大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.29

Sixth, in explaining the text, this text has three parts: first, the verses giving rise to what follows; second, identifying the essence of the bhūmi; third, the verses concluding what precedes.
First, there are eighteen verses: the first two verses are praises by the bodhisattvas; the next two are offerings made with the three karmas by the devas; the next two are praises of the meaning of the bhūmi by the deva kings and their retinues; the next eleven are praises of the essence of the bhūmi and various particular practices by deva maidens; the next one is the request by Vimukticandra to reveal the entry into the subsequent realization.
The text concerning the maidens is divided into three: the first one is an offering of instrumental music; the next nine directly praise the virtues of the fruit and the cause; the last one is silently gazing upon the Buddha.
Within the preceding nine passages: the first four praise the fruit; the next five praise the cause.
The text on the cause has three parts: the first is the practice of great compassion; the next three are the practices of the six pāramitās; the last one concludes the function of merits.
Within the text on the essence of the bhūmi, there are three general divisions: first, the antidote to superior arrogance; second, the superiority of practice on the path of non-abiding; third, explaining the superiority of that fruit.
The first text has three parts: first, restating what precedes to give rise to what follows, encouraging cultivation to enter; second, identifying the characteristics; third, concluding the accomplishment of practice.
First, in explaining the antidote to superior arrogance, it explains the ten equal dharmas, which has two senses: first, the object of understanding; second, the object of practice.
As for 'the object of understanding': these ten headings are the model teachings, and below 'the path of non-abiding' it clarifies the upāya of the gateway of contemplative practice on which it relies.
As for 'the object of practice': the ten equalities are the beginning of contemplative understanding, and below 'the path of non-abiding' it clarifies the characteristics of the accomplishment of contemplation.
Furthermore, determining the text according to the commentary (Daśabhūmivyākhyāna) is also fine.
Regarding the ten equalities, the explanation of their characteristics has two parts: the first is general, and the next nine are particular.
Within the nine, there are three parts: the first seven refute existence by means of non-existence; the next one refutes non-existence by means of existence; the next one refutes both existence and non-existence.
The first text has three parts: the first one is the emptiness liberation gateway, which is contemplation of signlessness; the next five are the signless liberation gateway, which is contemplation of non-arising; the next one is the wishless liberation gateway, which is contemplation of naturelessness.
Regarding the order of practice: this raises the realization of understanding outside of practice.
A doubt is raised: 'If all phenomena are non-existent, how can they abide and endure, standing definitively for a long time?'
In order to answer this doubt, the sūtra says: 'Because they are without nature.' Saying 'without nature' means without real nature.
It is further asked: 'If all phenomena are non-existent, how is it that they are visibly perceived as real existents?'
In order to refute this doubt, the sūtra says: 'All phenomena are equal in being signless.'
Again, a doubt is raised: 'If phenomena are signless, phenomena arise in one place and cease in another place; the grasping mind follows what is perceived without depending on its own intention—how can they be signless?'
In order to refute this doubt, the sūtra says: 'All phenomena are equal in being unarisen.' From here down, this is the emptiness of own-essence; it is not like signlessness, and therefore differs from what precedes.
Saying 'unarisen' means that all phenomena arise from thought and have no independent existence; how could one say they exist? As the commentary says: because thoughts turn upon one another.
It is further said: 'If phenomena arise from thought, then their causes and conditions are not single. I do not see thoughts and all such conditions at all; I only see the established phenomena that are produced. Since thoughts and so on are not seen, they may well be non-existent, but the phenomena produced should be said to exist.'
In order to refute this doubt, the sūtra says: 'Because there is no accomplishment.' Saying 'no accomplishment' means that since phenomena arise from others, you do not see them as generated from conditions. Since you concede that phenomena arise from others, yet you do not see this characteristic, you should know that what is seen is merely [an illusion]. Presuming of oneself that one has not attained the real object, what is accomplished is falsely seen; therefore the commentary says: 'Equality in non-accomplishment.' These two [clauses] concern delusion regarding the truth of suffering.
