大方廣佛華嚴經疏 41.18

41.18

Second, the section on obtaining pure forbearance has fifteen phrases, divided into three: the first ten directly explain the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas; the next four explain the purity of the forbearance of non-arising; and the final one concludes by naming the attainment of forbearance. Now, forbearance of non-arising is briefly of two kinds: first, in terms of dharmas; second, in terms of practice. In terms of dharmas, any principle devoid of origination and activity is called non-arising; the mind of wisdom resting in this is therefore called forbearance—this is the intent in the direct explanation. In terms of practice, when karmic practice matures and wisdom merges with noumenon, free of marks and effort, vast like empty space and still like a deep ocean, with the delusive confusions of mind and consciousness serenely not arising, only then is it called non-arising—this is the intent in pure forbearance. The former still extends through all stages; not yet having attained the latter, it is not called pure forbearance. Now, in the first passage, "all dharmas" comprehensively encompasses the dharmas of all phenomena and noumenon. "Entering" means realizing and reaching. Because tracking every phenomenon is difficult to exhaust, ten are briefly set forth; among the ten, by combining them, they constitute four kinds of non-arising: the first seven form one, named the non-arising of phenomena; the remaining three each form one: second, the non-arising of self-nature; third, the non-arising of numerical distinction; and fourth, the non-arising of operation. Among the four: the first dismantles marks; the second dismantles nature; the third eliminates causes; and the fourth departs from fruits. That is, the former two dismantle marks to enter suchness, and the latter two realize reality to abandon marks. If allocated to spiritual positions: the first is preparatory practice (prayogamārga); the second is fundamental [wisdom] (mūla-jñāna); the fourth is subsequent [wisdom] (pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna); and the third runs throughout beginning to end. Furthermore, among the four, subsumed in terms of dharma-nature, they do not go beyond reality and delusion: delusive dharmas are fundamentally empty, termed "non-arising"; real dharmas are free of marks, also termed "non-arising." Relying on treatises such as the *Treatise on Buddha-Nature*, the non-arising of the three natures is explained as in the first assembly. Among the non-arising of phenomena, the first four do not increase, directly demonstrating non-arising; the last three do not decrease, which is also non-cessation. Dharmas are fundamentally unarisen, and now they are without cessation; by subsuming the latter under the former, all are called non-arising. As for distinguishing seven, it is to remedy seven kinds of substantiality. "Substantiality" means grasping them as fixed according to their marks. First, substantiality inherently existing within dharmas of the pure portion: namely, conceiving of the naturally abiding nature as a substantial existence belonging to things. Now, to remedy this, [the text] says "originally unarisen," because the original nature is free [from arising]; for if there were previously arising, there would subsequently have to be cessation. Second, substantiality newly and repeatedly arising: conceiving of the nature accomplished through habituation as substantial. To remedy this, it says "without origination," because it arises from conditions. Third, substantiality of marks: namely, conceiving of the active marks produced by the previous two natures. To remedy this, it says "without marks," because the former two capable of producing them do not exist. Fourth, substantiality of the final limit: namely, conceiving of emerging from bondage at the final limit in the fruit of Buddhahood. To remedy this, it says "without accomplishment," because tathatā emerging from bondage is not newly accomplished; when a bodhisattva becomes a Buddha, afflictions become bodhi. Among the above four, the first is the naturally abiding Buddha-nature; the next two are the brought-forth [Buddha-nature]; and the last is the attained fruit-nature. Furthermore, these four successively resolve doubts, as can be known. Fifth, substantiality of the initial limit: namely, in contrast to the final limit of the fruit of Buddhahood, sentient beings' afflictions are prior. To remedy this, it says "without destruction," because afflictions are themselves empty and there is nothing that can be destroyed; when a bodhisattva has not yet become a Buddha, bodhi acts as afflictions, with defilement and purity combining to constitute a sentient being. The former dispelled the pure portion; this dispels the defiled portion. Furthermore, the former is the inexhaustible treasury (aśūnya-garbha) and this is the empty treasury (śūnya-garbha), neither of which can be grasped. Sixth, what the commentary calls "substantiality of exhaustion in all sentient beings": namely, grasping that sentient beings are exhausted from moment to moment. To distinguish them from the afflictions above, it specifically says "all sentient beings." Therefore the sūtra above says: "All actions of ordinary beings without exception quickly return to exhaustion." To remedy this, it says "without exhaustion," because their nature is like empty space. Seventh, what the commentary calls "substantiality of defilement within the pure portion": namely, transforming defilement toward purity in the stages of cultivation. To remedy this, it says "without transformation," because if there were a definite substantiality, it could not be transformed. The translated treatise says "non-functioning," meaning that the practice capable of transforming cannot be apprehended. Second, "having no nature as nature" is the non-arising of self-nature; this is an explicit expression. The translated treatise says "having a nature that is not an existing nature," explaining that there is no such definitely grasped self-nature; this is an exclusionary expression. Although exclusionary and explicit differ, their intended meaning is not different. Non-nature is itself the principle of the selflessness of dharmas; since this principle takes non-nature as its self-nature, its own essence is without nature—it is not that it previously existed and now is absent, nor is it that a real essence is entirely lacking; hence it is called "as nature." Because the previous contemplation of the non-arising of phenomena was precisely forbearer of this principle, the commentary says: "That contemplation of phenomena is this forbearance; one cannot say it is non-existent." Thus, non-existence and non-non-existence demonstrate the middle way. These two are also non-dual. Furthermore, this principle is not outside the contemplated phenomena; hence the commentary says: "All contemplation of the principle of the selflessness of dharmas is free of dual marks." Thus, neither identical nor separate, non-duality is the meaning of the middle way.