大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 47.7

47.7

疏「非謂是非化」者，此一向是遮，即拂跡入玄耳。故昔人云：「我言非有者，但言非是有，非謂是非有。」如人夜見於杌，謂之為人。智者告言：「此非是人。」但非其心中計人之執。愚人聞之，便謂此杌是於非人，非人即鬼。故人執雖無，鬼執即起，故為惑耳。故釋云上半絕待，則化與非化兩亡。疏「二不礙化故」者，即重釋亦復非非化。此即以化遣於非化，則上句非變化者即是真身故；亦復非非化者，有化用故。前釋上半是體、下半是用，今此則上半自具體用。依於後義廣釋經文，於中二：先總明。然約二身自有多義：一法報合為真身，應化合為化身；二法身以為真身，報應皆為化身。今依此義，故云「非謂三身獨一是化」。疏「且依真」下，第二開章別釋。初開義中言「各二義」者，即真同真如、化同依他，各有二義，更無別也。如前已釋。但前通相說真如依他，今就佛身以說二義。疏「攬緣無性」者，則知報身亦緣成義耳。疏「二融合」等者，真化別合者，即真如上二義自合依他上二義耳。各成四句，且真中四者，一真、二非真、三俱、四泯。以前二義易故不明，又是合故不開，但明後二句；化中二義亦然。疏「二融通」者，即將真如二義與依他二義互相收攝耳。文有四節：前二節明四義交絡相融，三復融上二，四「真化鎔融」下結成一味法界。四中一取真如不變義，與依他體空義合。由在緣不變故顯體空，體空即真如，此即真理奪事故真不無，不變體空即是真空。化不有者，依他全體空故。二「又由真隨緣」下，取真上隨緣與依他幻有合，此即真理成事門，故化不無；以能成事，故真不有，舉體隨緣故。又上二義，第一含事能顯理門，故云不無化用，以有化中空義故。由化生即空，故能顯理。第二義中兼得事能隱理門故，故云不無真理，但隨緣耳。疏「又由隨緣幻有」下，第三總融上二。以前各別合中二義已融，今復真化互合故。四結可知。

Regarding the commentary's statement, 'It does not mean that it is a non-transformation,' this is strictly apophatic; that is, brushing away traces to enter the profound. Therefore the ancients said: 'When I say non-existent, I merely say it is not existent; I do not mean it is a non-existence.' It is like someone seeing a tree stump at night and taking it to be a human. A wise person tells them: 'This is not a human.' This merely negates the attachment in their mind that conceptualized a human. When a foolish person hears this, they assume that this stump is a 'non-human' [in the sense of a spirit], and a non-human is a ghost. Thus, although the attachment to a human is gone, the attachment to a ghost arises; hence it is a delusion. Therefore the explanation states that the first half [of the verse] is absolute, and so both transformation and non-transformation are extinguished. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'Second, because it does not obstruct transformation,' this re-explains 'nor is it a non-transformation.' This uses transformation to eliminate non-transformation; thus the preceding line 'it is not a transformation' refers to the true body, while 'nor is it a non-transformation' is because it has transformational function. The earlier explanation took the first half as essence and the second half as function, but here the first half itself possesses both essence and function. Relying on this latter meaning to broadly explain the sūtra text, there are two parts: first, a general explanation. With regard to the two bodies, there are naturally many meanings: first, the dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya are combined as the true body, while the nirmāṇakāya and transformation body are combined as the transformation body; second, the dharmakāya is taken as the true body, while the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya are both transformation bodies. Here, relying on this second meaning, it says: 'It does not mean that among the three bodies only one is a transformation.' Under the commentary's 'Provisionally relying on the true [body],' the second part opens the sections for separate explanations. In initially introducing the meanings, the statement 'each has two meanings' means that the true body corresponds to tathatā, and the transformation body corresponds to the dependent nature (paratantra); each has two meanings, nothing else, as explained before. However, the former generally spoke of tathatā and dependent nature, whereas here the two meanings are stated in terms of the Buddha-bodies. Regarding the commentary's 'gathering conditions without intrinsic nature,' one thereby knows that the saṃbhogakāya is also formed through conditions. Regarding the commentary's 'Second, harmonizing and unifying,' etc., the separate harmonization of the true and the transformation means that the two meanings on the side of tathatā harmonize with the two meanings on the side of the dependent nature. Each forms a tetralemma; taking the four within the true body: first, true; second, not true; third, both; fourth, neither. Because the first two meanings are easy, they are not explained; and because they are harmonized, they are not opened out, so only the latter two lines are explained; the two meanings within the transformation body are also like this. Regarding the commentary's 'Second, harmonization and interpenetration,' this takes the two meanings of tathatā and the two meanings of the dependent nature to encompass each other. The text has four sections: the first two clarify the interweaving and mutual harmony of the four meanings; the third re-harmonizes the above two; the fourth, under 'true and transformation meld,' concludes with the one-taste dharmadhātu. Among the four: first, taking the unchanging aspect of tathatā and harmonizing it with the empty-essence aspect of the dependent nature. Because it is unchanging within conditions, the emptiness of its essence is revealed; emptiness of essence is tathatā. This is the gate where true principle subsumes phenomena, so the true is not non-existent; the unchanging empty-essence is true emptiness. That the transformation is not existent is because the dependent nature is entirely empty in its essence. Second, under 'Furthermore, because the true accords with conditions,' taking the concordance with conditions on the side of the true and harmonizing it with the illusory existence of the dependent nature, this is the gate where true principle establishes phenomena, so the transformation is not non-existent; because it can establish phenomena, the true is not existent, for its entire essence accords with conditions. Furthermore, of the above two meanings, the first contains the gate where phenomena can reveal principle; hence it says transformational function is not non-existent, because it has the meaning of emptiness within transformation. Because transformation arises and is immediately empty, it can reveal principle. In the second meaning, it also incorporates the gate where phenomena can conceal principle; hence it says true principle is not non-existent, it merely accords with conditions. Under the commentary's 'Furthermore, through illusory existence according with conditions,' the third part generally harmonizes the above two. Because in the separate harmonizations earlier the two meanings were already harmonized, now the true and transformation are mutually harmonized again. The fourth, the conclusion, can be understood.