大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 27.12

27.12

疏「然此相以為」下，疏出古德以吉祥海雲為萬合云萬相者，即結成靜法正義。縱汝吉祥海雲為萬合言萬相，不合云萬字。疏「此所結剎定是主剎」者，以昔人云：經言此一一世界者，此上二百一十佛剎塵數之剎耳，非此上不可說佛剎塵數之剎也。以二百一十塵數剎為所繞，兩重繞竟方有不可說耳。故立理云：若不將此以會大數，一即此剎種中非唯有不可說剎塵數廣大世界，二即三處說數相違。釋曰：此上意云若所繞已有不可說佛剎塵數，更加兩重繞剎則有眾多不可說佛剎塵數剎也。言三處說數相違者，一是標中有不可說、二中間說但有二百一十三，是結文兩重能繞，初則有不可說、後則有無量不可說，中間則不滿不可說，故相違也。此釋亦似有理。而經此一一言，遠承於前二百一十，殊已隔越。文中既云如是有可不說佛剎微塵數佛剎，即云此一一世界各有十佛剎微塵數廣大世界周匝圍繞，明知合繞前不可說也。又以二百一十為所繞者，前中間說剎但超間，明有二百一十。望其文意，直上十九佛剎塵數之剎，一一各有眾多佛剎圍繞，應有不可說不可說也。何者？且如最下一剎已有一佛剎微塵數佛剎圍繞，向上過一佛剎微塵數世界，方至第二層一剎，有二佛剎微塵數世界圍繞。此第一層向上至第二層中間諸剎，何以無繞？剎若無繞則剎網不成，故知直上一佛剎塵數之剎，一一皆應有繞，不能具說，故有超過舉二十重耳。既最下層一剎有一佛剎塵數剎繞，此上次第二剎更加一剎為能繞，第三亦加一剎，如是漸上至百加百、至千加千、至萬加萬，至滿佛剎塵數。到第二層，還加一佛剎微塵數剎為能繞，故有二佛剎塵數剎繞。如是乃至第二十層，亦復如是，一一漸增，故但直上至一佛剎塵數世界并其能繞，已有眾多佛剎塵數箇佛剎微塵數世界不可知數，且就一期之數云不可說耳，明知所繞定是主剎。若爾，云何不與標文相違？標文但云一剎種有不可說佛剎微塵數世界故。既加兩重能繞，有多多故。答：此有二意。一言不可說者，就主標耳。二者其兩重能繞，並不出不可說剎塵剎中。何者？觀其文意，但是諸剎互為主伴為相繞耳。如百人共聚，一人為主，則九十九人繞之。餘九十九人一一為主時，皆得九十九人繞之。若不爾者，最下一剎已有一佛剎塵數世界圍繞，此能繞剎更有兩重能繞，已有不可說不可說剎塵數剎也。思之。明知互為主伴，則本數不增。而疎言「傍去」者，經中現說下狹上闊如倒立浮圖，仰安雁齒亦合更說上尖下廣如正浮圖，俯安雁齒則上下櫛比皆悉周滿，間無空處，方為剎網。上下四周皆悉相當。經欲揀別諸重，不能備舉，故且增數說繞剎殊。又欲令斜望相當，故為此說。所以《梵網經》云「世界不同，猶如網孔。」若但取二百一十以為所繞，殊非得意。疏「依此則似譯人文繁理隱」者，若言十佛剎但有三字，今云如上所說則有四字，故為文繁。但云如上所說，言不分明，即是理隱。

Regarding the Commentary's statement below: "However, taking this characteristic as...", the Commentary adduces an ancient master who took the auspicious sea-cloud as ten thousand (wan) and said it should be called "ten thousand characteristics," which directly confirms the correct interpretation of the Jingfa Master. Even granted that your auspicious sea-cloud is ten thousand and should be called "ten thousand characteristics," it still should not be called "ten thousand characters."

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The lands concluded here are definitively the primary lands": this is because an earlier commentator said that when the sūtra speaks of "each and every one of these worlds," it refers only to the preceding lands numbering as the dust motes of two hundred and ten Buddha lands, not to the lands numbering as the ineffable dust motes of Buddha lands. Only with the lands numbering as the dust motes of two hundred and ten [Buddha lands] as the encircled, and with the two tiers of encircling completed, is there the ineffable. Therefore, they established the rationale: "If one does not take this to synthesize the great number, first, within this world system there would not merely be immense worlds numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of lands; second, the numbers stated in the three places would contradict each other." The explanation is: What is meant above is that if the encircled already numbered as the dust motes of an ineffable number of Buddha lands, adding two more tiers of encircling lands would result in a multitude of ineffable Buddha-land-dust-mote lands. The statement that the numbers in three places contradict each other means: first, the opening statement posits the ineffable; second, the middle statement mentions only two hundred and ten; third, the concluding text has two tiers of encircling lands, where the first has an ineffable number and the latter an immeasurable ineffable number, whereas the middle does not reach an ineffable number; hence they contradict each other.

