華嚴經探玄記 4.57

4.57

In the second part, the answer, there are two sections: first, one verse praises the inquiry and encourages listening—the first half praises the question as matching the capacity [of the audience], and the second half encourages listening and promises exposition; afterwards, there are ten verses that set forth the principles to properly answer. Therein, the first five verses answer the refutation of the defensive argument, for if the defensive principle is established, the original objection is resolved, so it must be answered first; the latter five verses answer the earlier objection on the fundamental doctrine. The intention of the answer here clarifies that the conditioned arising of the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna) has two meanings: first is the meaning of non-arising, because it lacks own-nature (svabhāva); second is the meaning of arising, because this conditioned arising without own-nature exists. These two are non-dual; they are a single, unobstructed, profoundly deep conditioned arising. Herein, because of non-arising, arising is accomplished; therefore, merely because the conditions do not know one another, perfuming (vāsanā) is accomplished and manifold phenomena arise. This answers the latter objection. Second, because of arising, there is non-arising; therefore, merely because manifold phenomena arise, each lacks own-nature and is solely the one mind-nature. This answers the earlier objection. Furthermore, the former does not obstruct the one mind being precisely the manifold, and the latter does not obstruct the manifold being precisely the one mind; the unobstructed fusion of the correct principle of conditioned arising is the intention. Among the first five verses, the first is an exposition of doctrine, and the following four are metaphors. Alternatively, they may be expanded into five parts: first, the thesis (pratijñā); second, the reason (hetu); third, the metaphor (dṛṣṭānta); fourth, the application (upanaya); and fifth, the conclusion (nigamana). That 'all phenomena lack autonomy' establishes the thesis; that is, 'all phenomena' is the subject (dharmin), and 'lack autonomy' is the predicate (dharma); the conjunction of the predicate and the subject is called the thesis. Therein are two meanings: first, in the conditioned arising of the storehouse nature, the active and passive perfuming arise and subsume many phenomena, hence it says 'all phenomena'. Because they serve as mutual causes and conditions and are interdependent, none can possess an independent existence. Second, arising from conditions, because they lack own-nature, they have no intrinsic existence. Second, presenting the reason: how is it known that they lack autonomy? The reason says, 'Because, seeking reality, it cannot be found.' Because the fundamental consciousness and the various phenomena mutually depend on conditioned arising and mutually delineate and deprive each other, each lacking own-nature, it says 'seeking reality, it cannot be found.' This has two meanings: first, clarifying non-autonomy in terms of the fundamental consciousness; because it depends on those conditions and lacks own-nature, it says 'seeking reality, it cannot be found.' Second, clarifying non-autonomy in terms of the perfuming dharmas and so forth; because they depend on the fundamental consciousness and lack an intrinsic essence, it says 'seeking reality, it cannot be found.' Or, discussed broadly, there are four meanings: first, because all phenomena rely on consciousness, seeking real existence in all phenomena cannot be found; second, because the fundamental consciousness is the reliance, seeking real non-existence in the fundamental consciousness cannot be found; third, because all phenomena give rise to consciousness, seeking real non-existence in all phenomena cannot be found; fourth, because consciousness follows conditioned arising, seeking real existence in the fundamental consciousness cannot be found. Or they may be expanded into eight propositions, meaning each has the four propositions of existence, non-existence, both, and neither; this can be seen by considering it accordingly. Another explanation: this has four propositions. First, because non-arising is not distinct from arising, seeking the reality of non-arising cannot be found, hence non-arising lacks autonomy; second, because arising is not distinct from non-arising, seeking the reality of arising cannot be found, hence arising also lacks autonomy; third, because there is no duality, seeking the reality of both cannot be found, hence there is no autonomy of both; fourth, because it does not obstruct the two meanings, seeking the reality of neither cannot be found, hence there is no autonomy of neither. Why are they non-autonomous in this way? Because conditioned arising is autonomous. Why are they not real? Because the principle of conditioned arising is real. Third, from 'Therefore, all phenomena' onward is the conclusion. Because the conclusion follows the doctrine, it is placed after the thesis and the reason. The application follows the metaphor, so it is stated after the metaphor. 