大方廣佛華嚴經疏 33.2

33.2

第二正顯偈詞。有十二偈，大分為二：前七顯義大、後五明說大。今初，分四：初四偈總顯地智微妙、二有一偈類地行微、三有一頌寄對彰微、四有一頌喻顯地微。今初，分二：初二總顯地獄、後二別顯微相。今初，正顯地智微妙之相。故論云「此偈依何義說？依智地故。」依者據也。云何知依智地？上來本分、請分皆依智地，後說分中亦說智地，即今此中第六偈云「智起佛境界」亦依智地，明知此顯地智微妙，非別明佛果。於中論經但有六句：初二句即此初偈，彼云微難知聖道，非分別離念。言微妙者，二偈總相，即前地智超言念故。餘皆是別，別中初句是微體，餘皆是微所以。於中難可知。總顯所以，下六句別顯所以。論云「云何微？偈言難知聖道故。」此即雙指，謂聖道是體，難知故微也。故《淨名》云「微妙是菩提，諸法難知故。」云何難知？此有二義：一說時難知，口欲辯而辭喪故。二證時難知，心將緣而慮息故。上大仙道是所證說，大仙是佛故。言微妙道者是因，修行證智之因，得大仙果故。六句別顯微所以中，初句即說時難知。言非念者，非有念慮分別心者之境界故。何以非是念慮境耶？以此地智自體無念故，故云離諸念也。由上二義，如是聖道名為甚微。下之五句明證時甚微，於中復有總別。初句為總，求欲證見難證得故，以無見無得方能證故。下四句別有四甚微：第一觀行、第二依止、第三清淨、第四功德。初句即功德甚微。不生者，契理出世故。不滅者，非一往滅，不捨利益眾生事故，即無住涅槃寂用無礙功德。次句即清淨甚微，性離煩惱，非先有染後時離故，名為性淨。如此則無不離時，故恒寂然，即性淨涅槃。言離垢者，即觀行甚微，謂觀智中離無明垢故，不同世間八禪為無明雜故。「聰慧人」下即依止甚微。聰慧人者，登地已上有智之者，彼人之智能行地智。何智能行？若就總就實，唯一實智，見一實諦故。若就別兼權則通三智：一加行智，增上善勝解故；二根本智，增上善寂滅故，謂滅諸惑證寂理故；三後得智，隨聞明了故。云何行處？此之地智是彼證智，自證知故。依彼地智說證智生故說為行，非正證時有能所行也。上四微中功德異小，觀行異凡，依止清淨揀異外道。自尊之者，以智斷異故。前清淨微是斷德，不同彼有見惑及滅心想，為清淨故。依止即是智德，不同彼以六行而伏惑故。上依增勝，若通說者並異凡小。第二兩頌別顯微相。故論云「此甚微智復有何相？」此徵體相也。是智有二相：初二句明同相，智體空寂故；後六句不同相，智位差別故。今初，同中，上句總、下句別。總中，此是誰相？彼智相故，故言自體。此智自體以何為相？謂本空寂。何以言同？此即性淨涅槃，上同諸佛；下同眾生，一切眾生皆有此故。橫同諸法，諸法如故。此如即是自體空故，一切皆以空為自性。智性色性本無差故，一切皆有安樂性故。下句別者，論經加一有字，云有不二不盡。釋云：此智空寂，其相云何？謂離三種空攝，是真空相。三種空者，即地前空亂意菩薩，一疑空滅色，取斷滅空，此失空如來藏，則損減也；二疑空異色，取色外空；三疑空是物，取空為有。今云有者，即初離謗攝，不謂斷滅如兔角故。言不二者，即離異攝，不謂異此空智更有異空。言不盡者，離盡滅攝，不謂有彼此自體，彼此轉滅故。此明非滅有體之智成有體之空，亦非空有物可轉滅也。離此三空，即見自性本空空如來藏。今闕有字，如何會通？此有二意：一以不盡攝之，謂有體故不盡，無則異於斷滅。若無可盡滅則非有物，義如前說。二者西域之經自有二本，故論云「有二種頌，一有不二不盡，二定不二不盡。此頌雖異，同明實有。若非實有，不得言定。此云何定？定能滅除諸煩惱故。」意云：定即是有，故能滅惑。今經亦無定字，義同定本，謂定是有無不二法故，離前二空。謂無二中兼得空與有不二，故非斷滅。三種空義，如《寶性論》第四所明。二有六句明不同相者，即方便淨涅槃。斷惑平等不同凡小，而能斷故不同外境。但是所證，有異相故，不同於空。涅槃是果，此云何是？約分證故。又是所依果海，如下十山十德不離海故。此當義大，不可說故。今明地智應是菩提，那言涅槃？若分相門，則所證為涅槃；今顯相融，即智之性為性淨涅槃，智出惑障為方便淨涅槃。二而不二，難說甚深，良在於此。文中解脫是總，餘皆是別。總謂淨相解脫，故異前也。《寶性論》第四云「清淨有二種：一自性清淨，謂性解脫，即前同相；二離垢清淨，謂得解脫，即此淨相解脫。」別中以別顯總，別有二種：一何處得解脫？即經於諸趣也。此顯所脫，謂煩惱為趣、緣業為趣，因生為趣果故。三雜染皆諸趣攝，若脫因緣則無生果。二云何解脫？即下五句，此明解脫之體。五句即顯五種解脫之相：一等二際，是觀智相；二斷煩惱，是離礙相；後三體德圓備，即是涅槃之相。言平等者，謂世間涅槃平等攝取，非如聲聞一向背世間故，以世間之性即涅槃故。《中觀》云「世間之實際，即是涅槃際，無毫末差別」故。二斷惑相者，謂三時無斷方說斷故，故云非初非中後。釋此有二義：一約相翻、二約相續。言相翻者，謂無間道正斷惑時，為智先起惑後滅耶？為惑先滅智後生耶？為同時耶？此三惑智各有兩失，故如不成斷。謂智先起，智有自成無漏過、不能滅惑過。煩惱先滅，煩惱有自滅過、不障聖道過。智後同時各具四過，如燈不破闇可以喻此。又《涅槃》云毘鉢舍那不破煩惱。若爾，云何說斷？若依《唯識》第九明二真見道現在前時，彼二障種必不成就，猶明與闇定不俱生，如秤兩頭低昂時等，諸相違法理必應然，是故二性無俱成失者。此但舉法相一邊，亦不違餘緣集斷義。若望此宗則有所遺，謂秤衡是一，低昂無妨。解惑不爾，豈得俱時？明闇之喻雖則相傾，到與不到俱不破闇，同時則相乖、異時不相預故。若此宗斷結，要性相無礙。上明非先後俱為顯無性，無性緣成則說斷結，由能斷無性方為能斷，所斷本空方成所斷。若定有者則墮於常，不可斷故；若定無者則墮於斷，失聖智故。言相續者，不約惑智相對，但就一智自有三時，論依此釋。就此三時復有二種：一約初心究竟通分三時、二約無間道中剎那三時。經論並通此二。論云「此智盡漏為初，智斷為中為後？答云：非初智斷，亦非中後，偈云非初中後故。」此上順釋偈文兼定三時，唯約智說，故言是智斷惑。若爾，三時無斷，云何斷耶？論云「如燈焰非唯初中後，前中後取故。」此舉喻釋成，謂實教斷惑必性相雙明。經文正顯證智，唯據甚深緣性不可說義。論主兼明斷義，故性相雙辨非初中後。辨因緣無性，是斷之不斷。前中後取，即不壞緣相，是不斷之斷故。《大品》云「菩薩非初心得菩提，亦不離初心，後心亦爾，而得菩提。譬如然燈，非初焰燋炷，亦不離初焰，後焰亦爾，而炷實燋故。」龍樹判云：「佛以甚深因緣答。」《涅槃》二十九亦云「眾生五陰雖念念滅而有修道，如燈雖念念滅而有光明。」上諸經論皆顯性相無礙無斷之斷。又今經論反覆相成，謂若定斷者，一念便足，何假三心？既並取方成，明知無性無初中後，無初中後是無性故，方得成於初中後斷。此則因緣故無性，無性故因緣也。若云初念則能斷，後念方究竟斷者，不異《毘曇》一念有燒始終方盡。若云初念獨不能斷，積至中後方能斷者，不異《成實》一念不燒相續方然。勿失宗旨。上猶通實教。若依圓宗所斷之惑，一迷一切迷，故一斷一切斷，無斷無不斷。若具顯諸宗差別，如別行章。「非言詞」下三句明三德者，初句即般若，是觀行相，謂無分別觀體絕名言、真智內發，不同聲聞依聲而悟。前云觀智，約其決了；此云觀行，約行契極。次句法身是轉依相，謂轉無常依，云出過三世，故此微智依常法身。論云「非如無常意識智依止無常因緣」者，此揀未轉依時，今為所轉依也。無常意識智是彼能依，無常因緣即是所依。持種本識是無常因，所持染淨諸種子等是無常緣，依此因緣起無常意識。今轉無常識成妙觀察智，轉無常意成平等性智以為能依，依彼本識如來藏性真如法身以為所依。論云「如修多羅中決定說者，是了義故。」《涅槃經》說「轉無常識獲常識故。」諸大乘經其文非一。問：所依本有，可得是常。能依修起，寧無生滅？若依《唯識》，所依常故能依亦說為常，非自性常，是有為故。若《起信》等，始覺同本，亦皆是常。《勝鬘經》云「一切法常住故」。三其相如虛空，即解脫相，不同聲聞猶有智障。二障雙亡故，如空無礙。三德之義已見上文。然圓滿在佛，圓教十住即許開發。此中約因，即言分得。所依果海等佛無差，轉依亦爾。從因門中，是見修轉。就果辨者，究竟廣大轉也。此不同相，由得前同；成斯不同，能顯前同。令離障清淨，無別不同，如融金成像，像非金外。論中結後五句云「如是觀智，如是斷煩惱，如是觀如。」觀如，如是依止，依止如是解脫得解脫。後三皆重言者，皆上牒前、下是結成，謂如是觀而觀等也。偏此後三有重牒者，以前文後三對妄顯真故，須牒真就以結之。

