大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 18.64

18.64

On the Commentary's "The sūtra below says, 'The Buddha's wisdom is vast and great'" and so forth: this is the second part, citing the present sūtra to explain. In this, there are two parts: first, explaining omnipresence; next, explaining adapted entrance. In the former, there are four kinds of omnipresence: first, in terms of the essence of wisdom being omnipresent; second, in terms of the function of wisdom being omnipresent—these two are from the eightieth fascicle of the sūtra, as already cited above. Third, in terms of conforming realization being pervasive, where mind and object merge in darkness, which is the text of the section on bodhi in the "Manifestation [of the Tathāgata]" Chapter. Fourth, regarding omnipresence in terms of principle: this is a paraphrase citing the Awakening of Faith: "Question: If the dharmakāyas of the Buddhas are free from material form and characteristics, how can they manifest material forms? Answer: Because this very dharmakāya is the essence of form, it can manifest forms. That is to say, from the origin onward, form and mind are non-dual; because the nature of form is the nature of wisdom itself, the formless essence of form is termed the wisdom-body. Because the nature of wisdom is the nature of form itself, it is said that the dharmakāya is omnipresent in all places. The forms manifested have no boundaries: conforming to minds, they can manifest immeasurable bodhisattvas, immeasurable reward bodies, and immeasurable adornments throughout the worlds of the ten directions, each being distinct, all having no boundaries yet not obstructing one another. This cannot be known by mental consciousness through discrimination, because of the meaning of tathatā's unhindered function." Comment: This passage could also corroborate the omnipresence of the [Buddha's] body below; here it is taken only for its meaning of the non-difference of the two natures, in order to illuminate the omnipresence of the nature of wisdom. Above, "the essence of wisdom" took wisdom as essence; here it is the nature of principle, which is vastly separated from the former.