大方廣佛華嚴經疏 33

English (machine translation) 33

Language: English

33.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Chengguan of the Great Avataṃsaka Monastery on Mount Qingliang in the Tang

Second, directly presenting the verses. There are twelve verses, divided broadly into two: the first seven reveal the greatness of meaning, and the latter five elucidate the greatness of exposition. Now for the first, it is divided into four: first, four verses generally reveal the subtlety of the stage-wisdom; second, there is one verse that assimilates the subtlety of the stage-practices; third, there is one verse that brings out subtlety by means of contrast; fourth, there is one verse that illustrates the subtlety of the stage by analogy. Now for the first, it is divided into two: the first two generally reveal the stage-wisdom, and the latter two individually reveal the subtle characteristics. Now for the first, it directly reveals the characteristics of the subtlety of stage-wisdom. Therefore the Śāstra states: "In reliance on what meaning is this verse spoken? It is in reliance on the wisdom-stage." "In reliance on" means based upon. How is it known that it relies on the wisdom-stage? Heretofore, both the Fundamental Section and the Request Section relied on the wisdom-stage, and in the subsequent Exposition Section, the wisdom-stage is also spoken of; furthermore, the sixth verse right here says, "Wisdom arises in the Buddha's sphere," which also relies on the wisdom-stage. Thus we clearly know that this reveals the subtlety of stage-wisdom and does not separately elucidate the Buddha-fruit. Therein, the Śāstra's sūtra text has only six lines: the first two lines correspond to this initial verse, stating: "Subtle and difficult to know is the noble path; it is beyond conceptual differentiation and free from thought." As for "subtle and wondrous," this is the general characteristic of the two verses, because the aforesaid stage-wisdom transcends words and thoughts. The rest are all particular characteristics: therein, the first line is the subtle essence, and the rest are all the reasons for its subtlety. Therein, "difficult to know" generally reveals the reasons, while the six lines below individually reveal the reasons. The Śāstra states: "Why is it subtle? Because the verse says 'the noble path is difficult to know.'" This points to both, meaning that the noble path is the essence, and because it is difficult to know, it is subtle. Therefore the Vimalakīrti says: "The subtle and wondrous is bodhi, for all dharmas are difficult to know." Why is it difficult to know? This has two meanings: first, it is difficult to know when explained, because when the mouth wishes to express it, words fail; second, it is difficult to know when realized, because when the mind is about to grasp it, thoughts cease. The "path of the Great Sage" above is that which is realized and explained, for the Great Sage is the Buddha. The "subtle and wondrous path" is the cause—the cause of cultivating practice and realizing wisdom—which attains the fruit of the Great Sage. Among the six lines that individually reveal the reasons for its subtlety, the first line is its being difficult to know when explained. "Beyond thought" means that it is not the sphere of those with deliberate thought and conceptualizing minds. Why is it not an object of deliberate thought? Because the stage-wisdom's own essence is without thought; hence it says "free from all thoughts." Due to the two meanings above, such a noble path is called extremely subtle. The five lines below elucidate its being extremely subtle when realized, within which there are again general and particular aspects. The first line is general: because in seeking to realize and see it, it is difficult to realize and attain, for only through non-seeing and non-attaining can one realize it. The four lines below have four distinct extreme subtleties: first, contemplative practice; second, support; third, purity; fourth, merit. The first line is the extreme subtlety of merit. "Unarisen" means that it accords with noumenon and transcends the world. "Unceasing" means that it is not a unilateral cessation, for it does not abandon the activities of benefiting sentient beings; that is, the merit of the non-obstruction between stillness and function in non-abiding nirvāṇa. The next line is the extreme subtlety of purity: its nature is free from defilements, not because it was previously defiled and later became free; hence it is called "naturally pure." In this way, there is no time when it is not free, and therefore it is ever tranquil; this is naturally pure nirvāṇa. "Free from defilement" is the extreme subtlety of contemplative practice: it means that within contemplative wisdom, one is free from the defilement of ignorance, unlike the worldly eight dhyānas which are intermingled with ignorance. From "intelligent persons" downward is the extreme subtlety of support. "Intelligent persons" are those who possess wisdom having ascended to the stages and above; the wisdom of such persons can practice stage-wisdom. What wisdom can practice it? If taken generally and in terms of reality, there is only the single real wisdom, because it perceives the single real truth. If taken particularly and including the provisional, then it encompasses three wisdoms: first, preparatory wisdom, because of the superior wholesome resolution; second, fundamental wisdom, because of superior wholesome tranquil cessation—meaning that it extinguishes all afflictions and realizes the tranquil noumenon; third, subsequent wisdom, because it is lucidly clear in accordance with what is heard. What is its sphere of practice? This stage-wisdom is their realized wisdom, because it is self-realized. Because the arising of realized wisdom is spoken of in reliance on that stage-wisdom, it is said to "practice"; it does not mean that at the time of direct realization there is an agent or an object of practice. Among the four subtleties above, merit differs from the Hīnayāna, contemplative practice differs from ordinary persons, and support and purity are distinguished from non-Buddhists. As for those who respect themselves, they do so because their wisdom and eradication are distinct. The former subtlety of purity is the virtue of eradication, unlike their holding views of afflictions and extinguishing mind and thought to achieve purity. The support is the virtue of wisdom, unlike their subduing afflictions by means of the six practices. The above is based on preeminence; if spoken of comprehensively, all differ from ordinary persons and the Hīnayāna. The second two verses individually reveal the subtle characteristics. Therefore the Śāstra states: "What further characteristics does this extremely subtle wisdom have?" This inquires into its essential characteristics. This wisdom has two characteristics: the first two lines explain the common characteristic, because the wisdom-essence is empty and tranquil; the latter six lines explain the uncommon characteristics, because of the distinctions among wisdom-stages. Now for the first, within the common: the upper line is general, and the lower line is particular. In the general: whose characteristic is this? It is the characteristic of that wisdom; hence it says "its own essence." What does the essence of this wisdom take as its characteristic? It means originally empty and tranquil. Why is it said to be common? This is naturally pure nirvāṇa: upwardly, it is identical with all buddhas; downwardly, it is identical with sentient beings, because all sentient beings possess this. Horizontally, it is identical with all dharmas, because all dharmas are suchness. This suchness is precisely the emptiness of its own essence; hence all take emptiness as their self-nature. Because the nature of wisdom and the nature of form are originally not different, all possess the nature of peace and bliss. As for the lower line being particular, the Śāstra's sūtra text adds the character "is" (you), saying "is non-dual and inexhaustible." The explanation states: "As for this wisdom being empty and tranquil, what are its characteristics? It means being free from the inclusion of three kinds of emptiness; this is the characteristic of true emptiness." As for the three kinds of emptiness, they belong to the bodhisattvas of chaotic intent regarding emptiness prior to the stages: