金剛三昧經論 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Composed by Śramaṇa Wonhyo of the State of Silla

The commentary states: When a bodhisattva's contemplative practice is perfected, one knows one's own contemplative mind conforms to principle in cultivating practice, being neither a mind that has arising nor a mind that lacks arising, and also neither having practice nor lacking practice. Solely to depart from the extreme of superimposition, it is provisionally spoken of as non-arising, because one does not give rise to a mind in the presence of arising, nor does one give rise to a mind in the presence of non-arising. To depart from the extreme of deprecation, it is also provisionally spoken of as practice, because although it is not a practice that possesses practice, neither is it a practice that lacks non-practice. Therefore, it is titled the 'Chapter on the Practice of Non-arising'.

2.4

The sūtra states: At that time, Bodhisattva Mind-King, having heard the Buddha expound the Dharma that transcends the three realms and is inconceivable, rose from his seat, clasped his hands with palms together, and asked in verse:

2.5

The commentary states: In distinctively revealing contemplative practice, there are six sections; the first, dispatching all marks of objects to reveal the signless contemplation, has already been completed above. From here below is the second, eliminating the arising mind to clarify the practice of non-arising. With respect to the text, there are three [parts]: first, the primary exposition; second, the praised exposition; and third, clarifying obtaining benefit upon hearing the exposition. In the initial primary exposition, there are four divisions: first, the back-and-forth questions and answers; second, the cross-examining questions and answers; third, the bodhisattva's receptive understanding; and fourth, the Tathāgata's validation. In the first, there are six: (1) question, (2) answer, (3) objection, (4) refutation, (5) request, and (6) explanation. In the first, there are two: first, the sūtra-compiler's introduction. 'Bodhisattva Mind-King' takes his name from essence. However, the meaning of 'Mind-King' broadly has two aspects: first, the mind of the eight consciousnesses governs all mental factors, hence termed 'Mind-King'; second, the dharma of the one mind generally governs all virtues, hence termed 'Mind-King'. Now, this bodhisattva enters the practice of non-arising and realizes the one mind-king, hence he is named from that which is embodied. Now, in this chapter, the practice of non-arising is clarified; this is why Bodhisattva Mind-King poses the question. 'Transcends the three realms and is inconceivable' refers to adducing the Dharma heard to serve as the basis for posing the question. That which was heard refers to the exposition in the preceding chapter. Now, adducing what comes after encompasses what came before, referring to the final verse which states, 'Soaring, it transcends the three realms, / ...up to... that which is perfected.'

2.6

The sūtra states: / 'The meaning expounded by the Tathāgata / Is supramundane and free from signs, / Capable of causing all living beings / To completely exhaust defiled outflows. / Severing bonds and emptying the mind-self, / That indeed is non-arising. / How is there non-arising, / Yet there is the tolerance of non-arising?'

2.7

The commentary states: These two verses are words of questioning. Therein, the initial verse accepts what was previously expounded: the upper half accepts the preceding single-taste Dharma-seal, and the lower half accepts the subsequent perfection of the One Vehicle. The latter verse directly poses the question. Therein, the upper half cites the meaning of non-arising, and the lower half asks about the tolerance of non-arising: since there is no arising, there should be no mind of tolerance.

2.8

The sūtra states: At that time, the Buddha told Bodhisattva Mind-King: 'Good son! Regarding the tolerance of the non-arising of dharmas, dharmas are originally unarisen; all practices are unarisen, yet not a practice of non-arising. Obtaining the tolerance of non-arising is itself false and delusive.'

2.9

The commentary states: This is the second [division], the answer. The intent of the answer has two parts: first, indicating the characteristics of the tolerance of non-arising, and later, revealing the error of possessing attainment. 'Tolerance of the non-arising of dharmas' means realizing that dharmas are originally unarisen; this being so, all practices of concentration and wisdom are likewise without arising, not that there is an active practice of tolerance toward non-arising—hence it says 'yet not a practice of non-arising'. If within this there is an attainment of an active practice of tolerance, it would contradict true tolerance being without abiding and without practice; hence it says 'is itself false and delusive'.

2.10

The sūtra states: Bodhisattva Mind-King said: 'Honoured One! If obtaining the tolerance of non-arising is itself false and delusive, then having no attainment and no tolerance should not be false and delusive.'

2.11

The commentary states: This is the third [division], the objection. The meaning of the objection is: If asserting that having attainment and having tolerance is false and delusive, then asserting that having no attainment and no tolerance should not be false and delusive, because it is the reverse of false and delusive. Practitioners of the Mahāyāna who cultivate non-attainment make such an assumption and consider themselves free from delusion. In order to reveal that delusion, this objection is raised.

2.12

The sūtra states: The Buddha said: 'No. Why is that? Having no attainment and no tolerance is precisely having attainment; having attainment and having abiding is precisely having arising. That there is arising from attainment and that there are attained dharmas are both false and delusive.'

