大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.23

14.23

Next is the direct explanation of the text. As for the first verse answering the three questions: first, it answers by what cause there are varieties. This contains two points: first, because they are formed through the perfuming of the eight consciousnesses. The first line refers to the five consciousnesses; the next line, 'mind' (citta), has the meaning of accumulating and arising as the basic consciousness. 'Mental faculty' (manas) applies to both the sixth and seventh: the seventh means deliberative thought, while the sixth means the consciousness of the mental faculty, having the meaning of discernment. Because the verse text is constricted, the word 'consciousness' is not set down. It is also subsumed under 'various sentiments'; this is from its specific sense. In a general sense, all eight consciousnesses receive the names of mind, mental faculty, and consciousness. The 'roots of various sentiments' applies to all eight, as their categories are not single: the five rely on material faculties, the sixth relies on the seventh, and the seventh and eighth mutually rely on each other. Furthermore, the seventh consciousness is the defiled faculty, and the eighth is also the common support of all consciousnesses; hence they are called the 'roots of various sentiments'. The word 'thereby' indicates that, taking the above eight consciousnesses as that which perfumes and that which is perfumed, they mutually serve as causes and constantly revolve in saṃsāra, without any separate self or person; thus it says, 'there is none that can turn them.' Moreover, outside of consciousness there are no phenomena; this is also why there is 'none'. Second, it clarifies that it is precisely due to not knowing one another that varieties are formed. The first half sets forth the varieties. 'Thereby' means that, because of the aforementioned mutual ignorance, the total voidness of their nature is brought forward, and only then is revolving in saṃsāra accomplished. That is to say, because each of these eight consciousnesses lacks an essential nature, there is no real self or dharma to serve as their master. If they previously had a nature, they could not be perfumed and changed; how then could revolving in saṃsāra occur? Next, regarding dispelling doubt: because there are two meanings within false delusion—first, false turning; second, no turning—they are constantly varied and constantly of a single nature. Next, regarding answering the objection: because of false turning, the conventional is not different from the ultimate and the conventional marks are established; because of no turning, the ultimate is not different from the conventional and the ultimate essence is preserved; therefore, they do not mutually conflict. The second verse also answers the three questions. First, clarifying that varieties are formed because tathatā accords with conditions answers the cause. The first line confirms the above statement that the nature of the mind is one, which is the meaning of non-changing. The next line answers the previous question of why varieties are seen to exist, which is the meaning of according with conditions. Formed and manifested solely by the mind, it fully gathers the true nature; since arising is not real arising, it says 'manifests'. The lower two lines confirm the above statement that karma does not know mind, and so forth: because this is the meaning of according with conditions without losing one's own nature, the varieties of the various destinies are utterly unattainable. Arising is just non-arising: 'there is none that can manifest', because the nature is unmoving; 'there is nothing manifested', because false dharmas are empty. Next, regarding dispelling doubt: it is constantly arising and constantly unarisen. The first half is arising that is just non-arising, where karma and its fruit are distinct. Therefore the Śrīmālādevisūtra says: 'Undefiled yet defiled, difficult to comprehend.' The second half is arising being non-arising, where the true nature is clear and tranquil. Therefore the Śrīmālādevisūtra says: 'Defiled yet undefiled, difficult to comprehend.' Furthermore, the dharmatā is originally unarisen, which is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha; 'here there is none that can manifest' is the empty tathāgatagarbha. Answering the third objection: 'here there is none that can manifest' means that nature is not nature; 'there is also nothing manifested' means that the marks of things are not marks. Furthermore, manifesting while having arising means nature does not conflict with marks; there being no manifested thing means marks do not conflict with nature. Non-duality becomes duality, and duality is just non-duality; with unobstructed, perfect interpenetration, how could there be any conflict? As for the term dharmatā: dharma refers to differentiated phenomena such as the dependent [environment] and the primary [body]; nature refers to the essential nature upon which those dharmas rely. Being the nature of dharmas, it is called dharmatā. Furthermore, nature takes non-changing as its meaning; precisely because this can serve as a model, it is also called dharma; thus nature is just dharma, and so it is called dharmatā. Both of these two meanings are explained in terms of non-changing. Furthermore, precisely because all dharmas each lack an inherent nature, it is called dharmatā; this is the nature that accords with conditions, where dharma is just nature. 