大方廣佛華嚴經疏 3.3

3.3

Fifth, regarding the depths and shallows of the essence of the teaching: The nature of the essence of the boundless ocean of teachings is difficult to fathom. From shallow to deep, ten essences are briefly explained: 1. the essence consisting of vocal sounds and spoken words; 2. the essence consisting of nāma-, pada-, and vyañjanakāyas; 3. the essence that encompasses all four dharmas—the above three are all the essence as that which expresses; 4. the essence that encompasses that which is expressed; 5. the essence wherein all dharmas manifest meaning; 6. the essence wherein objects are subsumed under mind only; 7. the essence wherein conditions are integrated into the real; 8. the essence of the non-obstruction between noumenon and phenomena; 9. the essence of the non-obstruction among phenomena; 10. the essence brilliantly manifested in the ocean-reflection [samādhi]. Among these ten, the first five are exclusively essence, while the latter five are both essence and nature. Furthermore, the first four extend to the Hīnayāna, while the latter six belong exclusively to the Mahāyāna. The first seven extend to the three vehicles, while the latter three belong exclusively to the Ekayāna. The first eight pertain to the common teaching, while the latter two belong exclusively to the distinct teaching. Regarding the first three, both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna commonly utilize four dharmas: first, sounds (śabda); second, names (nāma); third, phrases (pada); and fourth, syllables/letters (vyañjana). Their acceptance or rejection differs, each having three explanations. In the three explanations of the Hīnayāna: The *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 126, states: 'What constitutes the essence of the Buddha's teaching? One says: It should be stated that vocal action constitutes the essence. That is to say, the Buddha's spoken words, utterances, discourses, vocal sounds, speech paths, vocal actions, and vocal intimation are called the Buddha's teaching. The names, phrases, and syllables merely reveal the function of the Buddha's teaching, but are not intended to show the Buddha's teaching's intrinsic essence.' The *Jñānaprasthāna* also shares this view. 'A second says: Names and the like constitute the essence; that is, the nāmakāya, padakāya, and vyañjanakāya, due to their sequential arrangement, sequential disposition, and sequential combination; sound is merely the sequential cause. That is, speech gives rise to names, and names are capable of manifesting meaning.' The commentators' view adopts vocal action as the essence. The *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya* agrees with the *Abhidharmakośa*. The *Abhidharmakośa* states: 'The aggregates of Dharma spoken by the Sage number eighty thousand; their essence is speech or name, subsumed under the aggregate of form or of conditioning factors.' That is, if speech is the essence of the teaching, it is subsumed under the aggregate of form (rūpaskandha); if name is the essence of the teaching, it is subsumed under the aggregate of conditioning factors (saṃskāraskandha). This preserves both of the previous two without any preference for taking or leaving; hence it uses the word 'or'. The *Nyāyānusāra* agrees in intent with names and the like. That text, having finished explaining the previous verse in fascicle three, further states: 'Because it expresses meaning in accordance with reality, it is called the Buddha's teaching. Names can express meaning, so the teaching is names. Therefore, the Buddha's teaching definitely takes names as its essence, mentioning names first to subsume phrases and syllables.' The *Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā*, fascicle three, also shares this view. Third, as for the intent of the *Abhidharmakośa*, there is no preference for taking or leaving; if one takes its preservation of both, then the four dharmas are combined to constitute the essence of the teaching. As for the Sautrāntika view, it takes sound alone; hence the *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 14, refutes that master: 'You should not establish the collections of names, phrases, and syllables'; that is, sound is the essence. In the Mahāyāna there are also three explanations, the general sense being the same as above. The first says: subsuming the nominal under the real, sound constitutes the essence, because apart from sound there are no separate names, phrases, and the like. The *Saṃdhinirmocana*, fascicle five, states: 'The Tathāgata's vocal sounds are briefly of three kinds: first, sūtras…' Since it says that vocal sounds are of three kinds, it clearly takes sound as the essence of the teaching. The *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* states: 'Sound induced by accomplishment refers to that which is spoken by all the āryas.' The second says: subsuming the essence under the function, names and the like constitute the essence, because they are the two bases that express the intrinsic nature and distinctions of all dharmas. Therefore, the *Asaṅgabhāṣya* refutes the Sautrāntika, saying: 'That the phrases of the sūtras have speech as their intrinsic nature is not reasonable.' The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*, fascicle two, also refutes them, saying: 'If names, phrases, and syllables were not different from sound, then the spheres of the unhindered understanding of dharmas and unhindered understanding of expressions would not be distinct.' The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* states: 'Although these three have no separate essence apart from sound, they differ as nominal and real, and are not identical to sound.' The third says: sounds, names, phrases, and syllables combine to constitute its essence, because the previous two explanations both have reason and scripture as authoritative standards. The *Saṃdhinirmocana*, fascicle