華嚴一乘法界圖 1.44

1.44

問：若如是者，以自所證為眾生說，與末不異。尋常差別耶？答：得其義若為所證在言，與末不異。言說在證，與本不異。與本不異故，用而常寂；說而不說，與末不異故。寂而常用，不說而說，不說而說故，不說即非不說；說而不說故，說即非說，說即非說故，說即不可得。不說即非不說故，不說即不可得；二俱不可得故，二俱不相妨。以是義故，說與不說等無差別、生與不生等無差別、動與不動等無差別。一切差別相對法門，准例如是。故經云「有為無為一切諸法，有佛無佛性相常住，無有變異」，是其義也。亦可正說法中，言說以外更無別義，以言為義；正義法中，正義以外更無別言，以義為言。以義為言故，言無非義；以言為義故，義無非言。義無非言故，義即非義；言無非義故，言即不言。言即非義故，二俱不可得，是故一切法，本來在中道。中道者，通言非言。何以故？諸法實相不在言中，離名性故。言說法不在真性，在機益故，名無真性。離名性故，名而無名。名而無名故，以名求實，實不可得。名無真性故，名而無我同，故名性不可得。以此義故，二俱不可得。唯證所知，非餘境界。是故經云「一切諸法，唯佛所知，非我境界。」

Question: If it is so, when one expounds what one has personally realized for sentient beings, it is not different from the branch. Is there usually a distinction? Answer: If one grasps its meaning, that what is realized resides in words is not different from the branch; that verbal expounding resides in realization is not different from the root. Because it is not different from the root, while functioning it is constantly quiescent; expounding yet not expounding. Because it is not different from the branch, while quiescent it constantly functions; not expounding yet expounding. Because it does not expound yet expounds, not expounding is precisely not not expounding. Because it expounds yet does not expound, expounding is precisely non-expounding. Because expounding is precisely non-expounding, expounding cannot be apprehended. Because not expounding is precisely not not expounding, not expounding cannot be apprehended. Because neither can be apprehended, the two do not obstruct each other. For this reason, expounding and not expounding are equal and without distinction; arising and non-arising are equal and without distinction; moving and non-moving are equal and without distinction. All gates of Dharma involving relative distinctions should be understood by analogy with this. Thus the sūtra says: 'Conditioned and unconditioned, all dharmas—whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha—their nature and characteristics constantly abide and are without alteration'; this is its meaning. It may also be said: in the correct expounding of the Dharma, outside of verbal expression there is no other distinct meaning—words are taken as the meaning; in the Dharma of correct meaning, outside of correct meaning there are no other distinct words—meaning is taken as words. Because meaning is taken as words, there are no words that are not meaning; because words are taken as meaning, there is no meaning that is not words. Because there is no meaning that is not words, meaning is precisely non-meaning; because there are no words that are not meaning, words are precisely non-words. Because words are precisely non-meaning, both cannot be apprehended; therefore, all dharmas are originally in the Middle Way. The Middle Way penetrates both words and non-words. Why is this? The true characteristic of all dharmas is not within words, because it is divorced from the nature of names. Verbal dharmas do not reside in the true nature; because they reside in benefiting capacities, names have no true nature. Because they are divorced from the nature of names, they are named yet without name. Because they are named yet without name, if one seeks reality through names, reality cannot be apprehended. Because names have no true nature, names are the same as non-self; therefore, the nature of names cannot be apprehended. For this reason, neither can be apprehended. It is known only through realization; it is not the realm of anything else. Thus the sūtra says: 'All dharmas are known only by the Buddha; they are not my realm.'