2.13

The commentary states: This is the fourth [division], the refutation. Therein are two parts: 'No' is the direct refutation; from 'Why is that?' onward is the second, explaining the refutation. The intent of the refutation is: If their thought supposes no attainment and no tolerance, then although they do not attain the existence of having attainment and having tolerance, they still attain the non-existence of having no attainment and no tolerance. Since they attain non-existence, their mind abides in non-existence. When the mind has an abiding, this is precisely having arising. Supposing that there is a mind arising in that which is attained also contradicts non-arising and non-attainment; therefore it is said that both are false and delusive.

2.14

The sūtra states: Bodhisattva Mind-King said: 'Honoured One! How can a mind devoid of tolerance and devoid of arising not be false and delusive?'

2.15

The commentary states: This is the fifth [division], the request. Following the line of objection to its limit, his understanding could not reach it; therefore, he had to look up and inquire, requesting guidance.

2.16

The sūtra states: The Buddha said: 'As for the mind devoid of tolerance and devoid of arising, the mind has no shape or parts, just as the nature of fire, although dwelling in wood, has no location, because it is of a determinate nature. It is merely a designation, merely a letter, its nature unobtainable; wishing to express its principle, it is provisionally given a name, yet the name is unobtainable. The marks of the mind are also like this: its location is not seen. Knowing the mind to be like this, there is then no arising mind.'

2.17

The commentary states: From here below is the sixth [division], providing the explanation. Therein are four parts: first, disclosing the principle of non-attainment; next, showing the principle of non-arising; third, presenting the incorrect; and fourth, clarifying the correct. In the first part, there are three: dharma, metaphor, and application. The initial statement 'As for the mind devoid of tolerance and devoid of arising' cites the mind that directly abides in the tolerance of dharmas. The statement 'the mind has no shape or parts' reveals that the mind has nothing to be attained. 'Shape' refers to essence; 'parts' refers to divisions. Seeking the essence and divisions of the mind among various conditions, whether identical or separate, they are entirely unobtainable. It is by this principle that it lacks shape or parts, not referring to marks of material shape and parts. In the metaphor, 'the nature of fire, although dwelling in wood' illustrates that the mind of tolerance, although dwelling in principle, 'has no location': within this wood there are subtle atoms, but among them there is completely no location for the nature of fire. Likewise, within principle there are Dharma-doors as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, but seeking the mind among them, there is utterly no location. Such a principle of the nature of fire being without location is eternally so in the nature of dharmas, whether Buddhas appear or not; hence it says 'because it is of a determinate nature'. Under the designation 'nature of fire', the referent is unobtainable. Although such a nature of fire is unobtainable, it is not that the wood lacks the nature of fire; wishing to express this principle, the designation 'nature of fire' is spoken. Analyzing this designation, there are only letters; seeking these letters in turn, they are entirely unobtainable. The marks and designations of the mind of tolerance should be understood to be likewise; hence next it applies it, saying 'The marks of the mind are also like this.' A bodhisattva who has attained tolerance, knowing the mind to be like this, how could an apprehension of the mind arise within it? For this reason, it says: 'there is then no arising mind.'

2.18

The sūtra states: 'Good son! The nature and marks of this mind are, furthermore, like an āmalaka fruit: it originally does not arise from itself, does not arise from other, does not arise from both, does not arise uncaused, and is without arising. Why is this? Because conditions replace and expire. Dependent arising is not arising; the expiration of conditions is not cessation. Concealment and manifestation are signless; roots and trunk are quiescent and extinguished. It is in no place, and its abiding is not seen, because it is of a determinate nature.'

2.19

The commentary states: From here below is the second [part], clarifying the principle of non-arising. Therein are two: first, the metaphor, and next, the application. In the metaphor, there are two: first, clarifying the four negations, and later, revealing the eight negations. Regarding the four negations: depending on conditions, it does not arise from itself; having its own seed, it does not arise from other; lacking agency, it does not arise from both; having efficacy, it is not without arising. Furthermore, prior to arising there is no self, so it does not arise from self. When already arisen, it already exists, so it does not need to arise from self. Since self is not established, depending on what could there be an other? Since self and other are absent, how could there be both? Since arising with a cause is unobtainable, how much less could there be arising without a cause? In this way, seeking arising, nothing is obtained. The statement 'does not arise uncaused, and is without arising' clarifies that it does not arise without a cause, meaning that it is impossible that, when a productive cause is absent, a fruit can arise. From 'Why is this?' onward, it next resolves a latent doubt. The doubter's thought is: The other three may be so, but how is it with the third? He supposes that for a fruit to arise, the seed is the direct cause, and earth and water are the indirect conditions; when these two combine, the fruit arises. Why say it does not arise from both? Therefore, it asks: 'Why is this?' 'Because conditions replace and expire' clarifies that those two conditions, the former being replaced and the latter expiring, cannot pause even for an instant. Since there is no time of pausing, there is no function; because there is no function, neither generates the fruit. As a verse states: 'All conditioned things are momentary; / They do not even abide, let alone have function.' Furthermore, seeking replacing and expiring, there is neither arising nor ceasing. Why is this? Since there is no momentary abiding, there is no arising; since arising does not exist, there is no ceasing. Hence it says: 'Dependent arising is not arising; the expiration of conditions is not cessation.' Seeking in this way, both concealment and manifestation are absent. 'Concealment' refers to the seed being under the soil; 'manifestation' refers to sprouts and stems emerging above ground. 'Roots and trunk are quiescent and extinguished': analyzing the principle of the tree's roots and trunk, seeking the cause that produces the fruit, it ultimately never arises; hence it says 'quiescent and extinguished, it is in no place, and its abiding is not seen.' Why is this? 'Because it is of a determinate nature.' The meaning of determinate nature is as expounded above.

