大方廣佛華嚴經疏 3.3

3.3

第五教體淺深者，無盡教海體性難思，從淺至深略明十體：一音聲言語體、二名句文身體、三通取四法體，上三皆能詮體；四通攝所詮體、五諸法顯義體、六攝境唯心體、七會緣入實體、八理事無礙體、九事事無礙體、十海印炳現體。十中，前五唯體、後五亦體亦性。又前四通小、後六唯大。前七通三乘、後三唯一乘。前八約同教、後二唯別教。就前三中，大小乘中通用四法，一聲、二名、三句、四文。取捨不同，各有三說。小乘三者，《婆沙》一百二十六云「如是佛教以何為體？一云：應作是說，語業為體。謂佛語言，唱辭評論，語音、語路、語業、語表，是謂佛教。其名句文但顯佛教作用，不欲開示佛教自體。」《發智論》中亦同此說。「二云：名等為體，謂名身句身文身，次第行列、次第安布、次第連合故，聲但依於展轉因故。謂語起名，名能顯義。」評家意取語業為體。《雜心論》同《俱舍》。《俱舍論》云「牟尼說法蘊，數有八十千，彼體語或名，此色行蘊攝。」謂若語為教體，即色蘊攝，名為教體，即行蘊攝。此乃雙存前二，情無去取，故致或言。《正理論》中意符名等故。彼第三釋前頌竟，又云「詮義如實，故名佛教。名能詮義，故教是名。由是佛教定名為體，舉名為首以攝句文。」《顯宗》第三亦同此說。三者然《俱舍》意，情無去取，若取其雙存，即合四法以為教體。若經部意，亦唯取聲，故《正理》十四破彼師云「汝不應立名句文身」，即聲為體。大乘有三，大意同前。一云：攝假從實以聲為體，離聲無別名句等故。《深密》第五云「如來言音略有三種：一契經」等。既云言音有三，明以聲為教體。《雜集論》云「成所引聲，謂諸聖所說。」二云：以體從用，名等為體，能詮諸法自性差別二所依故。故無性論破經部云「諸契經句，語為自性，不應理故。」《成唯識》第二亦破彼云「若名句文不異聲者，法、辭無礙境應無別。」《唯識》云「此三離聲雖無別體，而假實異，亦不即聲。」三云：聲名句文合為其體，由前二說皆有理教為定量故。《深密》第四云「不可捨於言說文字而能宣說」故。《淨名》云「有以音聲言語文字而作佛事」故。《十地論》云「說者以二事說，聽者以二事聞，謂善聲、善字故。」以余之意，亦應雙取。若就前二有去取者，寧依名等？良以音聲一種，正就佛說，容為教體；流傳後代書之竹帛，曾何有聲？豈無教體？書雖是色，亦與名等為所依故，亦色蘊攝。前《淨名》、《十地》通取四者，但言所用，非正顯體。《仁王》云「是名句味，諸佛所說」故。然大小諸宗雖通用四法而理不同，謂薩婆多宗四法皆有實體；經部聲有實體，名等是假。若大乘中，或有四皆非實；或有四皆如空，俱不立故。《淨名》云「文字性離，無有文字是則解脫。」《十地論》釋空中風相等云「風喻音聲、畫喻名字，皆不可取。」《佛藏經》云「諸法如毫釐不空者，則諸佛不出世。」又下云「諸法畢竟空，無有毫末相。」有說四皆事理無礙、或說四皆圓融，故宗不同也。第四通攝所詮體者，《瑜伽》八十一云「謂契經體，略有二種：一文、二義。文是所依、義是能依。如是二種，總名一切所知境界。」即依於六文顯於十義，此明教義相成。若不詮義，教文何用？故通取所詮成契經體。又〈十住品〉云「文隨於義、義隨於文，文義相隨，理無舛謬，方為真教。」又《瑜伽》云「佛菩薩等是能說者，語是能說相，名句文身是所說相。」故皆通取，不同前義剋取所說。第五諸法顯義體者，謂但能顯義理，一切諸法皆為教體。《淨名》第三云「有以光明而作佛事；有以諸菩薩而作佛事；有以佛所化人而作佛事；有以佛菩提樹、衣服臥具，乃至八萬四千諸煩惱門，眾生為之疲勞，諸佛即以此法而作佛事。」又十卷《楞伽》第四云「大慧！非一切佛土言語說法故。有佛國土，直視不瞬，口無言說，名為說法。」乃至云「有佛國土，動身名說。」又香積世界餐香飯而三昧顯，極樂佛國聽風柯而正念成，絲竹可以傳心、目擊以之存道，既語默視瞬皆說，則見聞覺知盡聽。苟能得法契神，何必要因言說？況華嚴性海，雲臺寶網同演妙音、毛孔光明皆能說法，華香雲樹即法界之法門、剎土眾生本十身之正體，于何非教耶？下云「剎說眾生說，三世一切說。」又云「一切世間諸境界，皆悉能令轉法輪」等。其文非一。

Fifth, regarding the depths and shallows of the essence of the teaching: The nature of the essence of the boundless ocean of teachings is difficult to fathom. From shallow to deep, ten essences are briefly explained: 1. the essence consisting of vocal sounds and spoken words; 2. the essence consisting of nāma-, pada-, and vyañjanakāyas; 3. the essence that encompasses all four dharmas—the above three are all the essence as that which expresses; 4. the essence that encompasses that which is expressed; 5. the essence wherein all dharmas manifest meaning; 6. the essence wherein objects are subsumed under mind only; 7. the essence wherein conditions are integrated into the real; 8. the essence of the non-obstruction between noumenon and phenomena; 9. the essence of the non-obstruction among phenomena; 10. the essence brilliantly manifested in the ocean-reflection [samādhi]. Among these ten, the first five are exclusively essence, while the latter five are both essence and nature. Furthermore, the first four extend to the Hīnayāna, while the latter six belong exclusively to the Mahāyāna. The first seven extend to the three vehicles, while the latter three belong exclusively to the Ekayāna. The first eight pertain to the common teaching, while the latter two belong exclusively to the distinct teaching. Regarding the first three, both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna commonly utilize four dharmas: first, sounds (śabda); second, names (nāma); third, phrases (pada); and fourth, syllables/letters (vyañjana). Their acceptance or rejection differs, each having three explanations. In the three explanations of the Hīnayāna: The *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 126, states: 'What constitutes the essence of the Buddha's teaching? One says: It should be stated that vocal action constitutes the essence. That is to say, the Buddha's spoken words, utterances, discourses, vocal sounds, speech paths, vocal actions, and vocal intimation are called the Buddha's teaching. The names, phrases, and syllables merely reveal the function of the Buddha's teaching, but are not intended to show the Buddha's teaching's intrinsic essence.' The *Jñānaprasthāna* also shares this view. 