大方廣佛華嚴經疏 34.27

34.27

第二雙辨慈悲二行。中二，先明三觀為方便、後「菩薩見諸眾生」下明所起之行相。前中，三觀即為三段：第一遠離最上第一義樂觀；第二「而諸凡夫」下具足諸苦觀；三「然諸眾生」下彼二顛倒觀。但失真樂已為可愍，況加妄苦，況復雙迷，反本何日？由初觀故起慈、由次起悲、由後雙起。今初觀者，性淨深寂名第一義，不動為樂，隨妄則離。文中，先總標起念、後「諸佛」下顯所離樂。於中九句，初總、餘別。總云佛法者，唯佛教證所能顯故，具下諸義所以甚深。別有九種甚深，今經闕論第九難得。一寂靜甚深，謂法體離於妄計實有故名寂靜。自是妄計，於中正取，非本不寂。《中論》云「虛誑妄取者，是中何所取。」此一約遮詮。二寂滅甚深，此約表詮，論云法義定故。謂一心體寂，故云法定。二門亦寂即是義定。次三甚深對治三障，成三脫門觀，謂三治妄分別障、四治有相障、五治取真捨妄障。六明離雜染觀，謂真方便道。七不可算數思量，生善根觀故，即是助道。八依自利利他增上智觀，故云廣大，即不住道。九論云難得甚深，三僧祇劫證智觀故，即是證道，證性淨信故。今廣大攝之，大稱體故，與證義同。前二直就法體、後七約智顯深，故皆云觀。第二具足諸苦觀，約十二緣明之。然十二緣具業惑苦，但云苦觀者，業惑苦因故。又二流動當相即苦，動即有苦故。文分為二：先別明緣相、後「如是眾生」下結成妄苦。前中分二：初明前際三支、後「於三界田」下顯中後九支。故論主分前三支一處解釋，後九及結一處解釋。欲顯前三是因，因是倒惑邪見義同故，識支約種是因義故，亦顯前二前三與次七次八許異世故。約果結苦，苦義顯故。今初三支，文有十句，初總、餘別。總云邪見者，前明正法理本無偏，今迷彼實義、理外謬取，皆名邪見。通於業惑，非獨撥無因果。《涅槃》亦云「一切煩惱，邪見攝盡。」本在其中，云何言墮？此有二義：一約始起一分，名之為墮；二約迷真隨妄，義說為墮，非有始也。真雖本有，迷亦無初，相依無性，故名為真。若定有真，真還成妄。若爾，真應同妄，互相依故。妄必可斷、真必可顯，斯則不同。不空之真非由妄故，但空妄執自見真源。後「無明覆翳」下，別有九種邪見：初五無明、次三是行、後一識支。業及識種亦名邪見者，義如前說。又邪見俱故、邪見引故。所以無明具多句者，一切煩惱謝往過去，總名無明，故今委說。又顯一切煩惱皆能發潤，而發業位無明力增，故名無明。今初五中有二：初三根本，迷法義過；後二為末，追求時過。今初，前一迷法、後二迷義，故論總云「此三依法義妄計如是次第。」斯則妄計之言通上法義。亦可妄計別對第三愛念邪見。初一句是蔽意邪見，此依迷法，謂無明住地迷覆法體。所言法者，謂眾生心，名為蔽意，故此無明迷真之初、妄惑之本。次二迷義者，通四住惑，由前癡故。迷覆因緣無我之義，妄立諸法。所迷諸法有內有外，謂第二憍慢邪見。此依迷內妄立我法，自高陵物，故經云「立憍慢高幢」。三入渴愛網中，即愛念邪見。此依迷外妄，謂我所及外境界，而生貪愛，如渴鹿馳焰、魚為網纏，如今愛支。四「行諂誑」下，二種邪見追求時過。如今之取支，故《俱舍》云「遍馳求名取」。由上內計有我、外見我所，以我對所便生三過：一初句於可得處起諂誑邪見，諂誑屈曲虛而似實，故喻稠林不能自出；二於不可得處則生忌嫉；三於已得處則生慳悋。上二即第五慳嫉邪見，經云「心與慳嫉相應不捨，由嫉他身故生卑賤中形貌鄙陋，由慳財故資生不足。」故云恒造諸趣受生因緣。次三明行中，初「貪恚」下集業邪見。由前追求，增長煩惱起業行過。此句總明由惑造業，故六地云不正思惟起於妄行。亦是行俱無明正發業故。諸業非一，是為橫集；日夜增長，復顯竪集。然集業因由於三毒，故云貪恚愚癡三毒緣於三受。故論云「受諸受時愛憎彼二，顛倒境界故。」謂樂受生愛、苦受生瞋、癡從中容，故云彼二。顛倒之言，通於上三，皆由無違順中妄謂有故。然愚、癡、無明行相何別？愚即遲鈍多所封著，癡者迷闇不別是非，皆對現境不緣三世；緣三世境而不了達，乃名無明，不見未來發現業故。通義可知。次二別明行支中，初句明吹心識火熾然邪見，即內心思業為煩惱風動，謂於怨恨時互相追念名為忿恨，此思之始；欲起報惡業，故云熾然不息，此思之終。思通諸惡，而殺業在初，故偏云忿恨。下加害亦然。八起業邪見，即兼動身口，故云凡所作業。論云「於作惡時迭相加害故」。由倒造業，業不離倒，故曰相應。三「欲流」下第九心意識邪見，明所引識支，以其識支通因果故。經欲具明，故具顯因果；論欲分析，故先明識種。心意識三，名有通別，已如前釋。今此文中義含通別，別謂心是識種，意識通餘四種。種子之言，揀異現行，謂五果種。誰能起此？謂善惡業。無記非因，故此不論。善業云何復生苦種？以與欲等四流相應。今施戒等皆是有漏，非無念智，無有斷期。若爾，何不名為起業種子？理實俱通。望苦樂報，業為正種；望生心體，識為正種。以就本性，一切生死皆心起故，如芽肥瘦由於水土，而生芽者正在穀子，故諸經論互說二種。上明前際三支竟。第二明中後九支。然論兼結文，總分三段：初明自相、二「有生故」下同相、三「是中皆空」下顛倒相。言自相者，現在名色等，支體狀別故。言同相者，釋有二義：一未來二支亦同現在，有名色等故。二約果相顯緣起過患，通遍果位故名為同。猶如色等礙等為自相，苦等為共相。共即同也。是則現在亦有同相，未來非無自相，但隱顯耳。此釋順論。論云「二同相，謂生老病死等過故。」三顛倒者，緣體是空，執有是倒。今初自相，復有三種，一者報相、二「不離」二字是因相、三「此名色」下彼果次第相。言報相者，即初受生異熟識體，共名色生，故論云「報相者，名色共阿賴耶識生。此含識支一半，名色支全故。」《攝論》云「本識有三相：一自相，謂本識自體；二因相，謂種子識；三果相，謂異熟識。」此意明為因義邊名種子識，即前約因。識支為果義邊名異熟識，即此報相名色所依。若不望因果直語自體名為自相。今論因相，却是彼中果相，立名雖殊並通因果。經云於三界田中者，是所生處。下六地中約因位說，以業為田、以識為種；今約果位，故以三界為田，生前識種。復生苦芽者，標所生報。前三支因必依苦果而起，今更生苦所以稱復，此顯展轉無窮之義。「所謂」已下出苦芽體相，論云名色共生者，名色共彼生故，謂名色共彼本識生也。恐人謬取名與色共，故有此言。名謂非色四蘊，色謂羯邏藍等，此二與識相依而住，如二束蘆更互為緣，恒時而轉不相捨離。二不離是因相者，即顯本識為名色因，謂是名色不離彼本識，依彼本識故。既依此釋，定知此段具於二支，謂識及名色。三彼果相者，是彼報相名色之果。由名色增長成餘八支，非別有體。初成六處者，名增成意處，色增成餘五，次六處增長成觸。言於中者，於六處中有根境故。餘因緣義，廣如六地。二同相中，生及老死正顯同相。「如是」已下總結成苦。何處是苦？此有三重：一論將入同相中，則以生老死憂悲苦惱明於苦聚，文義顯故。二近結於果，名色共生此明苦生，餘八苦長。三遠結十二，前二支半為能生長，後九支半為所生長。三顛倒相中，言是中者，是前十二緣中。「皆空」已下明倒所以，由空謂有所以名倒。此有四重：一緣成無性，所以言空；二離我我所，釋成空義，離我人空，離所法空；三「無知」下釋無我所以；四以外事釋無知覺。三中四句，通外及小。初約外道，外道雖眾，不出僧佉及與衛世。僧佉說覺以為神相，衛世說知以為神相。今無知覺，成上自體本無有我。作受二句通於能所，能作能受故是於我，所作所受即是我所。在因名作，在果名受，今但緣成故無作受。若約小乘就五蘊說，受蘊名覺、三蘊名知。約六根說，身識名覺、餘五名知。五陰造業故名作者，當陰招報名為受者，今並遣之。現有知覺，云何言無？隨俗故有，約真故無。又心法有四：一事、二法、三理、四實。謂隨境分別見聞覺知，名之為事。論體唯是生滅法數，故名為法。窮之空寂說以為理。論其本性唯是真實如來藏法，故名為實。此四重中，說初即說知覺等名，若就後三即無知等。四「如草」下以彼外事喻釋無知覺等。以諸眾生現見有於動止語言，云何說言無知覺等？故以外物動不動事示無知覺。草木則動、石壁不動，皆無知覺，故內動止豈當有之？《淨名》云「是身無知如草木瓦礫。」言亦如影像者，顯從緣有，似而非真，即雙喻二諦。若準論經，無影像喻而有，如響可喻言聲而無知覺。

