大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.25

14.25

第二財首答中，準諸深經及此偈文，略有四意：一佛見眾生本來自空非斷空故，不礙隨化。偈云「諸法空無我，眾報隨業生」故。二佛知眾生不能自知真空，故悲以隨化。偈云「隨解取眾相，顛倒不如實」故。三隨化即空，不異眾生空故，二不相乖。偈云「此是樂寂滅，多聞者境界」故。四融上諸義，良以攬空為眾生，生與非生唯一味故。《不增不減經》云「即此法身流轉五道名曰眾生。」法身即眾生，眾生即法身，法身眾生義一名異。以斯義故，佛見眾生舉體自盡，本是法身不須更化。大智現前，見於法身隨緣即眾生，故大悲攝化。今以寂滅非無之眾生，恒不異真而成立故，是不動真際，無化而化。以隨緣非有之法身，恒不異事而顯現，故不壞假名，化即無化。所化既空有不二，能化亦悲智不殊。不礙有而觀空，方能入理；不動真而隨化，方能究竟化他。眾生不知此理，故流轉無窮。今令眾生悟如斯法，是則真實隨化。非直十隨不違空理，亦由此十方契真空。故《淨名》云「當為眾生說如斯法，是即真實慈也。」十頌分二：初一舉法勸聽。上半以人顯法，已含答意。上句體深、下句用廣，即聞之寂則聞無所聞，故無眾生。《大經》亦云「若知如來常不說法，是名具足多聞。」即寂多聞則善解藥病，不礙隨化。下二句許說勸聽。後九頌別答前問。文勢多含略為二釋：一者一一別答，謂初三答隨身、次一隨命、三一頌答隨觀察、四一頌答隨行及方便、五一頌答隨心樂及解、六一頌答隨言論、七一頌答隨思惟時通此九。二謂依前五隨答後四隨，亦時通於九，今依此消文。文分為六：初三頌教。依隨何身時、隨其心樂修其方便、思惟觀察，此四遍於五段；二有一頌依命時；三二頌依行時；四一頌依解時；五一頌依言論時；六一頌教離二取，通結上文。今初三頌，若著我時作界分別觀，分別觀身皆無我故。若愛染身時作念處觀，觀於內身及心法故。總相而言即二空觀，初一我空、次一法空。後一類通一切。今初，上半即尋思觀，觀於內身四大五蘊若即若離，尋求主者不可得故。下半觀益，如實知於假我則有、計實我無。次偈觀身實相，法無我觀。上半諦了身空，謂攬緣假立，來無所從故，本無住處；緣盡謝滅，去無所至，無停積處。虛假似立，實無所住。下半觀益。後偈類通以身觀身，既明見自身二我皆空，則知萬法皆是虛妄，此觀亦寂，故不起心。若作念處釋者，內身揀於外器及他身故。念處有二：一通、二別。通則身等皆無我等，別則觀法無我。今是通也。復有二種：一小、二大。此中是大，觀身性相同虛空故。空無二我，誰是我言已兼二我。次偈觀受不在內外中間，故無方所。後偈觀心及法，不得善法及不善法，故云知法虛妄，心如幻故不起分別。又別則身受不同，通則受等皆身，是故三偈皆致身言。前問意云：眾生既空，云何如來隨其身化？今釋意云：以彼不知身本空寂，教如是觀，故說如來隨眾生身而教化也。下皆準之。二一頌令於壽命思惟觀察。命謂命根，能令色心連持，故名為命。壽謂壽限，即命根體，實謂由業種力引一期報眾同分體住時分限，假立壽命。從業緣起，起即無起。業盡便滅，滅無所滅。本無主者，況剎那生滅實無自性。喻以火輪，謂旋火速轉不見始終，生滅遄流寧知本際。又薪火不續識鈍謂輪，命實遷流妄謂相續。又輪資火有命假心，明待他而成，固無自體。三二偈令依行時思惟觀察，成四種觀：一無常觀、二空觀、三無我觀、四無相觀。於中初偈略標其四。一切有者，三有也，亦一切有為。然無常等，經論異說，今且依《辨中邊論》以三性釋之。初無常三者，約遍計名無性無常，以性常無故。約依他起名生滅無常，有起盡故。約圓成實名垢淨無常，位轉變故。空亦有三：一無性空，性非有故；二異性空，與妄所執自性異故；三自性空，二空所顯為自性故。無我亦三：一無相無我，我相無故；二異相無我，與妄所執我相異故；三自相無我，無我所顯為自相故。無相亦三：一相都無故、二相無實故、三無妄相故。然皆融攝，則此宗意。而偈正意多約前二性辨。後一偈略顯二觀，上半明空觀，報從業生，如夢從思起，不實故空。下半明無常觀，由上不實，故念念無常。前即過去已滅事顯，例後現未當滅不殊。四一偈依解令入唯識量，觀境即心變，故心為主。然此唯識略有二分：一相、二見。今隨其見分之解，取其相分之相，心外取故，為顛倒也。五一偈依言論時令尋伺名等入如實觀，謂了名等唯意言分別，無別名等。意即意識分別，言即名言。名言既唯意之分別，名下之義亦無別體，故所言論以兼名義。既隨分別則妄計意流，尚未了唯心安入法性。若能如是自覺通達，是入唯識之方便也。即復此心無相可得，妄想不生便入法性。上約心乖，體非不即。又不入者，妄想體虛無可入故。六一偈通結，亦近結次前二偈。能緣所緣，即見相也。又觀一切法唯是意言，未能除遣，此境亦為能所也。以此為方便，得入唯心。種種法出生者，此相見二分由無始數習有種種法相似生，謂能緣心生則種種境生，所緣境起則種種心起。起法必滅，安得暫停？若了相無相、生無有生，名了種種，則了唯心。若了無性，心境兩亡，則住無分別自覺智境，不動法界，名入法性。故末後偈結上諸觀，令亡觀相也。佛如是化，應如是知，幻人化幻皆無化化也。

