大方廣佛華嚴經疏 30.14

30.14

Fifth, explaining the text. As for these one hundred approaches, the ancient explanations were not uniform. Dharma Master Yiying divided them into ten groups of ten, sequentially matching them to the tathatā of the ten stations: 1. the station of Bhadramukha, 2. the ten abodes, 3. the ten practices, 4. the ten pariṇāmanās, 5. the pure-mind stage, 6. the footstep-practice stage, 7. the definitive stage, 8. the ultimate stage, 9. the equal enlightenment stage, and 10. the Buddha stage. Furthermore, various masters each divided them into ten approaches, which Xianshou disallowed in all cases. Master Huiyuan divided them into three: the first ten match the stages prior to the bhūmis, the next eighty-eight phrases match those on the bhūmis, and the final two phrases are tathatā within the Buddha stage. The reasoning in all these cases is difficult to accept. Why would the Buddha stage lack the virtues of tathatā found earlier? As for the second approach taking true reality as its nature, why could it not be applicable to all stations? If one takes the virtue corresponding to a station to establish the name of tathatā—as with the ten tathatās of the ten stages—the reasoning might be admissible, yet this still does not bring out its specific marks. In truth, the virtues of the one hundred approaches necessarily pervade the one tathatā; how could the virtues capable of conforming to tathatā lack distinct marks? Because distinct marks are hard to discern, following non-differentiation entails no fault either; thus the final line says: 'Ultimately pure, its meaning is identical with the fruit.' Now we tentatively categorize them into ten groups of ten to match the ten tathatās of the ten stages. In the first [group], 'pervading all' and 'having marklessness as its mark', etc., constitute the meaning of the all-pervading tathatā. In the second, 'incommensurable' and 'without peer' constitute the meaning of the supreme tathatā. In the third, 'unobstructed in phenomena' and 'acting as the eye of all phenomena' constitute the meaning of the supreme stream. In the fourth, 'non-attachment and non-abiding', etc., constitute the meaning of non-appropriation. In the fifth, 'ultimately inexhaustible' and 'free from mutation' constitute the meaning of lack of distinction in kind. In the sixth, 'free from conceptual differentiation' and 'the essential nature is unarisen' constitute the meaning of being neither defiled nor pure. In the seventh, 'omnipresent' and 'abiding in existent and non-existent phenomena' constitute the meaning of the non-differentiation of phenomena. In the eighth, 'the essential nature is pure' and 'the essential nature is equal' constitute the meaning of neither increasing nor decreasing. In the ninth, 'pervading all phenomena is the realm of the Buddha' constitutes the meaning of the mastery of wisdom. In the tenth, 'abiding in all stages' and 'accomplishing all Buddhas and bodhisattvas', etc., constitute the meaning of the mastery of action. The remaining meanings therein may be inferred accordingly. They are distinguished and revealed according to the stages, only explaining that the ten tathatās each completely possess all; ten tens make one hundred, wishing to reveal that the virtues of tathatā are limitless and boundless: practiced universally before the bhūmis, pervasive and equal at equal enlightenment, and exhaustively realized by the Tathāgata. However, differences follow distinct meanings, whereas their essence is intrinsically ever interpenetrating; merely tallying with the one tathatā naturally contains all virtues, not through deliberate effort. Conforming to the differentiated tathatā, the pariṇāmanā that can conform is likewise unhindered in interpenetrating and embracing; giving rise to practice in accord with tathatā, its essence is itself tathatā. Yet people believe in the virtues of tathatā but are still confused about pariṇāmanā; therefore, the virtues of tathatā are used to illustrate the virtues of pariṇāmanā. If one takes what is convenient in the text and meaning, one should say: 'Pariṇāmanā of kuśala-mūla whose essence and marks of tathatā pervade all places,' because it is identical with tathatā. It also pervades all without boundaries, etc., and only by pervading all can it be identical with tathatā. Within each of the one hundred approaches there are two phrases: the upper phrase is the virtue of tathatā that is conformed to, and the lower phrase, following 'kuśala-mūla', is the virtue of pariṇāmanā that conforms. Among the initial ten, the first approach reveals that it is present within conditions, and thus is omnipresent. The second clarifies that it is unchanging, and thus says 'true reality'. The third clarifies that following conditions it is unchanging, saying 'constantly preserving its original nature'. The fourth reveals its nature. The fifth reveals its mark. These five are explained solely with respect to tathatā. The next two are explained with respect to wisdom, and thus are the sphere of wisdom. The eighth reveals tathatā as an objective sphere that is not an objective sphere; that is, one must forget the objective sphere to tally with the sphere of tathatā, because the original nature of tathatā is not conventionally established. The ninth is conventionally established tathatā. The tenth is the meaning of the constancy of tathatā. The rest may be inferred; difficult points will be resolved in due course. The twelfth says 'pervading all,' meaning that whether form or mind, great or small, etc., even an infinitesimal particle (paramāṇu) or a single instant (kṣaṇa) are all fully complete, not partially filled. Since tathatā cannot be divided, dividing it would incur many faults; it is precisely through this meaning and the below fortieth [approach] that it is not separate from all phenomena; that all phenomena follow tathatā in pervading a single dust speck; that in the subsequent fruit one attains this approach; and that a single hair accommodates all lands, etc. The fourteenth, 