華嚴經探玄記 15.30

15.30

第六如夢忍，作八門：一總明所喻。無性《攝論》「又如夢中，睡眠所起心心法聚極成昧略，雖無女等種種境界義，有愛非愛境界受用，覺時亦爾。」梁論云「譬如夢中無有實塵，亦見有愛憎受用。此依他性中亦爾，無有實塵，亦見有愛憎受用。」又功德施《般若論》云「譬如夢中，隨先見聞憶念分別，熏習住故，雖無作者，種種境界分明現前。如是眾生無始來，有諸煩惱善不善業熏習而住，雖無有我是能作者，而現無涯生死等事。」世親、無著《般若論》皆喻過去境，非證智所知。二開義者，夢有五義：一所依，謂悟心，以喻本識；二所由，謂睡蓋，以喻無明習氣；三所現，謂依前顯示夢相差別，以喻緣所起法；四此夢事不有而有；五令夢者取為實有。三辨有無者，有四句：一夢是有義，以是夢故，謂於夢者夢事現故。問：此既是夢，何得為有？又此若是有，夢者見有應非顛倒，非顛倒故是覺非夢。又覺者見夢無所有時應是顛倒，是顛倒故是夢非覺。答，此既是夢，何得不有？如其不有，應同非夢，竟何所說？又若無此，夢者見有則無顛倒，無顛倒故是覺非夢。又此夢有本在夢者，非謂覺處。若無覺者，見無所有而非顛倒，顛倒則無。夢者所見顛倒夢事顯現，是故由彼見無，方知此有。二夢是無義，以是夢故，謂虛妄所見性必空故。問：若夢是無，應同非夢，夢義安在？答：要同非夢方為是夢，以其夢處及非夢處無二相故。問：若爾，夢者何不於非夢處而見夢相？答：夢者現今於無處見，是故此夢體不異無。若不爾者，應非是夢。問：夢若是無，夢者應不見有，不見有故是覺非夢。答：正由夢者見有，有非是有，以夢者及所見俱無所有故。是故若非夢者見有，不得言無，由彼有故方知是無。問：凡言夢法，相有實無。今言總無，豈不成謗？答：然此有無必全攝故、非二相故，若不爾者則謗於夢。三夢是亦有亦無義，以是夢故，夢法理必具二義故。問：具此二義，豈不相違？相違之法，豈不謗夢？答：半有半無則是相違。今此全有之無，與全無之有，二門共在而不相違，是故具有無方乃是夢，以是夢故不相違也。四夢是非有非無義，以是夢故，二義俱融形奪雙盡，故俱非也。問：若此二義要相形奪，如何前說二義俱存？答：要由形奪方得俱存。是故若不奪無全盡，無以為無；若不奪有全盡，無以為有。是故存亡不礙，俱泯自在，方為夢法。是故經云「世間猶如夢，智不得有無。」此之謂也。四一異門者，有二重：初中有四句，一夢是一，以是一夢故；二夢是異，以夢現種種故；三俱，以於一念現多劫等，無二而二故；四俱非，以形奪俱盡方是夢故。又夢是一，以約所依心故；二夢是異，以約睡蓋所現故；三俱，以約所現夢相故；四俱非，以約夢性故。融通無礙，思之可見。是故前門有無於無處為有，此中一異於一處為多，如此無礙方為夢法。是故上經云「以夢自在法門教化」，此之謂也。五真妄門者，亦四句：一夢是真實，以是夢故，如前所說具諸義故、聖智所知夢性甚深故。問：夫言夢者是虛妄法，何得輒言是真實耶？答：了知此是虛妄之法，不顛倒，故是實也。二夢是妄，以是夢故，若非虛妄不是夢故，是故亦實亦虛。非真非妄四句無礙，思之。此經云「夢性寂滅」，此之謂也。六自在者，夢境虛妄相則相入，多處現少、少處現多皆無障礙。故上文云「以夢自在法門教化」，此之謂也。《攝論》云「處夢謂經年，寤乃須臾頃。」故時雖無量，攝在一剎那。緣起夢法無礙自在，則入重重如帝網等。竝准可知。七明觀者，觀諸世間皆悉如夢，以為正觀。問：若在夢者，謂為實故不知是夢，不名見夢。若夢覺者，即無夢相，復無所見。是故此夢誰能見耶？答：夢者不見夢，以其是夢故。覺者不見夢，以其覺已無有物故。了知如此，是覺者故，是故夢義是覺者所知，非於夢者。由此道理，夢是觀境。經云「菩薩受持一切法如夢」，此之謂也。問：覺者見無而了知夢，夢者見有亦了知不？答：若此覺者了知夢法，正夢時無，則名知夢。若言覺已為無，此是覺無，非是夢無，不名識夢。是故夢有夢無，但是夢時，非望覺時。若取覺已為無，此還是夢，不名為覺。是故夢覺前後，謂有謂無俱不識夢，思之可見。第八釋文中亦三：初一句總舉、二「譬如」下別辨、三「覺悟」下結義。初中，一切世間者，謂清淨緣起之法，亂識所現，故云如夢。二別辨中二：初舉喻、二「如是」下顯法。又釋：亦得初是方便觀，故云解一切世間等；二是真實觀，故云覺悟一切世間等。前中亦二，先明夢有則非有、二明非有而現有。前中五對：一非是世出世法、二非三界，上約依報；三非生死，約正報；四非淨穢，約世出世因；五非清濁，約世出世果。皆悉實非彼法而示現彼，是夢法也。二顯法實觀中八句：初一總顯。二不壞夢者，明此夢法自性非一切，不待壞故，又無可壞故。又此顯非是世間，不為四相之所壞故。三不可著者，解知緣起夢離，無所著故。此顯非是離世法，故不可證也。四夢性寂滅者，明此從本來性自寂滅，顯非三界喧動法故。五夢無自性者，明此無性非生非滅，顯前非生非死。六受持一切等者，結成觀相，謂常作此解不離心首，故云受持等也。七不壞夢者，不取捨夢故，顯前非淨穢，以非捨穢取淨故。八不虛妄取者，不分別故，顯非淨濁也。下一句結義等可知。

Sixth, in the forbearance [of seeing all things] as a dream (svapna), eight sections are made: 1. A general explanation of the metaphor. Asvabhāva's *Mahāyānasaṃgraha[-upanibandhana]* says: “Again, as in a dream, the collection of minds and mental factors arisen from sleep is extremely obscure and vague; although there are no objective referents of various realms such as women, there is the enjoyment of pleasing and displeasing realms; it is likewise when awake.” The Liang translation states: “For example, in a dream there are no real objects, yet one also sees and experiences attraction and repulsion. It is likewise within this dependent nature (paratantrasvabhāva): there are no real objects, yet one also sees and experiences attraction and repulsion.” Furthermore, Guṇaprabha's *Prajñā[-pāramitā-stotra]-bhāṣya* says: “Just as in a dream, through the persistence of perfuming that conforms to previously seen, heard, recollected, and discriminated [things], even though there is no agent, various objective realms distinctly manifest before one. In this way, sentient beings from beginningless time have defilements and wholesome and unwholesome karma that perfume and abide; even though there is no self that is the agent, endless matters of birth and death manifest.” Both Vasubandhu's and Asaṅga's *Prajñā treatises* use it to exemplify past objects, which are not known by direct realization-wisdom. 2. Explaining the meanings: a dream has five meanings: (1) the basis, namely the waking mind, exemplifying the fundamental consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna); (2) the cause, namely the hindrance of sleep, exemplifying the perfumed dispositions of ignorance; (3) what is manifested, namely the distinct dream appearances displayed in dependence on the former, exemplifying conditionally arisen dharmas; (4) these dream events existing without truly existing; and (5) causing the dreamer to grasp them as real existence. 