大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 51.6

51.6

疏「順緣曰如」者，即隨緣義。《淨名》云「法隨於如，無所隨故。」今謂如隨於法，無能隨故，以如性空方能隨緣成一切故。疏「而起信云」下，此論解釋分中初釋真如門，正舉法體有二，一正顯如體、二會執釋名。初門，論云「心真如者，即是一法界大總相法門體，所謂心性不生不滅，一切諸法唯依妄念而有差別，若離心念則無一切境界之相。是故一切法從本以來，離言說相、離名字相、離心緣相，畢竟平等、無有變異、不可破壞，唯是一心，故名真如。」釋曰：此上論文自有三段：一就實略標、二「一切諸法」下會妄顯真、三「是故」下結真離妄。此三皆是正顯如體，即離妄偽為真，離異相為如。今疏所引，即會執釋名。具足，論云「以一切言說假名無實，但隨妄念不可得故。言真如者亦無有相，謂言說之極因言遣言，此真如體亦無可遣，以一切法悉皆真故。亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故。當知一切法不可說不可念故，名為真如。」釋曰：此上論文中二：先釋、後「當知一切法」下結。前中分三：初正會執。恐有執言：上言離名字相，何故復立真如之名？故云此真如名亦是假說。二「言說之極」下約名釋疑。疑云：若但假立，何故不立餘名而立真如？釋云：真如者，言說之極，此後更無有名，故《攝論》中，謂真如為究竟名，故云極耳。因言遣言，立此極名。若無此名，無以遣名。若存此名，亦不遣名。三「此真如體亦無可遣」下，約相釋遣。古有多釋，今並不依。今謂此即非安立真如。若安立說，遣妄曰真，顯理為如，同《唯識》意。今正拂此二，無法非真，何妄可遣耶？則真非真矣。無法不如，何理可顯？故如非如矣。斯則無遣無立，為非安立之真如矣。故疏結云「唯就遮詮頓彰真理」。

Regarding the commentary's "According with conditions is called thusness (ru)": this is the meaning of concordance with conditions. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "Dharmas accord with thusness, because there is nothing to be accorded with." Now I say that thusness accords with dharmas, because there is no agent that accords; it is because the nature of thusness is empty that it is able to accord with conditions and bring about all things. Regarding the commentary's "Yet the Awakening of Faith says" and so on: within the section on explanation in this treatise, it first explains the gate of the tathatā of the mind, directly presenting the entity of the Dharma in two parts: first, directly revealing the entity of thusness; second, resolving attachments and explaining the name. As for the first gate, the treatise states: "As for the tathatā of the mind, it is the entity of the Dharma-gate of the great general characteristic of the one dharmadhātu; that is to say, the nature of the mind is neither arising nor ceasing. All dharmas are differentiated solely based on false thoughts; if one is free from thoughts of the mind, then there are no characteristics of any realms of objects whatsoever. For this reason, all dharmas from the origin onward are free from the characteristic of speech, free from the characteristic of names, free from the characteristic of mental conditioning; they are ultimately equal, without variation, indestructible, and only one mind; hence it is named tathatā." The explanation states: The text of the treatise above naturally has three sections: first, briefly marking it out based on reality; second, under "All dharmas," resolving falsity and revealing the true; third, under "For this reason," concluding with the true and departing from falsity. These three all directly reveal the entity of thusness, which means being free from falsity and deceit constitutes the true, and being free from differing characteristics constitutes thusness. What is now cited in the commentary is resolving attachments and explaining the name. In full, the treatise states: "Because all spoken explanations are provisional designations without reality, and merely follow false thoughts, they are ungraspable. What is called tathatā is also without characteristics; it is the culmination of speech, using words to dispense with words. This entity of tathatā also has nothing that can be dispensed with, because all dharmas are completely true. Nor is there anything that can be established, because all dharmas are identically thus. One should know that because all dharmas are inexpressible and unthinkable, they are named tathatā." The explanation states: Within the text of the treatise above there are two parts: first, explaining; thereafter, under "One should know that all dharmas," concluding. The former divides into three: First, directly resolving attachment. Fearing that someone might become attached, saying: 'The above stated that it is free from the characteristic of names; why then establish the name of tathatā again?' Therefore it says that this name 'tathatā' is also a provisional explanation. Second, under "The culmination of speech," resolving doubt with regard to the name. The doubt says: 'If it is merely provisionally established, why not establish other names instead of establishing tathatā?' The explanation says: tathatā is the culmination of speech; beyond this there are no further names. Therefore in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, tathatā is called the ultimate name; hence it is called 'the culmination.' Using words to dispense with words, this culminating name is established. Without this name, there would be no way to dispense with names. If one retains this name, one likewise does not dispense with names. Third, under "This entity of tathatā also has nothing that can be dispensed with," explaining dispensability with regard to characteristics. The ancients had many explanations, none of which are now relied upon. Now I say that this is just non-posited tathatā. If explained according to posited [tathatā], dispensing with falsity is called true, and revealing principle is called thusness, agreeing with the intent of the Vijñaptimātra. Now it directly sweeps away both: no dharma is not true—what falsity can be dispensed with? Then the true is not true. No dharma is not thus—what principle can be revealed? Therefore thusness is not thusness. This, then, being without dispensing and without establishing, is non-posited tathatā. Therefore the commentary concludes by saying: 'Solely based on apophatic expression, the true principle is suddenly manifested.'