大方廣佛華嚴經疏 15.6

15.6

第九一道甚深，亦名一乘。問中，標問賢首者，至道柔順故。又賢猶直善，佛佛皆同一直道故。二顯問端中三：初標宗按定。謂佛佛所乘同觀心性、萬行齊修，自始至終更無異徑，故云一道，此理共許。二「云何」下正設疑難，先總、後別。前中謂因道既一，果應不別，云何現見佛剎等殊？為果異故，因非一耶？為因一故，無異果耶？若雙存者，即因果相違。下別辨十事：一界有染淨等殊；二居人善惡等異；三諸乘等別廣略等殊；四或三學調伏、或強軟折伏；五壽有修短；六光明或色相不同、或常放具闕、或照有遠近；七隨染淨土居人異故，現通亦殊；八眾會異者，此有三種：一多少、二會數、三凡聖大小；九教儀者，如此土以音聲為教、香積以眾香教化等；十法住者，有久近故。各有差別者，通上十位。然若約一佛十事各不同者，德首已明，今問諸佛十事互望不同耳。第三「無有」下結成前難。謂若諸佛於因行法有具不具，可有剎等不同；今皆同具，剎等那別？同具即是一道。第二答中意云：非唯因同，果德亦同，而見異者，隨機感耳，非佛自位而有差別。何者？諸佛因果具同異故。謂同滿行海是同因也，將此同因隨所調伏種種迴向應機之果是異因也。由此異因感差別果，由上同因同感真應身土等果，是則約佛即同能隨異。約機同處而見異，以生就佛，雖異而常同；以佛就生，雖同而見異。以佛望佛，能異之必同，其猶錦窠常同常異。《瑜伽》三十八，諸佛平等，唯除四法：一壽量、二名號、三族姓、四身相。意明隨機故除此四事，餘皆等也。就果同中，自性身土一向體同；自受用者平等無二相似名同；餘二身土亦相似名同，而隨機見異故。《成唯識》云「自性身土，一切如來同所證故，體無差別。自受用身及所依土，雖一切佛各變不同，而皆無邊，不相障礙。餘二身土，隨諸如來所化有情，有共不共。所化共者，同處同時諸佛各變為身為土，形狀相似不相障礙展轉相雜，為增上緣，令所化生自識變現。謂於一土有一佛身，為現神通說法饒益。於不共者，唯一佛變，諸有情類屬佛異故。」偈中義理多含故，文勢非一，且分為二：初二偈印其立宗，明真身無二；餘偈答其疑難，辨應有異同。今初。初句總印。先標文殊者，警其聽受。法常爾者，明因果無異，法爾常規。餘顯一相，略明四一：初句法一，以法常故，諸佛亦常；次句人一；次句因一；後偈果一。略舉其五：一者身一，此有二義：謂若約所證法界為身，則體同為一，若兼能證無罣礙智為身，即相似名一。下既別明心智，則正當初意，然體同義異。二心一，八識心王俱不可知故。三智慧一，四智三智二智一智皆無別故。四十力一。五無畏一，此五亦略攝諸德。二答疑難中分二：初二偈總明隨機見異，於中前偈約佛、後偈約機。前中即隨本異因，為物迴向各得差別，故云如是，如是即差別之義也。異舉十中三事耳，即隨所化眾生而取佛土。後偈約機者，約佛則剎等皆圓，約機隨行見別。如直心為行，則見不諂之國，故眾生之類是菩薩佛土。餘六偈展轉釋疑，分四：初一偈有疑云：若皆圓滿，何以不見？答意云：眾生不見，豈得云無。然有三義：一約他受用，則地前凡小眾生不見。二約自受用，則等覺眾生亦皆不見；若約即應同真，權教菩薩不見。次偈有疑云：若皆不見，何以知有？釋云：有見者故。亦有三義：初則淨意樂地已去，由願自在力故，見他受用。二淨無塵習，普賢願滿，方見自受用。三圓解之人則名心淨，即應見真。意在初後，義兼中間。三有一偈疑云：若應由物見，何名佛土？釋云：佛威神故。則知生佛共成。既攬同成異，亦稱體成益。四有三偈釋。疑云：上云眾生不見淨剎，又云佛神力令異，為剎體處別？佛有分別耶？故釋云：剎實同處，佛亦無心，物自見異耳。於中，初半顯實，云剎無分別，佛無憎愛。分別即差別義。故晉經云佛剎無異相，如來無憎愛。若順今經，亦可此二通佛及剎。次半偈明異自在物。次半偈明正見剎異。次半偈彰非佛咎。次三句釋佛無憎愛，有感便現，非佛有愛；無感不見，非佛有憎。末後一句總結。一切諸佛法皆如是，隨機隱顯真體常存。亦通結一段。

Ninth: The profundity of the single path, which is also called the Ekayāna. In the inquiry, the reason the question is addressed to Bhadraśrī is that the ultimate path is pliable and compliant. Furthermore, *bhadra* (virtuous) means upright and good; all Buddhas identically share one and the same upright path.

