大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 80.71

80.71

疏「故此三法」下，結成涅槃。《涅槃》第二云「我今當令一切眾生，及以我弟子四部之眾，悉皆安住祕密藏中。我亦復當安住是中入於涅槃。何等名為祕密之藏？猶如伊字三點，若並則不成伊，縱亦不成。如摩醯首羅面上三目，三點若並不得成伊，三點若別亦不成伊。我亦如是，解脫之法亦非涅槃，如來之身亦非涅槃，摩訶般若亦非涅槃；三法各異亦非涅槃。我今安住如是三法，為眾生故名入涅槃。」薦福釋曰：「若將喻類法，喻文不足。以法云：解脫之法亦非涅槃等。喻中應云：唯一一點不成伊也，以解脫等三有一一不成故。夫證涅槃須有能證身、須有智慧火、煩惱等滅，此三法合名證涅槃。若唯身亦非涅槃，唯般若亦非涅槃，唯解脫亦非涅槃。此三各別未有斷證，亦非涅槃。喻別亦不成。若智者意，四義各殊，東西曰橫、南北曰縱。縱即竪也。謂若法身本有，次修般若、後得解脫，則是縱義，以經生越世彌亘淨穢，故如縱三點。不橫者，三法異體同時，如三列火。並乃合為一體，別乃各居一處，即但用一法。今摩訶般若亦非涅槃等，是合縱並。竪明此三曰縱，舉一攝二曰並。故云般若非者，般若中已攝二故。三德若異亦非涅槃，即雙合橫別，一一異體即合於別，異體同時即合於橫故。故上云三點若別不得成伊，已合橫別也。亦可橫即是並，對縱為橫、對別為並，故經但有三句，於義成四。」而總釋云：「今三俱不思議，焉可縱？俱不思議，焉可橫？俱不思議，焉可並？俱不思議，焉可別？」意云：即一而三、即三而一，非三非、一雙照三一，焉可作一三等思？若作體一用別而明，尚未免於並別也。然有云：伊字如品字。有云：如倒品字。後義為正。由此見異，古德解義取捨不同：或一德在上、二德在下。或二德在上、一德在下。並不得意。西方伊字三點在上，天目之喻，不可二目在一目上。如來恐人誤作此解，故以天目轉喻伊字，則不得定一二上下，但取不可縱橫及並別耳。若定說言一上二上，非唯義理不得圓妙，致令二喻自互相違。謂梵字樣者[(口*口)/口]，此西方伊字，三目之一當於眉間。此其狀也，諸公何惑？言「祕密」者，以深妙故。遠公釋云：「昔隱不說故名祕密，權教所覆故復名藏。」故下文云「十一部中所不說者，名之為藏。又於其中包含諸德，亦名為藏。」薦福釋云：「皆非二乘境界，故名祕密。」二賢皆是對昔顯密；今明深妙，當體祕密。

