大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 29.47

29.47

疏「亦非能照是報」者，揀濫釋也，可知。言「二不並故」者，報處見化，見化不見報，非謂報化並現故也。疏「非是多處各有會」者，亦是揀濫。恐人誤解，若多處有會，似如十人為會，十會在一室中，一燈照了，令人頓見十會百人。今不爾也。「一會遍一切處」者，如於一室懸百面鏡，中有十人共為一會，則百鏡中有百會也。思之。疏「一切處文殊，略申三義」者，第一約文，即是以應就機，令百川中一時見月。言「各各皆說當節之偈」者，如百億內同說「若有見正覺」偈，第二節內同說「眾生無智慧」偈。然有四句：一一切處文殊同說一偈，是一切即一。二但一文殊十節說偈，是一即一切。三各於佛所，即一唯是一。四諸處文殊各偈不同，即是一切中一切。疏「二一文殊從一處東來」下，第二釋約義，復語其實德。如前溪之月即是後溪，及千江百川之月全入前溪。所以爾者，一切處月不離本月，故本月落溪則千處俱落。第三約表者，文殊主般若門。若約觀照般若，智了萬境無非般若，若白日麗天無物不照矣。若實相般若，無法非實相體，故無非般若。猶水全遍波，無波非水。即《大般若》云「般若波羅蜜多清淨故色清淨，色清淨故一切智智清淨。何以故？若般若波羅蜜多清淨、若色清淨、若一切智智清淨，無二無二分，無別無斷故。」通於觀照及實相也。二正顯偈。疏「然觀資理成」等者，以賢首有上二意，各別科文：初約境顯理中，十偈為三：初一法超情表、次八會事歸理、後一事如理融，成前一會，即一切會等事無障礙也。二約心令泯絕諸見，依此釋經十偈為六：初之二頌，頌於放光佛，令離見。次一頌，會前光所照處，以明離見。三有三頌，會前所現本法會等，以明離見。四有二頌，別會諸菩薩大眾，以明離見。五有一頌，會前所照眾生。六末後一頌，明前法會周遍所由。今疏意明不為兩般合成一釋，顯理離見二義相成，故總出所以，云觀資理成。若不見理，不成觀照故。「理由觀顯」者，不得觀照，安能會理？理無廢興，弘之由人，故觀成契理，諸見自亡，故合為一釋，皆帶顯理破見之義，一一具於逼別二意故。初偈反顯，明違理起見，為過失生；後九順明，會理則理顯而見息也。

As for the commentary's statement, "Nor is it that the illuminating [body] is the reward [body]": this is an explanation to eliminate ambiguity, which is readily understood. As for the statement, "Because the two are not juxtaposed": in the place of the reward [body], one sees the transformation [body]; seeing the transformation [body], one does not see the reward [body]; it does not mean that the reward and transformation [bodies] appear together side by side. As for the commentary's statement, "It is not that there are assemblies separately in multiple locations": this is also to eliminate ambiguity. Fearing that people might misunderstand, thinking that if there are assemblies in multiple locations, it would be like ten people forming an assembly, and ten assemblies were in a single room, illuminated by a single lamp so that one instantly sees ten assemblies and one hundred people. Here it is not like that. As for "a single assembly pervading all locations": it is like hanging one hundred mirrors in a single room, with ten people inside forming a single assembly; then within the one hundred mirrors there are one hundred assemblies. Reflect on this. As for the commentary's statement, "Regarding Mañjuśrī in all locations, briefly three meanings are set forth": the first is according to the text, which is adapting the response to the capacity [of beings], causing the moon to be seen simultaneously in a hundred streams. As for the statement, "Each speaks the verse appropriate to that section": just as within the one hundred yi [worlds], all simultaneously speak the verse, "If there are those who see the Correctly Awakened One," and within the second section, all simultaneously speak the verse, "Sentient beings lack wisdom." However, there are four propositions: (1) Mañjuśrī in all locations simultaneously speaks a single verse, which is all being identical to one; (2) but a single Mañjuśrī speaks verses in ten sections, which is one being identical to all; (3) each at his respective Buddha's place, which is one being solely one; (4) the Mañjuśrīs in various locations have different verses each, which is all within all. From the commentary's "Second, a single Mañjuśrī comes from a single place in the east..." downward: the second explains in terms of the meaning, further speaking of his true virtues. Just as the moon in the front stream is precisely that of the back stream, and the moons of a thousand rivers and a hundred streams fully enter the front stream. Why is this so? The moon in all locations is not separate from the original moon; therefore, when the original moon descends into a stream, it descends into a thousand places simultaneously. The third is in terms of representation: Mañjuśrī presides over the gate of wisdom (prajñā). If in terms of contemplative wisdom (vipaśyanā-prajñā), when cognition comprehends the myriad realms, there is none that is not prajñā, like the bright sun beautifying the sky, with nothing it does not illuminate. If in terms of real-mark wisdom (tattvalakṣaṇa-prajñā), there is no dharma that is not the essence of the real mark; hence, there is none that is not prajñā. It is just like water completely pervading the waves: there are no waves that are not water. This is as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "Because prajñāpāramitā is pure, form is pure; because form is pure, all-knowledge-wisdom is pure. Why is this? If prajñāpāramitā is pure, if form is pure, and if all-knowledge-wisdom is pure, they are without duality and without a dual division, without distinction and without interruption." This applies to both contemplative and real-mark [wisdom]. Second, directly clarifying the verses. As for the commentary's "However, contemplation is assisted by the principle to be accomplished," and so forth: because Xianshou held the above two ideas, he analyzed the text in two distinct outlines: First, within "revealing the principle in terms of the realm," the ten verses are divided into three: the first verse shows that phenomena transcend emotional thought; the next eight integrate phenomena into the principle; the last verse fuses phenomena in accord with the principle, establishing that the previous single assembly is identical to all assemblies, and other non-obstruction among phenomena. Second, within "in terms of the mind, causing all views to be eradicated," interpreting the sūtra according to this divides the ten verses into six: the first two verses praise the Buddha who emits light, causing one to be free from views. The next verse integrates the places illuminated by the previous light, in order to clarify freedom from views. Third, there are three verses integrating the original Dharma assemblies and so forth manifested earlier, in order to clarify freedom from views. Fourth, there are two verses separately integrating the great assembly of bodhisattvas, in order to clarify freedom from views. Fifth, there is one verse integrating the sentient beings illuminated earlier. Sixth, the final verse clarifies the reason why the previous Dharma assembly is all-pervading. Now, the commentary's intention is not to make them two separate interpretations, but to combine them into a single explanation, because revealing the principle and leaving behind views are two meanings that mutually accomplish each other. Therefore, summarizing the reason, it says, "Contemplation is assisted by the principle to be accomplished." If one does not see the principle, contemplative illumination cannot be accomplished. As for "the principle is revealed through contemplation": if one does not attain contemplative illumination, how could one comprehend the principle? The principle neither wanes nor flourishes; its propagation depends on the person. Therefore, when contemplation is accomplished and accords with the principle, all views naturally perish. Thus, they are joined into a single explanation, each carrying the meaning of revealing the principle and breaking through views, since each verse fully possesses both the forced and distinct meanings. The first verse clarifies by contrast, explaining that contravening the principle and giving rise to views gives rise to faults; the latter nine clarify in positive accord, showing that when one accords with the principle, the principle is revealed and views cease.