金剛經纂要刊定記 7

English (machine translation) 7

Language: English

7.1

Recorded by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui

All bodhisattvas abide in this mind and practice the bodhisattva path. Because they possess great wisdom, they do not abide in saṃsāra; because they possess great compassion, they do not abide in nirvāṇa. Now, bidding them be free from the two views of annihilation and permanence is precisely not abiding in saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. Therefore it says "according to the phenomenon in which they abide", which is the supremacy of reliance among the seven supremacies.

7.3

"Not severing..." and so forth means: saṃsāra is originally empty like a reflection; if a reflection does not exist, what is there to sever? Saying "not severing" now does not mean stubbornly retaining it; it simply means understanding that its nature is non-existent while its marks are not non-existent, and conforming to conventional truth; hence it is called "not severing". This is the meaning of thorough penetration.

7.4

"In nirvāṇa..." and so forth: if one is bound by quiescence, one lacks mastery; now, being quiescent yet always functioning, and functioning yet always quiescent, is the meaning of mastery.

7.5

"Herein..." and below reveals the intent of speaking one-sidedly. In terms of not severing saṃsāra to benefit sentient beings, it only accomplishes great compassion not abiding in nirvāṇa; if discussed fully, one must also not abide in saṃsāra to fulfill "according to the phenomenon in which they abide".

7.6

"Exclusively..." and below reveals the intent of the one-sided exposition.

7.7

"Precluding quiescence": disciples of the two vehicles reduce the body to ashes and extinguish cognition, obliterating everything without remainder; being bound by nirvāṇa, they lack mastery. Now, generating the mind while denying complete marks falls directly into this; to counter it, one approach is indicated one-sidedly. Below, the bodhisattva not accepting merit corresponds to not abiding in saṃsāra, and the meaning is then complete.

7.8

"The verse says..." and below cites the proof.

7.9

"The treatise says..." and below explains the verse.

7.10

From "Although it does not rely on..." onward is a concession. The dharmakāya, the real Buddha, is true bodhi; precisely because it has discernment by wisdom as its cause, it does not rely upon that.

7.11

From "Yet it is not lost..." onward is a refutation. Merit is the cause, which is the fruit of the five perfections; retribution is the fruit, which is the thirty-two marks. The marks are not non-Buddha, and therefore it says "not lost"; since the fruit is not lost, the cause is likewise not lost.

7.12

From "Because it can..." onward clarifies the reason for not being lost. That is to say, true bodhi must be fully endowed with the two adornments: wisdom is the true body, and merit is the response body. Therefore the treatise says: "The dharmakāya is the body with the mark of wisdom; that with the mark of merit is the body with distinct marks, for all Tathāgatas must be endowed with both kinds of marks." Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "According to the Dharma they attain, / Adorned by the power of dhyāna and prajñā, / By this they deliver sentient beings / And themselves realize the unsurpassable path."

7.13

"Attaining forbearance." The sūtra's intended meaning is: The merit cultivated by a bodhisattva in a mind without self surpasses the merit cultivated in a mind with self, because in adorning the dharmakāya it is ultimately not lost.

7.14

From "The treatise says..." onward first recounts the thought to be dispelled. The thought says: If supramundane nirvikalpa wisdom is precisely the cause of buddhahood, then the merit cultivated is entirely lost. Why so? Because merit is not the cause.

7.15

"In order to prevent this..." introduces the text that can dispel it.

7.16

"Attaining superior forbearance, it is not lost." This directly clarifies the meaning of not being lost. That is to say, if the mind abides in marks while cultivating various merits, it falls into the contaminated (sāsrava), and this merit is then lost. If the mind is free from marks while cultivating various merits, it achieves the uncontaminated (anāsrava), and this merit is not lost.

7.17

From "Because of attaining..." onward gives the reason for not being lost. This means that examining the cause through the fruit establishes the meaning of not being lost. "Immaculate" means pure; the uncontaminated is the Buddha-body.

7.18

"The two kinds of selflessness" are those of person and phenomena. Attaining the wisdom of these two emptinesses is called forbearance.

7.19

Directly clarifying. The sūtra's intended meaning is: The previous statement that the merit cultivated without self is considered superior is solely because the bodhisattva does not receive merit.

7.20

"Censurable," and so forth, clarifies the reason for not receiving. This also examines the cause through the fruit to establish the meaning of not receiving. The intended meaning is: If the fruit were contaminated, then one would know that receiving merit is censurable. Since the fruit is uncontaminated, one knows there is no receiving; how could it be censurable?

7.21

From "Asaṅga..." onward shows that it contrasts with the preceding text's "not abiding in nirvāṇa." The preceding and succeeding passages look to each other to jointly establish the meaning of compassion and wisdom.

7.22

"If one abides," and so forth, clarifies by contrast. Questioning and explaining: The sūtra's intended meaning is that if a bodhisattva creates merit and gives rise to greedy attachment, it becomes contaminated; the cause being contaminated, the fruit is also contaminated, and attaining the thirty-two marks merely makes one identical to a cakravartin, not named a Buddha. This would mean that both cause and fruit are lost, forming the doubt raised. Now, since one creates merit without giving rise to greedy attachment, the cause becomes uncontaminated; since the cause is uncontaminated, the fruit is likewise so, and the thirty-two marks attained adorn the dharmakāya, being named a Buddha. How could one doubt that its cause and fruit are lost?

7.23

Twenty-fourth: The commentary first states the section title.

