[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735) › 21.20 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 21.20 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 21.20 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [21.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.21.20) 第十鑒達諸佛逈超色聲，心言路絕，故云智林。頌顯此德，十頌分二：初一標章、後九解釋。今初。若準晉本，第四句云所思不可思，則四句皆標章。今經則上三句標章、第四句總結，謂標章遮過令不依識，明佛三業非凡境故；第四總結顯德示智入門，謂若了唯一真心，言思斯絕，則合菩提之體故。梵本第四句云於不思何思，即是以一真心而成三業。三業不離一真，形奪相融，不可以一多思也。又非唯佛之三業同一真心，亦與觀者真心非異非一，故難思議。若能離於思議，則終日見聞亦無所見聞矣。後九別釋中，即分三別：初二釋不可取、次四釋不可見、後三釋不可聞。今初也，初半偈奪以正釋、後一偈半縱以生過。然有量等實通三業，為對下二，且就智明。有如理智不可言量，有如量智不可言無。又一智即是一切智故，眾智所用不相雜故。後縱中，初半縱其令取，必無果利；後一偈顯取之失。夫說法者當如法說，法無所得而欲取得，心計有說執石為寶是謂自欺，理無謂有是為自誑，終不契理。故云「己事不成，污他心識」，故不令眾喜。又以量無量取，則墮斷常，自損損他，故皆不可。第二有四偈，歎佛色身深奧，釋不可見章。文分為二：初一法說、後三喻況。今初。非色現色，故稱為妙。物感斯現，是曰無邊。又色即空，故邊即無邊。又淨識所現空色相融，故身分總別乃至一毛皆無邊量。攝德無盡具上三義，豈可以盡言？次三喻中分二：初一摩尼隨映喻，喻佛地實無異色，隨感便現，故言無色而現色。喻全似法，故但合云佛亦如是。後二偈淨空現色喻，喻佛法身體非是色，能現麁妙一切諸色。初偈喻、後偈合。四句對前，但二三前却，此是分喻，故委合之。以空但不可眼見而可心知，佛所現色心行處絕，故為分喻。心眼尚不能見，況肉眼哉，此即見中絕思議也。問：二喻豈不違經？上云有無邊妙色，今云非色無色耶？亦違諸論，佛有妙色為增上緣。古德云：若約初教大乘，義如前說。若實教大乘，佛地無此色聲麁相功德，但有大智大悲大定大願諸功德等。然諸功德等並同證真如，若眾生機感即現色無盡。既無不應機時，故所現色亦無斷絕。此以隨他為自，更無別他自，約此為有，故云無邊妙色。今約自說，不約隨他，故云無色非色也。亦可前喻初教，後喻實教。有云：若爾，彼能現體為有無耶？十蓮華藏塵數之相皆示現耶？八地七勸，言佛色聲皆無有量，寧不違耶？若執佛果唯有如如及如如智獨存者，無漏蘊界窮未來際，遍因陀羅網皆非實事，亦違《涅槃》滅無常色而獲常色，此義具如《智慧莊嚴經》說。然上二解各是一理，並符經論，今當會之。攝末從本唯如如智，自受用色智所現故；攝相從性但有如如，既所現即如，何妨妙色？故有亦無失。然如外無法，何要須現？萬法即如，如即法身，更何所現？故云唯如如，及如如智獨存，於理未失。如色相即有無交徹，若定執有無，恐傷聖旨，故今二喻前後相成。摩尼現色但云無色，無即但是無他，非無自體。淨空現色既云非色，非即非其自體，不獨無他。前喻自受用身、後喻法身，此二不二為佛真身，故下經云「佛以法為身，清淨如虛空，所現眾色形，令入此法中。」第三三偈釋所聞不可聞中，初約應聲緣感，便應離相離性，故聲非如來、應不差機。非聲之聲故云不離，故以聲取是行邪道，若離聲取未免斷無。次頌約體釋，湛然不遷。心離分別，尚非心見，安可耳聞？猶如天鼓無心出故，此即聞中不思議也。後偈釋疑。疑云：為是有法不可聞耶？為是無法無可說耶？上半順理、後句答。次疑云：若爾，何以現聞教法？下半釋云：但自心變，非佛說也。若依權教，此約有影無本。然本影相望通有四句，若依此宗，果海離言故無有說，用隨機現謂如是說。而此本質亦是自心，餘如懸談中說。 > Tenth, perceiving and penetrating \[the truth\] that the Buddhas transcend form and sound, and that the path of mind and speech is cut off, is therefore named 'Forest of Wisdom'. The verses make this virtue apparent. The ten verses are divided into two: first, one stating the thesis; second, nine providing the explanation. Now, the first. If based on the Jin version, the fourth line reads 'what is thought cannot be thought', which means all four lines state the thesis. In the present sūtra, the first three lines state the thesis, and the fourth line provides a summary conclusion: that is, stating the thesis prevents errors to keep one from relying on consciousness, making clear that the Buddha's three modes of karma are not the realm of ordinary beings; the fourth line's summary conclusion manifests virtue and indicates the entrance of wisdom, meaning that if one realizes the one true mind, speech and thought are severed, thereby according with the essence of bodhi. The fourth line of the Sanskrit text reads, 'what is there to think regarding the unthinkable?', which means taking the one true mind as constituting the three modes of karma. The three modes of karma do not depart from the one true \[mind\]; form and deprivation blend together, and they cannot be thought of as one or many. Furthermore, it is not only that the Buddha's three modes of karma are identical with the one true mind, but they are also neither different nor one with the true mind of the contemplator, hence they are difficult to conceive. If one can depart from conception, then though seeing and hearing all day, there is nothing seen or heard. In the nine \[verses\] of detailed explanation that follow, there are three divisions: first, two verses explain 'inaccessible'; next, four explain 'invisible'; and last, three explain 'inaudible'. Now, the first. The first half-verse sets aside \[errors\] to explain correctly; the following verse and a half grants \[a premise\] to expose the faults. However, having a measure, and so forth, in fact pervades the three modes of karma; but in contrast to the two below, it is clarified here in terms of wisdom. In having the wisdom that accords with principle, one cannot speak of measure; in having the wisdom that accords with measure, one cannot speak of absence. Moreover, one wisdom is all wisdoms, and the functions of the various wisdoms are not confused. In the