Second, directly presenting the verses. There are twelve verses, divided broadly into two: the first seven reveal the greatness of meaning, and the latter five elucidate the greatness of exposition. Now for the first, it is divided into four: first, four verses generally reveal the subtlety of the stage-wisdom; second, there is one verse that assimilates the subtlety of the stage-practices; third, there is one verse that brings out subtlety by means of contrast; fourth, there is one verse that illustrates the subtlety of the stage by analogy. Now for the first, it is divided into two: the first two generally reveal the stage-wisdom, and the latter two individually reveal the subtle characteristics. Now for the first, it directly reveals the characteristics of the subtlety of stage-wisdom. Therefore the Śāstra states: "In reliance on what meaning is this verse spoken? It is in reliance on the wisdom-stage." "In reliance on" means based upon. How is it known that it relies on the wisdom-stage? Heretofore, both the Fundamental Section and the Request Section relied on the wisdom-stage, and in the subsequent Exposition Section, the wisdom-stage is also spoken of; furthermore, the sixth verse right here says, "Wisdom arises in the Buddha's sphere," which also relies on the wisdom-stage. Thus we clearly know that this reveals the subtlety of stage-wisdom and does not separately elucidate the Buddha-fruit. Therein, the Śāstra's sūtra text has only six lines: the first two lines correspond to this initial verse, stating: "Subtle and difficult to know is the noble path; it is beyond conceptual differentiation and free from thought." As for "subtle and wondrous," this is the general characteristic of the two verses, because the aforesaid stage-wisdom transcends words and thoughts. The rest are all particular characteristics: therein, the first line is the subtle essence, and the rest are all the reasons for its subtlety. Therein, "difficult to know" generally reveals the reasons, while the six lines below individually reveal the reasons. The Śāstra states: "Why is it subtle? Because the verse says 'the noble path is difficult to know.'" This points to both, meaning that the noble path is the essence, and because it is difficult to know, it is subtle. Therefore the Vimalakīrti says: "The subtle and wondrous is bodhi, for all dharmas are difficult to know." Why is it difficult to know? This has two meanings: first, it is difficult to know when explained, because when the mouth wishes to express it, words fail; second, it is difficult to know when realized, because when the mind is about to grasp it, thoughts cease. The "path of the Great Sage" above is that which is realized and explained, for the Great Sage is the Buddha. The "subtle and wondrous path" is the cause—the cause of cultivating practice and realizing wisdom—which attains the fruit of the Great Sage. Among the six lines that individually reveal the reasons for its subtlety, the first line is its being difficult to know when explained. "Beyond thought" means that it is not the sphere of those with deliberate thought and conceptualizing minds. Why is it not an object of deliberate thought? Because the stage-wisdom's own essence is without thought; hence it says "free from all thoughts." Due to the two meanings above, such a noble path is called extremely subtle. The five lines below elucidate its being extremely subtle when realized, within which there are again general and particular aspects. The first line is general: because in seeking to realize and see it, it is difficult to realize and attain, for only through non-seeing and non-attaining can one realize it. The four lines below have four distinct extreme subtleties: first, contemplative practice; second, support; third, purity; fourth, merit. The first line is the extreme subtlety of merit. "Unarisen" means that it accords with noumenon and transcends the world. "Unceasing" means that it is not a unilateral cessation, for it does not abandon the activities of benefiting sentient beings; that is, the merit of the non-obstruction between stillness and function in non-abiding nirvāṇa. The next line is the extreme subtlety of purity: its nature is free from defilements, not because it was previously defiled and later became free; hence it is called "naturally pure." In this way, there is no time when it is not free, and therefore it is ever tranquil; this is naturally pure nirvāṇa. "Free from defilement" is the extreme subtlety of contemplative practice: it means that within contemplative wisdom, one is free from the defilement of ignorance, unlike the worldly eight dhyānas which are intermingled