[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) › 69.12 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 69.12 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 69.12 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [69.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.69.12) 疏「今初中」下，疏文有七：一釋初總句入一切法言、二「以歷事」下總科、三「四中一破相」下顯功能、四「若寄位」下約位、五「又此四中」下出體、六「依佛性論」下指廣、七「事無生」下隨文解釋。初二可知。三中，然相實名事，泯事入理名事無生。良以無生緣起成事，是故泯事即是無生，故能破相即遣有相也。「二破性」者，破遣有性也。法體名性，以一切法各有性故，泯性入如名性無生。良以無生緣起成性，是故泯性即是無生。「三因泯」者，即離因相，因有始終。三世分異名數差別，證實返望本無此數，名數差別無生故。《地持》云「不知無言自性事故，三世差別。以知無言自性事故，三世中一切平等。」「四果離」者，即離果相。果位業用名為作業，證實以望無業可得，名業無生。是故結云「前二破相入如，後二證實捨相。」一破有相，二破無相，二俱破相，二俱入如。三四皆證實並捨相，如文思之。四約寄位中，捨相入實故是加行，性相雙遣故為根本，用是後得，於理必然。三通始終，三世別故。五出體中，大同第六。三性但合為真妄耳。則妄通依他遍計，真唯圓成。「依佛性」下，六指廣者，即三性分別。言「佛性論」者，即彼〈三性品〉。論云「由有三性故，說不了義經。達三性者自然顯了，名了義經。如經中說：若人得無生法忍，則不退墮。問云：此言云何成立？答曰：由三性故則得成立。如來約分別性故，說本來無生忍。約依他性故，說自性無生忍。約真實性故，說惑垢苦本性無生忍。」釋曰：若取文顯，初一似約遍計，以云本來無生故。第二同約依他，以論云自性無生故。後二約圓成，以第三約位有垢淨故，第四約佛明所證故。細而尋之，初一修成，有依他故；本有，即圓成故。約位亦從緣故，佛所入處緣起遍故。又本來無生該下文故，故疏更不廣釋，但指前文第二經疏。 > Regarding the Commentary's: below "Now in the first...", the Commentary text has seven parts: first, explaining the initial general phrase on the words 'entering all dharmas'; second, below "taking up concrete phenomena...", the general rubric; third, below "among the four, the first is refuting characteristics...", revealing the functions; fourth, below "if correlated with the stages...", according to the stages; fifth, below "furthermore, among these four...", bringing out the essence; sixth, below "relying on the Treatise on Buddha-Nature...", pointing to the extensive treatment; seventh, below "non-arising of phenomena...", explaining according to the text. The first two can be known. In the third: however, actual characteristics are called phenomena; dissolving phenomena to enter principle is called the non-arising of phenomena. Truly, because non-arising through dependent origination constitutes phenomena, therefore dissolving phenomena is itself non-arising; hence being able to refute characteristics discards characteristics of existence. "Second, refuting nature" means refuting and discarding natures of existence. The essence of dharmas is called nature, because all dharmas each have their nature; dissolving natures to enter suchness is called the non-arising of nature. Truly, because non-arising through dependent origination constitutes nature, therefore dissolving nature is itself non-arising. "Third, dissolution of causes" means departing from the characteristics of causes, for causes have beginning and end. Distinctions in the three periods of time are designated as numerical differences; when realizing the real and looking back, originally there are no such numbers, because numerical differences are non-arisen. The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "Because of not knowing the ineffable intrinsic nature of phenomena, there are distinctions in the three periods of time. Because of knowing the ineffable intrinsic nature of phenomena, there is complete equality in the three periods of time." "Fourth, departure from fruits" means departing from the characteristics of fruits. The karmic functions at the fruit stage are called actions; when realizing the real and looking \[upon them\], there is no karma to be found, which is called the non-arising of karma. Therefore it concludes: "The former two refute characteristics to enter suchness; the latter two realize the real and abandon characteristics." The first refutes characteristics of existence; the second refutes characteristics of non-existence; both alike refute characteristics, and both alike enter suchness. The third and fourth both realize the real and abandon characteristics; ponder this according to the text. In the fourth, on correlating with stages: abandoning characteristics to enter the real is therefore the preparatory stage; doubly discarding both nature and characteristics is therefore the fundamental \[cognition\]; function is the subsequently attained \[cognition\]; in principle this is necessarily so. The third pervades beginning and end, because the three periods of time differ. In the fifth, on bringing out the essence: it is largely identical to the sixth ground. The three natures are simply combined into the real and the false. Thus the false pervades the other-dependent and the imagined, while the real is solely the fully perfected. Below "relying on Buddha-nature", the sixth, pointing to the extensive treatment, is the discrimination of the three natures. The "Treatise on Buddha-Nature" refers to its "Chapter on the Three Natures." That treatise states: "Because there are three natures, provisional teachings are spoken. Those who penetrate the three natures are spontaneously manifest and clear, which is called the definitive teaching. As spoken in the sūtra: If someone obtains the receptivity to the non-arising of dharmas, they do not fall back. Question: How is this statement established? Answer: It is established through the three natures. With reference to the discriminated nature, the Tathāgata spoke of the receptivity to original non-arising. With reference to the other-dependent nature, he spoke of the receptivity to intrinsic-nature non-arising. With reference to the real nature, he spoke of the receptivity to the original-nature non-arising of defilement, stain, and suffering." Explanation: If we take the surface text, the first seems to refer to the imagined nature, because it says original non-arising. The second likewise refers to the other-dependent, because the treatise says intrinsic-nature non-arising. The latter two refer to the fully perfected, because the third refers to defilement and purity according to stages, and the fourth refers to the Buddha clarifying what is realized. When closely examined: the first is cultivated and accomplished, possessing the other-dependent; originally existent, it is the fully perfected. Referring to stages also follows conditions; where the Buddha enters, dependent origination is all-pervading. Moreover, original non-arising covers the subsequent text; therefore the Commentary does not explain further at length, but merely points to the Commentary on the second sūtra text above. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 69.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.69.11) - [Next: 69.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.69.13) - [Up: 69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.69) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.69.12) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.69.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.69.12) · Pramāṇa