華嚴五十要問答 2.15

2.15

二釋其義并顯主客分齊不同者。如《攝論》云「何者名尋思？謂名義自性差別。菩薩於名唯見名、於義唯見義、於名義自性言說唯見名義自性言說、於名義差別言說唯見名義差別言說，於此四處度疑決了，說名尋思門。」所以自性及差別安言說者，為後二法觀相深故。若據實觀，四種法中皆是言說。問：約何觀相得知後二是深非淺？答：名義二法一往直計，見不深重。自性及差別約其所以驗證成執，故是尤重。翻治觀成加功作業方觀現前，故是深也。文云於名唯見名等者，菩薩於實名皆見假名及無名，不見實名也。義等亦然。主客分齊差別者，以空為主，以實為客；以假為主，以實為客。何以故？由《攝論》云「以無所有為自性。」又觀名義唯假立尋思故得知也。有以因為主、以果為客。所以然者，以客依主立，浮寄無根。主與客為依，得成其事。所以得知。互為因果，成主客義故。《攝論》云「名義互為客，菩薩應尋思。」故得知也。問：義若如此，何故《攝論》云「名無所有，於義是客；義無所有，於名是客。」若據此文，則無所有是其客義，何故乃言空無所有是其主義？答：此語乍隱，宜須思之。言無所有者，即實有也。分別性有與無義同一種，無理不得有別，此相難彰。只欲噵實則涉未觀，只欲噵空不知分齊，故今舉名說無所有，則知是實。次後偏舉無所有，是名義本性，故知前文名無所有及義無所有即說實也。此約觀智慧境為言，宜可思之。

Second, explaining their meaning and revealing the differences in scope between host and guest: As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, 'What is called thorough inquiry? It refers to name, referent, intrinsic nature, and distinction. When the bodhisattva, regarding name, sees only name; regarding referent, sees only referent; regarding the designation of the intrinsic nature of name and referent, sees only the designation of the intrinsic nature of name and referent; and regarding the designation of the distinction of name and referent, sees only the designation of the distinction of name and referent; having overcome doubt and attained decisive comprehension with respect to these four points, this is called the gate of thorough inquiry.' As for why 'designation' is applied to intrinsic nature and distinction: it is because the contemplation characteristics of the latter two dharmas are deep. If based on contemplation of reality, all four dharmas are designations. Question: Based on what contemplation characteristics is it known that the latter two are deep and not shallow? Answer: The two dharmas of name and referent are straightforwardly grasped at first glance, so the view is not deep and heavy. Intrinsic nature and distinction establish grasping through verifying their reasoning, and are therefore especially heavy. Turning around and remedying them so that the contemplation is accomplished requires applied effort and operation before the contemplation appears, and is therefore deep. When the text says 'regarding name, seeing only name' and so forth: the bodhisattva, with respect to real names, sees them all as nominal names and non-names, not seeing real names. The referent and so forth are also like this. As for the differences in scope between host and guest: taking emptiness as the host and reality as the guest; taking nominality as the host and reality as the guest. Why is this? Because the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, 'having non-existence as intrinsic nature.' Moreover, this is known because contemplating name and referent is merely establishing thorough inquiry nominally. Some take cause as the host and fruition as the guest. Why is this? Because the guest is established relying on the host, floating and unrooted. The host serves as the support for the guest, enabling its tasks to be accomplished. This is how it is known. Mutually serving as cause and fruition accomplishes the meaning of host and guest. Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, 'Name and referent are mutually guests; the bodhisattva should thoroughly inquire into them.' Hence this is known. Question: If the meaning is like this, why does the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say, 'Name has no existence, and is a guest with respect to referent; referent has no existence, and is a guest with respect to name'? If based on this text, then 'having no existence' is the meaning of guest; why then do you say that emptiness and non-existence are the meaning of host? Answer: These words appear hidden at first, and should be considered carefully. Saying 'having no existence' is precisely real existence. In parikalpita-svabhāva, existence and non-existence share the same meaning; without principle, there can be no difference, and this characteristic is difficult to manifest. If one only wishes to speak of reality, it involves not yet contemplating; if one only wishes to speak of emptiness, one will not know its scope. Therefore now, adducing name to speak of having no existence, one knows it is real. Next, exclusively adducing having no existence as the fundamental nature of name and referent, one knows that the preceding text's 'name having no existence' and 'referent having no existence' precisely speaks of reality. This is stated with respect to the cognitive sphere of contemplating wisdom, and should be carefully considered.