大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 38.20

38.20

疏「然二理不偏」下，結歎前八，謂常無常等總為二理，皆不偏也。明常無常、我無我等皆不相離，此為所證，照與之符即是能證。然其此上本即生公常住義中，彼云：「夫泥洹本有，不可為無；三界本無今有，已有還無，故不可為有。泥洹以不生滅為實諦，三界以生滅為真諦，二理不偏名中道義。」彼有問云：常與無常二理相反，云何而為中道不偏之理耶？答：二理雖殊，理自相資。何者？因乖常故有三界無常，因解無常之實性故成常智。所以經引二鳥，義旨在此。二理不偏，照與之符，猶懸鏡高堂萬像斯鑑矣。釋曰：懸鏡高堂即無心虛照，萬像斯鑑則不揀妍媸，故以絕常無常之淨心照常無常之圓理。若依此釋，則一切法言，前四自屬有為。故《涅槃》云「一切法者，名為生死。非一切法者，謂佛法僧及正解脫。」又云「我觀諸行悉皆無常。云何知耶？以因緣故。若一切法從緣生者，則知無常。是諸外道無有一法不從緣生，是故無常。如來虛空佛性不從因緣，是故為常。」今後四句亦云一切法者，性淨涅槃不離一切為無為故。既有區分，則翻八倒成八行矣。疏「又初四句則因緣生滅」等者，第三傍《淨名經》，約生滅無生滅釋，唯就無常明義。於中有二：先正解、後引證。前中言「初四句則因緣生滅是無常義」等者，等取逼迫為苦義、不淨為空義、不自在為無我義。言「次四句則以不生不滅為無常義」者，此之一句言含總別。總則該後四句，別則初句。無作是無常義，既無造作則無生滅。然此即《淨名》迦旃延章。「迦旃延白佛言：『憶念昔者世尊為諸比丘略說法要，我即於後敷演其義，謂無常義、苦義、空義、無我義、寂滅義。時維摩詰來謂我言：「唯迦旃延！無以生滅心行說實相法。迦旃延！諸法畢竟不生不滅，是無常義。五受陰洞達空無所起，是苦義。諸法畢竟無所有，是空義。於我無我而不二，是無我義。法本不生今則無滅，是寂滅義。」』」釋曰：今疏文中全已用之，但觀所引，自分主客。生公釋諸法畢竟不生不滅是無常義，云「無常者，以事滅驗之，終苟有滅，始無然乎？始若果然，則生非定矣。生不定生，滅孰定哉？生滅既其不定，真體復何所在哉？推無在之為理，是諸法實義。實以不生不滅為義，豈非無常之所存乎？故云不生不滅是無常義。」此則正就生滅推之即無生滅耳。「又無常者，乃明常之為無常，則所以無無常也，故不生滅是無常義。」疏「五受陰洞達空」等者，受者取也，謂煩惱業因能招此陰，故名受陰。言「因起有苦」下，釋疏就經，謂從緣起故，起則無起。故生公云：「夫苦之為事，會所成也。會所成者，豈得有哉？是以言五受陰空是苦義。五受陰，苦之宗也。無常推生及滅事不在一，又通在有漏無漏，故言諸法。苦即體是無，義起於內。又得無漏者，不以失受致苦，故唯受陰而已也。洞達者，無常以據終驗之，云畢竟耳。苦以空為其體，故洞達也。無所起者，無常明無本之變，理在於生。苦言假會之法，所以配起也。」今經云一切者，各少分一切。又含餘義，故云一切。諸法畢竟無所有是空義者，經也。「人法二空，空亦復空，故不如名」者，會疏就經也。生公云：「惑者皆以諸法為我之有也。理既為苦，則事不從己。己苟不從，則非我所保。保之非我，彼必非有也。有是有矣而曰非有。無則無也，豈可有哉？」此為無有無無究竟都盡，乃所以為空義也。《中論》云「諸佛說空法，為離諸有見。若復見有空，諸佛所不化」，故畢竟空耳。

