[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) › 56.18 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.18 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [56.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.18) 疏「於中初就義大」下，第二別釋。於中三：初標章、二別顯、三融通。疏「義中有三」下，別顯。言「可以標舉令人知有」者，總顯三意為義大，皆可標舉，如前七偈即其事也。「不可指斥」者，文云「言說不能及」是也。疏「二約證處」等者，如鳥足所履之處以喻所證，而言此處非有非無即為可說，為跡之處不可顯示名不可說。疏「三約本智」等，謂以空中鳥跡喻於證智，說有空中之跡即是可說，不可示其長短大小即不可說。疏「攝論云無分別智離五相」者，雙證說不說義，即無性《攝論》第八〈增上慧品〉第九。論曰「此中無分別智，離五種相以為自性。一離無作意故、二離過有尋有伺地故、三離想受滅寂靜故、四離色自性故、五離於真義異計度故。離此五相，應知是無分別智。」釋論曰「依智自性說離五相，由遮詮門說智體相，以表詮門不可說故，遣分別門無分別智，其相可了。若異此智，應有分別。何有分別？謂後廣說無作意等。若無作意是無分別智者，睡眠醉等無所作意應成無分別智。然不應許，由離功用應得無煩惱故。若二是者，第二靜慮已上應成無分別智。若三是者，此智體相難可成立，以彼離心無有心法故。若四是者，應不成智，如四大所造故。若五是者，此智不成，是無分別性有分別故。」論頌云「諸菩薩自性，遠離五種相。是無分別智，不異計於真。」釋論云「前三句遮五。第四句正說自性。」已上引論。今疏中言睡眠醉等，略舉五相之一。等字二義：一者等取餘四，皆為證成第三約智耳。二者等於無想定及無想報，以五位無心，略舉二故。第五滅定，第三相中自揀竟故。從「以直詮不到」下，即釋論意，具如上引，上句即不可說，下句即可說義。又上三義且從別義配果海等，而實三義俱通果海理智等三，皆可標舉不可指示。寄言遣言，約遮約表，思之。又上三義，明說不說更有二義：一約自體真法互相顯現名為可說。如經云「智起佛境界」等，謂以如顯智、以智顯如，名為可說；不可以此性相別取，名不可說。二者情實相對。以情望實，情外有真，可以談說。據真就情，真外無情，用何起說？疏「是出世間故不可說」者，以後得智必由證真，故是出世，如何可說？「觀中行相言不至故」者，以修中觀必稱性修，性出名言，故不可說。故彌勒云：「種性麁相我已略說，諸餘實義唯佛能知。」疏「又諸法自相皆不可說，諸法共相皆是可說」者，此依《因明論》，謂一切法上實義皆名自相，以諸法上自相共相各附己體不共他故。若分別心立一種類，能詮所詮通在諸法，如縷貫華名為共相。此要散心分別假立，是比量境。一切定心離此分別，皆名現量。如第十《唯識疏》說。然就說大中，約加行智傍出此義，以其加行觀法廣故。通意言觀，故傍出也。疏「又果海離緣」下，上說不說通其六重，此下六重相望，則初後唯一、中間具二。 > In the commentary, regarding "Among them, first with respect to the greatness of meaning" and so forth, this is the second \[section\], the specific explanation. Here there are three parts: first, stating the rubric; second, specifically revealing it; third, fusing and harmonizing them. In the commentary, from "Within meaning there are three" down is the specific revelation. Saying "it can be indicated so that people are made to know of its existence" generally reveals that the three points constitute the greatness of meaning and all can be indicated, just as the preceding seven verses represent this matter. "Cannot be pointed to or rebuked" is what the text means by "speech cannot reach it." The commentary says: "Second, with respect to the locus of realization" and so forth; this takes the place trodden by a bird's foot as a metaphor for what is realized, and saying that this place is neither existent nor non-existent is what makes it expressible, while the place of the trace cannot be displayed, which is termed inexpressible. The commentary says: "Third, with respect to fundamental cognition" and so forth; this takes the bird's trace in the sky as a metaphor for realizing cognition: stating that there is a trace in the sky is the expressible, while being unable to show its length, shortness, largeness, or smallness is the inexpressible. The commentary says: "The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that non-conceptual cognition is free from five characteristics"; this doubly proves the meaning of expressibility and inexpressibility. This refers to Asabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, fascicle eight, the ninth chapter, "Adhicitta." The śāstra states: "Herein, non-conceptual cognition takes freedom from five kinds of characteristics as its intrinsic nature: first, because it is free from non-mental application; second, because it is free from the ground that transcends vitarka and vicāra; third, because it is free from the quiescence of the cessation of saṃjñā and vedanā; fourth, because it is free from the intrinsic nature of rūpa; fifth, because it is free from conceptualizing the true meaning differently. Free from these five characteristics, it should be known to be non-conceptual cognition." The commentary \[by Asabhāva\] says: "Relying on the intrinsic nature of cognition, it is said to be free from five characteristics; through the approach of apophasis, the essence and characteristics of cognition are spoken of, because it cannot be spoken of through the approach of kataphasis. Through the approach of dispelling conceptualization, the characteristics of non-conceptual cognition can be understood. If it were different from this cognition, conceptualization would follow. What conceptualization would there be? It refers to what is explained at length below, such as non-mental application and the rest. If non-mental application were non-conceptual cognition, then having no mental application in sleep, intoxication, and so forth would constitute non-conceptual cognition. But this should not be accepted, because by being free from effort one would attain freedom from afflictions. If the second were it, then the second dhyāna and above would constitute non-conceptual cognition. If the third were it, the essence and characteristics of this cognition could hardly be established, because that \[state\] is free from mind and has no mental factors. If the fourth were it, it would not constitute cognition, like that produced by the four great elements. If the fifth were it, this cognition would not be established, because that which is non-conceptual in nature would possess conceptualization." The verse of the śāstra states: / The intrinsic nature of all