法華玄義釋籤 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Expounded by the Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhanran

Next is the specific explanation, which has two parts: first, concluding the enumeration and indicating the marvelous; next, correctly explaining the marvelous. In the first text, “three coarse and one marvelous” is spoken merely by contrasting the solely coarse with the uniquely marvelous; the coarse and marvelous are intermingled in the other three flavors, and so are omitted without discussion for now, but will be listed fully in the text below. In this, there are two: first, concluding the enumeration; next, from “If one refutes...” downward, indicating the marvelous. In the first text, where it says “origin and traces” and so forth: origin and traces each have ten, which are fully listed in the text. As for the ten of contemplation of the mind, they are all appended to the end of the various texts, sometimes preserved and sometimes omitted, without forming a separate chapter. Since the contemplation of the mind is appended beneath the various texts, now we merely rely on the two gates of traces and origin, each possessing ten marvelousnesses, their meanings each subsuming the mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings. Now, first, regarding the ten marvelousnesses of the trace gate, there are two parts: first, listing; next, explaining. As for the explanation having five parts: the first says that broadly explaining the five chapters broadly arouses the five minds in each case. Therefore, now in explaining the names of the ten marvelousnesses of the traces, they correspond to the preceding seven turns to establish the five minds, lacking only opening and combining, while the contemplation of the mind and so forth are scattered throughout the various texts. Thus, now stating the headings arouses mindfulness; citing proofs arouses faith; sequential arising arouses concentration; all the more so, below the various marvelousnesses it is the same everywhere; and together with contemplating the mind, it arouses vigor, and opening and combining arouses wisdom: the five minds are complete. Therefore, listing five turns again: the intention lies in this.

5.3

First, regarding the stating of the headings: it is not merely stating the ten names directly, but also concurrently stating each and every sub-rubric within the headings, such as fully stating six under the objects, listing twenty under wisdom, and so forth, as can be known by examining the text. As for the explanation, one must briefly state the general outline of the textual features of the various rubrics; surveying what follows to examine what is present, it can also be seen in rough outline. Down to each and every marvelousness, all are first listed completely, and at the end their intention is stated, as in the marvelousness of objects saying “the object is that which is taken as teacher,” wisdom saying “guiding practice,” and so forth, which can be understood by investigating it. In stating the sympathetic resonance: water is a metaphor for the stimulus (resonance), the moon is a metaphor for the response, and neither ascending nor descending, the stimulus and response interact via the path. In spiritual powers: the retributive attainment is among gods, the cultivated attainment is like immortals, directed intention is in the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], embodying phenomena is in the Shared [Teaching], non-deliberate activity is in the Separate [Teaching], and the Perfect [Teaching] is at the first bhūmi or first stage of abiding. Regarding the remote and near: Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū is called remote, and what comes thereafter is called near.

5.4

Second, in citing proofs: first, it indicates the locus; next, it correctly cites the proofs. In the objects, the statement “the gate of wisdom” means the gate of the house of wisdom, namely that principle serves as the gate. Among the three dharmas, it provisionally points to the essence of the vehicle as the true nature. In the response, “I” is the response, and sentient beings should be considered as the stimulus. The Buddha eye [observing] the six destinies and so forth can be seen upon reflection. In the spiritual powers, among the six auspicious signs, it provisionally adduces entering into samādhi.

5.5

Third, in the sequential arising, there are two: first, the correct sequential arising; next, from “The preceding five...” downward, it concludes and establishes. Personal practice and converting others each have a beginning and an end; hence we know that the mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings all possess this intention. Next, in the correct explanation, the ten texts are different. First, in explaining the objects: first, listing the headings; next, listing the numbers; next, the intention of the numbers; next, the sequential arising; and afterward, the broad explanation. In the sequential arising: first, the correct sequential arising; next, from “Beginning from...” downward, concluding and indicating: “Beginning from ignorance” is the beginning of the twelve causal conditions. “The reality limit” is the one truth. In the first correct sequential arising, where it says “The initial ten thus-aspects are spoken by this sūtra,” this is the object of the true aspect of the present sūtra, and is also the text of the three marvelousnesses of an entire work. Next, regarding the object of causes and conditions: although it adduces the arising and perishing causes and conditions of the three periods of time, the three kinds below take the three periods of time as their basis. Next, regarding the four truths: demonstrating their cause and effect causes the cultivation of the path and cessation; had the Buddha not appeared in the world, how would this name be known? Suffering and accumulation are conventional, while the path and cessation are ultimate; the rest of the text can be seen.

