大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14

English (machine translation) 14

Language: English

14.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Chengguan of the Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang

14.2

Chapter 10: The Bodhisattvas Clarify through Inquiries

There are also four gates to explain this chapter. First, regarding the purpose of its placement, there are general and specific [meanings]. 'General' means: the preceding three chapters have already answered the ten lines on the basis from which understanding is generated; from here below, it directly answers the principal understanding of cause and fruition, hence it follows next. Within the cause that generates understanding, it first answers the ten abodes, for the abodes gather faith to be completed; about to answer what is completed, it first distinguishes that which can complete it. Furthermore, it directly answers the ten faiths, which is why the subsequent three chapters follow. As for the 'specific': the three chapters clarify that faith has understanding, practice, and virtue; understanding serves as the root of the [other] two, so this chapter comes first.

14.4

Second, as for explaining the title: 'bodhisattva' is the person, and 'clarifying through inquiries' is the doctrine. It blocks the fruition and expresses the cause; hence it says 'bodhisattva.' 'Inquiry' (wen) is questioning (interrogation), and 'clarifying' (ming) is answering. However, there are two kinds of inquiry: 1. asking casually, called pṛcchā in Sanskrit; 2. challenging and questioning, that is, examining and interrogating on the basis of reason, called praśna in Sanskrit, which is the meaning in this chapter. There are also two kinds of answer: 1. merely responding in accordance with the inquiry is called answering; 2. both explaining and concurrently touching upon different meanings, using beautiful speech and praise to make the noumenon brightly manifest is called clarifying, which is the meaning in this chapter. 'Clarifying' also shatters darkness, because it can dispel the darkness of the questioner's doubt. Now, Mañjuśrī and the other nine leaders mutually clarify and question, taking turns as anvil and hammer, scrutinizing the teaching and noumenon to awaken the multitude of beings; hence it is named this. Furthermore, the prose portion clarifies that it arises from inquiry, and the verses clarify understanding of the inquiry; hence it is called 'clarifying through inquiries.' It does not say 'answering' because it seeks to encompass the inquiry within the clarification. Because inquiry has two meanings, it may be termed 'clarifying': 1. the interrogation and examination within the inquiry exhaust the principle, causing the respondent to be speechless—this is an inquiry of utmost clarity; 2. the scrutiny of principle through advancing and retreating within the inquiry makes it apparent, enabling the respondent to easily explain it; hence it is taken as 'clarifying.' Furthermore, 'clarifying' means 'clarity of Dharma' (dharmāloka); because the ten bodhisattvas' inquiries bring forth ten kinds of clarity of Dharma, it is called 'clarifying through inquiries.' Although the various meanings differ, all are the clarifying through inquiries of bodhisattvas; this is an appositional compound (tatpuruṣa) interpretation.

14.5

Third, regarding the central theme and orientation: this also has general first, and specific after. The general again has two meanings: 1. the general theme of the section; 2. the general theme of the assembly, both being as [explained at] the beginning of the assembly. Second, specifically clarifying this chapter has two meanings: 1. looking to this chapter itself, it takes the ten profundities as the central theme and relying on them to accomplish contemplative understanding as the orientation; 2. looking to the subsequent two chapters, it takes the profound contemplative understanding as the central theme and accomplishing the subsequent virtues of practice as the orientation.

