大方廣佛華嚴經疏 32.7

32.7

第三一偈喻難說聞中，上半喻、下半法合。此中喻意不單取虛空，以無畫處空不為喻故。亦不單取畫，以壁上畫不將喻故。正取空中之畫。風喻亦然。於中能依風畫以喻阿含，所依之空以喻證智。然空中風畫不可言無，謂若依樹壁則可見故。亦不可言有，依空不住故。非有非無故不可說，文意正爾。論有三段，初釋喻相、次釋合相、後揀喻不同。初中有三：初離釋二喻以明非有、次合釋二喻以明非無、三雙結二喻成不可說。前中畫喻有二：一正顯喻相，云此偈示現如空中畫色如壁者，謂此空中畫色不異壁上畫色，故云如壁。若爾，何以不見？二顯其非有，論云「是中不住故不可見。」謂壁上之畫有壁可住，故可得見。空中之畫無可依住，故不可見。下風喻亦有二段：一云如空中風如樹葉，此正顯喻相。二云是中不住故不可得見，此顯非有，謂樹葉上風有葉可依故可得見，空中之風無可依住故不可見。二合釋二喻以辯非無。云此動作者，非不空中有是二事，此論意明但無可依故不得見，非風動畫作其體全無。三結成不可說義，云是虛空處事不可得說。處者，虛空處，是風畫所依之空。虛空事，是空中風畫之相。由前義故不可說有，由後義故不可說無，故此空處及畫事風事皆不可說其處所。

Third, in the one verse using an analogy for the difficulty of preaching and hearing, the first half is the analogy, and the second half is the application to the Dharma. The intent of the analogy here does not take space alone, because space without a painted place does not serve as an analogy. Nor does it take the painting alone, because a painting on a wall is not brought as an analogy. It specifically takes a painting in space. The analogy of the wind is likewise. Therein, the dependent wind and painting serve as analogies for the scripture (āgama), and the relied-upon space serves as an analogy for the wisdom of realization. However, the wind and painting in space cannot be said to be non-existent, because if they depend on a tree or a wall, they can be seen. Nor can they be said to be existent, because relying on space, they do not abide. Being neither existent nor non-existent, they are inexpressible; this is precisely the meaning of the text.

The Treatise has three sections: first, explaining the characteristics of the analogy; next, explaining the characteristics of the application; and finally, distinguishing the differences in the analogy.
Within the first, there are three [parts]: first, separately explaining the two analogies to clarify non-existence; next, jointly explaining the two analogies to clarify non-non-existence; third, jointly concluding both analogies to establish the meaning of being inexpressible.

In the former, the analogy of the painting has two [points]:
1. Directly revealing the characteristic of the analogy, saying: "This verse indicates that just as a painted color in space is like [that on] a wall"—meaning that the color painted in this space is no different from the color painted on a wall, hence it says "like a wall". If so, why is it not seen?
2. Revealing its non-existence: the Treatise states, "Because it does not abide therein, it cannot be seen." That is to say, a painting on a wall has a wall upon which it can abide, and therefore it can be seen; a painting in space has nothing to rely on and abide upon, and therefore it cannot be seen.
Below, the analogy of the wind also has two sections: first, saying "like wind in space, like tree leaves"—this directly reveals the characteristic of the analogy; second, saying "because it does not abide therein, it cannot be seen"—this reveals its non-existence. That is to say, wind on tree leaves has leaves to rely on, and therefore it can be seen; wind in space has nothing to rely on and abide upon, and therefore cannot be seen.

Second, jointly explaining the two analogies to differentiate non-non-existence: saying "these active agents are not such that these two things do not exist in space"—the intent of this treatise is to clarify that it is merely because there is nothing to rely upon that they cannot be seen, not that the essence of the wind blowing and the painting being made is entirely non-existent.

Third, concluding the meaning of inexpressibility, saying: "The matter of this place of space cannot be expressed." "Place" refers to the place of empty space, which is the space upon which the wind and painting rely. "The matter of empty space" refers to the marks of the wind and painting in space. Due to the former meaning, it cannot be said to exist; due to the latter meaning, it cannot be said to be non-existent. Therefore, with respect to this empty space and the matter of painting and matter of wind, their locations cannot be expressed.