華嚴經探玄記 18.17

18.17

二「不求菩薩」下別釋不見菩薩所由中七：一不求通明、二不修彼善、三不生彼願、四五不知法空、六不入彼位、七不得普眼。二顯勝過劣中，明上二十種所不能修功德之法超過二乘，不與共故，是故彼法非此能修，不能修彼為因緣故。是故於彼不能見等，謂眼不能見、耳不能聞、證不能入、比不能知、察不能覺、慮不能念、智不能觀、意不能思。三釋中先徵問云：何以如此，總不能知？為是總不可知故不能知？為二乘總無智故不能知？故云何以故也。下釋云菩薩智境者，非是總不可知，以深智能知故。非聲聞智境者，亦非聲聞是無智慧，但智淺境深故不能知。四「是故」下結不知可解。上來不修因故不見竟。第二明果時絕分故不見者，謂得小果故，於此法絕分無入。是故前文但言不能修習等，今此文中乃至云無三昧眼等。故知前約因時不能修行，今就果位總無分也。文中有三：初總舉、二徵釋、三結不見。初中十句：一無深定眼、二無所得法、三無大悲功德、四無是處智、五無大智眼，此上無自勝德；下五句無利他德。二徵釋中，徵云：聲聞因果豈可不是佛境界中一分所攝，何以總言無彼法耶？若總無，彼與凡夫何別？故云何以故。釋意：以出三界故不同凡夫，以住權乖實故無彼法。又由有四失故，是故總無：一出麁而不離細，謂但出分段三界，不離變易生死故；二得權而不得實；三滯寂而失悲；四自調而不救物。又初離過不盡、二得法不深、三無大悲心、四無四攝行。三「是故」下結不見。上來法說竟。問：如有經云「聲聞緣覺若智若斷，皆是菩薩無生法忍。」既亦彼菩薩所得，何故此中而言總無？答：二乘是菩薩法忍，非菩薩是二乘所知。問：若爾，何故經云「汝等所行是菩薩道」耶？答：由迴心故，是漸悟菩薩道，非是頓圓。此約頓圓，故非彼分。問：只可聞而不信，如《文殊行經》中五百聲聞聞不信受等。何故此總不聞見？答：彼是三乘逐機說故亦令得聞，今此一乘逐法高出故不能聞。其猶重陽麗空發雷振音，蟻子等類不能聞見。問：若爾，二乘應非法界所攝。答：法界廣故攝於二乘，二乘狹故不攝法界。問：法界緣起，一塵猶能攝於一切，何故二乘狹而不攝廣耶？答廣狹相攝是菩薩所知，二乘無此故非此攝。問，二乘豈不亦是菩薩所知法界，何故不攝？答：是此攝故，彼不知見，如聾盲也。問：若是此攝，應得知見，如菩薩眾。答：法界緣起略有二門，一順緣門，如成法因等，即佛菩薩要是知見方得攝耳；二違緣門，如相違因等，即二乘眾要不知見方乃攝耳。此二緣門望所起法悉有功力，是故同此；緣起所收，見不見異。問：若爾，凡夫外道亦是違緣，何不此攝？答：彼無德人不堪於此，如聾盲故。設餘聲聞猶恐不堪，是故要以鶖子等類諸大聲聞，或是菩薩變化所作，方顯法勝，是故辨之。問：若爾，此聲聞等得此法不？答：並得法。何以故？如聾盲入緣起故，以此為得，思之可解。問：若得，應知見。答：若知見，即不得，以非是相違緣起攝故，不名得也。菩薩不同此，故不例也，正由二乘。問：二乘高德尚如聾盲，如今凡夫豈得受持，答：往昔凡時不受持故，今時對面如聾如盲。今若不受，還亦同彼。是故只為高德二乘如聾盲故，故須受持，增長信力令後得之。第二喻況中，有十喻況之。遠法師等諸德，皆將十喻配前所迷佛果十句功德，唯第九二天喻，喻上第二如來莊嚴，餘皆次第配釋可知。又就此十中，見不見分別有三義：一第一第五第十此三，喻二乘不見佛果功德；二第二第三第四此三，喻菩薩能見佛果德；餘四喻如來自見果德，亦見二乘等法。又釋：此十別相者，一鬼對恒河喻，喻二乘有所知障，故不見殊勝境。辨法師云「如餓鬼者，喻二乘人不得菩薩法界行食，故云餓也。鬼者，似人非人，喻二乘所得涅槃似而非真也。裸形者，以無菩薩慚愧行服。飢渴者，以不得無二理觀沾其神故。舉身燒燃者，四相所遷不息也。毒獸所逼者，不知生死是自心所作，乃怖而捨之也。往詣恒河求水飲者，趣祇洹處求解脫味水也。或見枯竭等者，唯證斷涅槃，不見法身淨土法界之德水也。由罪業障者，喻法執無明之所障也。」下合喻可知。二覺對夢境喻，喻二乘人守劣乖勝故不見。於中，先喻、後法。法中，先總、次別、後結。別中，菩薩覩見出九種因故，可知。三愚對雪山喻，喻二乘人狹心無悲故不見。四呪見伏藏喻，喻彼二乘無淨慧眼故不見。五盲人至寶洲喻，喻二乘無淨眼故不見。六塗眼隱身喻，喻彼二乘無深智故不見。七遍處定境喻，喻彼二乘無深定故不見。喻中天者，是空處、識處也。眾生境界者，是青黃赤白也。八曀身自見喻，喻彼二乘無深行故不見。九二天隨人喻，喻彼二乘無密智故不見。十滅定無見喻，喻彼二乘住位息求故不見。上來總舉劣顯勝分竟。

Second, under "do not seek the bodhisattva[s]", there are seven [points] in individually explaining the reasons for not seeing the bodhisattvas: (1) not seeking supernormal powers and clarities; (2) not cultivating their goods; (3) not giving rise to their vows; (4 and 5) not knowing the emptiness of phenomena; (6) not entering their stations; (7) not attaining the universal eye. Second, under revealing the superior and surpassing the inferior, it clarifies that the above twenty kinds of dharmas of merit that they could not cultivate surpass the two vehicles and are not shared with them; therefore, those dharmas are not what these [practitioners] could cultivate, and their inability to cultivate them serves as the cause and condition. Therefore, they are unable to see them and so forth—meaning their eyes cannot see, their ears cannot hear, they cannot enter through realization, they cannot know through inference, they cannot become aware through inspection, they cannot contemplate through reflection, they cannot observe through wisdom, and their minds cannot ponder. Third, in the explanation, a question is first raised: Why is it that like this, they collectively cannot know? Is it that because [the state] is entirely unknowable they cannot know it, or is it that because the two vehicles are entirely devoid of wisdom they cannot know it? Hence it says, "Why is that?" The explanation below says that the sphere of a bodhisattva's wisdom is not entirely unknowable, for it can be known by profound wisdom. It is not the sphere of a śrāvaka's wisdom; nor does it mean that śrāvakas lack wisdom, but simply that because their wisdom is shallow and the realm is profound, they cannot know it. Fourth, under "for this reason", the conclusion of their not knowing may be understood. The preceding on