3. Discriminating existence and nonexistence, there are four propositions: (1) The dream has the meaning of existence, because it is a dream—meaning that to the dreamer, dream events manifest. Question: Since this is a dream, how can it be existent? Furthermore, if this is existent, the dreamer's seeing it as existent should not be an inversion; not being an inversion, it would be awakening and not a dream. Moreover, when the awakened one sees the dream as nonexistent, that should be an inversion; being an inversion, it would be a dream and not awakening. Answer: Since this is a dream, how could it not be existent? If it were not existent, it would be identical to a non-dream, and what would there be to talk about at all? Furthermore, if this were absent, the dreamer's seeing existence would be without inversion; being without inversion, it would be awakening and not a dream. Moreover, this dream's existence fundamentally resides with the dreamer, not with the awakened perspective. If there were no awakened one, seeing that there is nothing would not be an inversion, and there would be no inversion. The dreamer's inverted dream events manifest; therefore, only by that seeing of nonexistence do we know this existence. (2) The dream has the meaning of nonexistence, because it is a dream—meaning that what is falsely seen is necessarily empty of intrinsic nature. Question: If the dream is nonexistent, it should be identical to a non-dream; where then is the meaning of a dream? Answer: Only when it is necessarily identical to a non-dream is it a dream, because the dream state and the non-dream state have no dual characteristics. Question: If so, why does the dreamer not see dream appearances in the non-dream state? Answer: The dreamer presently sees it in a state of nothingness; therefore, the essence of this dream is not different from nonexistence. Were it not so, it would not be a dream. Question: If a dream is nonexistent, the dreamer should not see existence; not seeing existence, it would be awakening and not a dream. Answer: Precisely because the dreamer sees existence, existence is not true existence, because both the dreamer and what is seen are completely nonexistent. Therefore, if not for the dreamer seeing existence, one could not speak of nonexistence; it is due to that [appearance of] existence that we know it is nonexistent. Question: Generally speaking of dream-dharmas, their appearance exists while their reality is absent. Now saying it is entirely nonexistent, does that not slander [the metaphor]? Answer: Yet this existence and nonexistence must completely subsume each other, not being two separate characteristics; if it were not so, one would slander the dream. (3) The dream has the meaning of both existence and nonexistence, because it is a dream, since the principle of dream-dharmas necessarily possesses both meanings. Question: Possessing these two meanings, are they not contradictory? Does contradictory dharma not slander the dream? Answer: Half-existence and half-nonexistence would be contradictory. But now, this nonexistence of total existence and existence of total nonexistence coexist in the two gates without contradiction. Therefore, possessing both existence and nonexistence is precisely what makes it a dream; because it is a dream, they do not contradict each other. (4) The dream has the meaning of neither existence nor nonexistence, because it is a dream: both meanings are mutually merged and their mutual contrast fully negates both, hence neither applies. Question: If these two meanings must negate each other, how could it be said earlier that both meanings are preserved? Answer: It is precisely through mutual negation that both can be preserved. Therefore, if it does not negate nonexistence entirely, there is no way for nonexistence to be; if it does not negate existence entirely, there is no way for existence to be. Thus, preservation and demise without obstruction, both vanishing in sovereign freedom, is precisely the dharma of a dream. Therefore the sūtra says: “The world is like a dream; wisdom finds neither existence nor nonexistence.” This is what it means. 