[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 1.34 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 1.34 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 1.34 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.1.34) 疏「真妄交徹，即凡心而見佛心」下，融真妄也。文有二對：初對正明雙融、後對不礙雙現。今初。真謂理也、佛也。妄謂惑也、生也，亦生死涅槃。言交徹者，謂真該妄末、妄徹真源，故云交徹。如波與濕，無有不濕之波、無有離波之濕。若論交徹，亦合言即聖心而見凡心，如濕中見波，故如來不斷性惡。又佛心中有眾生等。若依此義，合云真妄交徹、凡聖互收。今不爾者，若約理融實，即真妄互有。今約有不壞相，但明凡即同聖，以即真故；而聖不同凡，無煩惱故。如波即濕，而濕未必即波，有淨水故。故淨水說波，有動之性、無動之事。如波中說濕，動濕俱有。又說凡即是佛，於凡有益；佛即是凡，令人妄解，是故但云即凡心而見佛心耳。然其真妄所以交徹者，真妄二法同一心故。妄攬真成，無別妄故；真隨妄顯，無別真故。真妄名異，無二體故。真外有妄，理不遍故；妄外有真，事無依故。然或說妄空真有、或說妄有真空，俱空俱有、雙非雙是，雖有多端並皆交徹。此義云何？且說何法為真？何法為妄？真妄自有二義：一約三性說，圓成是真，遍計為妄，依他起性通真通妄，淨分同真、染分為妄。二約二諦說，真諦為真、俗諦為妄。二諦多門，下當廣說。今且約理事二門，理為真諦為真、事為俗諦為妄。設淨分之事，妄未盡故。問：真妄二法，孰空孰有？如《唯識論》，約遍計為妄，則妄空真有。若染分為妄，則真妄俱有。若《涅槃》說，空者所謂生死，不空者謂大涅槃，則依他染分為空，淨分圓成皆有。若依三論，以世諦故有，真諦故空。若以妄為俗諦、以真為真諦，則妄有真空；若約隨俗說二諦，則真妄俱通空有；若約觸物皆中，則真妄俱非空有。問：真妄交徹，行相如何？言並皆交徹者，約相宗以明，唯識等宗不得交徹。今就華嚴，則前諸義皆得交徹，以具前即一心等義故。如約遍計為妄者，情有即是理無，妄徹真也；理無即是情有，真徹妄也。若染分依他為妄者，緣生無性，妄徹真也；無性緣成，真徹妄也。若約生死涅槃說者，生死即涅槃，妄徹真也；涅槃即生死，真徹妄也。故《中論》云「生死之實際，即是涅槃際。涅槃之實際，即是生死際。如是二際者，無毫釐差別。」即交徹也。此下經云「有諍說生死，無諍說涅槃。生死及涅槃，二俱不可得。」亦俱空俱有，交徹義也。若依二諦，以妄為俗諦、以真為真諦。言交徹者，即俗而真、即真而俗故。故影公云：「然統其要歸，則會通二諦，以真諦故無有、以俗諦故無無。真故無有，則雖無而有；俗故無無，則雖有而無。雖有而無，則不累於有；雖無而有，則不滯於無。寂此諸邊，故名中道。」即真妄交徹也。真故無有，則雖無而有，則真徹妄也；俗故無無，則雖有而無則，妄徹真也。餘可思準。若約隨俗說，真妄本虛，居然交徹。真妄皆真，則本末一味，居然交徹。若觸物皆中，居然交徹。次明交徹所以。問：真妄相乖，其猶水火。何得交徹？答：此有多義。一真妄二法同一心故，以一貫之，故得交徹。故《起信》云「依一心法有二種門：一心真如門、二心生滅門。」然此二門皆各總攝一切法盡，以此二門不相離故，故云不離一心，故得交徹。二妄攬真成，無別妄故。亦是《起信》、《勝鬘》等意。真如隨緣成一切法，故真徹妄也。言「真隨妄顯，無別真故」者，妄徹真也。若無有妄，對何說真？如無緣生，則無無性故。三「真妄名異，體無二故」者，如向所引，有諍說生死、無諍說涅槃等，俱不可得，則體無二也。故下經云「若逐假名字，取著此二法，顛倒非實義，不能見正覺。」明以無二為實也，豈非交徹？四「真外有妄理不遍故」下反成二義。此句真徹妄也。五妄外有真，妄無依故。即妄徹真也。此亦法性宗義，一切法皆如，豈妄外有真？真如遍一切，豈真外有妄？是知真妄常交徹，亦不壞真妄之相。則該妄之真，真非真而湛寂；徹真之妄，妄非妄而雲興。 > From the commentary's "True and false interpenetrate, so that right in the ordinary mind one perceives the Buddha-mind" onward, it harmonizes the true and the false. The text contains two pairs: the first pair directly clarifies mutual fusion; the second pair \[clarifies\] that non-obstruction allows both to manifest simultaneously. Now, the first. The "true" means principle and the Buddha. The "false" means affliction and sentient beings, as well as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. As for saying "interpenetrate," this means that the true encompasses the false branches, and the false penetrates to the true source; hence it is called "interpenetrate." It is like waves and wetness: there are no waves that are not wet, and there is no wetness apart from waves. If one were to discuss interpenetration, it would also be fitting to say that "right in the noble mind one perceives the ordinary mind," just as within wetness one sees waves; therefore the Tathāgata does not cut off the evil nature. Furthermore, sentient beings exist within the Buddha-mind, and so on. If one relies on this meaning, it would be fitting to say that the true and the false interpenetrate, and the ordinary and the noble mutually subsume each other. That it does not say so here is because: if one treats principle as harmonizing reality, then the true and the false mutually possess each other. But here, taking it from the standpoint that existence does not destroy characteristics, it only clarifies that the ordinary is identical to the noble because it is identical to the true; yet the noble is not identical to the ordinary, because it lacks afflictions. It is like waves being identical to wetness, whereas wetness is not necessarily identical to waves, because clear water exists. Therefore, when waves are spoken of in clear water, there is the nature of motion, but not the actual occurrence of motion. When wetness is spoken of within waves, both motion and wetness are present. Moreover, to say that an ordinary person is identical to a Buddha brings benefit to the ordinary person; but saying that a Buddha is identical to an ordinary person leads people to misunderstand. Therefore it merely says, "right in the ordinary mind one perceives the Buddha-mind." Now, as for the reason why the true and the false interpenetrate: it is because the two dharmas of the true and the false are the same one mind. Since the false grasps the true to come into being, there is no separate false; since the true becomes manifest in accord with the false, there is no separate true. The true and the false