first, suspecting that emptiness extinguishes form, they grasp at the emptiness of total annihilation—this misses the empty tathāgatagarbha and is a deprecation; second, suspecting that emptiness is different from form, they grasp at an emptiness outside of form; third, suspecting that emptiness is an entity, they grasp at emptiness as existent. Now saying "is" is the inclusion of being free from the first deprecation, not considering it annihilated like a rabbit's horn. Saying "non-dual" is the inclusion of being free from difference, not considering that different from this empty wisdom there is another, different emptiness. Saying "inexhaustible" is the inclusion of being free from exhaustion and cessation, not considering that there are self-essences of this and that, which mutually transform and cease. This clarifies that it is not that wisdom with an essence is extinguished to become an emptiness with an essence, nor that emptiness is an entity that can transform and cease. Free from these three emptinesses, one then sees the originally empty tathāgatagarbha of self-nature. Now lacking the character "is," how are they reconciled? This has two senses: first, it is subsumed under "inexhaustible"—meaning that because it has an essence, it is inexhaustible, and its not being nothingness differs from annihilation. If there is nothing that can be exhausted or extinguished, then it is not an entity, the meaning of which is as explained before. Second, the sūtras of the Western Regions naturally have two versions; therefore the Śāstra states: "There are two kinds of verses: one says 'is non-dual and inexhaustible'; the other says 'definitely non-dual and inexhaustible.' Although these verses differ, they equally clarify real existence. If it were not real existence, one could not say 'definitely.' Why is it definite? Because it can definitely eradicate all afflictions." The meaning is: "definite" means existent, and thus it can eradicate afflictions. The present sūtra also lacks the character "definitely," yet its meaning is identical to the "definitely" version, meaning that it is definitely the dharma of the non-duality of existence and non-existence, and thus free from the former two emptinesses. That is, within non-duality it concurrently attains the non-duality of emptiness and existence, and hence is not annihilation. The meaning of the three kinds of emptiness is as elucidated in the fourth chapter of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Second, the six lines elucidating the uncommon characteristics refer to the nirvāṇa of purity through expedients. Eradicating afflictions equally is not like ordinary persons and the Hīnayāna, and being able to eradicate is not like external objects. Because it is solely that which is realized and has distinctive characteristics, it is not identical with emptiness. Nirvāṇa is the fruit; how can this be it? It is in terms of partial realization. Furthermore, it is the ocean of fruit that serves as the support, just as the ten mountains and ten virtues below are not separate from the ocean. This corresponds to the greatness of meaning, because it is ineffable. Now, elucidating stage-wisdom should be bodhi; why speak of nirvāṇa? If according to the approach of differentiating characteristics, then that which is realized is nirvāṇa; now, revealing the fusion of characteristics, the very nature of wisdom is naturally pure nirvāṇa, and wisdom emerging from the obstructions of afflictions is the nirvāṇa of purity through expedients. They are two yet non-dual; difficult to express and profoundly deep, it truly lies in this. In the text, "liberation" is general, and the rest are all particular. The general refers to the liberation of the characteristic of purity, and hence it differs from the preceding. The fourth chapter of the Ratnagotravibhāga states: "There are two kinds of purity: first, natural purity, meaning natural liberation, which is the aforementioned common characteristic; second, purity free from defilement, meaning attained liberation, which is this liberation of the characteristic of purity." In the particular, the general is revealed through the particular, and there are two particular aspects: first, where is liberation attained? That is the sūtra's "in all destinies." This reveals that from which one is liberated: afflictions are the destinies, karmic conditions are the destinies, because arising through causes serves as the fruit of the destinies. The three defilements are all subsumed under the destinies; if one is liberated from causes and conditions, then there is no fruit of rebirth. Second, how is one liberated? That is the five lines below, which clarify the essence of liberation. The five lines reveal five kinds of characteristics of liberation: first, equating the two extremes, which is the characteristic of contemplative wisdom; second, severing afflictions, which is the characteristic of freedom from obstruction; the latter three, with essence and virtues fully complete, are the characteristics of nirvāṇa. "Equal" means equally embracing both the world and nirvāṇa, not unilaterally turning one's back on the world like the śrāvakas, because the nature of the world is itself nirvāṇa. The Madhyamaka states: "The limit of the world is the limit of nirvāṇa; there is not the slightest difference between them." Second, regarding the characteristic of severing afflictions: it is only when there is no severing in the three periods that it is spoken of as severing; hence it says "not at the beginning, middle, or end." In explaining this there are two meanings: first, in terms of mutual opposition; second, in terms of continuity. As for mutual opposition: when the uninterrupted path directly severs afflictions, does wisdom arise first and afflictions cease afterward? Or do afflictions cease first and wisdom arise afterward? Or are they simultaneous? These three each have two faults regarding afflictions and wisdom, and so it is as if severing is not established. If wisdom arises first, wisdom has the fault of becoming outflow-free on its own, and the fault of being unable to extinguish afflictions. If afflictions cease first, afflictions have the fault of ceasing on their own, and the fault of not obstructing the noble path. If wisdom is later and they are simultaneous, each possesses four faults; this can be illustrated by a lamp not dispelling darkness. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa states that vipaśyanā does not destroy afflictions. If so, how can one speak of severing? If, according to the ninth fascicle of Vijñaptimātratā, when the two kinds of real path of seeing are present, the seeds of those two obstructions are definitely not accomplished, just as light and darkness definitely do not arise together, and like the two ends of a scale where lowering and rising occur at the same time—for all mutually contradictory dharmas, the principle must be so, and therefore there is no fault of both natures being accomplished together—this merely puts forward one side of the characteristics of dharmas, yet does not contradict the meaning of severing through the convergence of conditions. If viewed from this school, then something is left out: the beam of the scale is one, so lowering and rising are unobstructed. Understanding and affliction are not like this; how could they be simultaneous? Although the analogy of light and darkness involves mutual dispelling, whether reaching or not reaching, neither dispels darkness; because at the same time they conflict, and at different times they do not affect each other. If severing bonds according to this school, it requires the non-obstruction of nature and marks. The above explanation that it is neither prior, posterior, nor simultaneous is to reveal the absence of intrinsic nature; when the absence of intrinsic nature is conditionally accomplished, it is spoken of as severing bonds. Because the severer lacks intrinsic nature, it can be the severer; because that which is severed is originally empty, it constitutes that which is severed. If it were definitely existent, it would fall into eternalism, because it could not be severed; if it were definitely non-existent, it would fall into annihilationism, because it would lose noble wisdom. As for continuity: it is not in terms of the opposition between affliction and wisdom, but merely in terms of a single wisdom