大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.7

65.7

疏「別有暗法名為無明」下，三出無明體相。於中，先正出體。「別有暗法」，是明所治。後「非但」下，揀濫。此揀二義，即二師解。謂一師云：無明者，謂體非明，此即遮詮，如非有非無，法體非是有無故。第二師云：應謂明無，此但無彼明處即名無明。故今揀之，非是明無而已，理則盡矣。猶恐難見，具引論釋。《俱舍》第十論云「無明何義（問也）？謂體非明（即第一師非前智明）。若爾，無明應是眼等。」釋曰：難也。眼等五根亦非智明，故論云「既爾，此義應是無智明也。」釋曰：此第二釋，謂明無之處即名無明。論云「若爾，無明體應非有。」釋曰：難也。若是明無之處名無明者，無是無他，體應非有。論云「為明有體（揀第二義），義不濫餘（揀第一義）。頌曰『明所治無明，如非親實等。』」釋曰：上句明有實體，謂此無明不了四諦，明所對治名曰無明。與明相違方名無明，非是離明之外皆是無明，故不同第一。亦非明無之處名為無明，不同第二。下句舉前釋成。論云「如諸親友所治怨敵，親友相違名非親友，非異親友非親友無。」釋曰：此以怨喻無明，親友喻明。非親友者，即是怨家，怨有體矣。言非異親友者，非異親友之外餘人皆名非親友也，此喻無明不濫眼等。言非親友無者，非無父母朋友即名非親友也，此喻無明非無體也。言實等者，以上非字貫下實等。亦如非實者，諦語名實，此所對治虛誑言論名為非實，非異於實皆名非實（如殺生等），亦非實無名為非實（此明非實有體）。等取非法非義非事，如不善法名為非法，不善義名為非義，不善事名為非事。此與善法等相違名非法等，皆明有體非無。故論結云「如是無明別有實體，是明所治，非異非無。」釋曰：非異揀初義，非無揀第二。無明若無有體，何能與行為緣？經說無明能染於慧，令不清淨，明有體也。餘如彼說。

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'There is a distinct dark phenomenon named ignorance,' and so forth, third, it sets forth the essence and characteristics of ignorance. Within this, first it directly sets forth the essence. 'A distinct dark phenomenon' is what is countered by brightness. Next, from 'not merely' onward, it excludes conflations. This excludes two interpretations, which are the explanations of two masters. One master says: 'Ignorance means its essence is non-bright.' This is an exclusionary predication, like neither existent nor non-existent, because the essence of phenomena is not existent or non-existent. The second master says: 'It should mean the absence of brightness; this is just calling the place where there is no brightness ignorance.' Therefore, it is now excluded: it is not merely the absence of brightness, and the principle is exhausted. Still fearing it is hard to see, it fully cites the explanation of the Treatise. Fascicle 10 of the Kośa says: 'What is the meaning of ignorance? (A question.) It means its essence is non-bright (that is, the first master's "not the preceding cognitive brightness"). If so, ignorance should be the eyes and so forth.' Explanation: This is an objection. The five sense-faculties such as the eyes are also not cognitive brightness, so the Treatise says: 'If that is so, this meaning should be the absence of cognitive brightness.' Explanation: This is the second explanation, saying that the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance. The Treatise says: 'If so, the essence of ignorance should be non-existent.' Explanation: This is an objection. If the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance, absence is merely the absence of something else, and its essence should be non-existent. The Treatise says: 'In order to clarify that it has an essence (excluding the second meaning) and that its meaning is not conflated with other things (excluding the first meaning), the verse says: "Ignorance is what is countered by brightness, like non-friend, non-truth, and so forth."' Explanation: The upper line clarifies that it has a real essence: this ignorance fails to understand the Four Truths, and what is countered by brightness is named ignorance. Only that which is contrary to brightness is called ignorance; it is not that everything apart from brightness is ignorance, so it differs from the first. Nor is it that the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance, differing from the second. The lower line cites the preceding to explain and establish it. The Treatise says: 'Just as the enemy countered by friends: that which is contrary to a friend is called a non-friend, not someone different from a friend, nor the absence of a friend.' Explanation: This uses an enemy to illustrate ignorance, and friends to illustrate brightness. A non-friend is precisely an enemy; an enemy has an essence. 'Not someone different from a friend' means it is not that anyone other than a friend is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance is not conflated with the eyes and so forth. 'Nor the absence of a friend' means it is not that the lack of parents and friends is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance is not without essence. As for 'truth and so forth,' the word 'non-' above carries down to 'truth and so forth.' It is also like 'non-truth': truthful speech is called truth, and false speech countered by this is called non-truth; it is not that everything different from truth is called non-truth (such as killing), nor is the absence of truth called non-truth (this clarifies that non-truth has an essence). 'And so forth' includes non-dharma, non-artha, and non-kārya: unwholesome phenomena are called non-dharma, unwholesome meanings are called non-artha, and unwholesome matters are called non-kārya. These being contrary to wholesome phenomena and so forth are called non-dharma and so forth; all clarify that they have an essence and are not non-existent. Therefore the Treatise concludes: 'Thus ignorance has a distinct real essence; it is what is countered by brightness, neither different [from brightness] nor non-existent.' Explanation: 'Neither different' excludes the first interpretation; 'nor non-existent' excludes the second. If ignorance had no essence, how could it serve as a condition for formations? The sūtra says that ignorance can defile wisdom and make it impure, which clarifies that it has an essence. The rest is as explained there.