[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) › 22.10 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.10 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.10 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [22.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.10) 疏「約迷悟異」下，釋偈下半。然準論意，三句皆相，第四一句拂去上三方為真性。今疏以第三句總牒三世，第四句遣之，故云下半顯性。取文小異，全是論意。云何約迷悟異等？謂迷時有妄，非是無真；悟時見性，性非今有。故生公云：「但是我始會之，非照今有。照不在今，即是莫先為大。既云大矣，所以稱常。」是知迷悟雖異，涅槃之性三世不遷、湛然常住。會即符契，同彼性常，如始覺同本，無復始本之異。何得難言有始必終？則純陀之難遣矣。疏「若以性淨」下，第二約同時平等，正是前偈下半之意。以離三世性，故現今平等。「而不妨迷悟之殊」者，即是論主末後融其性相，令離斷常。若相外有性，性為斷滅、相是定常，故離迷悟無別真性。因乖常故，有三界無常。因解無常之實性故，成常智二理不偏。照與之符，猶懸鏡高堂，萬像斯鑒。經引二鳥，意在此也。是故三乘亦有差別亦無差別，即是涅槃。文殊領解，性無二故故無差別，迷悟淺深故有差別，則文殊之疑遺矣。文殊之疑既遣，迦葉之疑亦亡。餘如上論。「眾生寂滅即是法身」下，示於亦有差別亦無差別之相。言眾生寂滅即是法身者，生不異佛；法身隨緣名曰眾生者，佛不異生，則無差別矣。次言「寂滅非無之眾生，恒不異真而成立」下一對，明無差不礙差。寂滅故無差，非無眾生故不礙差，恒不異真成上寂滅。而成立言，成上非無之眾生。「隨緣非有之法身，恒不異事而顯現」者，隨緣故佛不異生，非有之法身則不礙異生，恒不異事成上隨緣，而顯現言成上非有之法身。從「是故染淨」下，總以融結。疏「況稱性互收」者下，上但事理無礙，已是難思，餘經容有；此則事事無礙，唯《華嚴》意。「如是」下結釋，可知。此上一義乃似傍來，《涅槃》玄旨於是乎見也。疏「九會五周之文」等者，指此上一經，一化隨宜。則始從鹿苑終至雙林，一乘三乘場地頓演，何況如來言說之耶？ > The commentary's statement "In terms of the difference between delusion and awakening..." onward explains the second half of the verse. However, according to the treatise's meaning, all three lines are characteristics, and only the fourth line sweeps away the preceding three to constitute the true nature. Now the commentary uses the third line to summarize the three times and the fourth line to dismiss them, hence saying that the second half reveals the nature. While adopting the text slightly differently, it is entirely the treatise's intent. What does "in terms of the difference between delusion and awakening," etc., mean? It means that when deluded, there is falsity, yet it is not that there is no truth; when awakened, one sees the nature, yet the nature is not newly existent now. Thus Master Sheng said: "It is only that I have now first encountered it; it is not that the illumination newly exists now. Since the illumination does not reside in the present, it is peerless and great. And since it is called great, it is praised as permanent." From this we know that although delusion and awakening differ, the nature of nirvāṇa does not shift across the three times and is serenely, permanently abiding. To encounter it is to tally with it, identical with that nature's permanence, just as initial awakening is identical with original \[awakening\], with no further difference between initial and original. How could one object by saying that what has a beginning must have an end? Thus Cunda's objection is dispelled. The commentary's "If based on pure nature..." onward is, secondly, in terms of simultaneous equality, which is precisely the meaning of the second half of the previous verse. Because its nature is free from the three times, it is currently equal. "Without obstructing the distinction between delusion and awakening" is the treatise master's final harmonizing of nature and characteristics, causing them to be free from annihilationism and eternalism. If there were a nature outside of characteristics, the nature would be annihilation and characteristics would be fixed permanence; therefore, apart from delusion and awakening there is no separate true nature. Because of deviating from permanence, the impermanence of the three realms exists. Because of understanding the real nature of impermanence, the twin principles of permanence and cognition are perfected without one-sidedness. The illumination tallies with it, like a mirror suspended in a high hall reflecting all myriad images. The sūtra cites the two birds with this intention. Therefore the triyāna both has distinctions and has no distinctions, which is nirvāṇa. Mañjuśrī comprehended: because the nature is non-dual, there is no distinction; because delusion and awakening have shallow and deep degrees, there are distinctions; thus Mañjuśrī's doubt was eliminated. With Mañjuśrī's doubt dispelled, Kāśyapa's doubt also ceased. The rest is as in the treatise above. The commentary's "The quiescence of sentient beings is itself the dharmakāya" onward shows the characteristics of both having distinctions and having no distinctions. Saying that "the quiescence of sentient beings is itself the dharmakāya" means that sentient beings are not different from Buddhas; "the dharmakāya in concordance with conditions is named sentient beings" means that Buddhas are not different from sentient beings—thus there is no distinction. Next, the pair stating "Sentient beings who are quiescent and not non-existent are established while constantly not differing from the real" clarifies that non-distinction does not obstruct distinction. Because of quiescence there is no distinction; because they are not non-existent sentient beings, it does not obstruct distinction; "constantly not differing from the real" completes the quiescence above, while the word "established" completes the sentient beings who are not non-existent above. As for "The dharmakāya which accords with conditions and is not existent is manifested while constantly not differing from phenomena," because it accords with conditions, the Buddha is not different from sentient beings; the non-existent dharmakāya then does not obstruct differing from sentient beings; "constantly not differing from phenomena" completes the concordance with conditions above, while the word "manifested" completes the non-existent dharmakāya above. From "Therefore defilement and purity..." downward, it synthesizes and concludes. As for the commentary's "How much more so when, according with the nature, they mutually encompass each other..." downward: the above was merely the non-obstruction of phenomena and principle, which is already inconceivable and may be found in other sūtras; this, however, is the non-obstruction of phenomena and phenomena, which is unique to the meaning of the Huayan. The concluding explanation from "Thus..." downward can be understood. This single preceding principle might seem incidental, yet the profound purport of the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] is seen herein. The commentary's "The text of the nine assemblies and five cycles..." etc., points to this single preceding sūtra as a single teaching adapted to circumstances. Thus from the Deer Park to the Twin Trees, the arena of the one vehicle and the three vehicles was taught suddenly—how much more so the Tathāgata's speech? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 22.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.9) - [Next: 22.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.11) - [Up: 22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.22.10) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.10) · Pramāṇa