大方廣佛華嚴經疏 33.8

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.