On the commentary passage from “Therefore, these three dharmas…” downwards, it concludes and establishes nirvāṇa. The second fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: “I shall now cause all sentient beings, as well as my fourfold assembly of disciples, to all abide securely in the secret treasury. I too shall abide securely in this and enter into nirvāṇa. What is called the secret treasury? It is like the three dots of the letter ‘i’; if aligned horizontally they do not form an ‘i’, and if vertical they do not form it either. Just like the three eyes on the face of Maheśvara, if the three dots are placed side by side they cannot form an ‘i’, and if the three dots are separated they also cannot form an ‘i’. I am also like this: the dharma of liberation is not nirvāṇa, the body of the Tathāgata is not nirvāṇa, and mahāprajñā is also not nirvāṇa; the three dharmas being separate is also not nirvāṇa. I now abide securely in such three dharmas, and for the sake of sentient beings this is called entering nirvāṇa.” Master Jianfu explained: “If one compares the simile to the dharma, the text of the simile is insufficient. Because the dharma says: ‘the dharma of liberation is also not nirvāṇa,’ etc., in the simile it ought to say: ‘only a single dot does not form an ‘i’,’ because each of the three, such as liberation, individually does not form it. In verifying nirvāṇa, there must be the body capable of realizing it, there must be the fire of wisdom, and the extinction of defilements and so on; when these three dharmas unite, it is called realizing nirvāṇa. If there were only the body, it would not be nirvāṇa; if only prajñā, it would not be nirvāṇa; if only liberation, it would not be nirvāṇa. If these three were separate, without eradication and realization, they would also not be nirvāṇa. In the simile, their being separate also does not form [the letter]. According to the intention of Zhiyi, the four meanings are each distinct: east-to-west is horizontal, and south-to-north is vertical. Vertical means standing upright. That is to say, if the dharmakāya were fundamentally existent, prajñā were next cultivated, and liberation were subsequently attained, this would be the vertical meaning, for it would span lifetimes and cross through realms, extending throughout purity and defilement, hence like three vertical dots. Not being horizontal means the three dharmas having different essences at the same time, like three rows of fires. ‘Side by side’ is combining into a single essence, whereas ‘separate’ is each abiding in its own place—namely, using only a single dharma. Now, ‘mahāprajñā is also not nirvāṇa’ and so on combines the vertical and side by side. Explaining these three vertically is called ‘vertical’, while bringing up one to subsume two is called ‘side by side’. Hence, saying that prajñā is not [nirvāṇa] is because prajñā already subsumes the [other] two. If the three virtues were different, they would also not be nirvāṇa, which doubly combines the horizontal and separate: each being a different essence corresponds to ‘separate’, and different essences being simultaneous corresponds to ‘horizontal’. Therefore, the statement above that if the three dots are separate they cannot form an ‘i’ has already combined horizontal and separate. It may also be that horizontal is just ‘side by side’; relative to vertical it is horizontal, and relative to separate it is ‘side by side’. Thus, the sūtra has only three phrases, but in meaning it forms four.” Then he generally explained: “Now, as the three are all inconceivable, how could they be vertical? As they are all inconceivable, how could they be horizontal? As they are all inconceivable, how could they be side by side? As they are all inconceivable, how could they be separate?” The meaning is: identity of the one and the three, identity of the three and the one; neither three nor one, doubly illuminating both three and one. How could one conceive of them as one or three? If one explains them as one in essence and distinct in function, one has still not avoided [falling into] ‘side by side’ and ‘separate’. However, some say: the letter ‘i’ is like the character 品 (pin). Some say: it is like an inverted character 品. The latter meaning is correct. Due to this difference in views, ancient masters differed in their interpretations and choices: some placed one virtue above and two virtues below; others placed two virtues above and one virtue below. Neither grasped the intention. In the Western regions, the three dots of the letter ‘i’ [have one dot] above. In the simile of the divine eye, it is impossible for two eyes to be above one eye. The Tathāgata, fearing that people would mistakenly form this interpretation, consequently used the divine eye to modify the simile of the letter ‘i’; thus one must not definitively fix one or two as above or below, but merely grasp that they cannot be vertical, horizontal, side by side, or separate. If one definitively says that one is above or two are above, not only does the principle fail to be consummate and subtle, but it also causes the two similes to contradict each other. As for the form of the Sanskrit letter, it is ∴; this is the letter ‘i’ of the Western regions, where one of the three eyes corresponds to the space between the eyebrows. This is its shape; why should you masters be confused? As for the word ‘secret’, it is because it is profound and subtle. Master Huiyuan explained: ‘Because in the past it was concealed and not spoken, it is called secret; because it was covered by provisional teachings, it is again called a treasury.’ Hence a later passage states: ‘What was not spoken of in the eleven divisions [of scriptures] is called a treasury. Moreover, because it encompasses all virtues within it, it is also called a treasury.’ Jianfu explained: ‘Because it is not the realm of the two vehicles, it is called secret.’ Both worthy masters reveal secrecy in contrast to the past; now we clarify its profound subtlety, which is inherently secret in its very essence.