華嚴一乘法界圖 1.44

1.44

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.'