'A second says: Names and the like constitute the essence; that is, the nāmakāya, padakāya, and vyañjanakāya, due to their sequential arrangement, sequential disposition, and sequential combination; sound is merely the sequential cause. That is, speech gives rise to names, and names are capable of manifesting meaning.' The commentators' view adopts vocal action as the essence. The *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya* agrees with the *Abhidharmakośa*. The *Abhidharmakośa* states: 'The aggregates of Dharma spoken by the Sage number eighty thousand; their essence is speech or name, subsumed under the aggregate of form or of conditioning factors.' That is, if speech is the essence of the teaching, it is subsumed under the aggregate of form (rūpaskandha); if name is the essence of the teaching, it is subsumed under the aggregate of conditioning factors (saṃskāraskandha). This preserves both of the previous two without any preference for taking or leaving; hence it uses the word 'or'. The *Nyāyānusāra* agrees in intent with names and the like. That text, having finished explaining the previous verse in fascicle three, further states: 'Because it expresses meaning in accordance with reality, it is called the Buddha's teaching. Names can express meaning, so the teaching is names. Therefore, the Buddha's teaching definitely takes names as its essence, mentioning names first to subsume phrases and syllables.' The *Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā*, fascicle three, also shares this view. Third, as for the intent of the *Abhidharmakośa*, there is no preference for taking or leaving; if one takes its preservation of both, then the four dharmas are combined to constitute the essence of the teaching. As for the Sautrāntika view, it takes sound alone; hence the *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 14, refutes that master: 'You should not establish the collections of names, phrases, and syllables'; that is, sound is the essence. In the Mahāyāna there are also three explanations, the general sense being the same as above. The first says: subsuming the nominal under the real, sound constitutes the essence, because apart from sound there are no separate names, phrases, and the like. The *Saṃdhinirmocana*, fascicle five, states: 'The Tathāgata's vocal sounds are briefly of three kinds: first, sūtras…' Since it says that vocal sounds are of three kinds, it clearly takes sound as the essence of the teaching. The *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* states: 'Sound induced by accomplishment refers to that which is spoken by all the āryas.' The second says: subsuming the essence under the function, names and the like constitute the essence, because they are the two bases that express the intrinsic nature and distinctions of all dharmas. Therefore, the *Asaṅgabhāṣya* refutes the Sautrāntika, saying: 'That the phrases of the sūtras have speech as their intrinsic nature is not reasonable.' The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*, fascicle two, also refutes them, saying: 'If names, phrases, and syllables were not different from sound, then the spheres of the unhindered understanding of dharmas and unhindered understanding of expressions would not be distinct.' The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* states: 'Although these three have no separate essence apart from sound, they differ as nominal and real, and are not identical to sound.' The third says: sounds, names, phrases, and syllables combine to constitute its essence, because the previous two explanations both have reason and scripture as authoritative standards. The *Saṃdhinirmocana*, fascicle four, states: 'It is impossible to proclaim while abandoning spoken words and written characters.' The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* states: 'There are those that perform the Buddha's work through vocal sounds, speech, and written characters.' The *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* states: 'The speaker speaks through two things, and the listener hears through two things: namely, fine sounds and fine words.' In my view, one should also accept both. If one were to choose between the first two, why not rely on names and the like? For sound alone is properly considered the essence of the teaching only with respect to the Buddha's speech; when transmitted to later generations written on bamboo and silk, how could there be any sound? Could it be without an essence of the teaching? Although writing is form, it also serves as the basis for names and the like, so it is also subsumed under the aggregate of form. The previous passages from the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* and the *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* that encompass all four merely speak of what is used, not directly revealing the essence. The *Renwang jing* states: 'These names, phrases, and flavors are spoken by all Buddhas.' However, although the various Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna traditions all commonly utilize the