大方廣佛華嚴經疏 21.13

21.13

第三勝林，悟勝義甚深之法，故偈歎深廣無涯之德。十頌分二：初三明佛德廣博、後七顯法體甚深，橫豎互顯。前中，初二喻況、後一法合。喻言孟夏月者，取意譯也。梵本敵對，翻云後熱月。西域如來聖教，一歲立為三際，謂熱、雨、寒。《西域記》云「從正月十六日至五月十五日為熱時。」則後熱月言，兼得此方孟夏後半。餘之二際各有四月，準釋可知。赫日之言，但取陽光時長，難窮其際耳。彼方或為四時，與此名同，但以正月黑半為首耳。不見此文，妄為異解。後七中，令於依他修三無性觀，以餘之二性不離依他故、由於二性成依他故。謂圓成是依他體性，遍計但橫執依他，又迷真似現故，即依三性說三無性。三性尚一，豈有三無？三無但是即有之無，三性但是即無之有，有無不二為一實性，有無形奪性亦非性，故於一依他中具修諸觀。文即分三：初三作生無自性性觀、次二兼修勝義無自性性觀、後二修相無自性性觀。今初，即分為三：初偈正觀無生。初句果空，謂緣生果法非先有體從世性、微塵及未來藏因緣心識中來，若有來處即先已有，如鳥來棲樹，何得言生？次句因空。既無有果，對何說因？又世性等亦是妄計因緣有故。次句雙遣。所從是因、所生是果。又初句不自生、次句不他生、次句不共生。又初句非先有而生、次句非先無而生、次句非半有半無，三義各以末句息妄成觀。次偈以無生釋無滅，略有三義：一無生可滅故、二無待對故、三例生從緣故。後偈觀成利益，經云「無生即是佛」，故論云「若見因緣法，則為能見佛」，依他因緣即無生故。次二偈約依他兼修勝義無自性性觀中，前偈遣所觀，上半辨觀、下半明益，各含二義故致兼言。一者成前，謂非唯能相之生，生即無生；所生法體從緣無性，即無所有。此顯依他無生是圓成性益。云深者，即事而真故。二云無生真性亦無所有，即彼勝義無自性性益。云深者，真性不立故。後偈遣能觀，然有二義：一成前所觀，謂以無性故無有能了，如無有人能了龜毛長短大小，知無所了是究竟了。二是正遣能了，既無所了亦無能了，能所兩亡為究竟解。後二偈明相無自性性觀中，初偈正明、後偈總結。前中，上半顯執。不了國等依他，謂為現見，妄計為生故。晉經云「所言有生者，當知由所生。」下半明觀，若知無性則離遍計故。後偈總結，稱於事理之實以觀世等，故善說也。