It is further said: 'If all phenomena arise from others and have no nature of self-arising, I concede they do not exist; but since the cause that is able to accomplish can accomplish the other, it has efficacy and power, and should be said to exist.'
In order to answer this doubt, the sūtra says: 'Because of separation from all, all phenomena are equal.' According to the sūtra, this is in the eighth phrase. Saying 'separated' means that what is grasped as the object is merely an emotional presumption of reality; examining what they perceive, it has no origin: first, it did not exist previously; second, it has no real principle. How is this known? If it arises from conditions, then it appears [to exist] but is not real; therefore one knows that what is perceived is a mark that does not exist; hence the commentary says: 'Because of the mark of defilement.' This refers to conceiving the truth of origination.
Question: 'If it is the truth of origination, then it is subsumed under the aggregate of the mind. Since the understanding lies in the object, how can it correspond to origination?'
Answer: Examining the essence of the grasper, it merely corresponds to the semblance of conditions. Defilement and karma are falsely conceived within the object; the object is in fact non-existent, and the meaning comes down to grasping marks; hence it is called origination.
It is further said: 'Investigating the root and branch of the causes and conditions of all phenomena, neither can be apprehended.' Examining this intention: defiled phenomena rely on the real, arising from delusion regarding the true, and defilement can be said to be non-existent; but the two truths of cessation and the path, the true and conventional regarding which one is deluded, accord with principle and should exist.
Answer: You claim that the true and conventional accord with principle and are real. This meaning is not correct. Cessation, the path, the true, and the conventional are the realm of the pure conduct of correct wisdom; how can you claim that as conceived they are real?
In order to refute this doubt, the sūtra says: 'Equal in fundamental purity.' If it were real as conceived, then defiled minds would arise, and it could not be called fundamentally pure; hence the commentary says: 'Because of the mark of purity.' This refers to delusion regarding the two truths of cessation and the path.
It is further said: 'If phenomena are not truly existent as perceived, then worldly linguistic expressions should not arise; but we visibly see that names are varied and distinct, which proves that the referents they designate are not non-existent.'
Answer: If one claims that the names grasped are not single, these are worldly conceptual designations, not previously real existents. How is this known? One merely sees in the world that one attains the referent without attaining the name, or attains the name without attaining the referent; therefore one knows that names do not invariably follow from referents. When you claim that referents are real and give rise to names, this is conceptual proliferation and not real existence.
In order to refute this doubt, the sūtra says: 'Because they are without conceptual proliferation.' Names do not truly exist; they arise depending on referents. Referents do not manifest themselves; they become evident relying on names. This proves that they are dependent arisings of conceptual proliferation. Furthermore, observing the cause of the referent, one does not see the fruit of the name. Furthermore, observing the fruit of the name, one does not see the cause of the referent. This semblance of conceptual proliferation is also non-existent; hence the commentary says: 'Because of the mark of discrimination.' The reason it speaks only of discrimination is to reveal that they are empty in their very marks. This refers to delusion regarding the names of the four truths; above, it has already been explained under the contemplation of non-arising.
It is further said: 'I already know that marks are non-existent and understand that arising does not exist; this proves that the as-it-is can definitively be approached.'
Answer: When you claim that your own perception is false and non-existent, and separately see freedom from thought as something to be grasped, this is still discrimination; hence the sūtra says: 'Because of neither grasping nor rejecting.' 'Neither grasping nor rejecting' means that originally, due to emotional presumptions, whatever was perceived was grasped, and all of it was untrue. Now, seeing freedom from thought as that which is to be approached is identical to the previous delusion; hence the commentary says: 'Because of the marks of arising and vanishing.' The reason it only speaks of arising and vanishing is that arising and vanishing are themselves empty.
The above refutes existence by means of non-existence.
It is further said: 'I investigate and find that the arising of marks is non-existent, and also know that freedom from thought does not exist; one must know that phenomena such as defiled, pure, true, and conventional all lack essence and cannot be advanced toward.'