naturally having three periods; the Śāstra relies on this interpretation. With regard to these three periods, there are again two kinds: first, dividing into three periods broadly from the initial mind to the ultimate; second, the three periods of moments within the uninterrupted path. Both the sūtras and the treatises cover these two. The Śāstra states: "Is the exhaustion of outflows by this wisdom the beginning, is the severing by wisdom the middle, or the end? The answer is: It is not the initial wisdom that severs, nor the middle or the end, for the verse says 'not beginning, middle, or end.'" This directly explains the verse text and concurrently determines the three periods, speaking solely in terms of wisdom; hence it is said that this wisdom severs afflictions. If so, when there is no severing in the three periods, how is it severed? The Śāstra states: "Just as a lamp's flame does not consume the wick solely at the beginning, middle, or end, but is apprehended through the earlier, middle, and later." This adduces an analogy to explain and establish it, meaning that in the real teaching, severing afflictions must clarify both nature and marks. The sūtra text directly reveals realized wisdom, relying solely on the ineffable meaning of the profound nature of conditions. The author of the treatise concurrently clarifies the meaning of severing, and therefore analyzes both nature and marks as not being beginning, middle, or end. Analyzing the absence of intrinsic nature in causes and conditions is the non-severing of severing. Apprehending earlier, middle, and later means not destroying the marks of conditions, which is the severing of non-severing. Therefore the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: "A bodhisattva does not attain bodhi with the initial mind, nor is it apart from the initial mind; the final mind is also like this, yet they attain bodhi. For example, when lighting a lamp, it is not the first flame that chars the wick, nor is it apart from the first flame; the final flame is also like this, yet the wick is truly charred." Nāgārjuna judged: "The Buddha answered by means of profound causes and conditions." The twenty-ninth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa also states: "Although the five aggregates of sentient beings perish from thought to thought, there is cultivation of the path, just as although a lamp perishes from thought to thought, there is light." All the sūtras and treatises above reveal the severing of non-severing through the non-obstruction of nature and marks. Furthermore, the present sūtra and treatise mutually reinforce each other reciprocally, meaning that if it were definitely severed, a single thought would suffice; why rely on three minds? Since it is only accomplished by taking them together, we clearly know that without intrinsic nature there is no beginning, middle, or end; because having no beginning, middle, or end is the absence of intrinsic nature, only then can severing across beginning, middle, and end be accomplished. This is: because of causes and conditions, there is no intrinsic nature; because of the absence of intrinsic nature, there are causes and conditions. If one says that the initial thought can sever, and only the subsequent thought definitively severs, this does not differ from the Abhidharma's view that in a single thought there is burning, but only from beginning to end is it completed. If one says that the initial thought alone cannot sever, and only when accumulated to the middle and end can it sever, this does not differ from the Tattvasiddhi's view that a single thought does not burn, and only in continuity is it so. Do not lose the fundamental tenet. The above still applies generally to the real teaching. If according to the perfect school, regarding the afflictions that are severed: when one is deluded, all are deluded, and therefore when one is severed, all are severed—there is neither severing nor non-severing. If fully revealing the distinctions among the various schools, it is as in the separate chapter. The three lines from "not words" downward clarify the three virtues: the first line is prajñā, which is the characteristic of contemplative practice, meaning that the essence of non-conceptual contemplation transcends names and words, and true wisdom arises from within, unlike the śrāvakas who awaken relying on sound. Previously, "contemplative wisdom" was spoken of in terms of its decisive resolution; here, "contemplative practice" is spoken of in terms of practice according with the ultimate. The next line, dharmakāya, is the characteristic of the transformation of the basis, meaning transforming the impermanent basis; it says "transcending the three times," and therefore this subtle wisdom relies on the permanent dharmakāya. The Śāstra states: "It is not like the wisdom of the impermanent conscious mind relying on impermanent causes and conditions." This distinguishes the time before the basis has been transformed; now it is that which is transformed into the basis. The wisdom of the impermanent conscious mind is that which relies, and impermanent causes and conditions are that which is relied upon. The fundamental consciousness holding seeds is the impermanent cause; the defiled and pure seeds and so forth held by it are the impermanent conditions; relying on these causes and conditions, the impermanent conscious mind arises. Now, transforming impermanent consciousness accomplishes the wondrous observing wisdom, and transforming the impermanent manas accomplishes the equality nature wisdom, which serve as that which relies; relying on that tathāgatagarbha nature of the fundamental consciousness, the true suchness dharmakāya, as that which is relied upon. The Śāstra states: "As definitively spoken in the sūtras, for this is the definitive meaning." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Transforming impermanent consciousness, one obtains permanent consciousness." In various Mahāyāna sūtras, such passages are not singular. Question: That which is relied upon is originally existent, so it can be permanent. That which relies is cultivated and arisen, so how can it be free from arising and ceasing? If according to Vijñaptimātratā, because that which is relied upon is permanent, that which relies is also spoken of as permanent; it is not permanent by self-nature, because it is conditioned. If according to the Awakening of Faith and so forth, initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment, and thus is also permanent. The Śrīmālā Sūtra states: "Because all dharmas are permanently abiding." Third, "its characteristics are like empty space" is the characteristic of liberation, unlike the śrāvakas who still have the cognitive obstruction. Because both obstructions are eliminated, it is unobstructed like space. The meaning of the three virtues has already appeared in the text above. However, their consummation is in the Buddha; the ten abodes of the perfect teaching already permit their unfolding. Here, in terms of the cause, it is spoken of as partial attainment. The ocean of fruit that serves as the support is equal to the Buddha without difference; the transformation of the basis is also like this. From the approach of the cause, it is the transformation through seeing and cultivation; analyzing it in terms of the fruit, it is the ultimate and vast transformation. These uncommon characteristics arise from attaining the aforementioned common characteristic; accomplishing these uncommon ones can reveal the aforementioned common one. Causing it to be pure and free from obstructions, there are no separate uncommon ones, just as molten gold forms an image, and the image is not outside the gold. In the Śāstra, concluding the latter five lines, it states: "Such is contemplative wisdom, such is the severing of afflictions, such is contemplating suchness. Contemplating suchness, such is the support; supporting such liberation, liberation is attained." The fact that the latter three all repeat words is because in each case the upper reiterates what precedes and the lower establishes the conclusion, meaning "contemplating with such contemplation," and so forth. That only these latter three have reiterations is because the latter three in the preceding text revealed the true in contrast to the false; hence it was necessary to reiterate the true in order to conclude it.

