大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 51.10

51.10

Regarding the Commentary's 'Within the hundred gates' below, this is the third part, explaining the text. Within this are two parts: first, general; second, from 'the very first' below, specific. Since it relies on the ten suchnesses, it classifies them into ten times ten. Regarding the Commentary's 'The Great Prajñā says: All buddhas of the three periods take nature-emptiness as the buddha-eye,' this is because seeing the nature is the buddha-eye. Regarding the Commentary's 'The principle is devoid of deluded projections, and existence and non-existence are both real,' this comes from Master Daosheng's fourteen sections on the meaning of the true mark, where it states in full: 'When deluded sentiments are attached, both extremes are lost; losing the principle and turning away from the source, whatever is projected is entirely false. When the principle is devoid of deluded projections, existence and non-existence are both real. Being real, speaking of emptiness can dispel the delusion of those stagnated in existence, and clarifying existence can resolve the confusion of those clinging to emptiness. Thus, the teachings of both emptiness and existence attain reality in their purports.' The explanation says: Herein are three points: first, the falsity regarding sentiment; second, the correctness regarding principle; third, the truth regarding doctrine. Now, we are in the middle of these, applying only the correctness regarding principle. Regarding the Commentary's 'There is not a single' below, within the text are three parts: first, taking up the sūtra; second, from 'If suchness pervades insentient things' below, raising an objection; third, from 'Therefore one should explain' below, harmonizing them. However, this section of the commentary is intended to block the false attachment to the view that all insentient things possess buddha-nature. Regarding the attachment to this view, there are shallow and deep levels. The first claims that spirit transforms into earth, wood, metal, and stone, or that owls and beastly creatures carry lumps [of dirt] to produce offspring, sentient beings turning into insentient things and insentient things turning into sentient beings. This is a heterodox view, no different from non-Buddhists who believe that living grass and trees have life; hence it is unacceptable. If one says that insentient things share the same one nature, this is somewhat closer to the principle, yet one must still grasp the meaning. Their original intention relies on the omnipresence of tathatā's own essence; thus the real nature is not two. For this reason, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says that ultimate emptiness is buddha-nature, and within all dharmas there is the nature of peace and bliss; gathering the objective realm into the mind, there is nothing that is not mind, because the nature of form and the nature of wisdom are non-dual in essence. Passages such as these are found in all sūtras. Now, I consider this interpretation too reductive and extreme, conflating the sentient and the insentient, and destroying nature and characteristics. If one uses the ultimate emptiness of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to encompass both mind and objects universally, why does the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] exclude tiles and gravel, saying they have no nature? This is broadly refuted elsewhere. Now, directly revealing the correct principle: nature and characteristics are neither one nor different, and sentient and insentient are also neither one nor different; therefore one should explain: 'taking the nature to follow conditions' and so on. First, 'as in the Nirvāṇa,' because it excludes walls, tiles, gravel, and the like. Second, 'without awakening or non-awakening,' because within the true nature there is neither mind nor object. Third, 'nothing is not awakened,' because the insentient nature interfuses with the nature of awakening. Therefore it cites the Awakening of Faith, omitting one phrase. However, this meaning has already been cited previously, yet here it is needed again for that treatise's answer to the question: 'Question: If the dharmakāya of all buddhas is free from form-characteristics, how can it manifest various form-characteristics? Answer: Because this dharmakāya is the essence of form, it can manifest form. That is to say, from the beginning form and mind have been non-dual, because the nature of form is the nature of wisdom. The essence of form is formless, called the wisdom-body; because the nature of wisdom is the nature of form, it is called the dharmakāya pervading all places.' Here, it merely takes the meaning of the two natures being mutually identical and interfused to explain it. When the treatise says and so on, it cites it as proof, not as direct proof for what precedes; hence it says it can also prove this. What can serve as proof is that wisdom and the locus of wisdom are identical in prajñā. From 'Since the two natures are mutually identical' below, it concludes the explanation of the sūtra text. From 'How much more so when the mind is the universal mark' below, it adduces a comparison to explain. The former concluded the meaning of one nature; this now concludes the meaning of consciousness-only. As the universal mark, there is nothing it does not encompass. Furthermore, manifold interfusion is the intention of this sūtra: whenever a single dust mote is raised, it contains the dharmadhātu; how could the objective realm of form not be of one nature?