Answer: If you maintain that because defilement and purity cannot be pursued or entered upon, phenomena are nonexistent, this is incorrect. To refute this doubt, the sūtra states: 'Like illusions, dreams, and the like.' If phenomena were entirely nonexistent, why would dreaming occur in some instances and not in others? Examining this makes it clear that phenomena are not determinately nonexistent. Therefore, the treatise says: '[They] lack the characteristics of a self.' The reason why it solely states 'no self' in order to refute the nonexistence of a self is to transcend the self without abiding in selflessness. Dependent arising producing illusory affairs is not the same as the view above; this refutes nonexistence through existence.

Again, [an interlocutor] may say: 'My previously generating eight kinds of views failed to exhaust the truth, refuting existence through nonexistence. Then generating another view also failed to exhaust the truth, refuting nonexistence through existence. Now, examining their essence, one must not grasp onesidedly at existence or nonexistence; now both aspects are fully realized, and this should conform to the truth.'

Answer: What is seen as external still does not transcend conceptual feeling. How is this known? In the objective realm as seen, the meaning of nonexistence is not the meaning of existence, and the meaning of existence is not the meaning of nonexistence. According to the principle, nonexistence is precisely existence; existence and nonexistence are one. To refute this doubt, the sūtra says: 'Existence and nonexistence are non-dual.' Saying 'non-dual' means that phenomena do not abide of themselves, but arise in response to conditions. Furthermore, they are not [identical with] conditions, and therefore fruit-dharmas are formed. Investigating these phenomena, they do not exceed self and other; self and other do not abide, and emptiness is discerned right in phenomena. If one views existence and nonexistence in this way, it is because one does not transcend the two limits of self and other; hence the treatise states: 'Because of coming to be and ceasing.' The reason it mentions only coming to be and ceasing is that coming to be and ceasing are themselves empty, so one does not seek elsewhere.

One should know that the non-dual, equal Dharma is not spoken of as non-dual by eliminating existence and nonexistence; this is as it truly is. Thus it is verified that the so-called 'existence and nonexistence' are conceptual proliferations. Nor is another phenomenon separately posited between the two phenomena of existence and nonexistence to be 'non-dual'—one does not grasp both together, just as above. Because conditioned phenomena of existence and nonexistence share the same essence and each lacks intrinsic nature, to speak of that nonexistent phenomenon as existent means that existence is precisely non-existence; and in turn, speaking of that existent phenomenon as nonexistent means that nonexistence is precisely not nonexistence. Because existence is not existence, beyond nonexistence there is no separate existence to form a duality; because nonexistence is not nonexistence, beyond existence there is no separate nonexistence to form a duality. Therefore it is said: 'Existence and nonexistence are non-dual.' Furthermore, because those phenomena of existence and nonexistence are said to be non-dual, there is also no intrinsic nature of non-duality to be apprehended. This refutes the dual clinging to existence and nonexistence.

Third, the concluding passage has two parts, which are readily understood; their doctrinal characteristics are as in the treatise.

Above, the guiding Dharma was explained in terms of the twelve sense spheres (āyatana); below, the supporting gates of contemplation are distinguished in terms of the twelve links of dependent origination.

Question: Above, the Dharma was explained solely in terms of the twelve sense spheres; why are the contemplative gates below focused exclusively on dependent origination?

Answer: In encompassing phenomena, [the former] took a broad scope, and therefore the twelve sense spheres were used to cover both the environment and sentient beings; now, in terms of contemplative gates, the external is gathered into the internal, so it is restricted to dependent origination.

This passage has two parts: first, explaining non-abiding in terms of initial abiding, which is the general formulation of the main tenet; second, from 'making this thought' onward, opening the contemplative gates in terms of correct abiding, which is the specific explanation. Because the previous ground was inferior, only while correctly abiding in the ground was it termed 'non-abiding'; because this ground is superior, right from the initial abiding in the ground it is termed 'non-abiding.'

