大方廣佛華嚴經疏 40

English (machine translation) 40

Language: English

40.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Chengguan of the Great Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang

In the second [section], the gate of subsumption under the one mind: however, this single gate contains multiple meanings, which are briefly divided into two: first, the gate of tracing the branches back to the root; second, below the phrase "The Tathāgata in this [matter]," the gate of the mutual reliance and sustenance between root and branches. Now, regarding the first: relying on the three contemplations of the treatise [Daśabhūmika-śāstra], first, in terms of marks and truths, this corresponds to the second, the contemplation of the truth of the highest meaning (paramārtha-satya). The commentary's introductory rationale states: "Why is there the differentiation of the highest meaning? Because by thus realizing the highest meaning one attains liberation from that contemplation." This explains the reason for cultivating contemplation. Because the highest meaning is the nature of arising through conditions, if one sees the nature of conditions, one is freed from the bondage of conditions; therefore, one cultivates that contemplation. Although the treatise's sūtra text says that all are the mental application of the one mind, taking the active, capable one mind, it is therefore called the contemplation of the highest meaning. The treatise says that it is merely one mind because the entire triple world is transformed only by mind. This statement is comprehensive. "Transformed" (zhuǎn) means arising and operating, and also means transformation. However, this single passage is cited across various teachings to substantiate mind-only. How does the one mind make the triple world? There are briefly three meanings: First, people of the two vehicles assert that external objects exist, failing to understand mind-only. Even if they hear of "one mind," they merely regard it as the "one" of absolute truth, or assert that it is transformed by mind while not being entirely mind. Second, the ripening ālaya[-vijñāna] is called the one mind, spoken of as one mind to preclude external objects. Third, the nature of the tathāgatagarbha is the pure one mind, spoken of as one mind because in principle there are no two essences. As for this first "one mind," bodhisattvas do not practice this contemplation. Regarding the latter two "one minds," the intent of the sūtra clearly applies throughout the three contemplations: taking the pure one mind as the first contemplation, and applying both minds to the latter two contemplations. The latter two "one minds" are briefly explained as in the [Chapter of the] Clarification of Inquiries, and when extensively unfolded, there are ten: The first gate conventionally speaks of one mind, asserting that external dharmas truly exist, but are merely altered by the mind. The nine gates below are truly nothing but the one mind. Second, it is spoken of as one mind because marks and seeing both persist. This applies to the eight consciousnesses and all mental factors, as well as the transformed objective aspect (nimittabhāga) complete with root and reflection. Due to the permeating force of the limbs of existence and the like, the retribution of the environment and sentient beings of the triple world is transformed and manifested, as extensively explained in treatises such as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Vijñaptimātratā[-siddhi]. Third, it is spoken of as one mind by subsuming marks into seeing. This also applies to the primary minds and mental factors; however, the transformed objective aspect does not arise from separate seeds: the consciousness capable of seeing arises bringing forth that reflection, as fully explained in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, the Viṃśikā, and the Ālambanaparīkṣā. Fourth, it is spoken of as one mind by subsuming mental factors into the primary mind. This applies only to the eight consciousnesses, because those mental factors rely on the primary mind, lacking an essence of their own, and are also transformed by the mind, as explained in the Sūtrālaṃkāra. Fifth, it is spoken of as one mind by returning the branches to the root. That is to say, the seven transforming consciousnesses are all differentiated functions of the root consciousness, lacking a separate essence. The Laṅkā[vatāra-sūtra] states: "The ocean of the storehouse consciousness is permanently abiding; moved by the wind of objects, waves of various consciousnesses leap up and arise in transformation." It also states: "Just as the waves of the great ocean have no manifold marks, so too is the mind of the consciousnesses; a difference also cannot be found." Since it says that apart from water there are no separate waves, it is clear that apart from the root consciousness there are no separate first seven [consciousnesses]. Sixth, it is spoken of as one mind by subsuming marks into nature. That is to say, these eight consciousnesses all lack self-nature, being solely the impartial manifestation of the tathāgatagarbha, with all remaining marks entirely exhausted. The sūtra states: "All sentient beings are the mark of nirvāṇa," and so forth. The Laṅkā states: "There are eight whose marks are not destroyed; marklessness is also devoid of marks." Canonical passages such as these providing genuine proof are not single. Seventh, it is spoken of as one mind because nature and marks are both fused. That is to say, the tathāgatagarbha in its entire essence accords with conditions to accomplish all phenomena, yet its own nature is originally unproduced and unceasing. Thus noumenon and phenomena are completely fused without obstruction; therefore, within the one mind, the two truths are both unobstructed. The Awakening of Faith states: "Relying on the dharma of the one mind, there are two gates, up to they are not separate from each other." Furthermore, the Ghanavyūha states: "The Buddha spoke of the tathāgatagarbha as the ālayavijñāna," as well as analogies such as gold and a ring. Furthermore, the Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra] states: "The inherently pure mind, being undefiled yet defiled, is difficult to understand. Being defiled yet undefiled is also difficult to understand." These all clarify that the pure nature, in according with defilement, completely becomes the conventional, which is the gate of arising and ceasing; while the nature of defilement is constantly pure and originally truly pure, which is the gate of suchness (tathatā). This being so, the defilement that is identical with purity does not obstruct the true yet is constantly conventional; the purity that is identical with defilement does not disrupt the conventional yet is constantly true. Therefore, without obstructing the one mind, the two truths are both maintained—a point rich in meaning upon deep reflection. Eighth, it is spoken of as one mind because phenomena are fused and interpenetrate. That is to say, because the nature of the mind is perfectly interpenetrating and unobstructed, phenomena are formed through nature, and phenomena are also fused without mutually obstructing one another: the one enters the all; within the one, an immeasurable number is understood, and so forth; within each and every particle of dust, one sees the dharmadhātu; gods, humans, and asuras are not separate from a single particle of dust. Such passages are numerous. Ninth, it is spoken of as one mind by causing phenomena to be mutually identical. That is to say, the phenomena that rely on nature have no other phenomena apart from it; since the nature of the mind has no difference between this and that, phenomena are also all identical with the one. As the passage above states: "The one is precisely the many, and the many are precisely the one," and so forth. Tenth, it is spoken of as one mind because of the unobstructedness of Indra's net. That is to say, within the one there is the all, and within that all there is again the all, layer upon layer without end, all because the nature of the tathāgatagarbha of mental consciousness is perfectly interpenetrating and inexhaustible. Among the above ten gates: the first belongs to the Hinayāna teaching; the next three pertain to the provisional; the next three accord with the real; the final three pertain to the distinct teachings within the perfect teaching. If descending to accord with the various vehicles, they universally penetrate the ten unobstructed. This is the overarching principle of the entire work, not restricted to this chapter alone; as contemplation is formed differently according to each and every gate, one can seek it in open reflection.