5.6

Next, in directly explaining conditioned origination, there are naturally four sections. First, the four sections are listed. Next is the explanation. In the explanation, [the text] first presents both the two kinds within the realm and the two kinds beyond the realm to determine the faculties and natures [of practitioners], and next explains them. In the explanation there are three parts: first, [the text] re-establishes the two faculties, sharp and dull, within the realm; second, it quotes treatises; third, it explains. In the explanation there are two parts: first, exclusions; next, the direct explanation. In the exclusions, regarding "Maheśvara," all non-Buddhists revere the three ṛṣis and two devas, as [noted] in the record on the tenth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Regarding "primordial nature" (prakṛti), it posits twenty-five truths, as [noted] in the record on the tenth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Regarding "atomic particles," it posits that [things] are formed by the combination of numerous particles, because outsiders do not understand the conditions of karmic power. From "This precisely..." onward is the direct explanation, within which there are two parts: first, the direct explanation; next, the critical distinctions. In the first part, the direct explanation, there are four points: first, it briefly establishes [the premise]; second, it cites testimonies; third, faults; fourth, it explains the names. As for the first passage: because it is known to be produced by ignorance, it differs from non-Buddhist assertions. In the second part, citing testimonies, there are three points: first, citing [the text]; next, explaining; third, concluding. In the first passage, regarding "it is not Maheśvara," among the various heterodox assertions [the text] temporarily cites the first assertion. Next, from "ignorance..." downward is the explanation. From "It should be known..." downward is the conclusion. Third, from "human and heavenly..." downward clarifies faults, which also has two parts: first, pointing out the fault; next, citing the text of the Yingluo [jing] as testimony. When it says, "The sūtra also calls it..." and so forth, it means that having arisen, [things] arise again, arising and arising without cease; hence it says "the twelve are linked together" and so forth. From "These twelve..." downward explains the names: "constantly new" simply means continuous arising moment by moment. Next, in the critical distinctions, regarding the statement "in the Yingluo [jing], conditionality of ignorance causes formations to generate twelve, thus making one hundred and twenty links": based on the explanation of the twelve links of conditioned origination in the fourth fascicle of that sūtra, it says that from ignorance conditioning formations, twelve links are immediately produced, and so on up to being conditioning birth, aging, and death immediately producing twelve; since the two future links are stated together, then starting from ignorance down to aging and death there are eleven iterations; these eleven iterations are merely ten intervals, and each of them produces twelve links, so the ten intervals have one hundred and twenty. If based on the present text, it would become one hundred and thirty-two links, because it expands birth and death into two iterations. Although the expansion and contraction differ, the general meaning is not distinct; although the present text expands birth and death, in concluding the count it follows the sūtra, and for this reason only says "one hundred and twenty." Regarding "the first is delusion" and so forth: since the twelve links have ignorance as their root, and each one further possesses the twelve links, one should know that each link possesses ignorance up to aging and death. Regarding "conditioned arising (pratītyasamutpāda) and conditioned origination (pratītyasamutpanna)": this is first a question. From "these are identically..." onward is the answer. In the "Miscellaneous Chapter" of the Vibhāṣā, it asks: "What is the difference between pratītyasamutpāda and pratītyasamutpanna?" That text answers: "Some say there is no difference. Why? As the *Karaṇa-sūtra* says: all dharmas of conditioned arising are conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma). Why conditioned origination? All conditioned origination is also conditioned dharmas." The present text abridges this to: "Because they are identically conditioned dharmas." Going on to "there is also a difference," that treatise says, "However, there is also a difference." Thus, some say: "Cause is conditioned arising; result is conditioned origination." Just as with the meaning of cause and effect, so too are matter and what is acted upon, characteristic and what is characterized, accomplishment and what is accomplished, succession and what is succeeded, arising and what is arisen, grasping and what is grasped; matter is like cause, what is acted upon is like result, and so on up to grasping being like this. (In the treatise, it first merely mentions cause and effect, and next unpacks the correlation into two causes and two effects.) Furthermore, some say: "The past is conditioned arising; the present is conditioned origination" (it does not mention the future). Furthermore, some say: "The present is conditioned arising; the future is conditioned origination" (it does not mention the past). The present text omits these two explanations. Furthermore, some say: "Ignorance is conditioned arising"—this is precisely the second explanation in the present text. Furthermore, some say: "Ignorance is conditioned arising, aging and death are conditioned origination, and the ten links are both conditioned arising and conditioned origination" (the present text lacks this explanation). Furthermore, the venerable Pūrṇayaśas says that it should be formulated into four propositions (fully present in the current text). In the four propositions, regarding the first proposition taking the future result links as conditioned arising and so forth: it means cause can give rise to result, but result does not produce cause. Regarding taking the past as conditioned origination and so forth: cause can produce result, but result does not give rise to cause, so the arhat's fruit does not again give rise to a cause. The third proposition means that, setting aside the characteristics of the preceding two propositions, it takes past and present results and the present five links of other ordinary people, and so forth. These are the differing explanations of various masters in the treatise text; there is no need to reconcile them. Next, citing the explanation of the Dharmakāya-sūtra, it agrees with the text of the treatise: cause is conditioned arising, which is ignorance; what is produced from cause is formations. Combination means the completion of binding karma; what is produced from combination refers to consciousness and so forth; from craving and grasping up to aging and death, it is also like this. Regarding the "middle way," it is simply leaving behind annihilation and permanence. The treatise text also says, "Furthermore, arising and what is arisen," and so forth, as before. Next, in inferring across the three periods of time, regarding "the three periods of time all possess twelve": inferring the result from knowing the cause and so forth is as currently explained. As to the three periods of time all being called cause and effect while the number of links differs, it is fully stated in the Kośa: "Abridging the result and abridging the cause, from the middle the two can be inferred," as [noted] in the record on the third fascicle of the Zhiguan. Since the present, viewed in relation to past and future, constitutes twelve, one should know that past and future, also viewed in relation to each other, each possess their own past and future, and therefore each have twelve; here it temporarily follows the present, and thus there are only twelve. Next, in explaining "the mental consciousness and its retinue during the twelve periods," it refers to the three aggregates. The treatise text states: "It is also asked: 'How does one possess the above three feelings?' Answer: 'The three feelings can all serve as conditions for craving. How so? There are five kinds of craving: first, craving seeking pleasant feeling, which arises because one wishes unarisen pleasant feeling to arise; second, craving not wishing to separate from pleasure, which arises because one does not wish to separate from arisen pleasant feeling; third, craving for unpleasantness not to arise, which arises because one wishes unarisen unpleasant feeling not to arise; fourth, craving wishing to quickly separate from unpleasantness, which arises because one wishes arisen unpleasant feeling to quickly cease; fifth, deluded craving, which arises because one wishes unarisen neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling not to arise, and wishes arisen [feeling] not to be lost. For these reasons, the three feelings condition craving.' Question: 'What is the difference between craving and grasping?' Answer: 'The increase and expansion of craving is called grasping.' Furthermore, some say: 'The lesser is called craving; the superior is called grasping.' Furthermore, some say: 'If craving can give rise to afflictions, this is called feeling conditioning craving; if craving can give rise to karma, this is called grasping.'" Next, in explaining "a single moment (kṣaṇa)," the Kośa also says: "Of the four [types of conditioned origination] such as continuous connection, a single moment is one of them." This is fully as [noted] in the record on the seventh fascicle of the Zhiguan.

