[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) › 26.25 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 26.25 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 26.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [26.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.26.25) 第二大段「我應如日普照一切」下離相迴向。於中二：先以忘機之智導前大悲令成無緣、後「安置」下正明大智離眾生相。今初。功高二儀而不仁、明踰日月而彌昏，故於中先正明無私。不求恩故，能容受惡。為普照故，不以一惡而捨眾多。設盡背恩尚無嫌恨，豈況一耶？後「善根雖少」下顯成廣大。大智導悲能普緣故，如聲入角小亦遠聞。第二正明離相迴向，謂向實際。然一一隨相皆具如下諸句離相，說有前後，行在一心。文分為二：先正明離相、後「菩薩如是」下總結成益。前中義雖總通，且取文便略分為二：先會前迴向眾生明入實際、後「以如是等」下會前迴向菩提明入實際。然入實際即事理無礙，故前段亦明不離蘊等，後段亦明離我我所。前中二：先廣明離善根迴向之相、二「解一切」下雙結二相。前中有二十一迴向，分四：初十四句離所取相、次二句離能取想、三一句離能詮名言、四有四句顯如如理。由離妄想成正智故，令前名相皆即如如。今初，初總、餘別。總謂令所向眾生契同所向實際，故名安置實際，即法性性自無著。別中二：前十入理、後三離過。今初。初句遣所向眾生，了自性故不著，凝然不動隨緣不變。二遣能迴悲願，不依於悲、不取願相。三遣所迴善根。四遣所獲果報。五六二句雙明起行之身及所向眾生之相，即真故不著、即俗故不壞。七遣所成業行。八遣所得報相。上四遣體。九總顯諸事能成因緣。十總明前事從緣所起，明上迴向不出前十，由後二句故無性，無性故即法性，故無所著。後三離過：一不著虛名、二不著報處、三敬養等名虛妄法。二離能取想中，初句對所說能、後句別無三倒。謂於前諸事，起心分別常無常等，名為心倒。於常等境取分齊相，名為想倒。於相執實，名為見倒。翻背正信，立以倒名。翻上名為不起三倒，故《大品》十七「彌勒語須菩提言：『新發意菩薩隨喜諸佛及佛弟子善根已，迴向菩提，云何不墮想心見倒？』須菩提言：『於彼善根心不生想，用此心迴向菩提，於此迴向心亦不生心想。如是迴向則非想倒、心倒、見倒。若取相迴向，為想心見倒。』」〈光明覺品〉云「若於一切智，發生迴向心，見心無有生，當獲大名稱。」此亦無三倒也。若依《大般若》第二會〈隨喜迴向品〉意，則上諸事皆盡滅離變，此中何者是諸事耶？若菩薩知此一切，乃至菩提皆無所有，而復能行隨喜迴向，則非想心見倒，以無所得為方便故。然小乘或說想心見三次第而起，或說一時義分前後，心想非倒，由見亂故立以倒名。雖諸說一同，皆六識建立。若大乘中亦有多說。一云：依七識心義分，三倒謂七識妄心，性是乖理顛倒之法，名為心倒。依是心故便有一切妄境界生，如依夢心有夢境起，即於彼境妄取其相，說為想倒。於所取法執實分明，說為見倒。依此三倒，於為無為境起常無常等八種顛倒。諸宗異說，恐厭繁文。三離能詮名。四有四句顯如如者，前明妄空一切皆空，此彰實有一切妙有。又即前之空是此之實，二義不二為真法印，是即妄取迴向菩薩不有，真實迴向菩薩不無。文有四句：初總顯實性、次別約眾生、三印諸事善、四心絕貪求。第二雙結者，一句結所迴善根。善根可以獨修，但云種植。一句結迴向行。迴向必有能所，故觀無二。如此則德本不生、惑本不滅。又惑累寂然不生、真德湛然不滅。第二會前迴向菩提入實際者，又前明隨相、次辨離相，欲顯此二同時，故雙非即離。文中三：初結前生後、二「非即」下法喻釋成、三「離我」下結成迴向。今初。由前離相所行清淨，故順出世無上菩提。而言二者，善根迴向世與出世，若有若無、若即若離皆名為二，今並無之。二釋成中，先法、後喻。法中二對：初以所迴善根對能迴行願，辨非即離，明因中無二。初句業非迴向，能所別故。次句不離，離業無可迴故。亦同《淨名》布施迴向一切智為二，布施性即是迴向一切智性。故不離斯為不二，非即故無不二也。後對因果相望，初句果不即因、後句離因無果，文影略耳，理應因果各有非即離義。後喻中，乘光發影及水月之影皆緣生無性，非即非離，故云清淨。初二句以因對報，報通十地故；後二句以報對果。三結成迴向者，能迴之我、所迴我所，若隨若離並稱動亂。今照而常寂故，離斯分別而不壞相，故名方便。第二總結成益者，由隨離不二，故成無礙離過之益。及第三結名，文並可知。 > In the second major section, from 'I should, like the sun, illumine all things everywhere' onward, is the dedication of merit free from characteristics (lakṣaṇa). Within this there are two parts: first, using the wisdom that forgets contrivance to guide the prior great compassion so that it becomes objectless; second, from 'establishing' onward, directly explaining that great wisdom is free from the mark of sentient beings. As for the first: one's merit surpasses heaven and earth yet one is not \[sentimentally\] benevolent; one's brightness exceeds the sun and moon yet one becomes ever more dim. Therefore, within this, it first directly clarifies impartiality. Because one does not seek gratitude, one can tolerate evil. Because one illumines everywhere, one does not abandon the many because of a single wrongdoing. Even if all turned their backs on one's kindness, one would still bear no resentment, how much less for a single \[wrong\]? Next, from 'though the roots of goodness are few' onward, it reveals their expansion into vastness. Because great wisdom guides compassion so that it can universally condition \[all\], it is like a sound entering a horn: though small, it is heard far away. Second, directly clarifying the dedication free from characteristics means directing toward the limit of reality (bhūtakoṭi). However, each and every following of characteristics fully possesses the following phrases of being free from characteristics; they are explained in sequence, but practiced in a single mind. The text is divided into two parts: first, directly clarifying freedom from characteristics; second, from 'The bodhisattva thus' onward, generally concluding the accomplishment of benefit. In the first part, although the meaning applies throughout, for textual convenience it is briefly divided into two: first, integrating the prior dedication to sentient beings to explain entering the limit of reality; second, from 'with such' onward, integrating the prior dedication to bodhi to explain entering the limit of reality. Yet, entering the limit of reality is precisely the non-obstruction between noumenon and phenomena; hence the preceding passage also explains not departing from the aggregates and so forth, and the subsequent passage also explains freedom from self and what belongs to self. In the first of these, there are two: first, extensively explaining the characteristics of dedicating roots of goodness with freedom \[from marks\]; second, from 'understanding all' onward, jointly concluding the two characteristics. In the first, there are twenty-one dedications, divided into four: first, fourteen phrases free from the marks of what is grasped (grāhya); next, two phrases free from the conceptions of the grasper (grāhaka); third, one phrase free from the nominal expressions that express \[them\]; fourth, four phrases revealing the principle of thusness (tathatā). Because freedom from false conceptualization accomplishes correct wisdom, it causes the prior names and marks to all be identical to thusness. As for the first, the first is general