The first part has two sections: first, 'contemplating the characteristics of phenomena' and so forth recapitulates the preceding and introduces what follows. 'Characteristics of phenomena' recapitulates the ten equal dharmas in the preceding text; following along with the recapitulation of the preceding allows entry into the sixth ground. This relies on the treatise, and the sūtra can be understood by analogy. Second, from 'furthermore, with superior great compassion' onward directly reveals non-abiding.

Within this, the six lines running throughout are distinguished:
First, explaining their names: because this is contrasted with the preceding contemplation, it is called 'furthermore.' 'Headed by great compassion' refers to the mind mindful of sentient beings: relieving suffering is compassion, and the increase of compassion is called 'great.' 'Superior great compassion' means that the seeking mind reaches its utmost sympathy, so it is called 'superior' (adhimātra); or it may mean seeking the superior fruit and thus being called 'superior'; because it seeks the Buddha's wisdom to benefit sentient beings, it is called 'great compassion.' 'Fulfillment' refers to the mind detached from the conditioned: because of revulsion toward the conditioned, it contemplates dependent origination; carrying this contemplation to its exhaustion is called 'fulfillment.'

Here there is a difference between the sūtra and the treatise. According to the treatise, there are four lines: namely, taking the fourth line of 'arising and ceasing' as relying on the preceding three gates to establish the contemplative practice. According to the sūtra text, the third line is 'arising and ceasing,' which directly takes arising and ceasing as the contemplation of fulfillment. In accord with the two texts of the sūtra and the treatise, there are two meanings explaining the gate of arising and ceasing:
1. Relying on the treatise: the causes and conditions of sentient beings and bodhi are all conditioned; now knowing them through wisdom, it is called 'contemplating arising and ceasing.'
2. Relying on the sūtra: the phenomena of dependent origination arise in forward progression and cease in reverse progression; originally intended to rescue sentient beings, it is called 'great compassion.' Furthermore, if one relies on the sūtra, forming four lines is also permissible and readily understood.

Second, clarifying the meaning of the sequence of the three minds: following the preceding contemplation of empty phenomena, one then becomes mindful of sentient beings entangled in delusion; therefore, one first arouses compassion. Because of mindful compassion, one seeks the Buddha's wisdom desiring to bring benefit; therefore, one arouses the second. The Buddha's wisdom must necessarily be accomplished by transcending faults; therefore, one arouses the third.

Third, distinguishing in terms of benefiting oneself and benefiting others: the first benefits others, and the latter two benefit oneself.

Fourth, distinguishing in terms of guarding against afflictions and guarding against the Hinayana: the first two guard against the Hinayana, and the latter one guards against afflictions.

Fifth, in terms of cause and effect: the first and last encompass the cause, while the second seeks the fruit.

Sixth, distinguishing non-abiding: the first benefits others, not abiding in nirvāṇa; the latter two benefit oneself, not abiding in the worldly realm.

Second, specifically distinguishing the contemplative gates in terms of correct abiding: first, classifying and analyzing the contemplative gates in common across the sūtra and the treatise; second, explaining their meaning.

The first gate has three parts: 1. classification according to the sūtra; 2. classification according to the treatise; 3. correlating the sūtra and the treatise to divide the text.

Within the classification according to the sūtra, first, specifically explaining the ten contemplations; second, reiterating the conclusion.

