華嚴經探玄記 10.13

10.13

自下第二別顯微相中二：初二句明同相、後六句明不同相。此二相中略作三門：一定其文、二辨相、三釋文。定文者，有人釋云：此既即是性淨、方便淨二種涅槃，故知前微。此相總明果法。欲說地法，何故明果？以辨甚深果位顯故。舉顯十地甚深之義，因之與果高下天殊，云何相顯？然此雖復隨人高下，法體不別，其猶虛空，約釋分異，異即是空，地法像此。今明此相總是地智，論釋云「智相有二種，等智即是地智。」故不通餘釋。若是地智即是因位，如何得有二涅槃耶？釋：此是地中所依果分，如下文云「如因大海有十寶山，因於佛智有十地等。如一一山下悉有大海，一一地內悉有佛果。」若約三乘，佛果唯在第十地後；若就圓教，佛果通在一一地中，是故一地攝一切地。問：若爾，證得一地已得佛果，何須說十？答：引漸機故，是故十地多就三乘差別位說。問：若就三乘，則無果法。答：以三乘十地就一乘說，故有斯趣。釋文中同相內，言從本已來空者，此總明同相。論中先釋相、後釋同。前中，云何相者，問意云：色等法空皆名同相，今言相者是何等相？答：彼智相故者，今此所說是地智相。引頌中「自體空是智自空故，非餘色等諸法空相。」又此是體相，非是標相。下釋同中，云何同相者，問意既唯局在智相，云何名同？答中一切諸法如說自體空者，以此真空通一切法名同也。言滅除諸苦惱者，此別辨同相。苦惱者，惡取空故。惡取空者，空亂意故。依《寶性論》空亂意有三種過。如彼論云「起如是心：實有法斷滅，後時得涅槃。又復有人以空為有物，我修應得空。又生如是心：離色等法別更有空，我應修行令得彼空。」解云：今此經中本來空者，離此三種亂意苦惱，故云滅除也。論經名有不二不盡者，言別意同。言不盡者，離滅色故；不二者，離色外故。有者，離以空為有故。此義云何，以若妄謂空為有物，即令真空於此不有。若真空有，情有即無，是故理有治情有也。彼論約色等簡，此論就地智明空。下明不同相中，淨相解脫者，是總顯示，謂對治雜染故。別顯中二：先何處解脫者，問所脫之處。諸道，即六道也。惑業生者，煩惱是道緣、業是道因、生是道果。六道不出此三，故遠離名解脫也。二者云何解脫者，問解脫之體。五句顯能脫之體：一平等相。既言遠離諸趣，云何離脫耶？謂見世間即同涅槃，如是遠離，非如二乘有背向，故云等同涅槃相也。無中亦無後者，第二斷惑相。論經名非初非中後，謂於三時皆無斷義方為斷也。釋此文有二門：一約相翻門、二約相續門。初中謂無間道智正斷惑時，為智先起、惑後滅耶？為惑先滅、智後生耶？為同時耶？此三時惑智各有兩失，故不成斷。謂智有自成無流過、不能滅惑過；煩惱有自滅過、不障聖道過。於三位中，思之可知。如燈破闇，三時不破，此亦如是。如《雜集論》第四云「從何而得斷耶？不從過去，已滅無故。不從未來，未生故。不從現在，道不俱故。從諸煩惱麁重而得斷。」乃至廣說。經云「毘婆舍那不能破煩惱」等，皆是此義，故云非初非中後也。問：《唯識論》第九中，聖道現前惑種必滅，如秤兩頭低昂時等。若據此說即是同時，如何此中三時俱非？答：麁說可爾，細剋實難。何者？若同時者，智自生時、惑自滅時不相由故，何成對治？如東家男生、西家女死，雖亦同時，然無相由，不成對治。問：若爾，云何斷？答：則此三時求斷不得，方成斷義，此則不斷斷也。前中後取故者，謂於前中後三時之中取彼非初中後，非異三時取彼非三也。如於色等處取彼真空，非異色等別取斷空。此亦如是，故不失斷義。二約相續門者，謂此地智生滅相續，前中後三何時定能斷煩惱耶？唯前不能斷，以落謝故；唯後不能斷，以未起故；中亦不能斷，以不住故，是故三時皆無斷義。若爾，云何斷？論云「如燈炎，非唯初中後前中後取故。」此即唯初唯中等不可有斷，前中後相續取可有斷義。問：既三時單取各不成斷，縱此和合豈成斷耶？答：有人解云，三時別取各不成斷，三時相續假說為斷，故云前中後取也。此麁說可爾，細剋不然。以別就三時各不成斷，總此三時豈成斷耶？如一沙無油，多沙亦無。今釋：此言前中後取者，是簡濫之言。何者？人謂此智前中後位各不能斷，即謂同於無聖智處惡取空也。故簡云：此於初上取非初、中上取非中、後亦爾，不同無智故、非惡取空故，云非初非中後前中後取故。問：餘處論說聖道初起即能滅惑，何故此中乃云非初？答：依《毘曇》，一念有燒，始終方盡，治結同然。依《成實》，一念不燒，相續方盡，治結亦爾。若大乘初教，初念亦斷，中後亦然。若依終教，如緣起性三時俱不能斷，即由不作緣起方成，故不無斷也。言非言辭所說者，第三觀行相，謂此無分別觀智非同世間言說所及故，又不同小乘從聲得悟故。言出過於三世者，第四轉依相，謂此微智依止真如常住法身，以是究竟轉依故、能依所依俱悉常故，出於三世遷動相也。問：所依本有，可得是常。能依修智，豈無生滅？答：初教隨相修智生滅。終教已去智如境故、始覺同本覺故，亦非無常。論云「非如無常意識者，簡未轉依時妄念意識是無常，即知轉依已去真智是常。」此簡能緣也。依止無常因緣法者，簡未轉依時所緣境也。修多羅中決定說者，引經證成境智俱常，如處處大乘經中皆說佛果常住。又如此經〈十藏品〉中信藏之內，信佛智無生滅等，具如彼說。言其相如虛空者，第五解脫相，謂如二乘智，雖離惑障猶有法執故，其解脫猶有障礙。此即不爾，二障及習一切皆盡，故云如虛空無障礙也。又此明自體清淨如虛空無染。又論中重結此五種中後三。何故重言者？以後三種皆對妄顯真，故云如是觀觀等。問：審此五句，初句了世間即涅槃，明離而無離；二明三時無斷惑義，即斷而不斷，乃至其相如虛空。準此等義，與上同相何別？答：舉實無別，但約自體處名同相，約智證入處名不同相。若不同，彼同相不得，成此不同相也。是故義說有二，法體無別。言「諸佛所行處」下一頌半明第三舉例顯微。於中，初三句牒前深妙、下三句類顯地微。前中，初二句舉佛所證二種涅槃。於中寂者是同相涅槃，以自性常寂故。滅者是不同相涅槃，以智緣滅故。清淨者，顯此二種自性無染及對治離染故。深者，顯此二種甚深微妙故。此二唯是諸佛所證，故名佛所行處也。「言說所難及」者，正顯此二深妙超言。下三句類顯地法。同彼玄妙，故云地行亦如是。言地者，境界。觀者，謂照境之智，是地正體故。行者，智眷屬者，檀等諸度與智同行故。亦如是者，同二涅槃之深妙故。說之猶尚難者，顯教尚難言。何況以示人者，況義深玄，何容可示。論云「何故不但說無言等」者，徵文顯意，謂何不一向說無言，乃至言說所難及，顯示依言以求解，故不說無言也。

