大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 38.20

38.20

In the commentary, from "However, neither of the two principles is one-sided" downward, it concludes with praise for the preceding eight [lines], stating that permanence and impermanence and so forth comprise two principles in all, neither of which is one-sided. It clarifies that permanence and impermanence, self and non-self, and so forth are not separate from one another; this is what is realized, and the illumination that accords with it is that which realizes. However, what is above fundamentally derives from Master Sheng's treatise on the meaning of eternal abide, where he says: "Now, nirvāṇa is originally existent and cannot be considered non-existent; the three realms are originally non-existent and now exist, and having existed they return to non-existence, so they cannot be considered existent. Nirvāṇa takes non-arising and non-ceasing as the actual truth; the three realms take arising and ceasing as the true truth. That neither of the two principles is one-sided is called the meaning of the Middle Way." Someone there asked: "Permanence and impermanence are two mutually opposing principles; how can they be the principle of the un-one-sided Middle Way?" He answered: "Although the two principles are distinct, the principles naturally assist each other. Why? Because deviating from permanence, there is the impermanence of the three realms; and because of understanding the real nature of impermanence, permanent wisdom is accomplished. Therefore, the sūtra cites the two birds; its intended meaning lies here. Neither of the two principles is one-sided, and illumination accords with it, just like a mirror suspended in a high hall reflects all images." Explanation: "A mirror suspended in a high hall" refers to the empty illumination of non-mind; "all images are thus reflected" means without discriminating beauty from ugliness; hence, with a pure mind that transcends permanence and impermanence, one illuminates the consummate principle of permanence and impermanence. If explained according to this, then regarding the phrase "all dharmas," the first four naturally belong to the conditioned. Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "'All dharmas' refers to saṃsāra. 'Not all dharmas' refers to the Buddha, Dharma, Saṅgha, and right liberation." It also says: "I observe all saṃskāras to be impermanent. How is this known? Because of causes and conditions. If all dharmas are born from conditions, then one knows they are impermanent. Among these non-Buddhists, there is not a single dharma that is not born from conditions; therefore it is impermanent. The Tathāgata, space, and the Buddha-nature do not derive from causes and conditions; therefore they are permanent." That the next four lines now also say "all dharmas" is because naturally pure nirvāṇa is not separate from all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Since there is a distinction, overturning the eight inversions accomplishes the eight practices. In the commentary, "Furthermore, the first four lines take arising and ceasing through causes and conditions..." and so forth: this is the third [interpretation], drawing on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra to explain in terms of arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, clarifying the meaning purely with respect to impermanence. In this there are two parts: first, the correct explanation; second, citing proof. In the first part, the statement that "the first four lines taking arising and ceasing through causes and conditions is the meaning of impermanence" and so on: "and so on" includes taking oppression as the meaning of suffering, impurity as the meaning of emptiness, and lack of mastery as the meaning of non-self. The statement that "the next four lines take non-arising and non-ceasing as the meaning of impermanence": this single line contains both a general and a specific sense. Generally, it encompasses the subsequent four lines; specifically, it refers to the first line. "Non-doing" is the meaning of impermanence; since there is no deliberate creation, there is no arising or ceasing. However, this is precisely the chapter on Kātyāyana in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: "Kātyāyana said to the Buddha: 'I recall that in the past, when the World-Honoured One briefly taught the essentials of the Dharma to the monks, I subsequently expounded their meaning—namely, the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of non-self, and the meaning of quiescence. At that time, Vimalakīrti came and said to me: "O Kātyāyana! Do not expound the Dharma of the real mark with a mind and activity of arising and ceasing. Kātyāyana! That all dharmas ultimately do not arise and do not cease is the meaning of impermanence. That the five clinging-aggregates thoroughly penetrate emptiness without anywhere arising is the meaning of suffering. That all dharmas are ultimately devoid of anything that exists is the meaning of emptiness. That one is non-dual regarding self and non-self is the meaning of non-self. That dharmas fundamentally do not arise and now do not cease is the meaning of quiescence."'" Explanation: Now the text of the commentary has used this entirely; merely by examining what is cited, host and guest are naturally distinguished. Master Sheng, in explaining that all dharmas ultimately neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence, says: "As for impermanence, verifying it by the cessation of phenomena: if there is ultimately cessation, could there not have been an initial arising? If the beginning were truly so, then arising is not fixed. If arising is not fixed in arising, what is fixed in cessation? Since arising and ceasing are both unfixed, where could the true essence reside? Inferring that it resides nowhere is the principle, the real meaning of all dharmas. If reality takes non-arising and non-ceasing as its meaning, is this not where impermanence resides? Therefore, it is said that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence." This directly deduces from arising and ceasing that there is no arising or ceasing. "Furthermore, as for impermanence, it clarifies that permanence is impermanence, which is why there is no impermanence; therefore, non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence." In the commentary, "the five clinging-aggregates thoroughly penetrate emptiness" and so on: "clinging" (upādāna) means grasping; because the causes of affliction and karma are able to summon these aggregates, they are called clinging-aggregates. The words "due to arising there is suffering" downward align the commentary with the sūtra, meaning that because they arise from conditions, when they arise there is no arising. Thus Master Sheng says: "Suffering as an affair is constituted by coming together. That which is constituted by coming together, how could it exist? For this reason, it is said that the emptiness of the five clinging-aggregates is the meaning of suffering. The five clinging-aggregates are the source of suffering. Impermanence deduces arising and ceasing, and its affairs are not confined to one; furthermore, it universally pertains to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, so it says 'all dharmas.' Suffering, its essence being non-existent, has its meaning arise internally. Furthermore, one who attains the uncontaminated does not incur suffering through losing grasping, so it refers only to the clinging-aggregates. 'Thoroughly penetrating': impermanence is verified based on the end, so it merely says 'ultimately.' Suffering takes emptiness as its essence, so it 'thoroughly penetrates.' 'Without anywhere arising': impermanence clarifies change without origin, its principle residing in arising. Suffering speaks of dharmas of provisional assembly, which is why it is matched with arising." When the present sūtra says "all," each refers to a partial "all." Furthermore, it contains other meanings, hence it says "all." That "all dharmas are ultimately devoid of anything that exists is the meaning of emptiness" is from the sūtra. "Both persons and dharmas are empty, and emptiness is also empty, hence not conforming to names" aligns the commentary with the sūtra. Master Sheng says: "Those who are deluded all take all dharmas as belonging to the self. Since the principle is suffering, phenomena do not conform to oneself. If they do not conform to oneself, they are not what I can protect. If protecting them does not belong to the self, they certainly do not exist. Their existence is an existence, yet it is called non-existence. Non-existence is indeed non-existence, how could it exist?" This is the utter exhaustion of both non-existence and non-non-existence; this is why it is the meaning of emptiness. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The Buddhas taught the Dharma of emptiness to eliminate all views of existence. If one again sees that there is emptiness, such a person the Buddhas cannot convert"; hence it is ultimately empty.