5.7

Next, in the questions and answers of critical distinction: The treatise "also asks: 'Why is illness not established as a link?' Answer: (fully present in the current text) Even among sentient beings of the desire realm there are those like Vakkula, not to mention the form and formless realms; hence illness is not made a link. By analogy, old age also is not universally and constantly present, yet it is established as a link. Question: 'Are grief and lamentation links or not?' Answer: 'To reveal the beginning by the end: the beginning refers to aging and death, and the end refers to grief and lamentation. Because one sees grief and lamentation, there must be aging and death; since grief and lamentation are suffering, aging and death are inevitably suffering. It also says that dharmas such as grief and lamentation disperse and ruin the links of existence, like frost and hail; for this reason they are not links.'" The treatise "also asks: 'Among the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena, why is the characteristic of arising alone a single link, while the two dharmas of aging and death together form a single link?' The venerable Pārśva said: 'The Buddha knows the characteristics of dharmas, and no one can surpass him.' Furthermore, some say: 'Arising can cause dharmas to be established, whereas aging and death cause dharmas not to be established.' Furthermore, some say: 'When dharmas arise, the power of arising is superior; when dharmas cease, the power of aging and death is superior.'" The treatise "also asks: 'Does ignorance have a cause or not?' (fully present in the current text). 'If it has, why not establish a thirteenth and fourteenth link? If it has not, is ignorance not causeless, and is aging and death not without result?' Answer: 'One should state it thus: ignorance has a cause, and aging and death have a result, but they are not included within the links of existence. How so?' (the rest is as in the current text). Furthermore, some say: 'Ignorance having a cause refers to aging and death,' and so forth." As in the text. That passage of critical distinction also explains the twelve conditions according to increasing numbers: "It should be known that there is one kind of dharma of conditioned arising, namely all conditioned dharmas. There are two kinds of dharmas of conditioned arising, namely cause and effect. There are three kinds of dharmas of conditioned arising, namely afflictions, karma, and suffering. There are four kinds of dharmas of conditioned arising, namely ignorance, formations, birth, and aging-and-death, because the present eight links are subsumed within the past and future. There are also five kinds of dharmas of conditioned arising, namely craving, grasping, existence, birth, and aging-and-death, because the past and present seven links are subsumed within the present and future. There are six kinds of dharmas of conditioned arising, namely two each for the three periods of time, which refers to cause and effect." There are seven kinds up to eleven, which are not listed in the text, pointing to other sūtras. The increasing numbers up to fourteen in the Great Sūtra are identical in text to the Vibhāṣā.

5.8

The next passage again makes critical distinctions. Question: "Of these twelve links, how many belong to the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm?" Answer: "Some say only the womb-born of the desire realm fully possess the twelve; some say the desire realm has twelve, the form realm eleven, and the formless realm ten. For the form realm, it should be said that consciousness conditions the six sense bases; for the formless, it should be said that consciousness conditions contact. The arbiter says: one should state it thus: all three realms possess twelve." It is also asked: "As in the form realm and formless realm there is no name-and-form, how do they possess the twelve?" Answer: "When sentient beings are first born into the form realm, their sense faculties are not yet sharp and keen, which is termed name-and-form; although the formless realm has no form, it has name, hence it is said that although it has no physical faculties, it has the mental faculty. One should state it thus: consciousness conditions name, name conditions the mental sense base, the mental sense base conditions contact; because of this meaning, all [three realms] have twelve." Furthermore, in the Vibhāṣā, the Vibhajyavādins say that the formless has form, whereas Yuktadeva says the formless has no form; which is correct? Answer: "The Buddha's sūtra says that name-and-form conditions consciousness, so it should also have form. Furthermore, other sūtras say that the three—life-span, warmth, and consciousness—always accompany one another; since the formless has life-span and consciousness, how could it lack warmth? Furthermore, other monks say that apart from the four aggregates, to say that consciousness undergoes going and coming, birth and death, should not be so; for instance, if one is born from the desire realm into the formless realm, and after cutting off form for twenty, forty, sixty, or eighty thousand kalpas is later born back into the desire realm and again generates form, then entering the realm of remainderless [nirvāṇa] it would continue in succession with formations again; wishing to be free of this fault, they state that the formless has form." Regarding "having no form," on what sūtra does this rely? Answer: "The sūtra says: 'Liberated and serene, transcending form and entering the formless'; hence we know there is no form. It also says: 'Form is free from desire, formlessness is free from everything, entering nirvāṇa'; hence we know there is no form. How are these two reconciled? Which is superior?" Answer: "The statement that there is none is superior." "If so, how is the statement that there is [form] reconciled?" Answer: "Because it is non-definitive meaning." Question: "How are the cited sūtras reconciled?" Answer: "The desire [realm] has name-and-form, while the formless lacks it. The desire [realm] has the three dharmas accompanying it, while the formless lacks them. In the treatise on the continuation of form, there is a fourfold distinction: the formless continues form, form continues the formless, and the remaining two propositions are evident; hence we know there is no error." The treatise also uses the metaphor of a tree: "The two past links are the roots, the five present links are the trunk, the three present links are the flowers, and the two future links are the fruits. Having flowers and fruits refers to ordinary persons; having no flowers but having fruits refers to trainees (śaikṣa); having neither flowers nor fruits refers to those beyond training (aśaikṣa)."