40.3

Second is the gate of the mutual reliance of root and branch. From this point down to the end of the ten gates, all are the distinctions of conventional truth. The marks of conditions are fundamentally quiescent, so one should only contemplate the real; why then contemplate the distinctions of conventional truth again? Because the treatise says: 'By adaptively contemplating conventional truth, one immediately enters paramārtha.' The conventional is the expression of the real; only by comprehending that the conventional lacks self-nature does one see the real. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'If one does not know conventional truth, one will not attain paramārtha.' This contemplation has six [aspects]: First is the contemplation of what is defilement and what defilement relies upon, which jointly analyzes that which relies and that upon which it relies, subsuming this half of the gate. Second is the contemplation of cause, which contemplates the cause of defilement, subsuming the next two gates. Third is the contemplation of subsuming faults, which pertains solely to suffering and origination. Fourth is the contemplation of guarding against faults, which guards against the wrong views of ordinary beings. Fifth is the contemplation of disdaining what is not disdained, which prevents the conceit of the lesser [vehicles]. The above three successively subsume one gate each. Sixth is the profound contemplation, which reveals the subtlety of the principle of causes and conditions, surpassing emotional grasping. This subsumes the final three gates. Among the six, the first two establish defiled marks; the next one contemplates faults regarding defilement; the next two engage in correct contemplation to prevent errors; the last one is the utmost profundity of contemplative practice. Now, this half of the gate is precisely the contemplation of what defilement relies upon: the factors of existence in causes and conditions constitute defilement, and these defiled marks rely upon the one mind. Therefore the treatise says: 'These are the distinctions of the two truths. Because pure reality alone does not give rise [to anything], and isolated falsity alone cannot form [anything], the reality of the one mind and the conventionality of defilement—these two harmonize, and there is the collection of causes and conditions.' In the sūtra there are three parts: First, the general summary, stating that relying upon the one mind the twelve are distinguished, so the twelve are held by the one mind. It specifically says that the Tathāgata spoke this because the one mind possesses them all at once, and non-buddhas cannot know it. It shows that the Tathāgata, having awakened in the past to the nature of conditions, arose in continuity and so transmitted the teaching in turn. Next, it questions the meaning: 'The twelve limbs of existence are arrayed across the three times and induce one another in sequence. Why is it now said that all rely upon the one mind?' Later, in the explanation, the treatise has no separate interpretation. Virtuous teachers of old merely said that without the fundamental mind-consciousness, nothing could be established; but their explanation of the marks spanned births and passed across lifespans. Although this did not lose the meaning of reliance and sustenance, it did not capture the core intent. I say now that the expounder skillfully demonstrates that it is not merely that the three times are not apart from the true mind: right now, in a single moment of mind, all twelve are possessed at once, which all the more reveals that prior and subsequent are not separate from the one mind. This is identical to the Abhidharmakośa's ninth [chapter] explaining the twelve links of dependent origination in a single instant. Therefore, this single gate encompasses multiple kinds of dependent origination: First, it encompasses the two kinds of dependent origination in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Its second [chapter] says: 'Briefly speaking, dependent origination has two kinds: first, the dependent origination of discriminating self-nature, which refers to all dharmas arising in reliance upon the ālayavijñāna'—which is the present reliance and sustenance of the one mind; 'second, the dependent origination of discriminating the agreeable and disagreeable, which refers to the twelve links of dependent origination, because they can discriminate the agreeable and disagreeable in good and bad destinies, taking diverse individual entities as the nature of conditions'—which applies to the present explanatory text as well as the nine preceding and succeeding passages. Second, it encompasses the four kinds of dependent origination in the ninth [chapter] of the Abhidharmakośa: first, instantaneous; second, continuous; third, positional; fourth, prolonged. The latter three apply to the other nine gates, while the present one corresponds directly to the first. It says: 'What is instantaneous? It means that in a single instant, due to craving one commits killing and so forth, possessing all twelve.' Its detailed explanation of the marks is broadly identical with this, so there is no need to follow the sequence now; the intent is to show that the one mind possesses them at once. 'Craving arises together with the mind in accordance with things': this generally points to the deeds performed. The things craved are not one, yet whichever thing is taken up, in a single moment of thought it possesses all twelve. That is, performing this deed of craving must arise in reliance upon the mind, and again it discerns the object before it; hence the mind is the link of consciousness. 'Things are action': the thing craved is action of mental karma; if formed in body and speech, these are also the two [types of] action. Not knowing that the fault of craving can incur suffering is called confusion regarding action. 