大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 62.53

62.53

疏「云何一切種修」下，第二徵釋觀相。先徵、後「應觀」下釋。於中二：一直就四境以明三觀、後雙就枯榮以明三觀。前中二：先別明身念、次「身念既爾」下例餘三念。前中亦二：先約一多以辨三觀、後約性相以辨三觀。前中，言「法性緣生故一色一切色」者，謂觀此身色，非唯但是虛妄顛倒所生之色，或謂不淨、或謂為空，乃是迷於法性。合於法性隨緣而生，名為性起，以性融相故一多自在。然即《中論．四諦品》偈意「因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦為是假名，亦是中道義。」此偈四句，初句總顯所依，下三句皆帶此句，謂二因緣故空、三因緣故有、四因緣故中。今法性緣生，故一色一切色，即因緣故有也。若三乘緣生，但各各緣生。今是法性緣生，法性融故，令一色中一切色。《大品》云「一切法趣色」，則一切皆色，況十一色舉一全收。次句云「緣生即空故一切色一色」者，即論釋。緣生故空，則差別萬殊但一性空之色。次「法性中故非一非一切、雙照一一切」者，即論因緣故中。雙非，即是雙遮辨中，以一與一切互即奪故。下雙照辨中，性相歷然，不可壞故。

On the Commentary's text from “How is there cultivation through all modes?” downward, this is the second [section], which interrogates and explains the contemplation characteristics. It first interrogates, and then explains from “one should contemplate” downward. Within this there are two parts: first, directly approaching the four spheres to clarify the three contemplations; second, approaching both withering and flourishing together to clarify the three contemplations. In the former, there are two parts: first, specifically clarifying mindfulness of the body; next, from “mindfulness of the body being thus” downward, analogizing to the remaining three mindfulnesses. In the former of these, there are also two parts: first, distinguishing the three contemplations in terms of the one and the many; next, distinguishing the three contemplations in terms of nature and characteristics.

In the former: as for “because conditioned arising is from the dharmatā, one matter is all matter,” this means contemplating that the matter of this body is not merely matter produced from false inversions—either called impure or called empty—which is delusion regarding the dharmatā. According with the dharmatā, it arises following conditions, which is called nature-arising; because the nature fuses with characteristics, the one and the many are unobstructed. This is indeed the meaning of the verse in the Chapter on the Four Truths in the Madhyamakaśāstra: “Whatever dharma is dependently arisen, / I explain that to be emptiness; / It is also a conventional designation, / And it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.” In the four lines of this verse, the first line generally reveals that upon which they rely, and the following three lines all carry this line, meaning: second, because of conditions, it is empty; third, because of conditions, it is existent; fourth, because of conditions, it is middle. Now, because conditioned arising is from the dharmatā, one matter is all matter, which is existence because of conditions. If it were the conditioned arising of the three vehicles, it would only be individual conditioned arising. Here it is conditioned arising from the dharmatā; because the dharmatā is fused, all matter is within one matter. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: “All dharmas converge into matter”; thus all are matter, not to mention that mentioning one of the eleven forms of matter completely subsumes them all. The next line says: “Because conditioned arising is empty, all matter is one matter,” which is the treatise's explanation. Because it is empty due to conditioned arising, the myriad manifold differences are just one matter whose nature is empty. Next, “Because the dharmatā is middle, it is neither one nor all, and illuminates both the one and all,” which is the treatise's “middle because of conditions.” Negating both is discerning the middle through double negation, because the one and the all mutually identify and mutually negate. Below, illuminating both discerns the middle, because nature and characteristics are distinctly evident and indestructible.