with ignorance. From "intelligent persons" downward is the extreme subtlety of support. "Intelligent persons" are those who possess wisdom having ascended to the stages and above; the wisdom of such persons can practice stage-wisdom. What wisdom can practice it? If taken generally and in terms of reality, there is only the single real wisdom, because it perceives the single real truth. If taken particularly and including the provisional, then it encompasses three wisdoms: first, preparatory wisdom, because of the superior wholesome resolution; second, fundamental wisdom, because of superior wholesome tranquil cessation—meaning that it extinguishes all afflictions and realizes the tranquil noumenon; third, subsequent wisdom, because it is lucidly clear in accordance with what is heard. What is its sphere of practice? This stage-wisdom is their realized wisdom, because it is self-realized. Because the arising of realized wisdom is spoken of in reliance on that stage-wisdom, it is said to "practice"; it does not mean that at the time of direct realization there is an agent or an object of practice. Among the four subtleties above, merit differs from the Hīnayāna, contemplative practice differs from ordinary persons, and support and purity are distinguished from non-Buddhists. As for those who respect themselves, they do so because their wisdom and eradication are distinct. The former subtlety of purity is the virtue of eradication, unlike their holding views of afflictions and extinguishing mind and thought to achieve purity. The support is the virtue of wisdom, unlike their subduing afflictions by means of the six practices. The above is based on preeminence; if spoken of comprehensively, all differ from ordinary persons and the Hīnayāna. The second two verses individually reveal the subtle characteristics. Therefore the Śāstra states: "What further characteristics does this extremely subtle wisdom have?" This inquires into its essential characteristics. This wisdom has two characteristics: the first two lines explain the common characteristic, because the wisdom-essence is empty and tranquil; the latter six lines explain the uncommon characteristics, because of the distinctions among wisdom-stages. Now for the first, within the common: the upper line is general, and the lower line is particular. In the general: whose characteristic is this? It is the characteristic of that wisdom; hence it says "its own essence." What does the essence of this wisdom take as its characteristic? It means originally empty and tranquil. Why is it said to be common? This is naturally pure nirvāṇa: upwardly, it is identical with all buddhas; downwardly, it is identical with sentient beings, because all sentient beings possess this. Horizontally, it is identical with all dharmas, because all dharmas are suchness. This suchness is precisely the emptiness of its own essence; hence all take emptiness as their self-nature. Because the nature of wisdom and the nature of form are originally not different, all possess the nature of peace and bliss. As for the lower line being particular, the Śāstra's sūtra text adds the character "is" (you), saying "is non-dual and inexhaustible." The explanation states: "As for this wisdom being empty and tranquil, what are its characteristics? It means being free from the inclusion of three kinds of emptiness; this is the characteristic of true emptiness." As for the three kinds of emptiness, they belong to the bodhisattvas of chaotic intent regarding emptiness prior to the stages: first, suspecting that emptiness extinguishes form, they grasp at the emptiness of total annihilation—this misses the empty tathāgatagarbha and is a deprecation; second, suspecting that emptiness is different from form, they grasp at an emptiness outside of form; third, suspecting that emptiness is an entity, they grasp at emptiness as existent. Now saying "is" is the inclusion of being free from the first deprecation, not considering it annihilated like a rabbit's horn. Saying "non-dual" is the inclusion of being free from