What are the ten contemplations?
1. The sequential division of causes and conditions;
2. from 'the triple world is delusion' onward, explaining subsumption under the one mind;
3. from 'ignorance has two kinds' onward, explaining auxiliary accomplishment by one's own karma;
4. from 'ignorance causes activities to be continuous' onward, their not parting from each other;
5. from 'ignorance, craving, and grasping' onward, the functioning of the three paths;
6. from 'ignorance and activities belong to the past' onward, explaining contemplation of the prior and subsequent limits;
7. from 'ignorance and activities down to the six sense fields' onward, explaining the collection of the three sufferings;
8. from 'with ignorance as condition, activities arise' onward, distinguishing arising through causes and conditions;
9. from 'the condition of ignorance is the bondage of arising' onward, distinguishing the bondage of arising and ceasing through causes and conditions;
10. from 'the condition of ignorance accords with existence' onward, the contemplation of exhaustion in accordance with nonexistence.

Within each of these, there are forward and reverse contemplations, thus making two. Such is the text of the sūtra.

Second, classification according to the treatise: the treatise master distinguishes three gates among these ten rounds of contemplation:
1. Contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination within the mind of revulsion toward the conditioned: this is the preceding gate of fulfillment in arising and ceasing.
2. From 'contemplating the twelve links within the mind of deep mindfulness of sentient beings' onward: this is stated to be the contemplation of compassionate conformity. 'Conformity' means arousing compassion to conform with dependent arising; this is the preceding 'headed by compassion.'

