大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 57.13

57.13

疏「第四一偈喻」者，疏文有四：一揀喻體、二隨文解釋、三結歎勝能、四對前揀異。今初，一同前文風畫之喻。疏「論云」下，二隨文解釋。於中二：先釋喻相、後釋合相。前中二：先舉論、後「總顯喻」下疏釋。此下更有論云「何以故虛空處鳥跡相不可分別」，故非無虛空行跡。今疏但義合，影在合中。疏「此中跡處」下，釋合相。於中二：一依論正釋、二取意展合。前中三：初總合空跡；二「何以不說」下，合上不可說其長短大小等；三「上明麁相」下，合上非無。於中二：一正合非無；二「又以空攝跡」下，空跡互顯非有非無。疏「若欲開鳥」下，第二取意展合。於中三：一展成三事，加於鳥故。二「若更開」下，展為四事，開空為二故。三「若以跡喻證智」下，例前以釋，亦有四義。然向四者，一太空喻果海、二跡處之空喻證智十如、三空處之跡喻地相、四鳥喻言教而跡不喻證智。今例風畫，跡喻證智，則應云：一太空喻果海；二跡處空喻十如；三空處跡喻證智；四鳥喻言教，地相皆教道故。言「如風畫中辯」者，已上空中風畫例同今跡故。然彼處本論但以風畫喻阿含，所依之空喻證智，然其阿含約言教說。次下疏云若將二喻喻所詮者，仍有兩重：一以風畫喻地相，所依空喻證智。二以風畫喻地智，所依空喻果海。今正例第二意，然其風畫三遍用之，方成四事。一喻言教；二喻地相；三喻證智，兼所依空喻所證十如；四太空喻果海為四。然其風畫離於空中風畫，無別風畫，如鳥異跡，故風畫處空之畫以喻地相，畫喻能詮也。疏「以斯鳥跡」下，第三結歎勝能。疏「此中鳥跡」下，第四對前揀異。於中三：初引論徵起；二「論云」下舉論正答；三「此意云」下疏釋論文。於中二：先釋二喻別意、後「若以著心」下引論釋取著之過。於中四：一正出五失。論主但有五名，疏中一句舉名，如云「一不正信」一句，釋論如云「以其隨言解不稱實故」。下四皆然。於中通有三節：一正出五失，前二違行、次二違人、後一違法。二「意令」下，總顯文意。三「今人」下，結彈異釋。云：言今人者非對古人，但謂如今有人耳。四「故歎難說」下出體，舉五失之損，翻成五德故。言五德者，一者正信、二者勇猛、三者正說、四者順佛、五者重法。

