[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) › 6.7 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.7 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.7) 疏「又王之密語所為別故」下，有五意顯過於前不分。此一初也。《涅槃》第九說先陀婆一名四實：一者鹽、二者器、三者水、四者馬，釋中一水、二鹽、三器、四馬故。彼文云「如是四法皆同此名。有智之臣善知此名，若王洗時索先陀婆，即便奉水。若王食時索先陀婆，即便奉鹽。若王食已將欲飲漿索先陀婆，即便奉器。若王欲遊索先陀婆，即便奉馬。如是智臣善解大王四種密語。是大乘經亦復如是。有四無常，大乘智臣應當善知。若佛出世為眾生說如來涅槃，智臣當知此是如來為計常者說無常相，欲令比丘修無常想。或復說言正法當滅，智臣應知，此是如來為計樂者說於苦相，欲令比丘多修苦想。又復說言我今病苦、眾僧破壞，智臣當知，此是如來為計我者說無我相，欲令比丘修無我想。或復說言所謂空者是正解脫，智臣當知，此是如來說正解脫無二十五有，欲令比丘修學空想。以是義故，是正解脫則名為空亦名不動。謂不動者，是解脫中無有苦故，是故不動。是正解脫，亦為無相，謂無相者，無有色聲香味觸等，故名無相。是正解脫常不變易，是解脫中無有無常熱惱變易，是故解脫名曰常住不變清涼。或復說言一切眾生有如來性，智臣當知，此是如來說於常法，欲令比丘修正常法。是諸比丘若能如是隨順學者，當知是人真我弟子。」然彼經疏不釋不次所以，但案次配釋而已，前四彰權隱實、後一彰實隱權。今謂前別喻中，即無常、苦、空、無我而為其次，以水方圓任器，是無常故；鹽是苦故；器當其空，有器之用故；馬由人策，不自在故。合中，無常苦無我是三修法，屬生死故；四合空者是正解脫。而解脫中，空無我苦不淨及無常，即是常故，故一空中明有四義，並以器喻。而最後佛性彰其妙有，即合前馬。然空中四義遮無常等，佛性一義顯是真常，亦應具說我樂淨等，含在正解脫中，不動是樂、無相是淨、無變熱惱即是常義、馬又我義，是則此中具彰八行。由於生死無常等中，密顯常等，故為密語。又初標中鹽在初者，亦是苦、空、無常、無我而為其次，如常所明。故此釋不同古師之義。然引此文意，令隨所說言須善得意，豈可渾然不分權實。疏「不識權實以深為淺」等者，第二意也。如言初發心時便成正覺，而謂但是如來方便說者，是以深為淺也。不能正修，高推聖境，即不能速證無上菩提，故云「失於大利」。〈離世間品〉云「修此法者，少作功力疾得菩提」等。言「以淺為深虛其功」者，猶如世尊為止亂想，令數息看心，為厭苦者令出三界。眾生不了，耽味為真，勤苦不已，多用功力所獲至微，不得涅槃一日之價，故云「虛其功故」，即虛廢功力也。疏「莊嚴聖教令深廣故」者，第三意也。謂分析權實空有，取捨偏圓遲速，方知佛法微妙深玄，無不包攝。譬猶不泛大海，豈識邊涯？不識土石，安知真寶？故《智論》釋法施云「依隨經論，廣作義理，為立名字，皆名法施。」又若不分權實，則謂三教大同。今明大乘尚有權實，何況小耶？小乘比大，由若螢光方於日照。小是佛教尚被斥訶，況於儒道比之佛法，則天地懸隔矣。以此重重揀之，方知佛法深奧。疏「諸聖教中自有分故」者，第四意也。如《解深密》立三時，不同《解節》。《金光明》立三輪之異，《涅槃》自分半滿，又約五味之差，皆佛自分也。疏「諸大菩薩亦開教故」者，第五意也。若無著之扶五性及與三時，龍樹之判四門共與不共，皆揀權實有取捨也。 > From the commentary's "Furthermore, because what is intended by the king's secret words is distinct" onwards, there are five points that demonstrate the faults of the earlier \[view of\] non-differentiation. This is the first. Chapter nine of the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] explains that saindhava has one name and four referents: first, salt; second, a vessel; third, water; fourth, a horse. In the explanation, \[they are ordered as\] first water, second salt, third a vessel, and fourth a horse. Hence that text says: "These four things all share this same name. A wise minister knows this name well. If, when the king is bathing, he asks for saindhava, he immediately offers water. If, when the king is eating, he asks for saindhava, he immediately offers salt. If, when the king has finished eating and wishes to drink broth, he asks for saindhava, he immediately offers a vessel. If the king wishes to travel and asks for saindhava, he immediately offers a horse. A wise minister such as this understands the great king's four kinds of secret words well. This Mahāyāna sūtra is also just like this: there are four impermanences, which the wise minister of the Mahāyāna should know well. If the Buddha appears in the world and expounds the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa for sentient beings, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the characteristic of impermanence for those who grasp at permanence, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the contemplation of impermanence. Or again, if he says that the correct Dharma is about to be extinguished, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the characteristic of suffering for those who grasp at pleasure, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the contemplation of suffering extensively. Or again, if he says, 'I am now afflicted with illness, and the Saṅgha is broken,' the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the characteristic of non-self for those who grasp at a self, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the contemplation of non-self. Or again, if he says that what is termed emptiness is correct liberation, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding that correct liberation is free from the twenty-five states of existence, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate and train in the contemplation of emptiness. For this reason, this correct liberation is named emptiness, and it is also named unmoving. What is meant by 'unmoving' is that in liberation there is no suffering; therefore it is unmoving. This correct liberation is also signless: what is meant by 'signless' is that it has no form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and so forth; therefore it is called signless. This correct liberation is eternal and unchanging; in this liberation there is no impermanence, feverish affliction, or alteration; therefore liberation is named eternally abiding, unchanging, and refreshing. Or again, if he says that all sentient beings possess the Tathāgata-nature, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the eternal Dharma, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the correct eternal Dharma. If these monks can follow and train like this, know that such a person is truly my disciple." However, that commentary on the sūtra does not explain the reason for the lack of sequence, but merely correlates and interprets them according to the sequence \[of the text\], with the first four manifesting the provisional and concealing the real, and the last one manifesting the real and concealing the provisional. Now I state that in the distinct metaphors above, they are sequenced according to impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self: because water conforms to the square or round shape of the vessel, it is impermanence; salt is suffering; the vessel corresponds to emptiness, because it possesses the utility of a vessel; the horse is whipped by a