14.6

Fourth, explaining the text. From here down to the 'Dwelling Places of Bodhisattvas' clarifies the causes that generate understanding, matching the ten-line inquiry. As in the preceding inquiry, according to the sequence of the text, it is provisionally divided into six: 1. the three chapters from here below clarify causing those who have not yet believed to believe; 2. the third assembly clarifies causing those who already believe to understand; 3. the fourth assembly clarifies causing those who already understand to practice; 4. the fifth assembly clarifies causing those who have already practiced to generate vows; 5. the sixth assembly clarifies causing those who have already generated vows to realize and enter; 6. from the 'Ten Samādhis Chapter' to the 'Dwelling Places Chapter' clarifies causing those who have already realized and entered to equal the Buddha. Now, the initial three chapters constitute three distinct parts: this chapter clarifies the contemplative insight into true understanding; the next chapter clarifies vows and practices following conditions; the 'Bhadramukha Chapter' clarifies virtues and functions encompassing all. In the first [chapter], there are two parts: first, questions and answers reveal the noumenon; later, the marks are indicated and general connection is made. Within the first, the ten bodhisattvas each preside over one gate to reveal the ten profundities, making ten sections: 1. the profundity of pratītyasamutpāda; 2. the profundity of teaching and transforming; 3. the profundity of karma and fruition; 4. the profundity of expounding the Dharma; 5. the profundity of the field of merit; 6. the profundity of the correct teaching; 7. the profundity of correct practice; 8. the profundity of principal and auxiliary; 9. the profundity of the single path; 10. the profundity of the Buddha's realm. What is the sequence of these ten profundities? The profound principle of pratītyasamutpāda generally encompasses the essentials of contemplative understanding for all phenomena, so it is clarified first. Sentient beings are deluded about this, so teaching and transformation are required. Defying or according with transformation, there are wholesome and unwholesome karmas. Wishing to know this karma, it is accomplished through the exposition of the Dharma. Yet expounding the Dharma to accomplish goodness is solely the Buddha's field of merit. Since the exposition accords with the field, one must uphold the sacred teaching. The teaching lies in diligent practice. Practice requires the correct path and the auxiliary path. The auxiliary must have the correct, different paths arriving at the same destination. Those who attain the single path will advance toward the Buddha's realm. Hence this is the sequence. Furthermore, these ten kinds can also be matched to the ten faiths, though not strictly in sequence. Mañjuśrī's Buddha realm corresponds to the mind of faith, as Mañjuśrī presides over faith. The Buddha realm is the object of faith; thus, in terms of the sequence of generating the aspiration, faith stands at the beginning, but in terms of the ultimate object of faith, it stands at the very end. This also clarifies that the ten minds do not necessarily follow a rigid sequence. Guṇaprabha (Qianshou) is the mind of vigor; Dhanaprabha (Caishou) is the mind of mindfulness, as it clarifies the four applications of mindfulness. Buddhaprabha (Jueshou) is the mind of concentration, because contemplating the nature of the mind is supreme concentration. Jñānaprabha (Zhishou) is the mind of wisdom; wisdom is the foremost and is concurrently adorned by oneself, hence there are ten perfections. Dharmaprabha (Fashou) is the mind of non-retrogression, because practicing as taught attains non-retrogression. Ratnaprabha (Baoshou) is the mind of precepts, because the three aggregates [of precepts] are without flaw like a precious gem, and the profundity of karma and fruition is brought about by precepts. Puṇyaprabha (Deshou) is the mind of protecting the Dharma, because the profound exposition of the Dharma is what is protected. Netraprabha (Mushou) is the mind of vows, because the sameness of the field of merit differs according to vows, and the eyes can guide the body just as vows guide practice. Bhadramukha (Xianshou) is the mind of pariṇāmanā, because returning to the single path is dedication to tathatā, and one body and one wisdom are the Buddha fruition. The text says: 'Like initially advancing toward bodhi, all minds of dedication,' and so forth. Because these are the ten interpenetrating phenomena, each encompasses multiple meanings. Furthermore, they also subsume the ten virtues of the ten faiths; fearing verbosity, they are not detailed here, but provisionally explained as the ten profundities. Yet there are two meanings: 1. in terms of practice; 2. in terms of phenomena. As for 'in terms of practice': Mañjuśrī raises the inquiries and the nine bodhisattvas answer, clarifying that wondrous wisdom permeates all practices; the nine bodhisattvas inquire and Mañjuśrī answers, clarifying that all practices are completed by wondrous wisdom. As for 'in terms of phenomena': the first nine reveal distinct meanings, and the final one reveals that the distinctions together return to the Buddha's realm. These two are non-dual, constituting the contemplative understanding within faith.

14.7

In the text, the ten sections all have inquiry first and answer after. Furthermore, they first raise the clarifying inquiry and later explain the clarifying of the inquiry. Now, as for the first: within the inquiry, there are two parts: first, the masters of inquiry and answer are revealed. Buddhaprabha is questioned because he has attained this gate, and if one is not awakened to the profound meaning of pratītyasamutpāda, one drifts in transmigration. Second, from 'Son of the Buddha, the nature of the mind' downward, it directly shows the beginning of the inquiry, opening roughly five gates: 1. the purpose of the inquiry; 2. stating the intent of the inquiry; 3. determining what is inquired; 4. reconciling contradictions; 5. explaining the basic text.

14.8

First, regarding the purpose: because there are two meanings, it is asked first: 1. to sweep away differing views; 2. to reveal the profound noumenon. Sweeping away views has three aspects: 1. causing the bodhisattvas to know that phenomena arise from conditions, differing from non-Buddhist views; 2. knowing that they manifest from the mind, abandoning the views of the two vehicles; 3. knowing they arise solely from the nature of the mind, differing from provisional teachings. Second, regarding revealing the profound noumenon: causing the bodhisattvas to generate deep faith and understanding in this true meaning, to initiate practice and realize the true, being true from beginning to end; hence this meaning is inquired about. The Awakening of Faith says: 'There is a phenomenon that can give rise to the root of faith in the Mahāyāna, and therefore it should be expounded. The phenomenon spoken of refers to the mind of sentient beings. Relying on the phenomenon of the One Mind, there are the gate of tathatā and the gate of arising and ceasing.' It is because that treatise relies on this to give rise to pure faith.

