大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 44.16

44.16

疏「合上中流亦言生死」者，疏文有三：一依文正釋，意以中流亦合上生死故；二「非生死涅槃之中」下，結彈異釋；三會取異釋。二中，先總非，以自古今皆謂二法中間，故有問云：中流不唯屬於此岸，何以偏名生死中流？二「然晉經失旨不應廣引」者，即別破《刊定》。《刊定》先舉向問，後引古釋。以晉譯失意，古釋豈是？晉經云「譬如河水，不至此岸、不住彼岸、不斷中流故。」古釋非一，苑公今並引之，故今總非。恐後誤解，須知昔非，今抄為引。一苑公云：「前不趣二處是離有，後不住中流是離無，謂生死無處名斷中流，不住無故云不住中流也。」二賢首云：「如東流水，不住南岸、不住北岸。亦得說言不斷北岸。中流以中無別體，約岸分故。若爾，南岸亦得。何以不言涅槃中流？由所度生在此岸故，所以偏就生死而說。」而《刊定》具引竟云「今助釋有二：初會文、後釋義。初中新舊經本說喻不同，謂舊經約河水不趣兩岸、不斷中流為喻，喻菩薩以離有無悲智度眾生也。新經約船師不住兩岸為喻，喻菩薩以無住悲智度眾生也。問：若爾，梵本豈有異耶？答：梵本是一，由譯者異。謂此梵文雖云河水，意屬船師，即是於能依聲處作所依聲說。是譯者若善文義，則會意譯之為船師；若但知文，則按文譯之為河水。二釋義者，即準此文，有二種中流：一者生死中流，謂兩岸中間處自別故，此則存二之中名生死中流。如是見者，不絕生死故。二者涅槃中流，謂離此彼岸即為中流，更無別處，此則泯二之中名涅槃中流。如是知者，必證涅槃故。今此喻中喻菩薩大智故不住生死，大悲故不住涅槃，悲智唯是一心，不住生死時即不住涅槃，以無住故，故但云爾。」釋曰：上《刊定》意，前會梵本，雙出二經之意。及其問答，結成晉經失旨，以從今經義則善矣。及後釋義，還同古人，以生死涅槃皆有中流，而以存二岸為生死中流，亡二岸為涅槃中流。由不住故不存二岸，是則住於涅槃中流則不順不住中流之義。故疏並非諸釋云云，文旨顯然。

On the commentary's "Matching the midstream above, it also speaks of saṃsāra": the commentary text has three parts. First, explaining properly according to the text, the intent being that the midstream also matches saṃsāra above; second, from "Not being between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa" downward, concluding by rebuking divergent explanations; third, harmonising and adopting divergent explanations. In the second part, it first refutes generally: because from ancient times to the present, all have taken it to be between the two dharmas, someone asked: "The midstream does not exclusively belong to this shore; why is it singled out and called the midstream of saṃsāra?" Second, regarding "However, the Jin translation missed the point and should not be extensively cited," this specifically refutes the *Kanding [ji]*. The *Kanding [ji]* first raised the aforementioned question and then cited ancient explanations. Since the Jin translation missed the meaning, how could the ancient explanations be correct? The Jin sūtra states: "For example, like river water: it does not reach this shore, does not abide on that shore, and does not sever the midstream." The ancient explanations were not just one; Master Yuan has now cited them all, and thus it is now generally refuted. Fearing later misunderstandings, one must know past errors; now this subcommentary cites them. First, Master Yuan said: "The former 'not heading to the two places' is detachment from existence; the latter 'not abiding in the midstream' is detachment from nonexistence, meaning that the place where saṃsāra is absent is called severing the midstream, and not abiding in nonexistence is called not abiding in the midstream." Second, Xianshou said: "Like water flowing east, it does not abide on the south bank and does not abide on the north bank. One may also say it does not sever the north bank. Because the middle has no separate essence and is differentiated in terms of the banks. If so, the south bank would also do. Why does it not speak of the midstream of nirvāṇa? Because the sentient beings to be crossed over are on this shore, it is spoken of solely with respect to saṃsāra." And after citing them in full, the *Kanding [ji]* says: "Now my supplementary explanation has two parts: first, reconciling the texts; second, explaining the meaning. In the first part, the metaphors stated in the new and old sūtra versions differ: the old sūtra takes river water not heading to both banks and not severing the midstream as the metaphor, illustrating the bodhisattva crossing over sentient beings through compassion and wisdom detached from existence and nonexistence. The new sūtra takes the boat master not abiding on both banks as the metaphor, illustrating the bodhisattva crossing over sentient beings through non-abiding compassion and wisdom. Question: If so, could the Sanskrit texts be different? Answer: The Sanskrit text is one; it is due to differences among translators. That is to say, although this Sanskrit text says 'river water,' the meaning belongs to the boat master; this is speaking with the passive/supported expression in the place of the active/supporting expression. If the translator understands the text and meaning well, he translates it by apprehending the sense as 'boat master'; if he only knows the words, he translates it following the words as 'river water.' In the second part, explaining the meaning: based on this text, there are two kinds of midstream: first, the midstream of saṃsāra, meaning that the place between the two banks is distinct of itself; this, preserving the middle of the two, is called the midstream of saṃsāra. One who sees thus does not terminate saṃsāra. Second, the midstream of nirvāṇa, meaning that detachment from this and that shore is itself the midstream, with no other separate place; this, obliterating the middle of the two, is called the midstream of nirvāṇa. One who knows thus will surely realize nirvāṇa. In the present metaphor, it illustrates that because of great wisdom the bodhisattva does not abide in saṃsāra, and because of great compassion does not abide in nirvāṇa. Compassion and wisdom are only one mind; when not abiding in saṃsāra, one precisely does not abide in nirvāṇa. Because of non-abiding, it merely speaks thus." Explanation: The intention of the *Kanding [ji]* above first reconciles the Sanskrit texts, bringing out the intents of both sūtras together. Reaching its questions and answers, it concludes that the Jin translation missed the point; following the meaning of the present sūtra is good. But when it subsequently explains the meaning, it is still the same as the ancients: that both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa have a midstream, taking the preservation of both banks as the midstream of saṃsāra, and the obliteration of both banks as the midstream of nirvāṇa. Because of not abiding, one does not preserve both banks; then abiding in the midstream of nirvāṇa would not accord with the meaning of not abiding in the midstream. Therefore the commentary refutes all these explanations and so forth; the point of the text is obvious.