華嚴經探玄記 2.8

2.8

Fourth, explaining the text. According to the Dà zhìdù lùn, 'thus' (ru) means conformity; 'this' (shi) means faith, and also endorsement. That is, by endorsing, conforming to, and faithfully accepting it, one says 'thus.' 'Thus' collectively brings up the text and meaning of the entire work, indicating the Dharma that one has heard oneself; therefore it says 'thus.' According to Tripiṭaka Master Chang'er, it is explained in terms of the Triratna: first, in terms of the Buddha, it means 'as what the Buddha taught is what I heard, so what I heard is what the Buddha taught'; second, in terms of the Dharma, 'as what I heard is teaching that conforms to principle, so the teaching that conforms to principle is what I transmit'; third, in terms of the Saṅgha, 'as what I heard is what the bodhisattvas jointly heard, so what the bodhisattvas jointly heard is what I transmit.' According to the Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna, the transmitter of the Buddha's teaching says, 'Things such as this, I once heard in the past.' 'Thus' is a collective term applied according to four senses: first, based on analogy; second, based on instruction; third, based on question and answer; fourth, based on assent; as explained extensively in that treatise. As for 'I' therein, it refers to the provisional person of the five aggregates. Broadly speaking, there are four kinds of 'I': first, the true I, meaning the eternity, bliss, self, and purity in tathatā, having tathatā as its nature; second, the autonomous I, meaning the eight autonomous selves and so forth, having wisdom as its nature; third, the provisional I, meaning the provisional person of the five aggregates, taking what appears in vijñapti-mātra as seemingly possessing an overlord as its nature; fourth, the grasped I, taking what is grasped by conceptual discrimination and innately co-arising as its nature. Furthermore, the minds that take an 'I' as their object also have four kinds: first, view, meaning ordinary beings and the like; second, conceit, meaning those in training (śaikṣa); third, residual habit, meaning those beyond training (aśaikṣa); fourth, following worldly convention, meaning the Buddhas. As for the 'I' here, among the former four it generally possesses the first three. In reference to the teachings, among the latter four it is only the one [fourth], or it may also encompass the latter three; this should be considered accordingly. Why not state non-self and instead state 'I'? It is to show direct hearing, for convenience of speech, to conform to worldly convention, and to reveal non-self, all as explained in the Dà zhìdù lùn. Question: Why does the transmitter of the Dharma not state his own name instead of saying 'I'? Answer: Because there is the fault of confusion with identical names. Question: Is 'I' not also general? Answer: Having already stated 'I', it definitely belongs to oneself and distinguishes one from others. Question: Why not say 'heard with the ear'? Answer: Because the whole encompasses the parts. Question: The ear only hears sound; how could it understand? Answer: The ear hears its sound, and the mind understands the text, harmoniously united without duality; thus 'hearing' is spoken of from what is immediate. In the Sarvāstivāda, the sense organ hears; in the Tattvasiddhi, consciousness hears; in the Dà zhìdù lùn, the harmony hears, which is empty and uncreated. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Hearing occurs through the harmony of four causes and conditions: first, the ear faculty is undamaged; second, sound is in the perceptible range; third, there is no obstruction in between; fourth, having the desire to hear, one thereby hears.' Therefore, this hearing is hearing without hearing. Furthermore, it possesses ten conditions: first, the fundamental consciousness as the fundamental support; second, the seed of ear-consciousness as the causal condition support; third, the manas as the defiled support; fourth, the mental consciousness as the discriminative support; fifth, ear-consciousness of its own class as the immediately preceding support; sixth, the undamaged ear faculty as the shared-object faculty; seventh, attention desiring to hear; eighth, the presence of an object as the objective condition; ninth, no obstruction in between; tenth, the object being near in a hearable range and unobstructed by other phenomena. Therefore, this hearing, being without intrinsic nature, is hearing without hearing. This should be determined in reference to the teachings. From 'At one time' onwards applies to both prefaces, which are the latter four clauses of the six clauses. Among them, the first three are determined together, namely time, host, and place; the last one is determined separately, namely the assembly of joint hearers. This should also be known as corresponding to the three realms. The former part also has two aspects: first, generally indicating the three characteristics; later, from 'when first realizing perfect enlightenment' onwards, separately explaining the three meanings. Why are there these two approaches? In terms of place, the former generally brings up the defiled and pure, while the latter separately reveals the pure aspect. Moreover, the former resorts to the defiled, and the latter separately determines the pure. Furthermore, because time has beginning and end, place has defilement and purity, and Buddha has shallow and profound, they must be examined again.