Second, the joint explanation of the two practices of benevolence and compassion. Within this there are two: first, explaining the three contemplations as the expedient means; second, under "the bodhisattva sees that all sentient beings…", explaining the marks of the practice that arises. In the former, the three contemplations constitute three sections: first, the contemplation on being far removed from the supreme joy of the ultimate truth; second, under "yet all ordinary beings…", the contemplation on being fully possessed of all sufferings; third, under "furthermore, all sentient beings…", the contemplation on their two inversions. Merely losing true joy is already pitiable; how much more so when false suffering is added, and how much more so when there is delusion regarding both—when will they ever return to the origin? Due to the first contemplation, benevolence arises; due to the next, compassion arises; due to the last, both arise. Now, as for the first contemplation: that which is pure by nature and deeply serene is called the ultimate truth; unmoving is joy; following delusion, it is lost. In the text, first it generally indicates the arising of the thought, and second, under "the Buddhas…", it reveals the joy that is departed from. Within this there are nine clauses: the first is general, the remainder are specific. The general reference to "Buddha-dharma" is because it can only be manifested through the realization of the Buddha's teaching; being endowed with the following meanings, it is therefore profoundly deep. Specifically there are nine kinds of profound depth, but the present sūtra lacks the ninth, [which is] "hard to attain" in the treatise. 1. Profound depth of tranquility, meaning that the essence of phenomena is free from the conceptual imputation of real existence, hence called tranquil. It is intrinsically conceptual imputation wrongly grasping therein, not that it was originally not tranquil. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says, "As for deceptive, false grasping, what is there to be grasped therein?" This one is explained in terms of negative expression. 2. Profound depth of cessation; this is explained in terms of positive expression, the treatise saying that the dharma-meaning is definitive. This means the essence of the One Mind is tranquil, hence called dharma-definitiveness; the two gates are also tranquil, which is the definitiveness of meaning. The next three profound depths counteract the three hindrances and complete the contemplation of the three gates of liberation: the third counteracts the hindrance of false discrimination; the fourth counteracts the hindrance of possessing marks; the fifth counteracts the hindrance of grasping the real and abandoning the false. 6. Explaining the contemplation of being free from defilement, which is the true path of expedients. 7. Incalculable and inconceivable, which is the contemplation of generating roots of goodness, hence it is the auxiliary path. 8. The contemplation based on the superior wisdom of benefiting oneself and others, hence called vast, which is the path of non-abiding. 9. The treatise says profound depth that is hard to attain, which is the contemplation of the wisdom of realization through three asaṃkhyeya kalpas, hence it is the path of realization, because it realizes pure faith in the nature. Here it is subsumed under "vast," because "vast" matches the essence, being identical in meaning with realization. The first two directly pertain to the essence of phenomena, while the latter seven reveal the profound depth in terms of wisdom; hence all are called contemplations. Second, the contemplation on being fully possessed of all sufferings is explained in terms of the twelve links of dependent origination. However, although the twelve links are complete with karma, affliction, and suffering, it is merely called the contemplation of suffering because karma and affliction are the causes of suffering. Furthermore, the two are fluctuating and in their actual aspect are suffering, because movement entails suffering. The text is divided into two: first, specifically explaining the marks of the conditions; second, under "such sentient beings…", concluding on the false suffering. Within the former, it is divided into two: first, explaining the three branches of the past; second, under "in the field of the triple realm…", revealing the middle and later nine branches. Therefore, the author of the treatise divides the first three branches into