33.3

Second, the one gāthā that compares the subtleties of the practices on the stages [to that of wisdom]: in it, the first half repeats the previous ineffability of the wisdom of the stages to serve as the standard of comparison, and the second half directly adduces the practices on the stages to serve as that which is compared. In the first [half], it is said that the previous wisdom of the stages reveals the two nirvāṇas, both of which are beyond words. 'Calm' (śānta) is the nirvāṇa of intrinsic purity with identical marks, because it is intrinsically calm. 'Extinction' (nirodha) is the nirvāṇa of purity through expedients with non-identical marks, which requires wisdom to take extinction as its object, not being spoken of in terms of nature. Because these two nirvāṇas are the realm traversed by the Buddha, words cannot reach them. 'Traversed' means realized. That 'words cannot reach them' means they are difficult both to explain and to hear. Why not simply say 'there are no words,' but rather say 'words cannot reach them'? If there were unconditionally no words, by what means could awakening and understanding arise? To cause [beings] to pursue words in seeking the principle, yet know that the principle is round while words are partial, it is simply said that [words] 'cannot reach' it. As for that which is compared in the second half, it means that not only is the realizing wisdom thus profound and subtle, but it also causes the practices that are the retinue of wisdom to be difficult to explain and receive. The treatise says: 'The stage is the contemplation of the objective realm; the practice is the retinue of wisdom.' 'Retinue of wisdom' means congruent practices. 'Congruent practices' means the pāramitās such as giving (dāna). As for 'the contemplation of the objective realm': taking [suchness] as the objective realm, illuminating and penetrating it is called 'contemplation'; this is preparatory application (prayoga). Even if 'stage' refers to the essence of the stage, the intention is to point to the stage in order to capture practice; hence it is called 'practices on the stages.' Carrying out giving and so forth by means of this wisdom of the stages is therefore called 'congruent practice,' because one acts congruently with those phenomenal affairs. This is subsequently attained [wisdom], which serves as the retinue of realizing wisdom.

