華嚴經疏 1.17

1.17

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.