大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 89.2

89.2

疏「故毘盧」下，第二明引遮那。又上義證，今即文證。「不可得」言，即般若相。故《般若》中廣說無得為般若故。疏「又文殊」下，第三引《五字》證為般若門。疏「然初五字」下，第二釋別。列中合為四十二段，今疏有三：初別釋五字、二釋所餘、三總結示。今初五字，約《五字陀羅尼經》，而引不空會通字音。然古諸德於此經中不多解釋，靜法有章名為《漩澓》，六門分別：一釋名、二體性、三建立、四釋相、五利益、六問答，而其釋相亦廣引諸經而不全具。又諸經字音參雜，以梵音輕重，三藏解釋不看下義，但取字同，故多乖舛。如《涅槃》以阿字為噁，不中以囉字為多。此等不以義定，故多訛謬。今亦別有一章，總引十經一論。一興善譯《華嚴四十二字門》、二《大般若》第四百九十、三引《大品般若》第八、四《放光般若》第六、五《光讚般若》第十、六《普耀經》第三、七興善三藏別譯《文殊問般若字母》、八別譯《金剛頂瑜伽字母》、九《涅槃》第八、十即今經。言一論者，即《智度論》。其《五字經》唯釋初之五字，一一具引對會異同。今疏但用《大般若》及興善別譯四十二字，以二本多同故。初之五字用《五字經》，餘文全要，鈔更引證，餘在別章。然上十經，前五釋四十二字母，次四即釋五十二字母。次第不同，義則多同。《五字經》中唯釋五字。《大品》、《放光》、《光讚》但《大般若》廣略之異，字義相同，次第不同，義則多同。《智論》又釋《大品》，義亦同也。故疏但用二經，具釋三十七字，故今案定用五字。疏文分二：先別釋五字、後收攝圓融。今初五字，鈔却廣引五字，分為五段，文皆有三：一牒本經字母、二以彼經義釋之、三會今經之意。今初一阿者，即第一牒經字母，即今經云唱阿字時。今但略取所牒之字，下四十一字皆然。二「是無生義」，即《五字經》釋義。三「以無生之理」下，會釋今經。意云：諸法皆悉無生故，無差別故。上經云「一切法無生，一切法無滅。若能如是解，斯人見如來。」而《大般若》、《金剛頂》全同上釋。《大品》云「阿字門，一切法初不生故。」《智論》釋云「若菩薩一切語法中聞阿字時，即時隨義，所謂一切法從初來不生相。阿提此言初。阿耨波陀此言不生故。」釋曰：論文二節，一隨經釋義、二阿提此言初下，會釋方言。下四十一字皆然。見此論文，則知四十二字皆是所依之相，從此入於無得般若，故名為般若之門。《放光》云「阿者謂諸法來入，不見有起。」《光讚》云「阿者因緣之門，一切法已過去者，亦無所起。」釋曰：上二經，起即生義。因緣之門，從緣生也。《文殊問經》云「阿者是無常聲。」《普曜》云「然此言云無者，是宣無常苦空無我之音。」上二經似同小乘之無，若取無彼常等，即與無生義同。此阿字上聲短呼，故譯《涅槃》噁字當初。雖呼小異，義亦同也。故云「噁者，不破壞故。不破壞者，名曰三寶。喻如金剛。」亦同無生義耳。