differ in name, yet have no dual essence. If outside the true there were the false, principle would not be all-pervasive; if outside the false there were the true, phenomena would have nothing to rely upon. However, it is sometimes said that the false is empty and the true exists, or that the false exists and the true is empty; both empty and both existent; both neither and both both—although there are many facets, all of them interpenetrate. What is the meaning of this? First, what dharmas are spoken of as true, and what dharmas as false? The true and the false inherently have two meanings: First, spoken in terms of the three natures, the perfected nature is true, the imagined nature is false, and the other-dependent nature extends across both the true and the false: its pure portion corresponds to the true, and its defiled portion is false. Second, spoken in terms of the two truths, the ultimate truth is true, and the conventional truth is false. There are many approaches to the two truths, which will be extensively explained below. For now, taking only the two approaches of principle and phenomena, principle is the ultimate truth and is true; phenomena are the conventional truth and are false. Even if phenomena belong to the pure portion, falsehood has not yet been exhausted. Question: Between the two dharmas of the true and the false, which is empty and which exists? As in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, if the imagined nature is taken as the false, then the false is empty and the true exists. If the defiled portion is taken as the false, then both the true and the false exist. If, as the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says, what is empty is what is called saṃsāra and what is not empty is called great nirvāṇa, then the defiled portion of the other-dependent nature is empty, while the pure portion and the perfected nature both exist. If relying on the Sanlun, because of the worldly truth there is existence, and because of the ultimate truth there is emptiness. If taking the false as the conventional truth and the true as the ultimate truth, then the false exists and the true is empty; if the two truths are spoken of in accordance with convention, then both the true and the false extend across emptiness and existence; if in accordance with "touching an object, it is entirely the middle," then the true and the false are both neither empty nor existent. Question: As for the interpenetration of the true and the false, what is its functioning characteristic? When it says "all of them interpenetrate," if clarified according to the characteristics schools, schools such as Vijñaptimātra cannot achieve interpenetration. Now, according to the Huayan, all the preceding meanings can interpenetrate, because they possess the preceding meaning of being identical to the one mind and so forth. For instance, taking the imagined nature as the false: existence in sentiment is non-existence in principle—this is the false penetrating the true; non-existence in principle is existence in sentiment—this is the true penetrating the false. If the defiled portion of the other-dependent nature is taken as the false: arising from conditions lacks self-nature—this is the false penetrating the true; lacking self-nature is brought about by conditions—this is the true penetrating the false. If spoken in terms of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa: saṃsāra is identical to nirvāṇa—this is the false penetrating the true; nirvāṇa is identical to saṃsāra—this is the true penetrating the false. Therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The actual limit of saṃsāra is the limit of nirvāṇa. The actual limit of nirvāṇa is the limit of saṃsāra. Between these two limits, there is not the slightest difference." This is interpenetration. Later in this sūtra it says: "With contention, one speaks of saṃsāra; without contention, one speaks of nirvāṇa. Both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are unobtainable." This is also the meaning of interpenetration as both empty and both existent. If relying on the two truths, taking the false as the conventional truth and the true as the ultimate truth: that which is called "interpenetrate" means being identical to the conventional and thereby true, and being identical to the true and