[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) › 50.10 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 50.10 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 50.10 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [50.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.10) 疏「於施行中略列諸田」下，疏文有三：初隨難略釋、二料揀諸田、三總結經意。今初。言「別人者」即《不思議境界經》普賢菩薩云：「又復菩薩為護三昧，隨法施時不揀福田，怨親善惡、持戒破戒、富貴貧窮。又復思惟：施於富者雖無所用，然我自應修習施行。」釋曰：即有財，為別人也。疏「於中佛塔」下，第二料揀諸田，有四：一總立五田，謂恩、敬、德、悲、苦。二「若敬田有病」下，辨其兼通。言「智論十四」者，論云「復次三事因緣生檀：一者信心清淨、二者財物、三者福田。心有三種：若憐愍、若恭敬、若憐愍恭敬。施貧窮下賤及諸畜生，是憐愍施。佛及諸法身菩薩等，是為恭敬施。若施諸老病貧窮阿羅漢辟支佛，是為恭敬憐愍施。」釋曰：論唯此三句，今有非恭敬非憐愍，即上別人。三「總收為二」者，謂悲田攝苦、敬田攝恩德。四「然此二田」下，彰其優劣。於中有二：一以二田對辨、二唯就敬田以明。前中三：一約智；二約境；三約悲，亦是三約心。二約境，初融心境，故云「以理御心」。今初，成上以理御心，則心無二，況就於境而有分別？即《淨名》第一善德長者子章中，長者子自於父舍設大施會，供養一切沙門婆羅門，及諸外道、貧窮下賤、孤獨乞人，期滿七日。時維摩詰入會訶之云：「當為法施之會，何用是財施會為？」問曰：「何謂法施之會？」答云：「法施會者，無前無後，一時供養一切眾生，是名法施之會。」後廣為說法施。長者子發心，解身瓔珞價直百千上之，不肯取。再請，受之，分作二分，一分施此會中一最下乞人，持一分奉彼難勝如來。一切眾會皆見光明國土難勝如來，又見瓔珞在彼佛上變成四柱寶臺，四面嚴飾分明不相障蔽。時維摩詰現神變已，復作是言：「若施主等心施一最下乞人，猶如如來福田之相，無所分別，等于大悲，不求果報，是則名為具足法施。」釋曰：既云無所分別，即以理御心。「等于大悲」，亦同體悲矣。又云施主等心施時，以理御心也。疏「若直就境」下，第二約境敬勝。言「校量功德經」者，經云「施畜生得百倍福，施外道得千倍福」等，前已引竟。又《甚希有經》云「以七寶等，供滿四洲四果聖人，及滅度後廣起塔廟，不如造\[麩-夫+廣\]麥等佛塔功德，乃至算數譬喻非比。」釋曰：此即四果尚不及佛，明敬田勝也。疏「若就於心」下，第三約悲心說。然《探玄記》引《像法決疑經》中「乃至施佛菩薩聲聞眾生，不如有人施畜生一口飯食」等，此是偽經，故疏不引。但取「親引於悲」，悲是菩薩根故，悲為菩薩體故。若無大悲非菩薩，故《淨名》亦云「等于大悲」。故從「敬則田強而悲心弱」下，即羅什法師釋《淨名》「等于大悲」之言。而叡公不許，但以心等故，等即前第一義耳。今取雙成後二，故云「各有其美」。疏「若等是敬田」下，第二但就敬中以論優劣，以恩德田皆敬田故。於中三：一敬恩分別。二「若同是恩」下，恩中道俗分別。「如舍利弗請問經」者，經唯一卷。「問云：『何故如來說父母恩大不可報，又言師僧之恩不可量。其誰為最？』佛言：『夫在家者孝事父母，在於膝下，莫以報生長養育等。以生育恩深，故言大也。若從師學開發知見，此恩大也。夫出家者，捨其父母生死之家，入法門中受微妙法，是師之力也。生長法身，出功德財、養智慧命，功莫大也。追其所生，乃次之耳。』」釋曰：若據經意，前疏順前意，各自為重。以二相望，則出家為勝故。言「或約生色身」等，則優劣可知，即順經後意也。三「等是德田」下，就德田中普別分別。引《梵網經》，即菩薩戒云「若佛子，有出家菩薩、在家菩薩及一切檀越，請僧福田求願之時，應入僧坊問知事人。今欲次第請者，即得十方賢聖之僧。而世人別請五百羅漢及菩薩僧，不如僧次一凡夫僧。若別請者，是外道法。七佛無別請法，不順孝道。若故別請者，犯輕垢罪。」疏「又由主財田」等者，《俱舍論》云「由主財田異故，施果差別。」此即約分別門，就於三輪皆具優劣。主謂重心輕心等，財謂好物惡物等，田謂若敬若悲等。疏「然今此中」下，第三結示經旨。三事即三輪，廣即約事、深即約理。融有二義：一融上事理、二以理融事重重無盡。 > Regarding the Commentary's passage from "Among the practices of giving, briefly listing the various fields" onward: The text of the Commentary has three parts: first, briefly explaining according to difficulties; second, distinguishing the various fields; third, summarizing the intent of the sūtra. Now to the first. As for "other persons," this refers to the \*Acintyaprabhāvanirdeśa-sūtra\*, where Samantabhadra Bodhisattva says: "Furthermore, for the sake of safeguarding samādhi, when a bodhisattva practices the giving of Dharma in accordance with truth, he does not discriminate among fields of merit—whether foe or friend, good or evil, keeping the precepts or breaking the precepts, wealthy or poor. Furthermore, he contemplates: 'Although giving to the wealthy has no utility, nevertheless I myself should cultivate the practice of giving.'" Explanation: Those who possess wealth are "other persons." Regarding the Commentary's passage from "Among them, the stūpa of the Buddha" onward: The second part, distinguishing the various fields, has four \[aspects\]: First, generally establishing five fields, namely: gratitude, veneration, virtue, compassion, and suffering. Second, from "If the field of veneration is sick" onward, distinguishing their overlapping inclusion. Regarding "the fourteenth chapter of the \*Upadeśa\*" (\*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\*), the treatise states: "Furthermore, by three causal conditions is dāna produced: first, purity of faithful mind; second, material wealth; third, the field of merit. The mind has three kinds: either of compassion, or of veneration, or of both compassion and veneration. Giving to the poor, base, and to various animals is giving out of compassion. Giving to the Buddha and the various dharmakāya bodhisattvas and so forth is giving out of veneration. If one gives to the aged, sick, and poor arhats and pratyekabuddhas, that is giving out of both veneration and compassion." Explanation: The treatise has only these three propositions; here, there is that which is neither of veneration nor of compassion, which corresponds to the above "other persons." Third, "comprehensively subsuming them into two" means that the field of compassion subsumes suffering, and the field of veneration subsumes gratitude and virtue. Fourth, from "However, these two fields" onward, revealing their relative superiority and inferiority. Within this there are two: first, discerning the two fields comparatively; second, explaining solely in terms of the