大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 21.30

21.30

經疏「日光合空」等者，疏文有三：初總釋、二開彰別釋、三總結稱歎。今初，先舉喻，「智符」已下合。以智合日，以實相合空。符者，分而合也。實相體上本有智光，無始迷之，今方朗悟。即我始會之，非照今有，故與實相分而合也。實相無邊，智亦無邊，如空無際，光亦無際。「雖曠劫修成全同本有」者，以偈文會義也。偈云「億劫修成不可思，求其邊際莫能知。」義乃修成智無際耳，何得分而合也。故今答云：雖則修成，全同本有。是以經云「演法實相令歡喜」，故疏結云「窮靈極數」，即是修成。「妙盡難思」，即符本有。亦猶始覺同本覺，無復始本之異，為究竟覺。然窮靈極數之言，即《肇論》劉遺民所難《般若無知論》語。具云「但今談者所疑，於高論之旨，欲求聖心之異，為謂窮靈極數妙盡冥符耶？謂將心體自然靈怕獨感耶？若窮靈極數妙盡冥符，則寂照之名故是定慧之體耳；若心體自然靈怕獨感，則群數之應固已幾乎息矣。」此公意云：若窮靈極數妙盡冥符，則是修極於無修。窮靈為照，妙盡為寂，亦是我之定慧，何用別立無知？若心體自然靈怕獨感，則是體本無知，固合無乎應用，何以言般若無知，對緣而照？故結云「疑者當以撫會應機覩變之知，不可謂之不有。」論主答云「意謂妙盡冥符，不可以定慧為名：靈怕獨感，不可稱群數已息。兩言雖異，妙用常一。迹我而乖，在聖不殊也。」釋曰：觀肇公答上句云「既冥符心體，何可以定慧為名？」若以定慧為名，則未符心體。答下句意云：靈怕獨感與窮靈極數二義相合，何得息於群數之應？故云兩言雖異，在聖不殊也。今疏總不用彼難答本意，借其問中一句，謂窮其靈鑑、極其數運，妙無不盡，則合心體。今略申故難思耳，十義以辯難思。

Regarding the commentary on the sūtra stating “the light of the sun merges with empty space” and so forth: the commentary's text has three parts: first, a general explanation; second, setting forth a specific explanation; third, a general conclusion of praise. Now, in the first part, it first presents the metaphor, and from “wisdom conforms” downward it matches it [with the doctrine]. It matches wisdom with the sun, and matches the real mark with empty space. “Conform” (符) means dividing and then uniting. In the essence of the real mark there is fundamentally the light of wisdom; deluded about it since beginningless time, only now is one radiantly awakened to it. That is, I now initially join with it, but the illumination is not something newly existing now; hence, it divides from and unites with the real mark. The real mark is limitless, and wisdom is also limitless, just as empty space has no bounds and light also has no bounds. Regarding “though cultivated and accomplished through vast kalpas, it is completely identical to what is fundamentally possessed”: this harmonizes the meaning with the verse text. The verse says: “Cultivated and accomplished over koṭis of kalpas, it is inconceivable; seeking its limits, none can know it.” The meaning is simply that the cultivated wisdom is boundless; how could it be divided and united? Therefore, it now replies: although it is cultivated and accomplished, it is completely identical to what is fundamentally possessed. Thus the sūtra states: “Expounding the real mark of dharmas, causing [all] to rejoice”; hence the commentary concludes: “exhausting the spirit and plumbing the limit of reckonings” refers to cultivated accomplishment. “Subtle and exhaustive, difficult to conceive” corresponds to what is fundamentally possessed. It is also like initial awakening being identical to fundamental awakening, no longer having any difference between initial and fundamental, being ultimate awakening. However, the phrase “exhausting the spirit and plumbing the limit of reckonings” comes from the words with which Liu Yimin questioned the Treatise on the Non-knowing of Prajñā in the Zhaolun. In full it states: “However, what present discussants doubt regarding the import of your lofty treatise is: in seeking the distinction of the noble mind, does one say that it exhausts the spirit and plumbs the limit of reckonings, subtly and exhaustively harmonizing in dark accord? Or does one say that the mind's essence is naturally spiritual and tranquil, alone in responding? If it exhausts the spirit and plumbs the limit of reckonings, subtly and exhaustively harmonizing in dark accord, then the names of quiescence and illumination are still the essence of samādhi and wisdom. If the mind's essence is naturally spiritual and tranquil, alone in responding, then the responses to the multitudes of beings have surely almost ceased.” This gentleman's meaning is: if it exhausts the spirit and plumbs the limit of reckonings, subtly and exhaustively harmonizing in dark accord, then cultivation reaches its culmination in non-cultivation. Exhausting the spirit is illumination, and subtle exhaustion is quiescence; these are also my samādhi and wisdom—why separately establish “non-knowing”? If the mind's essence is naturally spiritual and tranquil, alone in responding, then its essence is fundamentally without knowing, and it would properly be without active applications; why then say that prajñā is without knowing, yet illuminates in facing conditions? Therefore, it concludes: “Those who doubt consider that with the knowing that meets and responds to capacities, beholding transformations, it cannot be said to be non-existent.” The treatise master replies: “The meaning is that subtly and exhaustively harmonizing in dark accord cannot be named by samādhi and wisdom; being spiritual and tranquil and alone in responding cannot be called having ceased responses to the multitudes of beings. Although the two statements differ, their subtle function is ever one. Traced from our perspective they diverge, but in the sage they are not distinct.” / Explication: observing Master Zhao's answer to the upper line, he says: “Since it secretly conforms to the mind's essence, how could it be named by samādhi and wisdom?” If it is named by samādhi and wisdom, it does not yet conform to the mind's essence. The meaning of his answer to the lower line is: the two meanings of being spiritual and tranquil and alone in responding, and exhausting the spirit and plumbing the limit of reckonings, are unified; how could responses to the multitudes of beings cease? Hence he says that although the two statements differ, in the sage they are not distinct. Now, the commentary does not use the original intention of that question and answer at all, but borrows one sentence from the question, meaning that exhausting spiritual reflection and plumbing the movements of reckonings, subtly leaving nothing unexhausted, it accords with the mind's essence. Here it is briefly stated, so it is difficult to conceive; ten meanings are used to explain its inconceivability.