7.24

From "If bodhisattvas..." onward points to where the doubt arises. This comes directly from the immediately preceding text. In the treatise it says: "If bodhisattvas do not receive that retribution," and so forth.

7.25

From "How..." onward concludes by forming the doubt. "Sentient beings enjoy": Based on the Buddha's lifespan, it should have completed a full hundred years; when reaching eighty, he entered nirvāṇa, intending to leave twenty years of merit for later disciples to enjoy. Furthermore, making offerings and rendering service to the Buddha enables sentient beings to obtain immeasurable merit; this also means that sentient beings enjoy the Buddha's merit.

7.26

Question: "Earlier it was said that bodhisattvas do not receive; why now challenge whether the Buddha enjoys it? Furthermore, earlier 'receive' (shou) had the sense of grasping (qu), while now the doubt about 'receive' has the sense of using/enjoying (yong). Since the text and meaning differ, how does this form a doubt?"

7.27

Answer: "These are all instances of examining the cause through the fruit. If in the causal stage one does not receive and grasp, how could one enjoy it in the fruitional stage? If even in the fruitional stage one personally enjoys it, how could there be no receiving and grasping in the causal stage?"

7.28

Misunderstanding. The sūtra's intended meaning is: "If a person says, 'The Tathāgata comes by appearing, goes by entering cessation, or abides in the world,' they all fail to understand the meaning of what I have spoken."

7.29

"It is merit," and so forth: This is the responsive retribution of that uncontaminated merit, namely the immaculate fruit. Because in the fruit there are no physical forms, the treatise says: "In the Buddha-fruit there are no physical forms seen reciprocally." The treatise also says: "In the Buddha-fruit there are no separate forms or sounds; it is solely tathatā. Furthermore, only the wisdom of tathatā exists alone; hence there is no coming or going," and so forth.

7.30

From "In order to transform..." onward: Someone asks: "Since in the Buddha-fruit there are no separate forms, sounds, coming, going, and so forth, why appear to receive merit, so that sentient beings may enjoy it?" Therefore this explains its intention, stating that the maturity of sentient beings' faculties acts as the condition capable of evoking it. Through the Buddha's non-referential great compassion, for immeasurable kalpas his roots of goodness for benefiting others have perfumed the pure dharmadhātu to form wholesome habits, so that wherever there is an evocation there is a response, spontaneously and without intention. Just as the single moon does not descend and the hundred waters do not ascend, the power of compassionate roots of goodness is naturally like this. This is precisely the intention of severing doubt: If in the fruit there were an intention to enjoy, then in the cause there would also be an intention to receive and grasp; since in the fruit it is spontaneous, it sufficiently clarifies that in the cause there is no attachment.

7.31

Right view. The sūtra's interrogation means: For what reason is he called 'Tathāgata'? Since he is named 'coming', it also expresses his 'going'; why call it a misunderstanding? The explanation means: Because the true Buddha fundamentally has no coming or going.

7.32

From "The verse says..." onward indicates the difference between the real and the transformed. The Tathāgata is precisely the dharmakāya, fundamentally unmoving like empty space; therefore it is not like the transformation body coming and going in accordance with capacities. This is difference within non-difference.

7.33

From "Dayun..." onward is the explanation. This is analyzed in terms of the defilement or purity of the minds of those with the capacities, who consequently see the Buddha as having coming and going; this is called the transformation body. Coming from nowhere and going nowhere is unmoving; this is called the dharmakāya. Thus, the capacities see a Buddha coming and going, while the Buddha is truly unmoving, and so forth. That belongs to them; what has it to do with me? Here the water metaphor is briefly cited: sentient beings' minds are known [through this], the moon serves as a metaphor for the dharmakāya, the reflection serves as a metaphor for the transformation body, and clarity versus turbidity serve as metaphors for purity versus defilement. When the water is clear, the moon appears, yet the moon does not come; when the water is turbid, the moon is concealed, yet the moon does not go away. It is simply that the water has clarity and turbidity, not that the moon has rising and sinking. It is also thus in the Dharma: when the mind is pure, seeing the Buddha is not the Buddha coming; when the mind is defiled, not seeing is also not the Buddha going. It is simply sentient beings' defilement and purity, not the concealment and manifestation of the Buddhas.

7.34

"The culmination of understanding," and so forth: This means that when understanding reaches its culmination, the mind ceases; when the mind ceases, there is convergence. Since the essence of tathatā is fundamentally all-pervasive, it has no spatial location; this clarifies the real that is identical to the responsive.

7.35

From "When conditions arrive..." onward clarifies the responsive that is identical to the real. Its meaning is the same as in Dayun.

7.36

"Concealment and manifestation as the intention of severing doubt": The Buddhas fundamentally have no coming or going, but sentient beings falsely see going and coming; when there is not even an appearing Buddha, how could there be the matter of receiving merit?

7.37

Twenty-fifth: Here the text of the treatise does not separately recount the doubt, but in doctrinal meaning it must exist.

7.38

First, the section title is stated.

7.39

From "Based on the preceding..." onward points to where the doubt arises. This comes from three places: "Cannot through transformation..." and so forth is the twenty-second [doubt], because it would confound him with a cakravartin; "The dharmakāya has no coming or going..." and so forth is the twenty-fourth, because it is rebuked as a misunderstanding; "Based on preventing..." and so forth is the twenty-third.

7.40

"Not being lost," and so forth: Maitreya's verse says, "Attaining superior forbearance, it is not lost." The mutual opposition between oneness and difference poses an objection, and because of preserving and removing them, a doubt is formed.

