大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 30.25

30.25

疏「又法華不顛倒等」者，即〈安樂行品〉第二親近處。經云「文殊師利！又菩薩摩訶薩觀一切法空，如實相，不顛倒、不動不退不轉，如虛空無所有性，一切語言道斷，不生不出不起，無名無相實無所有，無量無邊無礙無障。但以因緣有從顛倒生，故說常樂。觀如是法相，是名菩薩摩訶薩第二親近處。」釋曰：上經皆觀實相，即理實相也，云皆寂滅。疏「中論法品」下，引論全釋一偈。然順今經，引論乃倒。今先具引論文，然後釋義。論云「諸佛或說我，或說於無我。諸法實相中，無我無非我。諸法實相者，心行言語斷，無生亦無滅，寂滅如涅槃。一切實非實，亦實亦非實，非實非非實，是名諸佛法。自知不隨他，寂滅無戲論，無異無分別，是則名實相。若法從緣生，不即不異因，是故名實相，不斷亦不常。不一亦不異，不常亦不斷，是名諸世尊，教化甘露味。」釋曰：此有六偈，大分為四。初三明實相之體，次一智契實相，三有一偈名實相之由，四有一偈明實相之教。初三中，初一明實相雙非、次一明其深寂、後一語其體圓。又三是橫廣、三是竪深，初一非深非廣。又初一對我說實相、二約性顯實相、三該通性相明實相，以實是性、非實是相故。略知大旨。今之所用，但用二偈。初以竪深釋經上半，以心絕動搖、言亡四句，故云心行言語斷。理圓言偏、理與言絕，故云言語道斷。以欲言其有無狀無形、欲言其無聖以之靈，故口欲辯而辭喪。心以取相為行，實相無相，故絕心行之處，是則心將緣而慮息。以起心動念不會理而，故體無生。既法本不生，今何有滅？無生無滅即是寂滅。言如涅槃者，舉喻以顯。然實相之體即性淨涅槃，而人知涅槃寂滅不生、不知實相寂滅，故以涅槃為喻。若了實相即是涅槃，涅槃之相亦叵得也。次以雙非實相釋經下半。離我無我著，實相無我不可著。從亦無無我、亦不著無我。若著二無我理，未免於著。從「又離我者」下，上來直就體明，此下對人以顯。不著無我，則不趣證，故能悲濟。從「然我無我」下，復以四句會融釋此四句。略有三意：一對人以顯成前對人。謂唯我即凡夫。無我即二乘雙辯，對小說大涅槃，云無我者所謂生死，我者謂大涅槃。二乘之人但見無我、不見於我，雙非即泯絕大小。二者直就大乘性相，亦有此四：初句唯一真我，逈然獨立；次句對病顯實，我法皆空。雙辯句，真妄雙觀不壞性相。雙非句，性相融即故互奪兩亡。三者但約觀照。第一句知諸眾生妄執有我，二稱理而觀離於二我，三亦雙照性相，四即真妄形奪。與第二釋異者，此初句有我此是妄我，第二初我乃無我法中有真我耳。

