大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 50.14

50.14

疏「先絕我想」者，即歡喜行中。疏「一不於法體起增減」者，一切法體不出有無，定有則增益、定無則損減。「四於諸法義離斷常」者，就一有上即有常無常義，從緣而有即是無常，不從緣有即名為常。五三有器界唯識頓變，名為影像，為生所依。想即是心，非想非心，此釋「六於法本遣心非心想」。以上諸句皆有想言，一切諸法皆想所持，通是有心之義。心為法本，故忘心即為非想。今並遣之，故云六於法本遣心非心想耳。疏「有即空故」者，約緣有明二空一味，等無差故。約真如說，皆無有義。然法相所立，依他緣有、圓成性有，今明緣有，故非有二空為性，性即非有。言「無無想乃有多意」者，略有五義：初一遣無物之無，如虛空龜毛兔角等。二明緣有即無，《淨名》云「色即是空，非色滅空，色性自空。」明有即無，故此明非滅色空也。三明遣無為有、四遣無為非有，三四俱遣以空為有義。五者上四遣病，明非有；此句顯實，明非有不礙有故。「故下釋云非有非非有矣」，此引證也。此非非有，即是非無。但言非無，含義則少；言非非有，含義則多。但言非無，得前二義，後之二義，言非非有方始終攝也。然第一義，即古人云：「我言非有者，但言非是有，非謂是非有。」五明有即空故非有，空即有故非非有。上之五句但順經文以為二句，此下總遣四句，合上即俱句，相奪即俱非。有無之本既無俱句，非俱何立？末對釋結句非非想中唯取第四意耳。亦可兼於第五不礙想耳。「次對雙顯縛解」者，以分別為縛，無分別為解也。疏「次對雙顯二業」者，即思及思已而為二也。「後對亦雙明縛解」者，有心則生死波浪，故非心迴向。無心則同乎外道，故非無心迴向。此即無不礙有義。「又以無心」下，拂迹以明前意。言有心為非有者，有起動也。言無心為非者，無觀照也。此即寂不失照，後意則寂乎唯寂，二皆有理。疏「若本無縛其誰求解」者，即闇用《淨名．不二法門》中寶印手菩薩曰：「樂涅槃、不樂世間為二。若不樂涅槃、不厭世間則無有二。所以者何？若有縛則有解，若本無縛其誰求解？無縛無解則無樂厭，是為入不二法門。」疏「儻然無寄理自玄會」者，此言出肇公《百論．序》。彼有二對，具云「其為論也，言而無當、破而無報，儻然靡據而事不失真、蕭焉無寄而理自玄會。反本之道，著乎茲矣。」釋曰：此通說論旨。前對不失事，後對不失理。雖不據說於事理，而契當於事理。今疏合其二對，但取不失於理，以是離相迴向故。儻者，俶儻。《廣雅》云「俶儻者，卓異也。」謂無所依據，卓異繫象而暗與理會矣。疏「三世求生不可得故」者，即總顯文意，是中論三時門。「從無而有故名為生」者，立生之理。下別出三世求，不得生相。已生、未生、正生為三。已未不生，理易彰顯；現在正生，理隱故。以不住故，過未分之，則無現在之正生也。正同《淨名》「若過去生，過去生已滅。若未來生，未來生未至。若現在生，現在生無住。以無住故，即屬已未。」從「為生之理」下，結成無生。疏「靜論語識智」者，然依智不依識，識是戲論，依智是寂靜。今並雙非，則不可以智知，不可以識識矣。即法四依，四依之義下文當釋。疏「第二不礙隨相」中，文三：一總辯來意；二「言隨相」下，正明不壞之相。言「諸佛依二諦，為眾生說法」，即《中論．四諦品》。下更偈云「一以世俗諦，二第一義諦。若人不能知，分別於二諦，則於深佛法，不知真實義。」前已引竟。三「然俗是真俗」下，融上二諦成無礙義。疏「今初，然隨相之名」下，疏文有二：一辯來意；二「略顯十義」下，正明離相受迴向名。前即假徵，此下解釋。於中二：先總；後「一過世八法」下別，各隨所趣立彼岸別。今初，利衰毀譽稱譏苦樂，此之八法即世間法。八法不動，名不動岸。二依蘊計我，故有二我。若離二我，名為解脫。三尋伺即言語道，道是因故，實際絕言故。四念想觀除，為實智故。五身見以為煩惱障本，故但能斷，便是有餘。六苦依身即為依處，智所依身，身智俱亡，為無餘也。七施等即是所作善行故。八菩薩出有入無而無染故，為無住岸。九證於法身，是無漏界故。十生住異滅即是有為世間之法，覺心現量生滅流注無有自性，故成自覺聖智岸也。

Regarding the Commentary's statement 'first cutting off the conception of self', this occurs within the Joyous Practice. Regarding the Commentary's statement '1. Not giving rise to increase or decrease with respect to the essence of phenomena', the essence of all phenomena does not go beyond existence and non-existence: positing determinate existence is an overestimation, while positing determinate non-existence is a deprecation. Regarding '4. Separating from annihilationism and eternalism with respect to the meaning of all phenomena', based upon a single existent there are the meanings of eternal and non-eternal: existing dependent on conditions is impermanence, while existing without depending on conditions is called eternity. 5. The container world of the three realms of existence is an instantaneous transformation of consciousness-only, called an 'image', and serves as the support for life. Conception (saṃjñā) is mind; non-conception is non-mind. This explains '6. Eliminating the conception of mind and non-mind regarding the basis of phenomena'. All the preceding phrases contain the word 'conception'. All phenomena are sustained by conception, which broadly carries the meaning of having mind. Since mind is the basis of phenomena, forgetting the mind constitutes non-conception. Now both are eliminated together, which is why it says '6. Eliminating the conception of mind and non-mind regarding the basis of phenomena'. Regarding the Commentary's statement 'because existence is emptiness', this clarifies that the two emptinesses have a single flavor based on conditioned existence, because they are equal and without distinction. Explained in terms of tathatā, neither possesses the meaning of existence. However, what is established by the Characteristics of Phenomena school is dependent existence (paratantra) and consummate existent nature (pariniṣpanna). Here, conditioned existence is explained; therefore, non-existence takes the two emptinesses as its nature, and that nature is precisely non-existent. Regarding the statement 'there are many meanings to the lack of conception of non-existence', there are briefly five meanings: First, eliminating the non-existence of non-things, such as empty space, a turtle's fur, or a hare's horns. Second, explaining that conditioned existence is itself non-existence; as the Vimalakīrti says: 'Form is emptiness; it is not that form is destroyed to become emptiness, the nature of form is intrinsically empty.' This explains that existence is itself non-existence, and thus clarifies that it is not the emptiness of destroyed form. Third, eliminating taking non-existence as existence; fourth, eliminating taking non-existence as non-existence; both the third and fourth eliminate taking emptiness as existence. Fifth, the above four eliminate afflictions and clarify non-existence; this phrase reveals the actual, clarifying that non-existence does not obstruct existence. 