7.41

From "This is in terms of..." onward anticipates and points to the intention of severing doubt. That [doubt] raises an objection based on the dual preservation of oneness and difference, whereas this [passage] resolves it based on the negation of both oneness and difference.

7.42

Refuting gross physical form. The sūtra's questions and answers, numerous or few, can be known from the text. The commentary has three parts: First, citing Vasubandhu in terms of severing doubt.

7.43

From "The verse says..." onward states [the text].

7.44

From "The treatise says..." onward is the explanation. In the one true dharmadhātu, quantities are extinguished; because it is neither one nor different, the Buddhas' realization of this is also neither one nor different. As for speaking of "abiding in a place," it is because neither of these two meanings can be clung to as an abiding place.

7.45

From "In order to show..." onward directly displays the intention of abiding. The intention is to use the realm as a metaphor for the true body, and the particles of dust as a metaphor for the transformation body. The dust arises from crushing the realm, and is therefore not different, serving as a metaphor for arising the response from the real. The dust is fine and the realm is gross, and they are therefore not one, serving as a metaphor for the real being true and the response being provisional.

7.46

From "Asaṅga..." onward is the second: refuting grasping at phenomena. This is a separate meaning, not the severing of doubt. The name-body (nāmakāya) refers to the four aggregates of feeling, and so forth; the form-body (rūpakāya) refers to the four great elements of earth, and so forth.

7.47

From "Within this..." onward, it refutes the form-body by means of fine dust, and refutes the name-body by means of non-perception; non-perception is precisely non-thinking. This section speaks of dust being extremely abundant, which is precisely the initial expedient.

7.48

From "Dayun..." onward is the third: showing the characteristics of the refutation. It clarifies the characteristics of the expedient. Because that which refutes is fine dust and that which is refuted is gross form, combining the refuting and the refuted forms the title of the heading.

7.49

From "These words..." onward differentiates the Mahāyāna from the Hīnayāna. The Mahāyāna employs contemplation, using conceptual imagination to give rise to the mental factor of wisdom, analyzing that physical form piece by piece down to the paramāṇu, which the heavenly eye of the two vehicles cannot see; this is the ultimate limit of fine division that cannot be further analyzed, called "extremely summarized form" (parama-saṃkṣepa-rūpa).

7.50

"Not like the Hīnayāna," and so forth: Because that school is confused about the principle of consciousness-only and does not comprehend that all phenomena are empty, it posits these micro-atoms as truly existing, and therefore speaks of accumulating micro-atoms to form a world. Hence the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: "Micro-atom, atom, iron, water, / Hare, sheep, ox, crack, city, / Louse, flea, barley, finger-joint, / Each subsequent one increases sevenfold," and so forth. Here this is eliminated; hence it says it is not real dust.

7.51

Refuting micro-atoms. The sūtra's intended meaning is: For what reason are micro-atoms spoken of? The explanation means: Because they have no real substance. The questioning also means: Why is it that micro-atoms are said to be empty, yet micro-atoms are spoken of—what does this mean? The explanation means: What the Buddha speaks of is not real micro-atoms; they are empty micro-atoms.

7.52

The commentary has two parts: First, explaining in terms of severing doubt.

7.53

From "The dust is crushed..." onward is the explanation by metaphor. Dust is crushing the world into particles; therefore the realm is gross and the dust is fine, which means they are not one.

7.54

"The dust gathering in assembly": Because the world is formed of many particles of dust, the dust and the realm are not different.

7.55

From "In this way..." onward matches the metaphor with the Dharma. That is to say, responding and manifesting in the ten directions means they are not one; identically relying on a single essence means they are not different. Furthermore, arising transformation based on the Dharma means they are not one; there being no transformation apart from the Dharma means they are not different.

7.56

From "Furthermore, if..." onward is the second: explaining in terms of refuting phenomena.

7.57

"It is also spoken in terms of metaphor and Dharma": If the transformation were real, it would not require the Buddha to speak of it; it is only because it is unreal and other people do not know it that the Buddha speaks of it.

7.58

From "Asaṅga..." onward cites proof that agrees with this.

7.59

Refuting the world. The sūtra's intended meaning is: Not only are the micro-atoms that arise empty micro-atoms, but the world that can give rise [to them] is also an empty world.

7.60

"The root treatise," and so forth: As explained in the subsequent text, the world of sentient beings is the realm of sentient beings. Because mental phenomena have no physical substance and cannot be broken down, they are refuted simply through the expedient of non-thinking: when thought of, they exist; when not thought of, they do not exist. Hence the Awakening of Faith says: "When the mind arises, phenomena arise; when the mind ceases, phenomena cease," and so forth.

7.61

Refuting the composite whole. The sūtra's interrogation means: For what reason is a world spoken of? The explanation means: If a world were real, it would be a composite whole. When the Buddha speaks of a composite whole, it is not a really existent composite whole; it is an empty and non-existent composite whole. In the commentary's text, it cites Vasubandhu's explanation.

7.62

From "The treatise says..." onward states [the text].

7.63

From "Dayun..." onward explains "blended combination": blending together to form a unity. A unity is a composite whole, and hence it is called a composite whole.

7.64

"The three thousand refutes oneness": Since it says "three thousand," it does not have the meaning of oneness; this generally clarifies that the five aggregates do not have the meaning of a composite whole.

