大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 46.16

46.16

疏「離世間品名妙悟皆滿」者，上釋經中總句，此下會其總句異名。然《攝論》本論即無著所造，世親、無性二俱有釋，唐三藏俱譯，皆有十卷，此並當第五。今依無性釋所知相中因云「若欲釋大乘法，略由三相：一由說緣起、二由說從緣所生法相、三由說語義。」論曰「說語義者，謂說初句，後以餘句分別顯示，或由德處、或由義處。」釋中云「已得在己圓滿饒益，故名為德。未得在己隨順趣求，故名為義。」論曰「德處者，謂說佛功德，即二十一種殊勝功德。」釋中云「最清淨覺即是初句，由所餘句開顯其義。」疏「親光釋云」者，親光即《佛地經論》主，二本《攝論》不解總句，此菩薩解自有三釋，疏便以義揀斷釋之。然此三釋，有其二意：一別釋總句，一釋正字、二釋最清淨字、三釋等字。彼無等字，義符今經。二者於所覺法影略出之，一為無為為所應覺境、二云一切為所應覺境、三以如所有性等為所應覺，故小異也。又一為與無為總明所覺，不出二故；二一切法曲盡差別故；三如所有等通能所故。其如所有性等，今當略說。即《雜集論》第十一云「事邊際所緣者，謂一切法盡所有性、如所有性。」彼疏釋云「事邊際等者，事有二種：一是自相事、二是共相事。初能緣心盡法分量，後能緣心如諸經中所有共體俱稱邊際。」此中事即是境。就文分三：初標章、次開二義、後別釋。此上是初二段，下即別釋。論云「盡所有性者，謂蘊界處為顯所知諸法體事，唯有爾所分量邊際，是故建立蘊界處三。」彼疏釋云「謂盡有為無為諸法自相。」論云「如所有性者，謂四聖諦十六行，真如，一切行無常、一切行苦、一切法無我、涅槃寂靜等，空無相無願。」彼疏釋云「此中略明四種共相：第一諦門，謂四聖諦。第二行門，謂十六行及真如；第三鄔陀南門，謂一切行無常至寂靜；第四解脫門。謂空無相無願。」本論舉境，不舉能了。論云「由如是等義差別門了所知境故，名如所有性。」疏先釋通名，次別釋。此初也，謂由如是四諦十六行等，是盡所有性中差別義；其能緣心，如諸法中所有差別皆悉了知，故名如所有性。論「或以諦門了所知境。」彼疏云「謂即前所說諸蘊界處，隨其所應了知，是苦乃至是道。」彼疏釋四差別即為四段，此初文也，謂總觀前盡所有性中蘊界處，有漏者觀於苦集、其無漏者觀其滅道，故云隨其所應。論云「或以行門了所知境，說一一諦各有四行，及一切法無有差別皆真如行。」彼疏云「前諦及法門，約所緣得稱。此下就能緣得稱，即是四諦各別有四行，即是前總作諦解而了蘊等。今約一一諦中別作四相解而起四行，及一切法作總相真如緣而起真如行，即名了無常及真如等。行解名行，即前十六行是緣安立行處，後真如行是緣非安立行。論或以諸法鄔陀南門了所知境，即諸行無常乃至涅槃寂靜。」彼疏鄔陀南門者，舊為憂陀那，訛也。正翻為說，義當無問自說。隨義作名，亦總略義。或名標相義，謂一切行無常是有為標相，涅槃寂靜是無為標相。論「或解脫門了所知境，謂空無相無願如是等。」彼疏云「謂離繫涅槃稱為解脫。空定諸心所是趣入涅槃所依之門。此中即以空等三空門以了前境，即了所知諸法是空及無相。」釋曰：二性之義已略備矣。其盡所有唯是世諦，其如所有通於二諦，則顯如來自相共相。若教所說、若法本性，無不證知如實覺故，故疏中但云「雙照二諦平等覺故。」然二諦平等則二性無礙，無所不收。既無不知，即是遍義。疏「謂雙照」下，疏釋第二義。「彼經無正等」下，會四經文，言有影略，總皆含具於中。先例四別，後「妙者微妙」下會釋。疏「妙正遍最名義俱別，所揀異故」者，妙揀取相，正揀於邪，遍揀不周，最揀未極，如初會說，餘義可了。疏「今各句句配屬」者，以論中三節各一時併舉，謂第一列經二十一句，第二本論一時立二十一德之名，第三釋論次第一時牒釋，故今各配摘成二十段。疏中文各有二：先釋名義、後釋經文。今初，不二現行，先釋名義中，具指經論及釋，三段可知。但無性釋論中，先牒本論功德之名，後方指經。如此段云「謂於所知一向無障轉功德者」，此即開示不二現行。下皆準此。世親則先牒經。今疏皆先牒經，後引本論立名，故釋名義中且分為二：一牒經立名、二引釋論釋。初中，其「即觀察如來」五字，是疏義加，順於此經觀佛德故。餘皆是彼論文。今初不二現行，先牒經立名，可知。疏「無性二釋」下，即第二引釋論釋。於中三：初無性釋、二會二論、三無性生起。今初，第一釋內又三：初是論釋；二「此約離所知障」下，疏取下生起中意以出德體；三「非如」下，疏釋論。第二釋中，「此釋二處」下，疏會二義。疏「世親同於後釋」者，文全同也。然世親有四：一牒經名、二自解釋、三舉本論帖、四重釋。如此段云「此中不二現行者（一牒經），謂二現行中無有是故，名不二現行（二釋義），即是於所知一向無障礙轉功德（三舉本論帖），非聲聞獨覺智亦有障亦無障故（四重釋也）。」文多如此。疏「親光」下，會親光釋。一同此消文。疏「無性生起云」下，第三段，此是無性釋論總畢，重復牒初生起次第，而不曉者謂為再釋。今亦摘其生起為二十段，句句別配，此即躡前總句生此別中第一句也。故前釋云「此經約離所知障不染無知」，即所知障體揀異染污無知耳。疏「文中二」下，二釋文，雙用二論。初廣利樂，是親光意。離所知故，即無性意。下離煩惱，即唯親光意。若約親光不二現行，雙離二障、雙異凡小。疏「定慧莊嚴生物善根」者，釋經「以佛莊嚴至安住善根」。言「定慧」者，即《法華》第一云「佛自住大乘，如其所得法，定慧力莊嚴，以此度眾生」故。疏「能住所住二俱廣大」者，所住即法界身，遍一切處，故廣大智稱法身等，彼真性如日光合空。疏「具上二義」下，結歸總句兼例下文。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "In the chapter 'Leaving the World' it is named 'marvelous awakening completely fulfilled,'" the above explained the general sentence in the sūtra; here below it reconciles the different names for that general sentence. Now, the root treatise of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* was composed by Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu and Asabhāva both commented on it; the Tang Tripiṭaka Master translated both, and each consists of ten fascicles; these all correspond to the fifth [fascicle]. Now, relying on Asabhāva's commentary on the "Characteristics of the Knowable," the causal explanation says: "If one wishes to explain the Mahāyāna teachings, it is briefly through three characteristics: first, through explaining dependent origination; second, through explaining the characteristics of dharmas arisen from conditions; third, through explaining the meanings of the words." The treatise says: "'Explaining the meanings of the words' means explaining the initial sentence, and afterwards using the remaining sentences to distinguish and reveal it, either by virtue of the loci of qualities or by virtue of the loci of meanings." His commentary states: "That which has already been attained in oneself, fulfilling and richly benefiting [beings], is named a 'quality' (guṇa). That which has not yet been attained in oneself, being complied with and sought after, is named a 'meaning' (artha)." The treatise says: "'Loci of qualities' means speaking of the Buddha's qualities, namely the twenty-one superior qualities." The commentary states: "'Most pure awakening' is the initial sentence, and by means of the remaining sentences its meaning is unfolded and revealed." Regarding the commentary's statement, "Śīlabhadra explains:" Śīlabhadra is the author of the *Buddhābhūmi-sūtra-śāstra*; the two commentaries on the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* do not explain the general sentence, but this bodhisattva himself provided three explanations, which the commentary selects, decides among, and explains by means of their meaning. However, these three explanations have two intentions: first, explaining the general sentence distinctively—first explaining the word 'correct' (samyak), second explaining the words 'most pure', and third explaining the word 'equal' (sama). In that [text] there is no word 'equal', so its meaning tallies with the present sūtra. Second, regarding the dharmas that are awakened to, they are brought out implicitly: the first takes conditioned and unconditioned as the realm that should be awakened to; the second says all [dharmas] are the realm that should be awakened to; the third takes real nature and so forth as that which should be awakened to; hence there are minor differences. Furthermore, first, conditioned and unconditioned generally clarify what is awakened to, not going beyond the two; second, all dharmas exhaustively delineate differences; third, real nature and so forth apply to both subject and object. As for real nature and so forth, they shall now be briefly stated. That is, the eleventh fascicle of the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: "'Objects at the limit of entities' refers to the nature of the limits of existence and real nature of all dharmas." Its commentary explains: "Regarding 'the limit of entities and so forth,' entities are of two kinds: first, entities of particular characteristics; second, entities of common characteristics. The former mind that cognizes exhausts the measure of dharmas; the latter mind that cognizes, as in the various sūtras, refers to all having a common essence, both being termed 'limits.'" Here, "entity" is just the cognitive object. Dividing the text into three: first stating the topic, next opening the two meanings, and afterwards distinctively explaining. The above are the first two sections, and below is the distinctive explanation. The treatise says: "'The nature of the limits of existence' refers to the aggregates, elements, and sense-bases, in order to manifest the essential entities of all knowable dharmas, there being only so much measure and limit; therefore the three—aggregates, elements, and sense-bases—are established." Its commentary explains: "It means exhausting the particular characteristics of all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas." The treatise says: "'Real nature' refers to the sixteen modes of the four noble truths, tathatā, that all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, all dharmas are non-self, nirvāṇa is quiescence, and so forth, as well as emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness." Its commentary explains: "Here it briefly clarifies four kinds of common characteristics: the first is the approach of truths, namely the four noble truths; the second is the approach of modes, namely the sixteen modes and tathatā; the third is the approach of udāna, namely from 'all conditioned things are impermanent' to 'quiescence'; the fourth is the approach of liberation, namely emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness." The root treatise cites the object, not the cognizer. The treatise says: "Because through such distinctive approaches of meaning one cognizes the knowable object, it is named 'real nature.'" The commentary first explains the general name, and next explains distinctively. This is the first, meaning that by such four truths, sixteen modes, and so forth, which are the distinctive meanings within the nature of the limits of existence, the cognizing mind cognizes all distinctions as they exist in all dharmas; hence it is named 'real nature.' The treatise says: "Or by the approach of truths, one cognizes the knowable object." Its commentary states: "It means that regarding the previously stated aggregates, elements, and sense-bases, as appropriate one cognizes them as suffering up through as the path." Its commentary explains the four distinctions as four sections; this is the first text, meaning that by generally contemplating the aggregates, elements, and sense-bases within the preceding nature of the limits of existence, regarding those that are defiled one contemplates suffering and origination, and regarding those that are uncontaminated one contemplates cessation and the path; hence it says 'as appropriate.' The treatise says: "Or by the approach of modes one cognizes the knowable object, stating that each truth has four modes, and that all dharmas without distinction are modes of tathatā." Its commentary states: "The preceding approaches of truths and dharmas were designated in terms of the objects cognized. From here below