華嚴五十要問答 2.18

2.18

五辨位地及問答除疑者，尋思位地在𤏙頂兩位；若準修時章，在於十信及十解位。如實智位在於忍及世第一法；若準修時章，則在十行十迴向位。故《攝論》云「菩薩於四種尋思修𤏙頂二種方便道。」於四種如實智中修道云何？乃至論釋：緣識為境，了別無塵等。所緣既無，能緣必不得生。由此了別，故能伏滅唯識之想。唯識既滅，從最後剎那更進第二剎那即入初地。又修時章云「如聲聞道前有四方便，謂𤏙、頂、忍及世第一法。菩薩地前四位亦如此，謂十信、十解、十行、十迴向。」故得知也。問：菩薩見名義相各異，及見相應依義相應。菩薩見自性言說及差別言說皆屬義故，名與義相應。云何得知名義互為客？此是論文。義意云何？如外人計名義各有自性及差別，各各相應名義二法。自性差別此則各亭，平等無偏。云何得知名義互為客？論有三答：一先於名智不生故，證名義不同體而不相應，不同體時則無有法，世數名義皆悉如此。若名與義同體，及與相應，未聞名時於彼義中知，名智應成。現見知義智生，知名智不生，故知名義本不相應。第二義者，引一多相違，證名義不同亦不相應。如瓶一義，異國立名皆悉不同。若名與義相應得成有者，名多非一，義亦應多。何以故？一義與多名相應成有故。第三義者，定不定異故，名義二相不得相應，名不定故。若名與義相應，名既不定，義亦應爾。西國有法，以一瞿名目於九義。所謂九者，言方、地、光、牛、金、剛、眼、天、水，以一瞿名目此九義。名與義定相應者，目天之時，地應隨名與天相應，餘亦如是。既無此義，故知名義二性差別。一亦不相應。何以故？與上三義相違故。若異相應，此亦不成。何以故？亦與上三義相違故。問：一異相應二義各別，云何同一三義相違？答：雖復名同，三義相違失竝有異，所以得知。若名與義一而相應者，見義之智即須是其知名之智。又若一者，義既是一，名即不多。又若一者，名既不定，義亦應爾。若名與義異而相應，知義智生，知名之智亦應即生。何以故，名義相別而相應故。又若異者，名既是多，義亦應多，二相各別而相應故。又若異者，九義是別，一瞿之名亦應成九。何以故？由彼名義別相相應成其有故。此等道理，皆悉偏約四尋思說，六尋思等及三尋思準以可知。何以故？不越一異相應成有故，餘可準求。此教在三乘，亦得一乘用。何以故？由此觀法一切處用，應法界故。

Fifth, distinguishing the stages and grounds, and removing doubts through questions and answers. The stage of thorough investigation lies in the two stages of heat and summit; or according to the Chapter on Cultivation Periods, it lies in the ten faiths and the ten understandings. The stage of true cognition lies in patience and supreme worldly dharmas; or according to the Chapter on Cultivation Periods, it lies in the stages of the ten practices and the ten dedications. Thus the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "The bodhisattva cultivates the two expedient paths of heat and summit in the four thorough investigations." How does one cultivate the path within the four true cognitions? Up to where the commentary on the treatise says: "Taking consciousness as the cognitive object, one discerns that there is no dust [i.e., external object]," and so on. Since the cognitive object is non-existent, the cognition that takes it as object definitely cannot arise. Because of this discernment, one can subdue and eradicate the conceptual thought of mere-consciousness. Once mere-consciousness is eradicated, proceeding from the final instant to the second instant, one immediately enters the first ground. Moreover, the Chapter on Cultivation Periods states: "Just as prior to the path of the śrāvaka there are four expedient means—namely heat, summit, patience, and supreme worldly dharmas—the four stages prior to the grounds of the bodhisattva are also like this, namely the ten faiths, the ten understandings, the ten practices, and the ten dedications." Hence it is known. Question: The bodhisattva sees that the marks of name and referent are distinct, and sees that their concordance is concordance reliant on referents. Since the bodhisattva sees that verbal discourse on self-nature and verbal discourse on distinction both belong to referents, names and referents are concordant. How does one come to know that names and referents are mutual guests? This is the text of the treatise; what is the sense of its meaning? For instance, non-Buddhists conceptualize that names and referents each have their own self-nature and distinction, and each is concordant between the two dharmas of name and referent. Their self-nature and distinction are thus each level, equal, and without partiality. How does one come to know that names and referents are mutual guests? The treatise gives three answers: First, because cognition does not arise regarding the name beforehand, this proves that names and referents are not of identical substance and are not concordant; when they are not of identical substance, then there is no dharma. Names and referents in worldly enumeration are all like this. If name and referent were of identical substance and were concordant, before hearing the name, when knowing within that referent, cognition of the name should already be established. Yet one currently observes that cognition knowing the referent arises while cognition knowing the name does not arise; hence one knows that names and referents are fundamentally not concordant. The second meaning: citing the contradiction between one and many proves that names and referents are not identical and also not concordant. For instance, for the single referent of a vase, the names established in different countries are all distinct. If name and referent were concordant so as to be established as existent, then since names are many and not one, the referent should also be many. Why is this? Because a single referent concordant with multiple names would be established as existent. The third meaning: because of the difference between definite and indefinite, the two marks of name and referent cannot be concordant, since names are indefinite. If name and referent were concordant, since the name is indefinite, the referent should also be so. In the Western land [i.e., India] there is a linguistic usage where a single name 'go' designates nine referents. The nine are: cardinal direction, earth, ray of light, cow, vajra, eye, heaven, and water; the single name 'go' designates these nine referents. If name and referent were definitely concordant, when designating heaven, earth should follow the name and be concordant with heaven, and the others would be likewise. Since this is not the case, one knows that the two natures of name and referent are distinct. Unity is also not concordant. Why is this? Because it contradicts the above three meanings. If difference were concordant, this also would not be established. Why is this? Because it also contradicts the above three meanings. Question: Concordance through unity and concordance through difference are two distinct meanings; how can they both contradict the same three meanings? Answer: Although the names are the same, the faults of contradicting the three meanings are both distinct; this is how it is known. If name and referent were one and concordant, the cognition seeing the referent would necessarily be the cognition knowing the name. Furthermore, if they were one, since the referent is one, the names would not be many. Furthermore, if they were one, since the name is indefinite, the referent should also be so. If name and referent were different and concordant, when the cognition knowing the referent arises, the cognition knowing the name should also immediately arise. Why is this? Because name and referent are distinct and yet concordant. Furthermore, if they were different, since the names are many, the referents should also be many, because the two marks would be distinct and yet concordant. Furthermore, if they were different, since the nine referents are distinct, the single name 'go' should also become nine. Why is this? Because they would be established as existent through the concordance of the distinct marks of that name and referent. Principles such as these are all spoken specifically in terms of the four thorough investigations; the six thorough investigations and the three thorough investigations can be known by analogy with this. Why is this? Because they do not transcend being established as existent through concordance as one or different; the rest can be investigated by analogy. This teaching is in the triyāna, yet it can also be utilized in the Ekayāna. Why is this? Because this method of contemplation is utilized everywhere, corresponding to the dharmadhātu.