大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 51.9

51.9

疏「五釋文」，於中三：一敘昔。二「理皆難通」下，辯順違。於中二意：初奪分者；次「若取」下，縱成分義，責不出相貌，實則縱成二義。三「今且十十」下，申今正解。上辯順違二皆有理，後有究竟分則理長。文中先總明；二「初遍一切」下別顯，即為十段。依《唯識》第九，前雖隨地別釋，今為對文類例併舉。今初遍一切處及無相為相，即遍滿真如。謂此真如二空所顯，無有一法而不在故。世親釋云「謂此法界遍一切行，以無少法非無我故。今言二空，無有一法非二空故。」今疏云遍滿一切，遍滿義彰無相為相即二空相。疏「二中無能測」等者，《唯識》釋最勝真如云「謂此真如具無邊德，於一切法最為勝故。」注云「由離犯戒垢，證此真如德莊嚴故。」今無測無對，即最勝義。「三中」下，論釋勝流真如云「謂此真如所流教法，於餘教法最為勝故。」注云「由得三慧照大乘法，觀此教法根本真如，名勝流真如。或證此如，說法勝故。」今云「於法無礙」，即教法等為眾法眼，亦勝流矣。「四中」等者，論云「四無攝受真如，謂此真如無所繫屬，非我執等所依取故。」世親解云「於此如中，無計我所，無攝我所，如北洲人無繫屬故。」應說此如，非我執我慢我愛無明邊見我所見等所依取故。今無著無住，即無攝受。五中論云「五類無別真如，謂此真如類無差別，非如眼等類有異故。」注云「謂生死涅槃二皆平等，故無差別。」今云「畢竟無盡、無變」，豈有別耶？六中論云「六無染淨真如，謂此真如本性無染，亦不可說後方淨故。」《中邊》釋云「由六地觀十二因緣，知緣起法無染無淨，非謂如也。由真如故法無染淨，詺此真如為無染淨。」今云「無有分別」，何有染淨，七中論云「七法無別真如，謂此真如雖多教法種種安立，而無異故。」注云「雖諸教法依如建立，如無異故。」今云「無所不在」，何有別耶？有無同如，法豈別耶？八中論云「八不增減真如，謂此真如離增減執，不隨染淨有增減故。即此亦名相土自在所依真如，謂若證得此真如已，現相現土俱自在故。」注云「謂凡位不減、聖位不增。」故今云清淨平等，豈有增減？九中論云「九智自在真如，謂若證得此真如已，於無礙解得自在故。」注云「謂此地中得無礙解，名智自在。」今遍一切智，何不知是佛境界真自在也。十中論云「十業自在真如，謂若證得此真如已，普於一切神通作業、總持定門皆自在故。」今云住一切地成佛菩薩，業自在矣。然此十如，約詮辯體。若不爾者，且如非先不遍今者方遍，若不約詮說遍何法，上來略取。文中各有二義以成其名，餘各八義取類本名，可以意得。疏「隨地別顯唯說十如」下，第二解妨。總有四妨：第一十百不同妨、二前後無如妨、三如觀難成妨、四迴向非如妨。今初妨云：彼唯十如，此中說百，何要將百以同十耶？故釋云：為順十地，且說十如。理實真如具無盡德，十十融攝且說百門。百十皆是一周一圓，數順無盡耳。疏「地前通修」等者，第二通前後無如妨。妨云：將百門如配十地如，地前等妙應無如矣。故為通云：地前通修十如，等覺遍等十如，妙覺窮證十如，但同地如無不同矣。疏「然異從義別」下，第三通如觀難成妨。妨云：十地菩薩一地之內唯觀一如，加行既成方證其一。今羅百數，成觀何由？況一味之如，何由契合？故答云：約行布說別證十如，就圓融修一含眾妙。加行有異說十不同，正證相應本唯一味。隨門入理略說百門，若契一門自含眾妙。如海一滴味具百川，牽衣一角全體來矣。故《唯識》云「雖真如性體無差別，而隨勝德假立十種。」十既假立，百門亦然，德用多門非體不一。言「能同迴向亦融攝無礙」者，由如融攝，行順於如亦融攝矣。故初地中遍達十如，隨能證行後後建立。疏「稱如起行」下，第四通迴向非如妨。妨云：夫如普遍，無法非如。何有如外別有迴向？以為所喻，通意有二：一以其所信喻所不信；二「若取文義」下，為立體式，則無前難。

Regarding the Commentary's 'Fifth, explaining the text,' within this there are three parts: first, recounting past [interpretations]; second, from 'the principle in all [of them] is difficult to reconcile' below, examining agreement and contradiction. Within this are two points: first, refuting [the division]; next, from 'if one accepts' below, conceding and validating the sense of division, rebuking that its characteristics are not set forth, yet in fact conceding and establishing two meanings. Third, from 'for now, [taking] ten times ten' below, presenting the present correct interpretation. In the above examination of agreement and contradiction, both hold reason; yet because the latter has the ultimate division, its reasoning is superior. In the text, it first explains generally; second, from 'first, pervading all' below, it details [them] individually, comprising ten sections. Relying on the ninth [fascicle] of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, although previously expounded separately according to the grounds, they are now cited together to correspond to the text by categorization. Now, first, pervading all places and having signlessness as its sign is the all-pervading tathatā. This tathatā is revealed by the twofold emptiness, for there is not a single dharma wherein it is not present. Vasubandhu explains, 'This dharmadhātu pervades all conditioned formations, because there is no minor dharma that is not devoid of self. Now it is said to be the twofold emptiness, because there is no dharma that is not the twofold emptiness.' Now the Commentary says 'all-pervading,' displaying the meaning of all-pervading, and 'having signlessness as its sign' is the mark of the twofold emptiness. Regarding the Commentary's 'In the second, nothing can measure,' the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi explains the supreme tathatā, saying: 'This tathatā possesses boundless virtues and is most supreme among all dharmas.' The note says: 'Due to departing from the defilement of transgressing the precepts, one realizes this tathatā adorned with virtues.' Now, 'immeasurable and peerless' is the meaning of supreme. Regarding 'In the third' below, the treatise explains the tathatā of supreme outflow, saying: 'The teachings flowing from this tathatā are most supreme among all other teachings.' The note says: 'Due to obtaining the three wisdoms that illuminate the Mahāyāna teachings, one contemplates this tathatā which is the root of the teachings; thus it is named