5.9

Under [the twelve links of] non-arising there are six [parts]: first, setting forth the intent; second, setting forth the faculties; third, the correct explanation; fourth, citing scriptural testimony; fifth, adducing an analogy; sixth, concluding with the name. To summarize it, it is simply the four propositions refuting provisional appearances and the two kinds of emptiness—nature and characteristic; thus it receives the name 'illusion and transformation being identical to emptiness.' The first five parts of the text are easy to see. In the conclusion, the analogy comes first, followed by the application. The statement in the analogy, 'like a vine [mistaken for] a snake,' can also illustrate what is fundamentally inherent in the perfect gate; here it is used generally to illustrate non-arising. The distinction can be known.

5.10

Third, under [the twelve links of] inconceivable arising and ceasing, there are five [parts]: likewise, first setting forth the intent; second, from 'for the sharp-rooted' onward, generally setting forth both faculties; third, the correct explanation; fourth, from 'the treatises' onward, the cognitive characteristics; fifth, concluding with the name. The first two are easy to see. In the third, the correct explanation, there are two parts: first citing the sūtras, and next explaining the intent of the sūtras. In the fourth, the cognitive characteristics, there are three parts: first, recounting the views on nature, briefly stating two views, while the remaining two can be known. Saying 'never perishing' and so forth means that it has existed from beginningless time and has never been severed; thus it is called 'never perishing.' Because it is neither of a good nor of an evil nature, it is called 'indeterminate.' It stores seeds and produces everything. Next, from 'if one determinately [grasps]' onward, there is a brief rebuke of the fault of [positing an inherent] nature, which again has two parts: first, a brief rebuke, and next, drawing out the characteristics of the fault by comparison. The opening words, 'if one determinately grasps that the nature is real,' refer to conceiving the ālaya[vijñāna] as true, which is self-nature, or conceiving it as ignorance, which is other-nature. Determinately conceiving that self or other can produce all phenomena implies that phenomena have a beginning. Having a beginning, it is identical to the primordial darkness [of the Sāṃkhyas], and thus does not go beyond the twenty-five truths. One should know that this conception does not exceed what is refuted by the Tripiṭaka [Teaching]; how could it ever establish the causes and conditions of the Separate Teaching? Next, from 'it does not even' onward, the fault is brought out by comparison, which is easy to see. Third, from 'now to clarify' onward, the correct cognitive characteristics are established, which again has two parts: first, refuting one's own false conceptions; second, from 'if there is' onward, the four explanations for others. The first passage investigates ignorance via the four propositions, just like seeking a dream through the four propositions, fully as in the fifth fascicle of the *Zhiguan*; the intent there lies in the perfect [teaching], whereas here the text lies in the separate [teaching]. Next, in the part for others, there are three parts: doctrine, analogy, and application. In the application, there are two parts: first, general; next, from 'transcending the realms' onward, distinguishing the specific characteristics, which again has two parts: first, within the realms, and next, beyond the realms. This meaning of within and beyond the realms extends through the four types; therefore it says 'within the realms is as before,' which refers to the preceding two types. The preceding two types having been indicated, it next brings out [those] beyond the realms, within which there are two parts: first, a brief indication; next, citing the treatise to explain the characteristics, which again has two parts: first, citing the text of the treatise; next, from 'conditions refer to' onward, explaining the text of that treatise to complete the present meaning. The treatise lists four hindrances, and the present text fully explains their correspondences. Within this there are two parts: first, the correct explanation; next, the faults and calamities. In the first, the correct explanation, there are two parts: first, a brief explanation; next, from 'just as' onward, distinguishing similarities and differences with [those] within the realms. In the first part, the phrase 'three kinds of mind-made bodies' is as noted in the third fascicle of the *Zhiguan*. Next, in distinguishing similarities and differences, there are two parts: first, clarifying that their characteristics are the same; next, from 'these twelve' onward, clarifying that their meanings are different. Next, from 'that treatise' onward, clarifying the faults: because these twelve links hinder the four virtues, and because of lacking the four virtues, one cannot enter the unobstructed land. Fifth, from 'this is' onward, concluding with the name, which can be known.