14.9

Second, stating the intent of the inquiry: it clarifies that the nature of the mind is one, so how is it seen that there are various kinds of retributions? If the nature were to vary according to phenomena, then ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) would be lost; if phenomena were to be one according to the nature, then conventional truth would be destroyed. Suppose they rescue [their argument] by saying: 'The differences in kinds of retributions naturally arise from karma and so forth perfuming consciousness and transforming into manifestation, having no relation to the nature of the mind, and therefore there is no contradiction.' In order to block this rescue, the challenge is reiterated, saying: 'Karma does not know the mind,' and so forth, meaning that the five supports of mind and karma each lack intrinsic nature (svabhāva); since intrinsic nature is fundamentally non-existent, how could they mutually know each other to produce all phenomena? Since none can establish itself apart from the true nature, it is clear that these all arise relying on the nature of the mind. Since the nature of the mind is one, phenomena should not be manifold; since phenomenal dharmas are manifold, the nature should not be one. This is the contradiction between root and branch, also the contradiction between noumenon and phenomena, also the contradiction between oneness and difference, and also the contradiction between true and false.

14.10

Third, selecting and determining the subject of the question: According to the intent of this question, apart from the tathāgatagarbha it is not admitted that the eight consciousnesses, as that which perfumes and that which is perfumed, possess separate intrinsic entities capable of producing all dharmas; only the tathāgatagarbha is that upon which production relies. Nor can one say that because the eight consciousnesses do not constitute two categories, the mind-nature is termed "one", for they are capable of producing manifold [phenomena], and thus there would be no contradiction. Nor is it that the eighth consciousness serves as the "one nature" which is perfumed into manifold kinds, for there would be no contradiction, since the words "nature of the mind" do not refer to the eighth consciousness. Since it is said in the answer that the dharmatā is originally unproduced, but is manifested as having production—and dharmatā is an alternate name for tathatā—it directly contradicts the phenomena of retribution, and thus the challenge is formulated. Mañjuśrī wished to reveal the principle of the definitive teaching, and therefore took the mind-nature as the basis of his challenge. He wished to have Jñānaprabha answer decisively that the dharmatā manifests production, so that the vast assembly would together realize it, because both the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and the Ghanavyūha-sūtra explain this extensively.

14.11

Fourth, resolving the contradictions: Question: If so, in the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts the vipāka-ālaya is produced from the karmic and affliction seeds that constitute its entity, and is not formed by the tathāgatagarbha in accordance with conditions; how do you resolve and explain this? Answer: In the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts, for the sake of ordinary beings and followers of the Hīnayāna, provisional designations are made according to phenomenal marks in reliance on the expedient teachings. The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and Ghanavyūha-sūtra, for the sake of great bodhisattvas, speak exhaustively of the principle in reliance on the definitive teaching. Since the capacities are great or small, the Dharma is shallow or deep, and the teachings are expedient or definitive, they do not contradict each other. Thus the Ghanavyūha states: "The Buddha spoke of the tathāgatagarbha as being the ālayavijñāna. Those of evil intellect cannot understand that the garbha is precisely the ālaya consciousness." This clarifies that clinging to the expedient and rejecting the definitive is rebuked as evil intellect. Furthermore, that sūtra states: "The pure garbha of the Tathāgata and the worldly ālaya are like gold and a finger ring, without difference between them." In the Laṅkāvatāra, the true consciousness and the manifestation-consciousness are like a lump of clay and dust particles, neither different nor not different, and gold ornaments are also like this; all share this meaning. Furthermore, that sūtra states: "The tathāgatagarbha, perfumed by beginningless evil habit-energy, is named the storehouse consciousness." And the Dharmakṣema translation of the Laṅkāvatāra states: "The tathāgatagarbha is called the ālayavijñāna, and it coexists with ignorance and the seven consciousnesses." The Awakening of Faith also states: "The unproduced and unceasing unites with production and cessation, neither one nor different, and is named the ālayavijñāna." Moreover, as the verse in the Abhidharmamahāyānasūtra states: "The beginningless realm is the common support of all dharmas." The Mahāyānasaṃgraha and other texts explain this according to the initial teaching: "'Realm' means cause, that is, the seed-consciousness." The Ratnagotravibhāga translates this verse as: "This nature from beginningless time..." and that treatise explains it according to the definitive teaching: "'Nature' means the nature of the tathāgatagarbha. As the Noble Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says, 'Relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is saṃsāra; relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is nirvāṇa.'" From these passages, we know that the two traditions differ, and their shallowness and depth can be seen. Furthermore, the Consciousness-Only school and others also say that tathatā is the true nature of consciousness, but later commentators determinately asserted that it is immutable and failed to recognize that it accords with conditions, so the fault belongs to those later figures.

