大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 86.8

86.8

疏「一如夢對」下，此之四喻，唯影別喻，餘三皆通。若準新譯，夢響二喻具通與別，影幻二喻唯別無通。今初夢喻，彼經別喻，云「如夢所見，從分別生。見一切佛，從自心起。」上二句喻，下二句合。則夢境喻佛，分別夢因喻能念心。故《觀無量壽佛經》云「是心作佛，是心是佛。諸佛正遍知，從心心想生。」緣生非實故，能所見空無往來也。疏「般舟」下，引證。此經有三卷，題云「般舟三昧經」，一名「十方現在佛悉在前立定經」，後魏沙門支婁迦讖譯，在羅閱祇加隣竹園說，跋陀和菩薩問。第一〈問事品〉，今引亦第一卷〈行品〉。第二佛先令遠惡近善，修此念佛三昧，故舉諸喻示念佛相。經文浩博，今疏略引，今當具引一喻。經云「何因致現在諸佛悉在前立三昧如是？跋陀和！其有比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷，持戒完具，獨一處止心念。西方阿彌陀佛今現在，隨所聞當念。彼國去此千億萬佛剎，其國名須摩提，佛在眾菩薩中央說經。一切時常念阿彌陀佛。佛告跋陀和：『譬如人臥，即於夢中見有種種金銀珍寶，或復夢父母兄弟妻子親屬知識相與娛樂，喜樂無比。及其覺已為人說之，復自淚出念夢中所見。如是跋陀和菩薩！若沙門白衣所聞西方阿彌陀佛，當念彼佛，不得缺戒，一心專念若一晝夜若七日七夜，過七日已後見阿彌陀佛。於覺不見，於夢中見之。譬如夢中所見，不知晝不知夜、亦不知內亦不見外，不用在冥中故不見，不用有所蔽礙故不見。如是跋陀和菩薩！心當如是念。時諸佛國界名大須彌山，其有幽冥之處悉為開闢，目亦不蔽、心亦不礙。是菩薩摩訶薩不持天眼徹視、不持天耳徹聽、不持神足到其佛剎，不於是間終，不生彼間佛剎耳。乃見便於此間坐，見阿彌陀佛，聞所說法悉受持。得從三昧起，悉能具足為人說之。』」釋曰：次下即有須門女喻。從七日已下，即示合相，取如夢見，無定實義。彼經有多夢喻，今但引二：前七寶喻，喻即有而空，覺無所得故。後如夢喻，喻空不礙有，有即事故。然合二不二為中道義，故但取意略引其二。又約義別說，心性如境、觀如緣想、觀成如夢，此唯就於能行人合。又法身如境、報身如想、應身如夢，此唯約佛境合。又彼佛如境、行人如想、見佛如夢所見，雙約感應。此之三釋，釋經通喻一切諸佛及以我心皆如夢故。言有女名須門者，經有二人，以念三女。經云「譬如有人聞墮舍利國中有婬女人名須門，若復有人聞婬女人名即凡和利，若復有人聞優婆須。」然經言小隱。若《賢護經》，緣事全同而文分明。經云「復次賢護！如此摩伽陀國有三丈夫。其第一者，聞毘耶離城有一婬女名須摩那。彼第二人，聞有婬女名菴羅波離。彼第三人，聞有婬女名蓮華色。彼既聞已，各設方便繫念勤求，無時暫廢。然彼三人實未曾覩如是諸女，直以遙聞即興欲心專念不息。後時因夢，謂在王舍城，與彼女人共行欲事。欲事既成求心亦息，希望既滿遂便覺寤。寤已追念夢中所行，如所聞見、如所證知。如是憶念來詣汝所具為汝說者，汝應為彼方便說法隨順教化，令其得住不退轉地，究竟成就阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。彼於當來必得成佛，名曰善覺。」又云「如舍衛國」等者，即《智論》第六似引此緣而有小異。論云「如佛在世，三人為伴，聞毘舍離有婬女名菴羅婆和，舍衛國有婬女名須曼那，王舍城有婬女名優鉢羅盤那，並端正無比。三人各聞長念心著，便於夢中與彼從事。覺已心念：『彼人不來、我又不往，而婬事得辦。』因是即悟諸法亦爾。於是共至跋陀婆羅菩薩所而問其事，菩薩答言：『諸法實耳，皆從念生。』菩薩乃為其方便說法，皆得不退轉地。」釋曰：大意同經，但闕授記耳。然經論大意，却顯念見佛竟方悟性空有無無礙，與疏意同也。