33.4

Third, regarding the one gāthā that relies on contrasts to reveal the subtlety: this is because it reveals subtlety by contrasting it with [wisdoms] born of hearing, reflection, and so forth. The first line presents the essence of the dharma. 'Wisdom' is the wisdom of the stages that arises, which is the fundamental wisdom explained in the previous five gāthās. 'Arising' refers to the preparatory and subsequently attained [wisdoms]; both contemplate suchness, and suchness is the realm of the Buddha, both acting as that which gives rise [to it]. Thus the treatise says: 'By what contemplation and by what congruent practice can this wisdom be aroused?' This corresponds to the previous gāthā: 'What contemplation? The aforementioned contemplation of the objective realm. What congruent practice? The aforementioned practices of giving and so on.' The use of 'what' in each case refers to whatever contemplation or practice, being an expression of non-singularity, because preparatory application differs according to the stage, and subsequently attained [wisdom] observes diverse objective realms. The next two lines clarify that it is difficult to explain, in which the first line indicates that it is difficult to explain because it is not a mental concomitant. 'Non-thought' means it is not the realm of the wisdom born of reflection. 'Transcending the paths of the mind' means it is not the realm of reward-born consciousness and cognition. As for 'reward-born consciousness,' it has been discriminated above under the section on opposing the request. The subsequent line clarifies that it is not identical with the three categories [of skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas], which have form, mind, faculties, and objects, and is therefore inexpressible. The treatise's version of the sūtra states that 'it is not explained through the skandhas, dhātus, or āyatanas'; the treatise's commentary explains 'not explained' as 'devoid of letters.' The present sūtra omits the word 'explained'; 'gate' simply means 'explanation.' Thus the Lotus Sūtra takes explanation as the gate of wisdom. The final line clarifies that it cannot be heard. 'Known by wisdom' means it is known only by realizing wisdom. That 'the mind cannot reach it' means it cannot be grasped as it is heard; that is, one relies on wisdom, not on consciousness.

33.5

Fourth, the one gāthā that uses a simile to reveal the subtlety of the stage: the first half is the simile, and the second half is the application. Here, the simile does not take space alone, for space elsewhere does not serve as a simile; nor does it take tracks alone, for tracks on sand and earth do not serve as a simile. It precisely takes the tracks of a bird in empty space. The treatise says: 'When a bird moves through empty space, the locus of its tracks has marks that cannot be spoken of, nor can they be seen'—this generally reveals the mark of the simile. The 'locus' is the space where the tracks are; the 'marks' are the tracks in the space. They cannot be pointed out as long or short, large or small, to make them visible; nor can they be spoken of as existent or non-existent. Here, the space where the tracks are similes realizing wisdom. The tracks in the space simile the āgamas. Thus the treatise applies it, saying: 'So too are the loci where words, phrases, and syllables dwell.' Why can they not be spoken of? The treatise says: 'Because the marks of the bird's tracks in empty space cannot be distinguished.' The meaning is: when a bird's feet tread on sand, there are tracks and a locus, but because it treads on space, locus and tracks are difficult to distinguish. The bodies of names, phrases, and syllables are also like this: being subsumed by the bodhisattva's realizing wisdom, they can neither be spoken of nor heard. Whether spoken or heard, the mind and intellect cannot comprehend them. Therefore, subsuming the teaching within realization is like space subsuming the tracks, causing names, phrases, and so forth not to be like the nature of sound, because they are the names and so forth of realizing wisdom. Above, it clarified that coarse marks are non-existent, conforming to the simile of inexpressibility and inaudibility; below, it clarifies that subtle marks are not non-existent, similing that which can be realized. The treatise says: 'Because the tracks of motion in empty space are not non-existent.' This means that the space where tracks are differs from other space, similing that the wisdom of the stages is not non-existent. The tracks in the space differ from the absence of tracks, similing that the bodies of names, phrases, and syllables are not non-existent, because where there is the flight of a bird, there must be tracks. Hence the treatise says: 'The wisdom of the stages and the bodies of names, phrases, and syllables are not non-existent'—this is a dual application. It means that there are noble ones who personally realize suchness; if even realization is not non-existent, how much less so the verbal teaching! Moreover, using space to subsume the tracks, the tracks cannot be shown; using the tracks to subsume space, space is also not non-existent. Similing this, using realization to subsume the teaching, the teaching cannot be shown; using the teaching to subsume realization, realization can be entrusted to words. Such is precisely the intention of the simile. If one wishes to separate the bird from the tracks, then the bird similes the verbal explanation, the tracks simile the distinct marks of the stages, and there are three things with the tracks in the middle: since the tracks follow the bird, the marks of the tracks are not non-existent; since the tracks follow space, the marks of the tracks are non-existent. Similing this: since the distinctions follow the explanation, the distinctions are not non-existent; since the marks of the stages follow realization, the distinctions are non-existent. If one further separates the space where the tracks are from vast space, then the track-space similes realizing wisdom, and vast space similes the ocean of fruition. If the track-space follows the tracks, the wisdom of the stages can be spoken of; if the track-space follows vast space, then the wisdom of the stages transcends words. Although this meaning is tenable, it has no text in the treatise. If one uses the tracks to simile realizing wisdom, as analyzed earlier in the drawing in the wind: reflecting this simile of the bird's tracks onto the text of the ten stages below, then words conveying gradations of depth in stages, types of giving, precepts, and factors of dhyāna—not a single sentence or phrase is anything other than profound and subtle. How could one say that prior to the stages is deep and upon the stages is shallow? Therefore, the treatise concludes: 'Because it is profound herein, it shows the greatness of meaning and brings forth exultant joy.' Here the bird's tracks also dual-similes that teaching and realization are difficult to explain and difficult to hear; how does this differ from the simile of drawing in the wind in the request? Thus the treatise says: 'Why is it explained again?' The treatise answers: 'You should not grasp the meaning according to the sound.' This means: the earlier simile and dharma revealed the intention of remaining silent without explaining; here, the simile and difficulty of explaining admonish the assembly to abandon attachment, promising to proclaim it. The intentions are different. If one grasps meaning according to sound with an attached mind, there are five faults: first, incorrect faith, because understanding in accordance with words does not accord with reality; second, retreating from vigor, being unable to forget marks and advance toward the true principle; third, deceiving others, by explaining one's own erroneous understanding to people; fourth, slandering the Buddha, by declaring one's own erroneous understanding to be what the Buddha taught; fifth, disparaging the Dharma, by interpreting profound purports with shallow, crude understanding, deeming the Dharma to be as ordinary as words, without gravity. The intention is to lead the great assembly to realize themselves to be free of these five faults, which is why it clarifies the difficulty of explaining and hearing. Today, those who regard the stages as shallow all fall into these five faults; hence the praise of the difficulty of explaining and hearing. Thus reversing these five faults forms five virtues. The profound meaning has already been explained to engender correct faith.