14.12

Fifth, explaining the text: The text is divided into three parts: first, "the nature of the mind is one" establishes the thesis and sets it down; second, from "how is it that..." onward poses the challenge of contradiction; third, from "karma does not know mind..." onward concludes the previous challenge. Now, the first: It means the nature of the mind, which is the tathāgatagarbha. Further, mind is itself the nature, which is the intrinsically pure mind. Again, the nature of the deluded mind, the nature devoid of nature, is the empty tathāgatagarbha. The nature of the true mind, the nature that is the real nature, is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha. They are all equal and non-dual, hence it is said to be "one". In the second part, posing the challenge, there are two points: first, generally revealing the contradiction. It means that since the mind-nature is one, how can there be the distinct general and particular retributions of the faculties across the five destinies? Thus it is said: "manifold and distinct". Second, from "namely..." onward specifically indicates the contradictions, having ten items in five pairs: 1. In terms of general retribution, clarifying that destinies are wholesome or unwholesome—wholesome refers to humans and devas, unwholesome refers to the three evil destinies; the following four pairs are all in terms of particular retribution. Among them: 2. In the aforementioned wholesome and unwholesome destinies, each faculty may be complete or deficient, referring to internal faculties such as the eyes. 3. Within completeness and deficiency, their births have similarities and differences, referring to the distinctions among the four modes of birth and the differences between superior and inferior places. 4. In the aforementioned similar and different birthplaces, their appearances have beauty and ugliness. 5. Within the aforementioned beauty and ugliness, their experiences have suffering and pleasure. In the five pairs above, the preceding always contains the succeeding, and the succeeding necessarily carries the preceding; mutually differing and agreeing, they form many distinctions, hence it is said: "manifold and distinct". If the nature of the mind is one, where does its meaning lie?

14.13

Third, in concluding the previous challenge: The meaning of this text is somewhat difficult to see; it is briefly explained in two ways: First, following the ancient masters, it constitutes a renewed challenge to preclude counter-arguments, as distinguished earlier in the second explanation of the question's intent. Second, it directly concludes the previous challenge. Taking this latter interpretation, the text naturally contains three meanings, because the intent of the previous challenge also had three: First, directly questioning the cause, so it now concludes: Not only is the original nature one, but when I closely investigate present phenomena, they do not know one another; since there is variety, why do they not know one another? Since they do not know one another, what causes the variety? If you say karma causes variety, karma does not know mind; if you say mind causes variety, mind does not know karma; examining each one, the source of variety remains unknown. Second, entertaining doubt, it thus concludes: Since they do not know one another, is it a single nature, or is it manifold? Third, formulating a challenge of contradiction, it concludes: If the single nature conforms to variety, it loses the ultimate truth; if variety conforms to the single nature, it loses the conventional truth. Now we see variety, yet they do not know one another; these two conflict with each other, so how can they stand together? Having understood the general import, next is the formal explanation of the text. There are also ten items in five pairs, briefly explained in two ways: general and specific. "General" refers to generally contemplating the previously mentioned general and particular retributions. Among them, the first pair challenges the supported and the support in terms of prior karmic causes. However, there are two meanings: First, in terms of the fundamental consciousness: Karma is what relies, and mind is what is relied upon; apart from what is relied upon there is nothing that relies, hence "karma does not know mind"; apart from what relies there is no support, hence "mind does not know karma". Because each lacks entity and function, they cannot establish each other. Since they do not know each other, what produces the variety? The rest should be understood accordingly. Second, in terms of the sixth consciousness: Karma is what is created, and mind is the creator; both perish swiftly, and when arising they do not say "I arise", nor when ceasing do they say "I cease"; how could they have an entity so as to establish each other and produce variety? The second pair, in terms of the time of obtaining the retribution fruit, challenges the experiencer and the experienced. Experiencing is the cause of retribution, namely the nominal seeds drawn by karma to experience the retribution undergone. Apart from retribution there is no experiencing, hence "experiencing does not know retribution"; apart from experiencing there is no retribution, hence "retribution does not know experiencing". Because both lack an entity, this should be known by analogy with the above. Third, in terms of the nominal cause, challenging the supported and the support: The aforementioned cause that experiences retribution relies on mind and lacks an entity, hence there is no mutual knowledge; the rest of the meaning is as before. Fourth, in terms of causes and conditions, challenging the mutual dependence of direct and indirect factors: The drawn nominal seeds serve as the direct cause, and the directing karma serves as the condition; mutually dependent and mutually negating, each lacks intrinsic nature, which should be understood by analogy with "not produced from itself" and so forth. Fifth, in terms of the mutual opposition of object and cognition, challenging the unreality of mutual perception: The object is transformed by the mind, so the object does not know the mind; the mind arises dependent on the object, so the mind does not know the object. Because there is no mind outside objects capable of grasping objects outside mind, mind and objects are unreal and do not know each other. Second, the specific contemplation: The first two pairs conclude the wholesome and unwholesome destinies. The wholesome and unwholesome destinies arise precisely from karmic perfuming, whereby general retribution is experienced. Second, the second and third pairs conclude the similarities and differences in taking rebirth: the first pair contrasts the nominal seeds with the birthplace, and the next pair contrasts the nominal seeds with the fundamental consciousness that is relied upon. Third, the third and fourth pairs conclude the differences in suffering and pleasure, and beauty and ugliness. The first pair contemplates the time of present experiencing. The next pair contemplates the causes of suffering and pleasure and their beauty and ugliness as all being differentiated by conditions: causes of harm or benefit produce fruits of suffering or pleasure, and causes of anger or patience produce fruits of ugliness or beauty. Fourth, the fourth and fifth pairs conclude the completeness and deficiency of the faculties. There are also causes and conditions of completing karma, which have the differences of harming others or benefiting others, thereby producing the results of completeness or deficiency in the internal six sense spheres. Furthermore, because the internal faculties have completeness or deficiency, when in the state of discrimination they comprehend objects differently; all lack intrinsic nature and do not know one another; since they do not know one another, what makes them manifold?