not seeing due to not cultivating the cause is finished. Second, clarifying that they do not see because at the time of the fruit they are completely excluded from it: this means that because they have attained the lesser fruit, they are completely excluded from and have no entry into this Dharma. Therefore, the preceding text only said that they were unable to cultivate and practice it, whereas the present text goes so far as to say that they lack the samādhi eye and so forth. Thus we know that the former was based on the causal stage when they were unable to practice, while the present is based on the fruition stage where they are entirely excluded. In this text there are three [parts]: first, general presentation; second, questioning and explaining; third, concluding their not seeing. In the first part there are ten phrases: (1) lacking the eye of profound concentration; (2) lacking the attained Dharma; (3) lacking the merit of great compassion; (4) lacking wisdom regarding what is possible; (5) lacking the eye of great wisdom—these above [mean] lacking their own superior virtues; the lower five phrases [mean] lacking the virtues of benefiting others. Second, in questioning and explaining, the question is raised: How could the causes and fruits of the śrāvakas not be subsumed under a single part of the Buddha's realm? Why speak collectively of their lacking those dharmas? If they entirely lack them, what distinction is there between them and ordinary worldlings? Hence it says, "Why is that?" The intended explanation: because they have transcended the three realms, they are not the same as ordinary worldlings; because they abide in the provisional and contravene the real, they lack those dharmas. Furthermore, due to having four faults, they are therefore entirely devoid [of them]: (1) transcending the coarse yet not parting from the subtle—meaning they only transcend the three realms of delimited birth and death, but do not part from the birth and death of change; (2) attaining the provisional yet not attaining the real; (3) stagnating in quiescence and losing compassion; (4) taming themselves yet not saving beings. Furthermore, (1) they do not completely abandon faults; (2) they do not deeply attain the Dharma; (3) they lack the mind of great compassion; (4) they lack the practices of the four means of embrace. Third, under "for this reason", the conclusion of their not seeing. The above presentation of the doctrine is finished. Question: As a sūtra says: "Whether it be the wisdom or the abandonments of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, all are the bodhisattva's tolerance of the non-arising of dharmas." Since these are also what those bodhisattvas attain, why is it said here that they entirely lack them? Answer: The two vehicles are the bodhisattva's tolerance of dharmas; it is not that bodhisattvas are what the two vehicles can know. Question: If so, why does a sūtra say: "What you have practiced is the bodhisattva path"? Answer: Because of turning their minds [to Mahāyāna], this is the gradual-awakening bodhisattva path, not the sudden and perfect. This [sūtra] concerns the sudden and perfect; therefore it is not their share. Question: Could they not just hear yet not believe—as in the Mañjuśrīcaryā Sūtra, where five hundred śrāvakas heard yet did not accept in faith, and so forth? Why here do they neither hear nor see at all? Answer: That was expounded in accordance with faculties within the three vehicles, and hence it allowed them to hear; now, this one vehicle rises supremely in accordance with the Dharma, and hence they are unable to hear. It is like when double yang brightens