5.11

In clarifying the perfect twelve links, there are four [parts]: first, setting forth the faculties; next, from 'identical to phenomena' onward, setting forth the intent; third, citing scriptural testimony; fourth, concluding with the name. The first two are as in the text. In citing scriptural testimony, there are three parts: first, citing; next, from 'ignorance' onward, explaining; third, from 'therefore it is said that ignorance' onward, concluding. As for the first, 'In the *Great Sūtra*, the twelve links of dependent origination are named the Buddha-nature': Buddha-nature is simply the three causes. 'Identical to the Middle Way': the twenty-fifth fascicle states, 'Good son! The fundamental boundaries of saṃsāra are generally of two kinds: first, ignorance; second, craving for existence. In between these two there are the sufferings of birth, old age, sickness, and death. This is called the Middle Way. Such a Middle Way can destroy saṃsāra; therefore it is called the Middle Way.' By this meaning, the dharma of the Middle Way is named Buddha-nature.

5.12

Zhang'an explains: In between there are only consciousness and the rest; why does it speak of old age and death?

5.13

Answer:

5.14

The lower text says: 'Consciousness in the present world is called birth in the future; the six sense spheres and so forth in the present are called old age and death in the future.'

5.15

Furthermore, the three virtues and three contemplations are paired with the three paths. Also, as in the *Ratnakaraṇḍa-sūtra*, when explaining the twelve links, each and every one elucidates the meaning of the three contemplations. In its 'Chapter on Coming and Going': 'Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha: What is the meaning of coming and going? The Buddha said: Coming means approaching; going means turning away. Neither coming nor going is the realm of noble practice. Delusion is the meaning of going; non-delusion is the meaning of coming; neither delusion nor non-delusion is the realm of noble practice. It is likewise up through old age and death. Furthermore, it is explained in this way in terms of self, non-self, permanent, impermanent, and so forth.' One should know that approaching is saṃsāra, turning away is nirvāṇa, and neither approaching nor turning away is the Middle Way. Moreover, the 'Chapter on the Middle Way' below states: 'Because the Buddha taught that the Middle Way is a non-dual dharma, those of the two vehicles and even ordinary beings can also generate faith. The Buddha told Mañjuśrī: Because understanding and ignorance are non-dual, one accomplishes the absence of three wisdoms.' This means that the Middle Way fully possesses the true contemplation of the three truths, and it is likewise up through old age and death. It also says: 'If ignorance exists, that is one extreme; if it does not exist, that is another extreme. Apart from these two extremes, in between there is no form or appearance that can be seen. Free of appearances and free of dependence: this is called the Middle Way. It is likewise up through old age and death.'

5.16

Question:

5.17

What is the meaning of 'Middle Way' (madhyama)?

5.18

Answer:

5.19

A note in the *Madhyama-sūtra* itself states: '*Ma* means "do not"; *dhyama* means "middle." Not clinging to the middle way is named *madhyama*.' Explaining it, it can be understood.

5.20

Next, in the classification, there is first a reiteration, followed by the classification. In the classification there are two parts: first, the classification, and later, the conclusion. In the classification, there are first the four teachings, followed by the five flavors. As for the first, the four teachings, there are again two parts: first, listing, and next, classifying. First listing means successively bringing out the clumsy and the skillful, until only the very last is subtle. In the first, there is the Tripiṭaka [Teaching]; next, from 'if ignorance' onward, the Shared Teaching; next, from 'if ignorance' onward, the Separate Teaching; next, from 'if one says' onward, the Perfect Teaching. In each case, it first explains and next cites sūtras and treatises to substantiate it, which can be seen. In the initial Tripiṭaka Teaching, 'from three arises two' means afflictions produce karma; 'from two arises seven' means karma produces suffering; 'from seven arises three' means suffering produces afflictions; this is because they are spoken of collectively across the three periods of time. The *Vyākaraṇa-śāstra* is as noted below in the sixth fascicle. Next, the classification can be seen. The five flavors are as in the text, and the concluding text can be seen.

5.21

Next, in opening [the provisional to reveal the real], there are two parts: first, a general review of the three coarse [teachings]; next, the actual opening, which again has two parts: first, opening the previous two kinds of causes and conditions; next, opening the third condition. The first again has four parts: first, briefly opening; next, citing the analogy of the 'Faith and Understanding' [chapter]; third, from 'the Tathāgata' onward, explaining; fourth, concluding. The first is as in the text. The citation of 'Faith and Understanding' in the second is fully explained in that chapter. Saying 'becoming the destitute son's property': it was originally the elder's property, meaning that the child's nature in the tathāgatagarbha is not different, hence called the child's property. One should know that what is fundamentally inherent in the Tathāgata is simply what is fundamentally inherent in the child; therefore all dharmas are Mahāyāna. Moreover, the twenty-fifth fascicle of the *Great Sūtra* says: 'Good son! The wisdom that contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination is the seed of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. By this meaning, the twelve links of dependent origination are named Buddha-nature.' It also says: 'Although all sentient beings act together with the twelve links of dependent origination, they do not know them. Because they do not know them, there is neither beginning nor end. Bodhisattvas of the ten abodes see only their end but do not see their beginning. The Buddhas, World-Honoured Ones, see their beginning and see their end. By this meaning, the Buddha sees them clearly. Sentient beings do not see them, and are therefore reborn in transmigration.' Next, from 'the Tathāgata' onward, the intent is explained. Next, from 'now determining' to 'this is opening the two kinds of causes and conditions to discuss the subtle' is the conclusion. Although the preceding two teachings have Buddhas and bodhisattvas, broadly classified they both belong to the dharmas of the two vehicles; therefore, now determining them is simply opening those two kinds of twelve links—the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings. Next, in opening the third, there are two parts: first, briefly citing the *Great Sūtra* to clarify the opening; next, concluding. In the first text, there are two parts: first, citing the sūtra; next, from 'formerly, with the wisdom eye' onward, explaining the intent of the sūtra. This again has two parts: first, explaining; next, from 'therefore it says' onward, reiterating the text of the sūtra to substantiate what was explained. The phrase 'seen with the wisdom eye and therefore not distinct' refers to the position of the wisdom eye of the ten abodes in the Separate Teaching; completely failing to see the nature is called 'not distinct.' Furthermore, in terms of the real path, it is seeing the nature in semblance, which may also be called 'seeing not distinctly.' Now all are opened to cause them to see non-emptiness. From 'this is' onward is the conclusion: this is simply opening the Separate Teaching, hence called the third.