2.20

The sūtra states: 'This determinate nature is also neither one nor different, neither interrupted nor permanent, neither entering nor exiting, neither arising nor ceasing, free from the four slanders, with the path of words severed. The non-arising mind-nature is likewise. How could one speak of arising or non-arising, possessing tolerance or lacking tolerance?'

2.21

The commentary states: Next, the eight negations are clarified. It is not merely that as a matter of principle there are only the former four negations; it also completely cuts off the eight [extremes] such as oneness and difference. Why is this? Fruit and seed are not one, because their characteristics are not the same; yet they are also not different, because apart from the seed there is no fruit. Furthermore, seed and fruit are not interrupted, because the fruit continuously arises from the seed; yet they are also not permanent, because the fruit arises as the seed ceases. The seed does not enter the fruit, because at the time of the fruit there is no seed; the fruit does not exit the seed, because at the time of the seed there is no fruit. Not entering and not exiting, it does not arise; not permanent and not interrupted, it does not cease. Because it does not cease, it cannot be said to be non-existent; because it does not arise, it cannot be said to be existent. Because it is far removed from the two extremes, it cannot be said to be both existent and non-existent; because it does not correspond to a single middle, it cannot be said to be neither existent nor non-existent. Hence it says: 'free from the four slanders, with the path of words severed.' The āmalaka fruit in this way cuts off words; the mind of tolerance of dharmas is not different from this. Hence it says: 'The non-arising mind-nature is likewise,' and so forth.

2.22

The sūtra states: 'If anyone says that the mind has attainment, has abiding, and has seeing, they do not attain anuttarā samyaksambodhi or prajñā; this is the long night.'

2.23

The commentary states: This is the third [part], presenting the incorrect. Supposing someone says regarding the mind of tolerance of non-arising that the essence of the mind can be attained, abides in non-arising, and can see the principle of non-arising, they do not understand the nature of the mind. This is simply delusive grasping, which obstructs bodhi and prajñā; this clarifies failing to attain the intrinsically pure bodhi and the prajñā that realizes it. Furthermore, 'bodhi' refers to newly arisen bodhi; 'prajñā' refers to the cause of bodhi. Failing to attain the cause of awakening, it is therefore the long night, because beginningless delusive conceptualization is a great dream.

2.24

The sūtra states: 'Those who fully comprehend the nature of the mind know that the nature of the mind is thus; this nature is also thus—this is the practice of non-arising.'

2.25

The treatise states: This is the fourth [part], revealing what is correct. Regarding 'one who clearly discerns the nature of mind,' this means that with one's own mind one clearly discerns the nature of one's own mind. As a sūtra says: 'If one can, by means of attention to grasping, furthermore fully penetrate attention to grasping, only then can the cognitive faculty and the cognitive object be completely equal, because undefiled cognition is generated and one fully penetrates the noble truths.' 'Knowing that the nature of mind is thus' means knowing that the nature of the substance of one's own contemplating mind is equal. 'This nature is also thus' refers to the functioning of cognitive capability, because the nature of its functioning is equal. In this way, the substance and function of the contemplating mind are equal, without arising or ceasing, without beginning or end; therefore it is said, 'this is unarisen practice.' The previous explanation of unarisenness in terms of the four negations revealed the principle of unarisenness, and this principle encompasses both ordinary beings and nobles. The present explanation of unarisenness through knowing thusness clarifies the practice of unarisenness, and this practice pertains distinctively to nobles. The practice abiding in nobles is of a single taste with the principle; the universally pervasive principle is equal to cognitive acuity. Because they are equal and of a single taste, the noble cannot make them different; because there is what is universal and what is distinct, the noble cannot make them identical. What cannot be made identical is precisely identical yet different; what cannot be made different is precisely different yet identical. Being identical distinguishes identity within difference; being different clarifies difference within identity. Clarifying difference within identity is not dividing the identical into the different; distinguishing identity within difference is not melting down the different into the identical. Truly, because identity is not the melting down of difference, it cannot be said to be identical; because difference is not the division of identity, it cannot be said to be different. It is solely because difference cannot be spoken of that it can be said to be identical, and solely because identity cannot be spoken of that it can be said to be different. Whether spoken of or not spoken of, there is no duality and no distinction.

2.26

The sūtra states: Mind King Bodhisattva said, 'World-Honoured One! If the mind is originally thus and unarisen with respect to practice, and all conditioned practices are unarisen, then arising practice does not arise. Since non-arising has no practice, it is unarisen practice, is it not?'