the sky and thunder rumbles with vibrating sound, ants and their kind are unable to hear or see it. Question: If so, the two vehicles should not be subsumed by the dharmadhātu. Answer: Because the dharmadhātu is vast, it subsumes the two vehicles; because the two vehicles are narrow, they do not subsume the dharmadhātu. Question: In the dependent arising of the dharmadhātu, a single dust particle can still subsume all; why are the two vehicles narrow and unable to subsume the vast? Answer: Mutual subsumption of the vast and narrow is what bodhisattvas know; the two vehicles lack this, so they do not subsume this. Question: Are the two vehicles not also the dharmadhātu known by bodhisattvas? Why are they not subsumed? Answer: It is precisely because they are subsumed here that they neither know nor see, like the deaf and blind. Question: If they are subsumed here, they ought to know and see, like the assembly of bodhisattvas. Answer: The dependent arising of the dharmadhātu has briefly two approaches: (1) the approach of consonant conditions, as in the causes that establish dharmas and so forth—namely, the buddhas and bodhisattvas must know and see before they can be subsumed; (2) the approach of contrary conditions, as in contradictory causes and so forth—namely, the assemblies of the two vehicles must not know and not see before they can be subsumed. These two approaches of conditions both have efficacy with respect to the dharmas arisen; therefore, both are alike in this. Gathered within dependent arising, their seeing and not seeing differ. Question: If so, ordinary worldlings and non-Buddhists are also contrary conditions; why are they not subsumed here? Answer: Those persons lacking virtue cannot bear this, as they are like the deaf and blind. Even other śrāvakas are feared to be incapable; therefore, it requires great śrāvakas of the kind of Śāriputra and the like, or those magically manifested by bodhisattvas, to reveal the supremacy of the Dharma, and for this reason they are addressed. Question: If so, do these śrāvakas and others attain this Dharma or not? Answer: They all attain the Dharma. Why? Because they enter dependent arising like the deaf and blind, this is taken as attainment; reflect on this and it can be understood. Question: If they attain it, they ought to know and see it. Answer: If they knew and saw it, then they would not attain it; because it is not subsumed by contrary dependent arising, it would not be called attainment. Bodhisattvas are not like this, so they are not analogous; it is precisely due to the two vehicles. Question: If those of lofty virtue of the two vehicles are still like the deaf and blind, how could ordinary worldlings today accept and uphold it? Answer: Because formerly, when ordinary worldlings, they did not accept and uphold it, today they are face to face [with it] like the deaf and blind. If they do not accept it now, they will again be just like them. Therefore, precisely because the lofty virtues of the two vehicles are like the deaf and blind, one must accept and uphold it, increasing the power of faith so as to cause it to be attained later. Second, under analogies, there are ten analogies to illustrate it. Masters such as Master Huiyuan all match the ten analogies with the ten phrases of virtues of the Buddha fruit about which they were previously confused; only the ninth analogy of the two devas illustrates the second [virtue] above, the Tathāgata's adornment; the rest may be understood as matched and explained in sequence. Furthermore, in these ten, there are three meanings regarding the discrimination of seeing and not seeing: (1) the