Regarding the commentary's "Also, the Lotus Sūtra's 'not inverted,' etc.": this refers to the second sphere of association in the "Practices for Ease and Joy" chapter. The sūtra states: "Mañjuśrī! Furthermore, a bodhisattva-mahāsattva contemplates all phenomena as empty, as they really are, not inverted, not moving, not retreating, not turning, like empty space without any inherent nature, all paths of words being cut off, not born, not emerging, not arising, without name and without characteristic, truly without anything existing, immeasurable, boundless, unhindered, and unobstructed. They exist solely through causes and conditions, born from inversion; therefore it is said they are constantly joyful. To contemplate such characteristics of phenomena is called the second sphere of association of a bodhisattva-mahāsattva." Explanation: The sūtras above both contemplate the real characteristic, which is the real characteristic of principle, stating that all are quiescent and ceased. Under the commentary's "Madhyamakaśāstra's 'Examination of Dharmas'" onward, it cites the treatise to fully explain a verse. Yet in accordance with the present sūtra, the quotation of the treatise is inverted. Now I shall first fully quote the treatise text and then explain its meaning. The treatise states: / "The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of a self, / Or sometimes spoken of no-self. / Within the real characteristic of all phenomena, / There is neither self nor non-self. / As for the real characteristic of all phenomena, / The workings of the mind and paths of speech are cut off; / Neither arising nor ceasing, / It is quiescent and ceased, like nirvāṇa. / Everything is real and unreal, / Both real and unreal, / Neither real nor unreal: / This is called the Dharma of all Buddhas. / Known by oneself, not dependent on another, / Quiescent and ceased, without prapañca, / Without distinction and without conceptual discrimination: / Such is named the real characteristic. / If a phenomenon arises from conditions, / It is neither identical with nor different from its cause; / Therefore it is named the real characteristic, / Neither interrupted nor eternal. / Neither one nor different, / Neither eternal nor interrupted: / This is called by all World-Honoured Ones / The ambrosia flavor of transforming instruction." / Explanation: There are six verses here, broadly divided into four. The first three explain the essence of the real characteristic; the next one explains cognition tallying with the real characteristic; the third has one verse explaining the reason it is named real characteristic; the fourth has one verse explaining the teaching of the real characteristic. Among the first three, the first explains the real characteristic as double negation; the next explains its profound quiescence; the last speaks of its essence being complete. Furthermore, three are horizontally broad and three are vertically deep, the first being neither deep nor broad. Also, the first speaks of the real characteristic in contrast to self; the second reveals the real characteristic in terms of nature; the third comprehensively covers nature and characteristics to clarify the real characteristic, because what is real is the nature and what is unreal is the characteristic. Thus one broadly knows the main purport. What is utilized now uses only two verses. First, it uses vertical depth to explain the first half of the sūtra verse: because the mind terminates wavering and speech abandons the four alternatives, it is said that the workings of the mind and speech are cut off. The principle is complete while words are one-sided; the principle is severed from words, so it is said that the path of speech is cut off. Because if one wishes to say it exists, it lacks shape and form; if one wishes to say it does not exist, the sages are made numinous by it; therefore when the mouth wishes to explain it, phrasing fails. The mind acts by grasping characteristics; since the real characteristic is without characteristics, the place of the mind's workings is severed—this is where, when the mind is about to take an object, contemplation ceases. Because raising the mind and stirring thoughts do not tally with the principle as such, its essence is unarisen. Since phenomena are fundamentally unarisen, how could there now be ceasing? Neither arising nor ceasing is precisely quiescence and cessation. Saying "like nirvāṇa" presents an analogy to reveal it. However, the essence of the real characteristic is itself the naturally pure nirvāṇa; but people know that nirvāṇa is quiescent, ceased, and unarisen, while not knowing that the real characteristic is quiescent and ceased; hence nirvāṇa is used as an analogy. If one comprehends that the real characteristic is precisely nirvāṇa, the characteristic of nirvāṇa is also ungraspable. Next, it uses the real characteristic of double negation to explain the lower half of the sūtra verse. Departing from self and no-self grasping: the real characteristic is devoid of a self and cannot be clung to. From "also without no-self," one also does not cling to no-self. If one clings to the principle of the two kinds of no-self, one has not escaped clinging. From "Furthermore, departing from self" onward, what precedes directly explained it in terms of the essence, while from here down it is revealed in relation to persons. Not clinging to no-self, one does not rush to realize [cessation], and hence is able to rescue with compassion. From "However, regarding self and no-self" onward, it again synthesizes and harmonizes with the four alternatives to explain these four lines. There are broadly three senses: First, revealing it in relation to persons to complete the former relation to persons. That is, holding solely to self is ordinary beings. Holding to no-self is the two vehicles. The simultaneous affirmation, contrasting the lesser with the Great Nirvāṇa, says that no-self refers to saṃsāra, while self refers to the Great Nirvāṇa. Persons of the two vehicles only see no-self and do not see the self; the double negation completely extinguishes both great and small. Second, directly in terms of Mahāyāna nature and characteristics, there are also these four: The first line is solely the one true self, towering and standing alone; the next line reveals the real in contrast to illness, with self and phenomena both empty. The line of simultaneous affirmation contemplates both true and deluded without destroying nature and characteristics. The line of double negation, because nature and characteristics are merged and identical, mutually strips away so that both perish. Third, it is taken purely in terms of contemplative illumination. The first line knows that all sentient beings falsely grasp that there is a self; the second line contemplates according with the principle, departing from the two selves; the third also simultaneously illuminates nature and characteristics; the fourth is the mutual stripping away of true and deluded. The difference from the second explanation is that here, the first line's "there is a self" is a deluded self, whereas the first "self" in the second explanation is the true self within the dharma of no-self.