大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.7

65.7

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'There is a distinct dark phenomenon named ignorance,' and so forth, third, it sets forth the essence and characteristics of ignorance. Within this, first it directly sets forth the essence. 'A distinct dark phenomenon' is what is countered by brightness. Next, from 'not merely' onward, it excludes conflations. This excludes two interpretations, which are the explanations of two masters. One master says: 'Ignorance means its essence is non-bright.' This is an exclusionary predication, like neither existent nor non-existent, because the essence of phenomena is not existent or non-existent. The second master says: 'It should mean the absence of brightness; this is just calling the place where there is no brightness ignorance.' Therefore, it is now excluded: it is not merely the absence of brightness, and the principle is exhausted. Still fearing it is hard to see, it fully cites the explanation of the Treatise. Fascicle 10 of the Kośa says: 'What is the meaning of ignorance? (A question.) It means its essence is non-bright (that is, the first master's "not the preceding cognitive brightness"). If so, ignorance should be the eyes and so forth.' Explanation: This is an objection. The five sense-faculties such as the eyes are also not cognitive brightness, so the Treatise says: 'If that is so, this meaning should be the absence of cognitive brightness.' Explanation: This is the second explanation, saying that the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance. The Treatise says: 'If so, the essence of ignorance should be non-existent.' Explanation: This is an objection. If the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance, absence is merely the absence of something else, and its essence should be non-existent. The Treatise says: 'In order to clarify that it has an essence (excluding the second meaning) and that its meaning is not conflated with other things (excluding the first meaning), the verse says: "Ignorance is what is countered by brightness, like non-friend, non-truth, and so forth."' Explanation: The upper line clarifies that it has a real essence: this ignorance fails to understand the Four Truths, and what is countered by brightness is named ignorance. Only that which is contrary to brightness is called ignorance; it is not that everything apart from brightness is ignorance, so it differs from the first. Nor is it that the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance, differing from the second. The lower line cites the preceding to explain and establish it. The Treatise says: 'Just as the enemy countered by friends: that which is contrary to a friend is called a non-friend, not someone different from a friend, nor the absence of a friend.' Explanation: This uses an enemy to illustrate ignorance, and friends to illustrate brightness. A non-friend is precisely an enemy; an enemy has an essence. 'Not someone different from a friend' means it is not that anyone other than a friend is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance is not conflated with the eyes and so forth. 'Nor the absence of a friend' means it is not that the lack of parents and friends is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance is not without essence. As for 'truth and so forth,' the word 'non-' above carries down to 'truth and so forth.' It is also like 'non-truth': truthful speech is called truth, and false speech countered by this is called non-truth; it is not that everything different from truth is called non-truth (such as killing), nor is the absence of truth called non-truth (this clarifies that non-truth has an essence). 'And so forth' includes non-dharma, non-artha, and non-kārya: unwholesome phenomena are called non-dharma, unwholesome meanings are called non-artha, and unwholesome matters are called non-kārya. These being contrary to wholesome phenomena and so forth are called non-dharma and so forth; all clarify that they have an essence and are not non-existent. Therefore the Treatise concludes: 'Thus ignorance has a distinct real essence; it is what is countered by brightness, neither different [from brightness] nor non-existent.' Explanation: 'Neither different' excludes the first interpretation; 'nor non-existent' excludes the second. If ignorance had no essence, how could it serve as a condition for formations? The sūtra says that ignorance can defile wisdom and make it impure, which clarifies that it has an essence. The rest is as explained there.