大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.10

22.10

The commentary's statement "In terms of the difference between delusion and awakening..." onward explains the second half of the verse. However, according to the treatise's meaning, all three lines are characteristics, and only the fourth line sweeps away the preceding three to constitute the true nature. Now the commentary uses the third line to summarize the three times and the fourth line to dismiss them, hence saying that the second half reveals the nature. While adopting the text slightly differently, it is entirely the treatise's intent. What does "in terms of the difference between delusion and awakening," etc., mean? It means that when deluded, there is falsity, yet it is not that there is no truth; when awakened, one sees the nature, yet the nature is not newly existent now. Thus Master Sheng said: "It is only that I have now first encountered it; it is not that the illumination newly exists now. Since the illumination does not reside in the present, it is peerless and great. And since it is called great, it is praised as permanent." From this we know that although delusion and awakening differ, the nature of nirvāṇa does not shift across the three times and is serenely, permanently abiding. To encounter it is to tally with it, identical with that nature's permanence, just as initial awakening is identical with original [awakening], with no further difference between initial and original. How could one object by saying that what has a beginning must have an end? Thus Cunda's objection is dispelled. The commentary's "If based on pure nature..." onward is, secondly, in terms of simultaneous equality, which is precisely the meaning of the second half of the previous verse. Because its nature is free from the three times, it is currently equal. "Without obstructing the distinction between delusion and awakening" is the treatise master's final harmonizing of nature and characteristics, causing them to be free from annihilationism and eternalism. If there were a nature outside of characteristics, the nature would be annihilation and characteristics would be fixed permanence; therefore, apart from delusion and awakening there is no separate true nature. Because of deviating from permanence, the impermanence of the three realms exists. Because of understanding the real nature of impermanence, the twin principles of permanence and cognition are perfected without one-sidedness. The illumination tallies with it, like a mirror suspended in a high hall reflecting all myriad images. The sūtra cites the two birds with this intention. Therefore the triyāna both has distinctions and has no distinctions, which is nirvāṇa. Mañjuśrī comprehended: because the nature is non-dual, there is no distinction; because delusion and awakening have shallow and deep degrees, there are distinctions; thus Mañjuśrī's doubt was eliminated. With Mañjuśrī's doubt dispelled, Kāśyapa's doubt also ceased. The rest is as in the treatise above. The commentary's "The quiescence of sentient beings is itself the dharmakāya" onward shows the characteristics of both having distinctions and having no distinctions. Saying that "the quiescence of sentient beings is itself the dharmakāya" means that sentient beings are not different from Buddhas; "the dharmakāya in concordance with conditions is named sentient beings" means that Buddhas are not different from sentient beings—thus there is no distinction. Next, the pair stating "Sentient beings who are quiescent and not non-existent are established while constantly not differing from the real" clarifies that non-distinction does not obstruct distinction. Because of quiescence there is no distinction; because they are not non-existent sentient beings, it does not obstruct distinction; "constantly not differing from the real" completes the quiescence above, while the word "established" completes the sentient beings who are not non-existent above. As for "The dharmakāya which accords with conditions and is not existent is manifested while constantly not differing from phenomena," because it accords with conditions, the Buddha is not different from sentient beings; the non-existent dharmakāya then does not obstruct differing from sentient beings; "constantly not differing from phenomena" completes the concordance with conditions above, while the word "manifested" completes the non-existent dharmakāya above. From "Therefore defilement and purity..." downward, it synthesizes and concludes. As for the commentary's "How much more so when, according with the nature, they mutually encompass each other..." downward: the above was merely the non-obstruction of phenomena and principle, which is already inconceivable and may be found in other sūtras; this, however, is the non-obstruction of phenomena and phenomena, which is unique to the meaning of the Huayan. The concluding explanation from "Thus..." downward can be understood. This single preceding principle might seem incidental, yet the profound purport of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] is seen herein. The commentary's "The text of the nine assemblies and five cycles..." etc., points to this single preceding sūtra as a single teaching adapted to circumstances. Thus from the Deer Park to the Twin Trees, the arena of the one vehicle and the three vehicles was taught suddenly—how much more so the Tathāgata's speech?