'Arising together with ignorance and the mind is name-and-form': name-and-form is the collective [basis], serving as the support for both, which is why it is called arising together with them. Thus the Jin-dynasty translation says: 'The locus of reliance for consciousness is name-and-form.' The Abhidharmakośa says: 'The three aggregates concomitant with consciousness are collectively called name-and-form.' The intent is to clarify that the feeling aggregate belongs inherently to the link of feeling. 'The growth of name-and-form is the six sense bases': when the five consciousnesses are not yet produced, they are only called the ten dhātus; when the five consciousnesses arise in reliance upon them, they are called the ten āyatanas. When consciousness's locus of reliance becomes manifest, this is 'growth'; the word 'growth' ought properly to be translated as 'unfolding and manifestation.' The Abhidharmakośa says: 'The sense organs abiding in name-and-form are spoken of as the six bases.' This means the six sense organs are distinct, and because the distinct rely upon the collective, they unfold into six, which is called abiding in name-and-form. Craving must face an object to be contact; feeling must experience contact; craving is precisely thirst, called insatiable feeling. Grasping without letting go is grasping of desire; craving and grasping moisturize the preceding six links to become existence. Hence whenever the preceding links of existence arise, that is the meaning of existence. 'That which arises' means that when the preceding dharmas arise, that is the meaning of birth. 'Maturity of birth is aging,' because when things are born, they immediately alter. 'Destruction of aging is death,' because they perish in an instant. Furthermore, according to the Mahāyāna, their marks perish right as they are; thus the sūtra says: 'At the very moment of birth there is perishing; this is not spoken for the foolish.' If this is uninterrupted, it is called continuous. The five aggregates in the states of the twelve links are all called positional. Following upon this from beginningless time, it is called prolonged. Both the Great and Lesser [Vehicles] share this principle, perhaps differing only in positing six or eight consciousnesses. Without authoritative scripture, who would believe this tenet? The author of the treatise did not explain this, which almost seems an oversight. This text properly analyzes the twelve links of existence as simultaneous and distinct in entity. If they are simultaneous and identical in entity, they also possess all twelve: confusion regarding paramārtha is ignorance; being with outflows and grasping is action; the entity itself is consciousness, which is also name-and-form; this is the mental base; facing an object is contact; experiencing an object is feeling; being defiled by an object is craving; clinging to an object is grasping; incurring retribution is existence; manifestation of the entity is birth; and alteration and cessation right there are aging and death. Taking these twelve links of existence and speaking generally across time, there are six kinds in total: First, explaining the twelve links based on five times: past ignorance and action arise from even earlier past afflictions, which is afflictions giving rise to defilements and karma; the two past causes give rise to the five present results, which is defilements and karma giving rise to suffering; if the present gives rise to the future, and the future further gives rise to a further future, then suffering again gives rise to suffering. This posits five times conventionally by tracing causes and examining results on the basis of the three times; it does not concern reciprocal succession, so it does not fall into infinite regress. Second, based on three times; third, based on two times; fourth, based on one time: established sequentially, all are analyzed as in the first gate. Fifth, simultaneous and distinct in entity; sixth, simultaneous and identical in entity, which is just like the present text. Second, in the contemplation in accordance with great compassion, this corresponds to the second [aspect], 'seeking liberation elsewhere': this means ordinary beings, foolish and inverted, constantly seek liberation within the ālayavijñāna and ādānavijñāna, and seek liberation in other loci of self and mine. The sūtra explains that there is only the one mind; thus outside mind there is no self or dharma, and one should seek within the one mind. This is also like the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: 'The liberation of all buddhas should be sought in the mental actions of sentient beings.' Regarding the word ālaya, here translated as 'storehouse consciousness,' it can store all defiled dharmas without losing them, and the view of self, craving, and the like cling to it and store it as one's internal self. This name is applied only to ordinary beings and those in training. Ādāna is translated here as 'appropriating and sustaining,' because it appropriates and sustains seeds and the physical sense organs. This name applies to all stages. These two are alternative names for mind; the treatise master's intent was to clarify that mind contains both defiled and pure, so he cited both names to explain the meaning of the one mind. What does 'seeking' mean? If there is self-grasping, it constitutes the ālaya; if self-grasping is eliminated, one relinquishes the name ālaya. Only ādāna sustains uncontaminated seeds, whereupon the false mind is extinguished and the true mind becomes manifest. Thus the verse below says: 'If the mind is extinguished, saṃsāra comes to an end'—that is, the false is extinguished, not that the essence of mind is extinguished. Third, regarding the contemplation of the wisdom of all aspects, this corresponds to the second contemplation of reliance, clarifying that this collection of conditions relies upon two things: First, reliance upon paramārtha, as explained before. Second, reliance upon mind and consciousness, which is the present text. The former pertained solely to the pure; this pertains to both defiled and pure, with the meaning of reliance as stated before. Furthermore, the former meant the false arising in reliance upon the real, while this reveals the false relying upon the real.

