大方廣佛華嚴經疏 19.18

19.18

Fourth, from "Observing thus" downward explains the marks of the completion of the contemplation. Looking back to the preceding searching and examining, this constitutes the benefit of the contemplation; looking forward, one attains the fruit of sambodhi. Here it is simply that the contemplation is accomplished in accordance with reality. The text is divided into three: first, the accomplishment of the contemplation in accordance with reality in terms of the ten observed objects; second, from "In this, what phenomenon" downward, the accomplishment of the contemplation in accordance with reality in terms of the pure conduct that is accomplished; third, from "Observing thus" downward, the concluding formulation of the marks of the purity of pure conduct. Now, as for the first, there are ten phrases. The first six phrases clarify the contemplation of the purity of the three wheels: first, not grasping the sentient being capable of upholding the precepts, where mentioning "body" includes speech and mind; second, not clinging to the phenomena of practice that are cultivated; third, not abiding in the precepts and rules, which are also phenomena, and this also generally encompasses not abiding in the preceding phenomena. The next three phrases, by means of the gate of the three times, clarify not abiding in the time of upholding the precepts, and also explain the preceding words such as "not grasping," because when seeking throughout the three times they are ungraspable. The already extinguished and the yet to arrive—their principle of emptiness is easy to clarify; with the present there is much stagnation, so it is spoken of as empty and quiescent in an exclusive sense, because not abiding for a single kṣaṇa and being differentiated into past and future, it is empty and quiescent. The next two phrases clarify the completion of the contemplation of the two emptinesses: agent and recipient are the person; karma and retribution are phenomena. The last two phrases explain and establish the meaning of the emptiness of cause and effect by means of the principle of non-movement: "not moving in this world" means not passing from the present to the future; "not changing in that world" means not passing from the future to the present. In this way, because the cause itself ceased in the past, it has no power to induce the fruit; because the fruit does not coexist with the cause, it has no power to recompense the cause—how could there be the experiencing of retribution? Because all things each abide in their nature, and their nature is fundamentally empty. Second, regarding the accomplishment of the contemplation in accordance with reality in terms of the pure conduct that is accomplished, there are eleven phrases. The first phrase generally reveals the absence of a name, because the ten are already empty. The remaining phrases provide the specific [analysis]: first, it does not arise from the ten; second, it does not pertain to the body and so forth, because the ten are already empty in all respects. The preceding two phrases interrogate in terms of conditions. The next two phrases interrogate with respect to the essence: the first phrase clarifies that apart from the preceding ten there is no separate essence of the unmanifest precept, for if there were an essence apart from the ten, it would not depend on the preceding ten; the next phrase [clarifies that] neither is there a manifest [precept], because the manifest reception and compliance have already been shown above to be empty. The next phrase negates both to reveal the middle, because having no own-nature prevents faults. The next five phrases are in terms of the five aggregates, having two meanings: first, with respect to the precept-essence. Some say that the essence of the unmanifest precept is, in its essence, form. Some say it is neither form nor mind. Within the five aggregates, the first is form and the latter four are mind. Now saying "Is it form?" reveals that it is not form, because the unmanifest that they posit arises dependent on the manifest; as for manifest form and unmanifest form, now clarifying the intent of the contemplation, manifest form is already empty, so how could there be the unmanifest? "Is it non-form?" reveals that it is not non-form. When arising from form, the precept is not even called form; arising from form into precept, how could it be non-form? Saying "Is it consciousness?" is intended to reveal that it is not mind. If one says it is mind, all beings have minds and should constantly possess pure conduct, so we know it is not mind. If one says it is not mind, wood and stone should possess pure conduct, so we know it is not non-mind. If one says it is neither form nor mind and is subsumed by the saṃskāra aggregate, then everything in the saṃskāra aggregate should be called a precept. Second, with respect to cultivating pure conduct, it is not apart from the five aggregates. If it were identical with the aggregates, wherever there are aggregates there would be pure conduct; if it were apart from the aggregates, how could it be my pure conduct? Therefore, it concludes below that all are ungraspable. Third, the concluding formulation of the marks of the purity of pure conduct, by virtue of non-attainment. The text has eleven phrases: the first phrase is the general statement, and the next nine phrases specifically reveal non-attainment: first, because the aforementioned three times are all empty; second, because with respect to the body there is nothing grasped, and with respect to cultivation there is nothing clung to; third, saying that the mind is unobstructed refers to the preceding non-abiding in phenomena, just as the wind moving through space has no obstruction; fourth, because the two thoughts of agent and recipient do not actively arise; fifth, because although it is empty, this does not obstruct engaging with existence; sixth and seventh, engaging with existence without being confused about emptiness, hence receiving and contemplating are signless—"receiving" means consenting in mind, and "contemplating" means giving rise to function with respect to objects; eighth, concluding by returning to equality, as the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra*, "Mañjuśrī Section," says: "I do not see a single phenomenon that is not the Buddhadharma," hence no phenomenon is not equal; ninth, one subsuming all only then reveals the perfect interpenetration of endowed virtues. The final phrase is a general concluding response: because of the above meanings, it is called pure conduct. Above, the explanation of the purity of practice for one's own benefit is concluded.