大方廣佛華嚴經疏 46.26

46.26

Second, in “what are the ten?” listing the names to reveal essentials, first the number is queried, next the names are listed, and finally the essentials are revealed. Among the names, the first three are in terms of dharmas, and the latter seven are based on similes. Among the three: the first is in terms of the teaching, meaning forbearance toward the teaching’s sound—taking its name from the object: the forbearance of sounds and voices. The next is in terms of practice: because it accords with all dharmas, accord is itself forbearance. As for the third, the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti): if in terms of forbearing the principle of non-arising, it is the forbearance of non-arising (genitive compound); if in terms of non-arising wisdom and the non-arising of afflictions, non-arising is itself forbearance (appositional compound)—both interpretations apply. Moreover, regarding these three forbearances, if explained generally, the former two are both preparatory practices for the forbearance of non-arising, according with and tending toward non-arising, and only the latter directly accords. If in terms of the present stage, the three forbearances are distinctly differentiated, because it should not be that only at this stage does one have the accordant forbearance of non-arising. “Accord” here only accords with noumenon; it is not the accordant forbearance [of the three forbearances]. If so, how does it differ from non-arising? The accordant forbearance [here] generally accords with phenomena and noumenon, hence it is unlike non-arising. The sūtra says: “Knowing in accord that dharmas exist,” and so forth. Furthermore, relying on the five forbearances, this stage corresponds to quiescent cessation; now the meaning is explained in terms of three forbearances, so it corresponds to non-arising, as stated in the Bodhisattvabhūmi. In the latter seven, explained in terms of similes, all are genitive compounds, meaning the forbearance that is like an illusion, and so forth. Preceptor Guangtong said: “Four similes are used for the sound: lightning and transformation illustrate accordant forbearance, and space illustrates non-arising; lightning is what is now the shadow simile. Furthermore, illusion means having no mark of arising; mirage means objects have no mark of objects; dream means knowing has no mark of knowing; echo means hearing has no mark of hearing; lightning means abiding has no mark of abiding. Now since it says ‘shadow,’ it should be that manifesting has no mark of manifesting. Transformation means existing has no mark of existing. Space means conditioned activity has no mark of conditioned activity. Thus the illustrative simile is restricted to one characteristic, while the illustrated meaning extends to many dharmas.” Although not in the text, it has no error in principle. Furthermore, past masters said: contemplating consciousness is like an illusion; perception is like a mirage; feeling is like a dream; sound is like an echo; formations are like lightning; form is like a transformation. Because of generally contemplating all aggregates, realms, and bases as ultimately empty, it is like empty space. This explanation accords with the verses of the later assembly, and so now the shadow simile also illustrates formations. If relying on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the eight similes of the fifth chapter all illustrate the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva); however, they are all to dispel doubts: because the doubts differ, the things illustrated also differ. 1. Outsiders, hearing that the characteristics of the dependent nature are only existent through false discrimination and are not true reality, then give rise to doubt, saying: ‘If there is no true reality, how can there be spheres of experience that are traversed?’ Therefore it says ‘like an illusion,’ meaning that an illusion creates cognitive objects; how could the six sense-bases be real? 2. They doubt: ‘If there is no reality, how is there the operation of mind and mental factors?’ Therefore it says ‘like a mirage,’ flickering and moving, not water yet resembling water, so that the mind operates falsely. 3. They doubt: ‘If there is no reality, how is there pleasant and unpleasant experience?’ Therefore it says ‘like a dream,’ where there are really no men or women, yet there is pleasant and unpleasant experience; it is also like this when awake. 4. They doubt: ‘If there is no reality, how is there conceptual proliferation and speech?’ Therefore it says ‘like an echo,’ where there is really no sound, yet the listener considers it to exist. 5. They doubt: ‘If there is no reality, how are there good and bad karma and results?’ Therefore it says ‘like a shadow,’ meaning like a mirror image, hence also not real. 6. They doubt: ‘If there is no reality, why do bodhisattvas perform deeds of benefit and joy?’ Therefore it says ‘like a transformation,’ meaning a conjurer, though knowing it is not real, performs transformed deeds; the bodhisattva is also like this. However, that treatise lacks the simile of space, and the shadow simile is a mirror image; there is further the simile of reflected light and shadow, illustrating that the various consciousnesses are unreal. There is also the simile of the water-moon, illustrating that the spheres of the concentration stage are unreal. The present sūtra, because their doctrinal categories are the same, combines them under ‘shadow,’ as will be known when reaching the text. Master Huiyuan, seeing that it lacked space, took the space simile to illustrate unconditioned dharmas. This is not without reason, yet it contradicts the sūtra below, which says: ‘Because sentient beings and all dharmas are all like space.’ If so, how to explain the simile of space? It means that although that doubt was dispelled, one still considers dharmas to have unreal marks; therefore it says ‘like space,’ ultimately without anything. The remaining meanings are extensively as explained in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and special treatises. The nine similes of the Diamond Prajñā also all illustrate the conditioned; in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the ten similes generally illustrate all things, and the Laṅkāvatāra is also general. The prose of the present sūtra mostly agrees with the general [application] above, whereas what the verses illustrate also has restrictions, because revealing the meaning has no fixed method. The listing of names has been explained. From “these ten kinds” onward reveals the essentials; because they are essential, they are explained together.