14.14

Second, from "At that time Jñānaprabha..." onward, in the reply there are two parts: First, one verse praises the question and promises to explain. The first half praises the question, meaning that [Mañjuśrī] has himself investigated the profound purport and acts entirely for the vast benefit of others with a benevolent mind; the next line promises to explain according to capacity, speaking in accord with the nature; the last line urges them to listen, bidding them to accept it attentively because the words are the same but the meaning is distinct. The following ten verses are the formal answer. The momentum of the answer is vast and multifaceted, fully answering the threefold intent of the question, and is provisionally divided into two: The first five verses answer, from within the previous clarification, by what causes and conditions they do not know one another; since this clarification answers the previous challenge, it is explained first. The latter five verses formally answer the previous challenge. Now, the first part is divided into two: first, one verse explains through doctrine; next, four verses use analogies. Now, the first: The meaning is that it is precisely because variety arises from conditions that they do not know one another. The first half of this verse presents the cause, the second half concludes by returning to the fundamental tenet, and the subsequent four verses serve as shared analogies. The syllogistic proof is: The eyes and so forth are the subject; they definitively do not know one another, which is the property to be proved. The reason is: Because they lack entity and function through arising from conditions. The shared analogy is: Like water in a river; river water lacks entity and function, and river water does not know [itself]; the eyes and so forth lack entity and function, and the eyes and so forth do not know one another. If explained through the door of mutual dependence in dependent origination, the first line means that causes and conditions depend on each other and are mutually powerless. The next line means that result-dharmas contain unreality and therefore lack essential nature; this will be explained separately in the analogies below. Therefore, unreal dependent origination has roughly three meanings: 1. Because they rely on each other and each lacks entity and function, they do not know one another; 2. Because it relies on this absence of knowledge and absence of nature, dependent origination exists; 3. Because these delusive dharmas are each devoid of existence, the true principle of naturelessness is constantly manifested. The present text contains only the first and last two meanings. The words "all dharmas" do not merely refer to the aforementioned ten items in five pairs, but also encompass all conditioned dharmas. Results arise from causes, so results lack essential nature; causes are established through results, so causes lack essential nature. If the cause lacks essential nature, how could it have the function of bringing about a result? If the result lacks essential nature, how could it have the capacity to repay the cause? Furthermore, because they are mutually dependent, they lack power. Because they take the other as self, they lack an entity. In concluding in the second half, "therefore" refers to the fact that both entity and function are absent, and therefore all those dharmas do not know one another.