'Therefore, the explanation below states: it is neither existent nor non-existent'; this cites proof. This 'neither non-existent' is precisely 'not non-existent'. Merely saying 'not non-existent' contains less meaning; saying 'neither non-existent' contains more meaning. Merely saying 'not non-existent' captures the first two meanings; only by saying 'neither non-existent' are the latter two meanings comprehensively included. However, regarding the first meaning, the ancients said: 'When I say "not existent", I merely say that it is not existent; I do not mean that it is non-existent.' The fifth explains that because existence is emptiness, it is non-existent, and because emptiness is existence, it is not non-existent. The above five phrases merely accord with the sūtra text to form two clauses. Below this, the four propositions are completely eliminated: combining the above produces the 'both' proposition; mutual negation produces the 'neither' proposition. Since the basis of existence and non-existence lacks the 'both' proposition, how could the 'neither' proposition be established? In the final pair explaining the concluding phrase 'neither non-conception', it solely adopts the fourth meaning. It can also concurrently encompass the fifth meaning of not obstructing conception. Regarding 'the next pair displays both bondage and liberation', conceptual differentiation is bondage, while non-conceptualization is liberation. Regarding the Commentary's statement 'the next pair displays both types of action', these two are volition and volitional action. Regarding 'the last pair also clarifies both bondage and liberation', having mind leads to the billows of saṃsāra, hence the dedication of non-mind. Lacking mind is identical to the non-Buddhists, hence the dedication of not lacking mind. This is the meaning of non-existence not obstructing existence. Below 'moreover, with non-mind...', traces are wiped away to clarify the previous meaning. Saying that having mind is non-existent refers to having movement and activation. Saying that lacking mind is wrong refers to lacking contemplative illumination. This means quiescence does not lose illumination; the latter meaning is quiescence that is purely quiescent. Both have their rationale. Regarding the Commentary's statement 'if there is originally no bondage, who seeks liberation?', this subtly draws on the 'Dharma Door of Non-Duality' in the Vimalakīrti, where the Bodhisattva Ratnamudrāhasta states: 'Delighting in nirvāṇa and not delighting in the world are two. If one neither delights in nirvāṇa nor reviles the world, then there is no duality. Why is this? If there is bondage, there is liberation. If there is originally no bondage, who seeks liberation? Where there is neither bondage nor liberation, there is neither delight nor aversion; this is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.' Regarding the Commentary's statement 'at ease without support, the principle subtly harmonizes of itself', this phrasing originates in Master Sengzhao's 'Preface to the Śataśāstra'. There are two pairs there, fully stating: 'As for this treatise, its words have no specific target and its refutations leave no response; at ease without basis, phenomena do not lose reality; untrammeled without support, the principle subtly harmonizes of itself. The way of returning to the origin is manifested here.' Explanation: This speaks comprehensively of the treatise's purport. The former pair does not lose phenomena; the latter pair does not lose principle. Although it does not rely on speaking of phenomena and principle, it accords with phenomena and principle. Now the Commentary combines the two pairs, adopting only 'not losing principle', because this is dedication free from characteristics. Tang (儻) means chudang (俶儻). The Guangya states: 'Chudang means preeminent.' It means having nothing to rely upon, being preeminent above images, and