difference, not considering that different from this empty wisdom there is another, different emptiness. Saying "inexhaustible" is the inclusion of being free from exhaustion and cessation, not considering that there are self-essences of this and that, which mutually transform and cease. This clarifies that it is not that wisdom with an essence is extinguished to become an emptiness with an essence, nor that emptiness is an entity that can transform and cease. Free from these three emptinesses, one then sees the originally empty tathāgatagarbha of self-nature. Now lacking the character "is," how are they reconciled? This has two senses: first, it is subsumed under "inexhaustible"—meaning that because it has an essence, it is inexhaustible, and its not being nothingness differs from annihilation. If there is nothing that can be exhausted or extinguished, then it is not an entity, the meaning of which is as explained before. Second, the sūtras of the Western Regions naturally have two versions; therefore the Śāstra states: "There are two kinds of verses: one says 'is non-dual and inexhaustible'; the other says 'definitely non-dual and inexhaustible.' Although these verses differ, they equally clarify real existence. If it were not real existence, one could not say 'definitely.' Why is it definite? Because it can definitely eradicate all afflictions." The meaning is: "definite" means existent, and thus it can eradicate afflictions. The present sūtra also lacks the character "definitely," yet its meaning is identical to the "definitely" version, meaning that it is definitely the dharma of the non-duality of existence and non-existence, and thus free from the former two emptinesses. That is, within non-duality it concurrently attains the non-duality of emptiness and existence, and hence is not annihilation. The meaning of the three kinds of emptiness is as elucidated in the fourth chapter of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Second, the six lines elucidating the uncommon characteristics refer to the nirvāṇa of purity through expedients. Eradicating afflictions equally is not like ordinary persons and the Hīnayāna, and being able to eradicate is not like external objects. Because it is solely that which is realized and has distinctive characteristics, it is not identical with emptiness. Nirvāṇa is the fruit; how can this be it? It is in terms of partial realization. Furthermore, it is the ocean of fruit that serves as the support, just as the ten mountains and ten virtues below are not separate from the ocean. This corresponds to the greatness of meaning, because it is ineffable. Now, elucidating stage-wisdom should be bodhi; why speak of nirvāṇa? If according to the approach of differentiating characteristics, then that which is realized is nirvāṇa; now, revealing the fusion of characteristics, the very nature of wisdom is naturally pure nirvāṇa, and wisdom emerging from the obstructions of afflictions is the nirvāṇa of purity through expedients. They are two yet non-dual; difficult to express and profoundly deep, it truly lies in this. In the text, "liberation" is general, and the rest are all particular. The general refers to the liberation of the characteristic of purity, and hence it differs from the preceding. The fourth chapter of the Ratnagotravibhāga states: "There are two kinds of purity: first, natural purity, meaning natural liberation, which is the aforementioned common characteristic; second, purity free from defilement, meaning attained liberation, which is this liberation of the characteristic of purity." In the particular, the general is revealed through the particular, and there are two particular aspects: first, where is liberation attained? That is the sūtra's "in all destinies." This reveals that from which one is liberated: afflictions are the destinies, karmic conditions are the destinies, because arising through causes serves as the fruit of the destinies. The three defilements are all subsumed under the destinies; if one is liberated from causes and conditions, then there is no fruit