Second, the formulation of the question consists of three parts: First, setting forth the proposition and establishing it. This means that that which all Buddhas mount is the identical contemplation of mind-nature and the simultaneous cultivation of the myriad practices; from beginning to end there is no divergent path whatsoever, hence it is called "a single path"—this principle is mutually acknowledged.

Second, from "How is it…" onward, the doubt and difficulty are formally posed, first generally and then specifically. In the former, it means: since the causal path is single, the fruit should not be distinct; how is it that one visibly sees differences in Buddha-lands and so forth? Is it that because the fruits are distinct, the cause is not single? Or is it that because the cause is single, there are no distinct fruits? If both are maintained, then cause and fruit contradict each other.

Below, ten matters are distinguished specifically:
1. The realms have distinctions such as defiled and pure;
2. The inhabitants have differences such as good and evil;
3. The vehicles and so forth have distinctions such as broad and abridged;
4. Some are tamed through the three trainings, while others are subdued through forceful or gentle means;
5. Lifespans are long or short;
6. Light differs in color and form, or is constantly emitted versus present or lacking, or illuminates near or far;
7. In accordance with the differences in the inhabitants of defiled or pure lands, the manifestations of spiritual powers also differ;
8. Assemblies differ, in three respects: quantity, frequency of gatherings, and whether ordinary, noble, large, or small;
9. The modes of teaching: as in this land where sounds constitute the teaching, or in Fragrance Accumulation (Gandhavatī) where various fragrances are used for transformation, and so on;
10. The duration of the Dharma: having long or short endurance.
"Each has differences" applies throughout the above ten items. However, if this concerned one Buddha whose ten matters were each different, that was already clarified by Guṇaśrī; here the question asks about the mutual differences among all Buddhas' ten matters.

Third, from "There is no…" onward, the previous difficulty is concluded. It means: if the Buddhas were complete or incomplete regarding the causal practices and dharmas, there might be differences in lands and so forth; now they all equally possess them completely, so how could their lands and so forth differ? Equal possession is itself the single path.

Second, the import of the response states: Not only are the causes identical, but the fruitional virtues are also identical; that differences are seen is merely due to the responses to the capacities of beings, not that there are differences within the Buddhas' own stations. Why? Because the cause and fruit of all Buddhas possess both identity and difference. The identical fulfillment of the ocean of practices is the identical cause; taking this identical cause and, in accordance with those to be tamed, diversely dedicating it to fruitional states that respond to their capacities is the differentiated cause. Due to this differentiated cause, distinct fruits are induced; due to the aforesaid identical cause, they identically induce fruits such as the true and responsive bodies and lands. Thus, regarding the Buddhas, identity can adapt to difference. Regarding capacities, in the same place they see differences. Taking sentient beings with respect to the Buddhas, though different, they are constantly identical; taking the Buddhas with respect to sentient beings, though identical, they are seen as different. Viewing Buddha in contrast to Buddha, what can be different must be identical, just like brocade patterns that are constantly identical yet constantly different.

According to *Yogācārabhūmi* fascicle thirty-eight, all Buddhas are equal, with the exception of only four dharmas: 1. lifespan, 2. name, 3. lineage and clan, 4. physical bodily form. The intention clarifies that it is in accordance with capacities that these four matters are excepted, while all the rest are equal.

Regarding identity in the fruit, the svābhāvika-kāya and its land are unequivocally identical in essence; the self-enjoyment (svasaṃbhoga) body is equal and non-dual, being called "identical" by way of resemblance; the other two bodies and lands are also called "identical" by resemblance, yet they are seen differently in accordance with capacities. The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* states: "Because the svābhāvika-kāya and its land are equally realized by all Tathāgatas, their essence has no distinction. Although the svasaṃbhoga-kāya and its supporting land are each transformed differently by all Buddhas, they are all boundless and do not obstruct one another. The other two bodies and lands are shared or unshared in accordance with the sentient beings transformed by the Tathāgatas. As for those that are shared, at the same place and same time, the Buddhas each transform into bodies and lands that resemble one another in form, do not obstruct one another, and are mutually intermixed, serving as predominant conditions (adhipati-pratyaya) to cause the transformed sentient beings' own consciousnesses to transform and manifest. That is, in one land there is one Buddha body displaying spiritual powers and expounding the Dharma for their benefit. As for those that are unshared, only one Buddha transforms them, because the various sentient beings belong to different Buddhas."