person, because it lacks autonomy. In the correlation: impermanence, suffering, and non-self are the three cultivated dharmas, belonging to saṃsāra; the fourth, correlated with emptiness, is correct liberation. Yet in liberation, being empty of non-self, suffering, impurity, and impermanence is precisely \[true\] permanence; therefore, within the single \[aspect of\] emptiness it clarifies four meanings, all using the metaphor of the vessel. And finally, the Buddha-nature manifests wondrous existence, corresponding to the horse mentioned before. However, the four meanings within emptiness negate impermanence and the like, while the single meaning of Buddha-nature reveals true permanence; self, pleasure, purity, and so forth should also be fully explained, being contained within correct liberation: unmoving is pleasure; signless is purity; free from changing feverish affliction is the meaning of permanence; the horse is also the meaning of self. Thus, herein the eight practices are fully manifested. Because within the impermanence and the like of saṃsāra, permanence and the like are secretly revealed, they are secret words. Furthermore, in the initial list, salt is first, which is also sequenced as suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self, as commonly explained. Therefore this explanation is not the same as the ancient masters' interpretations. However, the intention of citing this passage is to urge that one must adeptly grasp the intent behind the spoken words; how could one muddle them together without distinguishing provisional and real? As for the commentary's "Not recognizing the provisional and real, taking the deep as shallow" and so forth, this is the second point. For example, when it is said that upon first generating the mind one immediately accomplishes correct enlightenment, yet one regards this merely as the Tathāgata's provisional exposition, this is taking the deep as shallow. Being unable to cultivate correctly and holding the sage's realm aloof, one is then unable to quickly realize anuttarabodhi; hence it says "losing great benefit." The "Chapter on Leaving the World" says: "Those who cultivate this Dharma apply little effort and swiftly attain bodhi," and so forth. As for "taking the shallow as deep and wasting their effort," this is like the World-Honoured One, in order to stop distracted thoughts, instructing people to count breaths and observe the mind, and for those who despise suffering, instructing them to transcend the three realms. Sentient beings do not understand, indulge in the taste \[of these\] as the true, and strive endlessly; using much effort, what they obtain is minuscule, not gaining the value of a single day of nirvāṇa. Hence it says "wasting their effort," which means fruitlessly wasting effort. As for the commentary's "To adorn the sacred teachings so as to make them deep and vast," this is the third point. This means that by analyzing the provisional and real, emptiness and existence, and choosing between the partial and round, slow and swift, one only then knows that the Buddha-Dharma is subtle, profound, and abstruse, encompassing everything. For example, if one does not sail the great ocean, how could one know its margins? If one does not recognize earth and stone, how could one know true gems? Thus the Dazhidulun, explaining the giving of Dharma, says: "Relying on sūtras and treatises, broadly elaborating meanings and establishing names for them—all are called the giving of Dharma." Furthermore, if one does not distinguish provisional and real, one would assume that the three teachings are largely identical. Now it is clarified that even the Mahāyāna has provisional and real, so how much more so the Hīnayāna? The Hīnayāna compared to the Mahāyāna is like the glow of a firefly compared to the shining of the sun. The Hīnayāna, being the Buddha's teaching, is still rebuked, so how much more so when Confucianism and Daoism are compared to the Buddha-Dharma—they are as distant as heaven and earth! By screening them with these repeated layers, one only then knows the profound depth of the Buddha-Dharma. As for the commentary's "Because within the sacred teachings they are naturally differentiated," this is the fourth point. For instance, the Saṃdhinirmocana establishes the three periods, which differs from the Jieji. The Suvarṇaprabhāsa establishes the difference of the three wheels; the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] itself differentiates the half and full, and also does so in terms of the distinction of the five flavors—all are the Buddha's own differentiations. As for the commentary's "Because the great bodhisattvas also opened the teachings," this is the fifth point. This refers to Asaṅga's support of the five natures and the three periods, and Nāgārjuna's distinction of the four gates as shared and unshared; all of these screen the provisional and real and make selections. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.6) - [Next: 6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.8) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.6.7) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [འཕགས་པ་ཡོངས་སུ་མྱ་ངན་ལས་འདས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.mahaparinirvana-mahayana*bo.299) — Classical Tibetan - [འཕགས་པ་ཡོངས་སུ་མྱ་ངན་ལས་འདས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.mahaparinirvana-mahayana*bo-d120.12.5) — Classical Tibetan --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.6.7) · Pramāṇa