華嚴經疏 1.17

1.17

言諸佛所行處下一頌半。明第三舉例顯微。於中初三句牒前深妙。下三句類顯地微。前中初二句。舉佛所證二種涅槃。於中寂者是同相涅槃。以自性常寂故。滅者是不同相涅槃。以智緣滅故。清淨者顯此二種自性無染。及對治離染故。深者顯此二種甚深微妙故。此二唯是諸佛所證故。名佛所行處也。言說所難及者。正顯此二深妙超言。下三句類顯地法。同彼玄妙故云地行。亦如是言地者境界。觀者謂照境之智。是地正體故。行者智眷屬者。檀等諸度與智同行故。亦如是者同二涅槃之深妙故說之。猶尚難者。顯教尚難言。何況以示人者。況義深玄何容可示。論云何故不但說無言等者。徵文顯意。謂何不一向說無言。乃云言說所難及顯示。依言以求解故。不說無言也。

From the line "The realm traversed by all Buddhas" onward is one and a half verses, which clarifies the third [topic]: adducing an analogy to reveal the subtlety. Within this, the first three lines repeat the profound subtlety mentioned before, and the latter three lines comparatively reveal the subtlety of the grounds. In the former part, the first two lines adduce the two kinds of nirvāṇa realized by the Buddha. Therein, "quiescent" is the nirvāṇa of identical characteristic, because its intrinsic nature is eternally quiescent. "Cessation" is the nirvāṇa of differing characteristics, because it is cessation through the condition of wisdom. "Pure" shows that these two kinds are free from defilement by their intrinsic nature and through an antidote that departs from defilement. "Profound" shows that these two kinds are exceedingly profound, subtle, and wondrous. Because these two are realized solely by all Buddhas, they are called "the realm traversed by the Buddhas." "Difficult to be reached by verbal explanations" precisely shows that these two, being profound and wondrous, transcend words. The latter three lines comparatively reveal the phenomena of the grounds, which are identical to that profound wonder; thus it says, "The practice of the grounds is also like this." "Ground" means the cognitive sphere. "Contemplation" means the cognition that illuminates the sphere, which is the primary essence of the ground. "Practices" are the retinue of cognition, because the pāramitās such as giving (dāna) are practiced alongside cognition. "Is also like this" means that it is identical to the profound wonder of the two kinds of nirvāṇa. "Even speaking of it is difficult" shows that even the teaching is difficult to speak of; how much more so to "demonstrate it to others"? This highlights that the meaning is so profound and abstruse that how could it easily be demonstrated? The treatise asks: "Why is it not simply said to be wordless, etc.?" This questions the text to reveal its intention: why not speak solely of being wordless, instead saying "difficult to be reached by verbal explanations"? This shows that one relies on words to seek understanding, and therefore it does not speak of absolute wordlessness.