華嚴經探玄記 4.58

4.58

第二教化甚深。何故來者？前明攝心入理，此辨後智救生，財是法財故也。於中先問、後答。此中問答似少不同，准答取問。問中應云：如來既十隨教化，云何復說眾生則非眾生？答中明身命等皆空故，是十隨教化則非教化。以眾生非眾生，教化亦非教化，此有何失？又准問取答。難意云：如覺首所說，眾生既空，云何教化？教化之時，若如聖智稱理見空，則不成化；若同凡執橫計為有，即不能化。此是有無相違難。答意：眾生是空，空是眾生。《大品》云「非以空色故名色空，但以色即是空、空即是色。」解云：以即色之空方是真空，非斷空故。此非凡智境也。則為如此眾生，以如此十隨，說如此法門，方為真教化。難問中二：初一句舉正義、二「云何」下顯相違。於中，古人將隨身是總。今初一是總，餘十是別。初一是發心時、得道時等，論云「難處生者，待時故。」二隨其報命或長時或短時，應受化故，則於彼時而教化之；三隨其所受身時，如待得人身方教化等；四隨所作行業時，如待作惡行方得法忍，如《淨諸業障經》說，善行等准之；五隨當起何欲樂而受化時；六隨起何誓願而受化時；七隨起何意念何事時；八隨起何方便而欲造修時；九隨起何思惟照察時；十隨起何籌量計度時；十一隨起何等見應受化故，如來爾時則便化之。既如此隨機屈曲教化，而說眾生則非眾生，其理安在？第二答中二：初一偈讚德勸聽，上半歎文殊德，以智中不雜無明故云明智，能照唯心之理故云境界。何故恒照此境者？以常樂寂滅行故。後九偈中二：初七正答前問、後二遮難重答。前中隨時一問無答，以總不離別故。初三偈答隨身一問，次二答隨命一問，次一答隨行一問，後一通答餘七問。初中，先二明人空：初一昔來謂我在身中故，今明身無我亦無，則以界分別觀觀是身不可得故，則達所執身中我有即是無也；次一昔來謂身依止於我，今明我無身亦無，則尋能依身分觀所依之我不可得故，則於身不著也。次一以內類外明法無我，於中初二句標、次一句釋下句益。如此隨身則非隨故，不異眾生則非眾生，是故無失也。就答隨命二偈中，初一觀境、後一觀智。前中身謂名色則果報身、命謂正受生識則是本識。本識與身從始至終更互因果和合無二、喻說可知。此互為因果、非二乘愚夫亂識境、故言不可知。此義誰能知？以智者能觀察故，則佛菩薩法如智也。所以得知身命更互為因緣者，以分別依他無常法更互為因，故有身命，以常住法不成因故。既云無常，即有非有，各無自性，故云空無我，及離增益損減等一切相。就答隨行一偈中，由本識與意識諸熏習法更互為因故，業功能生，非有人法等，故云無我猶如夢。非唯業行獨絕二我，業所得報我性亦寂故。其因果似前後異，無我義同曾無異也。次一偈答後七問，以隨欲樂等七皆是心數，依心王不自在故，故舉心王總收通答，故云唯以，心為主故。又釋：一切世間法，唯是自心變異所作，心為其本，故云主也。然愚夫不了唯心義故，妄隨分別起此欲樂等七種心念。以皆取相故，悉是顛倒。是顛倒故，則空無所有，是故隨之則非隨也。下釋遮難。恐有難言：若眾生如此，則空自是法門。隨亦爾者，何須更化？釋云：以不能解諸法則是無二故，是故化之。又更難云：則此不解真實之眾生，豈不則是空耶？釋云：以從緣起故非無，速滅不住故非有，此二不二是眾生，故云無異相，是故得教化。前偈明須化，後偈明成化。