In the commentary, from “Therefore the Vairocana…” onward, secondly, it explicitly cites the Vairocana[-sūtra]. Furthermore, the above was textual proof by meaning; now it is textual proof by explicit passage. The words “cannot be attained” are precisely the characteristic of prajñā, because the Prajñā[pāramitā scriptures] extensively explain non-attainment as prajñā. In the commentary, from “Moreover, the Mañjuśrī…” onward, thirdly, it cites the Five Syllables [Sūtra] to prove that it is a gate of prajñā. In the commentary, from “However, the initial five syllables…” onward, secondly, it explains them individually. In the enumeration they are combined into forty-two sections; here the commentary has three parts: first, it individually explains the five syllables; second, it explains the remainder; third, it concludes and demonstrates generally. Now, regarding the first five syllables, based on the Five Syllables Dhāraṇī Sūtra, it cites Amoghavajra to harmonize and correlate the syllable sounds. However, the ancient worthies did not explain much about this sūtra. Jingfa has an essay entitled Whirling Eddy (Xuanfu), which makes distinctions in six gates: 1. explaining the names; 2. essence; 3. establishment; 4. explaining the characteristics; 5. benefits; 6. questions and answers. Yet its explanation of the characteristics also widely cites various sūtras without being entirely complete. Moreover, the phonetic sounds of the syllables across the various sūtras are mixed, because with the light and heavy qualities of Sanskrit sounds, the Tripiṭaka translators explained them without looking at the underlying meaning, merely taking the syllables as identical, which led to many errors. For example, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] takes the syllable a as e, and Bukong takes the syllable ra as da. Since these were not determined by the meaning, many blunders arose. Now there is also a separate essay that comprehensively cites ten sūtras and one treatise: 1. the Huayan Forty-Two Syllable Gate translated by Xingshan (Amoghavajra); 2. the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, fascicle 490; 3. the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, fascicle 8; 4. the Fangguang Prajñā, fascicle 6; 5. the Guangzan Prajñā, fascicle 10; 6. the Lalitavistara (Puyao jing), fascicle 3; 7. the Mañjuśrī’s Inquiries on the Prajñā Syllabary separately translated by Tripiṭaka Master of Xingshan; 8. the separately translated Vajraśekhara Yoga Syllabary; 9. the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], fascicle 8; 10. the present sūtra. The “one treatise” is the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Zhidu lun). The Five Syllables Sūtra explains only the initial five syllables; they are fully cited one by one to compare differences and agreements. Now the commentary uses only the Mahāprajñāpāramitā and Xingshan's separate translation of the forty-two syllables, because the two versions are mostly identical. For the initial five syllables, it uses the Five Syllables Sūtra. For the rest of the text, everything essential is cited as further corroboration in the subcommentary; the remainder is in the separate essay. However, among the above ten sūtras, the first five explain the forty-two syllables, while the next four explain the fifty-two syllables. Their sequences differ, but their meanings are largely the same. The Five Syllables Sūtra explains only five syllables. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the Fangguang, and the Guangzan differ from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā only in breadth and brevity; their syllable meanings are identical, their sequences differ, but their meanings are largely the same. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also comments on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, and its meaning is also the same. Therefore, the commentary only uses two sūtras to fully explain the thirty-seven syllables; hence it is now established to use the five syllables. The commentary text is divided into two parts: first, it individually explains the five syllables; afterward, it gathers them into harmonious interpenetration. Now, regarding the first five syllables, the subcommentary broadly cites the five syllables instead, dividing them into five sections, each of which has three parts: 1. stating the syllables of the root sūtra; 2. explaining them with the meaning of that sūtra; 3. reconciling them with the intention of the present sūtra. Now, the first, “a,” is the first part, stating the syllable from the sūtra, which is what the present sūtra calls “when reciting the syllable a.” Here it merely briefly cites the syllable stated; the subsequent forty-one syllables are all like this. Second, “is the meaning of non-arising,” which is the explanation of the meaning in the Five Syllables Sūtra. Third, from “by means of the principle of non-arising” onward, it reconciles and explains the present sūtra. The intention is: because all phenomena are entirely unarisen, they are free from differentiation. The sūtra above states: “All phenomena are unarisen, / all phenomena are unceasing. / If one can understand in this way, / this person sees the Tathāgata.” The Mahāprajñāpāramitā and Vajraśekhara are completely identical to the above explanation. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: “The syllable gate a, because all phenomena are originally unarisen.” The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains: “When a bodhisattva hears the syllable a among all spoken dharmas, he immediately follows its meaning: namely, the characteristic of all phenomena being unarisen from the beginning. Ādi means ‘beginning’ in this language; anutpāda means ‘non-arising’ in this language.” Explanation: The treatise text has two parts: 1. explaining the meaning in accordance with the sūtra; 2. from “Ādi means ‘beginning’ in this language” onward, reconciling and explaining the regional languages. The forty-one syllables below are all like this. Seeing this treatise text, one knows that the forty-two syllables are all the characteristics on which one relies, from which one enters into non-attainment prajñā; hence they are named gates of prajñā. The Fangguang states: “A means that all phenomena come and enter, not seeing any arising.” The Guangzan states: “A is the gate of causes and conditions; all phenomena that have already passed also have nothing that arises.” Explanation: In the above two sūtras, “arising” is the meaning of production; the “gate of causes and conditions” means produced from conditions. The Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā states: “A is the sound of impermanence.” The Lalitavistara states: “However, this word's statement of ‘non-’ is the sound proclaiming impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self.” The above two sūtras appear identical to the Hīnayāna's [concept of] non-existence; but if one takes it as non-existence of that permanence and so forth, it is identical in meaning to non-arising. This syllable a has a falling-rising tone and is pronounced short; hence in the translation of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], the syllable e corresponds to the beginning. Although there is a slight difference in pronunciation, the meaning is also the same. Therefore it states: “E is because of non-destruction. What is non-destruction is called the Three Jewels; it is likened to a vajra.” This also is identical to the meaning of non-arising.