大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.25

14.25

Second, in Caishou's response, based on the various profound sūtras and the verses here, there are briefly four meanings: First, the Buddha sees that sentient beings are originally empty by nature, which is not an annihilationist voidness, and thus does not obstruct conforming to them to transform them. Hence the verse says: 'All dharmas are empty and without self, / yet the diverse retributions arise following karma.' Second, the Buddha knows that sentient beings cannot know the true emptiness on their own, and therefore out of compassion conforms to them to transform them. Hence the verse says: 'Conforming to understanding, they grasp manifold marks, / which is inverted and not in accord with reality.' Third, conforming to transform is itself empty and not different from the emptiness of sentient beings, so the two do not contradict one another. Hence the verse says: 'This is the realm of those who delight in quiescence / and have heard much.' Fourth, harmonizing the above points: because sentient beings are constituted by gathering emptiness, being born and not being born have only a single flavor. The Sūtra of Neither Increase nor Decrease says: 'This very dharmakāya, transmigrationally coursing through the five destinies, is named sentient beings.' The dharmakāya is sentient beings; sentient beings are the dharmakāya; the dharmakāya and sentient beings have a single meaning under different names. By this principle, the Buddha sees that sentient beings are entirely self-exhausting in their whole essence and are originally the dharmakāya, needing no further transformation. With great wisdom present, he sees that the dharmakāya, following conditions, is sentient beings, and thus he gathers and transforms them with great compassion. Now, because sentient beings—who are quiescent yet not non-existent—are constantly established without differing from the real, he does not move from the realm of reality, transforming without transforming. Because the dharmakāya—which follows conditions yet is not existent—is constantly manifested without differing from phenomena, he does not destroy provisional designations, so that transformation is itself non-transformation. Since the transformed is non-dual in emptiness and existence, the transformer is likewise not distinct in compassion and wisdom. Only when not obstructed by existence while contemplating emptiness can one enter the noumenon; only when not moving from the real while conforming to transform can one ultimately transform others. Sentient beings do not understand this principle, and therefore transmigrate without end. Now causing sentient beings to awaken to such a teaching is true conformity in transformation. Not only do the ten conformities not contradict the principle of emptiness, but it is precisely through these ten that one accords with true emptiness. Therefore the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: 'Preaching such a teaching for sentient beings—this is true compassion.'

The ten verses are divided into two parts: First, one verse raises the teaching and encourages listening. Its first half reveals the teaching by means of the person, already containing the gist of the response. The first line's essence is profound, while the second line's function is vast; being quiescent right as one hears, there is nothing heard in hearing, and hence no sentient beings. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra also says: 'If one knows that the Tathāgata constantly never preaches the Dharma, this is called being fully endowed with much hearing.' Being quiescent and having heard much, one skillfully understands medicines and illnesses, without obstructing conforming to transform. The lower two lines promise to explain and encourage listening.

The subsequent nine verses specifically answer the previous questions. The phrasing contains multiple dimensions, briefly explained in two ways: First, each answers individually: the first three answer conforming to the body; the next one, conforming to life span; the third, one verse answers conforming to contemplation; the fourth, one verse answers conforming to conduct and expedients; the fifth, one verse answers conforming to aspiration and understanding; the sixth, one verse answers conforming to discourses; the seventh, one verse answers conforming to reflection; with 'time' pervading these nine. Second, based on the previous five conformities, it answers the latter four conformities, and 'time' likewise pervades all nine; now we interpret the text according to this [second reading]. The text is divided into six: First, three verses teach: based on conforming to whichever body's time, conforming to their aspiration, cultivating their expedients, reflecting, and contemplating—these four pervade the five sections; second, there is one verse based on the time of life span; third, two verses based on the time of conduct; fourth, one verse based on the time of understanding; fifth, one verse based on the time of discourses; sixth, one verse teaches detachment from the two graspers, comprehensively concluding the preceding text.

