大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 41.14

41.14

疏「取文雖異，義旨乃同」者，謂若理若事、若真若妄，此文乃異；互相交徹，義旨則齊。疏「亦同密嚴」者，〈問明〉已引，云「如來清淨藏，世間阿賴耶，如金與指環，展轉無差別。」則金色如指環，金體即金。然此上不異總有四句：一以本成末，本隱末存，此即存隱不異。即疏云「以妄無體攬真而起，則真無不隱，唯妄現也」是矣。二攝末歸本，末盡本顯，此即顯滅明不異。故疏云「以真體實，妄無不盡，唯真現也。」三攝本從末，末存；攝末歸本，本顯。此則兩法俱存，但真妄有異，即有真有妄明不異。故疏云「是則無體之妄，不異體實之真，故云無有異也。」四攝本從末，本隱，是不無義；攝末歸本，末盡，是不有義。此則不有不無明不異，亦是末後二句。又非異故非邊，不一故非中。非邊是無寄法界妙智所證湛然常住無所寄也。又非一即非異，故恒居邊而即中等。又非一即生死，非異即涅槃。非一即非異，故恒住生死即處涅槃等。然其法體圓融無礙，上來所說非一異等，亦是假言，故前疏云「善須得意」。以法就喻，金等亦然。疏「橫者異法相望」者，即一切差別法無差別也。法即是善法，非法即惡法，故《百論》取般若意云「福尚捨，何況罪。」以《金剛》云「法尚應捨，何況非法。」故以非法而名為罪。疏「又法謂有法」者，亦是橫論有無相對。疏「故中論」下，引論證成無法為非法也。即第三論〈成壞品〉，頌云「從法不生法，亦不生非法。從非法不生，法及於非法。」直釋偈意：法即是有，如色心等。非法是無，如兔角等。若從法生法，如母生子。法生非法，如人生石女兒。從非法生法，如兔角生人。從非法生非法者，如龜毛生兔角。故彼長行釋云「從法不生法者，若至若失，二俱不然。從法不生非法者，非法名無所有，法名為有，云何從有相生無相？從非法不生法者，非法名為無，無云何生有？若從無生有者，是則無因，無因則有大過，是故不從非法生法。不從非法生非法者，兔角不生龜毛。」疏「然前義」下，斷上二說。前義即事理無礙，後義即事事無礙。疏「若但用後義」下，反以理結要用上二。謂要由事理無礙，方得以理融於事，事事隨理而融通耳。此中更有別義，謂又若依前義，則心等四類即第五無為；若依後義，由無為故前四無差。又依前義，是性無異，故無有差；若依後義，是同一如體，故無差也。疏「第二偈」下，初立二相。次「所遣既無」下，釋無實義。「以喻」下，釋合下半。後「若以正報」下，結彈古釋。疏「文舉一隅應反餘二」者，應明現在無過未，過去無現未等。故《論語》云「舉一隅不以三隅反」。疏「諸法亦然真俗並虛」等者，故肇公云：「涅槃蓋是鏡像之所歸、絕稱之幽宅也，豈可以有無標牓。故有餘無餘乃出處之異號、應物之假名耳。」疏「若離分別則無一切境界之相」者，即《起信論》，前文已引。此論前文云「一切境界唯依妄念而有差別」，次云「若離心念則無一切境界之相」。疏「反覆相遣顯無差理」者，謂以所知遣能知，復以能知遣所知耳。疏「況當有敗，如出現品」者，經云「譬如世界有成壞，而其虛空不增減；一切諸佛成菩提，成與不成無差別」是也。

