[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) › 50.17 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 50.17 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 50.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [50.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.17) 疏「然其前十」下，料揀。言「前十一一遍從中十」者，從佛境生小等，從法境生小等，從餘八亦然。二「中十一一能生後十」者，從一佛境能生檀等十度。從法生十度，餘八亦然。三「後十一一容具前十」者，謂布施等有小有大，或一或二或三或四，或具足十。不必皆具，故云容具。戒等九度於前十亦然。四「前十一一該後二十」者，謂從佛境起小施，或從佛境起大施等。或於佛境起小戒，或從佛境起大戒等。理即昭然，云「思之自顯」。疏「上六皆巧便殊勝」者，通即七種最勝成波羅蜜，初會已具。然最勝亦名殊勝，前雖已釋，為對經文須知總意。言巧便殊勝者，彼當第五，云要無相智所攝故，故上六句皆無相智。言次五清淨最勝者，彼當第七，云謂要不為二障間雜，別中一無法執，及了唯心離所知障。三見性空無煩惱障。次有三心即安住殊勝者，彼當第一，謂要安住菩薩種性。次有二心，即迴向殊勝者，彼當第六，謂要迴向無上菩提。今言善決諸義具三迴向者，決智、決悲、決實際故。次有一心，即意樂殊勝者，彼當第三，謂要悲愍一切眾生。後之二心，依止殊勝者，彼當第二，謂要依止大菩提心。上顯施中，即事業殊勝者，彼當第四，謂要具行一切事業。「具上七」下，結成前義。故《唯識》云「要七最勝之所攝受，方可建立波羅蜜多。」以上釋經，文同符契。疏「善趣賢首位之行」者，圓融十信位也。種性即十住。解行雖通三賢，今正取行向二位故。故解行發心在於十行，發迴向心故。疏「密迹力士經第二具說」者，亦至第十迴向明之。「莊嚴論亦引此經」者，論當第六偈「菩薩自成就，如前義應知。聲有六十種，是說如來事。」長行釋中具引《佛祕密經》，《佛祕密經》即《密迹經》耳，並至下明。疏「復有處說六十四音」等者，《瑜伽》等說有八轉者，疏文但舉其唐言之名，今兼顯梵音。西域國法，若欲尋讀內外典籍，要解聲論此八轉聲，方知文義分齊。一補盧沙，此是直指陳聲，如人斫樹，指說其人，即今體聲。二補盧衫，是所作業聲，如所作斫樹，故云業也。三補盧崽拏，是能作具聲，如由斧斫，故云具也。四補盧沙耶，是所為聲，如為人斫，故云為也。五補盧沙䫂，是所從聲，如因人造舍等，故云從也，從即所因故。六補盧殺婆，是所屬聲，如奴屬主，故云屬也。七補盧鎩，是所於聲，如客依主，故云於也，於即依義。《瑜伽》第二名上七種為七例句，以是起解大例故，唯有梵語，聲論八轉，更加醯補盧沙，是呼召之聲，故云呼也。然此八聲各有三種：一男聲、二女聲、三非男非女聲。此上具約男聲說之，以梵名丈夫為盧沙也。疏「是八轉聲各具八德」者，即八梵音，〈賢首品〉已明，今當重說。一調和者，謂大小得中故。二柔軟者，言無麁獷故。三諦了者，亦云最好，如迦陵頻伽等故。四易解者，亦云易了，言辭辯了故。五無錯謬者，亦云不誤言，無錯誤故。六無雌小者，亦云不女，其聲雄朗故。七廣大者，亦云尊慧，言無戰懼故。八深遠者，臍輪發生故。如來具此八轉之音。疏「若將此下屬前佛果」者，會異釋，即《刊定記》釋二段皆屬於佛果，故今明修菩薩行及近善友，非屬佛耳。疏「八云非一非異」者，即十通中。等者，標示也。故彼通中廣說非一異義。從「以了一切」下，出非一異是神通相。若一向非一，各互相礙，不能相作。若一向非異，無二可得，將何相作？以非異故，一理融通；非一事故，得相作等。疏「又非一異應成四句」者，一非一、二非異、三非非一非非異、四非亦一亦異，〈十忍〉當說。 > Regarding the commentary's "Yet among these the previous ten" and so on, this is discrimination. As for "the previous ten, each and every one, proceed from the middle ten": proceeding from the sphere of the Buddha generates the small and so forth, proceeding from the sphere of the Dharma generates the small and so forth, and it is likewise for the remaining eight. Second, "the middle ten, each and every one, are able to generate the subsequent ten": from the single sphere of the Buddha, the ten perfections such as giving (dāna) and the rest can be generated. Generating the ten perfections from the Dharma and from the remaining eight is likewise. Third, "the subsequent ten, each and every one, can contain the previous ten": this means that giving and the rest can be small or great, or one, or two, or three, or four, or completely possessing all ten. Because it is not necessary that they contain all, it says "can contain." Morality (śīla) and the other nine perfections are likewise with respect to the previous ten. Fourth, "the previous ten, each and every one, encompass the subsequent twenty": this means that from the sphere of the Buddha one initiates small giving, or from the sphere of the Buddha one initiates great giving, and so forth; or toward the sphere of the Buddha one initiates small morality, or from the sphere of the Buddha one initiates great morality, and so forth. The principle is evident, hence it says "reflecting on it makes it manifest of itself." The commentary says, "The above six are all skillful upāya excellence": generally, these are the seven kinds of supremacy that constitute the pāramitās, already fully discussed in the first assembly. However, supremacy is also called excellence; although already explained before, to correspond to the sūtra text one must understand the overall meaning. As for skillful upāya excellence, that corresponds to the fifth, which states that it must be subsumed by signless cognition; hence, the above six phrases are all signless