大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.47

31.47

疏「答前苦樂」者，喻不相知則同於風，答前苦樂則不同風。謂上問言：心性是一，云何見有受苦受樂？故今答云：善因樂果、惡業苦報，苦樂多種，如地輕重。言「又喻前境智」者，前以風地二喻，同喻因緣一不相知。今一地喻，喻二不相知。「答前諸根」者，以諸根有二義：一約眼等諸根，則火喻已答；二信等諸根，今地喻已答。地雖是一，隨種生芽；心性雖一，隨根成異故，故信進等各各不同。「第二五偈，答前設難」。疏「今初，前問有三」下，即先明大意。於中二：第一總彰偈意、第二通明緣起之義。前中，疏「然此四因」下，上別明，此下融會。言「諸宗」者，上四因中，初一通性相二宗，二即法相宗，三即無相宗，四即法性宗。據其實義，四因不缺方成緣起甚深之趣，隨情執見則乖聖旨。如盲摸象，不全見象，然不離象。盲不識乳，則一向奪之。今盲摸象，則乃是分奪，取其不離並順聖教。此喻即《涅槃》第三十二、南經三十，答師子吼，眾生若有佛性，不須修道自得菩提。答意云：眾生有者，定當得故。後舉此喻云「善男子！譬如有王，告一大臣：『汝牽一象以示眾盲。』爾時大臣受王勅已，多集眾盲，以象示之。時彼眾盲，各以手觸。大臣即還，而白王言：『臣已示竟。』爾時大王即呼眾盲，各各問言：『汝見象耶？』眾盲各言：『我已得見。』王言：『象為何類？』其觸牙者即言：『象形如蘆菔根。』其觸耳者言：『象如箕。』其觸頭者言：『象如石。』其觸鼻者言。象如杵。其觸脚者言：『象如木臼。』其觸脊者言：『象如床。』其觸腹者言：『象如甕。』其觸尾者言：『象如蛇。』善男子！彼眾盲不說象體，亦非不說。若是眾相悉非象者，離是之外更無有象。善男子！王喻如來正遍知也。臣喻方等大涅槃經。象喻佛性。盲喻一切無明眾生。是諸眾生聞佛說已，或作是言：『色是佛性』等。」釋曰：彼經喻意，明一切眾生雖有佛性，見不明了，互執不同，然非全離，所執之法皆佛性故，而非全見。今借此喻，以況聖教深旨總喻於象，諸宗異見如盲所觸，並合聖理，故云不離；然非圓了，故云非是說象。故脇尊者云：「依之修行，無不獲益。」言「受一非餘斯為偏見」者，言象如箕，不信如臼，斯為大迷。但信諸識、不信無性，真如隨緣，故為偏見。〈離世間品〉云「受一非餘，魔所攝持。」

Regarding the commentary’s “Answering the preceding [objection on] suffering and pleasure”: in illustrating non-knowing it is identical to the wind, but in answering suffering and pleasure it is not identical to the wind. That is, the question above asked: “Since the mind-nature is one, why does one see the experiencing of suffering and the experiencing of pleasure?” Therefore it now answers: good causes yield pleasurable fruits, bad karma yields suffering retribution, and there are many kinds of suffering and pleasure, like the light and heavy of the earth. The statement “It also illustrates the preceding [pair of] object and cognition” means: previously, the two metaphors of wind and earth together illustrated the single non-knowing of cause and condition; now, the single metaphor of the earth illustrates two non-knowings. “Answering the preceding [objection on] the faculties” means: because faculties have two senses: first, in terms of the eye and other physical faculties, the fire metaphor has already answered it; second, the faculties of faith and so forth, which the earth metaphor has now answered. Although the earth is one, it produces sprouts according to the seeds; although the mind-nature is one, it develops differences according to the faculties, so faith, vigor, and so forth are each different from one another. “Second, the five verses answer the preceding posited objections.” Regarding the commentary’s “Now first, the preceding question had three parts” downward, it first clarifies the general idea. Within this there are two parts: first, generally revealing the intention of the verses; second, comprehensively clarifying the meaning of dependent arising. In the first part, from the commentary’s “However, these four causes” downward: above it clarified them separately, and from here downward it integrates them. The word “various traditions” means: among the four causes above, the first applies to both the nature and characteristic traditions, the second is the Dharma-characteristic tradition, the third is the signless tradition, and the fourth is the Dharma-nature tradition. In terms of their actual meaning, only when all four causes are present is the profound purport of dependent arising accomplished; if one clings to views according to personal sentiment, one violates the holy intention. It is like the blind feeling an elephant: they do not see the whole elephant, yet they are not separated from the elephant. If the blind do not know milk, it is completely rejected. Here, the blind feeling the elephant is a partial rejection, taking the fact that they are not separated from it and that they accord with the sacred teachings. This metaphor comes from the thirty-second fascicle of the Northern version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, the thirtieth of the Southern version, answering Lion’s Roar on whether, if sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, they would obtain bodhi spontaneously without needing to cultivate the path. The answer’s import is: sentient beings possess it in the sense that they will certainly obtain it. Later it raises this metaphor, saying: “Good son! Suppose there was a king who commanded a minister: ‘Bring an elephant and show it to the blind.’ Thereupon the minister, having received the king’s order, gathered many blind people and showed them the elephant. At that time, each of those blind people touched it with their hands. The minister then returned and reported to the king, ‘Your servant has finished showing it.’ Thereupon the great king summoned the blind people and asked each of them: ‘Did you see the elephant?’ The blind people each said: ‘I have seen it.’ The king said: ‘What is the elephant like?’ The one who touched the tusk said: ‘The elephant’s shape is like a radish root.’ The one who touched the ear said: ‘The elephant is like a winnowing basket.’ The one who touched the head said: ‘The elephant is like a boulder.’ The one who touched the trunk said: ‘The elephant is like a pestle.’ The one who touched the foot said: ‘The elephant is like a wooden mortar.’ The one who touched the back said: ‘The elephant is like a bed.’ The one who touched the belly said: ‘The elephant is like a jar.’ The one who touched the tail said: ‘The elephant is like a rope.’ Good son! Those blind people did not speak of the essence of the elephant, yet nor did they not speak of it. If these various characteristics are all not the elephant, apart from them there is no other elephant. Good son! The king is an analogy for the Tathāgata, the Rightly and Fully Enlightened One. The minister is an analogy for the Vaipulya Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. The elephant is an analogy for the Buddha-nature. The blind are an analogy for all ignorant sentient beings. When these sentient beings hear what the Buddha has preached, some make statements like: ‘Form is the Buddha-nature,’ and so forth.” Explanation: The meaning of the metaphor in that sūtra is to clarify that although all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature, their vision is not clear and they mutually cling to differences; yet they are not completely separated from it, because the phenomena they cling to are all the Buddha-nature, though they do not see it completely. Now borrowing this metaphor to illustrate the deep purport of the sacred teachings, the elephant generally illustrates [the true teaching], while the differing views of the various traditions are like what the blind touched; all accord with the sacred principle, hence it is said they are “not separated from it”; yet they are not completely realized, hence it is said they “do not speak of the elephant.” Thus Venerable Pārśva said: “Cultivating practice in reliance on it, there is none who does not obtain benefit.” The phrase “accepting one and rejecting the rest is a one-sided view” means: saying the elephant is like a winnowing basket and not believing it is like a mortar—this is great delusion. Only believing in the various consciousnesses and not believing in the lack of nature and tathatā according with conditions is therefore a one-sided view. The “Chapter on Transcending the World” says: “Accepting one and rejecting the rest is what is grasped by Māra.”