Regarding the commentary's phrase "First, in matching it to a dream" and so forth: among these four analogies, only the reflection is an exclusive analogy; the other three are all common analogies. If according to the new translation, the two analogies of dream and echo possess both common and exclusive senses, whereas the two analogies of reflection and phantom are exclusively specific without a common sense. Now, regarding the first dream analogy: that sūtra's specific analogy says, "Just as what is seen in a dream arises from conceptual distinction, so seeing all buddhas arises from one's own mind." The upper two lines are the analogy; the lower two lines are the application. Thus, the dream object exemplifies the Buddha, and the conceptual distinction as the cause of the dream exemplifies the mind capable of recollection. Therefore, the *Contemplation of Amitāyus Sūtra* says: "This mind makes Buddha; this mind is Buddha. The correct and universal knowledge of all buddhas arises from the thoughts of the mind." Because what is dependently arisen is not real, what is seen and the one seeing are both empty, without coming or going.

Regarding the commentary's phrase "The *Pratyutpanna*..." and so forth: this adduces testimony. This sūtra is in three fascicles; its title is the *Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra*, also called the *Sūtra of the Samādhi in Which the Present Buddhas of the Ten Directions All Stand Before One*, translated by the Latter Han śramaṇa Lokakṣema. It was preached at Rājagṛha in the Bamboo Grove of Karanda, and Bodhisattva Bhadrapāla asked the questions. Fascicle one contains the "Chapter on Questions"; what is quoted now is also from the first fascicle, the "Chapter on Practice." Second, the Buddha first causes one to distance oneself from evil and draw near to good, cultivating this buddha-mindfulness samādhi; therefore he raises various analogies to show the characteristics of recollecting the Buddha. The sūtra text is vast and extensive; the commentary now quotes it briefly, and I shall now fully quote one analogy. The sūtra says: "'By what cause is the samādhi where all the present buddhas stand before one brought about like this? Bhadrapāla! If there are monks, nuns, laymen, or laywomen who maintain the precepts completely and, staying in a solitary place, focus their minds in recollection: Amitābha Buddha of the western direction is now present; according to what has been heard, one should recollect him. That land is hundreds of thousands of millions of buddha-lands away from here; that land is named Sukhavatī, where the Buddha preaches the sūtras in the midst of an assembly of bodhisattvas. At all times constantly recollect Amitābha Buddha.' The Buddha told Bhadrapāla: 'Suppose a person is asleep, and in a dream sees various gold, silver, and precious jewels, or dreams of parents, brothers, wife, children, relatives, and acquaintances enjoying themselves together, with incomparable joy and happiness. When he awakens, he speaks of it to others, and again weeps remembering what was seen in the dream. Just so, Bodhisattva Bhadrapāla! If a śramaṇa or a white-clad layman hears of Amitābha Buddha of the western direction, he should recollect that Buddha, not breaking the precepts, focusing exclusively with single-mindedness for one day and one night, or seven days and seven nights; after seven days have passed, he will see Amitābha Buddha. He does not see him while awake; he sees him in a dream. Just as what is seen in a dream knows neither day nor night, perceives neither inside nor outside, is not unseen because it is in the dark, and is not unseen because there is an obstruction: just so, Bodhisattva Bhadrapāla! The mind should recollect in this way. At that time, the realms of all the buddhas—named the Great Mount Sumeru—wherever there are dark places, all open up; the eyes are not obstructed, and the mind is not impeded. This bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not rely on the heavenly eye to see through, does not rely on the heavenly ear to hear through, does not rely on supernatural feet to travel to that buddha-land, does not die here, and is not born in that buddha-land; rather, sitting right here, he sees Amitābha Buddha, hears the Dharma he preaches, and receives and upholds it all. Able to arise from samādhi, he is completely able to explain it to others.'"