cognition. As for the next five, purity supremacy, that corresponds to the seventh, which states that it must not be interspersed with the two obscurations; in detail, one is free from the grasp of dharma, and understanding mind-only is free from the cognitive obscuration (jñeyāvaraṇa). The third is seeing the emptiness of nature and being free from the affliction obscuration (kleśāvaraṇa). Next, there are three minds, which are abiding excellence; that corresponds to the first, meaning one must abide in the lineage (gotra) of a bodhisattva. Next, there are two minds, which are pariṇāmanā excellence; that corresponds to the sixth, meaning one must dedicate toward anuttarabodhi. Here, saying that skillfully determining all meanings possesses the three dedications is because of determining wisdom, determining compassion, and determining bhūtakoṭi. Next, there is one mind, which is inclination (āśaya) excellence; that corresponds to the third, meaning one must have compassion for all sentient beings. The subsequent two minds are basis excellence; that corresponds to the second, meaning one must rely on the great bodhicitta. In the above explanation of giving, it is the activity excellence; that corresponds to the fourth, meaning one must completely practice all activities. "Possessing the above seven" and so forth concludes the preceding meaning. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā says, "Only when embraced by the seven supremacies can a pāramitā be established." The above commentary explains the sūtra, and the texts match in full accord. Regarding the commentary's "the practices of skillfully proceeding to the position of the virtuous leader": this refers to the interpenetrating stages of the ten faiths. Lineage (gotra) refers to the ten abodes. Although understanding and practice (adhimukti-caryā) extend across all three stages of the sage, here it properly takes the two stages of practices and dedications. Hence understanding-and-practice arousing of the mind is in the ten practices, because of arousing the mind of pariṇāmanā. Regarding the commentary's "The second \[fascicle\] of the Guhyakādhipatinirdeśa-sūtra explains it fully": this is also made clear up to the tenth pariṇāmanā. Regarding "The Alaṃkāraśāstra also cites this sūtra": in the treatise it corresponds to the sixth verse: "The bodhisattva's own accomplishment / Should be understood as with the prior meaning. / Sounds have sixty kinds; / This explains the Tathāgata's affairs." In the prose commentary, it extensively cites the Fo mimi jing; the Fo mimi jing is indeed the Guhyakādhipatinirdeśa-sūtra, and both will be clarified below. Regarding the commentary's "Elsewhere it is also said there are sixty-four tones," and so forth: the Yogācārabhūmi and others state that there are eight case inflections (vibhakti). The commentary text only raises their Chinese designations; now I additionally clarify the Sanskrit sounds. According to the method of the Western Regions, if one wishes to examine and read inner and outer scriptures, one must understand the eight declensions in the science of sound (śabdavidyā) before one can know the distinctions of the text's meaning. First, puruṣa \[nominative\]: this is the sound of direct pointing and expressing, like a person chopping down a tree; it points out and speaks of that person, which is the present substantival sound. Second, puruṣam \[accusative\]: this is the sound of the action done, like the chopping of the tree that is done; hence it is called "action." Third, puruṣeṇa \[instrumental\]: this is the sound of the instrument capable of acting, like chopping by means of an axe; hence it is called "instrument." Fourth, puruṣāya \[dative\]: this is the sound of the purpose, like chopping for the sake of a person; hence it is called "for the sake of." Fifth, puruṣāt \[ablative\]: this is the sound of that from which something proceeds, like building a house depending on a person; hence it is called "from," and "from" is the reason. Sixth, puruṣasya \[genitive\]: this is the sound of belonging, like a slave belonging to a master; hence it is called "belonging." Seventh, puruṣe \[locative\]: this is the sound of location, like a guest relying upon a host; hence it is called "in/on," and "in/on" has the meaning of relying upon. The second \[fascicle\] of the Yogācārabhūmi designates the above seven kinds as the seven paradigms, because they are the great paradigms for generating understanding; in Sanskrit only, the eight declensions of the science of sound further add he puruṣa \[vocative\], which is the sound of calling out, hence called "calling." Furthermore, these eight sounds each have three kinds: masculine, feminine, and neuter. The above is fully explained with reference to the masculine, because the Sanskrit name for a man is puruṣa. Regarding the commentary's "These eight case declensions each possess eight virtues": these are the eight brahma-sounds, already explained in the "Chapter on the Virtuous Leader," and now reiterated here. First, harmonious: meaning large and small are properly balanced. Second, gentle: words are free of roughness. Third, clear and distinct: also called supreme, like the kalaviṅka bird and so forth. Fourth, easily understood: also called easily grasped, with eloquent and clear speech. Fifth, without error: also called infallible, words free of mistakes. Sixth, not female or small: also called not effeminate, its sound being masculine and clear. Seventh, vast: also called venerable and wise, words free of trembling and fear. Eighth, deep and resonant: arising from the navel chakra. The Tathāgata possesses the tones of these eight declensions. Regarding the commentary's "If one assigns what follows to the prior Buddha fruit": reconciling differing explanations, this refers to the Kanting ji's explanation that both passages belong to the Buddha fruit; therefore it is now clarified that practicing the bodhisattva path and drawing near to good spiritual friends do not belong to the Buddha \[fruit\]. Regarding the commentary's "Eight says: neither one nor different": this is among the ten supernormal powers. "And so forth" indicates a general reference; hence in that supernormal power the meaning of neither one nor different is extensively explained. From "Because of understanding all" onward, it brings out how neither one nor different is the characteristic of supernormal powers. If they were exclusively not one, each would mutually obstruct the other and could not act as the other. If they were exclusively not different, no duality could be found; what could act as what? Because they are not different, the single principle is interpenetrating; because they are not one, phenomena can act as each other and so forth. Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, neither one nor different should form a tetralemma": 1. not one; 2. not different; 3. neither not one nor not different; 4. not both one and different; this will be explained in the "Ten Forbearances" \[Chapter\]. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 50.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.16) - [Next: 50.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.18) - [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.50.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.50.17) · Pramāṇa