2.27

The treatise states: Below this is the second [section], the question-and-answer of cross-examination. Herein there are eight parts: first, adducing practice to challenge the principle; second, cross-examining regarding having realization; third, respectfully reporting the absence of realization; fourth, cross-examining regarding having attainment; fifth, respectfully reporting the absence of attainment; sixth, ratifying the absence of realization and attainment; seventh, further presenting doubts; eighth, resolving those doubts. This is the first, adducing practice to challenge the principle. Regarding 'If the mind is originally thus and unarisen with respect to practice,' this adduces the meaning of the unarisenness of practice explained previously, referring to the preceding statement: 'knowing that the nature of mind is thus, and this nature is also thus, is unarisen practice.' That is, being unarisen with respect to the practice of arising and ceasing directly adduces the characteristics of unarisen practice. Regarding 'all conditioned practices are unarisen,' this adduces the unarisenness of principle, meaning that the conditioned practices of the five aggregates of all sentient beings are fundamentally unarisen. Regarding 'arising practice does not arise,' this clarifies that the unarisenness of principle is different from the unarisenness of practice, meaning that arising practice is empty and does not arise, not that it does not arise due to realizing the principle and annihilating the mind. Regarding 'non-arising has no practice,' this reveals that the non-arising of principle is analogous to the unarisenness of practice, meaning that in the gate of non-arising there is also no mental practice. Like the forbearance of the unarisen, because there is no conceptualizing practice, should it not be unarisen practice? If so, then is there any ordinary being who would not realize and attain the forbearance of the unarisen?

2.28

The sūtra states: The Buddha said, 'Good son! Do you, by means of unarisenness, realize unarisen practice?'

2.29

The treatise states: This is the second, cross-examining regarding having realization. The intent of the examination is to say: When you enter into contemplation on the forbearance of the unarisen, do you attain unarisen practice by relying on the principle of the unarisenness of all conditioned practices? The reason for cross-examining in this way is that the other made the unarisenness of principle distinct from the unarisenness of practice and challenged that the unarisenness of principle must also be the unarisenness of practice. Now he cross-examines: 'When you enter contemplation, are principle and practice distinct, possessing an agent and an object?'

2.30

The sūtra states: Mind King Bodhisattva said, 'No. Why? Because the nature and characteristics of unarisen practice are empty and tranquil: without seeing and without hearing, without gain and without loss, without words and without explanations, without knowing and without characteristics, without grasping and without abandoning. How could one grasp at realization? If one grasps at realization, that is contention. Absence of contention and absence of debate: only that is unarisen practice.'

2.31

The treatise states: This is the third, respectfully replying with the absence of realization. Herein there are three parts: first, clarifying the absence of realization; second, adducing what is wrong; third, revealing what is correct. In the first part there are also two: first, proposing; then, explaining. 'The nature and characteristics of unarisen practice are empty and tranquil' is the general proposition. 'Nature is empty and tranquil' means that the substance and nature of the contemplating mind are free from the characteristics of arising and ceasing, which is what was spoken of earlier as 'knowing that the nature of mind is thus.' 'Characteristics are empty and tranquil' means that the cognitive function of the contemplating mind and the characteristics of its function are also thus, which is the meaning of the earlier 'this nature is also thus.' Below, through ten absences, this general statement is explained. 'Without seeing and without hearing' means that the mind-nature is subtle and silent. Because it is silent, it transcends visible form and cannot be represented by images; because it is subtle, it transcends sound and cannot be interpreted by teachings. 'Without gain and without loss' reveals emptiness without anything to be gained, and expels arising without anything to be lost. These four absences explain that the nature is empty and tranquil. 'Without words and without explanations' means that since mental practice is tranquil, it does not give rise to words and explanations. 'Without knowing and without characteristics' means that mental practice is extinguished and tranquil, far removed from the two divisions. 'Without grasping and without abandoning' means that since there is no conceptualization, there is no nature that can be grasped and no characteristic that can be abandoned. These six absences explain that characteristics are empty and tranquil. Since within unarisen practice it is empty and tranquil in this way, how could there be any grasping at realization therein? In making this reply, he himself understands that the previous challenge does not constitute a valid challenge. Adducing what is wrong and revealing what is correct can be understood simply by examination.

2.32

The sūtra states: The Buddha said, 'Do you attain anuttarā samyaksambodhi?'

2.33

The treatise states: This is the fourth, cross-examining regarding having attainment. A question asks: The bodhisattva has not yet attained anuttarā-bodhi; why does the Tathāgata ask, 'Do you attain it?' An explanation says: Although he has not yet attained ultimate bodhi, he has already realized and attained the bodhi of the first ground. As the Fahua lun says: 'Attaining anuttarā samyaksambodhi in eight births or even one birth refers to realizing the bodhi of the first ground. Because one is free from the saṃsāra of segmented death within the three realms and can partially see the Buddha-nature of thusness, it is called attaining bodhi; it does not mean ultimately fulfilling the Tathāgata's expedient nirvāṇa.' It is noted: It is in reference to the Buddha-nature of thusness that it is called bodhi; because one can realize and see it, it is called attaining bodhi. As a sūtra says, 'The empty nature of all dharmas is precisely bodhi'—this is what it means.

