[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755) › 1.19 # 華嚴經疏 1.19 華嚴經疏 1.19 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755.1.19) 言如空迹下第五一頌舉喻顯微。上半舉喻。下半顯法。此中喻義略作三門。一對前辨異。謂與前盡空何別。太空喻果海。跡處喻地體。跡相喻地相。鳥足喻言教意。不同者喻地法難說難聞成默不說。今喻地法難說難聞。誡眾捨著許為宣說。二顯義意者。如鳥行空。鳥身過後跡處不可說。相亦不可見。然有鳥行不可言。無非以有鳥行故。令有跡相可取。非以無跡相故。總無鳥行鳥行喻言教。跡相喻地法。尋鳥求跡。跡不可得。尋言求地。地不可得。但約鳥行十步說有十跡。實無十跡之異。約言分十地。實無十地之異相。是故十地如空中十迹。豈有差別。問。如空中鳥已行未行及正行處。俱無有跡。豈可十地言下無所詮義。答。有所行空處故有所詮義。問。鳥足空中不能現跡。言下既不能顯理。何用斯言。答。鳥行沙土如足現跡。鳥行空中足現無跡。小乘言教顯如言義。大乘言教顯離言義。若無鳥行無以得知虛空無跡。故知鳥行能顯無跡。非無能詮所況可知。三釋文者。論中有二。初三句解喻。後三句合法。喻中鳥行跡處是一句。直舉喻體。二不可說。相亦不可見。是第二句顯跡。離相難說難見。謂不可說。其跡數多少不可見。其跡相差別下。釋成何故問也。釋以空無相故。即空之跡亦不可分別也。三非無行跡。是第三句以有鳥行故非無跡。又此三中。初總舉。二離有。三離無。下合中三句次第。合如是鳥跡處。明前初句名等住處。證智攝者。合之以法准法驗。喻應言如是鳥行跡處。虛空所攝。文中存略世名句字身。合鳥行住處證攝合跡處。虛空所攝不可說。聞合第二句明離有難說聞也。下亦釋成非如聲性者。明此地法出言非如音聲之性。是可聞法。又釋明地出言非可如言聲性而執取也。非無地智多句字身者。合第三句顯不無義。非無地智者。有所詮離相之法。非無名句字者。有能詮之教。何故言有教。擬欲宣說故。何故言地。離相不令如言而取故。云何故我復說。此汝等不應隨聲取義。此是論主義。作金剛藏語誡眾離著。五過中前二違行過。次二違人過。後一違法過。謂如言之義。都無所有。而謂實有故不正信。二不能勵心捨相求實名退勇猛。三法實不然。為他宣說云法正爾故云誑他。四言是佛說故云謗佛。又佛意正在離言之義。而謂佛智緣所執相故亦謗也。五謂法淺薄同於世間稱言之事故云輕法。又佛教指示離言義。令諸眾生越凡成聖。今取如言。只是世語。不能令人超凡得聖故。輕法之過實為重也。釋義大竟。 > From the line "Like traces in the sky" onward is the fifth \[topic\], one verse: adducing a metaphor to reveal subtlety. The first half adduces the metaphor; the second half reveals the Dharma. In the metaphorical meaning here, three gates are briefly made: First, discerning differences in contrast to the previous \[metaphor\]. That is, what is the difference between this and the previous metaphor of the exhaustion of empty space? The great sky represents the ocean of the fruit; the location of the traces represents the essence of the grounds; the characteristics of the traces represent the marks of the grounds; the bird's feet represent verbal teaching. The difference in intention is: \[previously\] the metaphor was that the phenomena of the grounds are difficult to explain and difficult to hear, culminating in silence without speaking; now the metaphor is that the phenomena of the grounds are difficult to explain and difficult to hear, but admonishes the assembly to abandon attachment and promises to proclaim them. Second, revealing the intended meaning: Just as when a bird flies through the sky, after the bird's body has passed, the location of the trace cannot be described, nor can its characteristic be seen. Yet, that there is a bird's flight cannot be said to be nonexistent; it is not that because there is the bird's flight, it causes traces that can be grasped, nor is it that because there are no traces, there is completely no flight of the bird. The bird's flight represents verbal teachings; the traces represent the phenomena of the grounds. Seeking the traces by tracking the bird, no traces can be found; seeking the grounds by tracking words, no grounds can be found. It is only in terms of a bird flying ten steps that one speaks of ten traces, but in reality there is no difference of ten traces. It is in terms of words that the ten grounds are distinguished, but in reality there is no distinct characteristic of ten grounds. Therefore, the ten grounds are like ten traces in the sky—how could there be any distinction? Question: Just as for a bird in the sky, where it has flown, where it has not flown, and where it is currently flying, all are without traces, could it be that under the words of the ten grounds there is no designated meaning? Answer: Because there is the space traversed, there is a designated meaning. Question: The bird's feet cannot display traces in the sky; since words cannot reveal the principle, what is the use of these words? Answer: When a bird walks on sand and soil, its feet display traces; when a bird flies in the sky, its feet display the absence of traces. The verbal teachings of the Hīnayāna reveal the meaning conforming to words; the verbal teachings of the Mahāyāna reveal the meaning transcending words. If there were no flight of the bird, there would be no way to know that empty space has no traces; hence we know that the bird's flight can reveal the absence of traces. It is not that there is no expressive \[vehicle\], as the illustrated case shows. Third, explaining the text: In the treatise there are two parts. The first three lines explain the metaphor; the latter three lines apply it to the Dharma. In the metaphor, "the place of the tracks of the bird's flight" is