Explication: Right after this follows the analogy of the woman Sumanā. From "seven days" downward, it shows the application of the characteristics, taking it to be like a dream vision, without any definite, real substance. That sūtra has many dream analogies; now only two are cited: the former analogy of the seven jewels exemplifies being empty right within existence, because upon awakening nothing is obtained. The latter analogy of being like a dream exemplifies emptiness not obstructing existence, since existence is phenomena itself. However, the non-duality of both is the meaning of the middle way; hence only the intended sense is taken and two are briefly cited.

Furthermore, to explain specifically in terms of meaning: the mind-nature is like the object, contemplation is like the mental image based on conditions, and the completion of contemplation is like the dream; this applies solely to the practicing person. Again, the dharmakāya is like the object, the saṃbhogakāya is like the thought, and the nirmāṇakāya is like the dream; this applies solely to the Buddha's realm. Again, that Buddha is like the object, the practitioner is like the thought, and seeing the Buddha is like what is seen in a dream; this applies jointly to sympathetic resonance. These three explanations interpret the sūtra's common analogy that all buddhas as well as one's own mind are both like a dream.

Regarding the statement that there was a woman named Xumen: in the sūtra there are two people, on account of recollecting three women. The sūtra says: "Suppose a person hears that in the country of Vaiśālī there is a courtesan named Sumanā; or suppose someone hears of a courtesan named Jīvavartī; or suppose someone hears of Upasumā." Yet the sūtra's words are somewhat obscure. If we turn to the *Bhadrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra*, the narrative events are entirely identical while the text is distinct. That sūtra says: "Furthermore, Bhadrapāla! In this country of Magadha there were three men. The first heard that in the city of Vaiśālī there was a courtesan named Sumanā. That second person heard of a courtesan named Āmrapālī. That third person heard of a courtesan named Utpalavarṇā. Having heard, they each devised upāya, binding their thoughts and diligently seeking them without ceasing for a moment. Yet those three men had never actually seen such women; merely from hearing of them from afar, they gave rise to lustful thoughts and recollected them unceasingly. Later, on account of a dream, they supposed themselves in the city of Rājagṛha engaging in sexual intercourse with those women. Once the sexual act was completed, their seeking mind ceased; their desire fulfilled, they then awakened. Having awakened, they remembered what was done in the dream, just as what they had heard and seen, and just as what they had experienced. If one who recalls in this way comes to your place and explains it all to you, you should preach the Dharma to him with upāya, teaching and transforming him in accordance, causing him to dwell on the stage of non-retrogression and ultimately achieve anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi. In the future he will certainly attain buddhahood, named Good Awakening."

Also, regarding the words "as in Śrāvastī" and so forth: this is the sixth fascicle of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, which seems to cite this narrative with slight differences. The treatise says: "When the Buddha was in the world, three men were companions. They heard that in Vaiśālī there was a courtesan named Āmrapālī, in the country of Śrāvastī there was a courtesan named Sumanā, and in the city of Rājagṛha there was a courtesan named Utpalavarṇā, all incomparably handsome and upright. The three men, each having heard, long recollected them with attachment in their minds, and then in dreams engaged in relations with them. Having awakened, they thought: 'That person did not come, nor did I go, yet the lustful affair was accomplished.' Through this they immediately awakened to the fact that all phenomena are also like this. Thereupon they went together to the place of Bodhisattva Bhadrapāla and asked about the matter. The Bodhisattva answered: 'All phenomena are truly like this; they all arise from recollection.' The Bodhisattva then preached the Dharma to them with upāya, and they all attained the stage of non-retrogression."

Explication: The general meaning is identical to the sūtra, lacking only the prediction of buddhahood. However, the general meaning of the sūtra and treatise highlights that only after recollecting and seeing the Buddha does one awaken to the emptiness of nature and the mutual non-obstruction of existence and non-existence, which is identical to the commentary's intention.