大方廣佛華嚴經疏 33.8

33.8

三「圓滿」下明教說修成就大。此有二種：一滿足修，即初八字。二者觀修，即後兩句。真修位極，世慮都寂，能滿地智，名滿足修。真智內發，寂照分明，名為觀修。初即稱性寂然，後即寂而能照。猶瑩明鏡，垢無不淨，如滿足修；鑒無不徹，如彼觀修。此二種修，望於真證猶彼等妙。等覺等於妙覺而但是因圓，妙覺捨行方稱果滿。此亦然也。二修如於出世但是因分之終，正證捨修方名果分。諸有智者請鑒斯旨。文中，慮即聞思，智即真修之智，心即真修心體。謂若無聞思緣慮之心，方名真修之心圓滿，故唯真修之智所能行耳。若準論經，心是所如出世之心故。論經云「非心境智滿如淨心。」論釋云「滿足修者，偈言非心境故。非心境者，此句示聞思慧等心境界處，唯是智因能生出世間智，而此不能滿彼出世間智」者，此明聞思是心境，不能滿地智，翻顯真修非心境方能滿地智故。次便引偈，云「偈言智滿如淨心故。」次牒釋云：如淨心者，如出世間清淨心，能滿彼地智故。此明函蓋相稱，謂欲滿地智，非餘心能，要真修慮寂之心，一如出世智心方能滿也。其所如出世之心，即是正證地智。此言真直。次觀修中是境界者，即真修之境。難見者，非聞思能見。可知者，唯真修自心寂照方知。知即見也。故論經云「難說自心知」。釋云：自心清淨可見。既難可見，亦難可說，而隨修以顯說大中收，不同果分但是深義。第二彰己無過誡眾除失，中二：初半偈總明、後二頌半別顯。今初。由說聽者各有二過，不能得證，故並彰離。說二過者，一佛不隨喜說，今云佛力開演，則知佛已隨喜。二不平等說，今云汝等應受，則情無彼此。聽二過者，一見諍過，言我法是、彼法非，如是執著種種諸見。二於說法者不生恭敬。今令敬受，雙離二過，謂敬法故無見諍過，以敬人故無第二過。第二別顯中，上雖離四過，事但有三：一承力、二開演、三敬受。今三段廣之，初一偈廣開演、次一偈顯敬受、後半偈顯承力。今初。上但云開演，未知廣略，今顯略而非廣。上半顯智入之行深玄，廣說不盡。言智入行者，地法為所入，證智為能入，行此智行則入地法。又智入是證智，行是事行。下半今雖略說，攝廣無遺。真實者，即智入行也。無餘者，若事若理無不具故。第二顯敬受者，即示恭敬相。初句正明、三句出因。恭敬有二：一身正恭敬待，如威儀住，堪受說法故。二心正恭敬待，如心決定，堪能憶持故。心敬則身必恭，故偈但云心也。下釋恭敬所因，謂由善說故令物敬待。初句對人彰己善說。說之一字，論經名善說。善說者，對於當機無諂無憍慢故。承佛力者，示己無增上慢，不言齊佛故。次二句對法彰己善說。勝法二字即是所詮，次六字是能詮，其相應二字通能所詮。文雖三節，義乃四重：一今之所詮示現何事？所謂勝上地法，故云勝法。二復徵云：所詮是地，能詮多種，或以色香、威儀、進止皆為能詮，為用何法為能詮耶？故論云「以何事？答云：我用八種梵響微妙音聲以為能詮，不用香等，故經云微妙音。」三復徵云：用此音聲復有多種，為直爾用？為喻類顯？故論云「云何事？答云：非直爾顯，寄喻類明，故云譬喻。」然喻有二種：一是譬事為喻，如下節節引金莊嚴具、大海珠寶等。二借法相事況出於理，曉喻時聽，亦名為喻。今通此二。四復徵云：雖知喻顯，喻亦多種，為依世間不善文字而為喻耶？為依出世善字喻耶？故論云「依止何事？答云：依於善字。」經闕善言，論經具有。云何相應通能所詮？一以妙音聲與喻相應，是約能詮；二約善字與理相應，是通所詮。故論云「善字有二種，一隨方言音，善隨順故。二字句圓滿，不增不減，與理相應故。」又與能詮三事相應，則與理相應也。第三廣承力者，論云「前言承佛神力，未說云何力，故說此也。」無量佛者，略有三類：一是主佛、二是十方金剛藏佛、三是十方一切佛也。第三示說分齊者，但是說因耳。半偈之中下句，論經乃在說大。五偈之初云我但說一分，正是分齊。或是譯者迴文，或是梵本有異，義旨不殊，前後何妨。於中，上句牒前所請，兼結上來義說二大為此處也。難宣示義，廣如上辨。下句許說少分。論上解云「前言十地如是不可得說聞，今言我但說一分，此言有何義？是地所攝有二種：一因分、二果分。說者謂解釋一分者是因分，以於果分為一分故。」然因果二分古有多釋，全乖文旨者今所不論，有可通者正而用之。直望論意，即指義大為果分，故不可說；說大為因分，是則可說。更以義取，略有二種：一唯就十地以明，以證智為果分，方便寄法等並為因分。此復二義：一以修證相對，則方便造修為因分，息修契實為果分；二以詮表相對，則以寄法顯地差別為因分，真實證智為果分。如初三地寄同世間，次三寄二乘及禪支道品等，令眾因此表解地義。為因所表證智是此因之果，斯皆證智言所不及，故不可說，如彼鳥迹同於虛空；方便寄法可以言顯，故云可說，如空中鳥迹約鳥說異。是以一迹通有二分，即可說不可說也。二約究竟佛果對普賢因說，義通一部。謂即此證智冥同究竟果海為果分，如迹處之空不異太空。地相之因同普賢因，以廣說則有無量差別事，殊勝願力復過於此故。是則迹處之空隨於空處之迹亦有說義，地智亦可寄言標舉故。問：上論云「是地所攝有二」，如何說為究竟果耶？答：豈不向言冥同果海，故上論云「此智是誰證？偈言佛所行故。」又上加分云「不思議佛法」，又地影像分云「彼十大山因大海得名，大海亦因十山得名。」菩薩十地亦爾，同在一切智，因一切智得名，彼因果相順故。是知論主亦用究竟之果為十地攝。有云：彼說十山依海，不說大海即山者，大海十德豈離海耶？寶珠十義豈離珠耶？明知為此難者，不見地智之旨。又且依一相不可指陳等，云不可說及與可說。若有因緣故果可寄言，即事入玄因亦叵說，故云說少分也，不可局執。

Third, from "complete" downward clarifies the greatness of accomplishment through doctrinal exposition and cultivation. In this there are two kinds: first, cultivation of fulfillment, which is the initial eight words; second, cultivation of contemplation, which is the latter two lines. When the station of true cultivation reaches its utmost, worldly cogitations are entirely stilled, capable of fulfilling the wisdom of the stage; hence it is called 'cultivation of fulfillment'. When true wisdom arises internally, its stillness and illumination distinct and clear, this is called 'cultivation of contemplation'. The former accords with the nature and is quiescent; the latter is quiescent and yet capable of illuminating. Like polishing a bright mirror, where no defilement remains uncleaned, so is cultivation of fulfillment; where no illumination fails to penetrate, so is cultivation of contemplation. In comparison with true realization, these two kinds of cultivation are like equal and sublime [enlightenment]. Equal enlightenment equals sublime enlightenment and is yet merely the perfection of the cause; only when sublime enlightenment abandons practice is it termed the fulfillment of the fruit. This is also like that. The two cultivations, in comparison to the world-transcending, are merely the culmination of the causal part; only when true realization abandons cultivation is it termed the fruition part. May all who possess wisdom examine this meaning! In the text, 'cogitation' is hearing and thinking; 'wisdom' is the wisdom of true cultivation; 'mind' is the mental essence of true cultivation. That is to say, only when there is no mind of cogitation dependent on hearing and thinking is the mind of true cultivation termed fulfilled; therefore, it can only be practiced by the wisdom of true cultivation. If judged by the Śāstra's Sūtra, 'mind' is the world-transcending mind that is conformed to. Hence the Śāstra's Sūtra states: 'Not the object of mind, wisdom is fulfilled like the pure mind.' The Śāstra's commentary explains: 'As for "cultivation of fulfillment", the verse says "not the object of mind". "Not the object of mind": this line indicates the realm of the mind of the wisdom of hearing and thinking, etc., which is solely the cause of wisdom capable of generating world-transcending wisdom, yet this cannot fulfill that world-transcending wisdom.' This clarifies that hearing and thinking are objects of mind and cannot fulfill the wisdom of the stage; conversely, it reveals that only when true cultivation is not an object of mind can it fulfill the wisdom of the stage. Next, it immediately cites the verse, saying: 'Because the verse says "wisdom is fulfilled like the pure mind".' Next, citing and explaining, it says: '"Like the pure mind": like the world-transcending pure mind, being able to fulfill the wisdom of that stage.' This clarifies that the box and lid fit each other; that is, to fulfill the wisdom of the stage is impossible for any other mind—it requires the mind of true cultivation in which cogitations are stilled, which is completely like the mind of world-transcending wisdom, to be able to fulfill it. That world-transcending mind conformed to is precisely the stage-wisdom of true realization. These words are truly direct. Next, in cultivation of contemplation, 'being a realm' is the realm of true cultivation. 'Difficult to see' means it cannot be seen through hearing and thinking. 'Knowable' means it is known only when one's own mind in true cultivation is still and illuminating. Knowing is seeing. Thus the Śāstra's Sūtra states: 'Difficult to explain, known by one's own mind.' The commentary says: 'The purity of one's own mind can be seen.' Since it is difficult to see, it is also difficult to explain; yet, being revealed in accord with cultivation, it is subsumed under the greatness of exposition, unlike the fruition part which is solely profound meaning. Second, 'demonstrating that he is without fault and admonishing the assembly to eliminate errors', comprises two: first, a half-verse broadly clarifies; second, two and a half verses specifically reveal. Now, the first. Because both speaker and listeners each have two faults and cannot attain realization, their separation from them is jointly displayed. As for the two faults of the speaker: first, speaking without the Buddha's rejoicing—now saying 'by the Buddha's power I expound' shows the Buddha has already rejoiced; second, speaking without impartiality—now saying 'you all should receive' shows feelings hold no distinction between self and other. As for the two faults of the listeners: first, the fault of contentious views, saying 'my dharma is right, another's dharma is wrong,' clinging in this way to diverse views; second, not generating reverence toward the speaker of Dharma. Now, bidding them to receive with reverence departs from both faults simultaneously: because of revering the Dharma, there is no fault of contentious views; because of revering the person, there is no second fault. In the second part, specifically revealing, although four faults were departed from above, in phenomenon there are only three: first, relying on power; second, expounding; third, receiving with reverence. Now, three sections expand on them: the first verse expands on expounding, the next verse reveals receiving with reverence, and the latter half-verse reveals relying on power. Now, the first. Above, it merely said 'expound', not knowing whether broad or brief; now it reveals it is brief and not broad. The first half reveals that the practice of entering through wisdom is deep and mysterious, inexhaustible by broad explanation. As for 'the practice of entering through wisdom', the stage-dharmas are that which is entered, the realizing wisdom is that which enters; practicing this wisdom-practice, one enters the stage-dharmas. Furthermore, 'entering through wisdom' is realizing wisdom; 'practice' is phenomenal practice. The second half means that although now speaking briefly, it gathers the broad without remainder. 'Truth' is the practice of entering through wisdom. 