大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 55.14

55.14

疏「遣上何因之疑成上有智」者，上云何因何緣不說。論釋云「為因說者不能說耶？為緣聽者不堪聞耶？」今云難說，非不能說，成上有智者亦由難說。「非己無智」下，遣上何緣，例此可知。疏「今初偈末難字」下，疏文有四：初釋難字。二「此難有二」者，二別釋第四句，上四字明難義相。三「何者是」下，釋初二句，明難法體。四「此之教證」下，釋第三句，顯其難處。三中云「覺於佛智所以名佛」者，然論但云「諸佛之根本者，覺佛智故。」此語迷人，以佛是梵音、覺是此語，若順西方，應云佛佛智故；若順此方，應云覺覺智故。安得以唐釋梵為釋義耶？此有深意，謂佛智即是菩提，此但云覺。佛陀是人，此云覺者。以人得法，故名覺者。故今疏云「覺佛智故，故名為佛。」今十地菩薩為能覺人，亦將因智以覺佛智，故為佛本。為分人法，唐梵互彰，譯者之妙。今加「於」字，以釋論故。四中難示難說，即同《淨名》「其說法者無說無示」。後約難聞，即「其聽法者無聞無得」。然無則一向約遮，難則遮表雙辨。若準《楞伽》宗通自修行，說通示未悟，宗說即是教證，則二全別。今明教證皆有說者，有示有說，但云難耳。則示即說即證說證之相如何可知？廢詮論實、真體一味，說之為證。亦如義大及說大三漸次中辨。若真俗詮異，說為十地目之為教，以證攝教故俱難說。

Regarding the Commentary's statement "dispels the preceding doubt of 'by what cause' and establishes that there is wisdom above": above, it said: 'By what cause and what condition does he not speak?' The treatise explains: 'Is it because the speaker cannot speak? Or is it because the listeners are incapable of hearing?' Now, saying it is difficult to speak does not mean he cannot speak; establishing that there is wisdom above is also due to it being difficult to speak. From "it is not that one lacks wisdom oneself" onward, dispelling the preceding 'what condition' can be understood by following this example. From the Commentary's "Now, the character 'difficult' at the end of the first verse" onward, the Commentary text has four parts: first, explaining the character "difficult"; second, "this difficulty is twofold," which distinctly explains the fourth line, where the first four characters elucidate the characteristics of the meaning of "difficult"; third, from "What is..." onward, explaining the first two lines to elucidate the essence of the difficult Dharma; fourth, from "this teaching and realisation" onward, explaining the third line to reveal the locus of its difficulty. In the third part, stating that "awakening to the Buddha's wisdom is why he is called 'Buddha'": however, the treatise merely says, "The root of all Buddhas is because of awakening to the Buddha's wisdom." These words confuse people, because "Buddha" is a Sanskrit phonetic transcription and "awakening" (jue) is the Chinese word. If following the Western language, one should say "Buddha-ing the Buddha's wisdom"; if following this land, one should say "awakening to the awakened wisdom." How could one take Chinese to explain Sanskrit as an explanation of the meaning? There is a profound intent here: the Buddha's wisdom is indeed bodhi, which is here simply called "awakening." "Buddha" is the person, translated here as "awakened one." Because the person attains the Dharma, he is named the "awakened one." Therefore the present Commentary says: "Because of awakening to the Buddha's wisdom, he is therefore called Buddha." Now, the bodhisattvas of the ten bhūmis are the persons able to awaken, who will also take the causal wisdom to awaken to the Buddha's wisdom, and therefore it is the root of the Buddhas. In order to distinguish person and Dharma, Sanskrit and Chinese are mutually displayed, which is the subtlety of the translator. Now the character "to" (yu) is added in order to explain the treatise. In the fourth part, "difficult to reveal and difficult to speak" is identical to the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa's "The expounder of the Dharma neither speaks nor reveals"; the subsequent treatment of "difficult to hear" corresponds to "The listener to the Dharma neither hears nor attains." However, "neither/none" is exclusively an apophatic negation, whereas "difficult" distinguishes both apophatic and kataphatic aspects. If based on the Laṅkāvatāra, the fundamental principle (siddhānta) pervades one's own practice, while exposition (deśanā) pervades revealing to the unawakened; fundamental principle and exposition are indeed teaching and realisation, and thus the two are completely distinct. Now, elucidating that teaching and realisation both have exposition: there is revealing and there is speaking, yet it merely says it is difficult. Then, if revealing is identical to speaking and identical to realisation, how can the characteristics of speaking and realisation be known? Setting aside verbal expressions to discuss the real, the true essence is of a single taste, which is spoken of as realisation; this is also as explained in the three gradual stages of the greatness of meaning and the greatness of exposition. If the ultimate and conventional expressions differ, it is expounded as the ten bhūmis and designated as the teaching; because realisation subsumes the teaching, both are difficult to speak.