華嚴經疏 1.19

1.19

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.