From here below, the second [part] specifically reveals the characteristics of subtlety, in which there are two [sections]: first, two lines explain the common characteristic; second, six lines explain the distinct characteristic. Concerning these two characteristics, three headings are briefly formulated: first, settling the text; second, distinguishing the characteristics; third, explaining the text.

Concerning settling the text: someone explains, saying: "Since these are precisely the two kinds of nirvāṇa—nature-pure [nirvāṇa] and expedience-pure [nirvāṇa]—we therefore know that the preceding subtlety and these characteristics comprehensively explain the resultant Dharma. If one wishes to explain the bhūmi Dharma, why explain the result? Because by distinguishing the exceedingly profound fruitional stage, [the bhūmis] are revealed. In adducing and revealing the exceedingly profound meaning of the ten bhūmis, cause and result are as far apart as heaven and earth; how could they reveal one another? Yet although these vary in height and depth according to the person, the essence of the Dharma is not different—just as empty space is divided according to explanations, yet the differences are themselves emptiness; the bhūmi Dharma is like this." Now, to clarify: these characteristics are entirely the bhūmi wisdom. The treatise commentary states: "The characteristics of wisdom are of two kinds: equal wisdom is precisely bhūmi wisdom." Therefore, it cannot accommodate other explanations. If it is bhūmi wisdom, it is precisely the causal stage; how could it possess the two nirvāṇas? Resolution: this is the fruitional part upon which the bhūmis rely. As the text below says: "Just as relying on the great ocean there are ten jewel mountains, relying on the Buddha's wisdom there are the ten bhūmis, and so forth. Just as beneath each mountain there is the great ocean, within each bhūmi there is the Buddha-fruit." According to the three vehicles, the Buddha-fruit is solely after the tenth bhūmi; according to the Perfect Teaching, the Buddha-fruit is pervasive within each bhūmi, and therefore one bhūmi subsumes all bhūmis. Question: If so, having realized one bhūmi, one would have already attained the Buddha-fruit; why is it necessary to speak of ten? Answer: To guide those of gradual capacities; therefore, the ten bhūmis are mostly spoken in terms of the distinct stages of the three vehicles. Question: According to the three vehicles, there would be no fruitional Dharma [in the bhūmis]. Answer: Because the ten bhūmis of the three vehicles are spoken with reference to the One Vehicle, there is this purport.

