大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.30

3.30

Second, the contemplation essence: that is, it reveals the meaning of the principle of cause and condition producing in sequence. Taking the three natures—emptiness, semblance, reality, and so forth—as the essence of forward contemplation, in reverse it becomes a single contemplation of the empty and natureless nature of dependent origination; that is, it takes the principle of the sequence of dependent origination as the essence of this contemplation. This is explained according to the sūtra. If explained according to the treatise, it should merely be understood and gathered accordingly.

Third, explaining the text: regarding the division of cause and condition, this is the causal division. 'Sequence' means gradual succession. 'Contemplation' has the meaning of illuminating and penetrating. The section title is based on these [terms].

This text has four [sections], which group into three, reduce to two, and are subsumed into one.

As four distinct sections:
1. Adducing their understanding and confusion to establish selflessness;
2. Following the treatise from 'ignorance' down, and the sūtra from 'all ordinary people' down, reproaching sentiment to reveal the principle;
3. Following the treatise from 'without wisdom' down, and the sūtra from 'constantly following erroneous thoughts' down, discerning characteristics to reveal reality;
4. From 'not knowing the noble truths and the ultimate truth' down, discerning characteristics based on reality.

Grouped into three:
Among the four sections, the first is called establishment; the two within explaining the establishment of selflessness are called the answer, an answer revealing selflessness; the last is called characteristics, meaning establishing the characteristics of dependent origination based on the two truths.

Reduced to two:
The former three sections principally reveal selflessness, which is the nature of dependent origination; the latter one comprehensively reveals the characteristics of dependent origination.

Subsumed into one:
Altogether they constitute the first: the sequence of the division of cause and condition.

Within the third, discerning characteristics to reveal reality: it is merely due to ignorance and craving that the various karmic formations arise, through to old age and death; it is not due to a self. Therein, first is forward, next is reverse, and last is the conclusion.

In the forward [sequence], the initial statement 'having no wisdom regarding existence and non-existence'—the sūtra saying 'constantly following erroneous thoughts'—is the link of ignorance. Having no wisdom is ignorance; seeking is craving; seeking permanence is called existence, and seeking annihilation is called non-existence. Past [existence] is solely ignorance; in reality, the past possesses all the afflictions, but because the power of ignorance and craving is strong, they are singled out.

From 'constantly following' down is formations. Formations has six clauses: the first three are the faults of formations, and the latter three are the essence of formations. According to the sūtra, the three clauses on the faults of formations are also the link of ignorance, because the link of ignorance in the treatise is missing [here].

From 'by means of these formations' down is the link of consciousness. First, 'by means of these formations, the seed of the mind arises' mounts the preceding to give rise to the succeeding: because formations perfume the mind, causing the mind to produce the subsequent, it is spoken of as a seed; 'mind' is the ālaya[vijñāna]. Second, from 'with outflows' down, the meaning of the preceding seed is revealed in contrast to subsequent saṃsāra. 'With outflows' is craving; 'grasping thoughts' are views. According to the sūtra, grasping mind—the mind also pervades thought.

From 'what is called karma as earth' down, subsequent existence is produced again: this is the link of name-and-form. Producing name-and-form and so forth has seven clauses: 1. karma as the earth; 2. consciousness as the seed; 3. ignorance covering; 4. the water of craving moistening; 5. the mind of self irrigating; 6. the net of various views; 7. the sprout of name-and-form emerging.

Question: According to the principle of perfuming, karma should be the seed and consciousness the supporting ground; why is consciousness now the seed?

Answer: Whenever karmic seeds are discussed, there are two distinctions: 1. when perfuming forms a seed; 2. when it induces and produces, bringing about the fruition. When perfuming forms a seed, karma is the seed and consciousness is the earth, because before consciousness has been perfumed, it has not yet been determined that there is a seed. Now, because of perfuming, one first speaks of the seed being produced; thus it is intimately related to the perfuming capacity of the active mind above, and distantly related to consciousness; hence consciousness is the earth. The seed is the supported, and thus belongs to karma. Second, regarding inducing and producing, bringing about the fruition: one takes consciousness as the seed and karma as the earth. Here, what is called 'karma' refers to the intermediate existence seeking rebirth at the verge of birth; the karmic mind is the actual karmic seed, still latent in the basic consciousness and not yet activated. Now, this active mind seeking rebirth in the intermediate existence is the functional characteristic of the seed. Since this functional characteristic is not the essence of karma, but can merely induce karma to bring about the link of consciousness—just as earth induces the seed to attain fruiting—karma is said to be the earth. The seed is within consciousness, of the same indeterminate nature as that basic consciousness; the active mind of the previous consciousness that produced karma has already perished, while the present seed and basic consciousness are established together; being intimately related to consciousness and distantly related to the perfumer, it is judged as belonging to consciousness and combined as the seed. This has two meanings: one is identical essence, and the second is different essence; this meaning is as explained in the critical examination above.

Question: The power of karma, ignorance, the various views, and so forth, in presently seeking rebirth, use consciousness as their support; they should be classified with consciousness as the seed—why are they separately distinguished as the supporting ground?

Answer: In principle, they similarly rely on consciousness, but have a different meaning and are not like the seed. Because the seed presently shares the indeterminate nature of consciousness, being of one essence and two aspects, both are one and undivided. Although the ignorance that seeks rebirth is together with consciousness, it presently transforms into the distinctions of form, mind, and so forth; it is not like the two meanings of essence and aspect of the basic consciousness, and cannot be classified with consciousness as the seed. The rest of the text is readily understood.

Second, the contemplation of relying on the one mind: that is, the supported of the twelve links, etc. 'Mind' is the ālaya mind. The section title is based on this. It takes ālaya dependent origination as the essence of this contemplation. The three sections are as above.