'Without remainder' is because whether phenomena or noumenon, none is unprovided for. Second, revealing receiving with reverence indicates the marks of reverence. The first line directly clarifies; three lines produce the causes. Reverence has two kinds: first, properly awaiting with bodily reverence, abiding in deportment, capable of receiving the exposition of Dharma; second, properly awaiting with mental reverence, having a determined mind, capable of mindfully retaining. When the mind is reverent, the body is necessarily respectful; hence the verse merely speaks of mind. Below, it explains the cause of reverence: that is, because of good exposition, causing beings to await with reverence. The first line displays one's own good exposition toward people. The single word 'speak' is called 'good exposition' in the Śāstra's Sūtra. 'Good exposition' means being free from flattery and arrogance toward those of suitable capacity. 'Relying on the Buddha's power' shows that he is free from overweening pride, not claiming equality with the Buddha. The next two lines display his own good exposition toward the Dharma. The two words 'superior Dharma' are that which is expressed; the next six words are that which expresses; the two words 'in accord with' apply to both that which expresses and that which is expressed. Although the text has three clauses, the meaning has four levels: First, what phenomenon does that which is now expressed manifest? It is the superior stage-dharmas, hence it says 'superior Dharma'. Second, questioning again: that which is expressed is the stages, but that which expresses is of many kinds—either form, fragrance, deportment, or movements may serve as that which expresses—what dharma is used as that which expresses? Thus the Śāstra asks: 'By means of what phenomenon?' It answers: 'I use the eight kinds of subtle voice of Brahmā's reverberation as that which expresses, not using fragrance and so on; hence the sūtra says "subtle voice".' Third, questioning again: using this voice is also of many kinds—is it used straightforwardly, or revealed through analogies and categorization? Thus the Śāstra asks: 'How is it done?' It answers: 'Not revealed straightforwardly, but clarified through analogies and categorization; hence it says "analogies".' However, analogies have two kinds: first, using phenomenal matters as analogies, as cited section by section below regarding gold ornaments, ocean jewels, and so forth; second, borrowing phenomenal marks of dharmas to illustrate noumenon and instruct listeners of the time, which is also called an analogy. Here it applies to both. Fourth, questioning again: although knowing it is revealed through analogies, analogies are also of many kinds—are they analogies based on worldly unwholesome words, or analogies based on world-transcending wholesome words? Thus the Śāstra asks: 'Depending on what phenomenon?' It answers: 'Depending on wholesome words.' The sūtra lacks the word 'wholesome', but the Śāstra's Sūtra fully contains it. How does 'in accord with' apply to both that which expresses and that which is expressed? First, the subtle voice being in accord with analogies concerns that which expresses; second, wholesome words being in accord with noumenon applies to that which is expressed. Thus the Śāstra says: 'Wholesome words are of two kinds: first, according with local dialects and sounds, being well adaptable; second, words and sentences being complete, neither increasing nor decreasing, in accord with noumenon.' Moreover, being in accord with the three matters of that which expresses, it is then in accord with noumenon. Third, expanding on relying on power: the Śāstra says: 'Previously it said "relying on the Buddha's spiritual power", but did not state what power; hence this is said.' 'Immeasurable Buddhas' briefly has three types: first, the host Buddha; second, the Vajragarbha Buddhas of the ten directions; third, all Buddhas of the ten directions. Third, showing the scope of the exposition is merely the cause of the exposition. In the half-verse, the lower line in the Śāstra's Sūtra is at the beginning of the five verses on the greatness of exposition, saying 'I will speak of only a portion', which is precisely the scope. Perhaps the translator reversed the text, or the Sanskrit manuscript differed; the purport is not distinct, so what harm is there in the sequence? Therein, the upper line repeats the previous request and summarizes the above two greatnesses of meaning and exposition as this locus. The meaning of 'difficult to proclaim' is broadly analyzed above. The lower line promises to speak of a small portion. The Śāstra explains above: 'Previously it was said that the ten stages thus cannot be spoken of