14.15

Second, the illustrative metaphors briefly have two meanings: first, using these four metaphors to comprehensively explain the statement that all dharmas do not know one another; second, separately matching them against the various instances of non-knowing in the preceding text, and also resolving the earlier objections. First, the four great elements are taken as metaphors; the first three lines of each [verse] are the metaphor, and the concluding line is the application to dharmas. These four metaphors each illuminate one meaning: (1) relying on water, there is continuous flowing; (2) relying on fire, flames arise and cease; (3) relying on wind, there is movement and action; (4) relying on earth, there is sustaining and supporting. The four [meanings] among dharmas are: (1) relying on the succession of the true and the false; (2) relying on the arising and ceasing of the true and the false; (3) false functions arising reliant on the true; (4) the false being sustained by the true. Yet each of these metaphors and dharmas has three meanings: (1) solely with respect to what relies [on the support]; (2) relying on the support; (3) solely the support. In the first metaphor, what pertains solely to what relies is the flowing. This continuous flow has ten senses of not knowing each other yet forming a continuous flow: 1. The prior flow does not flow of itself; it flows because it is pushed by the subsequent flow, so the prior flow lacks self-nature and therefore does not know the subsequent. 2. Although the subsequent flow pushes the prior, it does not reach the prior flow, and therefore they also do not know each other. 3. The subsequent flow does not flow of itself; it flows because it is drawn along by the prior flow, so the subsequent flow lacks self-nature and therefore cannot know the prior. 4. Although the prior flow draws the subsequent, it does not reach the subsequent, and therefore they also do not know each other. 5. What can push and what is drawn along are not two, and therefore they do not know each other. 6. What can draw along and what is pushed are not two, and therefore they do not know each other. 7. What can push and what is pushed are also not two, and therefore they do not know each other. 8. What can draw along and what is drawn along are also not two, and therefore they do not know each other. 9. What can push and what can draw along cannot coexist, and therefore they do not know each other. 10. What is pushed and what is drawn along also cannot coexist, and therefore they do not know each other. Thus, the prior and subsequent mutually do not reach each other; this is called lacking self-nature. It is precisely due to such absence of knowing and absence of self-nature that continuous flowing exists; thus there is flowing without flowing. Master Zhao said, 'Rivers race onward and do not flow'—that is this very meaning. However, what was called above 'prior and subsequent' applies to two meanings: first, prior and subsequent in arising and ceasing, meaning that the ceasing of the prior and the arising of the subsequent mutually draw along and push [each other]; second, prior and subsequent as this and that, which are the prior waves and subsequent waves. The Hīnayāna also speaks of arising and ceasing in that very place, having no possibility of moving from here to another place, yet it does not understand the meaning of pratītyasamutpāda without self-nature. Second, relying on the support means that both the prior flow and the subsequent flow each rely on water; completely lacking an intrinsic essence, they cannot know each other, yet without destroying the marks of flowing, it is spoken of as the flowing of water. Third, solely the support means that since the flow is entirely non-existent, it is merely water alone; because the prior water and subsequent water are not of two natures, there is nothing that can be known; thus originally there is no flow, yet it is spoken of as flowing. The three meanings within the dharmas are: 1. the flow illustrates the relying false dharmas; 2. the false is established reliant on the true; 3. when the false is exhausted, there is only the true. In the first, false pratītyasamutpāda dharmas appear to depend mutually on one another, yet each cannot reach the other and all lack self-nature; therefore there is no mutual knowing; thus they exist yet are non-existent. Second, relying on the support means that these false dharmas are each empty of themselves and are established only by harboring the true; how could they have essence or function able to know each other and accomplish each other? It is precisely through this absence of knowing and absence of accomplishment, by harboring the true, that they exist; thus they are non-existent yet exist. Third, solely the support means that the relying false dharmas are utterly devoid of essence and function, and only the true mind stands forth clearly revealed. Since there is neither this nor that, how could there be mutual knowing? Precisely through this meaning, false dharmas, existing, are immediately non-existent, taking non-existence as existence. Furthermore, it is said that the true nature, hidden, is immediately unhidden, taking non-hiddenness as hiddenness. These three meanings above are the three kinds of answers answering the three kinds of questions above; reflect on this. Why is water used to illustrate the true mind? Because water has ten meanings identical to the true nature: 1. The essence of water is clear and pure, illustrating the intrinsically pure mind. 2. Meeting mud, it becomes turbid, illustrating the pure mind being defiled without being defiled. 3. Although turbid, it does not lose its pure nature, illustrating the pure mind being defiled yet undefiled. 4. If the mud settles and the clear [water] appears, this illustrates the true mind when delusions are exhausted and its nature appears. 5. Encountering cold, it turns to ice and has the function of hardness, illustrating the tathāgatagarbha combining with ignorance to form the function of the fundamental consciousness. 6. Although it forms the function of hardness, it does not lose its soft nature, illustrating that phenomena are ever true. 7. Warmth melts it into softness, illustrating the fundamental consciousness returning to purity. 8. Following the wind, waves surge without altering its tranquil nature, illustrating the tathāgatagarbha surging and ceasing in waves following the wind of ignorance, yet without changing its own nature of neither arising nor ceasing. 9. Following the elevations and depressions of the land, it pushes and draws in continuous flow without moving its own nature, illustrating the true mind flowing in accordance with conditions while its nature is ever serene. 10. Conforming to square or round vessels without losing its own nature, illustrating that the nature of tathatā pervades all conditioned dharmas without losing its own nature. Briefly discerning these ten meanings, it is somewhat similar to the true, and therefore water is frequently used as a metaphor. Although this meaning does not seem fully stated in the text, it broadly accords with many sūtras.

14.16

In the second metaphor, of flames arising and ceasing, the three meanings are the same as before. First, solely the flames: the arising and ceasing of flames has two meanings: 1. The prior flame disappears and ceases, giving rise to the subsequent flame; the subsequent flame lacks essence and cannot know the prior flame, and the prior flame has already ceased and again has nothing to know; therefore, each and every one does not know the other. 2. If the prior flame has not yet ceased, it also relies on what drew it earlier and, lacking essence, has nothing capable of knowing, while the subsequent flame has not yet arisen and therefore has nothing to be known; therefore, they also do not know each other. False dharmas are also like this: arising and ceasing from moment to moment, they cannot stand on their own; what has already ceased and what has not yet arisen have no thing to be known, and having arisen, they immediately cease, having no essence to be known; therefore, all are completely non-existent. This, then, is 'melting metals and liquefying stones without being hot.' Second, relying on the support means that precisely due to this absence of essence and function and not knowing each other, the flames have the false marks of arising and ceasing; thus, gathering what is non-existent, they are taken as existing. False dharmas are also like this: reliant on this unsupported true principle, they are only then false dharmas; this is also non-existence taken as existence. Third, solely the support means that when one inquires into the flames that arise and cease, both essence and function are absent, and the principle of flamelessness stands forth clearly revealed; thus the existence of false dharmas is absent, and the non-existence of false dharmas is present, serenely revealed, causing the marks of pratītyasamutpāda to be completely exhausted in their marks, and the principle of no self-nature to be completely revealed in its principle. In the three meanings above, they also answer the three preceding questions in sequence by metaphor. The remaining two metaphors should be understood accordingly.