of rebirth. Second, how is one liberated? That is the five lines below, which clarify the essence of liberation. The five lines reveal five kinds of characteristics of liberation: first, equating the two extremes, which is the characteristic of contemplative wisdom; second, severing afflictions, which is the characteristic of freedom from obstruction; the latter three, with essence and virtues fully complete, are the characteristics of nirvāṇa. "Equal" means equally embracing both the world and nirvāṇa, not unilaterally turning one's back on the world like the śrāvakas, because the nature of the world is itself nirvāṇa. The Madhyamaka states: "The limit of the world is the limit of nirvāṇa; there is not the slightest difference between them." Second, regarding the characteristic of severing afflictions: it is only when there is no severing in the three periods that it is spoken of as severing; hence it says "not at the beginning, middle, or end." In explaining this there are two meanings: first, in terms of mutual opposition; second, in terms of continuity. As for mutual opposition: when the uninterrupted path directly severs afflictions, does wisdom arise first and afflictions cease afterward? Or do afflictions cease first and wisdom arise afterward? Or are they simultaneous? These three each have two faults regarding afflictions and wisdom, and so it is as if severing is not established. If wisdom arises first, wisdom has the fault of becoming outflow-free on its own, and the fault of being unable to extinguish afflictions. If afflictions cease first, afflictions have the fault of ceasing on their own, and the fault of not obstructing the noble path. If wisdom is later and they are simultaneous, each possesses four faults; this can be illustrated by a lamp not dispelling darkness. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa states that vipaśyanā does not destroy afflictions. If so, how can one speak of severing? If, according to the ninth fascicle of Vijñaptimātratā, when the two kinds of real path of seeing are present, the seeds of those two obstructions are definitely not accomplished, just as light and darkness definitely do not arise together, and like the two ends of a scale where lowering and rising occur at the same time—for all mutually contradictory dharmas, the principle must be so, and therefore there is no fault of both natures being accomplished together—this merely puts forward one side of the characteristics of dharmas, yet does not contradict the meaning of severing through the convergence of conditions. If viewed from this school, then something is left out: the beam of the scale is one, so lowering and rising are unobstructed. Understanding and affliction are not like this; how could they be simultaneous? Although the analogy of light and darkness involves mutual dispelling, whether reaching or not reaching, neither dispels darkness; because at the same time they conflict, and at different times they do not affect each other. If severing bonds according to this school, it requires the non-obstruction of nature and marks. The above explanation that it is neither prior, posterior, nor simultaneous is to reveal the absence of intrinsic nature; when the absence of intrinsic nature is conditionally accomplished, it is spoken of as severing bonds. Because the severer lacks intrinsic nature, it can be the severer; because that which is severed is originally empty, it constitutes that which is severed. If it were definitely existent, it would fall into eternalism, because it could not be severed; if it were definitely non-existent, it would fall into annihilationism, because it would lose noble wisdom. As for continuity: it is not in terms of the opposition between affliction and wisdom, but merely in terms of a single wisdom naturally having three periods; the Śāstra relies on this interpretation. With regard to these three periods, there are again two kinds: first, dividing into three periods broadly from the initial mind to the ultimate; second, the three periods of moments within the