[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) › 30.14 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 30.14 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 30.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [30.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.30.14) 五釋文者。然此百門，古釋非一。一英法師十十分之，如次配於十位中如，一賢首位、二十住、三十行、四十向、五淨心地、六行迹地、七決定地、八究竟地、九等覺地、十佛地。更有諸德各分十門，賢首並皆不許。遠公分三：初十配地前、次八十八句配地上、後二句佛地中如。理皆難通。佛地何以無前如德？如第二門真實為性，何以不得通於諸位？若取隨位之德以立如名，如十地十如，理則可通，然又不出其相。實則百門之德必貫之一如，能如之德豈無異相？異相難見，且從不分分亦無過，故末句云「究竟清淨，義同於果。」今且十十科之，以配十地十如。初遍一切及無相為相等，即遍滿真如之義。二中無能測量、無有比對，即最勝義。三中於法無礙，為眾法眼，即勝流義。四中無著無住等，即無攝受義。五中畢竟無盡，無有變易，即類無別義。六中無有分別，體性無生，即無染淨義。七中無所不在、住有無法，即法無別義。八中體性清淨，體性平等，即不增減義。九中遍一切法是佛境界，即智自在義。十中住一切地，成就一切諸佛菩薩等，即業自在義。其中餘義可以類取。隨地別顯，唯說十如一具一切，十十成百，欲顯如德無量無邊，地前通修、等覺遍等、如來窮證。然異從義別，體本常融，但契一如自含眾德，非由作意。順差別如，能同迴向，亦融攝無礙稱如起行，體即是如。但人信如德，尚迷迴向，故以如德喻迴向德。若取文義便者，應云真如體相遍一切處善根迴向，以同如故。亦遍一切無邊際等，又遍一切方得同如。百門之內各有二句，上即所同之如德、下「善根」下能同迴向之德。最初十中，初門顯在緣中，故無不遍；二明不變，故云真實；三明隨緣即不變，云恒守本性；四示其性；五示其相。此五一向就如以辨。次二對智以說，故為智境。八顯真如非境為境，謂要忘境方契如境故、如之本性非安立故；九即安立如；十即如常之義。餘可思準，逐難當解。十二云充滿一切者，謂若色若心、若大若小等，極微剎那亦皆圓滿，非分滿故。如不可分，分則多過，即由此義及下四十不離諸法故、諸法隨如遍一塵中故、下果中得此門故、一毛容納一切剎等。十四無比對者，法性不並真故。十五六俱是不壞人惑不同。十七寂而常照，智即如用故。二十二既以照明為體，何無照矚之眼。又由見如成法眼故。《大般若》云「三世諸佛皆以性空而為佛眼。」三十云無根本者，前無所依故，即無住本故。三十七云安住者，由無所住，安住真實故。四十一畢竟無盡者，雖在諸法，諸法盡而體常。又正在法中，取不可盡，如芥子之空故。五十一性常覺悟者，能內熏發起厭求故。五十二不可失壞者，在於生死，染而不染故。五十三即大智光明遍照法界義故。五十四離言真如。六十一無所不在者，上遍一切即無邊際，今隨一一法皆全在中。六十二在晝夜乃至盡未來者，一念長劫各各收如、各各依如，故得念劫互收互入。七十住有無者，理無惑計，有無常實故。七十二性覺為明，離念為潔。八十九非可修者，無所得故；非不可修者，為聖境故。九十五捨離諸漏者，準梵本云阿那薩攞嚩，此云無漏。今言捨者，性本捨故，猶心體離念。九十六云無有少法而能壞亂令其少分非覺悟者，如遍非情則有少分非是覺悟，況經云「佛性除於瓦石」，論云「在非情數中名為法性，在有情數中名為佛性」，明知非情非有覺性，故應釋言：以性從緣，則情非情異，為性亦殊，如涅槃等。泯緣從性，則非覺不覺本絕百非、言亡四句。若二性互融，則無非覺悟。《起信》云「以色性即智性故說名智身，以智性即色性故說名法身遍一切處。」論云「菩提菩提斷，俱名為菩提。說智及智處，俱名為般若。」亦可證此。既二性相即，緣復即性，故無少分非覺悟者，況心為總相，又融攝重重哉。九十七云過去非始等者，過去初際，所以名始；未來為終，故稱為未；現在似有，已未分之無暫住時，故名為異。今明真如雖遍三世之中，體絕三世初中後相，故並言非。迴向亦爾，雖為眾生新新起願，同彼真如遍三世中，而令永離三世生死之相，方名清淨。而晉本云過去非同、未來非故、現在非異。若以今文會取，非同過去之始，雖在未來非是性本故有。又晉經誤將後門三世無分別同入此門，致令百數缺一，紛然異解，繁不敘之。言三世無分別者，前約遮詮不同三世，今約顯詮常無分別，意旨相似，故晉本合之耳。又上不同三世，總顯非故。今無分別，亦明非故。而性相互融能新能故，新故雙絕矣。 > Fifth, explaining the text. As for these one hundred approaches, the ancient explanations were not uniform. Dharma Master Yiying divided them into ten groups of ten, sequentially matching them to the tathatā of the ten stations: 1. the station of Bhadramukha, 2. the ten abodes, 3. the ten practices, 4. the ten pariṇāmanās, 5. the pure-mind stage, 6. the footstep-practice stage, 7. the definitive stage, 8. the ultimate stage, 9. the equal enlightenment stage, and 10. the Buddha stage. Furthermore, various masters each divided them into ten approaches, which Xianshou disallowed in all cases. Master Huiyuan divided them into three: the first ten match the stages prior to the bhūmis, the next eighty-eight phrases match those on the bhūmis, and the final two phrases are tathatā within the Buddha stage. The reasoning in all these cases is difficult to accept. Why would the Buddha stage lack the virtues of tathatā found earlier? As for the second approach taking true reality as its nature, why could it not be applicable to all stations? If one takes the virtue corresponding to a station to establish the name of tathatā—as with the ten tathatās of the ten stages—the reasoning might be admissible, yet this still does not bring out its specific marks. In truth, the virtues of the one hundred approaches necessarily pervade the one tathatā; how could the virtues capable of conforming to tathatā lack distinct marks? Because distinct marks are hard to discern, following non-differentiation entails no fault either; thus the final line says: 'Ultimately pure, its meaning is identical with the fruit.' Now we tentatively categorize them into ten groups of ten to match the ten tathatās of the ten stages. In the first \[group\], 'pervading all' and 'having marklessness as its mark', etc., constitute the meaning of the all-pervading tathatā. In the second, 'incommensurable' and 'without peer' constitute the meaning of the supreme tathatā. In the third, 'unobstructed in phenomena' and 'acting as the eye of all phenomena' constitute the meaning of the supreme stream. In the fourth, 'non-attachment and non-abiding', etc., constitute the meaning of non-appropriation. In the fifth, 'ultimately inexhaustible' and 'free from mutation' constitute the meaning of lack of distinction in kind. In the sixth, 'free from conceptual differentiation' and 'the essential nature is unarisen' constitute the meaning of being neither defiled nor pure. In the seventh, 'omnipresent' and 'abiding in existent and non-existent phenomena' constitute the meaning of the non-differentiation of phenomena. In the eighth, 'the essential nature is pure' and 'the essential nature is equal' constitute the meaning of neither increasing nor decreasing. In the ninth, 'pervading all phenomena is the realm of the Buddha' constitutes the meaning