In the explanation of the text, regarding the common characteristic: the words "from the origin onward empty" comprehensively explain the common characteristic. In the treatise, it first explains the characteristic and then explains "common." In the former, as to "What is the characteristic?", the intent of the question is: "The emptiness of dharmas such as form and so forth are all called common characteristics; now when you speak of 'characteristic', what kind of characteristic is it?" In the answer, "Because it is the characteristic of that wisdom": what is spoken of here is the characteristic of bhūmi wisdom. Citing the verse: "Because the emptiness of the essential substance is the inherent emptiness of wisdom itself, it is not the characteristic of the emptiness of other dharmas such as form." Furthermore, this is the essential characteristic, not an indicative characteristic. Below, in explaining "common": as to "What is the common characteristic?", the intent of the question is, since it is restricted exclusively to the characteristic of wisdom, how is it called "common"? In the answer, "All dharmas are as spoken of, empty in their essential substance": because this true emptiness is common to all dharmas, it is called "common." The words "extinguishing all afflictions and suffering" specifically distinguish the common characteristic. "Afflictions and suffering" refers to grasping emptiness mistakenly. Grasping emptiness mistakenly refers to a confused mind regarding emptiness. According to the Ratnagotravibhāga, there are three kinds of faults in a confused mind regarding emptiness. As that treatise states: "Conceiving such a mind: real existing dharmas are annihilated, and afterward one attains nirvāṇa. Moreover, someone takes emptiness as an existing thing, [thinking:] 'When I cultivate, I should attain emptiness.' Moreover, giving rise to such a mind: 'Apart from dharmas such as form, there is separately another emptiness; I should cultivate so as to attain that emptiness.'" Explanation: in this sūtra now, "from the origin onward empty" is free from the afflictions of these three kinds of confused minds; hence it says "extinguishing."

In the treatise's translation of the sūtra, it is called "existing, non-dual, and inexhaustible"; the words differ, but the intent is the same. "Inexhaustible" means free from annihilating form. "Non-dual" means free from being outside form. "Existing" means free from taking emptiness as an existing thing. What does this mean? If one falsely deems emptiness to be an existing thing, this causes true emptiness not to exist here. If true emptiness exists, the existence of mental delusion is non-existent; therefore, principled existence remedies deluded existence. That treatise distinguishes with reference to form and so forth, while this treatise clarifies emptiness in terms of bhūmi wisdom.

Below, in explaining the distinct characteristic: "liberated in the characteristic of purity" is the comprehensive manifestation, meaning the antidotal treatment of defilement. In the specific manifestation there are two: first, "from where is one liberated?" asks about the place from which one is liberated. "The realms" are precisely the six realms. As for afflictions, karma, and rebirth: afflictions are the conditions for the realms, karma is the cause of the realms, and rebirth is the fruit of the realms. The six realms do not go beyond these three; hence being far removed [from them] is called liberation. Second, "how is one liberated?" asks about the essence of liberation. Five phrases reveal the essence that can liberate:

First, the characteristic of equality. Since it says "far removed from the realms," how is one detached and liberated? It means seeing the mundane world as identical to nirvāṇa; being far removed like this is not like the two vehicles having aversion and inclination; hence it says "equal to the characteristic of nirvāṇa."