40.4

In the third section, on mutual assistance of one's own activity, there are also three parts. First, concerning the contemplation in terms of the truth of marks, the two gates below correspond to the contemplation of cause. The contemplation of cause has two kinds: first, the contemplation of other-cause; second, the contemplation of self-cause. Master Yuan said: 'Because formations differ when compared to ignorance, this is termed "other-cause"; generating subsequent ignorance from previous ignorance is termed "self-cause". Other-cause makes a little sense, but self-cause has difficulties. For the treatise says, "As for the contemplation of self-cause, apart from the prior limb there is no posterior limb," and the sūtra states, "Ignorance as condition is able to generate formations."' Now I say: 'other-cause' means completely depending on a prior limb to give rise to a posterior limb; this is to exclude svabhāva (self-nature). In the contemplation of great compassion, it excludes the primordial nature (pradhāna); in the contemplation of all marks, it is called skillful means. Being generated only from ignorance giving rise to formations is called 'self-cause'; this excludes other causes being able to generate formations. It is just like curd definitely being produced from milk and not coming from a stone. The contemplation of great compassion refutes causes such as Īśvara, while the wisdom of all marks reveals the characteristics of causes and conditions. The intention of the three contemplations differs slightly, but the gist of the text is largely identical; the past masters did not consult the treatise text and arbitrarily made differing explanations. Now, this one gate is precisely the contemplation of other-cause. The sūtra explains that each [limb] has two activities: one is its own activity, and the other is assisting and completing. As for both being called 'other': it is especially because ignorance is deluded about its intentional object that it becomes the cause of formations; if one understood the intentional object, how could one produce deluded formations? Furthermore, first explaining one's own activity reveals the meaning of 'other'; second, explaining the generation of what follows reveals the meaning of 'cause'. The remaining eleven limbs are to be understood in imitation of this. Now, the cause of arising is precisely the predominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya); naming conditions as 'causes' is spoken from a general sense, since among the four conditions, between each limb and the next, the predominant condition is definitely present. In the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra and in this text, it only explains that this one exists; the presence or absence of the other three conditions is indefinite, so it is briefly omitted. That is, craving with respect to grasping, and existence with respect to birth, have the meaning of cause-condition (hetu-pratyaya), because an increase of craving becomes grasping, and an increase of consciousness becomes existence. If it is said that the limb of consciousness is the seed of karma, then formations with respect to consciousness also act as a cause-condition; among the other limbs, there is no meaning of cause-condition. When the Abhidharmasamuccaya says that ignorance with respect to formations has a cause-condition, it is spoken based on the karmic habit-energy at the time of ignorance being conjoined with ignorance; metaphorically speaking of ignorance, it is actually the seed of formations. When the Yogācārabhūmi says that the limbs mutually have no cause-condition, it is spoken based on present craving and grasping being solely karmic existence. Mutually comparing the above four positions explains the presence of cause-conditions: the first two are definite and real, the next one is indefinite, and the last is metaphorical. Ignorance with respect to formations, craving with respect to grasping, and birth with respect to aging-and-death have the other two conditions, all because their active manifestations are related to each other, bringing them about without interval, and because the mind of volition in formations and so on can reciprocally cognize an object. Existence with respect to birth, and feeling with respect to craving, lack the equal-immediate condition but have the object-condition, because seeds are compared to active manifestations, and the generated active manifestation turns back to take the seed as its object. Comparing the other limbs, neither exists. Here, it is provisionally explained according to immediate adjacency in forward order without mutual confusion, in terms of actual conditioned arising. When compared differently from this, their acting as conditions is indefinite, because the reverse and forward orders each have regular succession as well as skipping over intervals. Since acting as conditions has many different senses, the sūtra speaks from what is definitely present by selecting the essentials; furthermore, speaking in terms of 'cause' already contains the other three. The initial self-activity of each of the twelve limbs does not differ from the previous two gates. The treatise master only explained the two activities of aging-and-death because, this being difficult, he cited one to exemplify the rest. However, ignorance has no cause and aging-and-death has no fruit; therefore the preceding eleven each act as the cause of arising for the subsequent limb. If aging-and-death has no fruit, for what does it act as a cause? The purport of the sūtra text reveals that it acts as the cause for ignorance, in which case ignorance is not without a cause, and aging-and-death is not without a fruit; hence it says that because of not being aware, continuity is unbroken. 'Not being aware' is precisely ignorance. Therefore, the twelve links of conditioned arising are like a continuous ring or a well-wheel, without interruption, inversely showing that if one is able to be aware, there is no more birth and death. The treatise master generally takes the two activities as the cause of future birth; hence he says that destroying the body of the five aggregates can act as the cause of future birth because of not seeing and knowing. Acting as the cause of future birth means that once the previous aggregates perish, the subsequent aggregates arise, so the first serves as a cause. The subsequent meaning of not knowing is precisely ignorance; with ignorance as cause, the twelve limbs continue without interruption. Those who do not see this meaning speak in vain. Second, concerning the contemplation of great compassion in accord with [the world]: among the four contemplations, the four sections below explain the third, seeking liberation in divergent paths. The treatise says: 'There are three kinds of inverted causes: cause in nature, cause in Īśvara, and cause in ascetic practice, as well as uncausedness.' Here there are four causes, which are refuted in turn by the four gates. The first three are erroneous causes, so they are together called 'inverted'. First, 'nature' is the primordial nature (pradhāna); the Sāṃkhyas posit this as the cause to be known, claiming that knowing this primordial nature brings liberation. Earlier it was said that seeking liberation in an alien place reveals its principle to be erroneous; although here it is called 'what is known', the intention lies in the error of their practice. Second, Kakuda [Kātyāyana] posits the god Īśvara as the cause to be sought, claiming that when Īśvara is angry, sentient beings experience suffering, and when Īśvara is pleased, sentient beings experience happiness; thus one seeks his pleasure. Third, Sañjaya posits ascetic practice as the cause to be cultivated, claiming that merely cultivating ascetic practice to repay past karma brings liberation. Fourth, 'uncausedness', which is Ajita [Kesakambalī] positing that sentient beings do not attain things through causes and that all phenomena are spontaneous; if one knows this, one attains liberation. Sentient beings seek in the divergent paths of the above erroneous causes and uncausedness. The sūtra wishes to crush the erroneous with the correct, so it raises the four gates to make them seek within them, and not seek within the above erroneous views. This gate precisely refutes the primordial nature: the limbs of existence in conditioned arising, each having two kinds of activity, are able to generate those affairs of conditioned arising and do not originate from the primordial nature; hence, if one severs the condition of a prior limb, the posterior limb will not continue, and in a single lifetime one attains liberation. Even if you understand your primordial nature for eighty thousand kalpas, there is no time of liberation. Third, concerning the contemplation of the wisdom of all marks: this corresponds to the third, the contemplation of skillful means. The limbs of existence in conditioned arising each have two activities as the skillful means for raising what follows; if one eliminates each preceding one, each subsequent one will not arise, which is the skillful means for liberation.

