大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 24.19

24.19

疏「亦如涅槃從牛出乳」者，即第十四經、南本十三，云「爾時眾中有一菩薩名住無垢藏王，有大威德，成就神通、得大總持，三昧具足、得無所畏。即從座起，偏袒右肩右膝著地，長跪合掌白佛言：『世尊？如佛所說，諸佛菩薩所可成就功德智慧，無量無邊百千萬億，實不可說。我意猶謂故不如是大乘經典。何以故？因是大乘方等經力故，能出生諸佛世尊阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』時佛讚言：『善哉善哉。善男子！如是如是，如汝所說。是諸大乘方等經典，雖復成就無量功德，欲比是經不可為喻，百倍千倍百千萬億，乃至算數譬喻所不能及。善男子！譬如從牛出乳、從乳出酪、從酪出生酥、從生酥出熟酥、從熟酥出醍醐。醐醐最上，若有服者眾病皆除，所有諸藥悉入其中。善男子！佛亦如是，從佛流出十二部經，從十二部經出修多羅，從修多羅出方等經，從方等經出般若波羅蜜，從般若波羅蜜出大涅槃，猶如醍醐。言醍醐者，喻於佛性。佛性者，即是如來。善男子！以是義故，說言如來所有功德，無量無邊不可稱計。』」釋曰：彼約讚法勝，能從微至著。今但取從佛出教，以況眉間出眾耳。然此段經文諸說不同。若澤州，先於菩薩申已解中有一問云：此經是其言教，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是其果證。教淺證深，何故菩提不及是經？釋言：此中偏名宣說佛性之詮、法身之教以之為經。所證即是性淨因果，所生菩提是其方便。因果性淨為本、方便為末，末不如本故，佛菩提功德不及。準後佛答其義如是。次下釋佛答，合中云：以佛合牛，約應身佛。十二部經合乳，說小乘經。修多羅合酥，名大乘教。藉小開大，故名為出。後四俱大乘詮事之教，名修多羅，謂施戒等事。方等合生酥，即大乘中破相空教，因事顯理故名為出。以般若合熟酥，究竟離相證實之慧名為般若，依理起慧是故名出，約行辯教亦得名出。《般若經》云「然此般若，即是向前菩提體也。」以醍醐合涅槃，般若了因，了彼無始法性涅槃，是故名出。約實辯教亦得名出。《涅槃經》言「佛性即是如來」者，是法身如來，非報身如來。報身功德不及此經，故不即之。上皆遠公之意。若望經意，未必如是。謂此公堅將大小事理以配五味，乃成屈曲。如何不說大乘十二部等耶？今謂無垢藏意，推功歸本，果從教生。如來述成，成其推功之義。醍醐最上，功本由乳；如來至極，功歸於教。故涅槃即是如來，如來即是菩提。誠謂「滔滔之水本於濫觴，合抱之樹生於毫末」，故說教為佛本，何用強分大小法報別耶？然佛自揀此經異於小乘，今牛出乳是大教耳。若爾，何成五味？謂十二部經辯所說教。出修多羅者，十二分教出生契理合機之義故。修多羅出方等者，由契理故顯出真理，正理廣陳為方等故。從方等出般若者，依理生智等。般若出涅槃者，以智契理成極果故。故云涅槃猶如醍醐，醍醐喻於佛性，佛性即是如來。文理昭然，何須屈曲。亦有說言：從佛出十二部經是本質教，從十二部出修多羅是影像教者，亦是妄推度耳，都無本影之意。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "It is also like the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], where milk comes from a cow": this refers to the fourteenth fascicle—the thirteenth in the southern edition—which states: "At that time, there was a bodhisattva in the assembly named King Abiding in the Immaculate Storehouse, possessed of great majestic virtue, who had accomplished supernormal powers, attained great dhāraṇīs, was complete in samādhi, and had attained fearlessness. He immediately arose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, placed his right knee on the ground, knelt with palms joined, and addressed the Buddha, saying: 'World-Honoured One! As the Buddha has taught, the merit and wisdom that the buddhas and bodhisattvas may accomplish are immeasurable, boundless, hundreds of thousands of ten millions of koṭis, truly ineffable. Yet in my mind I still think it is not equal to these Mahāyāna scriptures. Why is this? Because by the power of these Mahāyāna vaipulya sūtras, they are able to give birth to the anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi of all Buddha-World-Honoured Ones.' Then the Buddha praised him, saying: 'Excellent, excellent! Good son, it is so, it is so, just as you have said. Although these Mahāyāna vaipulya scriptures accomplish immeasurable merits, if one wishes to compare them to this sūtra, no comparison can be made—a hundredfold, a thousandfold, hundreds of thousands of ten millions of koṭis, up to what reckoning and metaphors cannot reach. Good son! For example, from a cow comes milk; from milk comes curd; from curd comes fresh butter; from fresh butter comes clarified butter; and from clarified butter comes ghee. Ghee is the highest: if anyone ingests it, all diseases are eliminated, and all medicines enter into it. Good son! The Buddha is also like this: from the Buddha flow forth the twelve divisions of scripture; from the twelve divisions of scripture come the sūtras; from the sūtras come the vaipulya scriptures; from the vaipulya scriptures comes the prajñāpāramitā; and from the prajñāpāramitā comes the Mahāparinirvāṇa, just like ghee. What is called ghee is a metaphor for buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is none other than the Tathāgata. Good son! For this reason, it is said that all the merits of the Tathāgata are immeasurable, boundless, and incalculable.'" In explanation: in that text, in terms of praising the superiority of the teaching, it proceeds from the subtle to the manifest. Here, it merely takes the emergence of the teaching from the Buddha to analogize the emergence of the assembly from between his brows. However, various explanations of this passage of the sūtra differ. Master Zezhou, first in the bodhisattva's statement of his own understanding, posed a question: "This sūtra is verbal teaching, while anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi is the fruit of realization. The teaching is shallow and the realization is profound; why then is bodhi not equal to this sūtra?" He explained: "Here, the scripture specifically designates