"Having no middle nor end" is the second, the characteristic of severing delusion. In the treatise's translation of the sūtra it is called "neither beginning, nor middle, nor end," meaning that only when there is no sense of severing in the three times is it true severing. In explaining this text, there are two approaches: first, according to the approach of opposing characteristics; second, according to the approach of continuity. In the first: when the wisdom of the path of uninterrupted [action] directly severs delusion, does wisdom arise first and delusion perish afterward? Does delusion perish first and wisdom arise afterward? Or are they simultaneous? In these three times, delusion and wisdom each have two faults; hence severing is not established. That is, wisdom would have the fault of becoming outflow-free by itself, and the fault of being unable to extinguish delusion; afflictions would have the fault of perishing by themselves, and the fault of not obstructing the noble path. In these three positions, this can be understood by contemplating it. Just as a lamp dispels darkness, yet in the three times it does not dispel it; this is also like that. As the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā says in fascicle four: "From where is it severed? Not from the past, because it has already perished and is non-existent; not from the future, because it has not yet arisen; not from the present, because the path is not co-existent. It is severed from the heavy burden of afflictions," and so on at length. When the sūtra says "vipaśyanā cannot destroy afflictions," etc., all share this meaning; hence it says "neither beginning, nor middle, nor end."

Question: In the ninth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, when the noble path appears before one, the seeds of delusion are necessarily destroyed, like the simultaneous rising and lowering of the two ends of a balance scale. If based on this explanation, it is precisely simultaneous; how is it that here all three times are negated? Answer: A coarse explanation may be so, but under fine investigation it is genuinely difficult. Why? If simultaneous, when wisdom arises of itself and delusion perishes of itself, they are not causally dependent on one another; how could this constitute an antidote? Just as a boy is born in the eastern house and a girl dies in the western house: though they are simultaneous, yet having no mutual dependency, it does not constitute an antidote. Question: If so, how is it severed? Answer: It is precisely when seeking severing in these three times is unattainable that the meaning of severing is established; this is the severing of non-severing.

As for "apprehended through beginning, middle, and end": this means apprehending that 'neither beginning, middle, nor end' within the three times of beginning, middle, and end; it is not apprehending that 'neither-three' apart from the three times. Just as one apprehends true emptiness in places like form, and does not apprehend an annihilatory emptiness separately apart from form. This is also like that; hence the meaning of severing is not lost.

Second, according to the approach of continuity: as this bhūmi wisdom continues in arising and perishing, at which of the three—beginning, middle, or end—can it definitively sever afflictions? The beginning alone cannot sever them, because it falls away; the end alone cannot sever them, because it has not yet arisen; the middle also cannot sever them, because it does not abide; therefore in all three times there is no meaning of severing. If so, how are they severed? The treatise says: "Like the flame of a lamp, it is not merely the beginning, middle, or end, but is apprehended through beginning, middle, and end." That is, merely the beginning or merely the middle cannot possess severing; apprehended through the continuity of beginning, middle, and end, the meaning of severing can exist. Question: Since apprehending the three times individually does not constitute severing, even if they are combined, how could it constitute severing? Answer: Someone explains, saying: apprehending the three times separately does not constitute severing, but the continuity of the three times is metaphorically designated as severing; hence it says "apprehended through beginning, middle, and end." A coarse explanation may be so, but under fine investigation it is not. Since taking them separately in the three times each does not constitute severing, how could combining these three times constitute severing? Just as a single grain of sand has no oil, many grains of sand also have none. Now we explain: the words "apprehended through beginning, middle, and end" are words distinguishing errors. How so? People think that because this wisdom cannot sever in the positions of beginning, middle, and end individually, it is therefore identical to the mistaken grasping of emptiness where there is no noble wisdom. Therefore it distinguishes: this apprehends 'non-beginning' upon the beginning, 'non-middle' upon the middle, and the end is also like this; it is not the same as having no wisdom, and is not the mistaken grasping of emptiness; hence it says "neither beginning, nor middle, nor end, apprehended through beginning, middle, and end."

Question: Treatises elsewhere say that when the noble path first arises it can immediately extinguish delusion; why does it say here "neither beginning"? Answer: According to the Abhidharma, a single moment has burning, and it is only exhausted from beginning to end; counteracting fetters is the same. According to the Tattvasiddhi, a single moment does not burn, and it is only exhausted through continuity; counteracting fetters is also like this. If according to the Initial Teaching of the Mahāyāna, the first moment also severs, and the middle and end are also like this. If according to the Final Teaching, just as the nature of dependent origination cannot sever in all three times, it is precisely by not engaging in dependent origination that it is accomplished; hence severing is not non-existent.