7.65

From "Asaṅga..." onward is the second: citing Asaṅga's explanation. "Speaking of both," and so forth, clarifies both the sentient and the insentient realms.

7.66

From "Therefore there are..." onward provisionally marks the two kinds of grasping.

7.67

From "Dayun..." onward clearly demonstrates that both the sentient and the insentient are named "worlds." That is to say, the collection of dust particles is the vessel world, while sentient beings are the world of sentient beings.

7.68

Regarding "grasping as an aggregate into one" and so forth: this means that sentient beings and the environment are not divided, but taken as one world. This unified composite contains two kinds of grasping as an aggregate, because within the five aggregates physical form and mind are distinguished; originally, two were combined into one, but now the one is opened out to form two. However, "conjunction" (saṃghāta) and "grasping as an aggregate" (piṇḍa-grahaṇa) are fundamentally the same meaning, differing only between the Qin and Wei translations. "Grasping as an aggregate into one" refers to nominal designations (nāmakāya), because the meaning of the world of sentient beings is indivisible, having only a single meaning. "Differentiated grasping as an aggregate" refers to the vessel world, because a multitude of subtle particles gathers to form one world. Therefore, Asaṅga's commentary states: "The existence of the world of sentient beings is grasping as an aggregate into one; the existence of subtle particles is differentiated grasping as an aggregate, because neither of the two worlds has reality," and so forth. The Heart Sūtra says: "Therefore, in śūnyatā there is no form, no feeling, perception, mental formations, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas," and so forth.

7.69

The sūtra's phrase "is called a unified composite feature": this is explained as existing according to conventional truth, which is clearly shown in the subsequent text.

7.70

"Falsely grasping as existent": the sūtra's intent is that this unified composite feature has no real essence that can be stated, but ordinary beings merely give rise to false craving and attachment towards it.

7.71

Regarding "Because those..." and so forth: this explains the sūtra's "cannot be spoken of." Because the conjunction of the five aggregates lacks a real essence, thus when the world is reduced to subtle particles, there is no world to be grasped; when subtle particles are reduced to consciousness-only, there are no particles to be grasped; and when the four mental aggregates are separated from discursive thought, there is no mind to be grasped. Sentient beings grasp and cling entirely due to false discrimination. The Awakening of Faith says: "All realms exist in their differentiation solely depending on false thoughts." This clarifies the sūtra's text from "it is merely that ordinary beings..." onwards.

7.72

Regarding "If there were..." and so forth: this is an indirect demonstration. If the essence of the world were truly existent, it would not be called false discrimination, but should rather be right view. What is "spoken of according to worldly truth" is precisely the preceding "is called." The same commentary states: "Because they are gathered together, in the ultimate truth it cannot be spoken of," which is precisely the preceding "is not." Just as before, there is no object that can be grasped.

7.73

Regarding "a small child" and so forth: although worldly truth speaks of it, it is merely nominal existence; ordinary beings, being unperceptive, grasp it as real, just like a small child who grasps at things according to words. Seeing the five aggregates without comprehending the emptiness of dharmas is dharma-attachment. Grasping at conjunction without understanding the multiplicity of dharmas is self-attachment. Because neither attachment is eliminated, it is called "coveting and grasping at its affairs." Delusion regarding phenomenal things and dharmas is the cognitive obstacle. Afflictions are self-evident. Thus, based on the two attachments, the two obstacles arise.

7.74

"Refuting self and dharmas": previously, the objective spheres of cognitive condition for self and dharmas were refuted so as to make known their unreality; now, the mind of view that actively cognizes self and dharmas is refuted. The mind of view is that from which discrimination arises; it is refuted here to bring about the cessation of discrimination and entry into the noble path. Therefore, the verse says: "Not without the two is the path attained, / being far removed from self and dharmas."

7.75

"Rebuking erroneous understanding": the question-and-answer of the sūtra text are both readily understood. Merely not understanding does not necessarily mean misunderstanding.

7.76

"Dispelling attachment to words": the sūtra poses a question with the intent: by what meaning is it said not to be understood? The explanation's intent is: the Buddha speaks of the view of a self, a person, and so on, but it is not a real view of a self, a person, and so on; it is provisionally named the view of a self, a person, and so on, yet sentient beings do not understand and take it to be real. This is why the previous analytical rubric categorized it as an error.

7.77

Regarding "false" and so forth: because one views there to be a self, it is called "self-view"; because its essence is fundamentally non-existent, it is called "false." Being false and devoid of reality, it is fundamentally not a seeing at all—just as seeing a snake in place of a rope, how could that be real seeing?

7.78

Regarding "In accordance with the object..." and so forth: there are two meanings. First, taking tathatā as the object, because just like that tathatā, there is no discrimination. Second, taking self and dharmas as the object, because self and dharmas are fundamentally non-existent, known in accordance with what they are.

7.79

Regarding "How..." and so forth: this is a question.

7.80

Regarding "Like the non-Buddhists..." and so forth: this is the explanation.

7.81

Regarding "selflessness of persons" and so forth: within the one dharmadhātu, there is neither self nor non-self; now, in counteraction to the existence of a self, non-self is taught, provisionally spoken in conventional words, hence it is called "posited."

7.82

Regarding "selflessness of dharmas" and so forth: because a view is a mental and mental-factor dharma, grasping this view as existent is called dharma-attachment. Because mental dharmas are not real, it is said to be "posited." This passage's refutation of dharma-self is cited as a corollary, not as the primary intent.

