大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 9.28

9.28

疏「四、頓教中，總不說法相唯辯真性」等者，意云：但諸經中一向辯真性之處，即屬頓教。疏「亦無八識差別之相」等者，八識心王尚無差別，況心所變豈當有耶？心生即種種法生，心滅即種種法滅，故《起信論》云「一切諸法唯依妄念而有差別，若離心念則無一切境界之相。是故一切諸法從本已來，離言說相、離名字相、離心緣相，畢竟平等、無有變異，唯是一心，故名真如。以一切言說假名無實，但隨妄念不可得故。」故疏云「一切所有唯是妄想」。疏「一切法界唯是絕言」者，又拂前真性，辯離言真如。故《起信論》次文即云「言真如者，亦無有相。」謂言說之極，因言遣言。此真如體，無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故；亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故。當知一切諸法，不可言說、不可思念，故名真如。故疏云皆是絕言也。言一切法界者，界者性義。以一切法性皆離言故，亦通四種法界皆不可說故；名無得物之功、物無當名之實故；理本無言故；事理交徹，不可作事理說故；事事相即，不可作一多等說故；名名不盡，不可以一名詺故；理圓言偏，言不及故；無有一法非實相故。疏「五法至雙遣」者，即如《楞伽》雖明五法，名、相、妄想、正智、如如五皆空寂。何？者謂迷真如以成名相，妄想是生。悟名相之本如，妄便稱智，則無名相妄想，唯如如智矣。智因如立，智體亦空；如假智明，本來常寂，故並空矣。況八識約事，皆緣生性空。因有我法，說二無我，我尚叵得，無我寧存？故《中論》云「諸佛或說我，或說於無我。諸法實相中，無我無非我。」故雙遣也。「訶教」者，謂以心傳心，不在文字故。「勸離」者，乃有二義：一令離教，成上訶教；二令離法。法雖無量，不出色心，離心心如、離色色如，故今皆離則契心體離妄念矣。毀相約境，凡所有相皆是虛妄故；泯心約智，了境相空假稱為智。相既不有，智豈有真？心境兩亡則皆泯絕，心無心相即是真心，故說生心即妄、不生即佛。言「生心」者，非但生於餘心，縱生菩提涅槃、觀心見性，亦曰生心，並為妄想。念想都寂，方曰不生。寂照現前，豈不名佛？故達磨碑云「心有也，曠劫而滯凡夫；心無也，剎那而登正覺。」言心無者，雖了心空，不生於了耳。故下經云「一切法不生，一切法不滅。若能如是解，諸佛常現前。」言如是解者，如不生解而無解相，非謂空解於不生耳。疏「亦無佛無不佛、無生無不生」者，重拂前迹。為迷眾生言即心即佛，既無眾生，何曾有佛？故經云「平等真法界，無佛無眾生。」執佛言無佛，非謂是無佛，故云無不佛矣。則遣之又遣之，若少有所得，皆是妄想。故《佛藏經》第一云「舍利弗！乃至於法少有所得者，則與佛諍。與佛諍者，皆入邪道，非我弟子，是吾法賊。」又只詺無佛以為真佛，故言無不佛矣。故下經云「性空即是佛，不可得思量。」若有生心，生心是妄，故說不生。佛尚不有，何有無生？作無生解，還被無生之所纏縛，故云無不生矣。又一切法不生，則般若生，故云無不生。則生與不生，反覆相遣，亦反覆相成。唯亡言者可與道合、虛懷者可與理通、冥心者可與真一、遣智者可與聖同，故引淨名默住以顯不二是也。然《淨名》第二〈入不二法門品〉，前有三十二菩薩各說不二法門，後問文殊師利云：「何等是入不二法門？」文殊師利曰：「如我意者，於一切法無言無說、無示無識，離諸問答，是為入不二法門。」於是文殊師利問維摩詰言：「我等各自說已，仁者當說，何等是入不二法門？」時維摩詰默然無言。文殊師利歎曰：「善哉善哉！乃至無有文字語言，是真入不二法門。」然此經意，前後相成共顯深旨。若辯優劣，或三重四重。言三重者，一諸菩薩以無二遣二，則是以言顯法，似有不二可說，便是對二明不二，非絕待也。二文殊以言遣言，明無不二可說，令亡言會旨。三維摩詰以無言顯理，謂本自無言，不須更遣。故為三也。而言四者，文殊師利以言印彼，又明言即無言，非要離耳。若欲合者，然後三段反覆相成，但為一義。初文殊以言顯無言，次淨名以無言印言，後文殊以言印無言，三段二人共顯絕言之理故。前三十二菩薩以無二遣二，後二大士以無言遣言，則但有二節。若更合者，若無諸菩薩以言遣二，空有絕言，何由顯理？是則前諸菩薩假言顯理，後二大士以無言顯理，言與不言雙亡，皆真不二矣。故雖三節，一致無違。今取最後，故云「如淨名默住」也。

As for the commentary's statement, "Fourth, in the sudden teaching, dharma-characteristics are not explained at all, but rather the true nature alone is elucidated," and so forth: this means that wherever sūtras exclusively elucidate the true nature, they belong to the sudden teaching. Regarding the commentary's "Nor are there the differentiated characteristics of the eight consciousnesses," and so forth: if even the mind-kings of the eight consciousnesses have no differentiation, how could what is transformed by the mind possibly exist? When the mind arises, various dharmas arise; when the mind ceases, various dharmas cease. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: "All dharmas are differentiated solely based on false thoughts; if one is free from thoughts of the mind, then there are no characteristics of any external sphere whatsoever. Therefore, from the beginning, all dharmas are free from the characteristics of verbal expression, free from the characteristics of names and terms, free from the characteristics of mental conditioning; they are ultimately equal, without change, and are solely the one mind; thus they are named 'tathatā'. Because all verbal expressions are conventional designations without reality, and merely conform to false thoughts, they cannot be grasped." Hence the commentary says, "Everything that exists is solely false imagination." Regarding the commentary's "All dharmadhātus are entirely beyond speech": this further sweeps away the previous "true nature" and elucidates tathatā that transcends words. Thus the subsequent passage of the Awakening of Faith immediately states: "What is called tathatā also has no characteristics." This means that at the utmost point of verbal expression, speech is used to dismiss speech. In the essence of this tathatā, there is nothing that can be dismissed, because all dharmas are entirely true; nor is there anything that can be established, because all dharmas are equally tathatā. One should know that all dharmas cannot be spoken of and cannot be conceptualised; therefore they are named "tathatā". Hence the commentary says that they are all beyond speech. As for "all dharmadhātus": dhātu means "nature". This is because the nature of all dharmas is free from words; it is also because, universally, all four kinds of dharmadhātu cannot be expressed in words; because names lack the power to reach things and things lack the reality to correspond to names; because the principle is fundamentally wordless; because phenomenon and principle