field of veneration. In the former, there are three: first, in terms of wisdom; second, in terms of the object; third, in terms of compassion—which also constitutes the third in terms of the mind. Second, in terms of the object: first harmonizing mind and object, hence it states "guiding the mind by principle." Now to the first: fulfilling the above guiding of the mind by principle, the mind is non-dual; how much less should there be discrimination in regard to the object? This refers to the chapter on the elder's son Shan-de (Sudatta) in the first fascicle of the \*Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa\*, where the elder's son in his father's house organized a great gathering of giving, making offerings to all śramaṇas, brahmins, non-Buddhists, the poor, base, solitary, and beggars, lasting for seven days. At that time, Vimalakīrti entered the assembly and rebuked him, saying: "You should hold an assembly of Dharma-giving; what use is this assembly of material giving?" He asked: "What is meant by an assembly of Dharma-giving?" He replied: "An assembly of Dharma-giving has neither prior nor posterior; it makes offerings to all sentient beings at one time. This is called an assembly of Dharma-giving." Afterwards, he broadly expounded the giving of Dharma for him. The elder's son gave rise to the aspiration, took off a necklace from his body worth a hundred thousand, and offered it to him, but he refused to take it. Upon being requested again, he accepted it and divided it into two portions: one portion was given to the lowliest beggar in this assembly, and he took one portion to offer to that Tathāgata Duṣprasaha. The entire assembly saw the Tathāgata Duṣprasaha in the radiant realm, and also saw the necklace transform above that Buddha into a four-pillared jeweled platform, clearly adorned on four sides without obstructing one another. When Vimalakīrti had manifested these spiritual transformations, he spoke these words again: "If a donor with an equal mind gives to a lowliest beggar, just as if it were the mark of the Tathāgata's field of merit, without discrimination, equal to great compassion, not seeking karmic recompense—this is called having complete Dharma-giving." Explanation: Since it says "without discrimination," this is guiding the mind by principle. "Equal to great compassion" is also compassion of identical substance. Moreover, saying that when the donor gives with an equal mind, this is guiding the mind by principle. Regarding the Commentary's passage from "If one considers purely the object" onward: The second is that in terms of the object, veneration is superior. As for the \*Sūtra on Weighing Merits\*, the sūtra states: "Giving to an animal gains a hundredfold blessing; giving to a non-Buddhist gains a thousandfold blessing," and so forth, which was already cited earlier. Furthermore, the \*Atyadbhuta-sūtra\* states: "To make offerings with the seven jewels and the like, filling the four continents, to the noble persons of the four fruits, and to extensively build stūpas and shrines after their extinction, is not equal to the merit of building a Buddha stūpa of roasted barley and the like, even up to calculation and metaphor being incomparable." Explanation: This means that even the four fruits do not equal the Buddha, clarifying that the field of veneration is superior. Regarding the Commentary's passage from "If in terms of the mind" onward: The third is spoken in terms of the compassionate mind. However, the \*Tanxuan ji\* cites from the \*Sūtra on Resolving Doubts Concerning the Semblance Dharma\*: "Even giving to Buddhas, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, and sentient beings is not equal to someone giving a mouthful of food to an animal," and so forth. This is an apocryphal sūtra, hence the Commentary does not cite it. It only adopts "directly drawing forth compassion," because compassion is the root of the bodhisattva, and compassion is the essence of the bodhisattva. If there is no great compassion, one is not a bodhisattva; hence the \*Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa\* also states "equal to great compassion." Therefore, from "veneration has a strong field but a weak compassionate mind" onward, this is Dharma Master Kumārajīva's explanation of the words "equal to great compassion" in the \*Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa\*. But Master Daorui did not accept