33.6

From here below is the second [major section], which further reveals the greatness of explanation to engender correct faith. The five gāthās are divided into three parts: first, one and a half gāthās directly reveal the meaning of the three accomplishments of the greatness of explanation; second, three gāthās show that he himself is free of fault and admonish the assembly to eliminate their shortcomings; third, half a gāthā indicates the demarcation of the explanation, being merely the explanation of causes. First, regarding the 'three accomplishments': first is the greatness of the accomplishment of cause, meaning that the power of kindness, compassion, and vows serves as the basis for initiating practice, hence called 'cause.' Second is the greatness of the gradual accomplishment of cause, meaning that the wisdoms born of hearing, reflection, and so forth serve as the causes of supramundane wisdom; arising non-suddenly, it is called 'gradual.' Third is the greatness of the accomplishment of the cultivation of teaching and explanation, which is the wisdom of cultivation: true cultivation accords with reality just as in direct realization, and it can be entrusted to verbal explanations, hence called 'teaching and explanation.' The two words 'teaching and explanation' precisely distinguish it from the greatness of meaning, for unlike the portion of fruition, it is not inexpressible. The previous two do not resemble direct realization, their essence is not profound and subtle, and they do not require words to distinguish them, but merely serve as the causes for suprundane wisdom, hence both are termed 'causes.' Obtained according to their respective portions, all three are accomplishments. In which stations of the stages are these three located? There are two interpretations: First, in terms of the first stage, the first two may reside prior to the stages as preparatory application for the stage, while the last one resides solely upon the stages. Second, in terms of the general explanation, throughout stage after stage, preparatory application, cultivation, and so on, with the power of kindness, compassion, and vows, are the accomplishment of cause; the wisdoms born of hearing, reflection, and so forth are the gradual cause; and direct realization and subsequent attainment are both the cultivation of teaching and explanation. Question: Kindness and so forth, hearing and so forth, are easily understood in the text throughout the explanation of the ten stages; where are the marks of direct realization? Answer: There are two interpretations. First, the essence of the stages is profound and subtle and cannot be directly revealed; manifesting it through dharmas is itself its mark, such as the ten good deeds, factors of dhyāna, factors of the path, the truths, and so forth. Second, the locus of entry where causes are fulfilled is itself direct realization, just as the first stage says: 'Named abiding in the Bodhisattva Ground of Joy, because it corresponds to immovability'; and the eighth stage says: 'Entering into the nature of all dharmas like space; accomplishing this patience is called entering the Immovable Stage,' and so forth—these are precisely its passages, because true direct realization cannot be verbally demonstrated. Both of these categories belong to the cultivation of explanation. If so, why do the teachings of all Buddhas call the above three gradations 'realization'? Those are termed 'realization' based on the greatness of meaning that they express; here, based on what can be explained, they can only be called 'explanation.' Hence the treatise above states: 'Because by means of this greatness of explanation, one is able to attain that meaning.'

33.7

Having understood the general meaning, next we directly interpret the text. The greatness of the accomplishment of cause corresponds to the first two lines. Kindness and compassion are benefiting others; vows pertain to both benefits; power pertains to all three above, because perfuming and cultivating both benefits differs from the two vehicles, hence called 'power.' The following line is the merit of the two benefits, and giving rise to the practices of the stages is precisely the meaning of cause. Second, the greatness of the gradual accomplishment of cause corresponds to the subsequent second character. The treatise says: 'Explaining the sequence of wisdoms born of hearing, reflection, and so forth, up to being able to accomplish the cause of supramundane wisdom.' The word 'and so forth' here admits of two meanings: First, it equates with what is above; because the wisdom of cultivation is the third greatness, it is not included in 'and so forth.' Second, it includes cultivation, for cultivation is of two kinds: first, cultivation directed at conditions, which is subsumed under this gate; second, true cultivation, which is subsumed under the third. Because the meaning of 'and so forth' contains this, it simply says 'and so forth.' If not, why not simply say 'hearing, reflection, and cultivation,' instead of replacing 'cultivation' with 'and so forth'?

