大方廣佛華嚴經疏 23.5

23.5

Second, from 'the bodhisattva, having accomplished...' onward, explaining the practices of superior progress. The text divides into two parts: first, explaining the practices of wisdom; second, from 'the bodhisattva like this' onward, distinguishing the practices of compassion. Now, the first part divides into two: first, reviewing the preceding practice of its own station; second, from 'does not speak of' onward, directly distinguishing the characteristics of the practice of superior progress, all entering the profound through phenomena. It divides into four: 1. generally explaining the detachment from marks and wordlessness; 2. interrogation and explanation to display joint negation. The intention of the explanation says: the reason for not speaking is, first, because there is no dharma that can be spoken of; second, from 'the bodhisattva with regard to such' onward, explaining the absence of a mind to speak, meaning not generating thoughts; third, from 'for what reason' onward, further explaining thoughtlessness: the reason there is no thought is that it tallies with the dharmadhātu, hence one does not speak of the śrāvaka dharmas, etc.; 4. hypothetical interrogation to display dual operation. The intention of the question says: 'Since there is no clinging, why cultivate further the practices of the two benefits?' The explanation says: 'Because nature and marks are jointly negated, one is able to operate both.' The text contains doctrine, metaphor, and application. In the doctrine, because all dharmas are non-dual, there is no speech and no clinging; because there is nothing that is not non-dual, it does not obstruct the arising of practice. Second, the metaphor can be understood. Third, in the application, all show that nature does not obstruct marks; therein are two parts: first, directly explaining; second, from 'universally giving' onward, distinguishing the completion of merit and establishment of virtue, for this is the mark of superior progress. The Jin translation has the words 'this bodhisattva' at the beginning of this. In the second part, distinguishing the practices of compassion, there are three subdivisions: 1. reviewing wisdom to reveal compassion. Compassion relies on wisdom to be deep, which is why it is reviewed first; 2. from 'with regard to the three evil' onward, directly revealing the marks of compassion; 3. from 'further makes this' onward, specifically speaking of transforming the evil. In revealing the marks of superior progress, there are three parts in the text: first, explaining that the evil are the objects of compassion; next, explaining that the good are not the domain of transformation; finally, an interrogation and explanation of the reason. Now for the first, the objects of compassion: first, explaining the delusions that contravene the teaching; next, from 'greedy attachment' onward, explaining that they fully possess defilements. Once the disease of delusion is deep, one then requires medical rescue. In the first part, those who do not recognize kindness and repay it will certainly lack reverence and support; when mutually reciprocating, they are difficult to rebuke; clinging to wrong views, they do not accept the correct teaching; being confused and inverted, what they comprehend is not true. Being foolish and without wisdom, when one speaks to them they do not understand; lacking faithful mind, they cut off aspirations; following evil companions, they will certainly distance themselves from good people; giving rise to all evil intellects, they have no way to attain correct understanding; therefore, they are difficult to transform. Second, from 'even if there are' onward, the good are not the domain of transformation, which can be understood. Third, in the interrogation and explanation, first is the question, next the explanation, and finally a further question and explanation. The intention of the first question says: 'In transforming sentient beings, the bodhisattva's principle should be equal; favoring the evil and abandoning the good, what is the reason?' Next, the explanation says: 'The bodhisattva toward beings has no definitive master of close and distant; focusing on those whose delusions are heavy, they are specifically the domain of transformation. Like a mother pitying a sick child, how is it not equal? Furthermore, if seeking fame and gain, one should transform those who know kindness; originally for the sake of purifying others, the principle dictates following the evil; if abandoning evil and pursuing good, one is held by Māra.' Third, the further question and explanation. The question says: 'Bodhisattvas and sentient beings fundamentally have no concern with each other; why rescue them with compassion for long kalpas without seeking anything?' The explanation says: 'All Buddhas and bodhisattvas naturally comply with this principle; if not so, they would not be called luminous guides.'