4. The gate of oneness and difference has two levels. In the first there are four propositions: (1) the dream is one, because it is a single dream; (2) the dream is different, because the dream manifests variety; (3) both, because in a single thought-moment it manifests many kalpas, being dual while non-dual; (4) neither, because it is only a dream when both contrast and negation are exhausted. Furthermore: (1) the dream is one, in terms of the underlying mind; (2) the dream is different, in terms of what is manifested by the sleep hindrance; (3) both, in terms of the manifested dream appearances; (4) neither, in terms of the nature of the dream. Merged and unimpeded, it can be understood through reflection. Therefore, the previous gate of existence and nonexistence is existence within nonexistence; here, oneness and difference is multiplicity within unity; such unobstructedness is the dharma of a dream. Thus the earlier sūtra text says: “Transforming [beings] by means of the sovereign Dharma-gate of dreams”—this is what it means. 5. The gate of truth and falsity also has four propositions: (1) the dream is real, because it is a dream, since it possesses all the meanings explained before, and the nature of dreams known by noble wisdom is extremely profound. Question: In general, a dream is an illusory dharma; how can one readily say it is real? Answer: Thoroughly knowing that this is an illusory dharma is non-inversion, hence it is real. (2) The dream is false, because it is a dream, since if it were not false it would not be a dream. Therefore, it is both real and false, neither real nor false; the four propositions are unobstructed, reflect upon it. This sūtra says: “The nature of dreams is quiescent”—this is what it means. 6. Sovereign freedom: the illusory appearances of the dream realm mutually interpenetrate; many places appearing in few, and few places appearing in many, are all without obstruction. Therefore the earlier text says: “Transforming [beings] by means of the sovereign Dharma-gate of dreams”—this is what it means. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: “Being in a dream, one thinks years have passed; on waking, it was only a brief instant.” Therefore, though time is measureless, it is gathered into a single kṣaṇa. Conditionally arisen dream-dharmas are unobstructed and sovereign, entering layer upon layer like Indra's net and the like. All can be understood by analogy. 7. Explaining contemplation: contemplating all worlds as completely like a dream constitutes right contemplation. Question: If one is in the dream, taking it as real, one does not know it is a dream, and this is not called seeing the dream. If one has awakened from the dream, then there are no dream appearances and again nothing is seen. Therefore, who can see this dream? Answer: The dreamer does not see the dream, because it is a dream. The awakened one does not see the dream, because having awakened there is no object. Thoroughly knowing this is what makes an awakened one; therefore, the meaning of the dream is known by the awakened one, not by the dreamer. Due to this principle, the dream is the object of contemplation. The sūtra says: “Bodhisattvas uphold all dharmas as like a dream”—this is what it means. Question: If the awakened one sees