it; simply because the mind is equal, "equal" is just the aforementioned ultimate truth. Now adopting the mutual fulfillment of the latter two, hence it says "each has its excellence." Regarding the Commentary's passage from "If they are equally fields of veneration" onward: The second only discusses superiority and inferiority within veneration, because the fields of gratitude and virtue are both fields of veneration. Within this there are three: First, distinguishing veneration and gratitude. Second, from "If they are equally gratitude" onward, distinguishing between the monastic and the secular within gratitude. As for the \*Sūtra of Śāriputra's Questions\*, the sūtra is only in one fascicle. "It asks: 'Why did the Tathāgata say that the debt of gratitude to parents is great and cannot be repaid, yet also said that the debt of gratitude to masters and the Saṃgha is immeasurable? Which is paramount?' The Buddha said: 'For householders, filially serving parents at their knees cannot repay their giving birth, raising, and nurturing. Because the debt of birth and upbringing is deep, it is called great. If one studies under a master and develops knowledge and vision, this debt of gratitude is great. For monastics, renouncing the household of their parents and of saṃsāra, entering the Dharma-gate and receiving the subtle and marvelous Dharma is the power of the master. Giving birth to and nurturing the dharmakāya, bringing forth the wealth of merit, and nourishing the life of wisdom—its function cannot be greater. Looking back to one's birth \[parents\], they come second.'" Explanation: If based on the meaning of the sūtra, the earlier part of the Commentary accords with the earlier intent, each having its own weight. Comparing the two, monasticism is superior, hence stating "or in terms of producing the physical body" and so forth; thus the superiority and inferiority may be known, which accords with the later intent of the sūtra. Third, from "Equally being fields of virtue" onward, distinguishing between the universal and the particular within the field of virtue. Citing the \*Brahmajāla-sūtra\*, namely the Bodhisattva Precepts: "If a disciple of the Buddha, whether monastic bodhisattva, householder bodhisattva, or any dānapati, when inviting the Saṃgha as a field of merit to make vows, should enter the monastery and inquire of the administrator. If one wishes to invite them in order now, one obtains the Saṃgha of the worthy and noble ones of the ten directions. Yet if worldly people specially invite five hundred arhats and the Saṃgha of bodhisattvas, it does not equal one ordinary monk invited in the Saṃgha's sequence. If one invites specially, this is a non-Buddhist practice. The seven Buddhas have no practice of special invitation; it does not accord with filial piety. If one intentionally invites specially, one commits an offense of light defilement." Regarding the Commentary's "Also, due to the agent, the wealth, and the field" and so forth: The \*Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya\* states: "Due to differences in the agent, the wealth, and the field, the fruits of giving differ." This is in terms of the approach of discrimination, possessing superiority and inferiority in all three wheels. The agent refers to a heavy mind, a light mind, and so forth; wealth refers to good items, bad items, and so forth; the field refers to veneration, compassion, and so forth. Regarding the Commentary's passage from "However, now in this context" onward: The third concludes and indicates the purport of the sūtra. The three matters are the three wheels; broadness is in terms of phenomena, and depth is in terms of principle. Harmonization has two meanings: first, harmonizing the above phenomena and principle; second, using principle to harmonize phenomena, layer upon layer without end. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 50.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.9) - [Next: 50.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.11) - [Up: 50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.50.10) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大智度論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.pancavimsatisahasrika!mahaprajnaparamitopadesa*zh-kumarajiva.12.68) — Classical Chinese - [釋氏要覽](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2127.1.213) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.10) · Pramāṇa