[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 6.20 # 華嚴經探玄記 6.20 華嚴經探玄記 6.20 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.20) 第九由觀心真如，故名如來林。十偈分二：初六明心作凡、後四明心起聖。前中，初四偈半舉喻、後一半法合。前中，初二是畫師造畫喻，喻妄法依真；次二明畫心造畫喻，喻妄依心；後半明畫師不知畫心喻，喻緣起無知。此中意說一切眾生皆依真緣起，本識之心隨名言有支我見等薰，有六道身現。緣起虛假，不礙無、不壞有，是故會攝有其二門：若會緣從實，即差別相盡，唯一真如；若攝末歸本，即六道異形，唯心而轉。約初，緣起不存，是真如門故；約後，緣起不壞，是生滅門故。是故存壞無二，唯一緣起；二門無礙，唯是一心。故《起信論》云「依一心法有二種門，一心真如門、二心生滅門。然此二門皆各總攝一切法。」此之謂也。今此文中畫亦二義：一依壁，故唯平也；二依畫師巧心，故似有高下也。初二偈明初門，謂初偈上半喻隨薰布異，次句顯異在妄情，下句相盡同真。四大，喻真心也。彩色，喻緣起虛相也。後偈上半明真妄不即，上句明能造非所造喻，攝妄之真不即妄，以性真故；下句明所造非能造喻，依真之妄不即真，以性虛故。下半明妄不離真，謂以虛徹真，虛盡真現，故云不離。是故不離、不異、不即，思之。次二偈明畫像依畫心，喻後生滅門，此畫師心喻本識等能變之心，畫色喻五蘊身所變之報。上半明能所不即、下半顯本末不離，謂以心本形末所以不即，心變為報是故不離。此明心能變境，心體非境，境從心變，境相非心。從心變故，境不離心；能變境故，心不離境。是故雖不即不離，而要唯是識，非唯境也。問：前偈但明彩不離四大，不明四大不離彩，何故與此不同耶？答：前明真不變妄，此顯心變於境，故不同也。後偈上半明畫師工巧心，喻能變識無住為本，故難思也。下半顯所現畫色，喻所變相各從心現，無體可相知。後半畫師不知此畫皆從心現，喻諸眾生迷自心量。下一偈半法合，可知。第二明心起佛中，如心佛亦爾，將凡類佛，如心造凡，作佛亦爾，皆從心起。如佛眾生然，將佛類凡。下二句會以顯同，謂心作佛，心佛無別；心作凡夫，心凡無別。能所依同，故云無別也。又釋：此是第二結勸修學中，初一偈融結本末。本末有三：一唯本，謂真理以就性淨，本覺名佛。二唯末，謂所變眾生。三俱，謂能變之心，以依真能變故。此三緣起融通無礙，隨一全攝、餘性不異，故云無差別也。次一舉益勸修，上半明佛已知，舉上勸下；次句勸下同上；下句結明知益。次一偈明身心不即不離，上半身心相別故不即、下半依心現身故不離。下一偈勸修，上半舉所求、下半勸依理觀。謂此會心入實則是如來，返此為去故也。又釋：亦是心變佛相而現故也。 > Ninth, because of contemplating the tathatā of the mind, he is named Forest of the Tathāgata. The ten verses are divided into two: the first six explain the mind creating ordinary beings, and the latter four explain the mind raising up the noble. In the former, the first four verses and a half present metaphors, and the latter half verse is the doctrinal application. In the former, the first two are the metaphor of a painter producing a painting, illustrating false dharmas relying on the true; the next two explain the metaphor of the painting mind producing a painting, illustrating the false relying on the mind; the latter half explains the metaphor of the painter not knowing the painting mind, illustrating the absence of deliberate knowledge in dependent arising. The intended meaning here is that all sentient beings depend on the true dependent arising; the mind of the fundamental consciousness, perfumed by nominal designations, factors of existence (aṅga), view of self, and so forth, manifests the bodies of the six destinies. Dependent arising is fictitious; it does not obstruct nothingness, nor does it destroy existence. Therefore, synthesizing it involves two gates: if one synthesizes conditions to follow the real, differentiated marks are exhausted and there is only the one tathatā; if one subsumes branches back to the root, the different forms of the six destinies only turn according to the mind. Regarding the first, dependent arising is not maintained, because it is the gate of tathatā; regarding the latter, dependent arising is not destroyed, because it is the gate of arising and ceasing. Therefore, maintaining and destroying are not two, but are solely the one dependent arising; the two gates are unobstructed, being solely the one mind. Hence the Awakening of Faith states: 'Relying on the dharma of the one mind, there are two gates: first, the gate of the mind as tathatā; second, the gate of the mind as arising and ceasing. Yet these two gates each universally subsume all dharmas.' This is what it means. Now, in this text, the painting also has two meanings: first, relying on the wall, it is solely flat; second, relying on the painter's skillful mind, it appears to have high and low. The first two verses explain the first gate: the upper half of the first verse illustrates distributing differences according to perfuming; the next line reveals that difference lies in false feelings; the bottom line indicates that marks are exhausted and identical to the true. The four great elements illustrate the true mind. The colored pigments illustrate the fictitious marks of dependent arising. The upper half of the latter verse explains that the true and the false are not identical: the upper line illustrates that what can create is not what is created; the true that subsumes the false is not identical to the false, because its nature is true; the lower line illustrates that what is created is not what can create; the false that relies on the true is not identical to the true, because its nature is fictitious. The lower half explains that the false does not depart from the true: it means that through the fictitious penetrating the true, when the fictitious is exhausted the true appears, hence it says 'not departing.' Therefore they are not apart, not different, and not identical; contemplate this. The next two