[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) › [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735) › 14.23 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.23 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.23 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [14.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.14.23) 次正釋文。且第一偈答三問者，初答何因種種。此具二意：一以八識熏習而成故。初句五識、次句心，是本識集起義故。意通六七，七謂審思量故，六謂意之識故、了別義故。偈文窄故，不立識言。亦諸情攝，此從別義。通則八識皆得心意識名。諸情根者，通於八，種類非一故，五依色根、六依第七、七八互依。又第七識為染污根，第八又為諸識通依，云諸情根。言以此者，以上八識為能所熏，展轉為因而常流轉，無別我人，故云無能轉者。又識外無法，亦為無者。二明由不相知方成種種。上半出種種。以此者，以前不相知故，舉體性空方成流轉。即此八識各無體性故，無實我法而為其主。向若有性，不可熏變，安得流轉？次遣疑者，以虛妄中有二義故，一虛轉、二無轉，故常種種、常一性也。次答難者，虛轉故俗不異真而俗相立，無轉故真不異俗而真體存，故互不相違也。第二偈亦答三問。初明真如隨緣故成種種者，答所以也。初句印上心性是一，是不變義。次句答上云何見有種種，是隨緣義。唯心變現全攬真性，生非實生故云示現。下二句印上業不知心等者，以是隨緣不失自性義故，是以諸趣種種了不可得。生即無生無能現者，性不動故；無所現者，妄法虛故。次遣疑者，常生常無生。上半即無生之生，業果宛然。故《勝鬘》云「不染而染，難可了知。」下半生即無生，真性湛然。故《勝鬘》云「染而不染，難可了知。」又法性本無生，不空如來藏也；此中無能現，空如來藏也。答第三難者，此中無能現，性非性也；亦無所現，物相非相也。又示現而有生，性不違相；亦無所現物，相不違性。無二為二、二即無二，無礙圓融，豈有乖耶？言法性者，法謂差別依正等法，性謂彼法所依體性。即法之性故名為法性，又性以不變為義，即此可軌亦名為法，此則性即法，故名為法性。此二義並約不變釋也。又即一切法各無性，故名為法性，即隨緣之性，法即性也。本有二義：一約不變。本謂源本，本來不生，隨緣故生。二約隨緣，有此法來，本自不生，非待滅無。即示現生時本不生故，故下云無能現也。第三偈答三問者，初答所以者，上三句種種即一心性，亦印前文殊不相知等。下句出因，由妄分別故有種種，正答前問。此復二意：一上二句依他起也、次句圓成實也、後句遍計性也。由遍計故能起依他，依他無性即圓成實，故《唯識》云「依他起自性，分別緣所生。圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。」故此與依他非異非不異。二者上二句因緣所生法也、次句我說即是空也、後句亦為是假名。此二不二，是中道義。又妄心分別有者，情計謂有，然有即不有，故云一切空無性。常有常空，是即萬物之自虛，豈待宰割以求通哉？又前偈從本起末，末不異本；此偈攝末歸本，本不礙末，豈相乖耶？第二一偈釋成前義。然有二義：一者云何得知無性？以法眼觀，稱性非倒，成淨緣起。當知此理甚為決定。二者前偈訶其見有種種是妄分別，此不應依；此偈印其觀察無性各不相知，斯為法眼，固應依止，即依智不依識也。第三一偈拂迹入玄者，謂前法性無生，一切皆空實也。示現有生，眼等差別非實也，妄心分別有妄也，如理觀察非妄也。以妄為緣生，世間流轉；以如理觀，成出世間非倒法眼。皆是名言而無真實。何者？如言取故。又欲言其實，而復示生；欲言不實，體性即空。欲言是妄，妄不可得；欲言非妄，能令流轉。欲言世間，即涅槃相；欲言出世，無世可出。則染淨兩亡，是以「物不即名以就實，名不即物而履真。」然則實理獨靜於言教之外，豈文言之能辨哉？故但假說。是以什公云「唯忘言者可與道合，虛懷者可與理通，冥心者可與真一，遺智者可與聖同耳。」又後三偈，亦如次明三無性觀。又此五偈合前四喻，初以流轉合水漂流。次頌合火，火本無生，隨緣生故。次頌合風，風即空無，因見物動妄謂有故。次頌合地，法眼見理無分別故。後一總顯，令亡言故。又前五偈是印成答，次四出所以答，後一奪令亡言。文殊一問以含多意，覺首縱答體勢無方，逆順研窮以顯深致，幸諸學者不咎文繁。 > Next is the direct explanation of the text. As for the first verse answering the three questions: first, it answers by what cause there are varieties. This contains two points: first, because they are formed through the perfuming of the eight consciousnesses. The first line refers to the five consciousnesses; the next line, 'mind' (citta), has the meaning of accumulating and arising as the basic consciousness. 'Mental faculty' (manas) applies to both the sixth and seventh: the seventh means deliberative thought, while the sixth means the consciousness of the mental faculty, having the meaning of discernment. Because the verse text is constricted, the word 'consciousness' is not set down. It is also subsumed under 'various sentiments'; this is from its specific sense. In a general sense, all eight consciousnesses receive the names of mind, mental faculty, and consciousness. The 'roots of various sentiments' applies to all eight, as their categories are not single: the five rely on material faculties, the sixth relies on the seventh, and the seventh and eighth mutually rely on each other. Furthermore, the seventh consciousness is the defiled faculty, and the eighth is also the common support of all consciousnesses; hence they are called the 'roots of various sentiments'. The word 'thereby' indicates that, taking the above eight consciousnesses as that which perfumes and that which is perfumed, they mutually serve as causes and constantly revolve in saṃsāra, without any separate self or person; thus it says, 'there is none that can turn them.' Moreover, outside of consciousness there are no phenomena; this is also why there is 'none'. Second, it clarifies that it is precisely due to not knowing one another that varieties are formed. The first half sets forth the varieties. 'Thereby' means that, because of the aforementioned mutual ignorance, the total voidness of their nature is brought forward, and only then is revolving in saṃsāra accomplished. That is to say, because each of these eight consciousnesses lacks an essential nature, there is no real self or dharma to serve as their master. If they previously had a nature, they could not be perfumed and changed; how then could revolving in saṃsāra occur? Next, regarding dispelling doubt: because there are two meanings within false delusion—first, false turning; second, no turning—they are constantly varied and constantly of a single nature. Next, regarding answering the objection: because of false turning, the conventional is not different from the ultimate and the conventional marks are established; because of no turning, the ultimate