following part that grants \[a premise\], the first half grants taking hold \[of it\], which must yield no fruit or benefit; the last verse reveals the error of taking hold. Now, an expounder of the Dharma must speak according to the Dharma; when the Dharma is without attainability yet one wishes to attain it, calculating in the mind that there is an exposition and grasping a stone as a jewel—this is called deceiving oneself; deeming the nonexistent to exist in principle—this is called deluding oneself; in the end one does not accord with principle. Therefore it is said, 'Failing to accomplish one's own task, one defiles the minds of others', and hence does not bring joy to the assembly. Furthermore, grasping with measure or measurelessness falls into annihilationism or eternalism, harming oneself and harming others; thus neither is permissible. Second, there are four verses praising the profundity of the Buddha's physical body, explaining the section on 'invisible'. The text is divided into two: first, one verse provides an exposition through Dharma; next, three provide analogies. Now, the first. Manifesting form from non-form is therefore called wondrous. Appearing as things resonate \[with it\] is called boundless. Moreover, form is emptiness, therefore the bounded is boundless. Furthermore, what is manifested by pure consciousness integrates emptiness and form; thus, whether in parts or the whole of the body, down to a single hair, all are measureless. Encompassing virtue inexhaustibly possesses the three meanings above—how could it be fully expressed in words? Among the next three analogies, there are two parts: first, one is the analogy of the mani jewel reflecting according \[to its surroundings\], analogizing that on the Buddha-ground there are in truth no distinct forms, but in accordance with resonance they immediately appear, hence it is said 'being without form, yet manifesting form'. The analogy is completely like the Dharma, so the application merely says, 'The Buddha is also like this'. The latter two verses are the analogy of pure space manifesting forms, analogizing that the Buddha's dharmakāya in its essence is not form, yet it can manifest all forms, both coarse and wondrous. The first verse is the analogy; the second verse is the application. The four lines correspond to the previous ones, only with the second and third transposed; because this is a partial analogy, it is applied in detail. Since space cannot be seen by the eye but can be known by the mind, whereas the forms manifested by the Buddha cut off the paths of mental activity, it is a partial analogy. If even the mind's eye cannot see it, how much less the physical eye? This is the severance of conception within seeing. Question: Do not the two analogies contradict the sūtra? Above it says there are boundless wondrous forms, and now it says non-form and without form? Does it not also contradict the treatises, where the Buddha has wondrous form as a predominant condition? Ancient masters said: According to the Mahāyāna of the elementary teaching, the meaning is as explained before. If according to the Mahāyāna of the true teaching, on the Buddha-ground there are no such coarse marks or virtues of form and sound, but only the various virtues of great wisdom, great compassion, great samādhi, and great vows. Yet these various virtues all equally realize tathatā; if the capacities of sentient beings resonate, they manifest form endlessly. Since there is no time when resonance with capacities is absent, the manifested forms are also never cut off. This takes following others as oneself, with no other separate self; in terms of this it exists, hence it is called 'boundless wondrous form'. Now it is spoken in terms of oneself, not in terms of following others; therefore it says 'without form' and 'non-form'. One may also take the former analogy as the elementary teaching and the latter analogy as the true teaching. Some say: If so, does that substance which can manifest exist or not? Are all the marks, as many as the dust particles of the ten Padmagarbha realms, manifested? In the seven admonitions of the eighth stage, it is said