four dharmas, their underlying principles differ: according to the Sarvāstivāda, the four dharmas all have real essence; according to the Sautrāntika, sound has a real essence, while names and the like are nominal. In the Mahāyāna, some hold that all four are unreal, or hold that all four are like space, neither being established. The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* states: 'The nature of words is detached; having no words, this is liberation.' The *Daśabhūmikabhāṣya*, explaining the marks of wind and paintings in space, states: 'Wind is an analogy for vocal sounds, and paintings are an analogy for names and syllables; neither can be grasped.' The *Buddhapiṭaka-sūtra* states: 'If dharmas were not empty even to the slightest degree, then the Buddhas would not appear in the world.' It also states below: 'All dharmas are ultimately empty, without the slightest mark.' Some say that all four are the non-obstruction between noumenon and phenomena; others say that all four are perfectly interpenetrated. Thus, the doctrines differ. Fourth, regarding the essence that encompasses that which is expressed: The *Yogācārabhūmi*, fascicle 81, states: 'The essence of a sūtra is briefly of two kinds: first, text; second, meaning. Text is the support; meaning is that which is supported. These two kinds are collectively called all the spheres of the knowable.' That is, relying on the six texts, the ten meanings are manifested; this clarifies that teaching and meaning mutually establish each other. If it does not express meaning, of what use is the text of the teaching? Therefore, comprehensively taking that which is expressed constitutes the essence of a sūtra. Furthermore, the 'Chapter on the Ten Abodes' states: 'Text follows meaning, and meaning follows text; when text and meaning follow each other and the principle is without discrepancy, only then is it the true teaching.' Furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* states: 'The Buddha, bodhisattvas, and others are those who speak; speech is the mark of that which speaks; the nāma-, pada-, and vyañjanakāyas are the marks of that which is spoken.' Therefore, all are comprehensively accepted, unlike the previous explanation which strictly limited itself to that which is spoken. Fifth, regarding the essence wherein all dharmas manifest meaning: Provided they can manifest meaning and principle, all dharmas constitute the essence of the teaching. The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa*, fascicle three, states: 'There are [Buddhalands] that perform the Buddha's work through light; there are those that perform the Buddha's work through bodhisattvas; there are those that perform the Buddha's work through people transformed by the Buddha; there are those that perform the Buddha's work through the Buddha's bodhi tree, clothing, and bedding, even extending to the eighty-four thousand doors of defilement by which sentient beings are wearied—the Buddhas perform the Buddha's work through these very dharmas.' Furthermore, the ten-fascicle *Laṅkāvatāra*, fascicle four, states: 'Mahāmati! It is not the case that all Buddhalands teach the Dharma through words and speech. There are Buddhalands where merely gazing without blinking, with mouths uttering no words, is called teaching the Dharma.' It even says: 'There are Buddhalands where moving the body is called teaching.' Furthermore, in the World of Fragrance Accumulated, eating fragrant rice causes samādhi to appear; in the Buddhaland of Ultimate Bliss, listening to the wind in the branches brings right mindfulness to completion; strings and bamboo flutes can convey the mind, and meeting the eyes can preserve the Way. Since speech and silence, gazing and blinking are all teaching, then seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing are all listening. If one can obtain the Dharma and harmonize the spirit, why must it depend on words? How much more so in the ocean-nature of the Avataṃsaka, where cloud pavilions and jeweled nets together expound wondrous sounds, and pore lights can all teach the Dharma; cloud trees of fragrant blossoms are the Dharma-gates of the dharmadhātu, and lands and sentient beings are fundamentally the authentic essence of the ten bodies—in what is it not teaching? It states below: 'Lands speak, sentient beings speak, all across the three times speak.' It also states: 'All objects in all worlds can cause the wheel of the Dharma to turn,' and so forth. Such passages are numerous.