2.34

The sūtra states: Mind King Bodhisattva said, 'World-Honoured One! I have no attainment of anuttarā samyaksambodhi. Why? In the nature of bodhi there is no gain and no loss, no awakening and no knowing, no conceptualized characteristic. Within non-conceptualization is precisely the pure nature; the nature is without gap or mixture, without speech or explanation, neither existent nor non-existent, neither knowing nor not knowing. All practices that can be modeled upon the Dharma are also like this. Why? The practices of all dharmas have no observable location, because their nature is determinate. Originally there is neither attainment nor non-attainment; how could one attain anuttarā samyaksambodhi?'

2.35

The treatise states: This is the fifth, respectfully reporting the absence of attainment. Herein there are three parts, namely proposing, explaining, and concluding. In the explanation there are two parts: first, clarifying that the bodhi to be attained has no attainable nature; second, revealing that the practices capable of attaining it have no characteristics of an attainer. In the first part, regarding 'the nature of bodhi,' this means that the nature of thusness is vacuous, unobstructed, and by nature free from darkness and obscuration; hence it is named bodhi. Therein there is originally no true nature that can be preserved, nor is there originally any delusional conceptualization that can be eliminated; therefore it is said 'there is no gain and no loss.' Innate awakening such as this is far removed from the awakening of discursive construction and also abolishes sudden, impulsive knowing; therefore it is said 'no awakening and no knowing.' Since it lacks conceptualizing views and is also free from the characteristics of what is practiced, it is said 'no conceptualized characteristic.' Because of this, it is not turbid with defilements, and its original nature is free from pollution; therefore it is said 'it is precisely the pure nature.' Vertically, it is not interrupted by arising and ceasing; horizontally, it is not mixed with subject and object; therefore it is said 'the nature is without gap or mixture.' 'Without speech or explanation' means that what can speak and what is spoken are all completely transcended. 'Neither existent nor non-existent' means that although it is not existent thusness, it is not non-existent thusness. 'Neither knowing nor not knowing' means that although it is not innate awakening, it is not non-awakening. The nature of bodhi being such, it has no attainable meaning. From 'All practices that can be modeled upon the Dharma' downward, it next reveals the practices without an attainer. As the previous chapter explained, the practices of the six perfections are all true standards; hence they are said to be 'able to be modeled upon.' 'Are also like this' means that they are identical to the preceding absence of attainment. 'The practices of all dharmas' refers to the practices of the six perfections and so forth. 'Have no observable location' means that one does not see any location to be traversed such as gain and loss, awakening and knowing, or even existence and non-existence, knowing and not knowing; thus they are completely equal to bodhi. Therefore, originally there is no one who can attain or cannot attain. From 'How could...' downward, it draws the general conclusion of no attainment.

2.36

The sūtra states: The Buddha said, 'So it is, so it is, just as you say. All mental practices do not exceed the signless, being tranquil in substance and unarisen.'

2.37

The treatise states: Below this is the sixth [part], the Tathāgata's ratification. Herein there are three parts: first, the direct ratification; second, adducing what is wrong; third, revealing what is correct. In the first part there are also three: a general ratification, a specific ratification, and a concluding confirmation. In the beginning, 'So it is, so it is' ratifies the preceding absence of realization and the subsequent absence of attainment. From 'All...' downward is the second, the specific ratification: first ratifying unarisenness, and then ratifying tranquility and cessation. Regarding 'unarisenness,' this is unarisen practice, ratifying that there is no realizer or attainer. Regarding 'tranquility and cessation,' this is the principle of tranquility and cessation, ratifying that there is nothing realized or attained. In the beginning, 'all mental practices' refers to all the mental practices associated with supramundane non-conceptual cognition; they do not grasp at characteristics and realize the signless, hence it is said, 'do not exceed the signless.' Substantively realizing emptiness and tranquility, they are tacitly unarisen; hence it is said, 'being tranquil in substance and unarisen.'

2.38

The sūtra states: 'Whatever consciousness that can cognize also is like this. Why? The eye and eye-contact are entirely empty and tranquil, and consciousness is also empty and tranquil, having neither the characteristic of movement nor of non-movement; internally there are no three feelings, and the three feelings are tranquil and ceased. The ear, nose, tongue, and body, the mind, mentation, and mental consciousness, as well as manas and the ālayavijñāna, are also like this: they all do not give rise to a mind of tranquility and cessation or a mind of unarisenness.'