The third is contemplating the twelve links with a mind seeking the Buddha, which in the treatise text is called the "discriminative contemplation of the knowledge of all modes"; this is the earlier contemplation of predominant compassion. Question: In the previous initial dwelling, compassion was first explained as foremost, then predominance was spoken of, and finally the fulfillment of compassion was revealed. Why here is fulfillment first, compassion second, and predominance spoken of last? In the previous initial dwelling, it was the sequence of generating the mind, and therefore compassion was first foremost and the fulfillment of compassion was discussed afterward; here it is the sequence of the actual practice, and therefore the fulfillment of compassion is first and predominance is spoken of afterward. What does this mean? In the previous initial dwelling, availing oneself of the preceding ten dharmas to contemplate the emptiness and quiescence of phenomena, one then recollected sentient beings being bound by falsely existing conditioned phenomena, and therefore one first gave rise to compassion; compassion wishing to eradicate suffering, one must attain the Buddha's wisdom, so next one gave rise to predominance; the Buddha is necessarily accomplished by leaving existence behind, and therefore the contemplation of the fulfillment of arising and ceasing and so forth was explained. Now in the actual practice, leaving faults behind is the beginning, so one first disdains the conditioned; by oneself leaving faults behind, one then recollected sentient beings abiding in them and unable to escape, so next one distinguishes following along. The first two subsume the cause, and their principle must necessarily come before; the knowledge of all modes is the practice of seeking the fruit, and its principle must necessarily come behind. Within these three gates, each has ten kinds of contemplating the accumulation of causes and conditions, which makes thirty; within each gate there is the reverse and direct orders, which becomes sixty. The above differentiation only explains sixty turns on the basis of the residing ground; contrasted with the fruit-portion below, there are one hundred and eighty gates of contemplating causes and conditions. How do we know this is so? Examining the text of the fruit-portion, it differentiates the accumulation of conditions by means of the three gates of emptiness, and based on this, what is subsumed under each gate is different. The sūtra says: "Relying on the liberation of emptiness, one attains ten samādhis of emptiness; non-arising and non-wishing are also like this." Based on these three emptinesses, there are three meanings. If one contemplates the twelve links by means of the samādhi of emptiness, the twelve links are all empty. How is this known? The author of the treatise has matched discriminative signlessness to the samādhi of emptiness; if one contemplates the twelve links by means of the gate of signlessness, the twelve are simulated; if one contemplates the twelve links by means of the gate of non-wishing, the dependent origination is real. The treatise also explains the contemplation gate of signlessness as the true nature (tathatā); because the true is free from signs, it matches it. It matches non-wishing with non-arising; because other-dependence is non-arising and has nothing to wish for or seek, it uses it to match it. These dharmic gates of the sameness and difference of causes and conditions can be understood by analogy with the ten samādhis of emptiness below. Third, regarding the demarcation of the treatise contrasted with the sūtra text, there is a further distinct meaning. Previously, relying on the ten turns of the sūtra text, the contemplation of disdaining conditioned causes and conditions and so forth was accomplished; therefore, based on the ten turns of the sūtra text before and after, one hundred and eighty gates are accomplished. Further question: If according to the sūtra and treatise there are no features of sixty contemplation gates, how can one hundred and eighty gates be accomplished? Answer: Because at the beginning of the sūtra three contemplation gates are opened, and afterward the author of the treatise still allows twenty turns in the sūtra text, and further separately differentiates three gates, four gates, nine gates, and so forth. Now, using the previously opened three contemplation gates to verify the contemplation-substance in the subsequent sūtra, one knows that there are definitely sixty gates. Now, contrasting the treatise with the sūtra, subsuming the ten gates into three turns, the intent proceeds from one contemplation of disdaining the conditioned; this intent will be further differentiated below. Now, as for the treatise's demarcation in subsuming the sūtra: within the contemplation of disdaining the conditioned, subsuming the ten turns of contemplation gates within that sūtra to make the initial gate among thirty, this is made into one, named "the mark of accomplishment and answer"; next, there is half a gate which is again made into one, named "paramārtha"; the remaining