bodhisattvas / Is far removed from five kinds of characteristics; / This is non-conceptual cognition, / Not conceptualizing truth as different. / The commentary states: "The first three lines negate the five. The fourth line directly speaks of the intrinsic nature." The above cites the śāstra. Now, the commentary's mention of "sleep, intoxication, and so forth" briefly presents one of the five characteristics. The word "and so forth" has two meanings: first, it includes the other four, all to establish the third \[meaning\] with respect to cognition. Second, it includes the absorption of non-conception and the retribution of non-conception, because among the five states of mindlessness, only two are briefly mentioned. The fifth, the absorption of cessation, has already been distinguished within the third characteristic. From "Because direct expression does not reach it" down, this explains the intent of the śāstra, fully as cited above: the preceding phrase is the inexpressible, and the following phrase is the meaning of the expressible. Furthermore, the above three meanings temporarily align with the ocean of fruition and so forth according to specific meanings, but in reality all three meanings apply across the ocean of fruition, principle, and cognition; all three can be indicated, but cannot be pointed out. Resorting to words to dispel words, relying on apophasis and relying on kataphasis—contemplate this! Furthermore, regarding the above three meanings, there are two further senses to elucidate expressibility and inexpressibility: First, with respect to the true dharmas of the intrinsic essence mutually revealing one another, this is termed expressible. As the sūtra states, "Cognition arises \[from\] the Buddha's realm" and so forth, meaning that revealing cognition through tathatā and revealing tathatā through cognition is termed expressible; but not being able to grasp this nature and characteristic separately is termed inexpressible. Second is the opposition between subjective delusion and ultimate reality. Viewing ultimate reality from subjective delusion, there is truth outside of delusion, so it can be spoken of. Resting on truth in relation to delusion, there is no delusion outside of truth; by what means could speech arise? The commentary says: "Because it is supramundane, it is inexpressible": because subsequent cognition must proceed from realizing the true, it is therefore supramundane; how could it be expressible? "Because speech does not reach the mental modes within contemplation": because cultivating the middle contemplation must be cultivated in accord with the nature, and the nature transcends names and words, it is therefore inexpressible. Hence Maitreya said: "I have briefly spoken of the coarse characteristics of the gotra; all remaining true meanings are known only by the Buddha." The commentary says: "Furthermore, the individual characteristics of all dharmas are all inexpressible, while the common characteristics of all dharmas are all expressible": this relies on the Hetuvidyā treatises, meaning that the real referent in all dharmas is named the individual characteristic, because the individual characteristics and common characteristics in all dharmas each adhere to their own essence and are not shared with others. If the conceptual mind establishes a single category, the signifier and the signified apply across all dharmas, like a thread stringing flowers together, which is named the common characteristic. This must be provisionally established through the conceptualization of the distracted mind, and is the object of inference. All states of concentrated mind are free from this conceptualization, and all are named direct perception. As explained in the tenth fascicle of the Commentary on the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. However, within the greatness of teaching, this meaning is introduced parenthetically with respect to preparatory cognition, because its preparatory contemplation of dharmas is vast. It pervades the contemplation of mental discourse, and therefore is introduced parenthetically. In the commentary, from "Furthermore, the ocean of fruition is separated from conditions" down: the expressibility and inexpressibility mentioned above apply to all six tiers; viewing the six tiers below against one another, the first and the last each have only one, while the middle ones possess both. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 56.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.17) - [Next: 56.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.19) - [Up: 56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.56.18) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [攝大乘論釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha!bhasya*zh-paramartha.12.10) — Classical Chinese - [攝大乘論釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha!bhasya*zh-xuanzang.8.46) — Classical Chinese - [攝大乘論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha*zh-xuanzang.3.37) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.56.18) · Pramāṇa