華嚴經探玄記 9.22

9.22

第二對中二：先金剛藏乘前啟請顯已默意、後解脫月因言重請。前中亦二：先序意、後偈頌。序意中，欲令眾悅者，是總酬答相，謂前大眾見默不說，生疑生欲以惱其心，解脫為請。今此說偈，為遣彼惱，令生喜悅故云也。頌中六偈別顯令喜之相，初有二頌明法難說、次有二頌顯法難聞、次有一頌喻難說聞、末後一頌舉難結默。以直云難說，不言自身無智不能說，去前大眾何因之疑，故令生喜。亦直云難聞，不云此眾不堪得聞，故去大眾何緣之疑，令生悅喜。於論中名大智故、無所畏故，離不堪答、離不正答也。就二偈中，初偈顯難說之法、後彰難說之義。又釋：初正顯難說、後辨難說所以。初中，菩薩所行者，是出世間智故，謂證智也，此是難法之體。言第一難思者，顯其難相，謂體出名相說為最難，在相無所名未曾有。又此一偈內，初句明證行、次句辨難相、次句分別十地顯教行、後句諸佛根本。彰此證教二行，是出生佛果之處，故為根本。由約證行最難，故難證也。約教行未曾有難，故難信也。佛者覺。佛智故者，謂覺悟佛果之智方名佛也。第二頌釋難所以。論中先生起內，彼菩薩行事義住不可如是說者，行者，彼前菩薩所行也；事者，彼前地事分別也。此行與事即理而成，名為義住；並超言表，故云不可如是說也。此偈中所以難者，以非四心所能知故。一以微故非聞慧境。二思慧非麁此應可得，以難見故非彼境也。三修慧行心此應可得，以離念故非彼境也，經中略此句。亦可同於非心及中攝矣。論中名世間修者，為簡地上，但取地前故也。四既非地前所知，地上報生之智亦非地前應得彼法，以彼但是從因所生變易等報異熟心識，非是照實之智，故非境也。故論云「心境界者，是心地也。」故云非心所及也。下云心地者，隨心所受報。又隨心所行境亦名心地。既非四心，是誰境耶？唯智境故。是何智境耶？唯根本智，以彼見實義故。何故非餘境？以是無漏故。經中佛字，是論中無流也。如是甚深者，結上離四心也。如是可解者，結上從智慧出也。以是智慧照現，故名為出。如是不可說者，結上無流，是出世佛境故。聞則迷沒者，謂執言取法，迷覆真理，故云名迷沒。論中隨聞取著者，解悶也，謂沒在言中故。聞者即聞非是不聞者，解迷也，謂隨言取實名為則聞，不知地法寂滅離言名非不聞。釋難說竟。「持心」下二偈明難聞。於中持聽法之心堅如金剛，此為總句。信堅證堅，為別。若無堅信，於他分法不能受故；若無堅證，於自分法不能入故，是故要具此二方堪聽法。如《智論》中無信即不受、無慧即不解，信慧具故方能入法，亦同此也。先釋堅信，謂深信佛智慧者，論云「唯佛所知非我境者，仰推如來，自更無知，故顯信深也。」《勝鬘》經有三種正智中，初仰推智，亦同此也。「佛菩提」下彰深而信也。明佛果德等同法界，分量斯絕，故云佛菩提無邊也，顯佛自德無邊。又為眾生機感萬差，佛為說法有祕密顯了諸乘差別，前後相違極無限齊，故云佛化眾生所說法門種種也，此明外化無邊。於此二處，自己不知而能信受，故云信故也。以為第一妙者，以此所信為第一，為微妙，尊所信也。心無疑難者，顯難信處而能信也。後偈辨證堅，論中何者心地，問所證法。云何無我智，問能證智。「隨心」下答所證法。隨心所受三界中報者，明五根身也。又隨心所行一切境者，明六塵境也。如此內外根境皆是心識所依，故名心地也。「無我智者」下答能證智。通而論之，內外法中皆具二無我；寄別言之，於內身得我空、於外境得法空。經中離計我者，約內報明我空也；及離心所行地者，約外境明法空也。如是菩薩者，具此二堅方乃堪聞，則顯此法只是難聞，非是不可聞。「寂滅」下一偈辨第三喻難說聞中，作二門釋：一隨經、二會論經。中畫空者，如虛空不可彩色所畫，此寂滅智非名句所詮。如執疾風者，如疾風不可執捉，此無流智非音聲能說，故云說甚難也。二會論顯意中亦二：先顯意、後釋文。顯意云何？此中二喻事有三重：一太空喻，以所依平等果分；二畫風喻，以能詮言說之教；三畫風住處喻，以所說十地因分。然此三義有其四句：一如空雖平等，約風畫遊履，非無住處。雖有住處，以空為體，故離相難見。此則約風畫而不無、就太空而不有，然此不無即是不有，故難說難見也，此約十地因分辨耳。二就平等果分亦離有無，謂如虛空體淨故不無、隨風畫有住處故不有也。然此不無即是不有，故不可見。三約風畫動作故不無、不能自現相故不有，然此不無即是不有，故亦不可見。四混前三句，謂淨空不有即是風畫及處不無，故無說無示不異說示；風畫及處不有即是淨空不無，故雖如幻說亦則是無說無示。問：此與下鳥跡何別？答此中文意，以言即不言之教，示彼有即不有之義，是故難說難聞況之於說；下文鳥跡處，直辨所詮十地不可宣示，況之於證，有此不同也。二釋文者，此論釋中有三：先解喻；二「如是佛智」下解合；三畫者重合前中喻，內有四重三句：一約畫、二約風、三雙辨、四合喻。初畫中三句者，一如空中畫色是初句，總舉喻相，明動筆之畫。二如壁，是第二句，別辨畫處，明其不無，以空中畫處有相難明，故更轉喻壁上顯示，謂彼空中畫處不無，如壁上畫處相似。三是中不住故不可見，是第三句，別明不有，以彼空畫不得停住，故不可見也。二約風三者，如空中風是初句、如樹葉是第二句、是中不住等為第三句，義同畫釋。三雙辨三者，一此動作者是初總句，動是風、作是畫也；二非不空中有此二事者，是第二句，是雙顯不無，謂於空中非無風畫二種處事也；三如是虛空處事不可說處者，是第三句，雙顯不有，謂此二處事空為體，故不可分別此是畫處、此是風處、此是高處、此是下處，故云不可說處也。前云不可見，此云不可說，約聽約說也。四合法三句者，一是畫風如說者，合初句，謂說中具有聲名等，故兩喻同合說也。二「以非自性」下超合第三句不有之義，離相難見也，謂所說十地不同能詮，故不可見。然出三因：一以風畫處自性無故，同於虛空，故不可見。二何者非性？以不能自住故。三云何不住？以是客故，謂風畫處望於虛空非本有，故是客也。由是客故不住，不住故無性，無性故不可見。地法況之，可知。三非不於中有此言說者，是却合第二句。問：此明所釋地法不無，何故乃云非不有言？答：十地差別由言分異，旨從詮目，故云言說。由彼空中風畫不無，故說有彼風畫之處。此中亦爾，可知。二顯所喻勝妙中，如是佛智者是十地智，即是經中寂滅無流智也。如是地智之言說，謂無說之說等。由此顯示校量地法出過言議，故云勝也。三明立二喻之意者，於中先畫合名等、次風合音聲、後以說聽要藉此二故須二喻，謂若無音聲，耳識不聞；若無名等，意識不解。如是可說者，牒前以二事說也。如是可聞者，牒前以二事聞也。如是難見者，牒前顯示地校量勝，分別難見也。何故不說者，生後偈也，謂如上說，只言難見，非難說聞，何故不說？後舉偈答，以證信難得，故我不說。難證者，解第二句。難信，解第三句。此偈下，解第四句。默然之義，如論可知。

In the second pair, there are two parts: first, Vajragarbha relies on the preceding request to reveal the intention behind his silence; second, Vimukticandra, because of his words, requests again. Within the first part, there are also two sections: first, setting forth the intention; second, the verses. In 'setting forth the intention', 'wishing to bring joy to the assembly' is the general mark of reply: previously, when the great assembly saw his silence without speaking, they gave rise to doubts and desires that distressed their minds, and Vimukticandra made the request for their sake. Now, in speaking these verses, he dispels that distress and causes them to give rise to joy; hence this is said. In the verses, six stanzas specifically reveal the characteristics that bring joy: the first two stanzas explain that the Dharma is difficult to preach; the next two stanzas reveal that the Dharma is difficult to hear; the next one stanza uses similes for the difficulty of preaching and hearing; the final stanza brings forward these difficulties to conclude with his silence. By directly stating that it is difficult to preach, without saying that he himself lacks the wisdom to speak, he removes the assembly's previous doubt about 'what cause' [he was silent], thereby bringing them joy. Also, by directly stating that it is difficult to hear, without saying that this assembly is incapable of hearing it, he removes the assembly's doubt about 'what condition', thereby bringing them joy. In the commentary (*Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* / *śāstra*), this is termed 'having great wisdom' and 'having fearlessness', being free from an incapable answer and free from an incorrect answer. Within these two stanzas: the first stanza reveals the Dharma that is difficult to preach, and the latter displays the meaning of why it is difficult to preach. Alternatively explained: the first directly reveals that it is difficult to preach, and the latter distinguishes the reason why it is difficult to preach. In the first: 'that which the bodhisattvas practice' refers to supramundane wisdom, meaning the wisdom of realization; this is the essence of the difficult Dharma. Saying 'paramount and difficult to conceptualize' reveals its difficult characteristics: its essence transcends names and marks, and to express it is most difficult; within marks it has no designation and is unprecedented. Furthermore, within this one stanza: the first line explains the practice of realization; the next line distinguishes the difficult characteristics; the next line distinguishes the ten bhūmis to reveal the practice of the teaching; the final line, 'root of all Buddhas', shows that these two practices—realization and teaching—are the locus from which the Buddha-fruit is produced, and are therefore the root. Because in terms of the practice of realization it is the most difficult, it is difficult to realize. Because in terms of the practice of teaching it is unprecedentedly difficult, it is difficult to believe. 'Buddha' means awakening. 'Because of the Buddha-wisdom' means that only the wisdom that has awakened to the Buddha-fruit is properly called a Buddha. The second stanza explains the reason for the difficulty. In the commentary, it first introduces: 'The practice, phenomena, and dwelling in meaning of those bodhisattvas cannot be spoken of in such a way.' 'Practice' is the practice of those preceding bodhisattvas; 'phenomena' are the distinctions of the phenomena of those preceding bhūmis. This practice and these phenomena are established identical with principle, called 'dwelling in meaning'; both transcend verbal expression, so it is said that they 'cannot be spoken of in such a way.' The reason why it is difficult in this stanza is that it cannot be known by the four minds. First, because it is subtle, it is not the realm of wisdom derived from hearing. Second, wisdom derived from reflection is not coarse and should attain this, but because it is difficult to see, it is not its realm. Third, the mind of cultivating the practice of wisdom derived from cultivation should attain this, but because it is free of thought, it is not its realm; the sūtra omits this line, or it may be subsumed under 'not reached by mind' (*acintya*). In the commentary, it is called 'worldly cultivation' to distinguish it from [wisdom] above the bhūmis, taking only that prior to the bhūmis. Fourth, since it is not known by those prior to the bhūmis, the retribution-born wisdom above the bhūmis also does not belong to what should be attained prior to the bhūmis; because that is merely the karmic maturation consciousness of transformation-retribution produced from causes, not the wisdom that illumines reality, it is not its realm. Therefore the commentary says: 'The realm of mind is the mind-ground (*citta-bhūmi*).' Thus it says 'not reached by mind.' Below, 'mind-ground' refers to the retribution received in accordance with the mind; furthermore, the realms traversed in accordance with the mind are also called the mind-ground. Since it is not [the realm of] the four minds, whose realm is it? It is solely the realm of wisdom. What wisdom's realm is it? Solely fundamental wisdom (*mūla-jñāna*), because it sees true reality. Why is it not the realm of others? Because it is untainted (*anāsrava*). The character 'Buddha' in the sūtra corresponds to 'untainted' in the commentary. 'Extremely profound like this' concludes the above transcendence of the four minds. 'Comprehensible like this' concludes the above emergence from wisdom; because it is illumined and manifested by wisdom, it is called 'emerging.' 'Inexpressible like this' concludes the above being untainted, as it is the realm of the supramundane Buddhas. 