secretly harmonizing with principle. Regarding the Commentary's statement 'because seeking arising across the three times cannot be attained', this synthetically reveals the text's meaning, which is the Madhyamakaśāstra's gate of the three times. Regarding 'coming into being from non-existence is called arising', this establishes the principle of arising. Below, it separately sets forth the three times of seeking, where characteristics of arising cannot be found. What has arisen, what has not yet arisen, and what is currently arising make up the three. That what has already arisen and what has not yet arisen do not arise is easy to demonstrate logically; because what is currently arising in the present has an obscure principle, due to its non-abiding, dividing it into past and future leaves no present current arising. This is identical to the Vimalakīrti: 'If it arises in the past, past arising has already ceased. If it arises in the future, future arising has not yet arrived. If it arises in the present, present arising does not abide. Because it does not abide, it belongs to the past and future.' From 'the principle of arising' downward, it concludes the establishment of non-arising. Regarding the Commentary's statement 'quiescently discussing linguistic consciousness and cognition', one relies on cognition and not on consciousness: consciousness is prapañca, while relying on cognition is quiescence. Now, negating both, it cannot be known by cognition, nor can it be cognized by consciousness. These are the four reliances of the Dharma, the meaning of which will be explained below. In 'Second: Not obstructing according with characteristics', the text has three parts: 1. Synthetically explaining the incoming intent; 2. Under 'saying "according with characteristics"', directly clarifying the characteristics of non-destruction. The statement 'The Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings' comes from Chapter 24 (Examination of the Four Noble Truths) of the Madhyamakaśāstra. A verse further below states: 'One is by worldly convention truth; the second is ultimate truth. If a person cannot understand and distinguish between these two truths, then regarding the profound Buddha-Dharma, they do not understand the true reality.' This has already been cited previously. 3. Under 'Yet convention is true convention...', it merges the two truths above into the meaning of non-obstruction. In the Commentary: 'Now first, regarding the term "according with characteristics"...', the text has two parts: 1. Distinguishing the incoming intent; 2. Under 'briefly revealing ten meanings', directly clarifying the reception of the name 'dedication' through being free from characteristics. The former is a provisional inquiry; below this is the explanation. In this there are two: first, general; later, under '1. Transcending the eight worldly phenomena...', specific, establishing distinct other shores according to what is reached. Now first: gain and loss, defamation and praise, praise and ridicule, suffering and pleasure—these eight phenomena are worldly phenomena. Remaining unmoved by the eight phenomena is called the shore of immobility. 2. Relying on the aggregates, a self is conceived, hence there are two selves; being free from the two selves is called liberation. 3. Vitarka and vicāra are the path of speech; because the path is the cause, the bhūtakoṭi cuts off speech. 4. Eradicating thoughts, conceptions, and contemplations is real cognition. 5. View of self is the basis of the affliction obstacle; therefore, merely being able to sever it is [nirvāṇa] with residue. 6. The body dependent on suffering is the locus of support; the body upon which cognition depends, when body and cognition are both extinguished, is [nirvāṇa] without residue. 7. Giving and so forth are wholesome actions performed. 8. Because the bodhisattva emerges from existence and enters non-existence without defilement, this is the non-abiding shore. 9. Realizing the dharmakāya, because it is the uncontaminated realm. 10. Arising, abiding, change, and cessation are conditioned worldly phenomena; when the mind directly perceives that the flow of arising and cessation has no intrinsic nature, this constitutes the shore of the noble cognition of self-realization.