This explanation also seems plausible. Yet when the sūtra says "each and every one of these," to reach back across to the preceding two hundred and ten is extremely distant and separated. Since the text says: "In this way, there are Buddha lands numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of Buddha lands," and immediately adds: "Each and every one of these worlds is surrounded by immense worlds numbering as the dust motes of ten Buddha lands," one clearly knows it must surround the preceding ineffable number. Furthermore, regarding taking the two hundred and ten as the encircled: in the preceding middle part, lands were spoken of merely by skipping intermediate numbers, revealing two hundred and ten. Looking at the sense of the text, ascending straight up through lands numbering as the dust motes of nineteen Buddha lands, each land has numerous Buddha lands encircling it, which should amount to an ineffable ineffable number. Why? For instance, the single lowest land is already surrounded by Buddha lands numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land; passing upward across worlds numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land, one only then reaches the single land of the second tier, which is surrounded by worlds numbering as the dust motes of two Buddha lands. Why should the intermediate lands between this first tier ascending to the second tier have no encircling? If lands had no encircling, then the land-net would not be formed. Hence we know that the lands ascending straight up numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land must each have encircling; because they cannot be comprehensively stated, the text selectively skips to present twenty tiers.

Since the single land of the lowest tier has lands numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land encircling it, the next, second land above this adds one more land as an encircler, the third also adds one land, and ascending gradually in this way, upon reaching a hundred, a hundred is added; reaching a thousand, a thousand is added; reaching ten thousand, ten thousand is added, until filling the dust motes of a Buddha land. Arriving at the second tier, it also adds lands numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land as encirclers, and thus has lands numbering as the dust motes of two Buddha lands encircling it. This is likewise the case ascending all the way to the twentieth tier: each gradually increases. Thus, merely ascending straight up to worlds numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land together with their encirclers, there already exists an unknowable number of worlds—multitudes of Buddha-land-dust-motes of Buddha-land-dust-motes. Merely in terms of the number of a single period, it is termed 'ineffable.' One clearly knows that the encircled are definitively the primary lands.

If so, how does this not contradict the opening text? For the opening text merely says that one world system has worlds numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of Buddha lands, yet adding two tiers of encirclers yields far more. Answer: There are two meanings here. First, the term 'ineffable' is stated in terms of the primary [lands]. Second, the two tiers of encirclers do not fall outside the lands numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of lands. Why? Observing the sense of the text, the various lands simply serve mutually as primary and retinue to encircle each other. For example, when a hundred people gather together, if one person is the host, ninety-nine people encircle him. When each of the other ninety-nine people serves as host in turn, each is encircled by ninety-nine people. Were this not so, the lowest single land is already encircled by worlds numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land, and these encircling lands would further have two tiers of encirclers, already yielding lands numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable ineffable number of lands. Consider this. One clearly knows that when they serve mutually as primary and retinue, the original number does not increase.

As for the Commentary's statement regarding "spreading laterally": in the sūtra it is shown that it is narrow below and broad above, like an inverted stūpa, with its stepped teeth pointing upwards; it should also be stated to be pointed above and broad below, like an upright stūpa, with its stepped teeth pointing downwards. Then, top and bottom closely aligned like comb teeth, they are all fully pervasive with no empty space between them, only then constituting a land-net, with upper and lower and the four perimeters all mutually corresponding. The sūtra wished to distinguish the various tiers and could not enumerate them completely; hence it temporarily increased the numbers to explain the distinction of the encircling lands. Furthermore, wishing to make them correspond when viewed diagonally, it offered this explanation. For this reason, the Brahma Net Sūtra states: "The worlds are varied, like the holes in a net." If one only takes the two hundred and ten as the encircled, one has completely missed the meaning.

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "According to this, it seems the translator's phrasing was verbose and the principle obscure": if one says "ten Buddha lands," there are only three characters, but saying "as spoken above" has four characters, hence it is verbose phrasing. Merely saying "as spoken above," with the words not distinct, is precisely the principle being obscure.