40.5

In the fourth [section], on not abandoning each other, the three gates are the same as before. First, regarding the contemplation of the truth of marks, it corresponds to the contemplation of self-cause. The meaning of self-cause has already been seen above. Moreover, the treatise says that the contemplation of self-cause is contemplating the affairs of conditions in terms of ignorance and so on being the causes of their own generation. This means that apart from the prior limb there is no posterior limb, just as without being apart from ignorance there are formations and so forth; thus ignorance is solely the self-cause of formations. Because it is 'self', it causes formations to be uninterrupted; because it is 'cause', it is merely called assisting and completing. If there were formations solely not apart from ignorance, they would become overly identical, and one should not say 'ignorance conditions formations'. If formations were completely apart from ignorance, they would become overly separate, and ignorance would not be the cause of formations. Hence the treatise says: 'If different, it is not established; neither identical nor different is called self-cause.' Both meanings are thus established. Therefore, the treatise master cites the verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: 'Phenomena arisen from causes and conditions / Are neither identical with the cause / Nor different from the cause; / Therefore they are neither annihilated nor permanent.' The first line brings it up in general. The next line is because it is what is generated, not the generator. 'Nor different from the cause' is because what is generated arises from the generator. 'Neither annihilated nor permanent': not identical, hence not permanent; not different, hence not annihilated. Furthermore, because not identical with the cause, the fruit is not annihilated and the cause is not permanent; because not different from the cause, the fruit is not permanent and the cause is not annihilated. Moreover, because not identical, cause and fruit are both not annihilated; because not different, cause and fruit are both not permanent, for it is not uncaused permanence. Moreover, it is also the reverse of this, for it is not continuity-permanence. Furthermore, because not being apart is not being identical, non-permanence is non-annihilation; reflect on this. In the text, forward is first, and reverse is after. In the forward order, the treatise says: 'Ignorance has two kinds: first, the time of the seed; second, the time of the fruit.' Here, 'the time of the seed' causes formations to be uninterrupted because it has two meanings. Revealing through conditioned affairs: 'seed' is the karmic seed, and 'fruit' is the active manifestation. Although the fruit of the active manifestation has already passed away earlier and is therefore not taken, because the seed continues, it causes formations to be uninterrupted; since it is able to assist and complete formations, the time of the seed is taken. It can also be said that initial ignorance is called the seed, and when it transforms into formations it is called the fruit. Due to the power of the former equal-immediate inducement, it causes formations to be uninterrupted; because it assists and completes formations, the time of the seed is specifically taken. The other eleven limbs all have two times, which can be understood by analogy. In the subsequent reverse contemplation, the treatise says: 'When the previous limit and the posterior limit are extinguished, the middle limit also does not exist; therefore it is not spoken.' The twelve links of conditioned arising do not go beyond the three limits. Since the past and future do not exist, how could the middle exist? Therefore it does not speak of having the meanings of being uninterrupted and assisting-and-completing. Moreover, 'not spoken' means that when extinguished, the prior meanings are extinguished, so it does not provisionally speak of the distinctions between seed and fruit. Second, regarding the contemplation of great compassion in accord with [the world]: in refuting inverted causes, they take the god Īśvara as the cause of sentient beings. Now, by taking ignorance and so on as the cause of formations and so forth, they do not even arise from other limbs, so how could they arise from Īśvara? Third, regarding the contemplation of the wisdom of all marks, it corresponds to the fourth, the contemplation of the characteristics of causes and conditions. As for 'the limbs of existence being without agency': since each preceding one causes each subsequent one to be uninterrupted and assists and completes each subsequent one, then each subsequent one lacks inherent nature; how could each preceding one have an agent that produces each subsequent one? Taking non-agency as the characteristic of conditions is precisely the sphere of the wisdom of all marks.