'Hearing it, one becomes bewildered and lost' means that grasping at words and seizing on dharmas obscures true reality; hence it is called 'bewildered and lost.' In the commentary, 'grasping and adhering according to what is heard' explains 'lost' (*magna*), meaning submerged in words. 'One who hears, hears immediately, not that one does not hear' explains 'bewildered', meaning that taking reality according to words is called 'hearing immediately', while not knowing that the Dharma of the bhūmis is tranquil and free from words is called 'not that one does not hear.' The explanation of 'difficult to preach' is concluded. The two stanzas from 'holding the mind' onward explain that it is difficult to hear. Therein, holding the mind that listens to the Dharma as firm as a vajra is the general line. Firmness of faith and firmness of realization are the specific ones. If one lacks firm faith, one cannot accept dharmas of other divisions; if one lacks firm realization, one cannot enter into dharmas of one's own division; therefore, one must possess both of these to be capable of listening to the Dharma. Just as in the *Dà zhìdù lùn*, without faith one does not accept, and without wisdom one does not understand—possessing both faith and wisdom, one is then able to enter the Dharma—it is the same here. First, explaining firm faith: deeply believing in the Buddha's wisdom, as the commentary says, '"Known only to the Buddhas, it is not my realm"—looking up and deferring to the Tathāgata, having no other knowledge oneself, thus reveals the depth of faith.' Among the three kinds of right wisdom in the *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra*, the first, the wisdom of looking up and deferring, is also identical to this. From 'the Buddha's bodhi' onward, it displays its depth and believing in it. It clarifies that the virtues of the Buddha-fruit are equal to the dharmadhātu, completely cutting off measure; hence it says 'the Buddha's bodhi is boundless', revealing the boundlessness of the Buddha's own virtues. Furthermore, because sentient beings' capacities and responses have ten thousand differences, when the Buddha preaches the Dharma for them, there are differences of secret and explicit teachings of the various vehicles, which contradict each other before and after, utterly without limit or boundary; hence it says 'the Dharma-gates preached by the Buddha in transforming sentient beings are manifold', which clarifies the boundlessness of external transformation. In these two places, though not knowing it oneself, one is able to faithfully accept it; hence it says 'because of faith.' 'Deeming it the foremost and wondrous' means regarding this which is believed as foremost and subtle, honoring what is believed. 'The mind free of doubts and difficulties' reveals that in a place difficult to believe, one is yet able to believe. The subsequent stanza distinguishes firmness of realization. In the commentary, 'what is the mind-ground?' asks about the realized Dharma; 'what is non-self wisdom?' asks about the realizing wisdom. From 'according to the mind' onward answers the realized Dharma: 'retribution received in the three realms according to the mind' clarifies the physical body with the five sense faculties; furthermore, 'all realms traversed according to the mind' clarifies the realms of the six dusts (sense objects). Such internal faculties and external objects are all that the mind-consciousness relies upon; hence they are called the 'mind-ground.' From 'non-self wisdom' onward answers the realizing wisdom. Generally speaking, internal and external dharmas both possess the two forms of selflessness; speaking specifically, in the internal body one attains the emptiness of self, and in the external realm one attains the emptiness of dharmas. In the sūtra, 'free from conceptualizing a self' clarifies the emptiness of self with regard to internal retribution; 'and free from the grounds traversed by the mind' clarifies the emptiness of dharmas with regard to the external realm. 