of the mastery of wisdom. In the tenth, 'abiding in all stages' and 'accomplishing all Buddhas and bodhisattvas', etc., constitute the meaning of the mastery of action. The remaining meanings therein may be inferred accordingly. They are distinguished and revealed according to the stages, only explaining that the ten tathatās each completely possess all; ten tens make one hundred, wishing to reveal that the virtues of tathatā are limitless and boundless: practiced universally before the bhūmis, pervasive and equal at equal enlightenment, and exhaustively realized by the Tathāgata. However, differences follow distinct meanings, whereas their essence is intrinsically ever interpenetrating; merely tallying with the one tathatā naturally contains all virtues, not through deliberate effort. Conforming to the differentiated tathatā, the pariṇāmanā that can conform is likewise unhindered in interpenetrating and embracing; giving rise to practice in accord with tathatā, its essence is itself tathatā. Yet people believe in the virtues of tathatā but are still confused about pariṇāmanā; therefore, the virtues of tathatā are used to illustrate the virtues of pariṇāmanā. If one takes what is convenient in the text and meaning, one should say: 'Pariṇāmanā of kuśala-mūla whose essence and marks of tathatā pervade all places,' because it is identical with tathatā. It also pervades all without boundaries, etc., and only by pervading all can it be identical with tathatā. Within each of the one hundred approaches there are two phrases: the upper phrase is the virtue of tathatā that is conformed to, and the lower phrase, following 'kuśala-mūla', is the virtue of pariṇāmanā that conforms. Among the initial ten, the first approach reveals that it is present within conditions, and thus is omnipresent. The second clarifies that it is unchanging, and thus says 'true reality'. The third clarifies that following conditions it is unchanging, saying 'constantly preserving its original nature'. The fourth reveals its nature. The fifth reveals its mark. These five are explained solely with respect to tathatā. The next two are explained with respect to wisdom, and thus are the sphere of wisdom. The eighth reveals tathatā as an objective sphere that is not an objective sphere; that is, one must forget the objective sphere to tally with the sphere of tathatā, because the original nature of tathatā is not conventionally established. The ninth is conventionally established tathatā. The tenth is the meaning of the constancy of tathatā. The rest may be inferred; difficult points will be resolved in due course. The twelfth says 'pervading all,' meaning that whether form or mind, great or small, etc., even an infinitesimal particle (paramāṇu) or a single instant (kṣaṇa) are all fully complete, not partially filled. Since tathatā cannot be divided, dividing it would incur many faults; it is precisely through this meaning and the below fortieth \[approach\] that it is not separate from all phenomena; that all phenomena follow tathatā in pervading a single dust speck; that in the subsequent fruit one attains this approach; and that a single hair accommodates all lands, etc. The fourteenth, 'without peer,' is because the dharmatā does not stand alongside truth. The fifteenth and sixteenth are both indestructible, differing in person and delusion. The seventeenth is quiescent yet constantly illuminating, because wisdom is precisely the function of tathatā. Since the twenty-second takes illumination as its essence, how could it lack an eye of illumination? Furthermore, it is through seeing tathatā that the Dharma eye is formed; the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: 'All Buddhas of the three times take the emptiness of nature as the Buddha eye.' The thirtieth says 'having no root' because it has nothing prior to depend upon, which is precisely the root of non-abiding. The thirty-seventh says 'firmly abiding' because, by having nowhere to abide, it firmly abides in true reality. The forty-first, 'ultimately inexhaustible': although it resides in all phenomena, when phenomena are exhausted its essence remains constant. Furthermore, being right within phenomena, taking it cannot exhaust it, like the space within a mustard seed. The fifty-first, 'nature is constantly awakened,' can internally perfuse and give rise to revulsion and seeking. The fifty-second, 'imperishable,' resides in saṃsāra, defiled yet undefiled. The fifty-third constitutes the meaning of the radiant light of great wisdom shining everywhere throughout the dharmadhātu. The fifty-fourth is the tathatā beyond words. The sixty-first, 'omnipresent': above, 'pervading all' meant boundless; here, in accordance with each and every phenomenon, it is completely within it. The sixty-second, 'in day and night up to the end of the