eight and a half gates are combined into one, named "differences of saṃvṛti-satya". In the second contemplation of following along with great compassion, it subsumes the ten into four: the initial gate is made into one, named "contemplating the delusion and inversion of sentient beings"; the next one is made into one, named "seeking liberation elsewhere"; the next four are made into one, named "seeking liberation on deviant paths"; the last four are made into one, named "seeking a different liberation". In the discriminative contemplation of the knowledge of all modes, it subsumes the ten into nine: the initial half-gate is spoken of as one, named "the contemplation of defilement and purity"; the next gate and a half is again made into one, named "the contemplation of the support of defilement"; next there are five gates, each distinct as one; next there are two gates combined into one, named "the contemplation of beginninglessness"; next one is made into one, named "the contemplation of varieties"—including the preceding, this makes nine. The earlier and later positions of the text within these three gates will be analyzed and explained below. Second, in explaining the meaning: according to the root text of the Great Sūtra, the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu has many [modes], but now they are briefly subsumed into two essential gates: first, distinguishing dependent origination in terms of defiled phenomena of ordinary beings; second, explaining dependent origination in terms of the pure part of bodhi. Regarding the pure gate, it is essentially subsumed into four: first, fundamentally existing; second, fundamentally existing and produced through cultivation; third, named produced through cultivation; fourth, fundamentally existing as produced through cultivation. "Fundamentally existing" means: dependent origination is fundamentally real, its essence being free from conceptualizing sentiments; the dharmadhātu is manifest and unmoving through the three times. Thus the "Nature Arising" chapter says: "Within the minds of sentient beings there is a scroll of sūtra in a speck of dust, and there is the great bodhi tree, which all āryas jointly realize." People realize it earlier or later, but that tree has no discriminative difference; thus we know it is fundamentally existing. Moreover, in this text on dependent origination, the twelve links of causes and conditions are themselves paramārtha. "Fundamentally existing and produced through cultivation" means: all pure categories fundamentally have no different nature, but now, in terms of various conditions, new goodness is generated; based on those various conditions, it is generated from false phenomena, and true wisdom then accords with the nature-essence of Samantabhadra. Fundamentally it is non-discriminative, and cultivated wisdom is also non-discriminative; hence wisdom accords with principle and does not accord with various conditions. Thus we know that what is produced through cultivation arises from what is fundamentally existing, sharing the same nature. Thus the "Nature Chapter" says: "It is called the bodhicitta, because it is nature-arising." Question: Since "fundamentally existing and produced through cultivation" is newly generated and its meaning is not old, why is it said to come from its fundamental nature? Answer: Because this chapter has the meaning of being newly born, it is called "produced through cultivation"; because it is intimate with the fundamental meaning, it is [said to] arise from nature. Just as grain today is not distinct from that at the beginning of the kalpa: it is intimate with the original grain, but distant in relation to present conditions; therefore it is not called newly attained. Reflecting on this, it can be understood. Third, "produced through cultivation" means: good roots such as faith have not previously been manifest; now, facing pure teaching and relying on conditions, they first arise; therefore they are called newly born. Thus the treatise says: "Because they lack non-discriminative wisdom." Fourth, "fundamentally existing as produced through cultivation" means: that tathāgatagarbha nature is hidden in all entanglements; ordinary beings are deluded, residing in it without realizing it. If contrasted with the time of delusion, it is not named as existing; therefore the *Lakṣaṇābhāva-śāstra* says: "If it existed, it should be seen." Furthermore, relying on the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, it says: "Because there are attainment and non-attainment, seeing and non-seeing, and so forth." Now, having attained non-discriminative wisdom, the dharmakāya begins to be revealed; being in entanglement, it is made pure; having previously lacked power, it was like those non-existent phenomena, but now, attaining functional efficacy, it is different from the fundamental prior non-existence; hence it cannot be said to be fundamentally existing, but is called purified through cultivation. Question: If the initial revelation is called produced through cultivation because it arises through cultivation, why is it called revealed?