2.39

The treatise states: This is the second, ratifying the meaning of tranquility and cessation, meaning that the eight worldly consciousnesses are empty and tranquil. Herein there are two parts: first, making an analogy to the preceding; second, explaining in detail. First, 'whatever consciousness that can cognize' generally encompasses all eight worldly consciousnesses, just as saying 'place after place' encompasses all places. 'Also is like this' means that the principle of emptiness and tranquility is identical to the preceding unarisenness of the supramundane mind. From 'Why?' downward is the second, explaining in detail. 'The eye' is the eye faculty. 'Eye-contact' is precisely contact among the omnipresent mental factors, which arises based on the conjunction of the three. Because it causes the three to conjoin, wishing to clarify disperse emptiness, he specifically adduces it. 'Consciousness is also empty' means that since eye-contact is empty, eye-consciousness does not arise. There is neither shifting movement in continuity nor non-shifting in a single moment; hence it is said, 'having neither the characteristic of movement nor of non-movement.' Regarding 'internally there are no three feelings,' this is because the arising of the three feelings is fundamentally tranquil and ceased. Among the various mental factors, contact and feeling are closely related and possess great predominant efficacy; therefore he adduces these two to universally eliminate the remaining dharmas. 'The ear, nose, tongue, and body' refers to the ear, ear-contact, ear-consciousness, and so on. 'Mind, mentation, and mental consciousness' is the sixth consciousness: the future is called mind, the past is called mentation, and the present is called mental consciousness; relying on the method of provisional accommodation he adduces these three names to reveal that all three times are empty and tranquil. 'Manas and the ālayavijñāna,' the seventh and eighth, are both identical to eye-consciousness, and therefore also do not arise. The detailed explanation of the text is finished. Next, regarding 'the mind of tranquility and cessation,' this immediately concludes the text on the emptiness and tranquility of the eight consciousnesses. 'And a mind of unarisenness' distantly concludes the text on 'being tranquil in substance and unarisen.'

2.40

The sūtra states: 'If one gives rise to a mind of tranquility and cessation, or gives rise to a mind of unarisenness, this is an arising practice, not an unarisen practice; internally it gives rise to the three feelings, the three actions, and the three moral precepts.'

2.41

The treatise states: This is the second [part], which presents the mistaken [position]. It means that scholars of the Mahāyāna who cling to attainment do not make the eight consciousnesses empty and thus run counter to their quiescent cessation; hence it is said, "arouses a mind of quiescent cessation." Not knowing the non-arising of the supramundane mind, they suppose that there is an arising mind that realizes the signless principle; hence it is said, "arouses a mind of non-arising." This is strictly an activity of worldly transmigration and goes against the practice of the supramundane forbearance of the non-arising [of dharmas]; hence it is said, "this is an activity of arising," and so forth. As for "the three activities," they are bodily, verbal, and mental actions, encompassing both the wholesome and the unwholesome. As for "the three precepts," they are bodily, verbal, and mental restraint, taking only what is wholesome. Having the arising of these three activities and three precepts as cause, they give rise to the three realms of existence and fully experience the three feelings; transmigrating in this way, they cannot attain liberation.

2.42

The sūtra states: "If the mind that arises from quiescent cessation does not arise, the mind is constantly quiescent without effort or exertion; it does not realize the mark of quiescent cessation, nor does it abide in non-realization. In any accessible place there is non-abiding, universally holding the signless. That is, it is without the three such as the three feelings; all are quiescently ceased, pure, and non-abiding. One does not enter samādhi nor abide in seated meditation; there is neither arising nor activity."

2.43

The treatise states: This is the third [part], which reveals the correct [position]. "If the mind that arises from quiescent cessation does not arise" reverses the previous phrase, "if one arouses a mind of quiescent cessation," dispensing with all arising minds by not taking hold of arising. "The mind is constantly quiescent without effort or exertion" reverses the previous phrase, "if one arouses a mind of non-arising," because it is free from the marks of arising, ceasing, and stirring, and also lacks the effort and exertion of deliberate conceptualization. "It does not realize the mark of quiescent cessation" means that although it dispenses with the mind of arising, it does not preserve the mark of quiescent cessation. "Nor does it abide in non-realization" means that although it does not grasp the mark of quiescent cessation, it does not fall into the fault of non-realization. "In any accessible place there is non-abiding" comprehensively clarifies freedom from the fault of abiding attachment, because in all places where one could abide, there is nowhere to abide. As for "places where one could abide," if one dispenses with arising, one could abide in quiescent cessation; if one dispenses with having realization, one could abide in non-realization; since in all such accessible places there is no abiding. "Universally holding the signless" comprehensively reveals the endowment of virtues: the mind of non-arising retains the virtues of all practices yet is of a single taste without differentiated marks. "That is, it is without the three such as the three feelings" reverses the previous phrase, "inwardly gives rise to the three feelings," and so forth, because it is far removed from the marks of the causes and fruits of transmigration. "All are quiescently ceased" means realizing that the three feelings and so forth are originally empty. "Pure and non-abiding" means that the mind capable of this realization does not abide in emptiness. "One does not enter samādhi" means eliminating the worldly mind that enters concentration. "Nor abide in seated meditation" also dispenses with worldly dwelling in the stillness of meditation. If one can be like this, then there is neither an arising mind nor conceptual activity; hence it is said, "there is neither arising nor activity."

2.44

The sūtra states: Bodhisattva Mind King said, "Meditation can collect agitation and settle all illusory turmoil; why not meditate?"

2.45

The treatise states: This is the seventh [part], presenting a doubt. The meaning of the doubt says: in general, meditative concentrations can collect thoughts of restlessness and agitation, causing the scattered mind to become concentrated; why does the mind of supramundane practice of non-arising neither enter nor abide in meditative concentration? If it does not meditate, then it should be agitated. Having such a doubt, he therefore followed up with this question.