Second is the profundity of transforming through teaching. Why does it follow? Previously it explained collecting the mind and entering into principle; here it explains subsequent wisdom rescuing sentient beings, for wealth is the wealth of the Dharma. Within this, there is first the question and next the answer. Here the question and answer seem slightly divergent; let us take the question in light of the answer. In the question it should say: Since the Tathāgata transforms through teaching by following ten [aspects], why also say that sentient beings are no sentient beings? In the answer it explains that because body, life, and so forth are all empty, these ten followings of transforming through teaching are then non-transforming. Because sentient beings are no sentient beings, transforming through teaching is also non-transforming—what fault is there in this? Furthermore, let us take the answer in light of the question. The intention of the challenge states: Just as Jewel-Head has stated, since sentient beings are empty, how does one transform through teaching? At the time of transforming through teaching, if like noble wisdom one accords with principle and perceives emptiness, then no transformation is accomplished; if one is like an ordinary being who grasps and erroneously conceptualizes them as existent, then one cannot transform. This is the challenge of the contradiction between existence and non-existence. The intention of the answer: Sentient beings are emptiness, and emptiness is sentient beings. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* states: "It is not by emptying form that form is called empty; rather, form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form." The explanation says: It is precisely the emptiness identical to form that is true emptiness, not an annihilationist emptiness. This is not the realm of ordinary intellect. It is precisely for such sentient beings, by means of such ten followings, expounding such Dharma gates, that it is true transforming through teaching. Within the challenge and question there are two: first, one sentence adduces the correct meaning; second, from "how" onwards reveals the contradiction. Within this, ancients took "following the body" as general. Now, the first one is general, and the remaining ten are particular. The first is the time of generating the aspiration, the time of attaining the path, and so forth; the treatise says: "Those born in places of difficulty wait for the time." Second, following their retributional lifespan, whether long or short, when they should receive transformation, at that time he transforms them through teaching. Third, following the time of the body they have received, as in waiting until a human body is attained before transforming them through teaching. Fourth, following the time of the karmic activities they perform, as in waiting until they perform evil actions before they attain forbearance of dharmas, as expounded in the *Sūtra on Purifying All Karmic Hindrances*, and good actions and so forth are analogous. Fifth, following what desires and inclinations they will arouse when they receive transformation. Sixth, following what vows they arouse when they receive transformation. Seventh, following what thoughts of what matters they arouse. Eighth, following what upāya they arouse when they wish to cultivate. Ninth, following what reflections and examinations they arouse. Tenth, following what deliberations and calculations they arouse. Eleventh, following what views they arouse, because they should receive transformation, the Tathāgata at that time immediately transforms them. Since in this way he accommodates their capacities and tortuously transforms them through teaching, yet it is said that sentient beings are no sentient beings, where does the principle lie? In the second part, the answer, there are two: first, one verse praises virtue and encourages listening; the upper half praises Mañjuśrī's virtue—because wisdom is unmixed with ignorance, it is called "clear wisdom," and because it can illuminate the principle of mind-only, it is called "realm." Why does it constantly illuminate this realm? Because he constantly delights in the practice of tranquil extinction. Within the latter nine verses there are two: first, seven directly answer the previous question; second, two ward off objections and answer again. In the former, there is no answer to the one question on "following the time," because the general is not separate from the particular. The first three verses answer the single question on following the body; the next two answer the single question on following life; the next one answers the single question on following actions; the last one generally answers the remaining seven questions. In the first part, the first two clarify the emptiness of persons: the first one addresses the former view that the self is within the body; now it clarifies that the body lacks [self] and the self is also non-existent; thus through the contemplation of the differentiation of dhātus, contemplating that this body is ungraspable, one realizes that the self held to exist within the body is precisely non-existent. The next one addresses the former view that the body relies on the self; now it clarifies that the self is non-existent and the body is also non-existent; thus, tracing the reliant bodily parts, one contemplates that the relying-upon self is ungraspable, and therefore does not cling to the body. The next one compares the internal to the external to clarify the emptiness of dharmas; within it, the first two lines designate, the next line explains, and the lower line states the benefit. Such following of the body is thus non-following, not different from sentient beings being no sentient beings; therefore there is no fault. Regarding the two verses answering "following life": the first one is the contemplated object, and the latter one is the contemplating wisdom. In the former, "body" refers to nāmarūpa, which is the fruition-retribution body; "life" refers to the consciousness that properly receives birth, which is the root-consciousness. From beginning to end, the root-consciousness and the body are mutually cause and effect, harmonious and non-dual; the metaphorical explanation can be known. This mutual causality is not the realm of the confused consciousness of the two vehicles or foolish ordinary persons; hence it says "unknowable." Who can know this meaning? Because the wise can observe it, this is the Buddha's and bodhisattvas' wisdom of the reality of dharmas. Why is it known that body and life are mutually causes and conditions? Because the conditioned, impermanent dharmas of paratantra are mutually causes, therefore there are body and life; for eternal dharmas do not constitute causes. Since they are called impermanent, being is non-being, each lacking self-nature; therefore it says "empty and without self," and free from all marks such as superimposition and depreciation. Regarding the single verse answering "following actions": because the root-consciousness and the perfumed dharmas of the mental consciousness are mutually causes, the efficacy of karma can arise; there are no persons, dharmas, and so forth; therefore it says "without self, like a dream." Not only are karmic actions alone devoid of the two selves; the self-nature of the retribution obtained through karma is also tranquil. Their cause and effect appear different prior and posterior, but the meaning of selflessness is the same and never different. The next single verse answers the latter seven questions: because the seven, including following desires and inclinations, are all mental factors and, relying on the primary mind, are not autonomous, he adduces the primary mind to comprehensively subsume and generally answer them; hence it says "only using," for mind is the master. Another explanation: all worldly dharmas are only the modifications produced by one's own mind, and mind is their root; hence it is called "master." However, because foolish ordinary persons do not understand the meaning of mind-only, they falsely follow discrimination and arouse these seven kinds of mental thoughts such as desires and inclinations. Because they all grasp at marks, they are all inversions. Because they are inversions, they are empty and non-existent; therefore, following them is thus non-following. Below, he explains warding off objections. Fearing there may be an objection stating: "If sentient beings are like this, then emptiness itself is the Dharma gate; if following is also like this, why is there need for further transformation?" The explanation says: Because they cannot understand that all dharmas are precisely non-dual, therefore he transforms them. Furthermore, another objection asks: "Then is this sentient being who does not understand the real not precisely empty?" The explanation says: Because it arises from conditions, it is not non-existent; because it ceases swiftly without abiding, it is not existent; these two being non-dual are sentient beings; hence it says "without different marks"; therefore transformation can take place. The former verse clarifies the necessity of transformation, and the latter verse clarifies the accomplishment of transformation.