Second, in Caishou's response, based on the various profound sūtras and the verses here, there are briefly four meanings: First, the Buddha sees that sentient beings are originally empty by nature, which is not an annihilationist voidness, and thus does not obstruct conforming to them to transform them. Hence the verse says: 'All dharmas are empty and without self, / yet the diverse retributions arise following karma.' Second, the Buddha knows that sentient beings cannot know the true emptiness on their own, and therefore out of compassion conforms to them to transform them. Hence the verse says: 'Conforming to understanding, they grasp manifold marks, / which is inverted and not in accord with reality.' Third, conforming to transform is itself empty and not different from the emptiness of sentient beings, so the two do not contradict one another. Hence the verse says: 'This is the realm of those who delight in quiescence / and have heard much.' Fourth, harmonizing the above points: because sentient beings are constituted by gathering emptiness, being born and not being born have only a single flavor. The Sūtra of Neither Increase nor Decrease says: 'This very dharmakāya, transmigrationally coursing through the five destinies, is named sentient beings.' The dharmakāya is sentient beings; sentient beings are the dharmakāya; the dharmakāya and sentient beings have a single meaning under different names. By this principle, the Buddha sees that sentient beings are entirely self-exhausting in their whole essence and are originally the dharmakāya, needing no further transformation. With great wisdom present, he sees that the dharmakāya, following conditions, is sentient beings, and thus he gathers and transforms them with great compassion. Now, because sentient beings—who are quiescent yet not non-existent—are constantly established without differing from the real, he does not move from the realm of reality, transforming without transforming. Because the dharmakāya—which follows conditions yet is not existent—is constantly manifested without differing from phenomena, he does not destroy provisional designations, so that transformation is itself non-transformation. Since the transformed is non-dual in emptiness and existence, the transformer is likewise not distinct in compassion and wisdom. Only when not obstructed by existence while contemplating emptiness can one enter the noumenon; only when not moving from the real while conforming to transform can one ultimately transform others. Sentient beings do not understand this principle, and therefore transmigrate without end. Now causing sentient beings to awaken to such a teaching is true conformity in transformation. Not only do the ten conformities not contradict the principle of emptiness, but it is precisely through these ten that one accords with true emptiness. Therefore the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: 'Preaching such a teaching for sentient beings—this is true compassion.'

The ten verses are divided into two parts: First, one verse raises the teaching and encourages listening. Its first half reveals the teaching by means of the person, already containing the gist of the response. The first line's essence is profound, while the second line's function is vast; being quiescent right as one hears, there is nothing heard in hearing, and hence no sentient beings. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra also says: 'If one knows that the Tathāgata constantly never preaches the Dharma, this is called being fully endowed with much hearing.' Being quiescent and having heard much, one skillfully understands medicines and illnesses, without obstructing conforming to transform. The lower two lines promise to explain and encourage listening.