33.8

Third, from "complete" downward clarifies the greatness of accomplishment through doctrinal exposition and cultivation. In this there are two kinds: first, cultivation of fulfillment, which is the initial eight words; second, cultivation of contemplation, which is the latter two lines. When the station of true cultivation reaches its utmost, worldly cogitations are entirely stilled, capable of fulfilling the wisdom of the stage; hence it is called 'cultivation of fulfillment'. When true wisdom arises internally, its stillness and illumination distinct and clear, this is called 'cultivation of contemplation'. The former accords with the nature and is quiescent; the latter is quiescent and yet capable of illuminating. Like polishing a bright mirror, where no defilement remains uncleaned, so is cultivation of fulfillment; where no illumination fails to penetrate, so is cultivation of contemplation. In comparison with true realization, these two kinds of cultivation are like equal and sublime [enlightenment]. Equal enlightenment equals sublime enlightenment and is yet merely the perfection of the cause; only when sublime enlightenment abandons practice is it termed the fulfillment of the fruit. This is also like that. The two cultivations, in comparison to the world-transcending, are merely the culmination of the causal part; only when true realization abandons cultivation is it termed the fruition part. May all who possess wisdom examine this meaning! In the text, 'cogitation' is hearing and thinking; 'wisdom' is the wisdom of true cultivation; 'mind' is the mental essence of true cultivation. That is to say, only when there is no mind of cogitation dependent on hearing and thinking is the mind of true cultivation termed fulfilled; therefore, it can only be practiced by the wisdom of true cultivation. If judged by the Śāstra's Sūtra, 'mind' is the world-transcending mind that is conformed to. Hence the Śāstra's Sūtra states: 'Not the object of mind, wisdom is fulfilled like the pure mind.' The Śāstra's commentary explains: 'As for "cultivation of fulfillment", the verse says "not the object of mind". "Not the object of mind": this line indicates the realm of the mind of the wisdom of hearing and thinking, etc., which is solely the cause of wisdom capable of generating world-transcending wisdom, yet this cannot fulfill that world-transcending wisdom.' This clarifies that hearing and thinking are objects of mind and cannot fulfill the wisdom of the stage; conversely, it reveals that only when true cultivation is not an object of mind can it fulfill the wisdom of the stage. Next, it immediately cites the verse, saying: 'Because the verse says "wisdom is fulfilled like the pure mind".' Next, citing and explaining, it says: '"Like the pure mind": like the world-transcending pure mind, being able to fulfill the wisdom of that stage.' This clarifies that the box and lid fit each other; that is, to fulfill the wisdom of the stage is impossible for any other mind—it requires the mind of true cultivation in which cogitations are stilled, which is completely like the mind of world-transcending wisdom, to be able to fulfill it. That world-transcending mind conformed to is precisely the stage-wisdom of true realization. These words are truly direct. Next, in cultivation of contemplation, 'being a realm' is the realm of true cultivation. 'Difficult to see' means it cannot be seen through hearing and thinking. 'Knowable' means it is known only when one's own mind in true cultivation is still and illuminating. Knowing is seeing. Thus the Śāstra's Sūtra states: 'Difficult to explain, known by one's own mind.' The commentary says: 'The purity of one's own mind can be seen.' Since it is difficult to see, it is also difficult to explain; yet, being revealed in accord with cultivation, it is subsumed under the greatness of exposition, unlike the fruition part which is solely profound meaning. Second, 'demonstrating that he is without fault and admonishing the assembly to eliminate errors', comprises two: first, a half-verse broadly clarifies; second, two and a half verses specifically reveal. Now, the first. Because both speaker and listeners each have two faults and cannot attain realization, their separation from them is jointly displayed. As for the two faults of the speaker: first, speaking without the Buddha's rejoicing—now saying 'by the Buddha's power I expound' shows the Buddha has already rejoiced; second, speaking without impartiality—now saying 'you all should receive' shows feelings hold no distinction between self and other. As for the two faults of the listeners: first, the fault of contentious views, saying 'my dharma is right, another's dharma is wrong,' clinging in this way to diverse views; second, not generating reverence toward the speaker of Dharma. Now, bidding them to receive with reverence departs from both faults simultaneously: because of revering the Dharma, there is no fault of contentious views; because of revering the person, there is no second fault. In the second part, specifically revealing, although four faults were departed from above, in phenomenon there are only three: first, relying on power; second, expounding; third, receiving with reverence. Now, three sections expand on them: the first verse expands on expounding, the next verse reveals receiving with reverence, and the latter half-verse reveals relying on power. Now, the first. Above, it merely said 'expound', not knowing whether broad or brief; now it reveals it is brief and not broad. The first half reveals that the practice of entering through wisdom is deep and mysterious, inexhaustible by broad explanation. As for 'the practice of entering through wisdom', the stage-dharmas are that which is entered, the realizing wisdom is that which enters; practicing this wisdom-practice, one enters the stage-dharmas. Furthermore, 'entering through wisdom' is realizing wisdom; 'practice' is phenomenal practice. The second half means that although now speaking briefly, it gathers the broad without remainder. 'Truth' is the practice of entering through wisdom. 'Without remainder' is because whether phenomena or noumenon, none is unprovided for. Second, revealing receiving with reverence indicates the marks of reverence. The first line directly clarifies; three lines produce the causes. Reverence has two kinds: first, properly awaiting with bodily reverence, abiding in deportment, capable of receiving the exposition of Dharma; second, properly awaiting with mental reverence, having a determined mind, capable of mindfully retaining. When the mind is reverent, the body is necessarily respectful; hence the verse merely speaks of mind. Below, it explains the cause of reverence: that is, because of good exposition, causing beings to await with reverence. The first line displays one's own good exposition toward people. The single word 'speak' is called 'good exposition' in the Śāstra's Sūtra. 'Good exposition' means being free from flattery and arrogance toward those of suitable capacity. 