大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.15

74.15

第八無數色身通。「今初由了法界無定實色」下，疏文有二：先彰大意、後「於中六句」下釋文。前中，意明此是即色之空，非色絕之真空，故不礙現色。於中，先明即色之空，故能現色。由上無實色故，即色是空。既即色是空，故非斷空。又無定實，則顯非常，非是斷空。又顯非斷，以定有則常、定無則斷故。今非斷常，即真法界。從「空中無色不礙色故」者，明空不礙色，故能現色。「存亡隱顯」下，結成上義，至下當知。然此段文乃含多意。第一，謂色空相望，總有三義：一相違義，故云空中無色。二不相礙義，故云不礙色故。三相作義，故前云無定實色，舉體即空，非斷空故。謂此幻色若不舉體即空，不成幻色，故亦合云色中無空，故色不礙空。故舉體即色，非斷滅故。以此正說了無色義，故唯說色即空邊。下第二段能現色邊，方合明於色不礙空等。此三無礙方曰真空，亦稱妙有。第二，此之二句遣於地前三空亂意，謂無定實色舉體即空，非斷空故。遣第二疑空滅色，取斷滅空。以空中無色，遣第三疑空是物，謂空為有。今明空尚無色，豈有體耶？況色中無空，空定無體。次云「不礙色故」，即遣第一疑空異色，取色外空。既云不礙於色，明非色外。離此三過，方曰真空清淨法界。第三，亦含法界觀意，即第一真空絕相觀。彼有四門：第一會色歸空觀，即今門空意；第二明空即色觀，是第二段能現色意；第三色空無礙觀，即此第三段無色現色意；第四泯絕無寄觀，亦在此段之中。彼第一會色歸空觀中有四句，各先標、後釋前三。標語皆同云色不即空，以即空故。今云無定實色，以舉體即空，非斷空故。即彼第一句。彼云以色不即空是斷空，故云不即空。以色舉體是真空，故云以即空故。今云不礙色，即彼第二句。青黃之相非即真空之理，故云色不即空。然青黃無體，莫不皆空，故云以即空故。良以青黃無體之空，非即青黃，故云不即空。即要有青黃方說無體，明不礙色矣。次今云空中無色，即彼第三句空中無色故不即空。會色無體，故云以即空故。良由會色歸空，空中必無色，是故由色空，故色非空也。上三句以法揀情。第四便云色即是空，謂凡是色法必不異真空，以諸色法必無性故，是故色即是空。此即今疏第一法界無定實色，舉體即空是也。疏「存亡隱顯皆自在故」者，總結前義。於中二意：一者結上空中無色。亡也不礙，色故存也。舉體即空，非斷空故，兼存亡也。存亡約色、隱顯約空，空理真常，不可言亡。而色存即空隱，色亡則空顯，此唯約會色歸空以說。若兼第二不礙現色，是明空即色觀。論存亡隱顯者，色即是空，則色亡空顯；空即是色，則空隱色存。然皆即亡即存、即隱即顯，故云「自在」。即以總結為彼第三空色無礙觀。其泯絕無寄，在下釋文。疏「但妄分別求叵得故」下，即彼泯絕無寄意也。彼云：謂此所觀真空，不可言即色不即色、即空不即空，一切法皆不可，此語亦不受，逈絕無寄，非言所及、非解所到，是謂行境。何以故，以生心動念即乖法體，失正念故。以今疏文，對彼所引，相攝可知。疏「以即空之色為妙色故」者，此以前成後，由前即了無色而現色，故成妙色。次云「又色空不二」下，將今對前，反覆相成。初空色不二，成上真空，以全成前；次不二而二，以前成後；次「色空融即」下，融上二文，歸初法界；後「緣起無盡」下，成後無涯。其真空妙色之旨，廣如〈問明〉。