14.17

Third, relying on wind there is movement and action, illustrating false functions arising reliant on the true. The three meanings are the same as before. First, solely the movement: apart from the object moved, the moving mark of the wind is utterly unobtainable, having nothing that could know each other. False dharmas are also like this: apart from the true essence they rely upon, they are unobtainable; therefore there is no mutual knowing. This, then, is 'a whirlwind toppling mountains while remaining ever calm.' Second, relying on the support means that wind cannot move of itself; it must rely on objects to manifest movement. Movement has no self-essence with which it could know objects; objects do not move of themselves, following the wind they have no essence and cannot know the wind. In the dharmas, the relying false dharmas must be established reliant on the true, having no essence to know the true; the true is hidden in accordance with the false, having no marks to know the false. Third, solely the support means that when wind blows upon objects, the movement is solely the movement of the objects; the marks of the wind are completely exhausted, having nothing that could know each other. The functions of false dharmas are of their own original nature empty, and only the true that is relied upon stands forth clearly revealed; therefore false dharmas are completely exhausted yet do not perish, and the true nature is completely hidden yet ever manifest. Dharmas such as the perfumer and the perfumed are originally just so; reflect on this and it can be seen.

14.18

Fourth, relying on earth there is sustaining and supporting, which illustrates the false being sustained by the true. The three meanings are the same as before. First, the causes and reliances of the earth element have two meanings: (1) with respect to the same kind; (2) with respect to different kinds. In the former, from the vajra-boundary up to the earth's surface, the upper all rely on the lower, and the lower support the upper; through mutual causes and reliances they attain stability. Yet the upper, what can rely, are all separated from the support, lacking essence capable of knowing the lower; and the lower, what can support, are also separated from what is supported, lacking essence that could make them know the upper. Furthermore, the highest that can rely penetrates down to the bottom, having no lower that could be known; the lowest that can support penetrates up to the top, having no upper that could be known. Therefore, whether relying or supporting, their marks are completely exhausted. The false dharmas manifested should be known to be likewise; the coarse must rely on the subtle. Namely, bitter retribution relies on karma; karma is created relying on ignorance; ignorance relies on what is created; mutually lacking essence, there is no thing that can know the other. This, then, is 'thickly carrying the myriad things without benevolence.' Master Zhao also said, 'Though heaven and earth topple and overturn, do not say it is not calm.' Second, with respect to different kinds: as the text below says, the earth mandala relies on the water mandala, the water mandala relies on the wind mandala, the wind mandala relies on empty space, and empty space has nothing it relies upon. In accordance with this, false objects rely on the false mind, the false mind relies on the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness relies on the tathāgatagarbha, and the tathāgatagarbha has nothing it relies upon. Therefore, if one sets aside the tathāgatagarbha, the other various false dharmas mutually rely on one another, lacking essence capable of knowing each other; thus the false dharmas are without exception completely exhausted.

14.19

Second, relying on the support means that the earth element subsists and is established precisely because each lacks self-nature. If formerly they had an essence, then they would not rely on each other; not relying on each other, there could be no dharmas; therefore, gathering this absence of self-nature, those dharmas are constituted. The application to dharmas can be known.

14.20

Third, solely the support means that gathering the absence of self-nature to constitute those dharmas, those dharmas are without exception completely exhausted and have never not ceased, with only the principle of no self-nature standing alone before us. The remaining meanings are the same as before. The general answers explaining the preceding objections are finished above.

14.21

Second, concerning separately matching the various instances of non-knowing and resolving the earlier objections: first, the metaphor of water flowing corresponds to the first two pairs of non-knowing, answering the objection about the good and evil destinies, because the destinies of good and evil have transmigration as their essence. Second, the metaphor of the great fire corresponds to the second and third pairs of non-knowing, answering the earlier objection about the sense faculties taking birth, because like fire relying on firewood, there is arising and ceasing. Next, the long wind is used to illustrate the preceding causes and conditions, answering the earlier objection about the fine and the ugly, because upon encountering objects it blows and fans them, manifesting various marks. Next, the earth element also illustrates causes and conditions, answering the earlier objection about suffering and pleasure mutually causing and relying [upon one another], by means of lightness and heaviness. Furthermore, it illustrates the preceding objects and cognitive faculties, answering the earlier objection about the various sense faculties being born according to their seeds, because the sense faculties and so forth are distinct. The general and specific answers above explaining by what causes and conditions they do not know one another are now complete.