verses explain the painted image relying on the painting mind, illustrating the latter gate of arising and ceasing: this painter's mind illustrates the transforming mind such as the fundamental consciousness; the painted colors illustrate the recompense transformed by the body of the five aggregates. The upper half explains that subject and object are not identical; the lower half reveals that root and branches do not depart: because the mind is the root and the form is the branch, they are not identical; because the mind transforms into recompense, they do not depart. This explains that the mind can transform into the object; the mind's essence is not the object, and the object transforms from the mind, so the mark of the object is not the mind. Because it transforms from the mind, the object does not depart from the mind; because it can transform into the object, the mind does not depart from the object. Therefore, although they are neither identical nor separate, crucially it is consciousness-only, not object-only. Question: The previous verse only explained that the colors do not depart from the four great elements, and did not explain that the four great elements do not depart from the colors; why is it different from this? Answer: The former explained that the true does not transform into the false, whereas this reveals that the mind transforms into the object; hence they are not the same. The upper half of the latter verse explains the painter's skillful mind, illustrating that the transforming consciousness takes non-abiding as its root, hence it is inconceivable. The lower half reveals the manifested painted colors, illustrating that the transformed marks each manifest from the mind, having no substantial entity that can mutually know one another. The latter half indicates that the painter does not know that these paintings all manifest from the mind, illustrating that sentient beings are deluded about the measure of their own minds. The next verse and a half is the doctrinal application, which can be understood. In the second, explaining the mind raising up the Buddha: 'Just as the mind is, the Buddha is also like this'—taking the ordinary to analogize the Buddha: just as the mind creates the ordinary, producing the Buddha is also like this; both arise from the mind. 'Just as the Buddha is, sentient beings are thus'—taking the Buddha to analogize the ordinary. The lower two lines synthesize to reveal identity, meaning that the mind makes the Buddha, so mind and Buddha are without difference; the mind makes ordinary beings, so mind and ordinary beings are without difference. That which relies and that on which it relies are identical, hence it says 'without difference.' Another explanation: this is the second part, concluding and exhorting practice, where the first verse harmonizes and concludes root and branches. Root and branches have three aspects: 1. only the root, meaning that true principle in terms of the pure nature, original enlightenment, is named Buddha; 2. only the branches, meaning the transformed sentient beings; 3. both, meaning the mind that can transform, because it can transform relying on the true. These three of dependent arising are interfused without obstruction; according with any one, it completely subsumes \[the others\], and the remaining natures are not different, hence it says 'without difference.' The next verse presents the benefit to exhort cultivation: the upper half explains that the Buddha already knows, presenting the superior to exhort the inferior; the next line exhorts the inferior to be identical to the superior; the bottom line concludes by clarifying the benefit of knowing. The next verse explains that body and mind are neither identical nor separate: in the upper half, body and mind are differentiated in marks, hence not identical; in the lower half, the body manifests relying on the mind, hence not separate. The next verse exhorts cultivation: the upper half presents what is sought; the lower half exhorts relying on the contemplation of principle. It means that entering reality by uniting this mind is precisely the Tathāgata, whereas reversing this is going away. Another explanation: it is also because the mind transforms into the Buddha's marks to manifest. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.19) - [Next: 6.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.21) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.6.20) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.20) · Pramāṇa