大方廣佛華嚴經疏 32.9

32.9

第三揀喻不同者，舉二喻者，喻旨別故。論云畫者喻名字句依相說故，謂畫有相狀，如名句之屈曲，能顯地相。風者以喻音聲，聲無屈曲如風之相。假實既殊，故雙舉之。又假實相依，闕一不可，故云又說者以此二事說，聽者以此二事聞，故舉二喻雙喻說聞。若將二喻喻所詮者，仍有兩重：一風畫喻地相所以不可見者，以同地智故，如風畫合空；二將風畫復喻地智。地智所以不可說者，以即同果分，離言說相故，如風畫合空。若以果從因則亦可說，以智從相地有差殊，以旨從詮可聞可說，是則無聞說之聞說也。

Third, regarding distinguishing the differences in the analogy: two analogies are adduced because the purports of the analogies are distinct. The Treatise states: "The painting is an analogy for names, words, and phrases being preached in reliance on marks." That is, a painting has shapes and marks, like the twists and turns of names and phrases, which can reveal the marks of the stages. "The wind is an analogy for sounds; sounds lack twists and turns, like the mark of the wind." Since the nominal and the real differ, both are adduced. Furthermore, the nominal and the real rely upon each other, and neither can be lacking; hence it states: "Moreover, the speaker speaks by means of these two matters, and the listener hears by means of these two matters." Therefore, two analogies are adduced to jointly illustrate speaking and hearing.

If one takes the two analogies to illustrate what is expressed, there are still two tiers:
1. The reason why the wind and painting illustrate that the marks of the stages are invisible is that they are identical to the wisdom of the stages, just as the wind and painting merge with space.
2. Taking the wind and painting to further illustrate the wisdom of the stages: the reason why the wisdom of the stages is inexpressible is that it is identical to the portion of the fruit, transcending the marks of verbal expression, just as the wind and painting merge with space.
If one subordinates the fruit to the cause, then it can also be preached; if one subordinates wisdom to marks, the stages have distinctions; if one subordinates the intended meaning to the expression, it can be heard and preached. This is hearing and preaching without hearing and preaching.