大方廣佛華嚴經疏 40.3

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.