thereby conventional. Therefore Master Ying said: "When their essential conclusion is unified, it brings together and integrates the two truths: through the ultimate truth, there is no existence; through the conventional truth, there is no non-existence. Because it is ultimate, there is no existence, yet though non-existent, it exists; because it is conventional, there is no non-existence, yet though existent, it is non-existent. Though existent it is non-existent, and so is not encumbered by existence; though non-existent it exists, and so is not stranded in non-existence. Quelling these extremes is therefore called the middle way." This is the interpenetration of the true and the false. "Because it is ultimate, there is no existence, yet though non-existent, it exists"—this is the true penetrating the false; "because it is conventional, there is no non-existence, yet though existent, it is non-existent"—this is the false penetrating the true. The rest can be deduced by reflection. If spoken in accordance with convention, the true and the false are fundamentally empty, so naturally they interpenetrate. If the true and the false are both true, then root and branch are of a single taste, so naturally they interpenetrate. If touching an object is entirely the middle, naturally they interpenetrate. Next, clarifying the reason for interpenetration. Question: The true and the false conflict with each other like water and fire. How can they interpenetrate? Answer: There are many reasons for this. First, because the two dharmas of the true and the false are the same one mind, being bound together by the one, they are therefore able to interpenetrate. Thus the Awakening of Faith says: "Relying on the dharma of the one mind, there are two kinds of gates: first, the mind as tathatā gate; second, the mind as arising and ceasing gate." Yet each of these two gates totally subsumes all dharmas exhaustively; because these two gates are not separate from each other, it is therefore said that they are not separate from the one mind, and thus they can interpenetrate. Second, because the false grasps the true to come into being, there is no separate false. This is also the import of the Awakening of Faith, the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra, and others. Tathatā in concordance with conditions brings about all dharmas; hence the true penetrates the false. As for saying "the true becomes manifest in accord with the false, so there is no separate true": this is the false penetrating the true. If there were no false, in contrast to what would one speak of the true? Just as if there were no arising from conditions, there would be no absence of self-nature. Third, as for "the true and the false differ in name, yet have no dual essence": as cited above, "with contention one speaks of saṃsāra; without contention one speaks of nirvāṇa," and so forth, both being unobtainable, they are therefore non-dual in essence. Therefore the sūtra below says: "If one follows provisional names and grasps at these two dharmas, this is inverted and not the true meaning, and one cannot see the Rightly Awakened One." It clarifies that non-duality is the truth; how could this not be interpenetration? Fourth, "if outside the true there were the false, principle would not be all-pervasive" and the following, conversely establish the two meanings. This line is the true penetrating the false. Fifth, "if outside the false there were the true, the false would have nothing to rely upon": this is the false penetrating the true. This is also the doctrine of the Dharma-nature school: all dharmas are tathatā; how could there be the true outside the false? Tathatā pervades everything; how could there be the false outside the true? From this one knows that the true and the false always interpenetrate, yet do not destroy the characteristics of the true and the false. Thus the true that encompasses the false is true without being true, remaining clear and quiescent; the false that penetrates the true is false without being false, billowing forth like clouds. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.1.33) - [Next: 1.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.1.35) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.1.34) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.1.34) · Pramāṇa