40.6

Fifth is the uninterrupted succession of the three paths. First, in terms of the examination of characteristics according to the treatise, within the six contemplations it is termed the 'contemplation that gathers faults'; that is, by gathering the twelve links into the three paths, it reveals that the links of existence merely gather the faults of the cause and effect of suffering: karma and afflictions are the causes, and suffering is the effect. This also has forward and reverse orders. In the initial forward contemplation, the text contains two meanings: First, according to the three time periods, past ignorance and present craving and grasping are named afflictions. Although both are afflictions, past [affliction] is deluded about the primordial limit and is given the name 'ignorance', whereas present [affliction] pulls forth the future fruit on account of craving and grasping; according to root and branch, their hiddenness and manifestation illuminate each other. Formations and existence are karma: past karma is named 'formations', and present karma is named 'existence'. Although both are karma, the past is already determined and takes its name from its actual mark, while future karma does not yet exist and karma is able to bring it about, so its designation is established from its efficacy. The five present fruits and two future fruits are alike all suffering; the present retribution is already determined and receives its name from its actual mark, while the future arising is established from its faults. Second, according to the two time periods, the first ten belong to the same period; then afflictions are of two kinds: capable of initiating and capable of moistening. Although all afflictions are capable of both initiating and moistening, at the stage of initiating karma the power of ignorance is predominant, while in moistening karma to receive birth, the power of craving and grasping is superior, each receiving a name according to its predominance. Because there is no repeated initiating, there is only a single ignorance; because there is repeated irrigating, it is divided into craving and grasping. Karma is also of two kinds: unmoistened and moistened. Unmoistened is named 'formations', because it is the initial fabrication; moistened is named 'existence', because it is proximate to the arising of future existence. If one collectively takes the seeds of consciousness and the rest as what is moistened, then they are also subsumed under suffering; hence the Vijñaptimātratā[-siddhi] states: 'A portion of the link of existence is subsumed under karma.' Regarding the seven of suffering, five are explained in terms of seeds and two in terms of actual manifestations. The stage of seeds is difficult to know, so based on the stage of their future fruits they are individually manifested as five; the stage of fruits is easy to understand, so only two are established, all as explained before. That all three paths are said to be 'uninterrupted' means that from the three afflictions the two karmas arise, and from those two karmas the seven sufferings arise again; the seven again give rise to the three, revolving like a wheel, as extensively elucidated in Bodhisattva Śuddhamati's Pratītyasamutpāda-śāstra. Next, from 'the limits of before and after' downward is the reverse contemplation, divided into two: First is the cessation through antidotes, meaning that when one ceases the past limit's ignorance and formations and the future limit's craving, grasping, and existence, the seven sufferings do not arise. Next, from 'such three paths' downward is the cessation of their own-nature. Hence Śuddhamati says: 'In all worldly phenomena, there are only cause and effect and no person; merely from the emptiness of phenomena, empty phenomena are born in return.' Thus, the causes and effects of arising and ceasing, like two bundles of reeds leaning upon each other, cannot be established independently; thereby one knows that they are devoid of nature, and both selves are empty. Second, in terms of the contemplation of great compassion, this directly corresponds to refuting the ascetic practices regarded as causes among heterodox pursuits. That is, taking karma and afflictions as the causes of suffering, if one wishes to be liberated from suffering, one should sever karma and afflictions; conversely, engaging in ascetic practices is generating false karma, and the mind that clings to ascetic practices is itself affliction. How could such false conceptions be the cause of the joy of liberation? Third, in terms of the contemplation of the wisdom of all modes, this is the fifth, the contemplation of entering the truths; for the three paths are the truths of suffering and origination, as karma and afflictions are both origination. The Yogācāra[-bhūmi] states: 'Birth, aging, and death are suffering in the present lifetime; consciousness and the other five are suffering in the future,' because the five are explained in terms of seeds. The Vijñaptimātratā[-siddhi] states: 'All twelve are subsumed under the truth of suffering because their nature is the grasping aggregates; five are also the truth of origination because their nature is karma and afflictions.' Thus karma and afflictions pertain to both truths. In terms of their reverse contemplation, they are the truths of cessation and the path, for ceasing the conceptualizing mind is itself the path. Furthermore, the essence of the three paths is the three pure virtues of own-nature, nirvāṇa, and buddha-nature, because they are the one real truth.