is not different from the conventional and the ultimate essence is preserved; therefore, they do not mutually conflict. The second verse also answers the three questions. First, clarifying that varieties are formed because tathatā accords with conditions answers the cause. The first line confirms the above statement that the nature of the mind is one, which is the meaning of non-changing. The next line answers the previous question of why varieties are seen to exist, which is the meaning of according with conditions. Formed and manifested solely by the mind, it fully gathers the true nature; since arising is not real arising, it says 'manifests'. The lower two lines confirm the above statement that karma does not know mind, and so forth: because this is the meaning of according with conditions without losing one's own nature, the varieties of the various destinies are utterly unattainable. Arising is just non-arising: 'there is none that can manifest', because the nature is unmoving; 'there is nothing manifested', because false dharmas are empty. Next, regarding dispelling doubt: it is constantly arising and constantly unarisen. The first half is arising that is just non-arising, where karma and its fruit are distinct. Therefore the Śrīmālādevisūtra says: 'Undefiled yet defiled, difficult to comprehend.' The second half is arising being non-arising, where the true nature is clear and tranquil. Therefore the Śrīmālādevisūtra says: 'Defiled yet undefiled, difficult to comprehend.' Furthermore, the dharmatā is originally unarisen, which is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha; 'here there is none that can manifest' is the empty tathāgatagarbha. Answering the third objection: 'here there is none that can manifest' means that nature is not nature; 'there is also nothing manifested' means that the marks of things are not marks. Furthermore, manifesting while having arising means nature does not conflict with marks; there being no manifested thing means marks do not conflict with nature. Non-duality becomes duality, and duality is just non-duality; with unobstructed, perfect interpenetration, how could there be any conflict? As for the term dharmatā: dharma refers to differentiated phenomena such as the dependent \[environment\] and the primary \[body\]; nature refers to the essential nature upon which those dharmas rely. Being the nature of dharmas, it is called dharmatā. Furthermore, nature takes non-changing as its meaning; precisely because this can serve as a model, it is also called dharma; thus nature is just dharma, and so it is called dharmatā. Both of these two meanings are explained in terms of non-changing. Furthermore, precisely because all dharmas each lack an inherent nature, it is called dharmatā; this is the nature that accords with conditions, where dharma is just nature. 'Original' has two meanings: first, in terms of non-changing: 'original' means the source and origin; originally it does not arise, but arises due to according with conditions. Second, in terms of according with conditions: since these dharmas have existed, they are originally unarisen of themselves, not waiting for cessation to become non-existent. That is, at the very time of manifesting arising, it is originally unarisen; therefore it says below that 'there is none that can manifest.' The third verse answers the three questions: first, answering the cause: the upper three lines mean that the varieties are just the one nature of the mind, and also confirm Mañjuśrī's previous statement that they do not know one another, etc. The lower line sets forth the cause: varieties exist due to false discrimination, directly answering the previous question. This again has two meanings: first, the upper two lines are the dependent nature (paratantra), the next line is the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna), and the last line is the imputed nature (parikalpita). Due to the imputed nature, the dependent nature is able to arise; the dependent nature being devoid of intrinsic nature is just the perfected nature. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā says: 'The dependent nature arises from the conditions of discrimination; the perfected nature in relation to that is eternally separate from the preceding nature.' Therefore, this and the dependent nature are neither different nor non-different. Second, the upper two lines are dharmas born of causes and conditions; the next line is 'I say it is just emptiness'; the last line is 'it is also a conventional designation.' That these two are non-dual is the meaning of the middle way. Furthermore, 'existing through the discrimination of the false mind' means that emotional reckoning deems it to exist; yet existence is just non-existence, hence it says 'all are empty and without inherent nature.' Being constantly existent and constantly empty, this is the intrinsic vacuity of the myriad things; how could one wait for cutting and dissection to seek understanding? Furthermore, the preceding verse proceeded from the root to generate the branches, where the branches are not different from the root; this verse gathers the branches back to the root, where the root does not obstruct the branches—how could they mutually conflict? The second single verse explains and establishes the preceding meaning. However, it has two meanings: first, how is it known that they lack inherent nature? Through observing with the Dharma-eye, conforming to the nature without distortion, pure pratītyasamutpāda is accomplished. One should know that this principle is exceedingly definitive. Second, the preceding verse rebuked seeing varieties as false discrimination, which should not be relied upon; this verse confirms that observing the lack of inherent nature and mutual ignorance is the Dharma-eye and must be relied upon; that is, relying on wisdom, not on consciousness. The third single verse brushes away traces and enters the profound: that is, the preceding unarisen dharmatā and all being empty are real. Manifesting as having arising and differences such as the eyes are not real. Existing through the discrimination of the false mind is false; observing in accordance with principle is not false. With falsehood as condition, there arises worldly revolving in saṃsāra; through observing in accordance with principle, the supramundane, undistorted Dharma-eye is accomplished. All of these are nominal conventions and lack true reality. Why? Because they are grasped according to words. Furthermore, if one wishes to say it is real, yet it manifests arising; if one wishes to say it is unreal, its essential nature is empty. If one wishes to say it is false, falsehood is unattainable; if one wishes to say it is not false, it is able to cause revolving in saṃsāra. If one wishes to say it is worldly, it is the mark of nirvāṇa; if one wishes to say it is supramundane, there is no world to transcend. Thus defilement and purity both perish; therefore, 'things do not follow names to attain reality, and names do not follow things to tread on truth.' Thus, the true principle rests alone in tranquility outside of verbal teaching; how could written words delineate it? Therefore, they are merely provisional expressions. Hence Master Shi \[Kumārajīva\] said: 'Only one who forgets words can unite with the Way; one whose mind is empty can penetrate the principle; one whose heart is obscured in stillness can become one with the true; one who abandons intellect can assimilate with the sages.' Furthermore, the latter three verses also successively clarify the contemplation of the three non-natures. Moreover, these five verses match the preceding four metaphors: the first matches the flowing of water through revolving in saṃsāra. The next verse matches fire: fire is originally unarisen, arising in accordance with conditions. The next verse matches wind: wind is just empty and non-existent, falsely considered to exist because of seeing things move. The next verse matches earth: the Dharma-eye sees the principle without discrimination. The final one demonstrates collectively, causing one to forget words. Furthermore, the first five verses are answers that confirm; the next four are answers that bring out the causes; the last one takes away to cause words to be forgotten. Mañjuśrī's single question contains many meanings; Bodhisattva Jñānaprabha's broad answers have boundless power and scope, thoroughly investigating the contrary and the compliant to reveal profound significance; I hope all scholars will not fault the proliferation of text. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 14.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.14.22) - [Next: 14.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.14.24) - [Up: 14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.14) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.14.23) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.37) — Classical Chinese - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.7.4.3) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.14.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.14.23) · Pramāṇa