7.83

Regarding "corresponding" and so forth: this means entering the stages (bhūmi) and realizing tathatā.

7.84

"Not discriminating": being free from the obstacle of discrimination.

7.85

Regarding "precisely this" and so forth: if self and dharmas remain, discrimination is endless; but once the two emptinesses are realized, there is naturally no discrimination. Precisely this contemplation of the two emptinesses serves as the skillful means for entering into principle.

7.86

"Eliminating discrimination": the sūtra's intent is that those who give rise to the bodhi-mind should thus know, see, believe, and resolve regarding all dharmas, without generating the characteristics of dharmas.

7.87

The sub-commentary has two parts: first, clarifying the basis of non-discrimination (two parts);

7.88

First, a general query regarding the three dharmas.

7.89

From "Asaṅga..." onwards, section by section, questions are raised using the sub-commentary and answered with the sūtra.

7.90

Regarding "What person?" and so forth: this is the sūtra's "those who give rise to the bodhi-mind."

7.91

Regarding "In regard to what dharmas?": this is the sūtra's "all dharmas."

7.92

Regarding "By what skillful means?": this is the sūtra's "should thus know, see, believe, and resolve."

7.93

From "This reveals..." onwards: second, individually explaining the third [dharma] (two parts);

7.94

First, a general presentation.

7.95

From "This reveals..." onwards: the higher mind is samādhi; higher wisdom is prajñā. Because they are the supreme and superior dharmas, they are called "higher" (adhimātra).

7.96

"Knowing, seeing, and resolute faith" are the states following samādhi and wisdom.

7.97

From "Among them..." onwards: second, individually explaining (two parts);

7.98

First, generally displaying the three meanings.

7.99

Regarding "Among them": it means among those three matters.

7.100

Regarding "If wisdom..." and so forth: this clarifies that the essence of these three is wisdom itself, but because the skillful means on which they rely differ, three names are established. Śamatha here means calm abiding; calm abiding is samādhi. When wisdom relies on this samādhi, it completely calms the myriad conditions, so that mind alone exists; thus it is called "knowing."

7.101

Regarding "Vipaś..." and so forth: vipaśyanā here means insight; insight is wisdom. Relying on this wisdom, one contemplates everything, investigating in detail with distinct clarity; thus it is called "seeing." These two are "knowing and seeing." Samādhi here means balanced holding; because samādhi and wisdom are in equal measure, it is called samādhi. Relying on this meaning, it is called "resolute faith" (adhimukti).

7.102

The phrase "relying upon": names are established according to meanings.

7.103

From "Because of samādhi..." onwards: second, further explaining the latter meaning.

7.104

"Mastery": because samādhi and wisdom are without obstruction.

7.105

Regarding "internally conditioning..." and so forth: since one has not yet realized the real, one merely conditions cognitive images, because the dharma of tathatā is free from mental conditioning. Now, having transformed the image to condition tathatā, it is only called resolute faith; from this, the fundamental correct wisdom can be induced, serving as the proximate skillful means within non-discrimination.

7.106

Therefore, from "How..." onwards: second, directly displaying the principle of non-discrimination. This is the commentary's explanation of the sūtra's "not generating the characteristics of dharmas." The first phrase raises the question, and the next phrase directly reveals it.

7.107

From "Dayun..." onwards: explaining the treatise in terms of spiritual stages.

7.108

Regarding "the previous skillful means..." and so forth: that is, knowing, seeing, and resolute faith; these correspond to the four stages of applied practice before the bhūmis.

7.109

"Now not discriminating" means not generating the characteristics of dharmas, which extends throughout the ten bhūmis and the Buddha stage. Although there are differences between complete and partial, all employ the fundamental non-discriminating wisdom to directly realize the principle of truth. As the Vijñaptimātratā Verse on the Path of Seeing says: "When regarding the cognitive object, / wisdom obtains nothing whatsoever, / at that time one abides in consciousness-only, / because of being free from the features of the two graspings."

7.110

"Revealing fundamental quiescence": the sūtra's intent is that the so-called characteristics of dharmas are not really existent characteristics of dharmas, but characteristics of dharmas that are fundamentally non-existent; "not shared" means non-characteristics of dharmas. Because the ultimate truth does not admit anything else, being free from intrinsic nature and free from characteristics, it is not a composite.

7.111

"Corresponding": this is what is called "characteristics of dharmas." Because the nature arises to become characteristics, they are not separate from the nature—just as previously, there are no vessels within gold that are separate from gold.

7.112

The twenty-sixth: the treatise text does not state here that it resolves a separate doubt, so the two commentaries outside of Yun [Zixuan] both subsumed it into the previous section for a combined commentary; yet an examination of the text indicates it should exist, and therefore it is opened out.

7.113

From "Due to hearing..." onwards: pointing out where the doubt arises. This comes from the twenty-fifth [doubt].

7.114

From "The intent is..." onwards: establishing the principle.

7.115

From "That is, the transformation body..." onwards: pointing to the lack of an essence for the transformation [body].

7.116

From "If so..." onwards: concluding the formulation of the doubt. The intent is: since the Buddha who explains is insubstantial, how could the teaching explained be real? If one upholds and explains an unreal teaching, how could there be merit?

7.117

"Merit": the comparison of merits in the sūtra text is easily understood. Asaṃkhya here means innumerable. "Those who give rise to the bodhisattva-mind" sets them apart from other persons.

7.118

From "The verse says..." onwards: presentation.