that the Buddha's form and sound are both measureless—how could this not be contradictory? If one insists that the Buddha-fruit possesses only tathatā and the wisdom of tathatā existing alone, then the uncontaminated aggregates and realms until the end of the future, pervading the Indrajāla, would not be real entities; this would also contradict the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra's statement that\] by extinguishing impermanent form one obtains eternal form. This meaning is explained in full in the Jñānālokālaṃkāra-sūtra. However, the above two explanations each hold a single principle, and both accord with sūtras and treatises; we should now reconcile them. Gathering the branches back to the root, there is only the wisdom of tathatā, because form for one's own enjoyment is manifested by wisdom; gathering marks back to nature, there is only tathatā. Since what is manifested is itself tathatā, what obstacle is there to wondrous form? Therefore, its existence is also without fault. However, outside of tathatā there is no phenomenon; why must it be manifested? The myriad phenomena are itself tathatā, and tathatā is itself the dharmakāya; what else is there to manifest? Therefore, saying that only tathatā and the wisdom of tathatā exist alone does not miss the principle. Form and emptiness are mutually identical, existence and non-existence interpenetrate; if one dogmatically clings to existence or non-existence, one might compromise the sacred intent. Therefore, the present two analogies mutually complete each other front and back. The mani manifesting form only says 'without form': 'without' merely means without others, not without its own essence. Pure space manifesting form says 'non-form': 'non' negates its own essence, not only without others. The former analogy is the body of self-enjoyment; the latter analogy is the dharmakāya. These two are non-dual and constitute the true body of the Buddha. Hence the sūtra below says, 'The Buddha takes the Dharma as his body, pure like empty space; the various physical forms he manifests lead one to enter into this Dharma.' Third, in the three verses explaining that the heard cannot be heard: first, in terms of responsive sound resonating with conditions, it immediately responds free from marks and free from nature, so sound is not the Tathāgata, and the response does not deviate from capacities. Being the sound of non-sound, it is therefore said not to depart; hence grasping it through sound is practicing a wrong path, while grasping it apart from sound does not avoid nihilism. The next verse explains in terms of essence, serene and unchanging. The mind being free from conceptual differentiation, it is not even seen by the mind; how could it be heard by the ear? It is just like the celestial drum sounding without intention; this is the inconceivable within hearing. The last verse resolves a doubt. The doubt asks: Is there an existing phenomenon that cannot be heard? Or is there no phenomenon and nothing to be expounded? The first half conforms to principle; the latter line answers. Next, the doubt asks: If so, why do we now hear the teaching? The latter half explains: It is merely transformed by one's own mind, not spoken by the Buddha. If according to the provisional teaching, this is spoken in terms of having the reflection without the original. However, the mutual relation of original and reflection encompasses four propositions; if according to this school, the ocean of the fruit is beyond words, hence there is no expounding; functions appear according to capacities, said to be expounded like this. Yet this archetype is also one's own mind; the rest is as expounded in the general introduction. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 21.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.21.19) - [Next: 21.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.21.21) - [Up: 21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.21) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.21.20) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.21.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.21.20) · Pramāṇa