mutually interpenetrate and cannot be described as phenomenon or principle; because phenomena are mutually identical and cannot be spoken of as one or many; because designations are endless and cannot be designated by a single name; because the principle is all-rounded while words are one-sided, so words fall short of it; and because there is no dharma that is not the true mark. Regarding the commentary's "The five dharmas up to… are both dismissed": this is like the Laṅkāvatāra, which, although it explains the five dharmas—name, characteristic, false imagination, correct cognition, and suchness—all five are empty and quiescent. Why? When one is deluded about tathatā, name and characteristic are formed, and false imagination arises. When one awakens to the original suchness of name and characteristic, falsehood is then termed cognition, and there are then no names, characteristics, or false imagination, but solely suchness and cognition. Cognition is established because of suchness, so the essence of cognition is also empty; suchness is clarified by means of cognition, yet is originally ever-quiescent; therefore both are empty. How much more so the eight consciousnesses, which in terms of phenomena are all conditioned arisings and empty by nature! Because there are self and dharmas, the two kinds of selflessness are taught; if the self cannot even be apprehended, how could selflessness remain? Therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of a self, / Or they have spoken of selflessness; / Within the true mark of all dharmas, / There is neither self nor non-self." Hence both are dismissed. "Rebuking the teaching" means transmitting mind with mind, which does not abide in written words. "Urging detachment" has two meanings: first, causing one to become detached from the teaching, fulfilling the above "rebuking the teaching"; second, causing one to become detached from dharmas. Although dharmas are immeasurable, they do not exceed form and mind: detached from mind, mind is suchness; detached from form, form is suchness. Therefore, now becoming detached from all of them tallies with the essence of mind and becomes detached from false thoughts. "Destroying characteristics" is in terms of the objective sphere, because whatever has characteristics is entirely deceptive and false. "Extinguishing mind" is in terms of cognition: understanding that the characteristics of the objective sphere are empty is provisionally called cognition. Since characteristics do not exist, how could cognition be real? When both mind and the objective sphere are lost, both are utterly extinguished; when mind is without characteristics of mind, that is the true mind. Therefore it is said that an arising mind is false, and non-arising is the Buddha. As for "arising mind": not only the arising of other minds, but even generating [thoughts of] bodhi and nirvāṇa, or contemplating the mind and seeing the nature, is also called "arising mind", and all are false imagination. Only when thoughts and conceptualisations are completely quiescent is it called "non-arising". When quiescence and illumination are present before one, how could it not be called Buddha? Therefore the Stele of Bodhidharma says: "If the mind exists, for vast eons one stagnates as an ordinary being; if the mind does not exist, in a single instant one ascends to correct awakening." Saying that "the mind does not exist" means that although one understands that the mind is empty, one does not give rise to [the thought of] understanding. Hence the sūtra below says: "All dharmas do not arise; all dharmas do not cease. If one can understand in this way, the Buddhas will always appear before one." Saying "understand in this way" means understanding according to non-arising while having no characteristic of understanding, not meaning a hollow understanding of non-arising. As for the commentary's "There is also neither Buddha nor non-Buddha, neither arising nor non-arising": this again sweeps away the previous traces. For deluded sentient beings, it is said that "this mind is the Buddha"; since there are no sentient beings, how could there ever be a Buddha? Therefore a sūtra says: "In the equal true dharmadhātu, there is neither Buddha nor sentient beings." Clinging to "Buddha", one speaks of "no Buddha"; this does not mean there is literally no Buddha, hence it is said "neither