Because the principles in the verses contain much meaning, the flow of the text is not uniform; it is tentatively divided into two: the first two verses confirm the established proposition, clarifying that the true body is non-dual; the remaining verses answer the doubt and difficulty, discerning the differences and identities in responsive manifestation. First is the former.

The first line generally confirms. First naming Mañjuśrī alerts him to listen and receive. "The Dharma is ever thus" clarifies that cause and fruit have no differences, being the natural, constant norm (dharmatā). The remainder displays the single mark, briefly clarifying four identities: the first line is identity of Dharma—because the Dharma is constant, all Buddhas are also constant; the next line is identity of person; the next line is identity of cause; the following verse is identity of fruit.

Briefly, five are cited:
1. Identity of body, which has two meanings: if taking the realized dharmadhātu as the body, then the essence is identically one; if also including the unobstructed wisdom that can realize it as the body, then it is called "one" by resemblance. Since mind and wisdom are distinguished below, this properly corresponds to the first meaning, yet the essence is identical while the senses differ.
2. Identity of mind, because the mental kings of the eight consciousnesses are all unknowable.
3. Identity of wisdom, because the four wisdoms, three wisdoms, two wisdoms, and one wisdom all have no distinction.
4. Identity of the ten powers.
5. Identity of the fearlessnesses. These five also briefly subsume all virtues.

Second, the response to the doubt and difficulty is divided into two: the first two verses generally clarify that differences are seen in accordance with capacities; within this, the preceding verse concerns the Buddha, and the following verse concerns capacities. In the former, in accordance with original differentiated causes, dedication is made for beings so that each obtains distinctions, hence it says "thus"—"thus" carries the meaning of difference. It merely cites three matters out of the ten, which is taking a Buddha-land in accordance with the sentient beings to be transformed. The following verse concerns capacities: with respect to the Buddha, the lands and so forth are all consummate; with respect to capacities, differences are seen in accordance with practices. For instance, when a straight mind is practice, one sees a land free of flattery; thus classes of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's Buddha-land.

The remaining six verses resolve doubts step by step, divided into four:
First, one verse addresses the doubt: "If all are consummate, why are they not seen?" The meaning of the answer states: Sentient beings do not see them, but how can one say they do not exist? Yet there are three meanings: 1. Regarding the other-enjoyment (parasaṃbhoga) body, ordinary beings and Hinayāna practitioners prior to the stages do not see it. 2. Regarding the self-enjoyment (svasaṃbhoga) body, even sentient beings at equal enlightenment (samyaksaṃbodhi) do not see it; if regarding responsive manifestation being identical with the true, bodhisattvas of the provisional teachings do not see it.

The next verse addresses the doubt: "If none see it, how is it known to exist?" The explanation says: Because there are those who do see it. This also has three meanings: First, from the stage of pure intention (śuddhādhyāśaya-bhūmi) onward, by the power of mastery over vows, one sees the parasaṃbhoga body. Second, when purified of subtle habituations and Samantabhadra's vows are fulfilled, one only then sees the svasaṃbhoga body. Third, a person of perfect understanding is called "pure in mind" and immediately sees the true body. The intention lies in the first and last, and the meaning subsumes the middle.

Third, one verse addresses the doubt: "If responsive manifestation depends on beings seeing it, why is it called a Buddha-land?" The explanation says: Due to the Buddha's majestic spiritual power. Thus one knows that beings and Buddha jointly accomplish it. Since assembling identity produces difference, it also accords with the essence to accomplish benefit.

Fourth, three verses provide the explanation. The doubt says: "Above it was said that sentient beings do not see the pure land, and also that the Buddha's spiritual power causes differences; are the essence and locations of the lands distinct, or does the Buddha have conceptual distinctions?" Therefore, the explanation says: The lands are truly in the same place, and the Buddha is also free of conceptual mind; beings themselves merely see differences. Within this, the first half reveals the actual fact, saying that the lands have no discrimination and the Buddha has neither hatred nor love. "Discrimination" carries the meaning of difference. Thus the Jin translation says that Buddha-lands have no distinct marks and the Tathāgata has neither hatred nor love. If following the present sūtra, these two can also apply to both the Buddha and the lands. The next half-verse clarifies that differences rest with beings. The next half-verse clarifies the direct seeing of differences in lands. The next half-verse reveals that it is not the Buddha's fault. The next three lines explain that the Buddha has neither hatred nor love: when there is an accord, he manifests, which is not because the Buddha has love; when there is no accord, he is not seen, which is not because the Buddha has hatred. The final line summarizes: the Dharma of all Buddhas is always thus; appearing and disappearing according to capacities, the true essence constantly abides. This also concludes the entire section.