Eighth, the penetration of innumerable physical bodies (rūpakāya). Under "Now, first, from understanding that the dharmadhātu has no definite, real form (rūpa)," the text of the commentary has two parts: first it clarifies the overall meaning, and then under "Within this, the six lines..." it explains the text. In the former, the intention is to clarify that this is emptiness that is identical with form, not the true emptiness in which form is extinguished; hence it does not obstruct the manifestation of form. Within this, it first clarifies emptiness that is identical with form, and therefore it is able to manifest form. Because, as stated above, there is no real form, form itself is empty. Since form itself is empty, it is not an annihilatory emptiness (ucchedā-śūnyatā). Furthermore, having no definite reality reveals that it is not permanent; and being not an annihilatory emptiness reveals that it is not annihilated, because if it definitely existed it would be permanent, and if it definitely did not exist it would be annihilated. Now, being neither annihilated nor permanent, it is the true dharmadhātu. As for the passage from "because emptiness being devoid of form does not obstruct form," it clarifies that emptiness does not obstruct form, and therefore is able to manifest form. From "Preservation and loss, concealment and revelation..." onward, it concludes the above meaning, which will be understood below. However, this passage of the text actually contains multiple meanings: First, when form and emptiness are viewed in relation to each other, there are three meanings in all: 1. the meaning of mutual opposition, hence it says that in emptiness there is no form; 2. the meaning of mutual non-obstruction, hence it says "because it does not obstruct form"; 3. the meaning of mutual creation, hence it was said earlier that there is no definite, real form, and that in its entire substance it is empty, because it is not an annihilatory emptiness. This means that if this illusory form were not in its entire substance empty, it could not constitute illusory form; hence one must also say that in form there is no emptiness, and therefore form does not obstruct emptiness. Thus, its entire substance is form, because it is not annihilation. Because here it is specifically explaining the meaning of understanding the absence of form, it speaks only of the aspect of form being identical with emptiness. In the second section below, on the aspect of being able to manifest form, it will appropriately clarify that form does not obstruct emptiness, and so forth. Only when these three are unhindered is it called true emptiness, and also termed wonderful existence. Second, these two lines dispel the confused notions regarding the three emptinesses held by those prior to the grounds (bhūmi): namely, that having no definite, real form, in its entire substance it is empty, because it is not an annihilatory emptiness. This dispels the second doubt of "emptiness destroying form" and grasping an annihilatory emptiness. By "in emptiness there is no form," it dispels the third doubt of "emptiness being a thing," which claims that emptiness is existent. Now it clarifies that emptiness does not even have form—how could it have substance? How much less could there be emptiness within form; emptiness definitely lacks substance. Next, saying "because it does not obstruct form" dispels the first doubt that "emptiness is distinct from form," which grasps an emptiness outside of form. Since it says it does not obstruct form, it clarifies that it is not outside of form. Only when freed from these three errors is it called the true emptiness of the pure dharmadhātu. Third, it also contains the meaning of the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, which is the first contemplation: the Contemplation of True Emptiness Ending Marks. That contemplation has four gates: 1. the contemplation of resolving form into emptiness, which is the meaning of emptiness in the present gate; 2. the contemplation clarifying that emptiness is identical with form, which is the meaning of being able to manifest form in the second section; 3. the contemplation of the non-obstruction of form and emptiness, which is the meaning of formlessness manifesting form in this third section; 4. the contemplation of total annihilation leaving nowhere to rest, which is also within this section. In that first contemplation of resolving form into emptiness, there are four lines; each first states the thesis and then explains the first three. The statement of the thesis in all [three] is the same, saying: "Form is not identical with emptiness, because it is identical with emptiness." Now, saying "there is no definite, real form, because in its entire substance it is empty and not an annihilatory emptiness" is that first line. It says: because form is not identical with an emptiness that is annihilatory emptiness, it is said that "it is not identical with emptiness"; because form in its entire substance is true emptiness, it is said "because it is identical with emptiness." Now, saying "it does not obstruct form" is that second line. The characteristics of blue and yellow are not identical with the principle of true emptiness; therefore it says: "Form is not identical with emptiness." However, blue and yellow have no substance, none of them being not empty; therefore it says: "because it is identical with emptiness." Truly, because the emptiness that is the lack of substance of blue and yellow is not identical with blue and yellow, it is said: "it is not identical with emptiness." Precisely because there must be blue and yellow for one to speak of their lack of substance, it clarifies that it does not obstruct form. Next, saying now that "in emptiness there is no form" is that third line: "because there is no form in emptiness, it is not identical with emptiness; resolving form to have no substance, it therefore says 'because it is identical with emptiness.'" Truly, because resolving form into emptiness means that in emptiness there must be no form, therefore through the emptiness of form, form is not emptiness. The above three lines use Dharma to sift out emotional attachment. The fourth line immediately says: "Form is precisely emptiness." That is to say, whatever is a phenomenon of form is necessarily not different from true emptiness, because all phenomena of form necessarily lack own-nature; therefore form is precisely emptiness. This is precisely what the present commentary means by the first [point]: "the dharmadhātu has no definite, real form; in its entire substance it is empty." As for the commentary's "because preservation and loss, concealment and revelation are all sovereign," this is a general conclusion to the preceding meaning. Within this there are two meanings: First, it concludes the above: "in emptiness there is no form" is "loss"; "not obstructing form" is "preservation"; "in its entire substance it is empty, because it is not an annihilatory emptiness" encompasses both preservation and loss. Preservation and loss pertain to form; concealment and revelation pertain to emptiness. The principle of emptiness is truly constant and cannot be said to be "lost"; but when form is preserved, emptiness is concealed, and when form is lost, emptiness is revealed. This is spoken of solely with regard to resolving form into emptiness. If one includes the second, "not obstructing the manifestation of form," that clarifies the contemplation that emptiness is identical with form. When discussing preservation and loss, concealment and revelation: when form is precisely emptiness, form is lost and emptiness is revealed; when emptiness is precisely form, emptiness is concealed and form is preserved. However, in both cases, precisely what is lost is preserved, and precisely what is concealed is revealed; hence it says "sovereign." Thus, it serves as a general conclusion for that third contemplation of the non-obstruction of emptiness and form. As for "total annihilation leaving nowhere to rest," it is found in the explanation of the text below. The commentary's "simply because when sought through deluded discrimination it cannot be found" onward is precisely that meaning of total annihilation leaving nowhere to rest. It states: this true emptiness contemplated cannot be said to be identical with form or not identical with form, identical with emptiness or not identical with emptiness; none of all dharmas are admissible, and even this statement is not entertained; it is utterly cut off and without any resting place, beyond the reach of words and inaccessible to understanding—this is called the sphere of practice. Why? Because the arousal of mind and the stirring of thought run counter to the substance of the Dharma and forfeit right mindfulness. When comparing the present commentary's text with that citation, their mutual subsumption is evident. As for the commentary's "because it takes the form that is identical with emptiness to be wonderful form," this uses what precedes to establish what follows: because previously it understood the absence of form and manifested form, it forms wonderful form. Next, saying "Furthermore, form and emptiness are not two" onward compares the present with the preceding, mutually establishing each other through alternating perspectives. First, form and emptiness not being two establishes the true emptiness above, entirely completing what went before; next, "not two and yet two" uses what precedes to establish what follows; next, "form and emptiness blend and identify" blends the two texts above, returning them to the initial dharmadhātu; finally, "the inexhaustible dependent origination" establishes the boundless below. The essential purport of true emptiness and wonderful form is detailed as in the chapter 'Clarifying by Inquiries'.