The words "not spoken of by speech" are the third, the characteristic of contemplative practice, meaning that because this non-conceptual contemplative wisdom is not reached by mundane words and speech, and furthermore is not like the Hinayāna attaining awakening from sound.

The words "transcending the three times" are the fourth, the characteristic of the fundamental transformation (āśrayaparivṛtti), meaning that this subtle wisdom relies upon the eternally abiding dharmakāya of tathatā; because this is the ultimate fundamental transformation, and both that which relies and that which is relied upon are completely eternal, it transcends the characteristics of change and movement in the three times. Question: That which is relied upon is originally existent, so it may be eternal. Can the cultivated wisdom that relies upon it be free from arising and perishing? Answer: In the Initial Teaching, cultivated wisdom arises and perishes according to characteristics. From the Final Teaching onward, because wisdom is like the objective realm, and because initial awakening is identical to original awakening, it is also not impermanent. The treatise says: "Not like the impermanent mental consciousness: this excludes the deluded thought of mental consciousness prior to the fundamental transformation, showing that true wisdom from the fundamental transformation onward is permanent." This excludes that which cognizes. "Relying upon impermanent dharmas of cause and condition": this excludes the objective realm cognized prior to the fundamental transformation. "Definitively spoken of in the sūtras": adducing sūtras to corroborate that both realm and wisdom are eternal, just as Mahāyāna sūtras everywhere all teach that the Buddha-fruit is eternally abiding. Furthermore, as in the 'Treasury of Faith' within the 'Chapter on the Ten Treasuries' of this sūtra, having faith that the Buddha's wisdom is without arising and perishing, and so on, as fully spoken of there.

The words "its characteristic is like empty space" are the fifth, the characteristic of liberation, meaning that just as with the wisdom of the two vehicles, although free from the affliction obstacle, because attachment to dharmas still remains, their liberation still has obstacles. Here it is not like that: the two obstacles and propensities are all completely exhausted, hence it says "like empty space, unobstructed." Moreover, this clarifies that its essential substance is pure, like empty space without defilement. Furthermore, the treatise reiterates the last three of these five kinds. Why the repetition? Because the last three kinds all reveal the true by opposing the deluded; hence it says "contemplating like this," and so forth. Question: Examining these five lines, the first line realizes that the mundane world is identical to nirvāṇa, clarifying that detachment is without detachment; the second clarifies that in the three times there is no meaning of severing delusion, which is severing without severing; up to 'its characteristic is like empty space'. Conforming to these meanings, what is the difference between this and the common characteristic above? Answer: In reality there is no difference; it is only named the common characteristic with reference to the essential substance, and named the distinct characteristic with reference to the locus of wisdom's realization and entry. If it were not distinct, that common characteristic could not be attained, and this distinct characteristic would not be accomplished. Therefore conceptually there are two, but in the essence of the Dharma there is no difference.

The one and a half verses from "The realm traversed by all Buddhas" onward clarify the third [part], citing an example to reveal subtlety. Therein, the first three lines repeat the preceding profound subtlety, and the lower three lines analogously reveal the subtlety of the bhūmis. In the former, the first two lines adduce the two kinds of nirvāṇa realized by Buddhas. Therein, "calm" is the nirvāṇa of common characteristics, because its intrinsic nature is eternally calm. "Extinction" is the nirvāṇa of distinct characteristics, because it is extinction through conditions of wisdom. "Pure" reveals that these two are intrinsically undefiled and free from defilement through antidotes. "Profound" reveals that these two are exceedingly profound and subtle. Because these two are realized solely by all Buddhas, they are called "the realm traversed by Buddhas." "Difficult to reach by speech" directly reveals that these two are profound, subtle, and transcend speech. The lower three lines analogously reveal the bhūmi Dharma. Because it shares that mystery and subtlety, it says "the practice of the bhūmis is also like this." The word "bhūmi" refers to the objective realm. "Contemplation" refers to the wisdom illuminating the realm, which is the primary substance of the bhūmis. "Practice" refers to the retinue of wisdom, because the pāramitās such as giving and so forth practice together with wisdom. "Is also like this" means sharing the profundity and subtlety of the two nirvāṇas. "It is still difficult even to speak of it" reveals that the teaching is still difficult to express. "How much more so to demonstrate it to people" means how much more so with the meaning being profound and mysterious, how could it be demonstrated? The treatise says: "Why not merely say wordless, etc.?" This questions the text to reveal the intent, meaning: why not speak exclusively of wordlessness, up to 'difficult to reach by speech'? It reveals relying on words to seek understanding, and therefore does not speak of wordlessness.