In the commentary, from "However, neither of the two principles is one-sided" downward, it concludes with praise for the preceding eight [lines], stating that permanence and impermanence and so forth comprise two principles in all, neither of which is one-sided. It clarifies that permanence and impermanence, self and non-self, and so forth are not separate from one another; this is what is realized, and the illumination that accords with it is that which realizes. However, what is above fundamentally derives from Master Sheng's treatise on the meaning of eternal abide, where he says: "Now, nirvāṇa is originally existent and cannot be considered non-existent; the three realms are originally non-existent and now exist, and having existed they return to non-existence, so they cannot be considered existent. Nirvāṇa takes non-arising and non-ceasing as the actual truth; the three realms take arising and ceasing as the true truth. That neither of the two principles is one-sided is called the meaning of the Middle Way." Someone there asked: "Permanence and impermanence are two mutually opposing principles; how can they be the principle of the un-one-sided Middle Way?" He answered: "Although the two principles are distinct, the principles naturally assist each other. Why? Because deviating from permanence, there is the impermanence of the three realms; and because of understanding the real nature of impermanence, permanent wisdom is accomplished. Therefore, the sūtra cites the two birds; its intended meaning lies here. Neither of the two principles is one-sided, and illumination accords with it, just like a mirror suspended in a high hall reflects all images." Explanation: "A mirror suspended in a high hall" refers to the empty illumination of non-mind; "all images are thus reflected" means without discriminating beauty from ugliness; hence, with a pure mind that transcends permanence and impermanence, one illuminates the consummate principle of permanence and impermanence. If explained according to this, then regarding the phrase "all dharmas," the first four naturally belong to the conditioned. Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "'All dharmas' refers to saṃsāra. 'Not all dharmas' refers to the Buddha, Dharma, Saṅgha, and right liberation." It also says: "I observe all saṃskāras to be impermanent. How is this known? Because of causes and conditions. If all dharmas are born from conditions, then one knows they are impermanent. Among these non-Buddhists, there is not a single dharma that is not born from conditions; therefore it is impermanent. The Tathāgata, space, and the Buddha-nature do not derive from causes and conditions; therefore they are permanent." That the next four lines now also say "all dharmas" is because naturally pure nirvāṇa is not separate from all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Since there is a distinction, overturning the eight inversions accomplishes the eight practices. In the commentary, "Furthermore, the first four lines take arising and ceasing through causes and conditions..." and so forth: this is the third [interpretation], drawing on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra to explain in terms of arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, clarifying the meaning purely with respect to impermanence. In this there are two parts: first, the correct explanation; second, citing proof. In the first part, the statement that "the first four lines taking arising and ceasing through causes and conditions is the meaning of impermanence" and so on: "and so on" includes taking oppression as the meaning of suffering, impurity as the meaning of emptiness, and lack of mastery as the meaning of non-self. The statement that "the next four lines take non-arising and non-ceasing as the meaning of impermanence": this single line contains both a general and a specific sense. Generally, it encompasses the subsequent four lines; specifically, it refers to the first line. "Non-doing" is the meaning of impermanence; since there is no deliberate creation, there is no arising or ceasing. However, this is precisely the chapter on Kātyāyana in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: "Kātyāyana said to the Buddha: 'I recall that in the past, when the World-Honoured One briefly taught the essentials of the Dharma to the monks, I subsequently expounded their meaning—namely, the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of non-self, and the meaning of quiescence. At that time, Vimalakīrti came and said to me: "O Kātyāyana! Do not expound the Dharma of the real mark with a mind and activity of arising and ceasing. Kātyāyana! That all dharmas ultimately do not arise and do not cease is the meaning of impermanence. That the five clinging-aggregates thoroughly penetrate emptiness without anywhere arising is the meaning of suffering. That all dharmas are ultimately devoid of anything that exists is the meaning of emptiness. That one is non-dual regarding self and non-self is the meaning of non-self. That dharmas fundamentally do not arise and now do not cease is the meaning of quiescence."'" Explanation: Now the text of the commentary has used this entirely; merely by examining what is cited, host and guest are naturally distinguished. Master Sheng, in explaining that all dharmas ultimately neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence, says: "As for impermanence, verifying it by the cessation of phenomena: if there is ultimately cessation, could there not have been an initial arising? If the beginning were truly so, then arising is not fixed. If arising is not fixed in arising, what is fixed in cessation? Since arising and ceasing are both unfixed, where could the true essence reside? Inferring that it resides nowhere is the principle, the real meaning of all dharmas. If reality takes non-arising and non-ceasing as its meaning, is this not where impermanence resides? Therefore, it is said that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence." This directly deduces from arising and ceasing that there is no arising or ceasing. "Furthermore, as for impermanence, it clarifies that permanence is impermanence, which is why there is no impermanence; therefore, non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence." In the commentary, "the five clinging-aggregates thoroughly penetrate emptiness" and so on: "clinging" (upādāna) means grasping; because the causes of affliction and karma are able to summon these aggregates, they are called clinging-aggregates. The words "due to arising there is suffering" downward align the commentary with the sūtra, meaning that because they arise from conditions, when they arise there is no arising. Thus Master Sheng says: "Suffering as an affair is constituted by coming together. That which is constituted by coming together, how could it exist? For this reason, it is said that the emptiness of the five clinging-aggregates is the meaning of suffering. The five clinging-aggregates are the source of suffering. Impermanence deduces arising and ceasing, and its affairs are not confined to one; furthermore, it universally pertains to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, so it says 'all dharmas.' Suffering, its essence being non-existent, has its meaning arise internally. Furthermore, one who attains the uncontaminated does not incur suffering through losing grasping, so it refers only to the clinging-aggregates. 'Thoroughly penetrating': impermanence is verified based on the end, so it merely says 'ultimately.' Suffering takes emptiness as its essence, so it 'thoroughly penetrates.' 'Without anywhere arising': impermanence clarifies change without origin, its principle residing in arising. Suffering speaks of dharmas of provisional assembly, which is why it is matched with arising." When the present sūtra says "all," each refers to a partial "all." Furthermore, it contains other meanings, hence it says "all." That "all dharmas are ultimately devoid of anything that exists is the meaning of emptiness" is from the sūtra. "Both persons and dharmas are empty, and emptiness is also empty, hence not conforming to names" aligns the commentary with the sūtra. Master Sheng says: "Those who are deluded all take all dharmas as belonging to the self. Since the principle is suffering, phenomena do not conform to oneself. If they do not conform to oneself, they are not what I can protect. If protecting them does not belong to the self, they certainly do not exist. Their existence is an existence, yet it is called non-existence. Non-existence is indeed non-existence, how could it exist?" This is the utter exhaustion of both non-existence and non-non-existence; this is why it is the meaning of emptiness. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The Buddhas taught the Dharma of emptiness to eliminate all views of existence. If one again sees that there is emptiness, such a person the Buddhas cannot convert"; hence it is ultimately empty.