or heard; now it says "I will speak of only a portion"—what meaning does this statement have? What is subsumed under the stages is of two kinds: first, the causal part; second, the fruition part. Speaking, namely explaining a portion, is the causal part, because it is one portion in relation to the fruition part.' However, regarding the two parts of cause and fruit, the ancients had many explanations; those completely contrary to the text's purport are not discussed here, while those that are admissible are corrected and adopted. Looking directly at the Śāstra's intent, it designates the greatness of meaning as the fruition part, and thus it cannot be spoken of; it designates the greatness of exposition as the causal part, and thus it can be spoken of. If taken further by meaning, there are briefly two kinds: First, clarified solely with respect to the ten stages, taking realizing wisdom as the fruition part, and skillful means, provisional dharmas, and so forth, entirely as the causal part. This also has two meanings: first, contrasting cultivation and realization, the exertion of skillful means is the causal part, and the cessation of cultivation to accord with reality is the fruition part; second, contrasting expression and indication, using provisional dharmas to reveal the distinctions of the stages is the causal part, and true realizing wisdom is the fruition part. As the first three stages provisionally conform to the worldly, and the next three provisionally conform to the two vehicles as well as factors of dhyāna and aids to the path, causing the assembly thereby to understand the meaning of the stages indicated—the realizing wisdom indicated by the cause is the fruit of this cause; all these are beyond the reach of words in realizing wisdom, and thus cannot be spoken of, just as bird tracks are identical to empty space; while provisional dharmas of skillful means can be revealed by words, hence they are said to be speakable, just as bird tracks in space are distinguished with reference to the bird. Thus a single track applies to both parts, being both speakable and unspeakable. Second, explained in terms of the ultimate Buddha-fruit contrasted with the cause of Samantabhadra, its meaning applies to the entire work. That is, this realizing wisdom secretly identifies with the ocean of the ultimate fruit as the fruition part, just as the space at the track's locus is no different from great space. The cause of the marks of the stages is identical to the cause of Samantabhadra, because if broadly explained there are immeasurable diverse phenomena, and superior power of vows further exceeds this. Thus the space at the track's locus also possesses the meaning of being speakable in following the track in the space, for the wisdom of the stages can also be indicated provisionally by words. Question: The Śāstra above says 'What is subsumed under the stages has two kinds'—how can it be spoken of as the ultimate fruit? Answer: Did I not just say it secretly identifies with the ocean of fruit? Hence the Śāstra above says: 'Who realizes this wisdom? The verse says: "It is what the Buddha practices."' Furthermore, the section on empowerment above says 'inconceivable Buddha-dharmas', and the section on the reflections of the stages says: 'Those ten great mountains derive their names from the great ocean, and the great ocean also derives its name from the ten mountains.' The ten stages of a bodhisattva are also like this: together resting in omniscience, they derive their names from omniscience, for their cause and fruit correspond to each other. From this we know that the author of the Śāstra also took the ultimate fruit to be subsumed under the ten stages. Some say: 'That text says the ten mountains rely on the ocean, not that the great ocean is the mountains'—can the ten virtues of the great ocean be separated from the ocean? Can the ten meanings of the precious jewel be separated from the jewel? Clearly, those who raise this objection do not see the purport of the stage-wisdom. Moreover, relying on a single mark that cannot be pointed out, etc., it speaks of unspeakable and speakable. If through causes and conditions the fruit can be provisionally spoken of, and entering the mysterious through phenomena the cause is also unspeakable, then it is said to speak of a small portion; one must not be rigidly attached.