'Both do not know one another': as in the active and passive perfuming above, each has the two meanings of existence and non-existence; because two existences and two non-existences do not coexist, they cannot know one another; because one existing and one non-existing, or one non-existing and one existing, each lack duality, there is nothing that could be mutually known. Precisely due to such not-knowing and so forth, all phenomena can exist, hence it says 'all do not know one another.' This reveals that not only does equal one-taste not destroy the various phenomena, but also, solely due to equality, the various phenomena exist. Fourth, within the metaphors, there are four metaphors. These are four meanings of the storehouse consciousness: first, the meaning of other-dependence (paratantra) as continuous cause and effect; second, the meaning of generating consciousness through mutual cause and effect; third, the meaning of receiving perfuming; fourth, the meaning of mutual support. First, it says 'like a swift current': in the Cheng weishi lun it explains that the ālayavijñāna constantly rolls on like a rushing torrent; this is that meaning. Here, 'without interruption' is the meaning of its constancy, and 'flowing and coursing' is the meaning of its rolling on. Hence that treatise says: ''Constant' refutes annihilation; 'rolling on' indicates non-permanence.' When distinguished in detail, water flowing must generally have four meanings: First, there is the water capable of flowing, subtly having three [aspects]: 1. The essence of the water is pure, metaphorically showing that the fundamental consciousness is the naturally pure mind of the tathāgatagarbha; 2. Mixed with earth, it becomes turbid, metaphorically showing that the naturally pure tathāgatagarbha is defiled by ignorance and has its defiled mind; 3. Encountering cold, it becomes ice/water, metaphorically showing that the tathāgatagarbha in turn conjoins with the false consciousness to form the conditioned arising of the fundamental consciousness. Hence the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is named the ālayavijñāna, and it is conjoined with ignorance and the seven consciousnesses, etc.' Second, flowing through mutual reliance, metaphorically showing the meaning of the fundamental consciousness's own-characteristic. That is, because the following water pushes, the preceding water can flow; or because the preceding water draws, the following water can flow. Each has potency or impotence, etc., and without knowing each other they are able to flow continuously; this is the flowing of non-flowing. As it is said, 'The rivers race onward yet do not flow'—this is what it means. In the sūtras it is called 'flowing production and cessation.' The third fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun says: 'Like a rushing torrent, neither annihilated nor permanent, continuous for a long time, having things adrift and sinking in it. This consciousness is also like this: from beginningless time, its production and cessation are continuous, neither permanent nor annihilated, drowning sentient beings so that they do not escape.' And so forth, down to: 'This nature of consciousness, from beginningless time, produces effects and ceases as causes moment by moment. Because effects are produced, it is not annihilated; because causes cease, it is not permanent. Non-annihilation and non-permanence are the principle of conditioned arising.' Down to: 'One should have faith in the correct principle of Mahāyāna conditioned arising. This correct principle is profound, wondrous, and beyond words; words such as 'cause' and 'effect' are all conventional designations. Observing present phenomena having the function of drawing forth what follows, an upcoming effect is provisionally established in counter-relation to state a present cause; observing present phenomena having the mark of recompensing what preceded, a past cause is provisionally established in counter-relation to state a present effect, provisionally saying that the present consciousness manifests resembling those marks. Such principles and reckonings of cause and effect are clear and distinct, far removed from the two extremes and in accord with the Middle Way; all who are wise should follow and practice this.' Furthermore, relying on the Laṅkāvatāra: 'In a moment (kṣaṇa), confusion is stilled; / peaceful and quiet, free from activity. / All phenomena are unproduced— / this I call the meaning of a kṣaṇa. / Initial production immediately contains cessation, / yet this is not spoken for the foolish. / Its nature of uninterrupted continuity / is perfumed by false discrimination.' Explanation: In the former treatise, production and cessation occur in separate mind-moments; in the sūtra, production and cessation occur in the same mind-moment. Therefore, it is the production and cessation of non-production and non-cessation (reflect on this further). The sūtra speaks according to the Final Teaching, where the unproduced-unceasing and the produced-ceasing unite in harmony, named the ālayavijñāna, etc. The treatise speaks according to the Initial Teaching, where only production and cessation constitute consciousness; examined strictly, it does not even establish production and cessation, for when there is production there is no cessation, so it should not be conditioned, as its