first, fifth, and tenth—these three illustrate that the two vehicles do not see the virtues of the Buddha fruit; (2) the second, third, and fourth—these three illustrate that bodhisattvas can see the virtues of the Buddha fruit; the remaining four illustrate that the Tathāgata Himself sees the virtues of the fruit, and also sees the dharmas of the two vehicles and so forth. Furthermore, in explaining the particular characteristics of these ten: (1) the analogy of the hungry ghost facing the Ganges illustrates that the two vehicles have the cognitive obscuration and therefore do not see the extraordinary sphere. Master Bian says: "'Like a hungry ghost' illustrates that persons of the two vehicles do not obtain the food of the bodhisattva's dharmadhātu practice, hence called 'hungry'. 'Ghost' means resembling a human yet not human, illustrating that the nirvāṇa attained by the two vehicles resembles it yet is not real. 'Naked' means lacking the clothing of the bodhisattva's practice of shame. 'Hungry and thirsty' means that because they do not obtain the contemplation of non-dual principle to moisten their spirit. 'The whole body burning' means being continually shifted by the four characteristics without rest. 'Harassed by venomous beasts' means not knowing that birth and death are created by one's own mind, and thus fearing and abandoning them. 'Going to the Ganges seeking water to drink' means heading to the Jetavana grove seeking the water of the flavor of liberation. 'Sometimes seeing it dried up' and so forth means that they only realize the nirvāṇa of cessation, not seeing the virtuous water of the dharmakāya, the pure land, and the dharmadhātu. 'Due to the obstruction of sinful karma' illustrates being obstructed by attachment to dharmas and ignorance." Below, the application of the analogy may be understood. (2) The analogy of the awake facing a dream realm illustrates that persons of the two vehicles hold to the inferior and turn away from the superior, and therefore do not see. Within it, first the analogy, then the doctrine. Within the doctrine: first general, next particular, then conclusion. In the particular, the bodhisattva's seeing presents nine kinds of causes, which may be understood. (3) The analogy of the fool facing the snowy mountain illustrates that persons of the two vehicles have narrow minds lacking compassion and therefore do not see. (4) The analogy of using incantations to see a hidden treasure illustrates that those two vehicles lack the eye of pure wisdom and therefore do not see. (5) The analogy of a blind person arriving at a jeweled island illustrates that the two vehicles lack the pure eye and therefore do not see. (6) The analogy of smearing the eyes to conceal the body illustrates that those two vehicles lack profound wisdom and therefore do not see. (7) The analogy of the concentration realm of the universal bases illustrates that those two vehicles lack profound concentration and therefore do not see. The 'heavens' in the analogy are the base of empty space and the base of consciousness; the 'realms of sentient beings' are blue, yellow, red, and white. (8) The analogy of the blurred body seeing oneself illustrates that those two vehicles lack profound practice and therefore do not see. (9) The analogy of the two devas following a person illustrates that those two vehicles lack secret wisdom and therefore do not see. (10) The analogy of having no vision in the concentration of cessation illustrates that those two vehicles abide in their station and cease seeking, and therefore do not see. The above part generally presenting the inferior to reveal the superior is finished.