. Because existence is not existence, beyond nonexistence there is no separate existence to form a duality; because nonexistence is not nonexistence, beyond existence there is no separate nonexistence to form a duality. Therefore it is said: 'Existence and nonexistence are non-dual.' Furthermore, because those phenomena of existence and nonexistence are said to be non-dual, there is also no intrinsic nature of non-duality to be apprehended. This refutes the dual clinging to existence and nonexistence.

Third, the concluding passage has two parts, which are readily understood; their doctrinal characteristics are as in the treatise.

Above, the guiding Dharma was explained in terms of the twelve sense spheres (āyatana); below, the supporting gates of contemplation are distinguished in terms of the twelve links of dependent origination.

Question: Above, the Dharma was explained solely in terms of the twelve sense spheres; why are the contemplative gates below focused exclusively on dependent origination?

Answer: In encompassing phenomena, [the former] took a broad scope, and therefore the twelve sense spheres were used to cover both the environment and sentient beings; now, in terms of contemplative gates, the external is gathered into the internal, so it is restricted to dependent origination.

This passage has two parts: first, explaining non-abiding in terms of initial abiding, which is the general formulation of the main tenet; second, from 'making this thought' onward, opening the contemplative gates in terms of correct abiding, which is the specific explanation. Because the previous ground was inferior, only while correctly abiding in the ground was it termed 'non-abiding'; because this ground is superior, right from the initial abiding in the ground it is termed 'non-abiding.'

The first part has two sections: first, 'contemplating the characteristics of phenomena' and so forth recapitulates the preceding and introduces what follows. 'Characteristics of phenomena' recapitulates the ten equal dharmas in the preceding text; following along with the recapitulation of the preceding allows entry into the sixth ground. This relies on the treatise, and the sūtra can be understood by analogy. Second, from 'furthermore, with superior great compassion' onward directly reveals non-abiding.

Within this, the six lines running throughout are distinguished:
First, explaining their names: because this is contrasted with the preceding contemplation, it is called 'furthermore.' 'Headed by great compassion' refers to the mind mindful of sentient beings: relieving suffering is compassion, and the increase of compassion is called 'great.' 'Superior great compassion' means that the seeking mind reaches its utmost sympathy, so it is called 'superior' (adhimātra); or it may mean seeking the superior fruit and thus being called 'superior'; because it seeks the Buddha's wisdom to benefit sentient beings, it is called 'great compassion.' 'Fulfillment' refers to the mind detached from the conditioned: because of revulsion toward the conditioned, it contemplates dependent origination; carrying this contemplation to its exhaustion is called 'fulfillment.'

Here there is a difference between the sūtra and the treatise. According to the treatise, there are four lines: namely, taking the fourth line of 'arising and ceasing' as relying on the preceding three gates to establish the contemplative practice. According to the sūtra text, the third line is 'arising and ceasing,' which directly takes arising and ceasing as the contemplation of fulfillment. In accord with the two texts of the sūtra and the treatise, there are two meanings explaining the gate of arising and ceasing:
1. Relying on the treatise: the causes and conditions of sentient beings and bodhi are all conditioned; now knowing them through wisdom, it is called 'contemplating arising and ceasing.'
2. Relying on the sūtra: the phenomena of dependent origination arise in forward progression and cease in reverse progression; originally intended to rescue sentient beings, it is called 'great compassion.' Furthermore, if one relies on the sūtra, forming four lines is also permissible and readily understood.

Second, clarifying the meaning of the sequence of the three minds: following the preceding contemplation of empty phenomena, one then becomes mindful of sentient beings entangled in delusion; therefore, one first arouses compassion. Because of mindful compassion, one seeks the Buddha's wisdom desiring to bring benefit; therefore, one arouses the second. The Buddha's wisdom must necessarily be accomplished by transcending faults; therefore, one arouses the third.

Third, distinguishing in terms of benefiting oneself and benefiting others: the first benefits others, and the latter two benefit oneself.

Fourth, distinguishing in terms of guarding against afflictions and guarding against the Hinayana: the first two guard against the Hinayana, and the latter one guards against afflictions.

Fifth, in terms of cause and effect: the first and last encompass the cause, while the second seeks the fruit.

Sixth, distinguishing non-abiding: the first benefits others, not abiding in nirvāṇa; the latter two benefit oneself, not abiding in the worldly realm.

Second, specifically distinguishing the contemplative gates in terms of correct abiding: first, classifying and analyzing the contemplative gates in common across the sūtra and the treatise; second, explaining their meaning.

The first gate has three parts: 1. classification according to the sūtra; 2. classification according to the treatise; 3. correlating the sūtra and the treatise to divide the text.

Within the classification according to the sūtra, first, specifically explaining the ten contemplations; second, reiterating the conclusion.

What are the ten contemplations?
1. The sequential division of causes and conditions;
2. from 'the triple world is delusion' onward, explaining subsumption under the one mind;
3. from 'ignorance has two kinds' onward, explaining auxiliary accomplishment by one's own karma;
4. from 'ignorance causes activities to be continuous' onward, their not parting from each other;
5. from 'ignorance, craving, and grasping' onward, the functioning of the three paths;
6. from 'ignorance and activities belong to the past' onward, explaining contemplation of the prior and subsequent limits;
7. from 'ignorance and activities down to the six sense fields' onward, explaining the collection of the three sufferings;
8. from 'with ignorance as condition, activities arise' onward, distinguishing arising through causes and conditions;
9. from 'the condition of ignorance is the bondage of arising' onward, distinguishing the bondage of arising and ceasing through causes and conditions;
10. from 'the condition of ignorance accords with existence' onward, the contemplation of exhaustion in accordance with nonexistence.

Within each of these, there are forward and reverse contemplations, thus making two. Such is the text of the sūtra.

Second, classification according to the treatise: the treatise master distinguishes three gates among these ten rounds of contemplation:
1. Contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination within the mind of revulsion toward the conditioned: this is the preceding gate of fulfillment in arising and ceasing.
2. From 'contemplating the twelve links within the mind of deep mindfulness of sentient beings' onward: this is stated to be the contemplation of compassionate conformity. 'Conformity' means arousing compassion to conform with dependent arising; this is the preceding 'headed by compassion.'