5.22

In the fourth [part], contemplating the mind, there are three parts: first, the doctrine; next, from 'for example' onward, the analogy; third, from 'a single thought' onward, concluding with the stages. In the first text there are two parts: first, establishing; next, citing scriptural testimony. In the testimony there are two parts: first, testifying; next, from 'wisdom of emptiness' onward, explaining the intent of the sūtra. Next, in the analogy there are two parts: first, the analogy; next, from 'since it is not' onward, applying the complete possession of the four virtues. In the conclusion there are four parts: first, concluding the object of contemplation; next, from 'contemplating this' onward, concluding the contemplation that can contemplate; third, from 'that mind' onward, concluding the secret treasury; fourth, from 'constantly doing' onward, concluding the stages of the six identities.

5.23

The third [section], explaining the objective realm of the four truths, itself has four divisions. The first text itself has two parts: first presenting the explanations of others, which again has two parts: first recounting them, and next briefly refuting them. As for the first: there were masters of the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra who explained the meaning of the noble truths in that sūtra as boundless; since that sūtra contrasts them only with the two vehicles, it only establishes the designations 'created' (with activity) and 'uncreated' (without activity). Since the ancients lacked the classification and explanation of the four teachings, they merely contrasted the Mahāyāna with the Hīnayāna to clarify the truths. However, among those in the Mahāyāna, the Śrīmālā masters took solely the Buddha fruit to be the ultimate, and thus, in contrast to the two vehicles, designated it as 'with activity'. The sūtra text itself turns around to explain 'with activity' by 'measurable'; since the two vehicles are measurable and with activity, one must understand that the Mahāyāna is simply uncreated and immeasurable. Next comes their classification and explanation, dividing 'with activity' and 'uncreated' with reference to practice and with reference to dharmas. 'Activity' refers to intentional action, and is therefore practice. 'Measure' refers to quantity, and therefore belongs to dharmas. The practice of the Hīnayāna is not exhaustive, so it is not called uncreated; its dharma is not ultimate, so it is not called immeasurable. 'The sūtra says' also refers to the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra. Relying on the sūtra to re-explain 'with activity', 'uncreated', and so forth, that sūtra states: 'There are two kinds of meanings of the noble truths: namely, with activity and uncreated. Those with activity are the measurable four noble truths. Why is this? Because it is not by relying on others that one knows, yet one is able to know all suffering, sever all accumulation, realize all cessation, and cultivate all paths.' In our present text, omitting the earlier character 'not' and altering the later character 'able' to 'not' is intended to make clear that the Hīnayāna receives it from teaching. When the sūtra says 'not by relying on others that one knows', it intends to make clear that what is realized is not obtained from others, and knowing one's own dharmas by oneself can also partially be called being able to know all. Now, first, we explain 'with activity'. As for 'relying on others to know': since the two vehicles are not yet capable of hearing the principle of the dharma realm, they merely hear from the Buddha the vocal teaching of the four truths, and by practicing according to this teaching know it to be a practice with activity. Next, explaining 'measurable': since they have previously only heard the dharmas of the Hīnayāna, which do not subsume dharmas comprehensively, it is said that they 'do not know all'; one must understand that both practice and dharma jointly manifest to complete the practitioner of the Hīnayāna. Next, explaining 'uncreated and immeasurable': by contrasting Hīnayāna to clarify Mahāyāna, it is called 'uncreated and immeasurable'. The sūtra states: 'The uncreated noble truths are the immeasurable four noble truths. Why is this? By self-power one knows all experiencing of suffering, all experiencing of accumulation, cultivates all paths, and realizes all cessation; such meanings of the four noble truths are the final culmination of affairs solely for the Fully Awakened One, not the final culmination of affairs for the two vehicles.' Ancient teachers did not understand; seeing the sūtra's statement 'solely for the Fully Awakened One', they immediately relegated it to the ultimate fruit. This is an exposition of the pedagogical path of the Separate Teaching, not the non-differentiation between initial aspiration and ultimate [realization]. Therein, first we explain 'uncreated': because what the Buddha knows is complete and there is no further action to be done, it is called 'uncreated'. 'Knowing through self-power' onwards is a re-explanation. It is called uncreated on account of two meanings: first, knowing through self-power differs from hearing from others; second, knowing all differs from measurable dharmas. From 'the one who knows' onwards, it explains the agent of knowledge; since this belongs to practice, it is 'uncreated'; that which is known—all things—belongs to dharmas, and is 'immeasurable'. This is practice and dharma mutually completing each other to constitute a Mahāyāna person. Next, stating 'such an explanation, although proclaiming four names': this is a brief concluding refutation. Stating that with activity/uncreated and measurable/immeasurable 'only accomplish two meanings' refers to the two meanings of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. This is merely a brief refutation; later it will still be extensively refuted.