2.46

The sūtra states: The Buddha said, "Bodhisattva! Meditation is itself movement; unmoving and not meditating is the meditation of non-arising. The nature of meditation is non-arising, free from the mark of the meditation of arising. The nature of meditation is non-abiding, free from the agitation of abiding in meditation. Knowing that the nature of meditation has neither motion nor stillness, one immediately attains non-arising. Non-arising prajñā does not depend or abide, and the mind also does not move. Due to this cognition, one therefore attains the pāramitā of non-arising prajñā."

2.47

The treatise states: This is the eighth [part], resolving the doubt. "Meditation is itself movement" means that although worldly meditation is not scattered, it grasps objective marks; grasping marks, the mind arises, and arising constitutes agitation. Being able to leave behind such meditation of arising and movement, one is then able to attain entry into concentration on principle; hence it is said, "this is the meditation of non-arising." Such concentration on principle is in its nature free from arising and movement; hence it is said, "the nature of meditation is non-arising." Not only is it without arising, it also does not abide in quiescence; hence it is said, "the nature of meditation is non-abiding." If there is arising, then there is a mark; if there is abiding attachment, then there is movement. Here it is the reverse of this, hence it is said, "free from the mark of the meditation of arising, free from the agitation of abiding in meditation." The preceding sentences clarify the characteristics of concentration on principle; from "knowing that the nature of meditation" onward, it reveals the characteristics of cognition of principle. Pertaining solely to a single essence, they are divided into two according to their meaning. "Knowing that the nature of meditation has no motion" means knowing that the nature of meditation is without arising. "Has no stillness" means knowing that the nature of meditation is without abiding. "Immediately attains non-arising" means attaining the non-arising of principle. "Non-arising prajñā" means attaining the non-arising of practice. "Does not depend or abide" means that non-arising cognition does not depend on or abide in principle, being free from subject and object. "The mind also does not move" means that although it does not abide depending on principle, it is not an agitation of the arising mind. Through such cognition, one can reach the other shore; hence it is said, "the pāramitā of prajñā." The preceding eight sections together constitute the second part: the catechism of cross-examination.

2.48

The sūtra states: Bodhisattva Mind King said, "Honoured One! Non-arising prajñā does not abide anywhere, and does not separate from anywhere. The mind has no place to abide, and there is no place for the mind to abide; there is no abiding and no mind, and the mind is without arising or abiding. A mind abiding like this is the non-arising abiding. Honoured One! The mind's activity of non-arising is inconceivable; within the inconceivable, it can and cannot be spoken of."

2.49

The treatise states: This is the third [part], expressing understanding. "Anywhere" means all places of the ultimate, conventional, dynamic, quiescent, and so forth. "Does not abide" means that among all these, nothing is grasped. "Does not separate" means that among all these, nothing is not grasped. Why is this so? Because all those places are entirely neither so nor not so. "The mind has no place to abide" means there is no place to be abided in. "There is no place for the mind to abide" means there is no mind capable of abiding. "There is no abiding and no mind" combines the preceding two sentences, because there is no place and no abiding mind. "The mind is without arising or abiding" means that there is not an absence of the mind of non-arising and non-abiding. "A mind abiding like this" concludes the preceding "does not abide anywhere... does not separate from anywhere," because the sense of "not separating" is metaphorically spoken of as "abiding." "Is the non-arising abiding" concludes the preceding "the mind has no place to abide... the mind is without arising or abiding," because abiding is non-abiding, and non-abiding is abiding. "The mind's activity of non-arising is inconceivable" means it is beyond words and cuts off thought. "Within the inconceivable, it can and cannot be spoken of" is because it is free from words and also free from being free from words. Because it is free from words, it is said to be unspeakable; because it is free from being free from words, it can also be spoken of. It "can be spoken of" because it is not not so; it "cannot be spoken of" because it is not so. Therefore it is spoken of comprehensively as "it can and cannot be spoken of." Just as speech has what can and cannot be spoken of, one should know that thought also has what can and cannot be thought; it merely brings up one side to allude to the other.

2.50

The sūtra states: The Buddha said, "So it is, so it is."

2.51

The treatise states: This is the fourth [part], corroboration. The preceding expression of understanding not only tallies with the principle, but also accords with what the Buddha taught; therefore he repeats, "So it is, so it is." The prose exposition proper ends here.

2.52

The sūtra states: Bodhisattva Mind King, having heard such words, praised it as unprecedented, and spoke in verse, saying:

2.53

The treatise states: From here below is the second [part], praise in verse. In this there are two: first the preface, then the verses. "Having heard such words" means having heard the words of the Buddha within this single chapter.

2.54

The sūtra states:
"The Honoured One of perfect, great wisdom
Extensively explains the Dharma of non-arising,
[So that we] hear what has never been heard before,
Explaining now what had not been explained."

2.55

The treatise states: The three verses below do not versify distinct passages, but are merely a general praise. In this there are four: doctrine, simile, application, and conclusion. This is the first, the doctrinal statement, praising that "explaining now what had not been explained." Although it was previously explained at length, now in this sūtra the words are concise yet the meaning is rich, the text is succinct yet the principle is detailed; because such subtlety had not been previously taught.

2.56

The sūtra states:
"Just like pure ambrosia,
Appearing only once in a while,
Difficult to encounter and inconceivable,
And those who hear it are also rare.
An unexcelled, fine field of merit,
The supreme, wondrous medicine;
For the sake of delivering sentient beings,
He proclaims it now."

