大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 47.7

47.7

Regarding the commentary's statement, 'It does not mean that it is a non-transformation,' this is strictly apophatic; that is, brushing away traces to enter the profound. Therefore the ancients said: 'When I say non-existent, I merely say it is not existent; I do not mean it is a non-existence.' It is like someone seeing a tree stump at night and taking it to be a human. A wise person tells them: 'This is not a human.' This merely negates the attachment in their mind that conceptualized a human. When a foolish person hears this, they assume that this stump is a 'non-human' [in the sense of a spirit], and a non-human is a ghost. Thus, although the attachment to a human is gone, the attachment to a ghost arises; hence it is a delusion. Therefore the explanation states that the first half [of the verse] is absolute, and so both transformation and non-transformation are extinguished. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'Second, because it does not obstruct transformation,' this re-explains 'nor is it a non-transformation.' This uses transformation to eliminate non-transformation; thus the preceding line 'it is not a transformation' refers to the true body, while 'nor is it a non-transformation' is because it has transformational function. The earlier explanation took the first half as essence and the second half as function, but here the first half itself possesses both essence and function. Relying on this latter meaning to broadly explain the sūtra text, there are two parts: first, a general explanation. With regard to the two bodies, there are naturally many meanings: first, the dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya are combined as the true body, while the nirmāṇakāya and transformation body are combined as the transformation body; second, the dharmakāya is taken as the true body, while the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya are both transformation bodies. Here, relying on this second meaning, it says: 'It does not mean that among the three bodies only one is a transformation.' Under the commentary's 'Provisionally relying on the true [body],' the second part opens the sections for separate explanations. In initially introducing the meanings, the statement 'each has two meanings' means that the true body corresponds to tathatā, and the transformation body corresponds to the dependent nature (paratantra); each has two meanings, nothing else, as explained before. However, the former generally spoke of tathatā and dependent nature, whereas here the two meanings are stated in terms of the Buddha-bodies. Regarding the commentary's 'gathering conditions without intrinsic nature,' one thereby knows that the saṃbhogakāya is also formed through conditions. Regarding the commentary's 'Second, harmonizing and unifying,' etc., the separate harmonization of the true and the transformation means that the two meanings on the side of tathatā harmonize with the two meanings on the side of the dependent nature. Each forms a tetralemma; taking the four within the true body: first, true; second, not true; third, both; fourth, neither. Because the first two meanings are easy, they are not explained; and because they are harmonized, they are not opened out, so only the latter two lines are explained; the two meanings within the transformation body are also like this. Regarding the commentary's 'Second, harmonization and interpenetration,' this takes the two meanings of tathatā and the two meanings of the dependent nature to encompass each other. The text has four sections: the first two clarify the interweaving and mutual harmony of the four meanings; the third re-harmonizes the above two; the fourth, under 'true and transformation meld,' concludes with the one-taste dharmadhātu. Among the four: first, taking the unchanging aspect of tathatā and harmonizing it with the empty-essence aspect of the dependent nature. Because it is unchanging within conditions, the emptiness of its essence is revealed; emptiness of essence is tathatā. This is the gate where true principle subsumes phenomena, so the true is not non-existent; the unchanging empty-essence is true emptiness. That the transformation is not existent is because the dependent nature is entirely empty in its essence. Second, under 'Furthermore, because the true accords with conditions,' taking the concordance with conditions on the side of the true and harmonizing it with the illusory existence of the dependent nature, this is the gate where true principle establishes phenomena, so the transformation is not non-existent; because it can establish phenomena, the true is not existent, for its entire essence accords with conditions. Furthermore, of the above two meanings, the first contains the gate where phenomena can reveal principle; hence it says transformational function is not non-existent, because it has the meaning of emptiness within transformation. Because transformation arises and is immediately empty, it can reveal principle. In the second meaning, it also incorporates the gate where phenomena can conceal principle; hence it says true principle is not non-existent, it merely accords with conditions. Under the commentary's 'Furthermore, through illusory existence according with conditions,' the third part generally harmonizes the above two. Because in the separate harmonizations earlier the two meanings were already harmonized, now the true and transformation are mutually harmonized again. The fourth, the conclusion, can be understood.