nonexistence and thoroughly understands the dream, does the dreamer who sees existence also thoroughly understand it? Answer: If this awakened one thoroughly knows the dream-dharma as nonexistent precisely at the time of dreaming, then it is called knowing the dream. If one says that upon awakening it becomes nonexistent, this is the nonexistence of awakening, not the nonexistence of the dream, and is not called recognizing the dream. Therefore, the existence of the dream and the nonexistence of the dream are only at the time of the dream, not in relation to the time of awakening. If one takes it as nonexistent after awakening, this is still a dream and is not called awakening. Therefore, before and after dreaming and waking, asserting existence or asserting nonexistence both fail to recognize the dream; this can be seen through reflection. 8. In explaining the text, there are also three parts: first, a single sentence of general presentation; second, from “for example” onward, specific discrimination; third, from “awakening” onward, the concluding meaning. In the first, “all worlds” refers to the dharmas of pure dependent origination manifested by confused consciousness, hence they are said to be like a dream. In the second, specific discrimination, there are two: first, adducing the metaphor; second, from “thus” onward, revealing the Dharma. Another interpretation: the first may also be the contemplation of expedient means, hence it says “understanding all worlds, etc.”; the second is the contemplation of reality, hence it says “awakening to all worlds, etc.” Within the former there are also two: first, explaining that the existence of a dream is nonexistence; second, explaining that despite nonexistence, it manifests as existent. In the former, there are five pairs: (1) neither mundane nor supramundane dharmas; (2) not the three realms—the above regarding the dependent recompense (bhājana-loka); (3) not saṃsāra, regarding the primary recompense (sattva-loka); (4) neither pure nor defiled, regarding mundane and supramundane causes; (5) neither clear nor turbid, regarding mundane and supramundane fruits. In all cases, while not truly being those dharmas, it displays them: this is the dharma of a dream. Second, in revealing the Dharma of the contemplation of reality, there are eight lines: The first line is a general revelation. Second, “not destroying the dream” explains that the self-nature of this dream-dharma is not all [these things], so it does not await destruction, and furthermore there is nothing that can be destroyed. Moreover, this reveals that it is not mundane, because it is not destroyed by the four characteristics [of conditioned phenomena]. Third, “cannot be attached to” explains knowing that the conditionally arisen dream is free, with nothing to attach to. This reveals that it is not a dharma divorced from the world, hence it cannot be grasped as a realization. Fourth, “the nature of dreams is quiescent” explains that from the beginning its nature is inherently quiescent, revealing that it is not the agitated dharmas of the three realms. Fifth, “dreams have no self-nature” explains that this absence of nature is neither arising nor ceasing, revealing the aforementioned not being born and not dying. Sixth, “upholding all, etc.” concludes the form of the contemplation, meaning constantly maintaining this understanding without departing from the foremost of the mind, hence it says “upholding, etc.” Seventh, “not destroying the dream” means neither taking up nor discarding the dream, revealing the aforementioned neither pure nor defiled, because one does not abandon defilement to grasp purity. Eighth, “not grasping falsely” means not discriminating, revealing neither clear nor turbid. The concluding meaning in the next sentence can be understood.