7.119

From "The treatise says..." onwards: explanation. First, it cites the doubt and concedes it.

7.120

From "Yet that..." onwards: refuting it based on principle.

7.121

From "Immeasurable..." onwards: excluding what is measurable and so forth. This then demonstrates threefold the superiority of upholding and explaining.

7.122

"Unstained": the sūtra poses a question with the intent: how does one expound it so as to obtain such merit? The explanatory text is clear. The previous statement about "those who give rise to the bodhisattva-mind" had its intent here; if one were not a bodhisattva, how could one do this?

7.123

From "Asaṅga..." onwards: first, adducing an explanation (two parts);

7.124

First, stating the sūtra's intent.

7.125

Since the mind that preaches the Dharma is, like that tathatā, free of discrimination, not grasping at the characteristics of speaker and spoken, the merit and benefit obtained are supreme; therefore it is expounded decisively.

7.126

"Unstained" means non-discrimination, non-grasping, and unmoving. This is precisely the intent of resolving the doubt. It means that everything the Buddha preaches is just like reality, and those who transmit it must also be like this. Since it accords with the Dharma, the merit is boundless; how could one doubt that upholding and preaching has no merit? Furthermore, as the verse says: "When the Buddhas preach the Dharma, / they do not say it is a transformation body; / because they do not preach in this manner, / therefore that preaching is correct." The intent is: if they said it was a transformation body, people would lack reverent minds; how would they be willing to believe and accept the Dharma preached? Because they do not say so, all people revere and honor it, and all uphold the teaching preached, so that untainted merit is naturally immeasurable, and so forth.

7.127

From "How..." onwards: second, analyzing the sūtra text.

7.128

"Inconceivable, etc.": this clarifies being free from the mark of speaking, not that one does not speak at all. Above it was said: "there is no Dharma to be spoken." The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states that neither preaching nor showing is called expounding the Dharma; thus the Wei translation says, "just as if not expounding."

7.129

"If differently, etc.": this explains the reverse. Because of grasping marks, there is vikalpa, which does not accord with tathatā. Since it does not accord with tathatā, it becomes inverted error.

7.130

"Moreover, when speaking, etc.": this clarifies non-defilement in terms of phenomena. The preceding was in terms of not tallying with principle; here it is in terms of not tallying with phenomena. Speaking the Dharma is originally for benefiting sentient beings; now, to do so for fame and gain—how could this not be defiled speaking?

7.131

"Dayun, etc.": second, citing Dayun's explanation. Mental activities of arising and ceasing involve grasping at marks with conceptual differentiation that attains something. Now, since one does not rely on them, one accords with tathatā; hence it is called "like tathatā" (ru-ru). The upper ru means resemblance; the lower ru is tathatā. Resembling tathatā, it is thus called ru-ru.

7.132

"Mind and object being thus": this means that both are tathatā, without any sense of resemblance.

7.133

"Then there is no defilement": this means that when the mind is stirred, an error occurs, which is immediately named "defilement." Therefore the treatise says: "Stirring immediately entails suffering; the fruit is not divorced from the cause." Thus even subtle thoughts are entirely called defilement, not necessarily greed and desire alone.

7.134

The Commentary on Section 27: first, presenting the heading.

7.135

"If all, etc.": pointing out where the doubt arises. This comes from [Section] 26. Because the transformation-body Tathāgata constantly expounds the Dharma, although there was no explicit text earlier, this meaning was present.

7.136

"Why, etc.": concluding into the doubt. Nirvāṇa is the meaning of unmoving asaṃskṛta. As the earlier text says: "If someone says that the Tathāgata comes, goes, sits, or lies down, they do not understand the meaning of what I say. The Tathāgata neither comes from anywhere nor goes anywhere; therefore he is called the Tathāgata." This, then, is the Buddha's entry into nirvāṇa. The point is: nirvāṇa is serene quietude, while preaching the Dharma is clamorous activity; activity and quietude are mutually opposed, so how can both coexist? The sūtra's interrogation means: by what principle does the Buddha constantly speak without obstructing nirvāṇa, as stated in the treatise? The commentary's explanation means: the constant Buddha possesses wondrous wisdom, contemplating all phenomena as empty like dreams, illusions, and the like; although manifesting the expounding of the Dharma resembling saṃskṛta marks, he eternally abides in the principle of non-action in nirvāṇa—what further doubt could there be? If one does not explain this as severing doubt outside of the treatise, this text merely faults defilement in preaching the Dharma. The interrogation means: by what principle, at the time of preaching the Dharma, does one not grasp at marks and succeed in tallying with tathatā, unmoving and undefiled? The explanation means: one merely contemplates all saṃskṛta marks as being like dreams, illusions, and the like; naturally, regarding speech, one neither grasps nor clings, tallying with tathatā without movement or vikalpa.

7.137

The text of the commentary has two parts: first, opening the heading and pointing to the text.

7.138

"The Wei edition, etc.": because both sūtras expound similes, of which that one is broad and this one is brief. Now it presents the broad to explain the concise below.

7.139

Second, distinguishing and explaining according to the headings, in three parts.

7.140

First, explaining the nine similes in the Wei edition in terms of the two treatises. There are two parts; as for the first text:

7.141

"The verse says, etc.": presenting [the verse].

7.142

"The treatise says, etc.": explaining it. First, explaining the first two lines: because the true and the transformation bodies are not one, it is not saṃskṛta; because the true and the transformation bodies are not different, it is not separate from the saṃskṛta.