one place to explain them, and the latter nine along with the conclusion into another place to explain them. This is intended to show that the first three are causes, and because causes are inverted delusion, which is identical in meaning with wrong view, and because the branch of consciousness is the meaning of cause in terms of seeds, it also shows that the first two and first three are permitted to be in a different lifetime from the next seven and next eight. Concluding suffering in terms of fruit makes the meaning of suffering apparent. Now, in the first three branches, the text has ten clauses: the first is general, the remainder are specific. The general reference to "wrong view" means: previously it explained that the principle of the correct Dharma is originally without bias, whereas now, being deluded about that real meaning and grasping erroneously outside the principle, all are called wrong view. It encompasses both karma and affliction, not merely denying cause and effect. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also says, "All afflictions are completely subsumed under wrong view." Since it is originally within it, why speak of "falling"? This has two meanings: first, in terms of its initial arising, it is called "falling"; second, in terms of being deluded about the real and following the false, it is conceptually called "falling," not that there is a beginning. Although the real is originally existent, delusion is also without beginning; depending on each other, they are devoid of intrinsic nature, hence it is called the real. If there were definitely the real, the real would turn back into the false. If so, should the real be the same as the false, since they mutually depend on each other? The false can definitely be severed, and the real can definitely be manifested; in this, then, they are not the same. The non-empty real does not depend on the false; only by emptying false grasping does one naturally see the source of the real. Next, under "obscured by ignorance…", there are specifically nine kinds of wrong views: the first five are ignorance, the next three are formations, and the last one is the branch of consciousness. That karma and the seed of consciousness are also called wrong views is in accordance with the meaning explained before. Furthermore, it is because they are conjoined with wrong view and led by wrong view. The reason why ignorance has many clauses is that all afflictions fading into the past are collectively named ignorance, so it is now detailed. Furthermore, it reveals that all afflictions can initiate and moisturize [becoming], but in the stage of initiating karma, the power of ignorance increases, hence it is called ignorance. In these first five there are two: the first three are fundamental, being the fault of delusion regarding the phenomena and their meaning; the latter two are peripheral, being the fault at the time of pursuit. Now in the first: the first one is delusion regarding phenomena, and the latter two are delusion regarding meaning; hence the treatise says generally, "These three conceptually impute based on phenomena and meaning in such an order." Thus the words "conceptually impute" apply to both phenomena and meaning above. Alternatively, "conceptually impute" can specifically correspond to the third, the wrong view of affectionate craving. The first clause is the wrong view of obscuring the mind; this relies on delusion regarding phenomena, meaning the stage of ignorance obscuring the essence of phenomena. What is called "phenomena" refers to the minds of sentient beings, which is called "obscuring the mind"; hence this ignorance is the beginning of delusion regarding the real and the root of false affliction. The next two are delusions regarding meaning, which apply to the afflictions of the four dwellings; due to the previous delusion, they obscure the meaning of dependent origination and non-self, falsely establishing various phenomena. The deluded phenomena have internal and external aspects: the second is the wrong view of arrogance. This relies on delusion regarding the internal, falsely establishing self and phenomena, elevating oneself and looking down on others; hence the sūtra says, "setting up the high banner of arrogance." 