characteristics would be incomplete; if there is cessation, it could not be produced, because they are contradictory. Therefore, in the Final Teaching they are in the same mind-moment; because each is empty and provisional, they do not obstruct each other. Furthermore, relying on the true mind, they can be identical; following characteristics, they are different (reflect on this further). Past cessation can accomplish production; future cessation can destroy production. A produced dharma can destroy the past, and cessation can accomplish future cessation. Furthermore, the single characteristic of cessation, viewed against preceding production, can destroy; viewed against subsequent production, can accomplish. The single characteristic of production, viewed against preceding cessation, can destroy; viewed against subsequent cessation, can accomplish. Therefore, continuity is without interruption (reflect on this further). Moreover, because production arises through cessation, production fully contains cessation. Because it fully contains cessation, it causes production not to abide, turning back to become cessation. Because cessation exists through production, cessation contains production. Because it contains production, it causes cessation not to abide, turning back to become production. Therefore, production and cessation intersect; before and after are simultaneous and do not obstruct one another, flowing continuously without cut. Furthermore, within a single characteristic of production, four kinds of meanings of cessation are simultaneously fully present: 1. Nature not being established is called cessation; 2. Arising by virtue of cessation, it thus contains cessation; 3. Being able to accomplish cessation, it thus contains cessation; 4. Because production and cessation are both dreamlike and false. Viewed within false calculation, there are before and after; when reality is illuminated, there are no before and after at all; therefore, when there is production, there is also cessation (reflect on this further). The cessation-flow of the preceding mind-moment flows into production; the production-flow of the subsequent mind-moment flows into cessation. The two flows of production and cessation are therefore called 'flowing and coursing.' Prior to attaining the path of antidote, there is no pause even for an instant, hence it says 'without interruption.' The two flows each have no [independent nature], etc., and do not know each other. Third, depending on the wind, there are two meanings: 1. Flowing due to wind metaphorically shows the meaning of the causal characteristic of the storehouse consciousness, meaning it drifts and flows relying on the wind of defilement and karma perfuming the seeds; this is distinguished according to the causal characteristic. 2. Raising waves due to wind: the Laṅkāvatāra says, 'The ocean of the storehouse consciousness is constantly abiding; stirred by the winds of sensory objects, the waves of manifold consciousnesses leap and turn into arising.' Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 3, says: 'Also like a rushing torrent, though struck by wind and the like, raising various waves, its flow is uninterrupted. This consciousness is also like this: though encountering various conditions, raising the eye-consciousness and so forth, it is constantly continuous.' Herein, 1. flowing because blown by wind, and 2. flowing by means of water, hence it says 'flowing and coursing.' Mutually dependent and lacking own-nature, neither knows the other. Or the flow of seeds and the flow of the consciousness relied upon, though not knowing each other, still flow. As in the text above, 'karma does not know mind,' which should be understood by analogy. Fourth, flowing according to the high and low of the ground metaphorically shows the meaning of the fruition characteristic of the fundamental consciousness: it flows relying on the retribution of rebirth grounds where one is variously born. Human and deva realms are high; evil destinies are low. This is according to the fruition characteristic. Here, mind and retribution are two; because they lack own-nature, they do not know each other. As above, 'retribution does not know experiencing,' which should be understood by analogy. Or it flows bearing objects, hence the Cheng weishi lun says: 'Also like a rushing torrent carrying water up and down, fish, grass, and other things follow along without being abandoned. This consciousness is also like this: it constantly rolls on together with internal impressions (vāsanā) and external contacts and other dharmas.' Second, the metaphor of the lamp flame establishing reliance has three meanings: first, the meaning of generating consciousness; second, the meaning of mutual cause and effect; third, the meaning of appropriation (upādāna). First, generating consciousness: just as relying on the preceding flame burning the wick, the subsequent flame can arise, clearly illuminating the preceding object for only a single thought-moment, hence not pausing for an instant. The six consciousnesses are also like this: because verbal designations and the like rely on the fundamental seed-consciousness, they can generate subsequent consciousnesses to illuminate objects, preceding