7.143

"Saying 'all Buddhas'": this excludes the Hīnayāna nirvāṇa of unilateral quiet extinction; the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa operates both compassion and wisdom, and is called non-abiding [nirvāṇa].

7.144

"Why, etc.": following upon the preceding to raise the interrogation and explain the latter two lines; the sense of the interrogation can be understood.

7.145

"Due to wondrous wisdom, etc.": wondrous wisdom excludes the coarse wisdom of the two vehicles; correct contemplation excludes the inverted views of ordinary beings. Since one uses wondrous wisdom to correctly contemplate saṃskṛta phenomena as like dreams, illusions, and the like, one engages with existence without abiding in existence, and contemplates emptiness without abiding in emptiness; operating yet ever serene, serene yet ever operating, thus all day expounding the Dharma and all day in nirvāṇa. As the Huayan Commentary says: "Serenely still in the realm of the ten thousand transformations; dynamically active within the singular void." Thus one knows that if one does not engage with existence, how could it be called Mahāyāna nirvāṇa? If one does not realize tathatā, how could it be called undefiled preaching of the Dharma? Although the words seem opposed, the meaning is concordant. Subhūti raised his doubt on the basis of extreme contrariety; the Tathāgata provided an overarching explanation on the basis of extreme conformity. The principle is truly profound and wondrous, illuminating this final passage.

7.146

Second, "incorporating Asaṅga, etc.": first, pointing out the treatise's division of the text.

7.147

"This verse": the text of the Wei sūtra.

7.148

"Four saṃskṛta [phenomena]": namely, the four below, beginning with own-nature.

7.149

"First, own-nature, etc.": second, directly explaining according to the text, in four parts. The first text has two parts:

7.150

First, explaining the heading's meaning.

7.151

"This perception, etc.": this means that the perceiving aspect and the perceived aspect have the self-authenticating aspect as their essence. However, these three phenomena are the own-nature of saṃsāra, from which all saṃsāra arises; therefore, these three are called the root, and this applies generally to the eight consciousnesses.

7.152

"1. Star, etc.": second, individually explaining the text, in three parts.

7.153

In the first text, "perceiving aspect": it refers to the sixth consciousness. Conceptualizing and differentiating, it takes the object of common characteristics as its condition; all worldly wisdom is contained within it, so the light of a star is used to compare with this consciousness. This is in terms of strong grasping and conceptualization, so it uniquely points to the sixth, though it is not that it does not apply to all eight.

7.154

"Lacking wisdom, etc.": here phenomena and similes are combined, and the text remains somewhat abbreviated. If fully matched, there are four pairs of phenomena and similes: using the sun to symbolize wisdom, the stars to symbolize consciousness, light to symbolize awakening, and darkness to symbolize delusion. As in the simile, the meaning is that in the darkness without the sun there is starlight, whereas in the light with the sun there is no starlight; in the phenomena, in the delusion without wisdom there is the functioning of consciousness, whereas in the awakening with wisdom there is no vikalpa. It is like a dark night when the sunlight is gone, and only the stars remain to vaguely discern north from south; as soon as the bright sun appears, the starlight naturally ceases to remain visible. In the Dharma it is also thus: in the delusion of saṃsāra, when innate wisdom has not yet appeared, the differentiation of mental consciousness seems to possess discernment; if wisdom is displayed and radiant light shines everywhere, differentiated thoughts vanish without remainder.

7.155

"Lacking that light": this is in terms of a partial simile. In the simile, the starlight is absent in both cases, yet the substance of the stars is not absent; in the Dharma, it is fused into a single wisdom, without any separate conscious mind.

7.156

In the second, "like an eye, etc.": the meaning is: if cataracts are on the eye, one sees hair-nets; if clinging is in the mind, one sees actual self and dharmas. If properly matching the Dharma to the simile: the cataract symbolizes the seventh consciousness, and the hair-nets and the like symbolize the perceived aspect. Now, stating that the cataract symbolizes the perceived aspect has three meanings: 1. Implicitly matching the seventh consciousness—meaning that if one only took the hair-nets, they would only symbolize what is perceived, leaving the seventh mental consciousness with no ground to be subsumed; thus this implicit matching leaves nothing out. 2. Mutual reciprocal implication—since the simile above cites the active agent while the Dharma speaks of the object, it naturally implies the other, subsuming the remainder. 3. Displaying that the hairs and moon have no real essence—although the intention lies in the object, it now instead cites the agent to display that what arises from the agent is well known to lack essence.

7.157

"Through inverted seeing": giving the reason for lacking essence. Seeing existence where there is none is called inverted; grasping what is meaningless is because it exists conceptually but lacks in principle.

7.158

In the third, the lamp symbolizing consciousness: although in principle it applies generally, in sense it corresponds to the first five [consciousnesses], since the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses are each assigned elsewhere.

7.159

"The lamp in terms of, etc.": using oil to symbolize craving and the lamp to symbolize consciousness: if there is no oil, the lamp's light does not arise; if there is no craving, conscious thoughts do not arise. Therefore the treatise says: "Abiding dependent on the dharma of craving." However, these three similes above are all the root of defilement that can perfume; hence they are generally named the mark of own-nature. The perfumed eighth consciousness, which holds seeds and induces the mind, is matched to the cloud simile as explained below. Alternatively, the star symbolizes the perceiving aspect, the hair-moon seen by the cataract eye symbolizes the perceived aspect, and the lamp symbolizes the self-authenticating aspect—the self-authenticating aspect being the eighth consciousness. The later cloud simile merely compares the seeds within consciousness as future dharmas.

