華嚴五十要問答 2.17

2.17

四明深淺及對如實顯觀分齊者，論文云「釋自性義已，以甚深義為境界。」以此義求，得知名義二門是淺非深，自性及差別是深非淺。所言如實觀分別者，《釋論》解云「何名尋思所引如實智？若菩薩於名已尋思唯有名，後如實知唯有名，此則定知名無所有。」問：若名定無體者，何故立諸法名？答：欲令眾生漸入正理。想見言說依名想義，及現證發語教他假立客名，無有實法。故論釋云「若世間不安立色等名，於色等類中無有一人能想此類是色。若不能想則不增益，若不增益不起執著，若不執著不能互相教示也。」何者義尋思所引如實智？若菩薩於義已尋思唯有義，後如實知義離一切言說不可言說，謂色受等類色非色不可說、法非法不可說、有非有不可說，是名義尋思所引如實智。何者自性尋思所引如實智？於色等類自性言說中已尋思惟有言說。由自性言說，此類非其自性、如其自性顯現。菩薩如實通達此類如化影像，非類似類顯現，是名自性尋思所引如實智。何者差別尋思所引如實智？若菩薩於差別言說中已尋思唯有言說，於色等類中見差別言說無有二義，此類非有由可言，體不成就故；非非有不可言，體成就故。如此非色，由真諦故非非色，由俗諦故於中有色言說。故菩薩如實知差別言說無有二義，是名差別尋思所引如實智。如是等觀菩薩尋思此名義假立自性及差別，如此度疑決了等，說名尋思。因此尋思，觀名義等定無所有，名如實智。此即尋思、如實二義不同也。

Fourth, explaining the shallow and the profound, and demonstrating the demarcations of contemplation in relation to [the knowledge of] reality as it is. A passage in the treatise states: "Having explained the meaning of self-nature, profound meaning serves as the cognitive sphere." Investigating in this sense, one comes to know that the two gates of name and referent are shallow and not profound, whereas self-nature and distinction are profound and not shallow. Regarding what is spoken of as contemplation of conceptual discrimination as it is, the commentary on the treatise explains: "What is called the true cognition induced by thorough investigation? If a bodhisattva, regarding a name, has already thoroughly investigated that there is only a name, and later knows in accordance with reality that there is only a name, this definitely knows that the name has nothing existent." Question: If a name definitely lacks an intrinsic substance, why establish names for all phenomena? Answer: In order to lead sentient beings gradually into the correct principle. Conceptualized seeing and verbal discourse rely on names to conceptualize referents, and [sages] having directly realized this, utter speech to teach others by conventionally establishing adventitious names; there are no real phenomena. Therefore the commentary on the treatise states: "If the world did not establish names such as form, among categories such as form not a single person could conceptualize that this category is form. If they could not conceptualize, they would not superimpose; if they did not superimpose, they would not give rise to attachment; if they did not give rise to attachment, they could not instruct one another." What is the true cognition induced by the thorough investigation of referents? If a bodhisattva, regarding a referent, has already thoroughly investigated that there is only a referent, and later knows in accordance with reality that the referent is separated from all verbal discourse and inexpressible—meaning that in categories such as form and sensation, form and non-form are inexpressible, dharma and non-dharma are inexpressible, existence and non-existence are inexpressible—this is called the true cognition induced by the thorough investigation of referents. What is the true cognition induced by the thorough investigation of self-nature? In verbal discourse on the self-nature of categories such as form, one has already thoroughly investigated that there is only verbal discourse. Due to verbal discourse on self-nature, this category is not its self-nature, yet it appears as its self-nature. The bodhisattva penetrates in accordance with reality that this category is like a phantom or an image; it is not the category, yet it appears as the category. This is called the true cognition induced by the thorough investigation of self-nature. What is the true cognition induced by the thorough investigation of distinction? If a bodhisattva, in verbal discourse on distinction, has already thoroughly investigated that there is only verbal discourse, and within categories such as form sees that verbal discourse on distinction lacks two referents: this category is not existent, because it can be spoken of and its substance is not established; it is not non-existent, because it is inexpressible and its substance is established. Thus it is not form, by virtue of ultimate truth; it is not non-form, by virtue of conventional truth, within which there is verbal discourse of form. Therefore, the bodhisattva knows in accordance with reality that verbal discourse on distinction lacks two referents. This is called the true cognition induced by the thorough investigation of distinction. In such contemplations, the bodhisattva thoroughly investigates this conventional establishment of self-nature and distinction regarding names and referents; thus overcoming doubt, resolving dilemmas, and so forth, this is called thorough investigation. Induced by this thorough investigation, one contemplates that names, referents, and so forth are definitely non-existent, which is called true cognition. This is the difference between the two meanings of thorough investigation and true cognition.