ones ceasing and subsequent ones arising without a moment's pause. Here, taking the fundamental consciousness as the lamp oil, the seeds in the consciousness as the lamp wick, and the generated active six consciousnesses as the flame, lacking an essence and swiftly ceasing, they do not know one another. As for 'both do not know one another,' ancients said: the flame and the basin are two, and the wick and the oil are two; the four dharmas arise in combination, each not knowing the other. This is likely without principle. The textual intention seems to take the preceding flame and subsequent flame as two; because they swiftly cease without abiding and lack essence, how could they know each other? The six consciousnesses relying on the fundamental without essence are also like this. 'Mind does not know experiencing,' etc., should be understood by analogy. Second, the meaning of simultaneous mutual causality, as stated in the second fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. The treatise says: 'For example, the light of the lamp and the wick of the lamp: production and burning simultaneously serve as mutual causes.' The commentary explains: 'Because the substance of the wick is the support that can generate the bright flame, the wick is the cause of the production of the bright flame. The bright flame, in this very moment of production, because it can burn the wick, is the cause of burning the wick' (down to and so forth). The treatise says: 'It should be known that the fundamental consciousness and the active perfumings serve as mutual causes; its meaning is also like this. Just as consciousness is the cause of defiled dharmas, defiled dharmas are the cause of consciousness.' The commentary explains: 'This ālayavijñāna is the generative cause of the seeds. If there were no such consciousness, the production and cessation of the three karmas would have no support. As the substance passes away, its potency is also like this. Therefore, by this consciousness the substance of all dharmas is produced, and their potencies are also established. Therefore, the fundamental consciousness is their generative cause. Those dharmas are also like this: if those dharmas lacked this consciousness, arising in the present would be without reason; evolving subsequently different from prior, this transformation is the fruit of those dharmas.' Explanation: Here, the flame and wick of the preceding mind-moment simultaneously generate and burn in the same single kṣaṇa; each has cause and effect, and simultaneously passes away; the subsequent flame is also like this, hence it says 'flaming and blazing.' Until reaching the state of antidote, these dharmas constantly arise, hence they do not pause for an instant. Because the two causes and two effects do not coexist, they do not know one another; because one cause and one effect lack duality, there is nothing that could be known. Furthermore, it is the flame that can burn the wick and the flame produced by the wick, hence it says 'flaming and blazing.' Because the principle of production does not pause, it is precisely burning; the principle of burning is also like this, hence it says 'not pausing for an instant.' Not knowing each other is as above. Here, the meaning of mutual causality is briefly made into two levels, each with three gates: 1. guarding against faults, 2. revealing virtues, and 3. showing faults, as in the questions and answers (and so forth). Third, the meaning of appropriation: here it clarifies that the lamp has two functions: 1. internally burning the wick to char, and 2. externally emitting light to illuminate. This metaphorically shows that this fundamental consciousness has internal and external upholding. The Yogācārabhūmi says: 'The appropriation of this consciousness is twofold: first, internally appropriating the seeds and the physical body with the five sense organs; second, externally appropriating the receptacle world. Just as the lamp flame internally holds the oil and wick, and externally emits illumination—this is what it means.' These internal and external two are why it says 'flaming and blazing.' Constantly appropriating without interruption, it says 'not pausing.' Internal and external constitute two; because they lack own-nature, they do not know each other. Third, the metaphor of wind showing the meaning of perfuming: here wind has two meanings: 1. having potency to move others, metaphorically showing that the evolving consciousnesses can perfume into seeds, etc.; 2. having no essence, meaning this wind cannot manifest its own mark of motion; it must blow on objects and cause them to move before the mark of wind is known. This motion is indeed the motion of the object, so we know wind has no self-essence. All perfuming dharmas cannot establish seeds by themselves; they must perfume the fundamental consciousness to form seeds, and only then is the perfumer revealed; this seed is indeed a seed of consciousness, so we know that the perfumer lacks own-nature. 