'Such bodhisattvas' who possess these two kinds of firmness are then capable of hearing; this reveals that this Dharma is merely difficult to hear, not that it is impossible to hear. The stanza from 'tranquil' onward distinguishes the third part, the similes for the difficulty of preaching and hearing, explained under two headings: first, following the sūtra; second, integrating the commentary. In the sūtra, 'painting empty space': just as empty space cannot be painted with colors, this tranquil wisdom cannot be signified by names and phrases. 'Like seizing the swift wind': just as the swift wind cannot be grasped and held, this untainted wisdom cannot be expressed by sounds; therefore it says 'to speak of it is extremely difficult.' Second, in integrating the commentary to reveal the meaning, there are also two parts: first, revealing the meaning; second, explaining the text. What is 'revealing the meaning'? In these two similes, the matter has three layers: first, the simile of vast space, taking the relied-upon, equal fruit-division; second, the simile of painting the wind, taking the signifier's verbal teachings; third, the simile of the dwelling place of the painted wind, taking the signified causal division of the ten bhūmis. However, these three meanings have four propositions: First, although empty space is equal, with respect to the traversing of the wind and the painting, it is not without a dwelling place. Although it has a dwelling place, because its essence is empty space, it is free from marks and difficult to see. Thus, with respect to the wind and the painting, it is not non-existent; regarding vast space, it is not existent; however, this non-non-existence is identical to non-existence, so it is difficult to speak of and difficult to see. This is distinguished in terms of the causal division of the ten bhūmis. Second, in terms of the equal fruit-division, it is also free from existence and non-existence: just as empty space is pure in essence and therefore not non-existent, yet has dwelling places according to the wind and painting and therefore is not existent; however, this non-non-existence is identical to non-existence, so it cannot be seen. Third, with respect to the wind and painting, because of movement and action they are not non-existent, but because they cannot manifest their own marks, they are not existent; however, this non-non-existence is identical to non-existence, so they also cannot be seen. Fourth, blending the preceding three propositions: pure space being not existent is identical to the wind, painting, and their loci being not non-existent; hence, no preaching and no showing is not different from preaching and showing. The wind, painting, and their loci being not existent is identical to pure space being not non-existent; hence, although preached like an illusion, it is nevertheless no preaching and no showing. Question: What difference is there between this and the 'bird's tracks' below? Answer: The textual meaning here uses teachings whose words are identical to non-words to show that their existence is identical to non-existence; therefore the difficulties of preaching and hearing are compared to preaching. The 'bird's tracks' passage below directly distinguishes that the signified ten bhūmis cannot be proclaimed and shown, comparing it to realization; thus there is this difference. Second, explaining the text: in this commentary's explanation there are three parts: first, explaining the similes; second, from 'such Buddha-wisdom' onward, explaining the application; third, the painter re-applying the preceding similes. Inside there are four sets of three lines: first, on the painting; second, on the wind; third, distinguishing both together; fourth, applying the similes. First, the three lines on the painting: 1. 'Like painting colors in empty space' is the first line, generally bringing up the characteristics of the simile, clarifying painting by moving the brush. 2. 'Like a wall' is the second line, specifically distinguishing the place of painting, clarifying that it is not non-existent; because the place of painting in empty space has marks difficult to discern, it shifts the simile to displaying it on a wall, meaning that the place of painting in empty space is not non-existent, resembling the place of painting on a wall. 3. 