大方廣佛華嚴經疏 33.5

33.5

第四一偈喻顯地微，上半喻、下半合。此中喻者，不唯取空，餘處虛空不為喻故；不唯取迹，砂土上迹不為喻故，正取空中鳥迹。論云「鳥行空中迹處不可說相，亦不可見」者，總顯喻相也。處即迹處之空，相即空處之迹。不可示其長短大小令見，不可說為有無等。此中迹處之空，以喻證智。空處之迹，以喻阿含。故論合云「如是鳥迹住處名句字身住處也。」何以不可說？論云「虛空處鳥迹相不可分別故。」意云：鳥足履沙則有迹及處，由履空故處迹難分。名句字身亦爾，菩薩證智所攝故，不可說聞。若說若聽，心意不能了也。故以證攝教，如空攝迹，令名句等非如聲性也，以是證智之名等故。上明麁相非有，順喻不可說聞；後明細相不無，以喻可證。論云「非無虛空行迹故。」謂迹處之空異於餘空，喻非無地智。空處之迹異於無迹，喻非無名句字身，以有鳥行必有迹故故。論云「非無地智名句字身」，即雙合也。謂有諸聖親證如故，證尚不無，況於言教。又以空攝迹，迹不可示；以迹攝空，空亦非無。喻以證攝教，教不可示；以教攝證，證可寄言。喻意正爾。若欲開鳥異迹，則鳥喻言詮、迹喻差別地相，則有三事而迹處中，以迹隨於鳥，迹相非無；以迹隨於空，迹相非有。喻以差別隨於詮，差別非無；地相隨於證，差別非有。若更開迹處之空異太空者，則迹空喻證智，太空喻果海。迹空隨於迹，地智可說；迹空隨太空，則地智離言。雖通此義，在論無文。若以迹喻證智，如前風畫中辨，以斯鳥迹之喻映下十地之文，則寄位淺深之言、施戒禪支之類，一文一句莫不深玄。豈謂地前為深、地上為淺？故論總結云「此中深故，示義大踊悅。」此中鳥迹亦雙喻教證難說難聞，何異請中風畫之喻。故論云「云何復說論？答云：汝等不應如聲取義。」此意云：上喻及法，是顯默不說之意；此中喻及難說，誡眾捨著，許為宣說。意不同也。若以著心隨聲取義，有五過失：一不正信，以隨言解不稱實故；二退勇猛，不能忘相趣實理故；三者誑他，以己謬解為人說故；四者謗佛，指己謬解是佛說故；五者輕法，以淺近解解深旨故、謂法如言不殷重故。意令大眾自知無此五過，所以明難說聞。今人以地上為淺者，並陷斯五失，故歎難說聞。則翻斯五失，以成五德。已說深義令生正信。

Fourth, the one gāthā that uses a simile to reveal the subtlety of the stage: the first half is the simile, and the second half is the application. Here, the simile does not take space alone, for space elsewhere does not serve as a simile; nor does it take tracks alone, for tracks on sand and earth do not serve as a simile. It precisely takes the tracks of a bird in empty space. The treatise says: 'When a bird moves through empty space, the locus of its tracks has marks that cannot be spoken of, nor can they be seen'—this generally reveals the mark of the simile. The 'locus' is the space where the tracks are; the 'marks' are the tracks in the space. They cannot be pointed out as long or short, large or small, to make them visible; nor can they be spoken of as existent or non-existent. Here, the space where the tracks are similes realizing wisdom. The tracks in the space simile the āgamas. Thus the treatise applies it, saying: 'So too are the loci where words, phrases, and syllables dwell.' Why can they not be spoken of? The treatise says: 'Because the marks of the bird's tracks in empty space cannot be distinguished.' The meaning is: when a bird's feet tread on sand, there are tracks and a locus, but because it treads on space, locus and tracks are difficult to distinguish. The bodies of names, phrases, and syllables are also like this: being subsumed by the bodhisattva's realizing wisdom, they can neither be spoken of nor heard. Whether spoken or heard, the mind and intellect cannot comprehend them. Therefore, subsuming the teaching within realization is like space subsuming the tracks, causing names, phrases, and so forth not to be like the nature of sound, because they are the names and so forth of realizing wisdom. Above, it clarified that coarse marks are non-existent, conforming to the simile of inexpressibility and inaudibility; below, it clarifies that subtle marks are not non-existent, similing that which can be realized. The treatise says: 'Because the tracks of motion in empty space are not non-existent.' This means that the space where tracks are differs from other space, similing that the wisdom of the stages is not non-existent. The tracks in the space differ from the absence of tracks, similing that the bodies of names, phrases, and syllables are not non-existent, because where there is the flight of a bird, there must be tracks. Hence the treatise says: 'The wisdom of the stages and the bodies of names, phrases, and syllables are not non-existent'—this is a dual application. It means that there are noble ones who personally realize suchness; if even realization is not non-existent, how much less so the verbal teaching! Moreover, using space to subsume the tracks, the tracks cannot be shown; using the tracks to subsume space, space is also not non-existent. Similing this, using realization to subsume the teaching, the teaching cannot be shown; using the teaching to subsume realization, realization can be entrusted to words. Such is precisely the intention of the simile. If one wishes to separate the bird from the tracks, then the bird similes the verbal explanation, the tracks simile the distinct marks of the stages, and there are three things with the tracks in the middle: since the tracks follow the bird, the marks of the tracks are not non-existent; since the tracks follow space, the marks of the tracks are non-existent. Similing this: since the distinctions follow the explanation, the distinctions are not non-existent; since the marks of the stages follow realization, the distinctions are non-existent. If one further separates the space where the tracks are from vast space, then the track-space similes realizing wisdom, and vast space similes the ocean of fruition. If the track-space follows the tracks, the wisdom of the stages can be spoken of; if the track-space follows vast space, then the wisdom of the stages transcends words. Although this meaning is tenable, it has no text in the treatise. If one uses the tracks to simile realizing wisdom, as analyzed earlier in the drawing in the wind: reflecting this simile of the bird's tracks onto the text of the ten stages below, then words conveying gradations of depth in stages, types of giving, precepts, and factors of dhyāna—not a single sentence or phrase is anything other than profound and subtle. How could one say that prior to the stages is deep and upon the stages is shallow? Therefore, the treatise concludes: 'Because it is profound herein, it shows the greatness of meaning and brings forth exultant joy.' Here the bird's tracks also dual-similes that teaching and realization are difficult to explain and difficult to hear; how does this differ from the simile of drawing in the wind in the request? Thus the treatise says: 'Why is it explained again?' The treatise answers: 'You should not grasp the meaning according to the sound.' This means: the earlier simile and dharma revealed the intention of remaining silent without explaining; here, the simile and difficulty of explaining admonish the assembly to abandon attachment, promising to proclaim it. The intentions are different. If one grasps meaning according to sound with an attached mind, there are five faults: first, incorrect faith, because understanding in accordance with words does not accord with reality; second, retreating from vigor, being unable to forget marks and advance toward the true principle; third, deceiving others, by explaining one's own erroneous understanding to people; fourth, slandering the Buddha, by declaring one's own erroneous understanding to be what the Buddha taught; fifth, disparaging the Dharma, by interpreting profound purports with shallow, crude understanding, deeming the Dharma to be as ordinary as words, without gravity. The intention is to lead the great assembly to realize themselves to be free of these five faults, which is why it clarifies the difficulty of explaining and hearing. Today, those who regard the stages as shallow all fall into these five faults; hence the praise of the difficulty of explaining and hearing. Thus reversing these five faults forms five virtues. The profound meaning has already been explained to engender correct faith.