華嚴經探玄記 13.16

13.16

Second, within the three sections of the explanation based on the treatise according to distinguishing aspects and truths, the first gate is named the distinction of establishing and answering the characteristics. Within it, there are four individual gates; brought together, they make three; essentially subsumed, they make two; and totalized, they make one. As for the four: first, the gate of adducing understanding and delusion to demonstrate and establish non-self; second, below 'the treatise-sūtra's [mention of] delusion'—corresponding to below the sūtra text's 'all ordinary beings'—explaining the censuring of emotion and revealing of principle; third, below 'according to the treatise-sūtra's lack of wisdom'—corresponding to below the sūtra text's 'blinded by delusion,' etc.—named the gate of distinguishing characteristics and revealing the actual; fourth, below 'not knowing the supreme truth,' explaining the gate of distinguishing characteristics based on the actual. Second, their being brought together into three: of the four, the first is called 'establishing', meaning explaining and establishing non-self; the next two are called 'answering', answering and revealing non-self; the last one is called 'characteristics', meaning establishing the characteristics of conditioned arising based on the principles of the truths. Their essential subsumption into two: the prior three gates take as their principle revealing non-self, and thus are adduced and explained in one place; the latter gate takes as its principle revealing conditioned arising as arising in its characteristics based on the true, and thus is adduced and explained separately. Totalized as one: it is the first distinction of establishing and answering the characteristics. The treatise's stating 'all birth and death within the five destinies,' etc., explains 'all places of rebirth within the world,' etc. Below it opens into three gates; regarding the four phrases in the first explanation of establishing: first, an overall explanation establishing non-self. Second, below 'all worldly [beings],' repeating and citing the sūtra. 'The meaning of non-self is thereupon established': simply based on the sūtra, it already establishes the meaning of non-self. Third, below 'if the supreme truth,' directly manifesting the meaning of non-self based on the facts, there are two phrases: first, the error of ordinary beings not being established if a self truly exists; second, the error of noble ones not being established if a self truly exists. How so? If in the supreme truth there truly were a self, definitively fixing the mind that grasps that self would be the supreme-truth wisdom—distinguishing and defining the grasping [mind]. 'They should not be born in the world' directly points out the fault, meaning: if within the supreme truth there truly were a characteristic of a self, ordinary beings should be noble ones—this is the thesis. Because they would possess the wisdom that realizes the real self within the supreme truth—this is providing the reason. Like noble ones—this is the similar example. This is the fault of ordinary beings being identical to noble wisdom; there would be no ordinary beings. Since the principle is not so, one clearly knows there is no self. Furthermore, the thesis that noble ones should be identical to ordinary beings; the reason being: because in principle there truly is a self, yet noble ones realize it as non-existent, conflicting with principle and falling into inverted delusion, so it would not be noble wisdom. Like ordinary beings who should be born in the world—this is the similar example. This is the fault of noble ones being identical to ordinary inversions; there would be no noble ones. Since the principle is not so, one clearly knows there is no self. This is the fault of destroying the noble ones. In accordance with the above, this text lacks one phrase, which should say: 'The mind free from grasping a self would then not be the supreme-truth wisdom.' Since non-self would not be the supreme truth, how could the mind free from a self be termed supreme-truth wisdom? The statement 'they should constantly be born in the world' uses principle to interrogate directly: if the mind free from a self were not ultimate wisdom, they would not realize nirvāṇa and should constantly be born in the world. In the former phrase, since ordinary beings would have supreme-truth wisdom, belonging to the truth of the path, they should attain nirvāṇa and not be in the world. This text reveals the true principle of non-self, as can be seen in line with the above. Fourth, below 'manifesting and showing,' citing the sūtra to contrast and reveal it, as can be known. Second, in explaining the answer: because the objection lies outside the text, it is called an answer. There are two objections and two answers. First, the objection investigating principle based on grasped sentiment, and the answer of sentiment running contrary to correct principle. The objection says: 'If in principle there truly is no self, one should attach to non-self; why attach to a self? Since one attaches to a self and does not attach to non-self, one clearly knows there is a self. Just as where empty space has no person, how could one conceive of a person?' The formal syllogism can be known. Below, the answer is: because one is blinded by delusion, where there is no self one grasps it as a self. Just as when the eye has cataracts, one sees flowers in