Third is Forest of Excellence (Jayavana), who realized the profoundly deep teaching of ultimate meaning; therefore, in his verses he praises virtues that are profound, vast, and boundless. The ten verses are divided into two parts: the first three clarify that the Buddha's virtues are vast and extensive, and the latter seven reveal that the essence of the Dharma is profoundly deep—the horizontal and vertical mutually illuminating each other. In the former part, the first two verses use metaphors, and the latter verse applies them to the Dharma. When the metaphor speaks of 'the first month of summer', it is a translation by meaning. The Sanskrit text in direct correspondence translates as 'the latter hot month'. In the holy teachings of the Tathāgata in the Western Regions, one year is established as three seasons, namely hot, rainy, and cold. The *Records of the Western Regions* states: 'From the sixteenth day of the first month to the fifteenth day of the fifth month is the hot season.' Thus the phrase 'latter hot month' also encompasses the latter half of the first month of summer in this land. The remaining two seasons each have four months, as can be known by corresponding explanation. The phrase 'blazing sun' merely takes the great length of the daylight hours, such that its limit is difficult to fathom. In that region there are also four seasons, sharing the same names as here, except that they take the dark fortnight of the first month as their beginning. Not seeing this text, people erroneously offer divergent interpretations. In the latter seven verses, he causes one to cultivate the contemplation of the three non-natures upon the other-dependent nature, because the other two natures are not separate from the other-dependent, and because the other-dependent is established through the two natures. That is, the consummate nature is the essential nature of the other-dependent, the imaginary nature is merely horizontal clinging to the other-dependent, and furthermore, delusion regarding the real appears as a semblance; thus, based on the three natures, the three non-natures are taught. If the three natures are already one, how could there be three non-natures? The three non-existences are merely non-existence identical to existence; the three natures are merely existence identical to non-existence. Existence and non-existence being non-dual is the single true nature; existence and non-existence mutually subverting, nature is also non-nature. Therefore, within a single other-dependent nature, all contemplations are fully cultivated. The text is then divided into three: the first three verses perform the contemplation of the non-nature of production; the next two concurrently cultivate the contemplation of the non-nature of ultimate meaning; the last two cultivate the contemplation of the non-nature of marks. Now, the first is divided into three: the first verse directly contemplates non-production. The first line is emptiness of the fruit, meaning that fruit dharmas arisen from conditions do not previously have an essence coming from prakṛti, paramāṇus, or the future storehouse of conditional mind and consciousness; if they had a place from which they came, they would already exist beforehand, like a bird coming to perch in a tree—how could one speak of production? The next line is emptiness of the cause: since there is no fruit, in contrast to what could one speak of a cause? Furthermore, prakṛti and so forth are also things erroneously conceptualized to exist through conditions. The next line dispels both: that from which it arises is the cause, and that which is produced is the fruit. Furthermore, the first line means not produced from self; the next line means not produced from other; the next line means not produced from both. Furthermore, the first line means not produced having previously existed; the next line means not produced having previously not existed; the next line means not [produced] being half-existent and half-non-existent; each of these three meanings brings delusions to rest and establishes contemplation by the final line. The next verse explains non-cessation through non-production, which briefly has three meanings: first, because there is no production that could be ceased; second, because there is no opposition; third, because, analogously to production, it accords with conditions. The final verse is the benefit of the contemplation's completion: the sūtra states that 'non-production is the Buddha'; hence a treatise says, 'If one sees the dharma of conditions, then one is able to see the Buddha,' because other-dependent conditions are precisely non-production. In the next two verses, which concurrently cultivate the contemplation of the non-nature of ultimate meaning based on the other-dependent nature, the preceding verse dispels the contemplated: the upper half clarifies contemplation, and the lower half clarifies benefit, each containing two meanings, which is why the word 'concurrently' is used. First, it completes the preceding: this means that not only is production as an active mark non-production in itself, but the essence of the produced dharma is without nature due to conditions, and is thus non-existent. This reveals that the non-production of the other-dependent is the benefit of the consummate nature. Calling it 'profound' is because phenomena are identical to the real. Second, it says that the true nature of non-production is also non-existent, which is the benefit of that non-nature of ultimate meaning. Calling it 'profound' is because the true nature is not established. The latter verse dispels the contemplator, which has two meanings: first, completing the preceding contemplated, meaning that because of the absence of nature, there is no one who can comprehend—just as there is no one who can comprehend the length, size, or smallness of a turtle's hair; knowing that there is nothing to be comprehended is the ultimate comprehension. Second, it directly dispels the capable comprehender: since there is nothing to be comprehended, there is also no capable comprehender; the disappearance of both subject and object is ultimate understanding. In the last two verses, which clarify the contemplation of the non-nature of marks, the first verse directly clarifies it, and the latter verse concludes. In the former, the upper half reveals attachment: failing to understand that lands and so forth are other-dependent, considering them to be seen before one's eyes, one falsely conceptualizes them as produced. The Jin sūtra states: 'That which is said to have production—know that it is due to what is produced.' The lower half clarifies contemplation: if one knows the absence of nature, one departs from the imaginary nature. The latter verse concludes: viewing the world and so forth in accord with the reality of phenomena and noumenon, it is therefore well spoken.