3. Entering the net of thirsting love, which is the wrong view of affectionate craving. This relies on delusion regarding the external, falsely asserting "what belongs to me" and external spheres of experience, thus generating greed and love, like a thirsty deer running toward a mirage, or fish entangled in a net, like the present branch of craving. 4. Under "practicing flattery and deception…", these are two kinds of wrong views, being faults at the time of pursuit. Like the present branch of grasping, hence the Abhidharmakośa says, "Pervasively pursuing is called grasping." Due to the internal imputation of a self and the external seeing of what belongs to the self above, with the self confronting its objects, three faults arise: first, in the first clause, toward what can be obtained, generating the wrong view of flattery and deception; flattery and deception are crooked, false yet appearing real, hence compared to a dense forest from which one cannot emerge; second, toward what cannot be obtained, generating jealousy; third, toward what has already been obtained, generating stinginess. The above two are the fifth, the wrong view of stinginess and jealousy. The sūtra says, "The mind is conjoined with stinginess and jealousy without relinquishing; due to jealousy of another's body, one is born among the lowly with an ugly appearance; due to stinginess with wealth, the necessities of life are insufficient." Hence it says, "constantly creating the causes and conditions for rebirth in the various destinies." Next, among the three explaining formations: first, under "greed and anger…", the wrong view of accumulating karma. Due to the previous pursuit, afflictions increase and the fault of karmic action arises. This clause generally explains creating karma due to affliction; hence the Sixth Stage says that incorrect thinking gives rise to false action. It is also because ignorance conjoined with action directly initiates karma. The various karmas are not one, which is horizontal accumulation; increasing day and night further reveals vertical accumulation. However, the causes of accumulating karma are due to the three poisons, hence it says that the three poisons of greed, anger, and delusion condition the three feelings. Thus the treatise says, "When experiencing various feelings, loving and hating the two, because of inverted spheres of experience." This means pleasant feeling gives rise to love, painful feeling gives rise to anger, and delusion arises from the neutral; hence it says "the two." The word "inverted" applies to the three above, all being due to falsely asserting their existence where there is neither opposition nor conformity. But what is the difference in characteristic between folly, delusion, and ignorance? Folly is dullness, being heavily attached; delusion is obscurity, not distinguishing right from wrong; both confront the present sphere of experience without conditioning the three periods of time; conditioning the spheres of the three periods of time without comprehending them is called ignorance, not seeing the future and initiating karma. The comprehensive meaning is understandable. Next, in the two specifically explaining the branch of formations: the first clause explains the wrong view of the fire of blowing upon the mind-consciousness blazing forth, which is the internal mental karma of intention being moved by the wind of afflictions. That is, at the time of resentment, remembering each other is called wrath, which is the beginning of this intention; wishing to initiate evil retributive karma, it therefore says blazing forth without ceasing, which is the end of this intention. Intention applies to all evils, but the karma of killing is foremost, hence it uniquely speaks of wrath. Harming below is also like this. 8. The wrong view of initiating karma, which also sets body and speech in motion, hence it says, "whatever karma is created." The treatise says, "Because when committing evil, they mutually harm one another." Because karma is created through inversion, karma is not separated from inversion, hence it is said to be conjoined. 