大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 80.71

80.71

On the commentary passage from “Therefore, these three dharmas…” downwards, it concludes and establishes nirvāṇa. The second fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: “I shall now cause all sentient beings, as well as my fourfold assembly of disciples, to all abide securely in the secret treasury. I too shall abide securely in this and enter into nirvāṇa. What is called the secret treasury? It is like the three dots of the letter ‘i’; if aligned horizontally they do not form an ‘i’, and if vertical they do not form it either. Just like the three eyes on the face of Maheśvara, if the three dots are placed side by side they cannot form an ‘i’, and if the three dots are separated they also cannot form an ‘i’. I am also like this: the dharma of liberation is not nirvāṇa, the body of the Tathāgata is not nirvāṇa, and mahāprajñā is also not nirvāṇa; the three dharmas being separate is also not nirvāṇa. I now abide securely in such three dharmas, and for the sake of sentient beings this is called entering nirvāṇa.” Master Jianfu explained: “If one compares the simile to the dharma, the text of the simile is insufficient. Because the dharma says: ‘the dharma of liberation is also not nirvāṇa,’ etc., in the simile it ought to say: ‘only a single dot does not form an ‘i’,’ because each of the three, such as liberation, individually does not form it. In verifying nirvāṇa, there must be the body capable of realizing it, there must be the fire of wisdom, and the extinction of defilements and so on; when these three dharmas unite, it is called realizing nirvāṇa. If there were only the body, it would not be nirvāṇa; if only prajñā, it would not be nirvāṇa; if only liberation, it would not be nirvāṇa. If these three were separate, without eradication and realization, they would also not be nirvāṇa. In the simile, their being separate also does not form [the letter]. According to the intention of Zhiyi, the four meanings are each distinct: east-to-west is horizontal, and south-to-north is vertical. Vertical means standing upright. That is to say, if the dharmakāya were fundamentally existent, prajñā were next cultivated, and liberation were subsequently attained, this would be the vertical meaning, for it would span lifetimes and cross through realms, extending throughout purity and defilement, hence like three vertical dots. Not being horizontal means the three dharmas having different essences at the same time, like three rows of fires. ‘Side by side’ is combining into a single essence, whereas ‘separate’ is each abiding in its own place—namely, using only a single dharma. Now, ‘mahāprajñā is also not nirvāṇa’ and so on combines the vertical and side by side. Explaining these three vertically is called ‘vertical’, while bringing up one to subsume two is called ‘side by side’. Hence, saying that prajñā is not [nirvāṇa] is because prajñā already subsumes the [other] two. If the three virtues were different, they would also not be nirvāṇa, which doubly combines the horizontal and separate: each being a different essence corresponds to ‘separate’, and different essences being simultaneous corresponds to ‘horizontal’. Therefore, the statement above that if the three dots are separate they cannot form an ‘i’ has already combined horizontal and separate. It may also be that horizontal is just ‘side by side’; relative to vertical it is horizontal, and relative to separate it is ‘side by side’. Thus, the sūtra has only three phrases, but in meaning it forms four.” Then he generally explained: “Now, as the three are all inconceivable, how could they be vertical? As they are all inconceivable, how could they be horizontal? As they are all inconceivable, how could they be side by side? As they are all inconceivable, how could they be separate?” The meaning is: identity of the one and the three, identity of the three and the one; neither three nor one, doubly illuminating both three and one. How could one conceive of them as one or three? If one explains them as one in essence and distinct in function, one has still not avoided [falling into] ‘side by side’ and ‘separate’. However, some say: the letter ‘i’ is like the character 品 (pin). Some say: it is like an inverted character 品. The latter meaning is correct. Due to this difference in views, ancient masters differed in their interpretations and choices: some placed one virtue above and two virtues below; others placed two virtues above and one virtue below. Neither grasped the intention. In the Western regions, the three dots of the letter ‘i’ [have one dot] above. In the simile of the divine eye, it is impossible for two eyes to be above one eye. The Tathāgata, fearing that people would mistakenly form this interpretation, consequently used the divine eye to modify the simile of the letter ‘i’; thus one must not definitively fix one or two as above or below, but merely grasp that they cannot be vertical, horizontal, side by side, or separate. If one definitively says that one is above or two are above, not only does the principle fail to be consummate and subtle, but it also causes the two similes to contradict each other. As for the form of the Sanskrit letter, it is ∴; this is the letter ‘i’ of the Western regions, where one of the three eyes corresponds to the space between the eyebrows. This is its shape; why should you masters be confused? As for the word ‘secret’, it is because it is profound and subtle. Master Huiyuan explained: ‘Because in the past it was concealed and not spoken, it is called secret; because it was covered by provisional teachings, it is again called a treasury.’ Hence a later passage states: ‘What was not spoken of in the eleven divisions [of scriptures] is called a treasury. Moreover, because it encompasses all virtues within it, it is also called a treasury.’ Jianfu explained: ‘Because it is not the realm of the two vehicles, it is called secret.’ Both worthy masters reveal secrecy in contrast to the past; now we clarify its profound subtlety, which is inherently secret in its very essence.