大方廣佛華嚴經疏 27.25

27.25

第二「佛子至以如是等」下離相迴向，即向實際。文中二：先明見實智冥實際、後彰離妄德合實際，此之二段反覆相成。今初。初句牒前迴向菩提。「其心」已下正顯離相。寂然無涯，為入不思議。即事契真，故常平等。由此故能遍入。若事若理無礙法界，名為一切。二「佛子」下彰其離妄。文有十對：初六遮妄執有，以緣成無性故，皆前迴向之法。思所起者，謂身語業。餘文可知。次一對遮妄執空，以即空故。不礙存故，不壞假名。說實相故，不壞因果。後三對雙遮空有。初遮事理。法即理法，互相即故不可定取。次遮生死涅槃，離向背相。通有二義：一約離相，為生死涅槃相待而有、俱空叵得。二約體融，以緣就實，生死即涅槃，故無妄分別；以實從緣，涅槃即生死，故非真寂靜。故《中論》云「涅槃之實際，及與世間際，如是二際者，無毫釐差別。」而晉經云生死非雜亂、涅槃非寂靜，言異義同。後對即遮能所證。既二際無差，唯佛能證，故復拂之。上句標、下句釋。亦通二意：一約離相。能證相離，不能證於佛境，所證體空故。無少法與能證智同止相契。故《楞伽》云「遠離覺所覺」。二約體融。佛即法界，不應以法界更證法界，故《文殊問經》云「若以法界證法界，則是諍競。」如智一體，如外無少智為能證，智外無少如為所證，故無可同止。次下文云「無有少法為智所入，亦無少智而入於法。」影公云：「法性不並真，聖賢無異道。」即斯意也。上來三節皆約遮邊，前來契實已辨雙照，則四門備矣。

Second, from "Disciple of the Buddha! [...] With such as these..." below, [treats] the pariṇāmanā free from marks, which is dedication toward the limit of reality (bhūta-koṭi). In the text there are two: first, illuminates the wisdom seeing the real merging with the limit of reality; later, reveals the virtue free from delusion conforming to the limit of reality. These two passages complement each other repeatedly. Now, the first. The first phrase reprises the preceding pariṇāmanā toward bodhi. From "their mind" below, it directly reveals detachment from marks. Serene and boundless, this is entering the inconceivable. Aligning phenomena directly with truth, it is therefore constantly impartial. Because of this, it is able to enter everywhere. Whether noumenon or phenomena, the unobstructed dharmadhātu is called "all." Second, from "Disciple of the Buddha" below, reveals their detachment from delusion. The text has ten pairs: the first six refute the deluded clinging to existence, because arising from conditions has no own-nature; these are all the dharmas of the preceding pariṇāmanā. That which arises from thought refers to actions of body and speech. The rest of the text can be understood. The next pair refutes the deluded clinging to emptiness, because it is identical to emptiness. Because it does not obstruct existence, it does not destroy provisional designations. Because it expounds the true mark, it does not destroy cause and effect. The last three pairs double-refute emptiness and existence. First, it refutes phenomena and noumenon. Phenomena are noumenal phenomena; because they are mutually identical, one cannot grasp them determinately. Next, it refutes saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, free from marks of turning toward or away. There are two general meanings: first, in terms of detachment from marks, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa exist relative to each other, both are empty and unobtainable. Second, in terms of the fusion of essence: taking conditions to approach reality, saṃsāra is nirvāṇa, hence there is no deluded discrimination; taking reality to follow conditions, nirvāṇa is saṃsāra, hence it is not truly quiescent. Therefore the *Madhyamaka-śāstra* says: "The limit of reality of nirvāṇa and the limit of the world—between these two limits, there is not the slightest difference." And the Jin translation of the sūtra states that saṃsāra is not mixed or chaotic and nirvāṇa is not quiescent; the words differ but the meaning is the same. The last pair refutes that which realizes and that which is realized. Since the two limits are without distinction, only the Buddha can realize this, hence it sweeps this away as well. The upper phrase states it, and the lower phrase explains it. There are also two general meanings: first, in terms of detachment from marks. The marks of that which realizes are detached; they cannot realize the Buddha's realm because the essence of that which is realized is empty. There is not the slightest dharma that abides together or accords with the wisdom that realizes. Therefore the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* says: "Far removed from that which is cognized and that which cognizes." Second, in terms of the fusion of essence. The Buddha is the dharmadhātu; one should not take the dharmadhātu to further realize the dharmadhātu. Therefore the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra* says: "If one takes the dharmadhātu to realize the dharmadhātu, that is contention." Suchness and wisdom are one essence; outside of suchness there is not the slightest wisdom that realizes, and outside of wisdom there is not the slightest suchness that is realized, hence there is nothing with which to abide together. Next, the text below states: "There is not the slightest dharma that is entered by wisdom, nor is there the slightest wisdom that enters into dharma." Master Ying said: "Dharmatā does not run parallel with truth; sages and worthies have no divergent paths." This is precisely the meaning. The above three sections are all in terms of the refuting aspect; the preceding conformity with reality already expounded illuminating both, so the four approaches are fully provided.