大方廣佛華嚴經疏 21.15

21.15

第五拒妄崇真、拒迷崇智名為慚愧林。偈讚如來大智勝益。十頌分三：初三法說難思、次六以喻並決、後一結德歸佛。今初，初偈明聞生勝益，令物希聞。自在法者，即佛智也。次偈佛窮種智，故下位難思。後偈顯智從生，此文反顯，然有二意：一者成前，謂欲生智慧當於佛求，佛無不知故；不應求之於凡，凡暗冥故。猶搴芙蓉必於深水，而於木末安可得耶？二者成後。智從熏習自種而生，不從煩惱無智所生。是故下言「二心不同時，屬自愚智故」，故應慎所習也。若爾，何以經言「煩惱泥中有佛法矣」？此說在纏如來藏故。然此大智從藏德生，非從迷起。若爾，煩惱即菩提復云何通？約體性故，從所迷故，如波與濕。然實義者，真妄愚智。若約相成，二門峙立；若約相奪，二相寂然。雙照二門非即非離，若說一者，離之令異，如此章中；若云異者，合之令同，如後章是。善須得意，勿滯於言。若準晉經云非從智慧生，亦非無智生，了達一切法，滅除世間闇。則顯智體絕於愚智，不稱實了則名無智。此偈雙明性相，後喻但顯二相不同。二並決中二：先五明二性相違、後一辨功能不等。今初，唯第二偈三句是喻，餘偈喻合各有半偈。一約色非色者，非色謂心，緣慮質礙，體性不同故。二中有二喻，相無相者，理事相反。生死涅槃，真妄相反。雖同一體，分別義門不相是故。三成之與壞，約相別故。四初心後心，時不同故。五諸識身所用別故，緣會不同，故眼無耳用。又此眼識不合餘根，識身同識尚不相合，愚智性異安得相生？二功能不等者，非唯二性各別，然智能滅愚、愚不滅智，藥能去毒、毒不去藥，亦猶明能滅闇、闇不滅明。三一偈結歸如來逈出世表，故難值遇。

Fifth is Forest of Conscience (Hrīvana), so named because he rejects delusion and honours the real, rejects confusion and honours wisdom. The verses praise the superior benefits of the Tathāgata's great wisdom. The ten verses are divided into three parts: the first three are the explanation through Dharma of what is difficult to conceive; the next six make definitive determinations through metaphors; the last one concludes the virtues by returning them to the Buddha. In the first part, the first verse clarifies that hearing generates superior benefit, causing sentient beings to aspire to hear. 'Unobstructed dharma' is precisely the Buddha's wisdom. The next verse states that the Buddha exhausts the wisdom of all modes (sarvākārajñatā), so lower stages find it difficult to conceive. The last verse reveals that from which wisdom is born; this text reveals it through negation, having two meanings: first, it completes the preceding, meaning that if one wishes to generate wisdom, one should seek it in the Buddha, because the Buddha is omniscient; one should not seek it in ordinary beings, because ordinary beings are dark and blind. Just as in plucking a lotus, one must do so in deep water—how could one obtain it from the tip of a tree? Second, it completes the following: wisdom arises from perfuming its own seeds, not from defilements and ignorance. Therefore it is said below, 'The two minds are not concurrent, because they pertain to their own foolishness and wisdom'; thus one should be cautious regarding what one perfumes. If so, why does a sūtra say, 'In the mud of defilements there is the Buddhadharma'? This speaks of the tathāgatagarbha within defilement. However, this great wisdom arises from the virtues of the garbha, not from delusion. If so, how does one reconcile 'defilement is precisely bodhi'? In terms of essence and nature, and from the standpoint of that which is deluded, like waves and wetness. Yet the true meaning is reality and delusion, foolishness and wisdom. In terms of mutual completion, the two gates stand side by side; in terms of mutual subversion, both marks are tranquil. Illuminating both gates simultaneously, they are neither identical nor separate. If one speaks of unity, separate them to make them distinct, as in this passage; if one speaks of difference, unite them to make them identical, as in the subsequent passage. One must grasp the meaning well and not get stuck on words. If we follow the Jin sūtra, it states: 'It is not born from wisdom, nor is it born from lack of wisdom; comprehending all dharmas, it eliminates the darkness of the world.' This reveals that the essence of wisdom transcends both foolishness and wisdom; not comprehending in accord with reality is called lack of wisdom. This verse clarifies both nature and marks, while the subsequent metaphors merely reveal the difference between the two marks. In the second part, the definitive determinations through metaphors, there are two sections: first, five verses clarify that the two natures are mutually opposed; then, one verse determines that their functions are unequal. In the former, only three lines of the second verse are metaphor, while each of the other verses has half a verse of metaphor and half of application. First, regarding form and non-form: non-form refers to the mind; cogitation and material obstruction are distinct in essence and nature. In the second, there are two metaphors: mark and markless, which is the mutual opposition of noumenon and phenomena; saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, which is the mutual opposition of real and false. Although of the same essence, in the gates of differentiated meaning they do not validate each other. Third, completion and destruction are distinguished by their marks. Fourth, the initial mind and the subsequent mind differ in time. Fifth, the consciousness-aggregates differ in their functions: because their concourse of conditions differs, the eye lacks the function of the ear. Furthermore, this eye-consciousness does not unite with other faculties; when consciousnesses are alike in being consciousness, they still do not unite—how then could foolishness and wisdom, differing in nature, give birth to each other? As for the second, the inequality of their functions: not only are the two natures distinct, but wisdom can extinguish foolishness while foolishness cannot extinguish wisdom, medicine can remove poison while poison cannot remove medicine, just as light can eliminate darkness while darkness cannot eliminate light. Third, one verse concludes by returning to the Tathāgata, who stands far beyond the world and is therefore difficult to encounter.