大方廣佛華嚴經疏 18.8

18.8

Third is the Abode of Practice. In the commentary, it first explains the self-division, which is practice guarding against afflictions; later it explains the superior progression, which is practice guarding against the Hīnayāna. In the former part: however, these ten [types of] impermanence largely correspond to the third stage, and that treatise [the Daśabhūmika-śāstra] fully explains them. The citation of the *Madhyāntavibhāga* has already appeared in the 'Questions of the Clear Ones' chapter. Since the text and its meaning are comprehensive, I shall briefly cite one or two. The treatise states: 'The non-abiding of vital activities is collectively called impermanence'; this is the general clause. However, there are further two kinds: first, moment-to-moment impermanence; second, period-of-life impermanence. Regarding what is there impermanence? Relying on the marks of oppression of the five flourishing aggregates, it is suffering. *Yogācārabhūmi* chapter thirty-four states: 'Taking the contemplation of impermanence with attention as precedent, one enters into the contemplation of suffering. From the contemplation of the unobtainability of suffering, one enters into the contemplation of emptiness; being empty, it is non-autonomous. From non-autonomy, one enters into non-self.' These four are precisely the four aspects under suffering. Fifth, 'no agent' is because things only exist through conditions. Because there is moment-to-moment impermanence, there is no agency; because all are suffering, there is no flavor of pleasure—one merely gives rise falsely to the conception of pleasure amidst suffering below. That is precisely the conception of all worldly things as unpleasant; because they are empty, the myriad dharmas lack an essence, and things lack the reality corresponding to their names. Because there is non-self, there is no location, being neither in form nor up to consciousness. 'Non-conceptual' contemplates the grasper. 'Without solidity' contemplates the grasped. Question: In the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, the bhikṣus formed the conception of impermanence, and the Buddha rebuked their inverted confusion; why does entering the abode involve cultivating the contemplation of impermanence? Answer: They grasped only the name, not its meaning. Because impermanence and so forth were extended to cover nirvāṇa, the Buddha rebuked them. Here, it speaks only of saṃsāra, so there is no error. Moreover, impermanence is because one has not yet united with the dharmakāya; suffering is because one has not yet attained nirvāṇa; emptiness is because there is no wholesome being; non-self is because one has not yet attained the eight autonomies. Thus the first four phrases speak of saṃsāra. The next four, starting with non-agency, speak of nirvāṇa. Because it is permanent, there is no action; because it is bliss, there is no [craving for sensory] flavor; because it is true self, it is not according to names; because it is pure, there is no location. Yet the two principles are illuminated without bias and tally with it, like a mirror hung in a high hall reflecting the myriad images. Furthermore, in the first four phrases, arising and ceasing through causes and conditions is the meaning of impermanence and so forth; in the next four, neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence, hence called non-agency. Completely penetrating the five aggregates of grasping as empty and without arising is the meaning of suffering. When there is suffering due to arising, arising is itself non-arising, hence there is no flavor. All dharmas being ultimately non-existent is the meaning of emptiness: both persons and dharmas are empty, and emptiness is also empty, hence not according to names. Non-duality regarding self and non-self is the meaning of non-self: the Buddhas sometimes speak of self, sometimes of non-self; in the true mark of all dharmas there is neither self nor non-self, hence there is no location. Therefore the *Āṃdīja-sūtra* states that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence, while arising and ceasing is conversely the meaning of permanence, and so forth. *Yogācārabhūmi* chapter forty-six states: 'How does a bodhisattva contemplate all conditioned phenomena as impermanent? That is, contemplating the verbal nature of all conditioned phenomena as constantly non-existent at all times; thus all conditioned phenomena are constantly unobtainable.' If one grasps this meaning, one enters the middle way. If one explains it in terms of the three natures according to the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, then in the first and last two natures, neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence, whereas in the dependent nature, arising and ceasing is the meaning of impermanence, and so forth. Furthermore, non-agency is because it is neither permanent nor impermanent. Having no flavor is because it is neither suffering nor pleasure. Not according to names is because it is neither empty nor non-empty, since words cannot reach it. Having no location is because it is neither self nor non-self, not being in saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. Non-conceptual is because thoughts and ideations are absent. Having no solidity is because real and unreal exist relatively. In the later superior progression, it is practice guarding against the Hīnayāna, because the Hīnayāna does not seek the knowledge of all aspects and does not wish for broad knowledge. Among the ten, the first three are places where Buddha-work is performed: sentient beings are what is to be liberated, the dharmadhātu is that which liberates, and the worlds are the places of liberation. The next four realms are places where views arise: non-Buddhists posit the elements as the root of all dharmas, and the Hīnayāna posits the elements as the cause of all forms, as well as the substance constituting the body. The last three realms are places of bondage. How does one contemplate? First, contemplate their marks and know them in minute detail; second, contemplate their nature as extremely profound and equal. Third, the meaning of the inquiry says: If one merely contemplates impermanence generally, what need is there for broad knowledge? The meaning of the explanation says: contemplating emptiness does not obstruct possessing broad knowledge and vision; because both nature and marks are fully understood, the dharma-knowledge increases and brightens.