華嚴經探玄記 10.15

10.15

三釋文者，論中有二：初三句解喻、後三句合法。喻中鳥行跡處是一句，直舉喻體。二不可說相亦不可見，是第二句，顯跡離相難說難見，謂不可說其跡數多少，不可見其跡相差別。下釋成。何故問也。釋：以空無相故，即空之跡亦不可分別也。三非無行跡，是第三句，以有鳥行，故非無跡。又此三中：初總舉、二離有、三離無。下合中三句次第合。如是鳥跡處，牒前初句。名等住處證智攝者，合之以法。准法驗喻，應言如是鳥行跡處虛空所攝，文中存略也。名句字身合鳥行，住處證攝合跡處虛空所攝，不可說聞合第二句明離有難說聞也。下二釋成。非如聲性者，明此地法出言，非如音聲之性是可聞法。又釋：明地出言，非可如音聲性而執取也。非無地智名句字身者，合第三句現不無義。非無地智者，有所詮離相之法。非無名句字者，有能詮之教。何故言有教？擬欲宣說故。何故言地離相？不令如言而取故。云何故我復說此？汝等不應隨聲取義。此是論主義，作金剛藏語，誡眾離著。五過中，前二違行過、次二違人過、後一違法過。謂如言之義都無所有，而謂實有，故不正信。二不能勵心捨相求實，名退勇猛。三法實不爾，為他宣說云法正爾，故云誑他。四言是佛說，故言謗佛。又佛意正在離言之義，而謂佛智緣所執相，故亦謗也。五謂法淺薄，同於世間稱言之事，故言輕法。又佛教旨示離言義，令諸眾生越凡成聖。今取如言，只是世語，不能令人超凡得聖故。輕法之過，實為重也。釋義大竟。

Third, explaining the text: The treatise has two parts: the first three lines explain the simile, and the latter three lines apply it to the Dharma. In the simile, “the place of the tracks of a bird's flight” is the first line, which directly presents the subject of the simile. Second, “their characteristics are inexplicable and also invisible” is the second line, which shows that the tracks are free from characteristics, difficult to explain, and difficult to see; that is, one cannot state the number of tracks, nor can one see distinctions among their appearances. Below, it explains this. “Why?” is a question. Explanation: Because space is without characteristics, the tracks that are identical to space also cannot be distinguished. Third, “yet it is not that there are no tracks of flight” is the third line: because the bird has flown, it is not that there are no tracks. Furthermore, among these three: the first generally presents [the simile], the second is free from existence, and the third is free from non-existence. Below, in applying it to the Dharma, the three lines correspond in sequence. “Like such places of bird tracks” recapitulates the first line above. “The dwelling place of names and so forth subsumed by realizing wisdom” applies it to the Dharma. Correlating the simile with the Dharma, it should say: “Like the place of such bird tracks subsumed by empty space,” but the text is abbreviated. Name-bodies, phrase-bodies, and phoneme-bodies correspond to the bird's flight; the dwelling place subsumed by realization corresponds to the place of the tracks subsumed by empty space; “cannot be spoken or heard” corresponds to the second line, explaining freedom from existence as being difficult to speak or hear. The following two lines explain and establish this. “Not like the nature of sound” clarifies that this dharma of the bhūmis transcends speech and is not a dharma that can be heard like the nature of voice and sound. Another explanation: it clarifies that the bhūmis transcend speech and cannot be grasped according to the nature of voice and sound. “Not that there are no name-bodies, phrase-bodies, and phoneme-bodies of the wisdom of the bhūmis” corresponds to the third line, manifesting the meaning of non-absence. “Not that there is no wisdom of the bhūmis” means that there is a signified dharma free from characteristics. “Not that there are no names, phrases, and phonemes” means that there is a teaching that serves as signifier. Why is it said that there is a teaching? Because there is an intention to proclaim it. Why is it said that the bhūmis are free from characteristics? So that people do not grasp them according to words. Why do I speak of this again? You all should not grasp the meaning according to the sound. This is the intent of the author of the treatise, speaking as Vajragarbha to admonish the assembly to abandon attachment. Among the five faults: the first two are faults of contravening practice; the next two are faults of contravening persons; the last one is the fault of contravening the Dharma. That is, the literal meaning does not exist at all, yet one considers it truly existent; hence it is not correct faith. Second, not being able to exert one's mind to abandon characteristics and seek the real is called regressing from vigor. Third, the dharma is not truly so, yet one proclaims to others that the dharma is precisely so; hence it is called deceiving others. Fourth, claiming that this was spoken by the Buddha is called slandering the Buddha. Furthermore, the Buddha’s intent lies precisely in the meaning free from words, yet one considers the Buddha’s wisdom to grasp reified characteristics; hence it is also slandering. Fifth, considering the Dharma to be shallow, identical to worldly matters described by words; hence it is called disparaging the Dharma. Furthermore, the purport of the Buddha’s teaching is to show the meaning free from words, enabling sentient beings to transcend the ordinary and become noble. If one now grasps according to the words, it is merely worldly speech, unable to cause people to transcend the ordinary and attain nobility. Therefore, the fault of disparaging the Dharma is truly grave. The explanation of the greatness of meaning is complete.