3. Under "the outflow of desire…", the ninth is the wrong view of citta, manas, and vijñāna, explaining the induced branch of consciousness, because the branch of consciousness applies to both cause and fruit. The sūtra intends to explain it completely, so it fully reveals cause and fruit; the treatise intends to analyze it, so it first explains the seeds of consciousness. Citta, manas, and vijñāna have general and specific designations, as already explained before. Now in this text, the meaning contains both general and specific: specifically, citta is the seed of consciousness, and consciousness encompasses the other four kinds of seeds. The word "seed" distinguishes it from active functioning, referring to the five seeds of fruit. Who can give rise to these? Good and evil karma. The indeterminate is not a cause, so it is not discussed here. How does good karma also produce seeds of suffering? Because it is conjoined with the four outflows such as desire. Present giving, morality, and the like are all with outflows, not being wisdom without conceptual thought, having no period of cessation. If so, why is it not called the seed of initiating karma? In principle, it actually applies to both. Looking toward the retributions of suffering and pleasure, karma is the primary seed; looking toward the essence of the arising mind, consciousness is the primary seed. Because in terms of fundamental nature, all birth and death arise from the mind, just as the thickness of a sprout is due to water and soil, yet that which generates the sprout is precisely the grain seed; hence the various sūtras and treatises alternately speak of the two kinds. The explanation of the three branches of the past above is concluded. Second, explaining the middle and later nine branches. However, the treatise, combining the concluding text, divides it overall into three sections: first, explaining individual marks; second, under "because there is birth…", common marks; third, under "wherein all are empty…", inverted marks. What are called individual marks refers to the present name-and-form and other branches, because their forms and appearances are distinct. What are called common marks has two explanations: first, the future two branches are also identical to the present, having name-and-form and so on; second, revealing the faults of dependent origination in terms of the marks of the fruit, it is called common because it pervasively encompasses the stage of fruit. Just as form and so on having obstruction and the like is their individual mark, while suffering and so on is their common mark; "shared" is just "common." Thus the present also has common marks, and the future is not without individual marks, it is merely hidden or manifest. This explanation accords with the treatise. The treatise says, "Second, common marks, referring to faults such as birth, aging, sickness, and death." Third, inverted marks: the essence of conditions is empty, and grasping them as existent is inversion. Now, in the first, individual marks, there are again three kinds: first, the retribution mark; second, the two words "not separate" are the cause mark; third, under "this name-and-form…", the sequential marks of that fruit. The retribution mark refers to the essence of the ripening consciousness at the initial taking of birth, which arises together with name-and-form; hence the treatise