four, states: 'It is impossible to proclaim while abandoning spoken words and written characters.' The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* states: 'There are those that perform the Buddha's work through vocal sounds, speech, and written characters.' The *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* states: 'The speaker speaks through two things, and the listener hears through two things: namely, fine sounds and fine words.' In my view, one should also accept both. If one were to choose between the first two, why not rely on names and the like? For sound alone is properly considered the essence of the teaching only with respect to the Buddha's speech; when transmitted to later generations written on bamboo and silk, how could there be any sound? Could it be without an essence of the teaching? Although writing is form, it also serves as the basis for names and the like, so it is also subsumed under the aggregate of form. The previous passages from the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* and the *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* that encompass all four merely speak of what is used, not directly revealing the essence. The *Renwang jing* states: 'These names, phrases, and flavors are spoken by all Buddhas.' However, although the various Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna traditions all commonly utilize the four dharmas, their underlying principles differ: according to the Sarvāstivāda, the four dharmas all have real essence; according to the Sautrāntika, sound has a real essence, while names and the like are nominal. In the Mahāyāna, some hold that all four are unreal, or hold that all four are like space, neither being established. The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* states: 'The nature of words is detached; having no words, this is liberation.' The *Daśabhūmikabhāṣya*, explaining the marks of wind and paintings in space, states: 'Wind is an analogy for vocal sounds, and paintings are an analogy for names and syllables; neither can be grasped.' The *Buddhapiṭaka-sūtra* states: 'If dharmas were not empty even to the slightest degree, then the Buddhas would not appear in the world.' It also states below: 'All dharmas are ultimately empty, without the slightest mark.' Some say that all four are the non-obstruction between noumenon and phenomena; others say that all four are perfectly interpenetrated. Thus, the doctrines differ. Fourth, regarding the essence that encompasses that which is expressed: The *Yogācārabhūmi*, fascicle 81, states: 'The essence of a sūtra is briefly of two kinds: first, text; second, meaning. Text is the support; meaning is that which is supported. These two kinds are collectively called all the spheres of the knowable.' That is, relying on the six texts, the ten meanings are manifested; this clarifies that teaching and meaning mutually establish each other. If it does not express meaning, of what use is the text of the teaching? Therefore, comprehensively taking that which is expressed constitutes the essence of a sūtra. Furthermore, the 'Chapter on the Ten Abodes' states: 'Text follows meaning, and meaning follows text; when text and meaning follow each other and the principle is without discrepancy, only then is it the true teaching.' Furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* states: 'The Buddha, bodhisattvas, and others are those who speak; speech is the mark of that which speaks; the nāma-, pada-, and vyañjanakāyas are the marks of that which is spoken.' Therefore, all are comprehensively accepted, unlike the previous explanation which strictly limited itself to that which is spoken. Fifth, regarding the essence wherein all dharmas manifest meaning: Provided they can manifest meaning and principle, all dharmas constitute the essence of the teaching. The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa*, fascicle three, states: 'There are [Buddhalands] that perform the Buddha's work through light; there are those that perform the Buddha's work through bodhisattvas; there are those that perform the Buddha's work through people transformed by the Buddha; there are those that perform the Buddha's work through the Buddha's bodhi tree, clothing, and bedding, even extending to the eighty-four thousand doors of defilement by which sentient beings are wearied—the Buddhas perform the Buddha's work through these very dharmas.' Furthermore, the ten-fascicle *Laṅkāvatāra*, fascicle four, states: 'Mahāmati! It is not the case that all Buddhalands teach the Dharma through words and speech. There are Buddhalands where merely gazing without blinking, with mouths uttering no words, is called teaching the Dharma.' It even says: 'There are Buddhalands where moving the body is called teaching.' Furthermore, in the World of Fragrance Accumulated, eating fragrant rice causes samādhi to appear; in the Buddhaland of Ultimate Bliss, listening to the wind in the branches brings right mindfulness to completion; strings and bamboo flutes can convey the mind, and meeting the eyes can preserve the Way. Since speech and silence, gazing and blinking are all teaching, then seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing are all listening. If one can obtain the Dharma and harmonize the spirit, why must it depend on words? How much more so in the ocean-nature of the Avataṃsaka, where cloud pavilions and jeweled nets together expound wondrous sounds, and pore lights can all teach the Dharma; cloud trees of fragrant blossoms are the Dharma-gates of the dharmadhātu, and lands and sentient beings are fundamentally the authentic essence of the ten bodies—in what is it not teaching? It states below: 'Lands speak, sentient beings speak, all across the three times speak.' It also states: 'All objects in all worlds can cause the wheel of the Dharma to turn,' and so forth. Such passages are numerous.