'without peer,' is because the dharmatā does not stand alongside truth. The fifteenth and sixteenth are both indestructible, differing in person and delusion. The seventeenth is quiescent yet constantly illuminating, because wisdom is precisely the function of tathatā. Since the twenty-second takes illumination as its essence, how could it lack an eye of illumination? Furthermore, it is through seeing tathatā that the Dharma eye is formed; the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: 'All Buddhas of the three times take the emptiness of nature as the Buddha eye.' The thirtieth says 'having no root' because it has nothing prior to depend upon, which is precisely the root of non-abiding. The thirty-seventh says 'firmly abiding' because, by having nowhere to abide, it firmly abides in true reality. The forty-first, 'ultimately inexhaustible': although it resides in all phenomena, when phenomena are exhausted its essence remains constant. Furthermore, being right within phenomena, taking it cannot exhaust it, like the space within a mustard seed. The fifty-first, 'nature is constantly awakened,' can internally perfuse and give rise to revulsion and seeking. The fifty-second, 'imperishable,' resides in saṃsāra, defiled yet undefiled. The fifty-third constitutes the meaning of the radiant light of great wisdom shining everywhere throughout the dharmadhātu. The fifty-fourth is the tathatā beyond words. The sixty-first, 'omnipresent': above, 'pervading all' meant boundless; here, in accordance with each and every phenomenon, it is completely within it. The sixty-second, 'in day and night up to the end of the future': a single thought-moment and an eon each contain tathatā, and each depend on tathatā; therefore, thought-moments and eons mutually embrace and mutually enter one another. The seventieth, 'abiding in the existent and the non-existent': in noumenon there is no calculation born of delusion; existence and non-existence are constantly real. The seventy-second: nature-awakening is clarity; freedom from thought is purity. The eighty-ninth, 'not cultivable,' is because there is nothing to be attained; 'not uncultivable' is because it is the realm of the noble ones. The ninety-fifth, 'abandoning all outflows': according to the Sanskrit text, it says anāsrava, translated here as 'without outflows'. Saying 'abandoning' now is because its nature is fundamentally abandoned, just as the essence of mind is free from thought. The ninety-sixth says, 'there is not the slightest phenomenon that can disturb or disrupt it so as to cause any minute part of it to not be awakened': if tathatā pervades insentient things, then there would be a minute part that is not awakened. Moreover, the sūtra says: 'The Buddha-nature excludes tiles and stones,' and the treatise says: 'In the category of the insentient it is called dharmatā; in the category of the sentient it is called Buddha-nature.' Thus we know clearly that the insentient does not have an awakened nature. Therefore, one should explain: if we follow conditions from the perspective of nature, sentient and insentient differ, and their natures are also distinct, as in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], etc. If we extinguish conditions to follow nature, then awakening and non-awakening fundamentally transcend the one hundred negations, and speech exhausts the four propositions. If the two natures mutually interpenetrate, then there is nothing that is not awakened. The Awakening of Faith says: 'Because the nature of form is the nature of wisdom, it is called the wisdom body; because the nature of wisdom is the nature of form, it is called the dharmakāya pervading all places.' The treatise says: 'Bodhi and the abandonment of bodhi are both called bodhi. Explaining wisdom and the place of wisdom, both are called prajñā.' This can also corroborate it. Since the two natures are mutually identical, and conditions are further identical with nature, there is no minute part that is not awakened—how much more so since the mind is the universal mark, further interpenetrating and embracing layer upon layer! The ninety-seventh says, 'the past is not the beginning', etc.: the first limit of the past is why it is called 'beginning'; the future is the end, hence called 'yet to come'; the present seems to exist, yet divided between already and not yet, it lacks even a momentary abiding, hence called 'different'. Now it clarifies that although tathatā pervades the three times, its essence transcends the marks of beginning, middle, and end of the three times; hence all are stated as 'not'. Pariṇāmanā is also like this: although newly giving rise to vows for the sake of sentient beings, conforming to that tathatā pervading the three times, it causes them to forever leave behind the marks of saṃsāra of the three times, and only then is it called pure. Yet the Jin translation says: 'the past is not the same, the future is not old, the present is not different.' If we reconcile it with the present text, it is not the same as the beginning of the past; although in the future, it is not fundamentally existent as an old nature. Furthermore, the Jin sūtra mistakenly merged the subsequent approach, 'the three times are free from conceptual differentiation,' into this approach, causing the count of one hundred to lack one, leading to diverse conflicting interpretations, which are too tedious to narrate. As for 'the three times are free from conceptual differentiation': previously, in terms of negative exposition, it is not identical with the three times; here, in terms of positive exposition, it is constantly free from conceptual differentiation. The intended meaning is similar, so the Jin translation simply combined them. Moreover, not being identical with the three times above generally reveals 'not old'; now, being free from conceptual differentiation also clarifies 'not old'. Yet nature and marks mutually interpenetrate, capable of being new and capable of being old; new and old are both transcended.