大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 9.26

9.26

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'Mundane and supramundane wisdom depend on the tathāgatagarbha', this is the meaning of the unconditioned within the ninth distinction between the Buddha's body as unconditioned and conditioned. In this passage, there are two parts: first, stating the reason. If, according to the Dharmalakṣaṇa school, it arises from the consciousness subject to arising and ceasing, then it is conditioned. Here, because it depends on the tathāgatagarbha, since that which is depended upon is permanent, that which depends on it is also permanent. 'Initial' refers to initial enlightenment; 'inherent' refers to inherent enlightenment. Inherent enlightenment exists in principle, and all agree it is permanent; initial enlightenment is produced through cultivation, and its meaning is identical to the impermanent. Now, since initial enlightenment is identical with inherent enlightenment, there is no longer any difference between initial and inherent; how could it be impermanent? If it were impermanent, how could one say there is no difference between initial and inherent, since one would be permanent and the other impermanent? When it now says they are not different, this clarifies that it is indeed permanent. Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'then the conditioned and the unconditioned are neither one nor different': considered from the perspective of being produced through cultivation, its meaning is identical to the conditioned; being completely identical with the nature of the garbha, it is immediately the unconditioned. Inherent enlightenment's meaning is identical to the unconditioned; initial enlightenment is the conditioned. Speaking now of initial and inherent clarifies that they are not one; initial and inherent being non-dual clarifies that they are not different. From 'transformation body' onwards, it directly demonstrates the unconditioned. Even the transformation body, which is the most inferior, is still permanently abiding; how could the reward body, being still superior, be impermanent? That the transformation body is permanent is a meaning found in the text of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Thus that sūtra states: 'My body now is precisely the permanent body, the dharmakāya.' Fearing that people might say this is merely the permanence of uninterrupted continuity, and not immutable permanence—for immutable permanence is the dharmakāya—it now says it is precisely the permanent body and the dharmakāya, making it clearly known that the transformation body is the dharmakāya and is immutably permanent. 'Not falling into reckonings' comes from the 'Disciples' chapter of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra: 'The Buddha's body is unconditioned and does not fall into reckonings.' This was to rebuke Ānanda for thinking that the Buddha's transformation body had a minor ailment. The two sūtras cited above clarify the permanence of the transformation body, and below it is applied by comparison to the reward body. Regarding 'wisdom that is identical with essence': if outside the essence there were a wisdom, the essence would be permanent and the wisdom impermanent; [here] it is the wisdom that is identical with essence. Since the essence does not shift through the four characteristics, wisdom also cannot be shifted. If wisdom could be shifted, the essence could also be shifted, because they are mutually identical. Therefore, the second fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'If there is a good son who wishes to protect the True Dharma, he must not say that the Tathāgata is the same as conditioned phenomena, nor that he is different from conditioned phenomena. He should only reproach himself: "I am now foolish and do not yet possess the eye of wisdom. The Tathāgata's True Dharma is inconceivable; therefore one should not declare that the Tathāgata is definitely conditioned or definitely unconditioned." If one possesses right view, one should say that the Tathāgata is definitely unconditioned. Why is this? Because it causes sentient beings to generate wholesome dharmas and generate compassion. It is like a woman at the Ganges River who sacrifices her bodily life out of loving care for her child. Good son! A Dharma-protecting bodhisattva should also be like this: he would rather sacrifice his bodily life than say the Tathāgata is the same as the conditioned; he must state that the Tathāgata is the same as the unconditioned. Because he states that the Tathāgata is the same as the unconditioned, he attains anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi, just as that woman attained rebirth in the Brahmā heaven. Why is this? Because of protecting the Dharma. What is called protecting the Dharma? It refers to stating that the Tathāgata is the same as the unconditioned. Good son! Although such a person does not seek liberation, liberation arrives on its own, just as that woman did not seek the Brahmā heaven, yet the Brahmā heaven arrived on its own'—and so on, up to—'Mañjuśrī! Those of non-Buddhist heterodox views may say that the Tathāgata is the same as the conditioned, but a precept-holding monk should not conceive the notion of the conditioned with respect to the Tathāgata in this way. If one says that the Tathāgata is conditioned, this is false speech. One should know that when this person dies, he will enter hell just as a person dwells in his own house. Mañjuśrī! The Tathāgata is truly an unconditioned dharma; one should not again say he is conditioned.' Passages such as these are found in all the sūtras. The intention in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is: at first, conditioned and unconditioned are both dispelled; later, between the two, one should rather say unconditioned, and must not declare that he is conditioned. Now, clarifying that the three bodies can be mutually identical, conditioned and unconditioned are originally interfused. Understanding the Tathāgata in this way is the true contemplation of the Buddha. The remaining points will be explained below.