2.57

The treatise states: The following two lines are the second, the simile. As for "ambrosia," it is the medicine of immortality. It is used as a simile for this sūtra's ability to transcend birth and death. Next are four lines, which are the third, the application. "An unexcelled, fine field of merit" praises those capable of hearing. "The supreme, wondrous medicine" corresponds to the Dharma that is heard. The final two lines are the fourth, the conclusion.

2.58

The sūtra states: At that time, when those in the assembly heard this explanation, they all attained non-arising and non-arising prajñā.

2.59

The treatise states: This is the third [part], the assembly at that time obtaining benefit. Because ordinary beings prior to the bhūmis, upon hearing the explanation of this chapter, are able to attain the forbearance of the non-arising [of dharmas] of the first bhūmi.

2.60

Chapter on the Benefit of Innate Awakening

2.61

The treatise states: All sentient beings, from beginningless time, have entered the long night of fundamental ignorance, creating the great dream of false discrimination. When a bodhisattva cultivates contemplation and obtains non-arising, he thoroughly realizes that sentient beings are originally quiescent and are simply innate awakening, resting on the couch of uniform thusness; with this original benefit, he benefits sentient beings. This chapter reveals this principle; hence it is named the "Chapter on the Benefit of Innate Awakening."

2.62

The sūtra states: At that time, Bodhisattva Non-abiding, having heard the single taste, real, and inconceivable [Dharma] taught by the Buddha, came from afar to draw near to the Tathāgata's seat, single-mindedly and attentively listening, entering a pure and lucid state, unmoved in body and mind.

2.63

The treatise states: Among the six divisions distinctively clarifying contemplative practice, from here below is the third, clarifying the benefit of innate awakening. Relying on the practice of non-arising, one can unite with innate awakening, and only then can one universally transform and benefit all; for this reason, it is expounded next. In the text there are three: first, extensively clarifying the benefit of innate awakening; second, praising it with verses; third, the assembly at that time obtaining benefit. In the first there are two: first, clarifying stillness by means of movement, briefly indicating the central tenet of original benefit; second, going from subtle to manifest, extensively explaining the meaning of original benefit. In the first there are three: first, using bodily movement to indicate original benefit; second, using the exchange of words to indicate original benefit; third, emitting light and praising original benefit in verse. In the first, as for "Bodhisattva Non-abiding": although this person realizes that innate awakening originally has no stirring, he does not abide in quiescence and constantly initiates universal transformation; establishing his title according to his virtue, he is named Non-abiding. The virtue of non-abiding tallies with original benefit; therefore, through this person its central tenet is expressed. As for "the single taste, real, and inconceivable [Dharma]," it refers to what was taught in the previous chapter, that "the mind's activity of non-arising is inconceivable," and so forth. As for "came from afar to draw near to the Tathāgata's seat," his former seat was far from the Buddha's seat; having heard the previous chapter, he moved to a closer place. This expresses that previously, not having heard the profound Dharma, his stage was among ordinary fools, far from the fruit of Buddhahood; now, hearing the Buddha's explanation, he attains the benefit of innate awakening and knows of himself that attaining the fruit of Buddhahood is near. As for "single-mindedly and attentively listening, entering a pure and lucid state, unmoved in body and mind," having drawn near to the Buddha's seat, he focused single-mindedly on listening attentively, entering the fundamentally pure and lucid state, unmoved in body and mind in accord with the stillness of innate awakening. Thereby it signifies that upon entering innate awakening, one realizes that the fundamental is unmoving and attains what is non-attainable.

2.64

The sūtra states: At that time, the Buddha said to Bodhisattva Non-abiding, "Where have you come from? Where do you arrive now?" Bodhisattva Non-abiding said, "Honoured One! I have come from no origin, and now I arrive at no origin."

2.65

The commentary says: From here on is the second [section], [establishing the original benefit] through an exchange of words. Within it there are three [parts]: the question, the answer, and the endorsement.
As for the meaning of the second part, the answer, it clarifies that one comes from the stage of an ordinary being and arrives at the stage of a noble one. Arriving at the stage of a noble one, when one looks back and examines the past and the present: in the past, when one was at the stage of an ordinary being and first set out, one was confident in oneself that one's own mind was originally without stirrings or arising, because the origin of stirrings and arising cannot be found. Now, arriving at the stage of a noble one and attaining the unarisen, one directly verifies and knows that one's own mind is originally unarisen, because the origin of arising and coming-forth is ungraspable. Thus one knows that one initially came from a place without origin, and the place now arrived at is also a locus without origin. Since originlessness has already been raised, one should know that there is no end. That which has no end and no origin has no coming and no arriving. One merely reverently complies with the words of the Buddha's question, conventionally resorting to the words 'coming' and 'arriving.' Although coming and arriving do not exist, it is not that there is no coming and arriving at all. Therefore, based on coming and arriving, the absence of coming and arriving is revealed, because the place arrived at and the place come from are identically without origin.

First 65 of 197 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

金剛三昧經論 — Classical Chinese