'Both do not know one another': wind and objects are two; relying on the motion of objects, wind lacks own-nature; following the wind, objects lack own-nature; likewise, two non-existences and two existences do not coexist, and one non-existence and one existence have no active and passive, so neither knows the other. In consciousness it is also like this, understood by analogy, hence it says 'all dharmas are also like this.' Fourth, the metaphor of earth showing the meaning of mutual support: just as the earth wheel relies on the water wheel, the water wheel relies on the wind wheel, the wind wheel relies on empty space, and empty space relies on nothing. The meaning of mind is also like this: sensory objects rely on the false mind, the false mind relies on the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness relies on the pure mind, and the pure mind relies on nothing. Another explanation: active dharmas rely on seeds, seeds rely on the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness relies on tathatā, and tathatā relies on nothing. 'Do not know': space provides support for wind, and lacking an essence itself, does not know wind; wind provides support for water, and itself relying on space, lacks potency to know water; water toward earth is also like this, and in consciousness it is also understood by analogy. Thus far, answering the refutation of the defensive argument is concluded. In the second part, answering the earlier fundamental objection, five verses are divided into two: the first two directly answer the earlier objection, and the latter three directly reveal the gates of contemplation. In the former, the objection asked: since mind-nature is one, how can it produce manifold retributions? Now it answers: because it arises following the perfuming of the various evolving consciousnesses, it is not that the one mind itself makes the manifold; hence it says 'eye, ear... thereby rolling on the various sufferings.' The five pairs above, such as 'or reaching good destinies,' are all distinguished in terms of retribution, hence they are collectively called 'the various sufferings.' Here, the five consciousnesses such as eye[-consciousness] are obvious. 'Mind' (hsin/citta) is the fundamental consciousness, because it has the meaning of accumulation and arising. 'Intellect' (yi/manas) is the manas, because it has the meaning of cogitation. 'Mentation' (ch'ing/vijñāna) is consciousness, which is the sixth [consciousness], because it has the meaning of discernment. These eight each have organs: the five organs are obvious; the intellect is the organ of the sixth; the seventh and eighth serve as organs for each other; all have the meaning of generating consciousness, hence it says 'the organs of consciousness.' Thereby the active and passive perfumings harmonize and roll on the various sufferings. A doubt says: since it follows perfuming and rolls on the various sufferings, that means it becomes many minds; how can you still speak of only one mind? The answer says: if these perfuming dharmas were real, they could cause one mind to be lost following perfuming; since the various sufferings are empty and provisional, the one mind truly does not transform. A doubt says: if it truly does not transform, why did you previously say that it rolls on the various sufferings following perfuming? The answer says: it only manifests transformation; it is not a real transformation. A doubt says: if there is this manifestation in dharmatā, that would also be contradictory. The answer says: it only manifests following other [conditions]; in that dharma itself there is no such manifestation. Why is there none? Because manifestations do not exist. In this verse, the first half clarifies undefiled yet defiled; the second half clarifies defiled yet undefiled. The three verses below directly clarify the contemplation of the three non-natures: The first is the contemplation of the signless nature of imagined [reality] (parikalpita): that is, the above eight consciousnesses and so forth, in terms of grasping, are merely false and completely non-existent, hence it says so. The next clarifies the contemplation of the unproduced nature of other-dependent [reality] (paratantra): the first line contemplates the expedient investigation and so forth; the next line contemplates the existence of the object, which is the previous eye, ear, and so forth; 'do not exist' means they are empty because conditions lack own-nature; the next line is the correct contemplation, because seeing the principle of non-existence, it says 'not inverted'; the bottom line explains: because one attains the eye that sees dharmas unmixed with ignorance, it says 'pure.' The last clarifies the contemplation of the nature of the ultimate non-nature (pariniṣpanna): therein, the false is the imagined nature; the non-false is the signless nature; the real is the unproduced nature; the unreal is the other-dependent nature. If the two contemplations are accomplished, it is supramundane; if the two contemplations are absent, it is mundane. Spoken in terms of contemplative wisdom, these mutually dependent existences and non-existences are not real, hence it says 'there are only conventional designations'; when existence and non-existence both perish, only then does one enter the contemplation of the nature of non-nature. Here one should extensively explain the contemplations of the three natures and so forth, dividing them according to understanding and according to practice.