The subsequent nine verses specifically answer the previous questions. The phrasing contains multiple dimensions, briefly explained in two ways: First, each answers individually: the first three answer conforming to the body; the next one, conforming to life span; the third, one verse answers conforming to contemplation; the fourth, one verse answers conforming to conduct and expedients; the fifth, one verse answers conforming to aspiration and understanding; the sixth, one verse answers conforming to discourses; the seventh, one verse answers conforming to reflection; with 'time' pervading these nine. Second, based on the previous five conformities, it answers the latter four conformities, and 'time' likewise pervades all nine; now we interpret the text according to this [second reading]. The text is divided into six: First, three verses teach: based on conforming to whichever body's time, conforming to their aspiration, cultivating their expedients, reflecting, and contemplating—these four pervade the five sections; second, there is one verse based on the time of life span; third, two verses based on the time of conduct; fourth, one verse based on the time of understanding; fifth, one verse based on the time of discourses; sixth, one verse teaches detachment from the two graspers, comprehensively concluding the preceding text.

Now, for the first three verses: when one is attached to a self, one practices the contemplation of the elements' distinctions, because through discriminatory contemplation, the body is completely without self. When one is attached with craving to the body, one practices the contemplation of the foundations of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna), because one contemplates the internal body and the dharmas of the mind. In general terms, these are the two contemplations of emptiness: the first is the emptiness of self, the next is the emptiness of dharmas. The last applies similarly to all. Now, for the first: the first half is the investigation contemplation, contemplating the internal body's four elements and five aggregates, whether they are identical with or separate from [the self], because upon investigating and seeking an owner, none can be found. The second half is the benefit of the contemplation: knowing in accord with reality that the provisional self exists, while the imagined real self does not exist. The next verse contemplates the true mark of the body, which is the contemplation of the selflessness of dharmas. The first half thoroughly clarifies the emptiness of the body: gathered from conditions and provisionally established, coming from nowhere, it originally has no dwelling place; when conditions are exhausted and it perishes, going nowhere, it has no place of accumulation. Provisionally appearing to be established, it truly has no dwelling place. The second half is the benefit of the contemplation. The following verse applies similarly to all, contemplating the body by means of the body; having clearly seen that both selves are empty in one's own body, one knows that the ten thousand dharmas are all false and unreal, and this contemplation is also quiescent, so that the mind does not arise. If interpreted in terms of the foundations of mindfulness: the internal body is distinguished from the external vessel [world] and other bodies. The foundations of mindfulness are of two kinds: first, general; second, specific. Generally, the body and so on are all without self; specifically, it is contemplating dharmas as without self. Here it is the general one. Again there are two kinds: first, the Lesser; second, the Greater. Here it is the Greater, because one contemplates the nature and marks of the body as equal to empty space. Since it is empty of the two selves, the phrase 'who is the self' already subsumes both selves. The next verse contemplates feeling as being neither internal, external, nor in between, and therefore having no spatial location. The subsequent verse contemplates mind and dharmas: neither wholesome nor unwholesome dharmas can be apprehended, and therefore it says one knows that dharmas are false and unreal; since the mind is like an illusion, one does not give rise to discrimination. Furthermore, specifically, body and feeling are different, but generally, feeling and the rest are all the body; therefore, all three verses employ the word 'body'. The previous question meant: since sentient beings are empty, how does the Tathāgata transform them in accordance with their bodies? The meaning of the present explanation is: because they do not know that the body is originally empty and quiescent, he teaches them to contemplate in this way, which is why it is said that the Tathāgata transforms them in accordance with the bodies of sentient beings. The rest are to be understood following this.

Second, one verse instructs them to reflect upon and contemplate life span. 'Life' means the life-faculty, which can sustain and maintain form and mind, and is thus called life. 'Span' means the limit of life, which is the substance of the life-faculty; in reality, it means that by the force of karmic seeds, an allotment of retribution as a common category of sentient beings is induced to abide for a determined time limit, which is provisionally established as life span. Arising from karmic conditions, the arising is itself non-arising. When karma is exhausted, it perishes; the perishing has nothing that perishes. Originally there is no owner, and all the more so with momentary arising and ceasing, there is truly no intrinsic nature. It is illustrated by a fire-wheel: when a whirling torch turns swiftly, one does not see beginning or end; with arising and ceasing rushing along, how could one know the original limit? Furthermore, when firewood and fire are not continuous, dull faculties call it a wheel; while life in reality constantly flows and changes, it is falsely thought to be a continuum. Moreover, the wheel relies on fire to exist, and life borrows mind [to appear]; this shows that it is established in dependence on others, and genuinely has no self-substance.