empty space; how could there be these flowers in empty space? The inference can be known. Second, below 'thus there truly is no self,' the objection investigating the real based on grasped characteristics, and the answer that characteristics do not depend on a self. The objection says: 'If there were a self, ignorance could cause conditions to act sequentially. Since it is said there is no self, there is only sequence up to old age and death.' Below 'this manifests,' citing the sūtra to answer directly: through delusion one creates karma; karmic activity arouses consciousness, up to old age and death. Just as in worldly planting there is a sequence of mutual arising, what need is there for a self? Such is the intention of the answer. Therein, longing for permanence is existence, and seeking annihilation is non-existence. Longing is craving, and lack of wisdom is delusion. Afflictions are immeasurable; why are these two alone singled out? Because they are the roots of the branches of existence. Next, in explaining the formations, there are three phrases: first, explaining incorrect thought; second, incorrect paths; third, false practice. Because bodhisattva practices include non-false practice, next it explains the consciousness branch and the rest, first bringing together and citing the sūtra text. Below 'therein,' it explains that since the heterogeneous maturation ālaya[-vijñāna] is precisely the body of retribution, it says it shows the body of birth, old age, and death. Another explanation: the seed consciousness is its cause, hence it says it is the body of the tathāgatagarbha-ālaya. Another explanation: because it is the nature of birth and death, meaning this consciousness-body can further conform to and maintain the seeds of the remaining branches, causing the accomplishers and the accomplished, the projected and the projectors, to be established; hence it says 'conforming to and appropriating,' and so forth. Sinful and meritorious karma is the earth. Master Yuan explained: '“Abiding like this” is the form branch; “arousing the mind like this” is the name branch, concluding the produced name-and-form.' Now I explain further: 'abiding like this' is the consciousness seed and the ground of karma; 'arousing the mind like this' is being obscured by delusion and moistened by craving; this concludes the four passages above. Another explanation: this summarizes the sūtra's 'sprinkling with the mind of self,' etc., meaning making such abiding and giving rise to such a mind. 'Self and what belongs to the self,' etc., means seeing oneself as the self. As when a male is reborn, seeing the father's semen as belonging to himself, he takes it as 'what belongs to the self', and seeing the mother as his own wife, she is also 'what belongs to the self'; for a female it is the opposite. The statement 'conceiving of self and self is conceit' takes up the prior two conceptions of self and what belongs to the self as conceit. Seeing oneself competing with the father for female beauty, thinking oneself victorious, one then gives rise to conception and conceit; for a female it is likewise. The words 'my birth,' etc., explain the net of views. Master Yuan said: 'Seeing oneself as born only in this place and not born in another place, hence it says “my birth and non-birth.”' He also said: 'Seeing permanence is “my birth”; seeing annihilation is “non-birth.”' Now I explain: seeing one's own primary retribution is taken as 'my birth'; seeing the supporting retribution in which one roams is called 'non-birth'. Because when entering the womb one either sees roaming in flowery groves or dwelling in palaces, different views are manifold, hence it says 'various'. Because views and attachments are difficult to relinquish, it is like being covered by a net. Below explains the reverse contemplation: because conditioned arising phenomena lack intrinsic nature, they cease; they are not called ceased because the power of wisdom cuts them off. Below concludes the prior and generates the following: if conditions are without a self, upon what further phenomena do the characteristics of conditions abide? Below, the sūtra is adduced to contrast and reveal, clarifying that the characteristics of conditioned arising arise dependent upon the true. In the treatise, ignorance creating karma is called name-and-form. Master Yuan cited the *Vibhāṣā* that there are two kinds of name-and-form: first, provisional name-and-form; second, retribution name-and-form. If one says name-and-form conditions consciousness, it is provisional name-and-form; if one says consciousness conditions name-and-form, it is retribution name-and-form. Now since it explains formations as being name-and-form, one knows it is that provisional name-and-form. The words 'its support': because the ālayavijñāna is that upon which name-and-form and the rest depend. This is explained in terms of the gate of supporting and sustaining. Second, 'name-and-form and consciousness arise together' is the meaning of co-arising. Third is the meaning of mutual dependence, meaning consciousness can arise by means of name-and-form, and name-and-form can exist by means of consciousness. Below explains the reverse contemplation: agent and deed, person and dharma, are both empty; this is called concluding the prior. How does the subsequent question of realizing this true reality and attaining liberation apply? Answer: it now adduces conditioned arising in order to distinguish that contemplation.