and the rest are specific. The general means causing the sentient beings toward whom one directs \[merit\] to accord with and equal the limit of reality toward which one directs \[merit\]; hence it is called 'establishing in the limit of reality,' which is the nature of dharmatā itself being free from attachment. In the specific, there are two: first, ten \[phrases\] on entering the principle; next, three \[phrases\] on being free from faults. As for the first: the first phrase dispels the sentient beings toward whom one directs \[merit\], because by understanding their own-nature one does not attach \[to them\], remaining still and unmoving, according with conditions yet unchanging. The second dispels the compassionate vows that are capable of dedicating: one does not rely on compassion, nor does one grasp the mark of vows. The third dispels the roots of goodness that are dedicated. The fourth dispels the karmic retribution that is obtained. The fifth and sixth phrases jointly explain the body that initiates practice and the marks of the sentient beings toward whom one directs \[merit\]: being identical to the ultimate, one does not attach \[to them\]; being identical to the conventional, they are not destroyed. The seventh dispels the karmic actions that are accomplished. The eighth dispels the marks of retribution obtained. The above four dispel the essence. The ninth generally reveals the causes and conditions through which all phenomena are accomplished. The tenth generally clarifies that the preceding phenomena arise from conditions; it clarifies that the dedications above do not go beyond the preceding ten, and because of the latter two phrases they are without own-nature; being without own-nature, they are identical to dharmatā, and thus there is no attachment. Next, the three on being free from faults: first, not attaching to empty names; second, not attaching to the place of retribution; third, that honor, support, and so forth are called false and deceptive phenomena. In the second, on being free from the conceptions of the grasper: the first phrase contrasts the capable with what is grasped; the second phrase specifically lacks the three inversions (viparyāsa). That is to say, toward the preceding phenomena, giving rise to mental discrimination of permanence, impermanence, and so forth is called the mental inversion (citta-viparyāsa). Grasping demarcated marks toward objects such as permanence is called the conception inversion (saṃjñā-viparyāsa). Clinging to reality regarding marks is called the view inversion (dṛṣṭi-viparyāsa). Turning one's back on correct faith, they are designated with the name 'inversion.' Turning them around is called not giving rise to the three inversions. Thus, the seventeenth chapter of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā says: 'Maitreya said to Subhūti: "After a newly resolved bodhisattva rejoices in the roots of goodness of the Buddhas and the Buddha's disciples and dedicates them to bodhi, how does he not fall into the inversions of conception, mind, and view?" Subhūti said: "Toward those roots of goodness, the mind gives rise to no conception; using this mind to dedicate to bodhi, toward this mind of dedication he also gives rise to no conception of mind. Such dedication is then not the inversion of conception, inversion of mind, or inversion of view. If one grasps marks in dedicating, that is the inversion of conception, mind, and view."' The 'Chapter on the Light of Awakening' says: 'If toward all-knowledge / one generates a mind of dedication, / and sees that the mind has no arising, / one shall obtain great renown.' This too is being without the three inversions. If based on the intention of the 'Chapter on Rejoicing and Dedication' in the second assembly of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, then all the above phenomena are completely extinguished, separated from, and altered; in this, which ones are the phenomena? If a bodhisattva knows that all these, up to bodhi, are non-existent, and yet is still able to practice rejoicing and dedication, then it is not the inversions of conception, mind, and view, because non-attainment is taken as the expedient means. However, the Hīnayāna sometimes explains that the three—conception, mind, and view—arise successively, or explains that they are simultaneous but distinguished in sense as prior and posterior: mind and conception are not inversions, but are designated with the name 'inversion' because of the confusion of view. Although these various explanations differ, they are all established on the basis of the six consciousnesses. In the Mahāyāna, there are also many explanations. One says: differentiated in sense on the basis of the mind of the seven consciousnesses, the three inversions mean that the deluded mind of the seven consciousnesses, whose nature is a phenomenon contrary to principle and inverted, is called the mental inversion. Relying on this mind, all deluded objects are generated, just as dream objects arise relying on the dreaming