uninterrupted path. Both the sūtras and the treatises cover these two. The Śāstra states: "Is the exhaustion of outflows by this wisdom the beginning, is the severing by wisdom the middle, or the end? The answer is: It is not the initial wisdom that severs, nor the middle or the end, for the verse says 'not beginning, middle, or end.'" This directly explains the verse text and concurrently determines the three periods, speaking solely in terms of wisdom; hence it is said that this wisdom severs afflictions. If so, when there is no severing in the three periods, how is it severed? The Śāstra states: "Just as a lamp's flame does not consume the wick solely at the beginning, middle, or end, but is apprehended through the earlier, middle, and later." This adduces an analogy to explain and establish it, meaning that in the real teaching, severing afflictions must clarify both nature and marks. The sūtra text directly reveals realized wisdom, relying solely on the ineffable meaning of the profound nature of conditions. The author of the treatise concurrently clarifies the meaning of severing, and therefore analyzes both nature and marks as not being beginning, middle, or end. Analyzing the absence of intrinsic nature in causes and conditions is the non-severing of severing. Apprehending earlier, middle, and later means not destroying the marks of conditions, which is the severing of non-severing. Therefore the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: "A bodhisattva does not attain bodhi with the initial mind, nor is it apart from the initial mind; the final mind is also like this, yet they attain bodhi. For example, when lighting a lamp, it is not the first flame that chars the wick, nor is it apart from the first flame; the final flame is also like this, yet the wick is truly charred." Nāgārjuna judged: "The Buddha answered by means of profound causes and conditions." The twenty-ninth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa also states: "Although the five aggregates of sentient beings perish from thought to thought, there is cultivation of the path, just as although a lamp perishes from thought to thought, there is light." All the sūtras and treatises above reveal the severing of non-severing through the non-obstruction of nature and marks. Furthermore, the present sūtra and treatise mutually reinforce each other reciprocally, meaning that if it were definitely severed, a single thought would suffice; why rely on three minds? Since it is only accomplished by taking them together, we clearly know that without intrinsic nature there is no beginning, middle, or end; because having no beginning, middle, or end is the absence of intrinsic nature, only then can severing across beginning, middle, and end be accomplished. This is: because of causes and conditions, there is no intrinsic nature; because of the absence of intrinsic nature, there are causes and conditions. If one says that the initial thought can sever, and only the subsequent thought definitively severs, this does not differ from the Abhidharma's view that in a single thought there is burning, but only from beginning to end is it completed. If one says that the initial thought alone cannot sever, and only when accumulated to the middle and end can it sever, this does not differ from the Tattvasiddhi's view that a single thought does not burn, and only in continuity is it so. Do not lose the fundamental tenet. The above still applies generally to the real teaching. If according to the perfect school, regarding the afflictions that are severed: when one is deluded, all are deluded, and therefore when one is severed, all are severed—there is neither severing nor non-severing. If fully revealing the distinctions among the various schools, it is as in the separate chapter. The three lines from "not words" downward clarify the three virtues: the first line is prajñā, which is the characteristic of contemplative practice, meaning that the essence of non-conceptual contemplation transcends names and words, and true wisdom arises from within, unlike