大方廣佛華嚴經疏 18.16

18.16

第六顯實證成分中二：先現瑞顯實、後菩薩證成。前中，先此界有動地雨供，一萬佛剎猶劣行故；後「如此」下結通。二「又以」下菩薩證成。於中二：初能證現前、二「作如是」下發言讚述。於中四：一讚其所說。二「我等」下舉同顯證。此有四同：一能說人、二所說處、三者會主、四所說法。初後與此同，中二但彼同者，法慧表解，不可不同法，若不同豈名為證？中二異此者，表人異道同、處殊法一，方表通方之說，成證義也。若亦同此，將謂餘異名界佛不同說也。若爾，何故同名法雲妙法，不多舉耶？為有表故，謂所說法該於十地故，非麁淺故。就所說中，眾會約人，眷屬兼法，文句義理主伴皆同也。三「佛子」下舉因結成。四「如於此」下結通廣遍，謂非唯來此為汝作證，於餘處證亦同證此，彌顯所說是通方也。此是彼菩薩結通，不俟經家結通也。問：此經何要十方同說？答：引攝之教隨機不一、諸方有殊，圓實之教法爾常規故，十方同說十方如來同一道故，三賢十聖無異路故。問：說此經處，何要遍於十方？答：能詮如所詮故，所詮義理無不同故。表位優劣證有多少，據其所說無處不該。有云：此上瑞應證成應在偈後，有四因故：一未說偈，經猶未了，不應先瑞先證；二瑞證本為證經，既不證，偈則偈，應非經；三證辭不應云文句無有增減；四若許瑞徵合在頌前，頌中應頌二分。假使梵本如此，譯者即合迴文。此乃靜法佳判。今為一救，理或可通。為欲表說證同時故，然文不累書，編之作次。若全居末，則似說竟方證；若更居初，未說復何所證？故置於散說偈文之際，深有以焉。諸會文同，皆倣此釋。

Part six, 'manifesting the real and certifying accomplishment', has two [sections]: first, manifesting auspicious signs to reveal reality; second, the bodhisattvas certifying accomplishment. In the former, first there are the earth-shaking and the raining of offerings in this world, since ten thousand Buddha-kṣetras are still an inferior practice; then from 'Like this' onwards, it concludes [their] universal reach. Second, from 'Further, with' onwards, the bodhisattvas certify accomplishment. Within this there are two [parts]: first, those able to certify appear in person; second, from 'spoke thus' onwards, they speak words of praise and narration. Within this there are four [points]: 1. praising what was spoken; 2. from 'We' onwards, adducing what is identical to manifest the certification. Here there are four identities: 1. the person able to preach, 2. the place of preaching, 3. the host of the assembly, and 4. the Dharma preached. The first and last are identical with this [world], while the middle two are only identical among those [other worlds]. Dharmamati represents understanding, so it is impossible not to have the same Dharma; if the Dharma were not identical, how could it be called certification? The middle two differing from this [world] represents that persons differ while the Path is the same, and locations differ while the Dharma is one; only then does it express a teaching that penetrates all directions and accomplishes the sense of certification. If they were also identical with this, one would suspect that the Buddhas of the other differently named worlds did not preach identically. If so, why do they all share the name Dharmameghā and the wondrous Dharma, rather than enumerating many? Because it conveys a representation: namely, the Dharma preached encompasses the ten stages and is neither crude nor shallow. Regarding what was preached, the assembly concerns the persons, the retinue includes the teachings, and the phrases, meanings, host, and companions are all identical. 3. From 'Sons of the Buddha' onwards, adducing the cause to conclude the accomplishment. 4. From 'Just as in this' onwards, concluding the vast, universal pervasiveness: meaning, not only do they come here to bear witness for you, but their certifications in other places likewise certify this, making it all the more evident that what is preached applies universally. This is the conclusion of universal pervasiveness by those bodhisattvas, not waiting for the compiler of the sūtra to conclude it. Question: Why must this sūtra be preached identically in the ten directions? Answer: Teachings of guiding and attracting vary according to capacities and differ across the directions; but the round and real teaching is the intrinsic norm [of the cosmos], and therefore it is preached identically in the ten directions, for the Tathāgatas of the ten directions share one single Path, and the three classes of worthies and ten classes of sages have no diverging road. Question: Why must the place of preaching this sūtra pervade the ten directions? Answer: Because the expressing corresponds to what is expressed, and there is no difference in the principles expressed. To express the superiority or inferiority of the stations, the certifications have greater or lesser numbers; yet judging from what is preached, there is no place it does not encompass. Some say: 'These auspicious responses and certifications above ought to be after the verses, for four reasons: 1. before the verses are spoken, the sūtra is not yet concluded, so auspicious signs and certifications should not precede them; 2. auspicious signs and certifications originally exist to certify the sūtra, and if they do not certify the verses, the verses would not be the sūtra; 3. the words of certification should not say "the text and phrases have neither increase nor decrease"; 4. if one allows the auspicious omens to belong before the verses, then the verses would have to versify both sections. Even if the Sanskrit manuscript were like this, the translators ought to have transposed the text.' This is Jingfa's fine judgment. Now, providing a single rescue, the principle may perhaps be admitted: it is in order to represent that preaching and certification are simultaneous; yet texts cannot be written simultaneously, so they are arranged in sequence. If placed completely at the end, it would seem that certification only occurs after the preaching has finished; if placed at the very beginning, before anything has been spoken, what would there be to certify? Therefore, placing it at the juncture between the prose preaching and the verse text has profound reason. The texts of all the assemblies are identical and should all be explained by analogy to this.