the first line, directly presenting the metaphorical substance. Second, "cannot be spoken of, and its marks cannot be seen" is the second line, showing that the traces transcend marks and are difficult to speak of and difficult to see; that is, one cannot describe the number or quantity of the traces, nor see the differences in their characteristics. Below, it explains why it asks. The explanation is that because empty space has no marks, the traces in empty space likewise cannot be conceptualized. Third, "it is not that there are no tracks of flight" is the third line: because there is the bird's flight, it is not without traces. Moreover, among these three: first is the general presentation, second is departing from existence, and third is departing from non-existence. Below, in the application to the Dharma, the three lines sequentially correspond: "just as such places of the bird's traces" clarifies the first line above, the abiding-place of names, etc. "Subsumed by realized cognition": applying it to the Dharma and verifying the metaphor by the Dharma, it should say: "just as such places of the bird's traces are subsumed by empty space." The text abbreviates: mundane groups of names, phrases, and syllables correspond to the abiding-place of the bird's flight; subsumption by realization corresponds to the place of the traces; being subsumed by empty space, they "cannot be spoken of or heard," which corresponds to the second line, clarifying departure from existence and being difficult to speak of and hear. Below it also explains: "not like the nature of sound" clarifies that these phenomena of the grounds transcend words, not being like the nature of sounds which are audible phenomena; another explanation is that it clarifies that the grounds transcend words and cannot be grasped according to the nature of words and sounds. "Not without the cognition of the ground and many groups of phrases and syllables" corresponds to the third line, revealing the meaning of not being non-existent. "Not without the cognition of the ground" means there is the signified phenomenon transcending characteristics; "not without names, phrases, and syllables" means there is the teaching that is the signifier. Why is it said that there is teaching? Because of the intention to proclaim it. Why is it called "grounds"? Transcending marks, so that one does not grasp them according to words. Why do I explain this again? You should not grasp the meaning according to the sounds. This is the intention of the treatise master, assuming the words of Vajragarbha to admonish the assembly to depart from attachment. Among the five faults: the first two are faults contrary to practice; the next two are faults contrary to persons; the last one is a fault contrary to the Dharma. That is, the meaning conforming to words is completely non-existent, yet supposing it to be truly existent is not right faith. Second, being unable to exert one's mind to abandon characteristics and seek reality is called regressing from vigor. Third, the Dharma is not actually like that, yet expounding it for others saying "the Dharma is just like this" is called deceiving others. Fourth, saying "this was spoken by the Buddha" is called slandering the Buddha; furthermore, the Buddha's intention is precisely on the meaning transcending words, yet supposing that the Buddha's cognition conditions grasped characteristics is likewise slandering. Fifth, supposing the Dharma to be shallow and trivial, identical to worldly affairs described by words, is called disparaging the Dharma. Moreover, the Buddha's teaching points to the meaning transcending words to cause sentient beings to transcend the ordinary and become noble; now grasping according to words, it is merely worldly language and cannot cause people to transcend the ordinary and attain the noble; therefore, the fault of disparaging the Dharma is truly severe. The explanation of the greatness of meaning is finished. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755.1.18) - [Next: 1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755.1.20) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755~en-mt.1.19) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.10.15) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755.1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2755.1.19) · Pramāṇa