大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 19.37

19.37

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'As for correctly explaining now' onward, this is the third [part], presenting the correct meaning for the present. Within this there are four parts: first, explaining the meaning of the non-identity and non-difference of object and cognition in terms of realizing principle; second, clarifying it in terms of illumining phenomena; third, explaining it in terms of fused harmonization of phenomena and principle; fourth, explaining it in terms of the perfect fusion of the three contemplations. First is the present [part]. This adopts the purport of Sengzhao's Treatise on the Unknowingness of Prajñā, interpolating it throughout the commentary to explain it. In that treatise, an objection is first raised: 'The absence in noble cognition and the absence in deluded cognition are both free from production and cessation; how are they distinguished?' The answer says: 'The absence of noble cognition is unknowing; the absence of deluded cognition is knowing absence. Though their "absence" is the same, that by which they are absent is different. Why? The noble mind is empty and quiescent, with no knowing to be negated; it can be called "unknowing", but not "knowing absence". Deluded cognition has knowing, and hence there is a knowing to be negated; it can be called "knowing absence", but not "unknowing". Unknowing is the absence of prajñā; knowing absence is the absence of absolute truth. Therefore, as for prajñā and absolute truth, spoken in terms of function they are identical yet distinct; spoken in terms of quiescence they are distinct yet identical. Because they are identical, they are without mental partiality toward one or the other; because they are distinct, they do not lose the efficacious function of illumination. Therefore, that which articulates identity is identical within distinction, and that which articulates distinction is distinct within identity; thus they cannot be attained as distinct, nor can they be attained as identical. Why? Internally there is the clarity of solitary reflection; externally there is the reality of the myriad dharmas. Though the myriad dharmas are real, yet without illumination they are not apprehended; internal and external cooperate with each other to accomplish this efficacious work of illumination—this is where the sage cannot make their functions identical. Though internally illumining, it is unknowing; though externally real, it is characterless; internally and externally quiescent, they are mutually and completely absent together—this is where the sage cannot make their quiescence distinct. Therefore the sūtra says that all dharmas are not different: could this mean lengthening the duck's legs and shortening the crane's, leveling the mountains to fill the ravines, and only then being not different? Truly, because non-difference is within difference, although they are distinct, they are not different. Thus the sūtra says, "How wonderful, World-Honoured One! Within undifferentiated dharmas you speak of the differentiation of dharmas." It also says: "Prajñā and all dharmas are neither of a single characteristic nor of different characteristics." This is truly trustworthy.' Explanation: Merely by examining the text of the treatise cited above, host and guest are naturally distinguished within the Commentary. Merely by observing the commentary's interpolation explaining the treatise in between, the purport of the treatise is readily apparent.