5.24

Next, in the correct explanation of the four kinds of four truths, there are the statement, the listing, and the explanation. In the explanation there are two parts: first, the correct explanation, and next, refuting the ancients. In the first part, the correct explanation, there are three: first, the correct teaching upon which it relies; next, clarifying the intention behind establishing the differences among the dharmas; third, the correct explanation itself. As for the first text saying 'its meaning comes from the "Noble Practices" chapter of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]': the eleventh and twelfth fascicles of the sūtra extensively elucidate the noble truths, and the present text mostly relies on them. However, in the 'Noble Practices' chapter, the elucidation of the meaning of the four truths contains both the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna; if one understands arising and cessation as well as the immeasurable, its text is explicit. The unarisen and the uncreated are somewhat obscure and brief in their text, fully as explained in the first fascicle of the Notes on Zhiguan. Moreover, in that sūtra text, the four kinds of four truths have already been briefly clarified within the passage on the four truths of the Tripiṭaka Teaching, and the later text merely explains them at length, fully as in the first fascicle of the Notes on Zhiguan. As for the next text:

5.25

Question:

5.26

Why establish the distinctions among the four kinds of four truths?

5.27

Answer:

5.28

Truths fundamentally are not four; a truth is simply principle. Principle does not even have 'one'—how could there be four? Therefore we know that relying on the provisional and the real of the identical essence in the Tathāgata-garbha, and relying on the unconditioned vows of the power of great compassion, when the capacities of beings make an appeal, it cannot but function. Because the dispositions of capacities differ, this brings about gradations in the dharmas: from the one real principle, provisional principles are unfolded, and the teachings that express the two principles—provisional and real—differ; hence the four different teachings arise. In the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], after [revealing] the real, they are temporarily employed to assist the perfect [teaching]; therefore, both biased and perfect, phenomenon and principle, must be fully utilized. Hence it is cited now to display authentic verification. Three biased and one perfect, with one phenomenon and one principle each for within the realms and beyond the realms, thus constitute the four kinds.

5.29

The text of the correct explanation itself has four [sections]. First, explaining the four truths of arising and cessation has five parts: first, what the establishing of the names derives from; next, from 'However, suffering and accumulation' onwards, clarifying the reason for establishing four; third, from 'Za xin' onwards, explaining the characteristics; fourth, from 'Sequential order' onwards, clarifying the sequence of establishment; fifth, from 'Noble' onwards, explaining the name. Recent commentaries and sub-commentaries all place the explanation of names first, and next elucidate the essence and distinguish the characteristics; this lineage's establishment of doctrine does not consider explaining names and such to be essential, but lies rather in the intent and reason for establishment, grasping the essential purport of the sūtra, and making clear that to which contemplative practice returns. If explaining other sūtras, the teaching is spoken according to the specific audience: in one place, in one assembly, one gateway, one practice, they receive and enter according to their capacity, all benefiting and being appropriately matched; therefore, whether truths, conditions, perfections, or chapters, all are integrated in the text itself. But if one relies on the Lotus Sūtra, whenever a single meaning is analyzed, it blends the entire period of teaching, probing its beginning and end, the characteristics of teaching and contemplation—such as applying, opening, and discarding; this being so, the speaker truly attains the correct teaching of the Lotus Sūtra, and the practitioner truly attains the correct principle of this sūtra. Teaching and practice accord with each other, and the Buddha's intent resides right here. Therefore, under each and every meaning, there is first differentiation, next clarifying the opening and revealing, and next treating it in terms of contemplating the mind; only when explaining the sūtras in this manner can it be called propagating the teaching.