40.7

Sixth is the transmigration through the three limits. First, in terms of the examination of characteristics, it is named the 'contemplation that protects against faults', meaning that explaining the three limits protects against three faults. The three limits are not the same; various teachings give three explanations: First, according to Vijñaptimātra, combining the projector and projected and opening the generator and generated, the first ten are present and the last two are future, so the ten causes and two fruits definitely belong to different periods. Among the causes, the first seven and the three of craving and the rest are either the same or different; that is, retribution in the next life is definitely the same, while retribution in subsequent lives is different. If taken as two, three, and seven, each definitely belongs to the same period. Such a single tier of cause and effect is sufficient to reveal transmigration and separation from annihilation and permanence. Thus, this merely uses two time periods to encompass the twelve links, and does not admit two tiers of cause and effect across three time periods. If so, how can there be three limits? The present two fruits are in fact the fruits of the ten causes of the past limit. Second, according to the Upadeśa (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the Kośa (Abhidharmakośa), both projecting and generating are opened: the first two are past, the middle eight are present, and the last two are future, thus forming three time periods. Among the present eight, the first five are fruits that requite the past, and the latter three are causes that further incur the future; thus the two tiers of cause and effect each possess the three paths, and can run parallel. Third, according to the intention of this sūtra, three time periods are elucidated; hence it opens the projector and projected into the past and middle limits. In order to ward off the view that the first seven definitely belong to the same period, it further indicates that sentient beings are deluded about the primordial limit. Two belong to the past; it combines the generator and generated, collectively making them the future limit. In order to ward off the view that craving and the rest merely moisten, it shows the cause incurring the fruit so as to make them weary of the cause, thus following the fruit from the cause. Five belong to the future; then the projector, the projected, the generator, and what is initiated and moistened may all mutually occur. That the sūtra lacks birth and death is because both are acknowledged to be fruits, so they are omitted and not elucidated; the treatise text has them in full. The explicit text is brilliant and clear; why should one only accept two periods and not three? Having grasped the general meaning, we next explain the text directly. The text has forward and reverse orders. In the forward, there are two parts: first, explaining the provisional three periods; second, from 'whereupon' downward, explaining transmigration through the three periods. As for the first, stating that ignorance conditioning formations is contemplating the past has two meanings: first, contemplating that present birth is made by the two past causes; second, knowing that consciousness and the rest are the future fruits of that past. Cause and effect belong to each other and mutually establish one another in reverse; only in this way is it named seeing the meaning of past causes, capable of preventing three faults. Stating that consciousness up to sensation is contemplating the present also has two meanings: first, contemplating that present consciousness and the rest are obtained through past karma; second, further knowing that consciousness and the rest are able to obtain future fruits and retributions, because when an antidote is not obtained, craving and the rest arise dependent upon them, and because they are witnessed in the present; thus it divides into two directions to elucidate its two meanings. Stating that craving up to existence is contemplating the future means that these future causes definitely obtain future fruits, being provisionally determined. Second, as for transmigration through the three periods, it means that failing to obtain an antidote, there is again a future life, and upon that future life another future life is generated in turn, endlessly succeeding one another. Having understood the three limits, how do they protect against faults? Heterodox critics raise three kinds of faults against the Buddhist dharma of causes and conditions: First, the fault of all bodies being born at one time. Why is this? Because there is no differentiated cause. This fault arises from the previous explanation of own-cause; that is, since there is no Īśvara or the like serving as a differentiated cause, and only ignorance and formations serve as the cause for consciousness and the rest, and formations are manifold, why should the six destinies not all arise simultaneously? Second, the fault that one's own karma has no one to receive retribution. Why is this? Because there is no agent. This fault arises from conditioned arising being without an agent; the agent is the self. Third, the fault of karma being lost. Why is this? Because before the retribution is received, the karma has already passed away. This fault arises from conditioned arising being impermanent. The above identifies the faults. How are they protected against? If one sees the three limits, one can protect against them. However, past karma has three meanings whereby it does not receive retribution: first, not yet performed; second, already performed but not yet moistened; third, obtaining an antidote. Now, ignorance conditioning formations reveals that it is already performed; the present five of consciousness and the rest reveal that it is already moistened; having already received the three of craving, grasping, and existence, one knows that an antidote has not yet been obtained. With respect to karma already performed, since there is a distinction between being moistened and unmoistened, this constitutes the differentiated cause: when already moistened, one receives retribution in the next life; when unmoistened, one receives retribution in subsequent lives. With the distinction between moistened and unmoistened, how could the six destinies be received simultaneously at one time? This is the differentiated cause; what need is there for Īśvara? Since one creates differentiated causes oneself and incurs two retributions oneself, and they are not received by another's body, why say that one's own karma has no one to receive retribution? The nominal agent creates it oneself; what need is there for a self? If karma already performed does not obtain an antidote, once moistened it immediately generates, so one knows karma is not lost. Although the cause ceased earlier, because its power continues and one presently witnesses the obtaining of retribution, it cannot be said to be lost. The three faults are transcended. Next, from 'with the cessation of ignorance' downward is the reverse contemplation, which is the meaning of obtaining the antidote. When this ceases, that ceases: this is cessation through relativity. Furthermore, because contemplation can effect cessation, distinguishing it from cessation by own-nature, it is said to be relative. However, the twelve links are fully present in the three periods; they are merely divided into three according to the manifestations of teaching, revealing or concealing, to cause one to know that past causes incur the present vessel of suffering. Now severing craving and the rest, future fruits will not arise; then ignorance meets its demise beneath the blade of wisdom, the water of craving is parched by the fire of wisdom, the lofty net is opened on four sides across the six destinies, and birthlessness transcends beyond the eight extremities. Second, in terms of the contemplation conforming to great compassion, it cures the view of causelessness among heterodox pursuits, showing the cause and effect of the three limits: since the two of the past limit are the cause of the five of the middle limit, and the three of the middle limit are the cause of the two of the future limit, if there were no such matters, sentient beings would also not exist. Since these causes exist, how could one say they are causeless? Third, in terms of the wisdom of all modes, it corresponds to the contemplation of entering reliance with faith regarding efficacy and inefficacy; the treatise states: 'Because the conversion of the past, middle, and future limits is superior.' This means that in terms of being causes, these three limits are all called efficacious; in terms of being fruits, they are called inefficacious. If according to the three time periods, the past limit is efficacious with respect to the present five and inefficacious with respect to the future two; the middle limit's craving and the rest are efficacious with respect to the future two and inefficacious with respect to the present. Using these three limits to transform those ordinary beings, causing them to believe, enter, rely, and practice, is superior among conversions. Investigating thoroughly in this manner constitutes the realm of the wisdom of all modes.