Now, for the first three verses: when one is attached to a self, one practices the contemplation of the elements' distinctions, because through discriminatory contemplation, the body is completely without self. When one is attached with craving to the body, one practices the contemplation of the foundations of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna), because one contemplates the internal body and the dharmas of the mind. In general terms, these are the two contemplations of emptiness: the first is the emptiness of self, the next is the emptiness of dharmas. The last applies similarly to all. Now, for the first: the first half is the investigation contemplation, contemplating the internal body's four elements and five aggregates, whether they are identical with or separate from [the self], because upon investigating and seeking an owner, none can be found. The second half is the benefit of the contemplation: knowing in accord with reality that the provisional self exists, while the imagined real self does not exist. The next verse contemplates the true mark of the body, which is the contemplation of the selflessness of dharmas. The first half thoroughly clarifies the emptiness of the body: gathered from conditions and provisionally established, coming from nowhere, it originally has no dwelling place; when conditions are exhausted and it perishes, going nowhere, it has no place of accumulation. Provisionally appearing to be established, it truly has no dwelling place. The second half is the benefit of the contemplation. The following verse applies similarly to all, contemplating the body by means of the body; having clearly seen that both selves are empty in one's own body, one knows that the ten thousand dharmas are all false and unreal, and this contemplation is also quiescent, so that the mind does not arise. If interpreted in terms of the foundations of mindfulness: the internal body is distinguished from the external vessel [world] and other bodies. The foundations of mindfulness are of two kinds: first, general; second, specific. Generally, the body and so on are all without self; specifically, it is contemplating dharmas as without self. Here it is the general one. Again there are two kinds: first, the Lesser; second, the Greater. Here it is the Greater, because one contemplates the nature and marks of the body as equal to empty space. Since it is empty of the two selves, the phrase 'who is the self' already subsumes both selves. The next verse contemplates feeling as being neither internal, external, nor in between, and therefore having no spatial location. The subsequent verse contemplates mind and dharmas: neither wholesome nor unwholesome dharmas can be apprehended, and therefore it says one knows that dharmas are false and unreal; since the mind is like an illusion, one does not give rise to discrimination. Furthermore, specifically, body and feeling are different, but generally, feeling and the rest are all the body; therefore, all three verses employ the word 'body'. The previous question meant: since sentient beings are empty, how does the Tathāgata transform them in accordance with their bodies? The meaning of the present explanation is: because they do not know that the body is originally empty and quiescent, he teaches them to contemplate in this way, which is why it is said that the Tathāgata transforms them in accordance with the bodies of sentient beings. The rest are to be understood following this.

Second, one verse instructs them to reflect upon and contemplate life span. 'Life' means the life-faculty, which can sustain and maintain form and mind, and is thus called life. 'Span' means the limit of life, which is the substance of the life-faculty; in reality, it means that by the force of karmic seeds, an allotment of retribution as a common category of sentient beings is induced to abide for a determined time limit, which is provisionally established as life span. Arising from karmic conditions, the arising is itself non-arising. When karma is exhausted, it perishes; the perishing has nothing that perishes. Originally there is no owner, and all the more so with momentary arising and ceasing, there is truly no intrinsic nature. It is illustrated by a fire-wheel: when a whirling torch turns swiftly, one does not see beginning or end; with arising and ceasing rushing along, how could one know the original limit? Furthermore, when firewood and fire are not continuous, dull faculties call it a wheel; while life in reality constantly flows and changes, it is falsely thought to be a continuum. Moreover, the wheel relies on fire to exist, and life borrows mind [to appear]; this shows that it is established in dependence on others, and genuinely has no self-substance.