'Relying on the Buddha's power' shows that he is free from overweening pride, not claiming equality with the Buddha. The next two lines display his own good exposition toward the Dharma. The two words 'superior Dharma' are that which is expressed; the next six words are that which expresses; the two words 'in accord with' apply to both that which expresses and that which is expressed. Although the text has three clauses, the meaning has four levels: First, what phenomenon does that which is now expressed manifest? It is the superior stage-dharmas, hence it says 'superior Dharma'. Second, questioning again: that which is expressed is the stages, but that which expresses is of many kinds—either form, fragrance, deportment, or movements may serve as that which expresses—what dharma is used as that which expresses? Thus the Śāstra asks: 'By means of what phenomenon?' It answers: 'I use the eight kinds of subtle voice of Brahmā's reverberation as that which expresses, not using fragrance and so on; hence the sūtra says "subtle voice".' Third, questioning again: using this voice is also of many kinds—is it used straightforwardly, or revealed through analogies and categorization? Thus the Śāstra asks: 'How is it done?' It answers: 'Not revealed straightforwardly, but clarified through analogies and categorization; hence it says "analogies".' However, analogies have two kinds: first, using phenomenal matters as analogies, as cited section by section below regarding gold ornaments, ocean jewels, and so forth; second, borrowing phenomenal marks of dharmas to illustrate noumenon and instruct listeners of the time, which is also called an analogy. Here it applies to both. Fourth, questioning again: although knowing it is revealed through analogies, analogies are also of many kinds—are they analogies based on worldly unwholesome words, or analogies based on world-transcending wholesome words? Thus the Śāstra asks: 'Depending on what phenomenon?' It answers: 'Depending on wholesome words.' The sūtra lacks the word 'wholesome', but the Śāstra's Sūtra fully contains it. How does 'in accord with' apply to both that which expresses and that which is expressed? First, the subtle voice being in accord with analogies concerns that which expresses; second, wholesome words being in accord with noumenon applies to that which is expressed. Thus the Śāstra says: 'Wholesome words are of two kinds: first, according with local dialects and sounds, being well adaptable; second, words and sentences being complete, neither increasing nor decreasing, in accord with noumenon.' Moreover, being in accord with the three matters of that which expresses, it is then in accord with noumenon. Third, expanding on relying on power: the Śāstra says: 'Previously it said "relying on the Buddha's spiritual power", but did not state what power; hence this is said.' 'Immeasurable Buddhas' briefly has three types: first, the host Buddha; second, the Vajragarbha Buddhas of the ten directions; third, all Buddhas of the ten directions. Third, showing the scope of the exposition is merely the cause of the exposition. In the half-verse, the lower line in the Śāstra's Sūtra is at the beginning of the five verses on the greatness of exposition, saying 'I will speak of only a portion', which is precisely the scope. Perhaps the translator reversed the text, or the Sanskrit manuscript differed; the purport is not distinct, so what harm is there in the sequence? Therein, the upper line repeats the previous request and summarizes the above two greatnesses of meaning and exposition as this locus. The meaning of 'difficult to proclaim' is broadly analyzed above. The lower line promises to speak of a small portion. The Śāstra explains above: 'Previously it was said that the ten stages thus cannot be spoken of or heard; now it says "I will speak of only a portion"—what meaning does this statement have? What is subsumed under the stages is of two kinds: first, the causal part; second, the fruition part. Speaking, namely explaining a portion, is the causal part, because it is one portion in relation to the fruition part.' However, regarding the two parts of cause and fruit, the ancients had many explanations; those completely contrary to the text's purport are not discussed here, while those that are admissible are corrected and adopted. Looking directly at the Śāstra's intent, it designates the greatness of meaning as the fruition part, and thus it cannot be spoken of; it designates the greatness of exposition as the causal part, and thus it can be spoken of. If taken further by meaning, there are briefly two kinds: First, clarified solely with respect to the ten stages, taking realizing wisdom as the fruition part, and skillful means, provisional dharmas, and so forth, entirely as the causal part. This also has two meanings: first, contrasting cultivation and realization, the exertion of skillful means is the causal part, and the cessation of cultivation to accord with reality is the fruition part; second, contrasting expression and indication, using provisional dharmas to reveal the distinctions of the stages is the causal part, and true realizing wisdom is the fruition part. As the first three stages provisionally conform to the worldly, and the next three provisionally conform to the two vehicles as well as factors of dhyāna and aids to the path, causing the assembly thereby to understand the meaning of the stages indicated—the realizing wisdom indicated by the cause is the fruit of this cause; all these are beyond the reach of words in realizing wisdom, and thus cannot be spoken of, just as bird tracks are identical to empty space; while provisional dharmas of skillful means can be revealed by words, hence they are said to be speakable, just as bird tracks in space are distinguished with reference to the bird. Thus a single track applies to both parts, being both speakable and unspeakable. Second, explained in terms of the ultimate Buddha-fruit contrasted with the cause of Samantabhadra, its meaning applies to the entire work. That is, this realizing wisdom secretly identifies with the ocean of the ultimate fruit as the fruition part, just as the space at the track's locus is no different from great space. The cause of the marks of the stages is identical to the cause of Samantabhadra, because if broadly explained there are immeasurable diverse phenomena, and superior power of vows further exceeds this. Thus the space at the track's locus also possesses the meaning of being speakable in following the track in the space, for the wisdom of the stages can also be indicated provisionally by words. Question: The Śāstra above says 'What is subsumed under the stages has two kinds'—how can it be spoken of as the ultimate fruit? Answer: Did I not just say it secretly identifies with the ocean of fruit? Hence the Śāstra above says: 'Who realizes this wisdom? The verse says: "It is what the Buddha practices."' Furthermore, the section on empowerment above says 'inconceivable Buddha-dharmas', and the section on the reflections of the stages says: 'Those ten great mountains derive their names from the great ocean, and the great ocean also derives its name from the ten mountains.' The ten stages of a bodhisattva are also like this: together resting in omniscience, they derive their names from omniscience, for their cause and fruit correspond to each other. From this we know that the author of the Śāstra also took the ultimate fruit to be subsumed under the ten stages. Some say: 'That text says the ten mountains rely on the ocean, not that the great ocean is the mountains'—can the ten virtues of the great ocean be separated from the ocean? Can the ten meanings of the precious jewel be separated from the jewel? Clearly, those who raise this objection do not see the purport of the stage-wisdom. Moreover, relying on a single mark that cannot be pointed out, etc., it speaks of unspeakable and speakable. If through causes and conditions the fruit can be provisionally spoken of, and entering the mysterious through phenomena the cause is also unspeakable, then it is said to speak of a small portion; one must not be rigidly attached.

First 8 of 23 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經疏 — Classical Chinese