7.160

"Tasting what one abides in": that is, tasting and clinging to what one abides in.

7.161

"The illusion simile, etc.": explained in terms of the illusory objects. Like tying a cloth into a rabbit, or tying grass into a horse, up to manifesting all kinds of realms.

7.162

"Because the receptacle, etc.": the dharmas symbolized. The realms of the six dusts are not singular; hence it says "all kinds."

7.163

"Asaṅga, etc.": harmonizing and explaining the outline. The meaning of Dayun's explanation can be known. If the consciousness that transforms is itself not real, how could the objects transformed possess substance? Thus the Awakening of Faith says: "All realms exist in distinction only relying on false thoughts; if free from mind-thoughts, then there are no marks of any realms."

7.164

"3. Following, etc.": two parts. First, explaining the heading's meaning.

7.165

"One's own body, etc.": clarifies that the body and sensation are themselves faults in their very essence.

7.166

"Contemplating this, etc.": according with transcendence. Another explanation: clinging to body and sensation accords with faults. That is, grasping the body as permanent and grasping sensation as pleasure is inversion; inversion is fault.

7.167

"First, dew, etc.": second, directly explaining the text, in two parts. The first: a short time.

7.168

Abiding is like dew on grass, which dries up as soon as the sun rises; sentient beings' false bodies are also like this. However, there are three meanings: 1. Life spans vary in length, for some die immediately after birth. 2. Compared to the higher realms, the time is extremely brief. 3. Moment-by-moment transition, arising and immediately perishing. Because of these three meanings, it says "a short time."

7.169

In the second, "affairs of experiential enjoyment": sensation can receive; this reception is the function of sensation, and this experiential enjoyment is termed "affairs."

7.170

"Sensation, perception, etc.": the cause is contact, because it is the cause of sensation; perception can assist sensation. The Abhidharmakośa says: "Sensation is like food; perception is like seasoning."

7.171

"Three dharmas are indeterminate": there are three explanations: 1. The three sensations of suffering, pleasure, and equanimity are indeterminate. 2. Sensation and perception are indeterminate due to three dharmas, the three dharmas being the three realms of discordant, concordant, etc. 3. Sensation, perception, and contact form the three, and all three are indeterminate, because when one is indeterminate the others are all indeterminate. However, although this mentions perception and contact, the intention is to clarify sensation: just as when wind and water meet, bubbles arise, when contact and perception combine, sensation arises; therefore bubbles symbolize sensation. Thus Dayun says: "Bubbles on water appear and disappear indeterminately; sensations in the mind—suffering and pleasure—are inconstant."

7.172

"The essence of suffering, etc.": sensation is the essence of suffering. Suffering refers to the three sufferings. Within that suffering body, because suffering arises, it is the suffering of suffering; destruction is the suffering of change; non-separation is the suffering of conditioned existence. Following objects and dwelling in emotion, one falsely gives rise to ideas of pleasure; hence it is called 'according.'"}, {

7.173

From "Guṇaprabha" below: this intends to explain lifespan, which differs from the previous meaning. The metaphor may be understood accordingly.

7.174

"In the dharma [signified], from its first arising, etc.": taking hold of the aggregates in the womb is called "birth"; those whose form and body are not yet completed may already die. "Just born" means dying immediately upon birth. "Temporarily abiding": five years, ten years, or up to a hundred years are all generally called "temporarily abiding." As seen by the first heaven, fifty years in the human world is merely like a single day and night; how much more so to the noble wisdom! Thus the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra says: "Some die in the womb; some have their lives end as soon as they are born; some perish as soon as they can walk; some die suddenly as soon as they can run. Although they differ in longevity, all return to the place of death." Hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "This body is false and deceptive; though provisionally sustained with bathing, clothing, and food, it must inevitably return to destruction."

7.175

The fourth [section], from "Accordance" below, has three parts. First, explaining the purpose of the section.

7.176

"According with persons and dharmas, etc.": the true wisdom of the twofold emptiness can transcend the two kinds of death; investigating with upāya is called "according."

7.177

Second, directly explaining the text, in three parts.

7.178

First, "like a dream": it is the roaming of a person's consciousness. Because what was done, seen, and heard in the past are all objects of memory, they are not different from dreams of the past night. When recollecting them, one can speak of them, yet grasp them and they cannot be seen. As a sūtra says: "Like an awake person speaking of matters in a dream," even if the mind is extraordinarily clear, by what cause or condition could one take hold of an object in a dream?

7.179

"Merely of the nature of memory": because they have memory as their nature, when one remembers them, they seem to exist; when one does not remember them, they are entirely absent.

7.180

"Contemplating, etc.": this means that perfumed by the sensory realms seen and heard during the day, one vividly sees them again in dreams; although there is no person creating them, the sensory realms clearly appear before one.

7.181

From "in this way" onward is the application to phenomena. Perfumed by past karmic causes, one brings about present retribution; although there is no person who acts, one does not escape the cycle of birth and death. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "There is no self, no actor, and no experiencer, yet wholesome and unwholesome karmas are not lost." When one awakens from a dream, what was seen in the dream is completely nonexistent; when one has awakened from delusion, all traces of the cycle of birth and death are cut off. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: "One should contemplate all phenomena recalled from the past as fleeting like a dream."

First 181 of 234 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

金剛經纂要刊定記 — Classical Chinese