says, "The retribution mark means that name-and-form arises together with the ālaya-vijñāna. This contains half of the consciousness branch, and the entirety of the name-and-form branch." The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, "The fundamental consciousness has three marks: 1. Its individual mark, referring to the fundamental consciousness's own essence; 2. Its cause mark, referring to the seed-consciousness; 3. Its fruit mark, referring to the ripening consciousness." This means that on the side of functioning as cause, it is called seed-consciousness, which is the previous branch of consciousness explained in terms of cause. On the side of functioning as fruit, it is called ripening consciousness, which is this retribution mark upon which name-and-form relies. If one does not look toward cause and fruit and speaks directly of its own essence, it is called the individual mark. Now what the treatise calls the cause mark is actually the fruit mark therein; though the designations established are different, both apply to cause and fruit. The sūtra says "in the field of the triple realm," which is the place of birth. Below in the Sixth Stage, it is spoken of in terms of the stage of cause, taking karma as the field and consciousness as the seed; here it is spoken of in terms of the stage of fruit, hence taking the triple realm as the field, producing the previous seeds of consciousness. "Further generating the sprout of suffering" indicates the retribution produced. The causes of the previous three branches must arise depending on the fruit of suffering; now producing suffering again is why it is called "further," which reveals the meaning of endless cyclical continuity. From "namely" downward, it presents the essence and marks of the sprout of suffering. The treatise says "name-and-form arising together" because name-and-form arises together with that, meaning name-and-form arises together with that fundamental consciousness. Fearing that people might erroneously take it as "name" together with "form," it makes this statement. "Name" refers to the four non-material aggregates; "form" refers to the kalala and so forth. These two abide mutually depending on consciousness, like two bundles of reeds being conditions for each other, constantly revolving without parting from one another. Second, "not separate" being the cause mark reveals that the fundamental consciousness is the cause of name-and-form, meaning that this name-and-form is not separate from that fundamental consciousness, relying on that fundamental consciousness. Since it is explained according to this, one definitely knows that this section is complete with two branches, namely consciousness and name-and-form. Third, the marks of that fruit are the fruits of that retribution mark of name-and-form. Due to the growth of name-and-form, the remaining eight branches are completed, not having a separate essence. First completing the six sense spheres: the growth of name completes the mind sphere, and the growth of form completes the remaining five; next, the growth of the six sense spheres completes contact. Saying "therein" means within the six sense spheres there are sense faculties and objects. The remaining meanings of causes and conditions are extensive as in the Sixth Stage. Second, in common marks, birth along with aging and death directly reveal common marks. From "such…" downward, it summarizes and concludes into suffering. Where is suffering? Here there are three levels: first, as the treatise is about to enter common marks, it explains the mass of suffering through birth, aging, death, grief, lamentation, suffering, and distress, because the text and meaning are evident; second, immediately concluding upon the fruit, name-and-form arising together explains the arising of suffering, and the remaining eight are the growth of suffering; third, distantly concluding upon the twelve: the previous two branches and a half are that which can produce and grow, and the latter nine branches and a half are that which is produced and grown. Third, in the inverted marks, saying "wherein" refers to within the previous twelve conditions. From "all are empty…" downward, it explains the reason for inversion; because of asserting existence where there is emptiness, it is therefore called inversion. Here there are four levels: 1. Formed by conditions, there is no intrinsic nature, which is why it is called empty; 2. Being free from self and what belongs to self explains and completes the meaning of emptiness: free from the self is emptiness of persons, free from what belongs to self is emptiness of phenomena; 3. From "without knower…" downward, it explains the reason for non-self; 4. Using external things to explain the absence of sentience and awareness. In the third, the four clauses encompass both external [non-Buddhists] and the Hīnayāna. First, in terms of non-Buddhists: although non-Buddhists are numerous, they do not exceed the Sāṃkhya and the Vaiśeṣika. The Sāṃkhya asserts awareness to be the mark of the spiritual soul (puruṣa); the Vaiśeṣika asserts knowing to be the mark of the spiritual soul. Now, being without knowing and awareness accomplishes the above [point] that the self-essence originally has no self. The two clauses of "agent" and "experiencer" encompass both the subject and the object: the capacity to act and to experience is therefore the self; that which is acted upon and experienced is what belongs to the self. In cause it is called the agent; in fruit it is called the experiencer. Now, being merely formed by conditions, there is no agent or experiencer. If in terms of the Hīnayāna it is explained regarding the five aggregates: the aggregate of feeling is called awareness; the [other] three aggregates are called knowing. In terms of the six faculties: the body-consciousness is called awareness; the remaining five are called knowing. The five aggregates creating karma are therefore called the agent; the corresponding aggregates incurring retribution are called the experiencer. Now both are dispelled. If there is presently knowing and awareness, why say there is none? In accord with the conventional, they exist; in terms of the real, they do not. Furthermore, mental phenomena have four aspects: 1. Phenomena; 2. Dharma; 3. Principle; 4. Reality. Discriminating seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing following objects is called phenomena. In terms of essence, they are merely arising and ceasing factors of dharmas, hence called dharma. Exhausting them to emptiness and tranquility is spoken of as principle. In terms of their original nature, it is purely the true and real tathāgatagarbha-dharma, hence called reality. Among these four levels, speaking of the first speaks of names such as knowing and awareness; if in terms of the latter three, there is no knowing and so forth. 4. Under "like grass…", using those external things as metaphors to explain the absence of knowing and awareness. Since all sentient beings are visibly seen to have movement, stillness, and speech, why say there is no knowing and awareness? Therefore, using the moving and non-moving phenomena of external objects shows the absence of knowing and awareness. Grass and trees move, while rocks and walls do not move; both lack knowing and awareness. Hence how could internal movement and stillness have them? The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, "This body is without knowing, like grass, trees, tiles, and pebbles." Saying "also like reflections" reveals that they exist from conditions, being similar yet not real, which is a double metaphor for the two truths. If based on the treatise's sūtra text, there is no metaphor of reflections, but there is [the metaphor of] an echo, which can metaphorize speech and sound yet lacks knowing and awareness.