40.8

Seventh: the aggregation of the three kinds of suffering. First, in terms of the truth of marks, this corresponds to the fifth contemplation, "the contemplation of being revulsed by what is not reviled," among the six contemplations. The treatise states: "Being revulsed by various subtle sufferings, because one discerns that all sensations are suffering." This refers to the subtle suffering of conditioned existence (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā). It also states: "And because of being revulsed by various coarse sufferings," which refers to the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā) and the suffering of suffering (duḥkha-duḥkhatā); these are what ordinary beings are not revulsed by, whereas bodhisattvas are revulsed by them. Furthermore, as for the initial subtle suffering, those of the two vehicles are not revulsed by it, but bodhisattvas are revulsed by it as well. Although those of the two vehicles know that neutral sensation is the suffering of conditioned existence, they do not exhaustively fathom its subtle, limitless aspects or the suffering of transformation (pariṇāma-duḥkha); hence it is said that they do not know it. In the text, there are also forward and reverse [orders]. In the forward order, the three sufferings are matched according to the preponderance of marks: the first five [links] have evident marks of flux, so they are called the suffering of conditioned existence. The two links of contact and sensation produce suffering upon contact, so they are called the suffering of suffering. The rest merely destroy pleasure, so they are called the suffering of change. Old age and death destroying birth is also called the suffering of change. If judged by the Yogācārabhūmi and the Vijñaptimātratā[siddhi], all portions of the twelve links are subsumed under the suffering of conditioned existence, because they are defiled phenomena. A partial portion of the twelve links is subsumed under the suffering of suffering, because suffering can potentially be present in each of the twelve links. A partial portion of eleven links is subsumed under the suffering of change, because in the state of old age and death there is mostly no pleasant sensation; since "change" is established in dependence on pleasure, it is said to be absent. If it is in terms of destroying birth, it is as the present sūtra states. If one establishes the suffering of conditioned existence based on neutral sensation, then old age and death are excluded, because within the state of old age and death there is no room for neutral sensation. This is because these three sufferings arise from the three sensations: painful sensation produces the suffering of suffering, pleasant sensation produces the suffering of change, and neutral sensation produces the suffering of conditioned existence. That the other two sufferings are both said to be "a partial portion" means that the nature of all three sufferings is present among the twelve links: if it is either of these two sufferings, it must also be the suffering of conditioned existence, hence [the latter] is said to be "all portions." There are instances that are the suffering of conditioned existence without being either of these two sufferings, and furthermore, these two sufferings do not each subsume the other; hence it is said to be "a partial portion." The reverse contemplation can be understood accordingly. Second, in terms of the contemplation conforming to great compassion, the four sections from here down correspond to the fourth [theme], "seeking a different liberation." This means not recognizing true liberation and seeking the suffering of the three realms, etc., as liberation; hence it is termed "seeking a different [liberation]." True liberation has four marks: first, the mark of freedom from all suffering; second, the mark of the unconditioned; third, the mark of far transcendence of defilement; fourth, the mark of transcending the mundane. These four are precisely the bliss, permanence, purity, and self of nirvāṇa; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "Sovereign transcendence regarding worldly phenomena is called the self." Therefore, the four sections of the sūtra below explain that [the heterodox] have only the four delusions and lack the four virtues. The present [section] explains that they have suffering and lack bliss; hence the treatise states: "Those conditioned sufferings follow along, even up to the fetters of existence in the formless [realm]." For those who reckon the formless [realm] to be nirvāṇa, how could that not be delusional suffering? Third, in terms of the cognition of all aspects (sarvākārajñatā), this corresponds to the seventh contemplation, "the contemplation of entering with faith into conceit and non-conceit." Not knowing subtle suffering as it truly is and [holding to] self-conceit is conceit; if one knows subtle suffering, it is non-conceit. Causing those who do not know to know is called "entering with faith."

First 8 of 23 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經疏 — Classical Chinese