the śrāvakas who awaken relying on sound. Previously, "contemplative wisdom" was spoken of in terms of its decisive resolution; here, "contemplative practice" is spoken of in terms of practice according with the ultimate. The next line, dharmakāya, is the characteristic of the transformation of the basis, meaning transforming the impermanent basis; it says "transcending the three times," and therefore this subtle wisdom relies on the permanent dharmakāya. The Śāstra states: "It is not like the wisdom of the impermanent conscious mind relying on impermanent causes and conditions." This distinguishes the time before the basis has been transformed; now it is that which is transformed into the basis. The wisdom of the impermanent conscious mind is that which relies, and impermanent causes and conditions are that which is relied upon. The fundamental consciousness holding seeds is the impermanent cause; the defiled and pure seeds and so forth held by it are the impermanent conditions; relying on these causes and conditions, the impermanent conscious mind arises. Now, transforming impermanent consciousness accomplishes the wondrous observing wisdom, and transforming the impermanent manas accomplishes the equality nature wisdom, which serve as that which relies; relying on that tathāgatagarbha nature of the fundamental consciousness, the true suchness dharmakāya, as that which is relied upon. The Śāstra states: "As definitively spoken in the sūtras, for this is the definitive meaning." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Transforming impermanent consciousness, one obtains permanent consciousness." In various Mahāyāna sūtras, such passages are not singular. Question: That which is relied upon is originally existent, so it can be permanent. That which relies is cultivated and arisen, so how can it be free from arising and ceasing? If according to Vijñaptimātratā, because that which is relied upon is permanent, that which relies is also spoken of as permanent; it is not permanent by self-nature, because it is conditioned. If according to the Awakening of Faith and so forth, initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment, and thus is also permanent. The Śrīmālā Sūtra states: "Because all dharmas are permanently abiding." Third, "its characteristics are like empty space" is the characteristic of liberation, unlike the śrāvakas who still have the cognitive obstruction. Because both obstructions are eliminated, it is unobstructed like space. The meaning of the three virtues has already appeared in the text above. However, their consummation is in the Buddha; the ten abodes of the perfect teaching already permit their unfolding. Here, in terms of the cause, it is spoken of as partial attainment. The ocean of fruit that serves as the support is equal to the Buddha without difference; the transformation of the basis is also like this. From the approach of the cause, it is the transformation through seeing and cultivation; analyzing it in terms of the fruit, it is the ultimate and vast transformation. These uncommon characteristics arise from attaining the aforementioned common characteristic; accomplishing these uncommon ones can reveal the aforementioned common one. Causing it to be pure and free from obstructions, there are no separate uncommon ones, just as molten gold forms an image, and the image is not outside the gold. In the Śāstra, concluding the latter five lines, it states: "Such is contemplative wisdom, such is the severing of afflictions, such is contemplating suchness. Contemplating suchness, such is the support; supporting such liberation, liberation is attained." The fact that the latter three all repeat words is because in each case the upper reiterates what precedes and the lower establishes the conclusion, meaning "contemplating with such contemplation," and so forth. That only these latter three have reiterations is because the latter three in the preceding text revealed the true in contrast to the false; hence it was necessary to reiterate the true in order to conclude it.