大方廣佛華嚴經疏 46.16

46.16

第九一切法智通。初標名，從所知真俗等法受稱。二「知一切」下釋相，中二：初明知法，即內證事理；後「此菩薩」下明演法，即外益眾生。亦是前明即事常理、後明即理恒事，用寂寂用無障礙故。今初，又二：初約離言顯實、二「無我」下約二空顯實。今初之三句一向顯實：一名無得物之功故、二緣成無性故、三體絕去來故；下有三句相對顯實。然此三對釋有三義：一唯約顯實，則相待而空故。異相互無，故云不異。遮異言不異，亦無不異可得，云非不異。二約雙顯體，則不異相非不異。三約雙遮相即，性故非異，性即相故非不異。又相非相故不異，性非性故非不異。故離二邊，不住中道。下二對例知。二約二空顯中，亦初三對一向顯實。無比者，無有我所與我為比對故。餘二可知。「無實」下亦通三釋，準前知之。且約顯實以釋：一虛實皆緣顯故。二法性不並真故一相，一亦不為一故無相，有無皆法待對故無。法與非法但假施設，並就實而求，能治所治無不雙寂。餘皆倣此。第二演法外益，中三：一牒前成智，為起用所依故；二「不捨」下正明演法；三「雖知實相」下寂用無礙，於中三：初寂不礙用、次「雖有言說」下用不礙寂、後「於不二」下寂用無二。

Ninth is the abhijñā of the knowledge of all dharmas. First, its name is indicated: it receives its designation from the dharmas, ultimate and conventional, that are known. Second, from “knows all” onward, the characteristics are explained. Within this there are two parts: first, explaining the knowledge of dharmas, which is the internal realization of phenomena and noumenon; next, from “this bodhisattva” onward, explaining the exposition of the Dharma, which is the external benefiting of sentient beings. This is also: the former explains being continually noumenon while immediate to phenomena, and the latter explains being constantly phenomena while immediate to noumenon, because function and quiescence, quiescence and function, are unobstructed. As for the first, there are again two parts: first, revealing the real in terms of transcendence of speech; second, from “without self” onward, revealing the real in terms of the two emptinesses. The first three phrases exclusively reveal the real: first, because names lack the efficacy of grasping things; second, because what is produced by conditions lacks intrinsic nature; third, because the essence is devoid of coming and going. Below, there are three pairs that reveal the real by contrast. However, there are three senses in explaining these three pairs: 1. In terms of solely revealing the real, they are empty because they are mutually dependent; different characteristics are mutually non-existent, and so it says “not different.” To negate difference it says “not different,” yet neither is non-difference to be found, so it says “not not different.” 2. In terms of doubly revealing the essence, the not-different characteristics are not not-different. 3. In terms of doubly negating mutual identity: being the nature, it is not different; the nature is identical to characteristics, so it is not not-different. Furthermore, characteristics are not characteristics, hence not different; the nature is not nature, hence not not-different. Therefore, one departs from the two extremes and does not abide in the middle way. The lower two pairs should be understood by analogy. In the second part, revealing [the real] in terms of the two emptinesses, the first three pairs likewise exclusively reveal the real. “Incomparable” means that there is no ‘mine’ to be compared and contrasted with ‘self.’ The remaining two can be understood. From “without reality” onward also admits of three interpretations, which may be known by analogy with the previous ones. To explain it tentatively in terms of revealing the real: first, both the empty and the real are revealed through conditions. Second, because the dharmatā cannot be juxtaposed with the real, it is one characteristic; the one is also not one, hence without characteristic; existence and non-existence are both dharmas, and because they are mutually dependent, they do not exist. Dharmas and non-dharmas are mere provisional designations; when sought in terms of reality, that which remedies and that which is remedied are without exception doubly quiescent. The rest are all modeled on this. In the second part, expounding the Dharma to benefit externally, there are three parts: 1. Restating the preceding to establish wisdom, as the basis upon which function arises; 2. From “does not abandon” onward, directly explaining the exposition of the Dharma; 3. From “although knowing the true mark” onward, the non-obstruction of quiescence and function. Within this there are three parts: first, quiescence does not obstruct function; next, from “although there is speech” onward, function does not obstruct quiescence; finally, from “in non-duality” onward, quiescence and function are non-dual.