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Although the formulations chosen differ, their essential import is the same": whether principle or phenomena, whether real or delusive, though these expressions differ, they interpenetrate, and their essential import is identical. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "It is also identical to the Ghanavyūha": the "Inquiry into Clarity" chapter has already cited it, saying: "The Tathāgata's pure womb / and the worldly ālaya / are like gold and a ring: / mutually, there is no difference." Thus, the color of gold is like the ring, while the substance of gold is the gold itself. However, these above-mentioned non-differences comprise four propositions in total: First, the root forms the branches; the root is concealed while the branches subsist. This is non-difference through subsistence and concealment. It corresponds to the Commentary's statement: "Since delusion lacks substance and arises by grasping the real, the real is wholly concealed, and only delusion appears." Second, gathering the branches back into the root; the branches are extinguished while the root becomes manifest. This is non-difference explained through manifestation and extinction. Hence the Commentary says: "Because the substance of the real is actual, delusion is completely exhausted, and only the real appears." Third, gathering the root into the branches, the branches subsist; gathering the branches back into the root, the root becomes manifest. Here both dharmas subsist together, yet the real and the delusive differ; this is non-difference explained by both the real and the delusive existing. Hence the Commentary says: "Thus, delusion lacking substance is not different from the real whose substance is actual; therefore it says there is no difference." Fourth, gathering the root into the branches, the root is concealed, which means not non-existent; gathering the branches back into the root, the branches are exhausted, which means not existent. This is non-difference explained through neither existence nor non-existence, and it also constitutes the final two propositions. Furthermore, because it is not different, it is not an extreme; because it is not identical, it is not the middle. Not being an extreme is the unattached dharmadhātu, realized by wondrous cognition, serenely and permanently abiding with nothing upon which to depend. Furthermore, non-identity is itself non-difference; thus it constantly abides in an extreme while being identical to the middle, and so forth. Furthermore, non-identity is saṃsāra, and non-difference is nirvāṇa. Non-identity is itself non-difference; thus constantly abiding in saṃsāra is being situated in nirvāṇa, and so forth. Yet the substance of the Dharma is completely fused and unimpeded; the non-identity, non-difference, and so forth stated above are also conventional designations; hence the previous Commentary states, "One must skillfully grasp the intended meaning." Applying the Dharma to the metaphor, gold and the rest are also like this. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Horizontally, it refers to mutually regarding different dharmas": this means that all differentiated dharmas are without differentiation. "Dharmas" are wholesome dharmas, and "non-dharmas" are unwholesome dharmas. Thus the Śataśāstra, drawing upon the import of the Prajñāpāramitā, says: "Even merit should be abandoned, how much more so demerit?" For the Vajracchedikā says: "Even dharmas should be abandoned, how much more so non-dharmas?" Hence non-dharmas are designated as demerit. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Furthermore, 'dharmas' refers to existent dharmas": this is also a horizontal analysis opposing existence and non-existence. Regarding the Commentary's words, "Therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra…" below: it cites the śāstra to prove that non-existent dharmas are "non-dharmas." That is, in the third fascicle of the śāstra, in the "Chapter on Origination and Destruction," a verse states: "From a dharma, a dharma does not arise, / nor does a non-dharma arise. / From a non-dharma does not arise / a dharma or a non-dharma." Directly explaining the verse's meaning: "Dharma" is existence, such as form and mind. "Non-dharma" is non-existence, such as a hare's horns. If from a dharma arises a dharma, it is like a mother giving birth to a child. If a dharma generates a non-dharma, it is like a human giving birth to a barren woman's child. If from a non-dharma arises a dharma, it is like a hare's horns producing a human. If from a non-dharma arises a non-dharma, it is like tortoise hair producing a hare's horns. Hence the prose commentary there explains: "'From a dharma, a dharma does not arise': whether arriving or losing, both are untenable. 'From a dharma, a non-dharma does not arise': 'non-dharma' means non-existent, and 'dharma' means existent; how could a characteristic of non-existence arise from an existent characteristic? 'From a non-dharma, a dharma does not arise': 'non-dharma' means non-existence; how could non-existence give rise to existence? If existence arose from non-existence, it would be causeless; being causeless involves grave errors; therefore, from a non-dharma a dharma does not arise. 'From a non-dharma, a non-dharma does not arise': a hare's horns do not produce tortoise hair." Regarding the Commentary's words, "However, the former meaning…" below: it evaluates the two aforementioned theories. The former meaning is the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena; the latter meaning is the non-obstruction among phenomena and phenomena. Regarding the Commentary's words, "If one merely uses the latter meaning…" below: it inversely concludes based on principle that both must be used. That is to say, only through the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena can principle fuse phenomena, so that phenomena and phenomena harmonize and interpenetrate in accordance with principle. In this there is further a distinct meaning: if according to the former meaning, the four categories such as mind are the fifth, the unconditioned; if according to the latter meaning, because of the unconditioned, the former four are without difference. Furthermore, according to the former meaning, nature is without difference, and therefore there is no divergence; if according to the latter meaning, they share the same substance of suchness, and therefore are without difference. Regarding the Commentary's words, "The second verse…" below: first, it establishes the two characteristics. Next, under "Since what is eliminated is already non-existent…", it explains the meaning of being devoid of actuality. Under "By using the metaphor…", it explains the matching of the lower half. Finally, under "If using the direct reward…", it concludes by censuring the ancient commentaries. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The text raises one corner, and one should infer the other two": one should clarify that the present lacks past and future, the past lacks present and future, and so forth. Hence the Analects says: "When I raise one corner and [the student] cannot infer the other three from it, [I do not repeat]." Regarding the Commentary's statement, "All dharmas are also thus: the ultimate and the conventional are both empty," and so forth: thus Master Zhao says, "Nirvāṇa is indeed the refuge of reflections in a mirror, the dark abode beyond designations; how could it be labeled with existence or non-existence? Therefore, 'with remainder' and 'without remainder' are merely distinct appellations for departure and presence, provisional designations responding to beings." Regarding the Commentary's statement, "If one is free from discrimination, then there are no characteristics of any objective realm whatsoever": this is from the Awakening of Faith, which has already been cited above. Earlier in this treatise it says: "All objective realms have distinctions solely dependent on delusive thoughts"; then it says: "If one is free from thoughts of the mind, then there are no characteristics of any objective realm whatsoever." Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Alternately eliminating each other to reveal the principle of non-differentiation": this means using the known to eliminate the knower, and again using the knower to eliminate the known. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Much less should there be decline, as in the 'Manifestation' chapter": the sūtra says: "For example, though worlds undergo formation and destruction, empty space neither increases nor decreases; all buddhas achieve bodhi, yet between achieving and not achieving there is no difference"—this is it.