they are designated in terms of the cognizing [mind], namely each of the four truths separately has four modes; this is the previously formed general understanding of the truths that cognized the aggregates and so forth. Now, within each individual truth, forming distinct understandings of the four characteristics, one gives rise to the four modes; and forming a cognitive condition of all dharmas as the common characteristic of tathatā, one gives rise to the mode of tathatā; this is named cognizing impermanence, tathatā, and so forth. Practice-comprehension is named 'mode'; that is, the preceding sixteen modes are the locus of practice that cognizes the conventional/established, and the latter mode of tathatā is the practice that cognizes the unestablished." The treatise says: "Or by the approach of the udāna of dharmas one cognizes the knowable object, namely that conditioned things are impermanent up through nirvāṇa is quiescence." That commentary's "approach of udāna": the old [translation] had *youdana*, which was an error. Correctly translated, it is "proclamation," meaning spontaneous proclamation without inquiry. Named according to meaning, it also has the meaning of a summary overview. Or it is named the meaning of defining characteristics, meaning that all conditioned things being impermanent is the defining characteristic of the conditioned, and nirvāṇa being quiescence is the defining characteristic of the unconditioned. The treatise says: "Or by the approaches of liberation one cognizes the knowable object, namely emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, and so forth." Its commentary states: "It means that nirvāṇa free from bonds is called liberation. The mental factors of the samādhi of emptiness are the portals relied upon to enter nirvāṇa. Here, using the three portals of emptiness to cognize the preceding objects, one cognizes that the knowable dharmas are empty and signless." Exegesis: The meanings of the two natures are already briefly complete. The nature of the limits of existence is solely conventional truth, while real nature pervades both truths; this reveals the Tathāgata's particular characteristics and common characteristics. Whether what is stated in the teachings or the intrinsic nature of dharmas, there is none that is not realized and known according to factual awakening; therefore the commentary merely states: "Because of the equal awakening that simultaneously illumines the two truths." Now, when the two truths are equal, the two natures are unhindered and include everything. Since there is nothing not known, that is the meaning of all-pervading. From "meaning simultaneously illumining" below, the commentary explains the second meaning. From "that sūtra lacks 'correct and equal'" below, it reconciles the texts of the four sūtras, where the expressions are implicit or explicit, but all are inclusively contained within. First it exemplifies the four differences, and afterwards, from "'marvelous' means subtly wondrous" below, it reconciles and explains them. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Marvelous, correct, all-pervading, and supreme differ in both name and meaning, because of what they exclude:" "marvelous" excludes grasping at characteristics, "correct" excludes the erroneous, "all-pervading" excludes what is incomplete, and "supreme" excludes what has not reached the ultimate, as explained in the initial assembly; the remaining meanings can be understood. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Now matching and assigning each sentence one by one:" because the three passages in the treatise are each cited all at once—namely, the first enumerates the twenty-one sentences of the sūtra, the second root treatise all at once establishes the names of the twenty-one qualities, and the third commentary successively cites and explains them all at once—therefore, they are now individually assigned and extracted into twenty sections. In the commentary's text, each has two parts: first explaining the name and meaning, and afterwards explaining the sūtra text. Now first, regarding "non-dual manifest activity," in first explaining the name and meaning, it fully points to the sūtra, treatise, and commentary; the three sections can be known. However, in Asabhāva's commentary, it first cites the root treatise's name for the quality, and only afterwards points to the sūtra. Just as this section states, "The quality of operating wholly without obstruction regarding the