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The fourth verse is an analogy': the text of the Commentary has four parts: 1. Selecting the essence of the analogy; 2. Explaining the text section by section; 3. Concluding with praise of supreme capability; 4. Differentiating it by contrast with what preceded. Now, for the first part: it is identical to the preceding analogy of painting in the wind. From 'The treatise states' onward in the Commentary, is the second part, explaining the text section by section. Within this, there are two: first, explaining the analogical depiction; second, explaining the application of the analogy. Within the first, there are two: first, citing the treatise; second, from 'Overall revealing the analogy' onward, the Commentary's explanation. Below this, the treatise further states: 'Why? In empty space, the marks of a bird's tracks cannot be distinguished'; thus it is not that there are no tracks of flight in empty space. The present Commentary merely applies this in principle, so it is implicitly mirrored in the application. From 'Here, the locus of the tracks' onward in the Commentary is the explanation of the applied analogy. Within this, there are two: 1. Correctly explaining according to the treatise; 2. Grasping the meaning to elaborate the application. Within the first, there are three: first, generally applying the empty space and the tracks; second, from 'Why does it not speak' onward, applying what was said above about their length, shortness, largeness, smallness, and so forth being unspeakable; third, from 'The above clarifies the coarse characteristics' onward, applying what was said above about their not being non-existent. Within this, there are two: 1. Directly applying their non-existence; 2. From 'Moreover, using space to subsume tracks' onward, space and tracks mutually reveal neither existence nor non-existence. From 'If one wishes to unpack the bird' onward in the Commentary is the second part, grasping the meaning to elaborate the application. Within this, there are three: 1. Unpacking into three matters, by adding the bird. 2. From 'If one further unpacks' onward, unpacking into four matters, by splitting space into two. 3. From 'If one uses the tracks to illustrate realization-cognition' onward, explaining by analogy with the preceding, which also has four meanings. However, regarding the former four: 1. Great space illustrates the ocean of fruition; 2. The space at the locus of the tracks illustrates realization-cognition's ten suchnesses; 3. The tracks in space illustrate the characteristics of the grounds; 4. The bird illustrates the verbal teachings, whereas the tracks do not illustrate realization-cognition. Now, drawing an analogy with painting in the wind, where the tracks illustrate realization-cognition, one should say: 1. Great space illustrates the ocean of fruition; 2. Space at the locus of the tracks illustrates the ten suchnesses; 3. The tracks in space illustrate realization-cognition; 4. The bird illustrates the verbal teachings, since the characteristics of the grounds are all the path of teaching. As for the statement 'As analyzed in the painting in the wind', this is because the aforementioned painting in the wind in empty space is analogously identical to the present tracks. However, the root treatise in that section merely used painting in the wind to illustrate the āgamas, and the underlying space to illustrate realization-cognition; yet those āgamas were explained in terms of verbal teachings. Next below, the Commentary states that if one takes the two analogies to illustrate what is expressed, there are still two levels: 1. Using the painting in the wind to illustrate the characteristics of the grounds, and the underlying space to illustrate realization-cognition; 2. Using the painting in the wind to illustrate the cognition of the grounds, and the underlying space to illustrate the ocean of fruition. The present passage specifically follows the second intention; but painting in the wind is used three times before the four matters are completed: 1. Illustrating the verbal teachings; 2. Illustrating the characteristics of the grounds; 3. Illustrating realization-cognition, together with the underlying space illustrating the ten suchnesses realized; 4. Great space illustrating the ocean of fruition, making four. However, apart from painting in the wind in empty space, there is no other painting in the wind, just as the bird is distinct from the tracks; therefore, the painting at the locus of space where the wind paints illustrates the characteristics of the grounds, and the painting illustrates the expressing [teachings]. From 'By means of these bird tracks' onward in the Commentary is the third part, concluding with praise of supreme capability. From 'Here, the bird tracks' onward in the Commentary is the fourth part, differentiating it by contrast with what preceded. Within this, there are three: first, citing the treatise to raise a question; second, from 'The treatise states' onward, citing the treatise to give the direct answer; third, from 'This intention means' onward, the Commentary's explanation of the treatise's text. Within this, there are two: first, explaining the different intents of the two analogies; second, from 'If with an attached mind' onward, citing the treatise to explain the fault of seizing with attachment. Within this, there are four: 1. Directly presenting the five faults. The author of the treatise gave only five names; the Commentary raises the names in one phrase, as in saying, 'First, incorrect faith,' and in one phrase explains the treatise, as in saying, 'Because understanding in accordance with words does not match reality.' The remaining four are all like this. Throughout this, there are three sections: 1. Directly presenting the five faults: the first two contravene practice, the middle two contravene persons, and the last one contravenes the Dharma. 2. From 'The intent is to cause' onward, generally revealing the text's intention. 3. From 'People today' onward, concluding by censuring divergent interpretations. This means: speaking of 'people today' is not in contrast to ancients, but merely refers to the fact that nowadays there are such people. 4. From 'Therefore praising that it is difficult to preach' onward brings out the essence, raising the detriments of the five faults, which inversely become five virtues. The five virtues are: 1. Correct faith; 2. Courage; 3. Correct preaching; 4. Accordance with the Buddha; 5. Revering the Dharma.