'Original' has two meanings: first, in terms of non-changing: 'original' means the source and origin; originally it does not arise, but arises due to according with conditions. Second, in terms of according with conditions: since these dharmas have existed, they are originally unarisen of themselves, not waiting for cessation to become non-existent. That is, at the very time of manifesting arising, it is originally unarisen; therefore it says below that 'there is none that can manifest.' The third verse answers the three questions: first, answering the cause: the upper three lines mean that the varieties are just the one nature of the mind, and also confirm Mañjuśrī's previous statement that they do not know one another, etc. The lower line sets forth the cause: varieties exist due to false discrimination, directly answering the previous question. This again has two meanings: first, the upper two lines are the dependent nature (paratantra), the next line is the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna), and the last line is the imputed nature (parikalpita). Due to the imputed nature, the dependent nature is able to arise; the dependent nature being devoid of intrinsic nature is just the perfected nature. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā says: 'The dependent nature arises from the conditions of discrimination; the perfected nature in relation to that is eternally separate from the preceding nature.' Therefore, this and the dependent nature are neither different nor non-different. Second, the upper two lines are dharmas born of causes and conditions; the next line is 'I say it is just emptiness'; the last line is 'it is also a conventional designation.' That these two are non-dual is the meaning of the middle way. Furthermore, 'existing through the discrimination of the false mind' means that emotional reckoning deems it to exist; yet existence is just non-existence, hence it says 'all are empty and without inherent nature.' Being constantly existent and constantly empty, this is the intrinsic vacuity of the myriad things; how could one wait for cutting and dissection to seek understanding? Furthermore, the preceding verse proceeded from the root to generate the branches, where the branches are not different from the root; this verse gathers the branches back to the root, where the root does not obstruct the branches—how could they mutually conflict? The second single verse explains and establishes the preceding meaning. However, it has two meanings: first, how is it known that they lack inherent nature? Through observing with the Dharma-eye, conforming to the nature without distortion, pure pratītyasamutpāda is accomplished. One should know that this principle is exceedingly definitive. Second, the preceding verse rebuked seeing varieties as false discrimination, which should not be relied upon; this verse confirms that observing the lack of inherent nature and mutual ignorance is the Dharma-eye and must be relied upon; that is, relying on wisdom, not on consciousness. The third single verse brushes away traces and enters the profound: that is, the preceding unarisen dharmatā and all being empty are real. Manifesting as having arising and differences such as the eyes are not real. Existing through the discrimination of the false mind is false; observing in accordance with principle is not false. With falsehood as condition, there arises worldly revolving in saṃsāra; through observing in accordance with principle, the supramundane, undistorted Dharma-eye is accomplished. All of these are nominal conventions and lack true reality. Why? Because they are grasped according to words. Furthermore, if one wishes to say it is real, yet it manifests arising; if one wishes to say it is unreal, its essential nature is empty. If one wishes to say it is false, falsehood is unattainable; if one wishes to say it is not false, it is able to cause revolving in saṃsāra. If one wishes to say it is worldly, it is the mark of nirvāṇa; if one wishes to say it is supramundane, there is no world to transcend. Thus defilement and purity both perish; therefore, 'things do not follow names to attain reality, and names do not follow things to tread on truth.' Thus, the true principle rests alone in tranquility outside of verbal teaching; how could written words delineate it? Therefore, they are merely provisional expressions. Hence Master Shi [Kumārajīva] said: 'Only one who forgets words can unite with the Way; one whose mind is empty can penetrate the principle; one whose heart is obscured in stillness can become one with the true; one who abandons intellect can assimilate with the sages.' Furthermore, the latter three verses also successively clarify the contemplation of the three non-natures. Moreover, these five verses match the preceding four metaphors: the first matches the flowing of water through revolving in saṃsāra. The next verse matches fire: fire is originally unarisen, arising in accordance with conditions. The next verse matches wind: wind is just empty and non-existent, falsely considered to exist because of seeing things move. The next verse matches earth: the Dharma-eye sees the principle without discrimination. The final one demonstrates collectively, causing one to forget words. Furthermore, the first five verses are answers that confirm; the next four are answers that bring out the causes; the last one takes away to cause words to be forgotten. Mañjuśrī's single question contains many meanings; Bodhisattva Jñānaprabha's broad answers have boundless power and scope, thoroughly investigating the contrary and the compliant to reveal profound significance; I hope all scholars will not fault the proliferation of text.