knowable," this opens and reveals non-dual manifest activity. The rest should all be modeled on this. Vasubandhu, on the other hand, first cites the sūtra. The present commentary always first cites the sūtra, and afterwards cites the root treatise to establish the name; therefore, in explaining the name and meaning, it is temporarily divided into two: first citing the sūtra to establish the name, and second citing the commentary to explain. In the first, the five characters "namely contemplating the Tathāgata" are an addition of meaning by the commentary, in accordance with this sūtra's contemplation of the Buddha's qualities. The rest are entirely that treatise's text. Now first, regarding non-dual manifest activity, first citing the sūtra to establish the name, this is understood. From the commentary's "Asabhāva's two explanations" below, this is the second, citing the commentary to explain. Within it are three parts: first Asabhāva's explanation, second reconciling the two treatises, and third Asabhāva's emergent sequence. Now first, within the first explanation are again three parts: first is the commentary's explanation; second, from "this is in terms of leaving behind the cognitive obscurations" below, the commentary adopts the intent in the emergent sequence below to bring forth the essence of the quality; third, from "not like" below, the commentary explains the treatise. In the second explanation, from "this explains in two places" below, the commentary reconciles the two meanings. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Vasubandhu is identical to the latter explanation:" the text is entirely identical. However, Vasubandhu has four parts: first citing the sūtra name, second explaining on his own, third quoting the root treatise to attach it, and fourth re-explaining. Just as this section states: "Here, non-dual manifest activity (1: citing the sūtra), means that in the two manifest activities this does not exist, hence it is named non-dual manifest activity (2: explaining the meaning), which is the quality of operating wholly without obstruction regarding the knowable (3: quoting the root treatise to attach), not being like the cognition of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, which is both obstructed and unobstructed (4: re-explaining)." Most texts are like this. From the commentary's "Śīlabhadra" below, it reconciles Śīlabhadra's explanation; it is identical to this parsing of the text. From the commentary's "Asabhāva's emergent sequence says" below, this is the third section; this is Asabhāva's commentary having concluded generally, re-citing the initial emergent sequence, but those who did not understand thought it was a second explanation. Now its emergent sequence is also extracted into twenty sections, matching sentence by sentence; this follows upon the preceding general sentence to give rise to this first sentence among the particulars. Therefore the preceding explanation says, "This sūtra is in terms of leaving behind the cognitive obscurations, non-defiled unknowing"; that is, the essence of cognitive obscurations is distinguished from defiled unknowing. From the commentary's "in the text are two" below, the second part explains the text, using both treatises. First, extensively benefiting and giving joy is Śīlabhadra's intent. Leaving behind the knowable is Asabhāva's intent. Below, leaving behind afflictions is solely Śīlabhadra's intent. If in terms of Śīlabhadra's non-dual manifest activity, it abandons both obscurations and differs from both ordinary beings and the Hinayāna. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Adorned with samādhi and wisdom, generating beings' wholesome roots:" this explains the sūtra's "by the Buddha's adornment up through securely abiding in wholesome roots." The words "samādhi and wisdom" are because the first fascicle of the *Lotus Sūtra* says: "The Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle; according to the Dharma he attained, adorned with the power of samādhi and wisdom, he uses this to deliver sentient beings." Regarding the commentary's statement, "Both the abider and the locus of abiding are vast:" the locus of abiding is the dharmadhātu body, pervading all places; therefore vast cognition matches the dharmakāya and so forth, its true nature being like sunlight coalescing with space. From "possessing the above two meanings" below, it concludes by returning to the general sentence and by analogy applies to the text below.