[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) › 25.44 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 25.44 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 25.44 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [25.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.25.44) 第六東南方菩薩。以圓淨智照平等理，不礙應現，隨順一切如摩尼寶，故名寶幢。頌中多顯平等超世之德。十頌分二：前五總顯難思、後五逈超時數。前中，初二正明，前一超量現量、後一超處遍處，故〈出現品〉云「譬如虛空遍至一切色非色處」等。如是難思，雙結上二。後三展轉釋成，初云何以難思？若身若處，非生滅心行之境故。何以非心境？佛自不起心故。何以不起？體無生滅故。若爾，何以現見？次偈釋云：病眼所覩，取色分齊，勿謂為實。次疑云：若爾，豈無如來出現世耶？次偈釋云：自機見耳。上三句以應就感，眾生謂出。末句既因物感，出即非出，名實不出。故《諸法無行經》云「如來不出世，亦不度眾生。眾生強分別，作佛度眾生。」既無有出，安有沒耶？上三亦初一超心行、次一超內外、後一超出沒。後五偈逈超時數而現時數，於中初一偈結前標，後國土結前處故；後四別顯超時，初偈立宗，上半牒妄情，下半正立菩提是有法、定不繫時是宗法。次偈立三因：一智無分別故、二三世不遷故、三體非有為之數故。次偈舉同喻，謂日體常明，故不合昏夜。後偈合結，上半合、下半結。合中語倒，若順應云一切諸如來不與三世合。又若以超時現時為宗者，則上宗中四句皆宗，應云菩提是有法，定不繫日隨機說日是宗法，因云體非三世等、不礙三世等故，同喻云如日輪不合昏夜，以山映故說有日夜，合云佛無三世，以不應見機之所映，故而說三世。是則上三句皆合，下一句結。 > Sixth is the southeastern bodhisattva: using round and pure wisdom to illuminate the equal principle, not obstructing responsive manifestations, according with all just like a mani jewel, he is therefore named Jewel Banner (Ratnaketu / Baozhuang). The verses mostly reveal the virtue of equality that transcends the world. The ten verses are divided into two parts: the first five generally reveal what is difficult to conceive; the latter five transcend time and count. In the former, the first two explain directly: the first transcends measurement yet manifests measurement; the second transcends place yet pervades places, so the chapter 'Manifestation' says, 'Just as empty space pervades all material and non-material places,' and so forth. 'Such is difficult to conceive' concludes both of the above. The next three verses explain and establish this sequentially: first, why is it difficult to conceive? Because whether body or place, they are not the cognitive realm of mental activities of arising and cessation. Why are they not a mental realm? Because the Buddha himself does not give rise to thoughts. Why does he not give rise to them? Because the essence has no arising or cessation. If so, why is he visibly seen? The next verse explains: seen by diseased eyes, which grasp the boundaries of forms; do not take this to be real. Next, a doubt is raised: if so, is there no appearance of the Tathāgata in the world at all? The next verse explains: it is only seen by their own capacities. The upper three lines take the response to conform to the stimulus, so sentient beings say he has appeared. The final line states that since it is due to the stimulus of beings, appearance is non-appearance, which is called truly not appearing. Thus the Sarvadharmāpravṛtti-nirdeśa says: 'The Tathāgata does not appear in the world, nor does he save sentient beings. Sentient beings make forced distinctions, imagining that the Buddha saves sentient beings.' Since there is no appearance, how could there be disappearance? Among the above three, the first also transcends mental activity, the next transcends inner and outer, and the last transcends appearance and disappearance. The latter five verses transcend time and count yet manifest time and count. Therein, the first verse concludes the preceding and introduces what follows, for 'lands' concludes the preceding 'places'; the latter four specifically reveal transcending time. The first verse establishes the proposition: the first half takes up the deluded feelings, and the second half formally establishes that bodhi is the subject (dharmin), and definitely not being bound to time is the predicate (sādhya-dharma). The next verse establishes three reasons (hetu): first, because wisdom is non-conceptual; second, because the three times do not shift; third, because the essence is not of the enumeration of the conditioned. The next verse adduces a concordant example (dṛṣṭānta), stating that the essence of the sun is ever luminous, and therefore does not join with dark night. The final verse applies and concludes: the first half applies, and the second half concludes. In the application, the phrasing is inverted; if read smoothly, it should say: all Tathāgatas do not join with the three times. Furthermore, if taking transcending time yet manifesting time as the proposition, then all four lines of the proposition above constitute the thesis: one should say bodhi is the subject (dharmin), definitely not being bound to the sun yet speaking of days according to capacity is the predicate (sādhya-dharma); the reason being that the essence is not of the three times and yet does not obstruct the three times, and so forth; the concordant example being that just as the solar disc does not join with dark night, yet because of the blockage of mountains there is said to be day and night; the application being that the Buddha is without the three times, yet because of being blocked by the capacities that ought not to see him, the three times are spoken of. In this way, the upper three lines are all application, and the bottom one line is the conclusion. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 25.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.25.43) - [Next: 25.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.25.45) - [Up: 25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.25) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.25.44) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.25.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.25.44) · Pramāṇa