14.22

The second [part], five verses, answers the previously posed objections. The text is divided into three: first, three verses directly answer the previous objections; next, one verse explains and establishes the previous meaning; third, one verse sweeps away traces to enter into the profound. As for the first, I will first clarify the general meaning, and next directly explain the text. As for the first [of these]: The previous inquiry contained three levels, and now these three verses each fully answer the three questions above. The first is straightforward. The question asks: 'Since there are various kinds, by what condition do they not know one another?' The previous five verses have already answered this. 'Since they do not know one another, by what condition are there various kinds?' The answer consists of four causes: first, because of false discrimination; second, because of the perfuming of the various consciousnesses; third, because through absence of self-nature they do not know one another; fourth, because tathatā accords with conditions. The first verse possesses the second and third [causes]; the remaining two [verses possess] one meaning each. However, these four causes are merely of one accord: namely, with false discrimination as the condition, tathatā does not maintain its own nature but accords with conditions to become existent, and the various consciousnesses perfume one another boundlessly. If one penetrates the source of falsity, pure pratītyasamutpāda is accomplished. The various traditions each seize [a part] and none strays from the elephant, yet accepting one and rejecting the others is a biased view. The second doubt above stated: 'Is it variety? Or is it a single nature?' Now the answer states: 'It is constantly variety, constantly a single nature.' The third objection stated: 'If the single nature accords with variety, then the ultimate truth is lost; if variety accords with the single nature, then conventional truth is destroyed.' Now the answer states: 'These two mutually establish each other; how could they contradict each other? The nature is not outside phenomena; how could it ever contradict variety? The variety is empty of nature; how could it ever contradict the single nature?' Because of non-existence there is existence, so the single nature can establish variety; because of arising through conditions there is emptiness, so variety can establish the single nature. Therefore, the dharma of pratītyasamutpāda generally possesses four meanings: 1. Because of arising through conditions, it exists: this refers to existence through false mental discrimination and the perfuming of the various consciousnesses. 2. Because of arising through conditions, it is empty: this is what was stated above: 'All dharmas have no activity and also have no essential nature; therefore they all do not know one another.' 3. Because of the absence of self-nature, it exists: the treatise states, 'Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas are able to be established.' The sūtra states, 'From the basis of non-abiding, all dharmas are established.' This is what was referred to above as acceding to conditions. 4. Because of the absence of self-nature, it is empty: this refers to all being empty and devoid of self-nature. Therefore, because of being empty through having no self-nature and arising through conditions, it is not the emptiness of the view of non-existence or the view of annihilation, but is true emptiness; because of existing through having no self-nature and arising through conditions, it is not the existence of the view of permanence or the view of existence, but is illusory existence. Illusory existence is precisely non-existent existence; true emptiness is precisely non-empty emptiness. Because it is non-empty emptiness, it is called not truly empty; because it is non-existent existence, it is called not genuinely existent. Neither empty nor existent is the meaning of the middle way. Furthermore, unpacking these, emptiness and existence each have two meanings. First, true emptiness necessarily exhausts illusory existence, because if it did not exhaust illusory existence, it would not be true emptiness; second, true emptiness necessarily accomplishes illusory existence, because if it obstructed illusory existence, it would not be true emptiness. Second, as for the two meanings of illusory existence: first, illusory existence necessarily covers true emptiness, because emptiness is concealed and existence is apparent; second, illusory existence necessarily does not obstruct true emptiness, because illusory existence necessarily exhausts itself, allowing true emptiness to be thoroughly apparent. Mañjuśrī raised objections using the first meanings in each case, and Jñānaprabha answered using the latter meanings, because according to the first two meanings, emptiness and existence differ, while according to the latter two meanings, emptiness and existence mutually establish each other. Yet these two are not two: existence and non-existence being non-dual constitutes a single illusory existence; emptiness and non-emptiness being non-dual constitutes a single true emptiness. Moreover, non-emptiness and existence being non-dual constitutes a single illusory existence; emptiness and non-existence being non-dual constitutes a single true emptiness. Furthermore, illusory existence and true emptiness being non-dual constitutes the single-flavor dharmadhātu, which is the meaning of the middle way: the dharma gate that is free from marks and free from nature, unobstructed, and without discrimination. Ponder this to understand it by analogy. Furthermore, 'nature' has two meanings: first, the meaning of existence; second, the meaning of emptiness. It also has two further meanings: first, unchanging; second, according with conditions. Through the meaning of existence, it is said that what is revealed by the two kinds of emptiness is that the dharmatā is originally unarisen; through the meaning of emptiness, it is said that the lack of nature in other-dependence (paratantra) is precisely the consummate (pariniṣpanna)—namely, that they do not know one another. Through the meaning of existence, unchangingness is explained; through the meaning of emptiness, according with conditions is explained. These two are non-dual: according with conditions is precisely unchanging; because it is unchanging, it is able to accord with conditions. If it were solely unchanging, how could the nature pertain to dharmas? If it merely accorded with conditions, how could it be called true nature? Therefore, wherever its stream flows there are various differences, yet its original flavor remains in the Snow Mountains. Furthermore, if the nature were separate from dharmas, it would result in annihilation; if dharmas were separate from the nature, then what was originally non-existent would now exist. Moreover, if dharmas were identical to the nature, then since the nature is permanent, [dharmas] should be permanent; if the nature were identical to dharmas, then when dharmas cease, [the nature] should cease. Therefore, the two mutually establish each other as neither permanent nor annihilated; because the two mutually negate each other, it is said to be neither existent nor empty, which is the meaning of the middle way. If one genuinely attains this integration, one will not be deluded by the differing theories of the hundred schools. I hope all students will empty themselves to seek the fundamental truth.

First 22 of 30 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經疏 — Classical Chinese