大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 36.40

36.40

Regarding the commentary's passage, "Here, clarifying its pervasiveness is the first of the ten layers of locations of preaching": this refers to the initial 'this Jambudvīpa' among the conditions for preaching the sūtra in the first fascicle of the commentary. The text of the commentary divides into three: first, a general explanation of the meaning of the text; second, from "Why is it necessary to cite these..." onward, explaining the reason for citing the two assemblies; third, from "Why it is restricted solely to the tree of awakening..." onward, resolving objections. Here it resolves two objections. The first objection says: Since the previous [assembly] is not dispersed, one should cite both assemblies; why then does it only say 'not rising from the tree of awakening'? Therefore, this resolution states: The initial assembly is the root, and furthermore, the second assembly is proximate to the initial assembly. Second, from "If simultaneous..." onward, it resolves yet another objection. In the text, it first raises the objection, and later, from "One should say that the immediate function..." onward, it resolves and explains it, which is easy to understand. Regarding the commentary's passage, "Movement and quiescence conflict with each other; departing and abiding are separated by a great distance..." onward: the text of the commentary has five parts: 1. raising the issue with hypothetical questions; 2. recounting past interpretations in terms of concordance and contradiction; 3. presenting the present correct understanding; 4. integrating past meanings; 5. resolving contradictions through questions and answers. Regarding the commentary's passage, "In the past there were many explanations..." onward: this is the second part, recounting past interpretations in terms of concordance and contradiction. In the past, there were five positions, and the text has three sections: first, jointly recounting three masters; second, recounting the fourth; third, recounting the fifth. Because the first three masters all relied on the three bodies [of the Buddha] and their types of meaning were largely identical, and since he wished to refute them all together, he first recounted the past [opinions], as can be understood. Regarding the commentary's passage, "None of these is the intention of the text..." onward: this is the second, discerning contradictions. In general, there are two contradictions: first, contradicting the present text, because both departing and abiding are the Buddha Vairocana; second, contradicting the central doctrine of the sūtra, because the ten bodies are not the three bodies (those belong to the latter two assemblies, whereas this is the present text). Regarding the commentary's passage, "One says that departure is immediately non-departure..." and so on: this is the second, recounting the fourth master, who does not differentiate the three bodies but simply discusses nature and characteristics with respect to the single body; this is the intention within the school of the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle (shili wu'ai), which does not contradict the fundamental essence, but does not accord with the present text. Within this, it first recounts the past [view], and afterward discerns its contradiction. In the former, it first explains it correctly; later, with "like coming through the characteristic of non-coming" and so forth, it is an ancient master citing a parallel to substantiate and establish it. This is the speech of Vimalakīrti in the "Inquiring about Illness" chapter of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, where the sūtra states: "Then Vimalakīrti said, 'Welcome, Mañjuśrī! Coming through the characteristic of non-coming, seeing through the characteristic of non-seeing.' Mañjuśrī said, 'So it is, householder! If one has already come, one does not come again; if one has already departed, one does not depart again. Why is that? That which comes comes from nowhere; that which departs goes nowhere; that which can be seen can no longer be seen.'" Here, it only cites Vimalakīrti's words and omits the rest. Master Sengrui explained: "Mañjuśrī's mind rests in the true characteristic, and his form pervades the dharmakāya; internally and externally dark and tranquil, he has no characteristic of coming whatsoever. Having no characteristic of coming whatsoever, he is able to come by means of it. This clarifies that his mind is merged with the ultimate principle and his essence transcends departing and coming, responding to beings in concordance with conditions without destroying coming and departing. Furthermore, as for Mañjuśrī's reply below, he grasps the intended meaning and confirms his statement, using the approach of the three times to confirm his 'coming through the characteristic of non-coming', and using the approach of contact and non-contact to establish his 'seeing through the characteristic of non-seeing'. In the former, he briefly mentions one of the three times because the characteristic is evident." The "three times" refers to the verse in the "Chapter on Going and Coming" of the Madhyamakaśāstra: "In that which has already gone, there is no going; in that which has not yet gone, neither is there going; in that which is currently going, there is also no going." Inverting this, it would say: In that which has already come, there is no coming; in that which has not yet come, neither is there coming; in that which is currently coming, there is also no coming. That is to say: that which has already come has already ceased, and cannot be said to come; that which has not yet come does not yet exist, so how could it be said to come? That which is currently coming does not abide, and is divided between the past and future, so neither is there coming. The absence of going is likewise. Therefore, a subsequent sūtra states: "If it is past arising, past arising has already ceased; if it is future arising, future arising has not yet arrived; if it is present arising, present arising has no abiding." Yet what Vimalakīrti saw was Mañjuśrī coming from the Āmrapālī Grove, whereas the assembly in the Āmrapālī Grove thought Mañjuśrī had departed. Therefore Mañjuśrī said: "It is not only that the householder sees me as coming without coming; from the Āmrapālī Grove they see me as departing, and I also depart without departing." Under "Why is that?", Mañjuśrī himself questions and explains the above meaning, stating that if there were a pre-existing entity that came from there, since it does not exist beforehand and comes through the meeting of conditions, therefore within the three times there is no coming. The absence of going is likewise. Coming must have a source, and departing must have a destination, so the three phrases distinguish them. Furthermore, having coming and going does not go beyond the three times; now, since there is no coming in the three times, coming has nowhere from which it comes; since there is no going in the three times, going has nowhere to which it goes. The phrase "that which can be seen can no longer be seen" establishes the above 'seeing through the characteristic of non-seeing' by means of the approach of contact and non-contact. This means seeing must have three things, namely, the viewer, the viewed, and the act of seeing, before seeing is established. The viewed is established dependent on the other two, so there is no viewed. Since the viewed is absent, how could the other two exist? Therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The vision and that which is seen, these three are each in different quarters. Since these three things are different, there is never a time of their contact. Different things cannot make contact, and non-different things have nothing to contact." The treatise also says: "Vision cannot possess seeing, and non-vision does not see either. If one has already refuted vision, one has thereby refuted the viewer." Therefore, at the very moment of seeing, there is immediately no seeing. Drawing upon what was cited by another, I have briefly demonstrated the essential tenets. Regarding the commentary's passage, "If so, this is only..." onward: this is the second, discerning contradictions. It is only that ascending is immediately non-ascending, and apparent departure is immediately non-departure; how could there be an unmoving body beneath the tree? If there were Mañjuśrī in the Āmrapālī Grove, and Vaiśālī furthermore saw the Wondrous Virtue, that could substantiate this. The meanings here and there are different; how can this be adduced?