'Not abiding therein, therefore cannot be seen' is the third line, specifically clarifying non-existence; because that painting in space cannot remain, it cannot be seen. Second, the three lines on the wind: 'like wind in empty space' is the first line; 'like tree leaves' is the second line; 'not abiding therein, etc.' is the third line; the meaning is explained identically to the painting. Third, distinguishing both together in three lines: 1. 'These active ones' is the first general line: movement is the wind, action is the painting. 2. 'It is not that empty space does not have these two matters' is the second line, jointly revealing that they are not non-existent, meaning that within empty space it is not without the loci and matters of the wind and painting. 3. 'Such loci and matters of empty space cannot be spoken of as loci' is the third line, jointly revealing non-existence, meaning that because space is the essence of these two loci and matters, one cannot distinguish 'this is the place of the painting, this is the place of the wind, this is high, this is low'; hence it says 'cannot be spoken of as loci.' Previously it said 'cannot be seen', and here it says 'cannot be spoken of', referring to hearing and preaching respectively. Fourth, the three lines applying to the Dharma: 1. 'These, painting and wind, are like preaching' applies to the first line, meaning that within preaching there are sounds, names, etc., so both similes jointly apply to preaching. 2. From 'because they lack self-nature' onward leaps to apply to the third line's meaning of non-existence, being free from marks and difficult to see: the spoken ten bhūmis are not identical to the signifiers, hence cannot be seen. However, it puts forward three causes: First, because the loci of the wind and painting lack self-nature, being identical to empty space, they cannot be seen. Second, what is non-nature? Because they cannot abide by themselves. Third, why do they not abide? Because they are adventitious; the loci of wind and painting, looking toward empty space, are not originally existent, and thus are adventitious. Because they are adventitious, they do not abide; because they do not abide, they lack self-nature; because they lack self-nature, they cannot be seen. The Dharma of the bhūmis is compared to this, as can be known. 3. 'It is not that there is no such speech within it' matches backward to the second line. Question: This clarifies that the explained Dharma of the bhūmis is not non-existent; why then does it say 'it is not that there is no speech'? Answer: The distinctions of the ten bhūmis are differentiated through words; the purport follows the designation of the signifier, hence it says 'speech.' Because the wind and painting in empty space are not non-existent, one speaks of having the loci of that wind and painting. Here it is also like this, as can be known. Second, in revealing the supreme wondrousness of what is illustrated: 'such Buddha-wisdom' is the wisdom of the ten bhūmis, which is the tranquil and untainted wisdom in the sūtra. 'Such speech of the wisdom of the bhūmis' refers to the preaching of non-preaching, and so forth. By this it shows and measures that the Dharma of the bhūmis surpasses verbal discourse; hence it is called 'supreme.' Third, explaining the intention of establishing two similes: therein, first, painting corresponds to names, etc.; next, wind corresponds to sound; finally, because preaching and hearing must rely on these two, two similes are necessary. If there were no sound, the ear consciousness would not hear; if there were no names, etc., the mental consciousness would not understand. 'Expressible like this' refers back to preaching by means of these two matters. 'Audible like this' refers back to hearing by means of these two matters. 'Difficult to see like this' refers back to displaying that the bhūmis are supremely measured, and their distinctions are difficult to see. 'Why not preach it?' introduces the subsequent verse: as stated above, it only says difficult to see, not difficult to preach and hear; why not preach it? Afterward, the verse is brought forward in reply: because realization and faith are difficult to attain, therefore I do not preach it. 'Difficult to realize' explains the second line. 'Difficult to believe' explains the third line. Below this verse explains the fourth line. The meaning of silence can be known as in the commentary.