the expression that explains buddha-nature, the teaching of the dharmakāya. What is realized is the cause and fruit of the inherently pure nature, while the bodhi that is produced is its upāya. The inherently pure cause and fruit are the root, and upāya is the branch; because the branch is not equal to the root, the merit of the Buddha's bodhi does not equal it." Following this, the Buddha's answer matches this meaning. Next, in explaining the Buddha's response, in the correlation he states: matching the cow with the Buddha refers to the nirmāṇakāya Buddha. The twelve divisions of scripture matched with milk refer to the Hīnayāna sūtras. The sūtras matched with curd are called the Mahāyāna teaching. Because the Great is opened by relying on the Small, it is called "coming forth." The latter four are all Mahāyāna teachings explaining phenomenal matters, called sūtras, meaning matters such as giving and morality. The vaipulya matched with fresh butter is the teaching of emptiness that breaks characteristics in the Mahāyāna; because the principle is revealed through phenomenal matters, it is called "coming forth." Matching prajñā with clarified butter: the wisdom that ultimately departs from characteristics and realizes reality is called prajñā; wisdom arises based on principle, therefore it is called "coming forth"; explaining the teaching in terms of practice may also be called "coming forth." The Prajñā Sūtra states: "However, this prajñā is precisely the substance of the aforementioned bodhi." Matching ghee with nirvāṇa: prajñā is the revealing cause, which reveals that beginningless dharmatā-nirvāṇa, therefore it is called "coming forth"; explaining the teaching in terms of reality may also be called "coming forth." When the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says "buddha-nature is none other than the Tathāgata," this refers to the dharmakāya Tathāgata, not the saṃbhogakāya Tathāgata. The merit of the saṃbhogakāya does not equal this sūtra, hence it is not identical to it. The above are all Master Yuangong's views. Looking at the intention of the sūtra, it is not necessarily like this. That master rigidly matched the Great and Small [vehicles] and phenomena and principle with the five flavors, resulting in convoluted interpretations. How could it not speak of the Mahāyāna twelve divisions and so on? Now, I say: Vimalagarbha's intention is to attribute the achievement to the origin, the fruit being born from the teaching. The Tathāgata confirmed and endorsed it, fulfilling his meaning of attributing the achievement. Ghee is the highest, yet its merit originally comes from milk; the Tathāgata is the utmost, yet the achievement returns to the teaching. Therefore, nirvāṇa is none other than the Tathāgata, and the Tathāgata is none other than bodhi. Truly it is said, "The rushing waters originate from a goblet-overflowing trickle; a tree of an arm-span grows from a tiny sprout." Thus the teaching is said to be the Buddha's root; why force an artificial distinction between Great and Small, dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya? Moreover, the Buddha himself distinguishes this sūtra as different from the Hīnayāna; here, the cow producing milk is simply the Great Teaching. If so, how does it constitute the five flavors? It means that the twelve divisions of scripture explain the teaching that is preached. That which brings forth the sūtras is because the twelve divisions of the teaching bring forth the meaning of tallying with principle and suiting capacities. Sūtras bringing forth the vaipulya is because, through tallying with principle, the true principle is revealed; the extensive setting forth of correct principle constitutes vaipulya. From vaipulya bringing forth prajñā means that wisdom arises based on principle, and so forth. Prajñā bringing forth nirvāṇa means that by wisdom tallying with principle, the ultimate fruit is achieved. Therefore it says that nirvāṇa is like ghee, ghee is a metaphor for buddha-nature, and buddha-nature is none other than the Tathāgata. The text and principle are luminous and clear; why must one be convoluted? There is also an explanation that says: the twelve divisions of scripture coming from the Buddha is the archetype teaching, and the sūtras coming from the twelve divisions is the shadow-image teaching. This too is a reckless speculation, having no meaning of archetype and shadow-image whatsoever.