the tathatā of supreme outflow. Or, because one realizes this suchness, one's preaching of the Dharma is supreme.' Now it says 'unhindered in regard to dharmas'; that is, the teachings and the like serve as the eye for all dharmas, which is also supreme outflow. Regarding 'In the fourth' and so on, the treatise says: 'Fourth, the ungrasped tathatā: this tathatā has no attachment or belonging, not being the basis of apprehension for the grasping of self and the like.' Vasubandhu explains: 'In this suchness, there is no conceptualization of what is mine and no grasping of what is mine, just as the people of the Northern Continent have no attachments.' It should be said that this suchness is not what is taken as a basis by the grasping of self, arrogance, love of self, avidyā, extreme views, views of what is mine, and the like. Now, 'non-attachment and non-abiding' is precisely ungrasped. In the fifth, the treatise says: 'Fifth, the tathatā without differentiation of kind: this tathatā has no differences in kind, not being distinct in kind like the eyes and so on.' The note says: 'Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both equal; hence there is no differentiation.' Now it says 'ultimately inexhaustible and unchanging'; how could there be differentiation? In the sixth, the treatise says: 'Sixth, the tathatā free from defilement and purity: this tathatā is by original nature undefiled, nor can it be said to become pure only afterward.' The Madhyāntavibhāga explains: 'Because the sixth ground contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination and knows that dependently arisen dharmas are without defilement and without purity, it is not referring to suchness itself. Because of tathatā dharmas are without defilement and purity; this tathatā is designated as free from defilement and purity.' Now it says 'without conceptual discrimination'; how could there be defilement and purity? In the seventh, the treatise says: 'Seventh, the tathatā of dharmas without difference: although many teachings are variously established, this tathatā is without distinction.' The note says: 'Although various teachings are established based on suchness, suchness is without distinction.' Now it says 'nowhere not present'; how could there be difference? Existence and non-existence are identical in suchness; how could dharmas be differentiated? In the eighth, the treatise says: 'Eighth, the tathatā without increase or decrease: this tathatā is free from attachments to increase or decrease, not increasing or decreasing along with defilement and purity. This is also named the tathatā that is the basis for mastery over marks and realms, for having realized this tathatā, one attains mastery in manifesting marks and manifesting realms.' The note says: 'It does not decrease at the stage of an ordinary person, and does not increase at the stage of a noble one.' Therefore, now it says 'pure and equal'; how could there be increase or decrease? In the ninth, the treatise says: 'Ninth, the tathatā of mastery in knowledge: having realized this tathatā, one attains mastery in unhindered comprehension.' The note says: 'Attaining unhindered comprehension in this ground is named mastery in knowledge.' Now it pervades all knowledge; how could it not know that the realm of the Buddha is true mastery? In the tenth, the treatise says: 'Tenth, the tathatā of mastery in karma: having realized this tathatā, one universally attains mastery in all supernormal actions, dhāraṇīs, and samādhi doors.' Now it says 'abiding in all grounds and becoming buddhas and bodhisattvas,' which is mastery in karma. However, these ten suchnesses distinguish essence in terms of linguistic expression. Were it not so, it would be as if suchness were not all-pervading previously and only now became all-pervading; if one does not speak of what dharmas it pervades in terms of linguistic expression, the above is only a brief abstraction. In the text, each possesses two meanings to form its name; the remaining eight meanings follow the categories of their original names, which may be understood