華嚴經探玄記 6.17

6.17

第六勤觀理事而無分別，故名精進林。十偈總歎佛照無差別智，初一總、餘九別。前中，諸法性相無差別義，唯佛能知，然委細具知，名分別知也；次句備知；下句深知。別中，皆初喻、後法。初一真妄交徹喻，謂依真起妄，如金現色。非法是妄，喻以金色。無體即真，故性無別。又真心隨緣為法非法，心體不殊，故性無別。是故《楞伽》云「如來藏作善不善因。」又《涅槃》云「與不善俱名為無明，與善法俱說之為明。明與無明其性無二，無二之性即是實性。」此之謂也。又《維摩經．不二法門品》皆是此義也。二兩俱無實喻，謂眾生約內報，喻法；非眾生約外器，喻非法。皆無定性，俱不有。又釋：以眾生即無我故，眾生不真。無我不礙眾生故，非眾生亦不真。理事相奪，故皆不真。經云「於我無我無二者，是無我義。」又以眾生即非故，非相亦離。故皆不真也。法合可知。三生無滅相喻，謂生法即無生，猶如無滅相。又此未來當相即無，猶如未來無過去相。四滅無生相喻，謂生法即不生，猶如已滅法。又過法即無過，猶如無現未。五法體離取喻，謂涅槃離相故不可取。約報，煩惱滅處說餘無餘，而實滅理無有差別。六性無差別喻，謂數法不殊，法同空性。七隨緣成異喻，謂以十數為本，增至多十，智慧於上作百千等解，故云差別。然於彼數皆是諸十，故云皆是本數。況彼真理隨緣成異，求彼異法不異一真。略無法合。八體堅無壞喻，謂雖同有為，而恒常湛然。九執異乖同喻，可知。

Sixth, because he diligently contemplates principle and phenomena without conceptual discrimination, he is named Forest of Diligence. The ten verses as a whole praise the Buddha's non-discriminative wisdom of illumination; the first one is general, and the remaining nine are specific. In the former, the meaning that the nature and marks of all phenomena are without differentiation is known only to the Buddha; yet knowing it thoroughly and completely in all details is termed 'knowing with discrimination'; the next line [indicates] knowing comprehensively; the bottom line [indicates] knowing profoundly. In the specific [verses], each first presents a metaphor and then the doctrinal application. The first is the metaphor of the interpenetration of the true and the false: it means that the false arises based on the true, like gold displaying color. The non-dharmas are the false, illustrated by the gold color. Being without an independent substance, they are just the true, hence their nature is without difference. Moreover, the true mind accords with conditions to become dharmas and non-dharmas; the mind's essence is not different, hence the nature is without difference. Therefore the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states: 'The tathāgatagarbha serves as the cause of good and non-good.' Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'Accompanying what is non-good, it is named avidyā (ignorance); accompanying good dharmas, it is spoken of as vidyā (clarity). The nature of vidyā and avidyā is not two; the non-dual nature is precisely the real nature.' This is what it means. Moreover, the 'Chapter on the Dharma Gate of Non-Duality' in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra is entirely of this meaning. The second is the metaphor that both are devoid of substantial reality: 'sentient beings' refers to the inner recompense, illustrating dharmas; 'non-sentient beings' refers to the outer vessel world, illustrating non-dharmas. Both lack a fixed nature and neither exists. Another explanation: because sentient beings are identical to non-self, sentient beings are not real; because non-self does not obstruct sentient beings, non-sentient beings are also not real. Principle and phenomena negate each other, so neither is real. A sūtra states: 'To be non-dual in self and non-self is the meaning of non-self.' Furthermore, because sentient beings are identical to the 'non', the mark of 'non' is also transcended; thus neither is real. The doctrinal application can be understood. The third is the metaphor that production is devoid of the mark of cessation: it means that produced dharmas are precisely unproduced, just like being devoid of the mark of cessation. Moreover, the actual mark of this future is precisely non-existent, just as the future lacks the mark of the past. The fourth is the metaphor that cessation is devoid of the mark of production: it means that produced dharmas are precisely unproduced, just like already ceased dharmas. Moreover, past dharmas are precisely devoid of the past, just as they lack the present and future. The fifth is the metaphor that the essence of dharmas is free from grasping: it means that nirvāṇa is free from marks and therefore cannot be grasped. In terms of recompense, where defilements cease is spoken of as with remainder and without remainder, but in reality the principle of cessation has no differentiation. The sixth is the metaphor that the nature is without difference: it means that the number of dharmas is not different, for dharmas are identical to the nature of emptiness. The seventh is the metaphor of becoming different by according with conditions: it means taking the number ten as the base and increasing it to multiple tens; wisdom on this basis generates understandings of hundreds, thousands, and so forth, hence it is said to be differentiated. Yet in those numbers, all are instances of tens, hence it is said that all are the original number. How much more so does that true principle accord with conditions to become different; seeking those different dharmas, they are not different from the one truth. The doctrinal application is omitted. The eighth is the metaphor of the essence being solid and indestructible: it means that although shared with the conditioned, it is eternally clear and calm. The ninth is the metaphor that clinging to difference violates sameness; this can be understood.