future': a single thought-moment and an eon each contain tathatā, and each depend on tathatā; therefore, thought-moments and eons mutually embrace and mutually enter one another. The seventieth, 'abiding in the existent and the non-existent': in noumenon there is no calculation born of delusion; existence and non-existence are constantly real. The seventy-second: nature-awakening is clarity; freedom from thought is purity. The eighty-ninth, 'not cultivable,' is because there is nothing to be attained; 'not uncultivable' is because it is the realm of the noble ones. The ninety-fifth, 'abandoning all outflows': according to the Sanskrit text, it says anāsrava, translated here as 'without outflows'. Saying 'abandoning' now is because its nature is fundamentally abandoned, just as the essence of mind is free from thought. The ninety-sixth says, 'there is not the slightest phenomenon that can disturb or disrupt it so as to cause any minute part of it to not be awakened': if tathatā pervades insentient things, then there would be a minute part that is not awakened. Moreover, the sūtra says: 'The Buddha-nature excludes tiles and stones,' and the treatise says: 'In the category of the insentient it is called dharmatā; in the category of the sentient it is called Buddha-nature.' Thus we know clearly that the insentient does not have an awakened nature. Therefore, one should explain: if we follow conditions from the perspective of nature, sentient and insentient differ, and their natures are also distinct, as in the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\], etc. If we extinguish conditions to follow nature, then awakening and non-awakening fundamentally transcend the one hundred negations, and speech exhausts the four propositions. If the two natures mutually interpenetrate, then there is nothing that is not awakened. The Awakening of Faith says: 'Because the nature of form is the nature of wisdom, it is called the wisdom body; because the nature of wisdom is the nature of form, it is called the dharmakāya pervading all places.' The treatise says: 'Bodhi and the abandonment of bodhi are both called bodhi. Explaining wisdom and the place of wisdom, both are called prajñā.' This can also corroborate it. Since the two natures are mutually identical, and conditions are further identical with nature, there is no minute part that is not awakened—how much more so since the mind is the universal mark, further interpenetrating and embracing layer upon layer! The ninety-seventh says, 'the past is not the beginning', etc.: the first limit of the past is why it is called 'beginning'; the future is the end, hence called 'yet to come'; the present seems to exist, yet divided between already and not yet, it lacks even a momentary abiding, hence called 'different'. Now it clarifies that although tathatā pervades the three times, its essence transcends the marks of beginning, middle, and end of the three times; hence all are stated as 'not'. Pariṇāmanā is also like this: although newly giving rise to vows for the sake of sentient beings, conforming to that tathatā pervading the three times, it causes them to forever leave behind the marks of saṃsāra of the three times, and only then is it called pure. Yet the Jin translation says: 'the past is not the same, the future is not old, the present is not different.' If we reconcile it with the present text, it is not the same as the beginning of the past; although in the future, it is not fundamentally existent as an old nature. Furthermore, the Jin sūtra mistakenly merged the subsequent approach, 'the three times are free from conceptual differentiation,' into this approach, causing the count of one hundred to lack one, leading to diverse conflicting interpretations, which are too tedious to narrate. As for 'the three times are free from conceptual differentiation': previously, in terms of negative exposition, it is not identical with the three times; here, in terms of positive exposition, it is constantly free from conceptual differentiation. The intended meaning is similar, so the Jin translation simply combined them. Moreover, not being identical with the three times above generally reveals 'not old'; now, being free from conceptual differentiation also clarifies 'not old'. Yet nature and marks mutually interpenetrate, capable of being new and capable of being old; new and old are both transcended. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 30.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.30.13) - [Next: 30.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.30.15) - [Up: 30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.30) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.30.14) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.30.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.30.14) · Pramāṇa