conceptually. Regarding the Commentary's 'Revealed distinctly according to the grounds, only ten suchnesses are spoken of' below, this is the second part, resolving objections. In all, there are four objections: first, the objection on the difference between ten and a hundred; second, the objection on the absence of suchness before and after; third, the objection on the difficulty of perfecting the contemplation of suchness; fourth, the objection that pariṇāmanā is not suchness. Now, the first objection says: 'That [treatise] only mentions ten suchnesses, whereas here a hundred are mentioned; why must the hundred be equated with the ten?' Therefore, it explains: 'To conform to the ten grounds, ten suchnesses are tentatively spoken of. In reality, tathatā possesses inexhaustible virtues; through the mutual containment of ten times ten, a hundred gates are tentatively expounded. Both a hundred and ten constitute one complete cycle and one perfection, their numbers simply conforming to the inexhaustible.' Regarding the Commentary's 'Practiced generally before the grounds' and so on, this is the second part, resolving the objection on the absence of suchness before and after. The objection says: 'If one correlates the hundred gates of suchness with the suchnesses of the ten grounds, then the stages before the grounds, equal awakening, and sublime awakening would be devoid of suchness.' Therefore, to resolve it, it says: 'Before the grounds, one generally cultivates the ten suchnesses; equal awakening universally equals the ten suchnesses; sublime awakening exhaustively realizes the ten suchnesses; they merely correspond to the suchnesses of the grounds without any difference.' Regarding the Commentary's 'However, differences follow distinction in meaning' below, this is the third part, resolving the objection on the difficulty of perfecting the contemplation of suchness. The objection says: 'A bodhisattva of the ten grounds contemplates only one suchness within one ground, realizing that one only after the preliminary practice is perfected. Now that a hundred are enumerated, how could contemplation be perfected? Furthermore, how could one harmonize with suchness which has a single flavor?' Therefore, it replies: 'In terms of graded practice, they are realized separately as ten suchnesses; in terms of completely interfused cultivation, one contains all wonders. The preliminary practices have differences, so they are spoken of as ten distinct ones; when directly realized and integrated, they are originally of only one flavor. Following the gates to enter the principle, a hundred gates are briefly spoken of; if one accords with a single gate, it naturally contains all wonders. Just as a single drop of the ocean possesses the flavor of a hundred rivers, pulling one corner of a garment brings the entire body along.' Therefore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'Although the essence of tathatā has no distinction, ten kinds are provisionally established in accordance with its superior virtues.' Since the ten are provisionally established, the same applies to the hundred gates; virtue and function have many gates, yet their essence is not un-unitary. As for 'the capable pariṇāmanā is also interfused and unhindered': because suchness is interfused, practice conforming to suchness is also interfused. Therefore, in the first ground, one completely penetrates the ten suchnesses, and they are established progressively according to the practices capable of realizing them. Regarding the Commentary's 'Arising practice in accordance with suchness' below, this is the fourth part, resolving the objection that pariṇāmanā is not suchness. The objection says: 'Suchness is omnipresent, and there is no dharma that is not suchness. How could there be another pariṇāmanā outside of suchness to serve as the illustrated?' To resolve the meaning, there are two points: first, illustrating what is not believed through what is believed; second, from 'if one takes the text and meaning' below, establishing the essence and form, whereby the previous objection does not apply.