First, what is eliminated: it eliminates the grasping at an intrinsic nature in external objects, meaning all objects. As for specific elimination, it merely eliminates the three—intrinsic nature, distinction, and accumulation of delusion; general elimination is readily understood.

Second, the antidote. The essence of the contemplation relied upon: again, it takes the threefold emptiness—emptiness, semblance, reality, the nature and characteristics of non-arising—as this forward contemplation. Thus the treatise says: 'Because the ālayavijñāna is the great emptiness, it is non-arising, semblance, and reality.' Wishlessness should be understood by reflecting on the treatise. In reverse, it forms one contemplation, identical to the first section.

Regarding consciousness-only (vijñapti-mātra), there are two kinds: 1. ālaya consciousness-only, which maintains and generates all phenomena, so that apart from consciousness there is nothing; 2. mental consciousness consciousness-only, where phenomena such as saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, defilement, and purity are presently on the mental plane, so that apart from consciousness there is nothing. Ālaya consciousness-only is merely the object of understanding, not what practice relies upon; mental consciousness consciousness-only is the culmination, which is what correct understanding relies upon. Culminating in mind and beginning in mentation, it can be understood in reverse of the preceding.

What are the characteristics of contemplation? It is like the practicing mind seeing phenomena as objects; if there is no contemplating mind awakening to the objects, defiled and pure phenomena will present themselves unrestrained. Now, knowing that what is grasped is made by mental speech, that mind does not arise. When one knows that it is made by consciousness, this is called using other-dependent [nature] to dispel the parikalpita object.

Question: How are the other-dependent and consciousness distinguished?

Answer: The other-dependent is in terms of characteristics. How is this known? The imagined essence is empty; the characteristics can give rise to consciousness. That consciousness follows conditions and does not maintain an intrinsic nature; this should become empty, and so manifests semblant characteristics; therefore we know it is in terms of characteristics. Second, consciousness-only is in terms of essence: the three realms are only mind, and inverted discrimination is empty; therefore we know this. In contrast to naturelessness, consciousness is semblance and not real; essence and characteristics complete each other, and so they are spoken of together.

Question: As objects rely on mind, they are resultant phenomena, semblance and not non-existent; why is it that when discerning objects in contrast to consciousness, they are empty?

Answer: They merely arise from the mind; they are not parikalpita objects, but belong to the cognizing mind, subsumed under the other-dependent nature. How is this known? Because when seeing objects, one merely sees reality; therefore the author of the treatise, with the text on the two truths, made one contemplation of reliance.

Question: Knowing afterwards that it is consciousness-only is still an object of knowledge; what difference in meaning does it have from the previously perceived object, that the subsequent object is still judged as belonging to the other-dependent nature?

Answer: Previously, when seeing the object, one did not know the assembly of conditions, speaking of it as made by consciousness-only, where the meaning of 'making' was not the nature. When seeing that it is made by consciousness, one discriminates it as defiled; the principle of conditioned assembly contradicts the parikalpita nature; therefore we know they are different. When the real object is dispelled and extinguished, one attains a portion of the nature of emptiness and signlessness. Because the signless manifests, both the thought and object of consciousness-only do not arise; this is called attaining the natureless nature. This is the consciousness-only contemplation method in the approach of practice. If explained in terms of generating understanding, then the natureless nature is discerned after the three natures.

Question: When the thought of consciousness-only is extinguished, is it that knowing the signless object dispels the thought of consciousness-only, or does the thought of consciousness extinguish by itself?

Answer: There is no distinct contemplating mind that knows the signless. It is just that the thought of consciousness-only concurrently knows naturelessness, and grasping thought naturally does not present itself. Moreover, relying on the momentum of the preceding, the subsequent mind is also prevented from arising.

Now, within this text, both consciousness-only teachings are covered. 'The three realms are made only by mind' is basic-consciousness consciousness-only. As the sūtra's verse below says, 'They only exist from a greedy mind'—this is mental-consciousness consciousness-only. This is forward contemplation; this is explained according to the sūtra.

Third, explaining the text: the sūtra text has four parts: 1. the initial phrase establishes the thesis; 2. from 'the twelve links' down, it adduces the sacred teaching as proof; 3. from 'why is that' down, it questions; 4. from 'following affairs, desire-mind arises' down, it answers. 'Following' has the meaning of manifold. 'Affairs' are the karmas produced by the active mind. 'Desire-mind arises': 'mind' is the ālaya mind.

Question: Since it says 'desire-mind', that is the mental consciousness; why say it is the basic mind?

Answer: Desire-mind has two meanings: 1. the present functional discrimination of consciousness; 2. the aspect where this consciousness is aroused into function by causes and conditions belongs to the affairs, while the aspect of being able to see and grasp belongs to the mental consciousness. Being aroused by causes and conditions belongs to the ālaya, because when arising they are in the same locus and cannot be distinguished. Just as when formations deceive the mind it is called ignorance, when the desire-mind grasps objects it is non-comprehension; how could one discern non-comprehension separately after desire-mind? Therefore we know that desire itself is called non-comprehension; it is merely to form the text that the words appear before and after. 'Affairs' are the affairs discriminated by the active mind of the practitioner, which are karmic formations. Formations deceiving the mind being called ignorance means that their formations presently constitute the parikalpita real characteristics. Now the ālaya consciousness transforms into non-comprehension, called the mental consciousness, and grasping its real affairs is called ignorance. The rest of the text is readily understood. This is explained according to the treatise.

Question: What is the difference between this and the sūtra text?

Answer: The sūtra is comprehensive, while the treatise is restrictive.