mind; then, toward those objects, falsely grasping their marks is called the conception inversion. Clinging to the grasped dharmas as distinctly real is called the view inversion. Relying on these three inversions, toward conditioned and unconditioned objects one generates eight kinds of inversion, such as permanence and impermanence. The different explanations of the various traditions are omitted lest the text become too burdensome. Third is freedom from the names that express. Fourth, the four phrases revealing thusness: the former explained that delusion is empty and all is empty; this shows that the real exists and all is wondrous existence. Furthermore, the emptiness of the former is precisely the reality of this; the non-duality of the two meanings is the true seal of the Dharma. That is, the bodhisattva who falsely grasps in dedication does not exist, while the bodhisattva of true dedication is not non-existent. The text has four phrases: first, generally revealing the real nature; next, specifically with reference to sentient beings; third, sealing all phenomenal goods; fourth, the mind terminating greed and seeking. Second, as for the joint conclusion: one phrase concludes the roots of goodness that are dedicated. Roots of goodness can be cultivated alone, so it merely says 'cultivating.' One phrase concludes the practice of dedication. Dedication necessarily has a subject and object, so one contemplates non-duality. In this way, the roots of virtue are originally unarisen, and defilements are originally unextinguished. Furthermore, defilements and encumbrances are quiescent and unarisen, while true virtues are serenely unextinguished. Second, as for integrating the prior dedication to bodhi to enter the limit of reality: furthermore, the former explained following characteristics, and the next distinguished freedom from characteristics; wishing to reveal that these two are simultaneous, it doubly negates identity and separation. In the text there are three: first, concluding the preceding to introduce the following; second, from 'not identical' onward, explaining and establishing through Dharma and analogies; third, from 'free from self' onward, concluding the dedication. As for the first: because of the prior freedom from characteristics, what is practiced is pure; hence it accords with supramundane, unexcelled bodhi. As for saying 'two': roots of goodness and dedication, worldly and supramundane, existing or non-existing, identical or separated—all are called 'two'; now, both are absent. Second, in explaining and establishing, first is the Dharma, then the analogies. In the Dharma, there are two pairs: first, contrasting the roots of goodness dedicated with the vows and practices capable of dedicating, distinguishing non-identity and non-separation, clarifying that there is no duality in the cause. The first phrase is that karma is not the dedication, because subject and object are distinct. The next phrase is that it is not separate, because apart from karma there is nothing to dedicate. This is also like the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: 'Giving and the dedication to all-knowledge are two; the nature of giving is precisely the nature of dedicating to all-knowledge. Therefore, not being separate from this is non-duality; being non-identical, there is no non-duality.' Next, looking across cause and effect: the first phrase is that effect is not identical to cause; the next phrase is that apart from cause there is no effect. The text is merely elliptical; in principle, both cause and effect should each have the sense of non-identity and non-separation. In the subsequent analogies: casting a shadow by relying on light and the shadow of the moon in water are both produced from conditions and lack own-nature, being neither identical nor separate, hence called 'pure.' The first two phrases contrast cause with retribution, because retribution extends through the ten stages; the latter two phrases contrast retribution with effect. Third, as for concluding the dedication: the 'I' that is capable of dedicating and the 'mine' that is dedicated—whether followed or separated from—are both called turmoil. Now, because contemplation is ever quiescent, one is free from these discriminations without destroying characteristics; hence it is called 'expedient means.' Second, generally concluding the accomplishment of benefit: because following and separation are non-dual, the benefit of non-obstruction and freedom from faults is accomplished. As for the third, concluding with the name, the text is understandable in both cases. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 26.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.26.24) - [Next: 26.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.26.26) - [Up: 26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.26) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.26.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.26.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.26.25) · Pramāṇa