Third, two verses instruct them to reflect and contemplate according to the time of conduct, perfecting four kinds of contemplation: 1. contemplation of impermanence, 2. contemplation of emptiness, 3. contemplation of selflessness, 4. contemplation of signlessness. Within these, the first verse briefly indicates the four. 'All existents' means the three existences, and also all conditioned [dharmas]. However, concerning impermanence and so on, sūtras and treatises give varying explanations; for now, we explain them by means of the three natures according to the Madhyāntavibhāga. First, as for the three impermanences: with respect to the fully conceptualized (parikalpita), it is called impermanence of naturelessness, because its nature is perpetually non-existent; with respect to the dependent (paratantra), it is called impermanence of arising and ceasing, because it has beginning and ending; with respect to the consummate (pariniṣpanna), it is called impermanence of defilement and purification, because the states undergo transformation. Emptiness also has three: 1. emptiness of naturelessness, because the nature does not exist; 2. emptiness of distinct nature, because it is distinct from the imagined intrinsic nature; 3. emptiness of intrinsic nature, because what is revealed by the two emptinesses is the intrinsic nature. Selflessness also has three: 1. signless selflessness, because marks of a self do not exist; 2. selflessness of distinct marks, because it is distinct from the imagined marks of a self; 3. selflessness of specific marks, because what is revealed by selflessness is the specific mark. Signlessness also has three: 1. marks are completely absent; 2. marks lack reality; 3. there are no false marks. However, all are harmonized and integrated, which is the intent of this school. Yet the primary intent of the verses is largely elucidated in terms of the first two natures. The latter verse briefly reveals two contemplations: the first half explains the contemplation of emptiness—retribution arises from karma, just as a dream arises from thought, and being unreal, it is empty; the second half explains the contemplation of impermanence—because of the aforementioned unreality, it is impermanent moment by moment. The former is made evident through past events that have already perished, by analogy with which the present and future that will perish are not different.

Fourth, one verse, according to understanding, causes them to enter the standard of consciousness-only (vijñapti-mātra), contemplating that the objective realm is transformed by mind, and therefore mind is primary. However, this consciousness-only briefly has two parts: 1. the objective aspect (nimitta-bhāga), 2. the subjective aspect (darśana-bhāga). Now, conforming to the understanding of the subjective aspect, they grasp the marks of the objective aspect; grasping outside of the mind, this is an inversion.

Fifth, one verse, based on the time of discourses, causes them to investigate names and so forth to enter the contemplation of reality: that is, understanding that names and so on are only mental-verbal discrimination, without separate names and so forth. 'Mental' means discrimination by the mental consciousness; 'verbal' means names and words. Since names and words are only the mind's discrimination, the referents under the names also have no separate substance; thus, 'discourses' subsumes both names and referents. Since they follow discrimination, the stream of mind falsely conceptualizes them; not yet having understood consciousness-only, how could they enter the dharmatā? If one can thus intuitively awaken and penetrate, this is an expedient for entering consciousness-only. Then, with this mind having no marks to be apprehended, false thoughts do not arise, and one directly enters the dharmatā. Above, it was discussed in terms of the mind being discordant, but its essence is not non-identical. Furthermore, as for not entering: because the essence of false thoughts is empty, there is nothing to enter.

Sixth, one verse comprehensively concludes, and also immediately concludes the preceding two verses. The apprehending and the apprehended are the subjective and objective aspects. Moreover, contemplating all dharmas as merely mental words without having yet been able to dispel them, this realm also constitutes the apprehending and the apprehended. Taking this as an expedient, one is able to enter consciousness-only. 'Manifold dharmas come forth': these two parts, the objective and subjective aspects, due to beginningless repeated habituation, give rise to the appearance of manifold dharmas; that is, when the apprehending mind arises, manifold objective realms arise; when the apprehended objective realms emerge, manifold minds emerge. Dharmas that have arisen must perish—how could they stop for an instant? If one understands that marks have no marks and that arising has no arising, this is called understanding the manifold, which is to understand consciousness-only. If one understands naturelessness, so that both mind and realm vanish, one abides in the realm of non-discriminating intuitive knowledge, unmoving from the dharmadhātu, which is called entering the dharmatā. Therefore, the final verse concludes the preceding contemplations, causing the marks of contemplation to vanish. The Buddha transforms in this way; one should know it in this way: an illusory person transforming illusions is entirely a transformation without transformation.