non-Buddha". Thus it is dismissed and dismissed again; if there is the least thing apprehended, it is entirely false imagination. Therefore the first fascicle of the Fo cang jing says: "Śāriputra, if one apprehends even the least dharma, one contends with the Buddha. Those who contend with the Buddha all enter heterodox paths; they are not my disciples, they are thieves of my Dharma." Moreover, it is simply designating "no Buddha" as the true Buddha, hence it is said "neither non-Buddha". Hence the sūtra below says: "Emptiness of nature is the Buddha; it cannot be conceived." If there is an arising mind, the arising mind is false, so non-arising is taught. If even Buddha does not exist, how could there be non-arising? Forming an understanding of non-arising, one is again bound by non-arising; hence it is said "neither non-arising". Furthermore, when all dharmas do not arise, then prajñā arises, so it is said "neither non-arising". Thus arising and non-arising reciprocally dismiss each other, and also reciprocally establish each other. Only those who forget words can unite with the Way; those of empty minds can penetrate the principle; those of quiescent minds can become one with the true; and those who cast aside cognition can become identical with the sages. Therefore the silent abiding of Vimalakīrti is cited to reveal non-duality. Now, in the second fascicle of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, the chapter "Entering the Dharma-Door of Non-Duality", first thirty-two bodhisattvas each speak of the dharma-door of non-duality; afterward, they ask Mañjuśrī: "What is entering the dharma-door of non-duality?" Mañjuśrī says: "According to my understanding, to have no words and no explanations, no demonstrations and no cognitions regarding all dharmas, and to be free from all questions and answers—this is entering the dharma-door of non-duality." Thereupon Mañjuśrī asks Vimalakīrti: "We have each spoken. Virtuous Sir, you should speak: what is entering the dharma-door of non-duality?" At that time Vimalakīrti remains silent without a word. Mañjuśrī praises him, saying: "Excellent, excellent! Even to the absence of characters, words, and speech—this is truly entering the dharma-door of non-duality." Now, the meaning of this sūtra is that the earlier and later mutually complete each other to jointly reveal the profound purport. If one distinguishes superior and inferior, there are three tiers or four tiers. As for the three tiers: first, the bodhisattvas dismiss duality by means of non-duality; this uses speech to reveal dharmas, seemingly having a non-duality that can be spoken of, which is clarifying non-duality in contrast to duality, and is not absolute. Second, Mañjuśrī uses words to dismiss words, making clear that there is no non-duality that can be spoken of, causing one to forget words and grasp the purport. Third, Vimalakīrti reveals the principle through wordlessness, indicating that it is fundamentally wordless from the outset and does not require further dismissal. Hence there are three tiers. As for the four tiers: Mañjuśrī seals him with words, further making clear that words are themselves wordlessness, and one does not necessarily have to depart from them. If one wishes to combine them, then the latter three sections reciprocally complete each other, constituting only a single meaning: first, Mañjuśrī reveals wordlessness through words; next, Vimalakīrti seals words through wordlessness; afterward, Mañjuśrī seals wordlessness through words—the three sections and two persons jointly revealing the principle that transcends words. Thus, with the previous thirty-two bodhisattvas dismissing duality through non-duality, and the two great beings subsequently dismissing words through wordlessness, there are only two stages. If one combines them further: without the bodhisattvas dismissing duality through words, how could the principle be revealed merely by having the transcendence of words? Therefore, the earlier bodhisattvas provisionally used words to reveal the principle, and the two great beings subsequently used wordlessness to reveal the principle; when both speech and non-speech are forgotten, all is true non-duality. Thus, although there are three stages, they are of one accord without contradiction. Here the last is adopted; hence it is said, "like the silent abiding of Vimalakīrti."