大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 47.28

47.28

Regarding the commentary’s “Now first: its merit is higher than the two forms, yet it is not benevolent,” etc.: this is text from the Zhaolun, which indirectly employs the meaning of Laozi. Laozi says: “Heaven and earth are not benevolent, treating the ten thousand things as straw dogs. The sage is not benevolent, treating the common people as straw dogs.” This is in the chapter “The Way is empty, yet in use…” of the Daodejing. The commentary says: “Not benevolent means not acting out of benevolent grace.” There are two [interpretations of] “straw dogs”: Heshang Gong says: “Straw and dogs are domestic animals—namely, two things.” The imperial commentary says: “Tying straw into a dog; one does not rely on its barking to warn. The overarching meaning clarifies that heaven, earth, and the sage have no intention of relying on their benevolence and virtue.” Now the bodhisattva is also like this: the bodhisattva’s merit is high, yet does not rely on it because prajñā contemplates emptiness. “Yet ever dimmer” means as if possessing no knowledge. Saying “higher than the two forms” [means]: of the two forms, [heaven] covers but does not bear up, and [earth] bears up but does not cover; the bodhisattva combines both. Furthermore, they merely cover the body, but cannot cover the mind or the myriad goods, etc. Saying “its brightness surpasses the sun and moon” [means]: the brightness of the sun and moon does not combine day and night; the compassionate bodhisattva perpetually illuminates the dark and murky. The sun and moon illuminate the body but cannot illuminate the mind; the bodhisattva’s wisdom is the reverse of this, leaving no phenomenon unilluminated. Therefore the lower text says “not seeking requital of grace,” which is the meaning of “not benevolent,” etc. Regarding the commentary’s “However, each according with characteristics fully possesses the characteristics transcending forms as in the following phrases”: take, for instance, the preceding pariṇāmanā of establishing sentient beings in the unattached dharmatā toward all sentient beings, and other such phrases. Furthermore, as in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, any single transcendence of characteristics traverses the characteristics of over eighty categories, just as a single purity traverses form and so forth. Here, wishing not to proliferate words, they are merely combined into each single place. Regarding the commentary’s “The first fourteen phrases transcend the characteristics of what is grasped,” etc.: herein the five dharmas are fully present: 1. characteristic; 2. thought, which is false conceptualization; 3. name; 4. suchness; and correct wisdom is contained within the transcendence of delusion. Regarding the commentary’s “by nature inherently unattached”: this excludes [attachment] eliminated through cultivation to achieve non-attachment. The text on cultivation and achievement is found within “establishing.” Regarding the commentary’s “sentient beings comprehend their own nature”: “own nature” is precisely tathatā, because it possesses both unchangingness and concordance with conditions.