[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 47.8 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 47.8 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 47.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [47.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.47.8) 疏「菩提是有法，定不繫時故是宗法」者，因明疏云「前陳是有法，後陳是法，法與有法和合為宗。言有法者，由於前陳為所依，能有後陳故。有法但是持自性法，無有軌義。後陳具二，謂由不計時，知是常法，如由無常知是有為等。」作初偈量云「日體無分別，不與昏夜合；如來無分別，不與三世合（菩提是有法，定不繫時是宗法，因云無分別故，同喻如日輪，與偈合之日體無分別等也）。」二約非世為因。菩提是有法，定不繫時是宗法，因云體非三世故，同喻如日輪。以偈合云「日不屬於時，不與昏夜合；佛非世法故，不與三世合。」三約超諸數釋。菩提是有法，定不繫時是宗法，因云非有為故，同喻如日輪。偈云「日輪無出沒，不與昏夜合；如來非有為，不與三世合。」又若以超時現時等四句皆宗者，若依前釋，上二句牒妄情。今將上二句合在下半，成經偈云「如來得菩提，實不繫於日，而隨眾生說，某日佛成道（菩提是有法，定不繫日隨機說日是宗法，因云體非三世不礙三世故，同喻如日輪。日體恒明，隨映見殊，不合昏夜；佛體湛然隨機應，已超三世說三世）。」故疏云定不繫日，隨機說日是宗法。而出因云體非三世不礙三世。等者，等取無分別不礙分別，非有為不礙有為。合等可知（菩提是有法，定不繫日隨機說日是宗法，因云體無分別不礙分別故，同喻如日輪。日離分別隨時殊，不合昏夜說昏夜。佛無分別隨機應，己離分別說分別。菩提至宗法同前，因云體非有為不礙有為故，同喻如日輪。日非有念隨時殊，不合昏夜說昏夜。佛非有為隨機殊，已超有為說有為）。若作偈者五言，即云：日明映山故，無時說晝夜；佛體不礙用，常住說三世。若七言云：日體恒明隨映殊，不合昏夜說昏夜；佛體湛然隨機應，已超三世說三世。對上三因，亦應云日離分別隨映殊，佛無分別隨機應，皆可意得。 > Regarding the commentary's statement, 'Bodhi is the subject (dharmin), and definitely not bound to time is the probandum (sādhya-dharma),' the commentary on Buddhist logic (hetuvidyā) states: 'The subject stated first is the dharmin, the predicate stated second is the dharma, and the union of the dharma and dharmin constitutes the thesis (pakṣa). Calling it the dharmin is because the subject stated first serves as the locus that can possess the predicate stated second. The dharmin merely bears its own intrinsic nature (svabhāva) and has no sense of establishing a standard. The predicate stated second possesses both; that is, from not conceptualizing time, one knows it is an unconditioned phenomenon, just as from impermanence one knows something is conditioned, and so on.' Formulating the syllogism (anumāna) for the first verse: 'The sun's essence is without conceptualization, / It does not unite with the dark night; / The Tathāgata is without conceptualization, / He does not unite with the three periods of time.' (Bodhi is the dharmin, definitely not bound to time is the sādhya-dharma, the reason (hetu) is 'because of being without conceptualization,' and the similar example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta) is like the solar orb; matching the verse with 'the sun's essence is without conceptualization,' etc.). Second, explaining in terms of being non-worldly as the reason: bodhi is the dharmin, definitely not bound to time is the sādhya-dharma, the hetu is 'because its essence is not of the three periods of time,' and the similar example is like the solar orb. Matching with the verse: 'The sun does not belong to time, / It does not unite with the dark night; / Because the Buddha is not a worldly phenomenon, / He does not unite with the three periods of time.' Third, explaining in terms of transcending all calculations: bodhi is the dharmin, definitely not bound to time is the sādhya-dharma, the hetu is 'because of not being conditioned,' and the similar example is like the solar orb. The verse says: 'The solar orb has no rising or setting, / It does not unite with the dark night; / The Tathāgata is not conditioned, / He does not unite with the three periods of time.' Furthermore, if taking all four lines on transcending time and manifesting time as the thesis: if according to the former explanation, the first two lines review false concepts. Now combining the first two lines into the second half, they form the sūtra verse: 'The Tathāgata attained bodhi, / Truly not bound to days, / Yet in accordance with sentient beings it is said / That on a certain day the Buddha attained the Way.' (Bodhi is the dharmin, definitely not bound to days yet speaking of days in accordance with capacities is the sādhya-dharma, the hetu is 'because its essence is not of the three periods of time yet does not obstruct the three periods of time,' and the similar example is like the solar orb. The sun's essence is constantly luminous, and seen differently depending on what it reflects, not uniting with the dark night; the Buddha's essence is serene and responds according to capacities, having transcended the three periods of time yet speaking of the three periods of time). Therefore the commentary says that definitely not bound to days yet speaking of days in accordance with capacities is the sādhya-dharma, and presenting the hetu, it says: 'Because its essence is not of the three periods of time yet does not obstruct the three periods of time.' 'Etc.' takes in: without conceptualization yet not obstructing conceptualization, not conditioned yet not obstructing the conditioned. The application, etc., can be understood. (Bodhi is the dharmin, definitely not bound to days yet speaking of days in accordance with capacities is the sādhya-dharma, the hetu is 'because its essence is without conceptualization yet does not obstruct conceptualization,' and the similar example is like the solar orb. The sun is free from conceptualization yet differs according to time, not uniting with the dark night yet night is spoken of; the Buddha is without conceptualization yet responds according to capacities, having freed himself from conceptualization yet speaking of conceptualization. Bodhi up to sādhya-dharma are the same as before; the hetu is 'because its essence is not conditioned yet does not obstruct the conditioned,' and the similar example is like the solar orb. The sun has no thoughts yet differs according to time, not uniting with the dark night yet night is spoken of; the Buddha is not conditioned yet responds differently according to capacities, having transcended the conditioned yet speaking of the conditioned). If made into a five-syllable verse, it would say: 'Because the sun's light reflects upon the mountains, / It has no time, yet day and night are spoken of; / The Buddha's essence does not obstruct function, / He is constantly abiding, yet the three periods of time are spoken of.' If made into a seven-syllable verse, it would say: 'The sun's essence is constantly luminous, differing with what it reflects, / Not uniting with the dark night, yet dark night is spoken of; / The Buddha's essence is serene, responding according to capacities, / Having transcended the three periods of time, yet the three periods of time are spoken of.' In relation to the above three reasons, it should also say: 'The sun is free from conceptualization, differing with what it reflects; the Buddha is without conceptualization, responding according to capacities.' All can be grasped by mind. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 47.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.47.7) - [Next: 47.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.47.9) - [Up: 47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.47) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.47.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.47.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.47.8) · Pramāṇa