Answer: It is simply because in the gate of generation through cultivation, its meaning is established as fundamentally present. Previously, when the mind was in delusion, essence and function were not spoken of; only now is it spoken of that the dharmakāya exists. Therefore we know that it is close to that newly generated, and its meaning of prior existence is distant. As the treatise says, "It is separated and not separated from impermanence." Since it speaks of impermanence, it cannot be derived from fundamental presence. The above four meanings fundamentally apply in common to this dependent origination. If divided according to the text of the sūtra, these ten rounds of dependent origination comprise only two gates: first, generation through cultivation; second, fundamental presence [revealed through] generation through cultivation. The remaining two are in the "Nature Manifestation" chapter. Second, regarding the discriminated dependent origination of defiled phenomena, there are two meanings: first, the gate of the one mind of dependent origination; second, the gate of the one mind of reliance and support. The gate of dependent origination broadly has three divisions: first, the gate of the assembly of conditions of the true and the false; second, the gate of subsuming the fundamental into the derivative; third, the gate of subsuming the derivative into the fundamental. Regarding the "assembly of conditions": speaking in terms of general characteristics, the twelve links of dependent origination are created by the fundamental consciousness, without distinction of true and false. As the treatise says: "Relying on the dharma of the one mind, there are two gates, because these two gates are not separate from each other." Also this sūtra says: "Because they are transformed by mind alone." And as the treatise says: "The combination of the true and the false is called ālaya." The purely true does not give rise [to anything], and the solitary false cannot succeed; only when the true and the false combine is there function. Just like events in a dream: only when known to unite with sleep can they gather and arise. This is the gate of the assembly of conditions of the true and the false. Second, regarding "subsuming the fundamental into the derivative": it is created solely by the false mind. The treatise says: "It is called the seed-consciousness and the maturation-consciousness." At the time of the antidote path, the fundamental consciousness is entirely extinguished; the dharmakāya wandering through the five destinies is called a "sentient being", taking on distinct flavors according to the places it flows. The dharma-seed's manifold sufferings are manifold like this; therefore we know that it subsumes the fundamental into its derivatives. Question: When following defilement, is it identical to defilement, or is it still pure? Answer: Its essence is pure, and fundamentally it is also pure; it cannot be called "following [defilement]". Therefore we know that at the time of defilement it cannot be [called] pure. If so, one should not say that the mind of arising and ceasing relies on the tathāgatagarbha; there would only be solitary arising and ceasing. Now, in speaking of mutual reliance, such a statement is made because one with wisdom realizes both defilement and purity; thus it is spoken in this way, not confined to the gate of defilement. Third, regarding "subsuming the derivative into the fundamental": the twelve links of dependent origination are created solely by the true mind, just as waves are made of water, and just as dream events are made solely of the retribution-mind, because of the true nature. The sūtra says: "The five aggregates, the twelve links of dependent origination, ignorance, and other phenomena are all Buddha-nature." Also this sūtra says: "The triple realm is false, made solely by the one mind." The commentary's explanation says: "Because it is the ultimate truth." Question: Subsuming the derivative into the fundamental should belong to the pure category; why is it discriminated within the defiled gate? Answer: This subsuming the derivative into the fundamental fundamentally belongs to the dependent origination of the pure category; now, to contrast with defilement and reveal that defilement is like an illusion, it is placed in the defiled gate. Question: If the meaning is such, all pure dharmas contrast with defilement to reveal falsehood; why is subsuming the derivative into the fundamental alone distinguished within defiled dependent origination? Answer: Whenever dependent origination of the pure category is discussed, there are two kinds: first, contrasting with defilement to reveal false dharmas, hence the sūtra says, "Because they do not truly know the ultimate truth of the truths"; second, merely revealing the dependent origination of the pure category, which is the gate revealing the principle, just as in the "Samantabhadra" and "Nature Manifestation" chapters and so forth. The remaining meanings can be understood by following this. This subsuming the derivative into the fundamental is precisely the non-empty tathāgatagarbha. Here there is also the meaning of emptiness, which is the emptiness of own-essence, to be discriminated later. Second, regarding the gate of the one mind of reliance and support: the sixth, seventh, and other consciousnesses are established in reliance upon the ālaya. Hence the treatise says: "The twelve links of dependent origination rely on the ālaya-consciousness, because the ālaya-consciousness serves as the universal cause." Question: How is this distinguished from the one mind of dependent origination above? Answer: In the one mind of dependent origination above, defilement and purity are identical in essence and their differences are not distinguished. In this gate of reliance and support, the supporting and the supported are different; hence it is divided into two. Question: Since the above meanings are distinct in each gate, how can they form a single realm of realization? Answer: All that was distinguished above was revealed in terms of distinct conditions; these are the conditions of the preparatory path to the realm of realization. Since desires and inclinations are distinct, the gates of contemplation upon which one relies are not one. If one seeks the realm of realization, it is as explained above in the ten equalities. The second section explaining the meaning is finished. Next, correlating with the text, the specific characteristics of the contemplation gates are explained. Within the ten contemplations of the sūtra text, it first explains the contemplation in forward order and next distinguishes the contemplation in reverse order; the rest are all like this. The characteristics of the contemplation in reverse order will be explained later. In the order of the initial division on causes and conditions, there are three kinds of distinctions: first, clarifying the hindrances to be counteracted; second, distinguishing the essence of the contemplation; third, explaining the sūtra text; the rest are all like this. Regarding "counteracting the hindrances": this counteracts attachment to the view of self, which claims that the twelve divisions are made by a self; that is, the view of a transitory collection and wrong view pervade universally. If distinguished according to the text, it only counteracts the view of a person; this delusion is universally counteracted by those three emptinesses. What are the characteristics of counteraction? There is truly no characteristic of a person, yet one sees the characteristic of an actual person; this is counteracted by the gate of emptiness. Dependent origination arises resembling a self, yet does not arise as apprehended; taking it to be a resembling characteristic is counteracted by [the gate of] non-arising. How is this known? Because there is that resembling self, the treatise says: "The consciousness of the distinction between self and other arises from the habituation of the view of self." Hence we know this. Accomplishing resembling arising and the characteristics of real phenomena is the gate of wishlessness, which counteracts both prior attachments in common. It can also counteract that emptiness of non-self and the seen characteristics of the eight masteries. How is this known? Hence the treatise says: "Because the emptiness of own-essence exists, this establishes the nature of non-nature." This is the gate of counteracting delusions.