5.30

The five intentions differ; the first text is evident. As for the second intention: suffering and accumulation are simply a single mundane dharma, and the path and cessation are simply a single supramundane dharma. In the third, explaining the characteristics, there are two parts: the explanation and the conclusion. In the explanation there are altogether three passages. First, 'Za xin': mundane and supramundane dharmas differ in the natures of cause and effect, yet cause necessarily tends toward effect; because causes and effects are distinct in category, this causes the four to be distinct. Next, the 'Great Sūtra': the aggregates and sense bases are a heavy burden, which ordinary people do not discard, the two vehicles cannot shoulder, and bodhisattvas, having discarded it, are able to shoulder; hence it says 'discarding the burden, they are able to shoulder it'. 'Bi' means pressing close; 'po' means driving onward. Being close and inescapable, one is constantly driven onward, and the three realms are constantly bound by this suffering. The two kinds—views and attachments—combine and accumulate, thereby attracting future fruits. Although the path-factors are many, they are fully subsumed by precepts and the rest; hence three are briefly cited to clarify the characteristics of the dharmas. Beneath the four truths, although the eight characteristics differ, the contemplation that eliminates suffering and accumulation does not go beyond suffering and so forth; hence they are briefly cited. The fruit takes the cause as its root; suffering takes accumulation as its root; because the truth of the path can eliminate it, it receives its name. If the root of suffering is removed, its suffering naturally perishes; therefore one only needs to eliminate the root. 'Seed' refers to the causes of the twenty-five states of existence; 'fruit' refers to the fruits of the twenty-five states of existence. If the cause is extinguished, its fruit must perish. There are cases where the cause has perished yet the fruit-body still remains; here, speaking from a long-term perspective, it says 'seed and fruit'. Hence we know that one merely cultivates supramundane causes to eliminate mundane causes; thus the Bequest Teaching is cited to verify the two causes. Moreover, these names of the truths have both common and specific aspects: the specific resides in body and mind, while the common covers all; as in the four Āgamas, traversing all dharmas, there is none that is not a contemplation of the truths. Furthermore, in the Mahāvibhāṣā, Śāriputra explained the dharma of much hearing for Mahākoṣṭhila: 'A noble disciple knows nutriment in accordance with reality, knows the accumulation of nutriment, knows the cessation of nutriment, and knows the path to the cessation of nutriment. What is knowing nutriment? It refers to the four nutriments, such as morsel food. What is knowing the accumulation of nutriment? It refers to that which is accompanied by craving, delight, and greed in the future. What is knowing the cessation of nutriment? It refers to knowing in accordance with reality that the future craving for existence accompanied by delight and greed, clinging with fondness to this and that, is completely severed and abandoned, utterly vomited out, free of desire, ceased, and disappeared—this is called the cessation of nutriment. What is knowing the path to the cessation of nutriment? It refers to the eightfold noble path. Down to treating the eight sufferings and so forth, all are like this.' This is explained with reference to the first of the twelve dhūtas, begging for food; all other passages, even down to the twelve links of dependent origination, are nothing other than the four truths. Again, as stated in the 'Four Truths Chapter' of the Viśeṣacintābrahma-paripṛcchā: 'The four truths are: the world, the accumulation of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path to the cessation of the world. The world is the five aggregates. The accumulation of the world is greedily clinging to the five aggregates. The cessation of the world is the exhaustion of the five aggregates. Seeking the five aggregates by means of non-dual dharma is called the path to the cessation of the world.' Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā states: 'What is the intrinsic nature of the four truths? Answer: The Ābhidharmikas speak thus: The five grasping aggregates are the truth of suffering; defiled causes are the truth of accumulation; cessation through deliberation is the truth of cessation; dharmas of the trainee and beyond-training are the truth of the path. The Dṛṣṭāntikas speak thus: Form is the truth of suffering; affliction and karma are the truth of accumulation; the cessation of affliction and karma is the truth of cessation; concentration and wisdom are the truth of the path. Among the Ābhidharmikas, a different master of the Sammatīya school said for the sake of the Dṛṣṭāntika Vibhajyavādins: The eight sufferings are suffering and are the truth of suffering, while the remaining defiled dharmas are suffering but not the truth of suffering; craving that produces future existence is accumulation and is the truth of accumulation, while the remaining defiled dharmas are accumulation but not the truth of accumulation; the exhaustion of craving that produces future existence is cessation and is the truth of cessation, while all remaining cessations are cessation but not the truth of cessation; the eightfold path of the trainee is the path and is the truth of the path, while all remaining dharmas are the path but not the truth of the path. If so, arhats would merely accomplish suffering and cessation, but not accomplish accumulation and the path. Why? Because craving for future existence has already been severed, and because an arhat is not a trainee, the trainee's eightfold path is not how an arhat attains the four four truths.' As for the meaning of the sequence, there are also two senses: first, in terms of teaching; next, in terms of practice. In accordance with these two senses, both place the coarse first and the subtle later. The Mahāvibhāṣā extensively explains that mundane dharmas are coarse and supramundane dharmas are subtle; therefore, mundane is clarified first, and cause and effect are discussed for mundane and supramundane dharmas respectively. The fruit precedes the cause because the fruit is coarse and the cause is subtle. Fifth, from 'noble truths' onwards explains the name. 'Noble' (ārya) means correct; since the person is a supramundane noble one, the dharma is also a supramundane noble dharma, an appellation established in contrast to the heterodoxies of others. There are three explanations of 'truth'. Where the note says 'and so forth', without listing the names first, it directly explains next: 'its self-nature is not deceptive', because all four are real. The next meaning is fully as stated in the Bequest Teaching: 'By seeing the truths, one attains the non-erroneous dharma'; since it says 'noble' and 'correct', the one who sees is without error. As for the third meaning, stating 'able to turn and demonstrate it to others': because the previous two meanings serve as causes, one's own practice is fulfilled, and one can therefore turn the Dharma wheel of the four truths. Furthermore, in the previous two meanings, because these four natures are real, they can cause the one who sees to attain non-erroneous awakening; awakening is the knowledge of the truths. Therefore we know that all four dharmas must be closely examined and known. Moreover, when turning the Dharma wheel, four activities arise with respect to each truth: namely, vision, knowledge, clarity, and awakening. The present text is succinct, so it only says 'awakening'. Hence the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'What is the meaning of truth? Answer: The meaning of examination is the meaning of truth; the meaning of reality, the meaning of non-erroneousness, and the meaning of non-alteration are the meanings of truth.' The present text combines the first two meanings—examination, reality, and non-alteration—so there are only three meanings. The second has the same name as in the treatise; as for the third name, it is like saying: 'Suffering has been known by me and needs no further knowing; what you have attained is not different from mine'—the rest may be inferred by analogy.

First 30 of 47 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華玄義釋籤 — Classical Chinese