Third, two verses instruct them to reflect and contemplate according to the time of conduct, perfecting four kinds of contemplation: 1. contemplation of impermanence, 2. contemplation of emptiness, 3. contemplation of selflessness, 4. contemplation of signlessness. Within these, the first verse briefly indicates the four. 'All existents' means the three existences, and also all conditioned [dharmas]. However, concerning impermanence and so on, sūtras and treatises give varying explanations; for now, we explain them by means of the three natures according to the Madhyāntavibhāga. First, as for the three impermanences: with respect to the fully conceptualized (parikalpita), it is called impermanence of naturelessness, because its nature is perpetually non-existent; with respect to the dependent (paratantra), it is called impermanence of arising and ceasing, because it has beginning and ending; with respect to the consummate (pariniṣpanna), it is called impermanence of defilement and purification, because the states undergo transformation. Emptiness also has three: 1. emptiness of naturelessness, because the nature does not exist; 2. emptiness of distinct nature, because it is distinct from the imagined intrinsic nature; 3. emptiness of intrinsic nature, because what is revealed by the two emptinesses is the intrinsic nature. Selflessness also has three: 1. signless selflessness, because marks of a self do not exist; 2. selflessness of distinct marks, because it is distinct from the imagined marks of a self; 3. selflessness of specific marks, because what is revealed by selflessness is the specific mark. Signlessness also has three: 1. marks are completely absent; 2. marks lack reality; 3. there are no false marks. However, all are harmonized and integrated, which is the intent of this school. Yet the primary intent of the verses is largely elucidated in terms of the first two natures. The latter verse briefly reveals two contemplations: the first half explains the contemplation of emptiness—retribution arises from karma, just as a dream arises from thought, and being unreal, it is empty; the second half explains the contemplation of impermanence—because of the aforementioned unreality, it is impermanent moment by moment. The former is made evident through past events that have already perished, by analogy with which the present and future that will perish are not different.

Fourth, one verse, according to understanding, causes them to enter the standard of consciousness-only (vijñapti-mātra), contemplating that the objective realm is transformed by mind, and therefore mind is primary. However, this consciousness-only briefly has two parts: 1. the objective aspect (nimitta-bhāga), 2. the subjective aspect (darśana-bhāga). Now, conforming to the understanding of the subjective aspect, they grasp the marks of the objective aspect; grasping outside of the mind, this is an inversion.

Fifth, one verse, based on the time of discourses, causes them to investigate names and so forth to enter the contemplation of reality: that is, understanding that names and so on are only mental-verbal discrimination, without separate names and so forth. 'Mental' means discrimination by the mental consciousness; 'verbal' means names and words. Since names and words are only the mind's discrimination, the referents under the names also have no separate substance; thus, 'discourses' subsumes both names and referents. Since they follow discrimination, the stream of mind falsely conceptualizes them; not yet having understood consciousness-only, how could they enter the dharmatā? If one can thus intuitively awaken and penetrate, this is an expedient for entering consciousness-only. Then, with this mind having no marks to be apprehended, false thoughts do not arise, and one directly enters the dharmatā. Above, it was discussed in terms of the mind being discordant, but its essence is not non-identical. Furthermore, as for not entering: because the essence of false thoughts is empty, there is nothing to enter.

Sixth, one verse comprehensively concludes, and also immediately concludes the preceding two verses. The apprehending and the apprehended are the subjective and objective aspects. Moreover, contemplating all dharmas as merely mental words without having yet been able to dispel them, this realm also constitutes the apprehending and the apprehended. Taking this as an expedient, one is able to enter consciousness-only. 'Manifold dharmas come forth': these two parts, the objective and subjective aspects, due to beginningless repeated habituation, give rise to the appearance of manifold dharmas; that is, when the apprehending mind arises, manifold objective realms arise; when the apprehended objective realms emerge, manifold minds emerge. Dharmas that have arisen must perish—how could they stop for an instant? If one understands that marks have no marks and that arising has no arising, this is called understanding the manifold, which is to understand consciousness-only. If one understands naturelessness, so that both mind and realm vanish, one abides in the realm of non-discriminating intuitive knowledge, unmoving from the dharmadhātu, which is called entering the dharmatā. Therefore, the final verse concludes the preceding contemplations, causing the marks of contemplation to vanish. The Buddha transforms in this way; one should know it in this way: an illusory person transforming illusions is entirely a transformation without transformation.