大方廣佛華嚴經疏 49.35

49.35

Fourth is the manifestation of the mental karma. First was body, next was speech, and last is mind, following the order of meanings. Within the prose there are two: first, raising the question; second, the correct explanation. Within the explanation there are three: first, a general analysis according to Dharma; second, particular illumination by relying on similes; third, a general conclusion exhorting understanding. Now, the first. The statement that the Tathāgata's mind, thought, and consciousness are all unobtainable is an apophatic definition in terms of essence; but one should only know the Tathāgata's mind through the immeasurability of wisdom, which is a cataphatic definition relying on function. However, concerning this single text, of old there were many explanations. One says: consciousness and the like are twofold—first, defiled; second, pure. In the Buddha-stage there are no such defiled mind and mental factors with outflows, but there are pure-portion mind and mental factors. Within the resultant stage, wisdom is strong and consciousness is weak; therefore, in terms of the sovereign [mind] it reveals the absence of defilement, and in terms of that wisdom it clarifies immeasurability. If there were certainly no sovereign, upon what would the supported rely? Therefore, the third fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun quotes the Tathāgataguṇālaṃkāra-sūtra: "The Tathāgata's stainless consciousness is the pure realm without outflows, liberated from all hindrances, associated with the great mirror wisdom." Thus, that there is a sovereign is clear. As for "transforming consciousness," wisdom transforms in dependence upon consciousness, not that the essence of consciousness itself is transformed. Another says: because there is no accumulation, deliberation, or the like, mind and so forth are said to be unobtainable. It reveals immeasurability in terms of non-conceptual wisdom, not that there is no mental essence. Therefore, the eighth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "The support of non-conceptual wisdom is neither mind nor deliberation in meaning. Nor is it a non-mind that serves as the support, because it is of the category of mind. Taking mind as the cause, through the force of repeated cultivation this stage is drawn forth, so it is called the category of mind." Both of the above two explanations clarify that mind, thought, and consciousness exist. Another says: in the Buddha-fruit there truly is no mind, thought, mental consciousness, or other mental dharmas, which is why it is called "unobtainable." There is only great wisdom, which is why it says that "because wisdom is immeasurable, one knows the Tathāgata's mind." Therefore, the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra and the Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha both state: "Only suchness and the wisdom of suchness uniquely endure in the Buddha-stage." In the treatise, five dharmas subsume the nature of great awakening: only the one true dharmadhātu and the four wisdoms of bodhi, not saying that there are any further dharmas. Taking either of the above two schools comprehensively involves impediments: if relying on the former existence, one cannot avoid the fault of reification, nor can one resolve the words "unobtainable." Furthermore, if this pure portion is so, why is it not stated here, whereas that stainless consciousness could be stated? Why does the sūtra not say that defilement is unobtainable? If relying on the latter meaning, one cannot avoid the fault of reduction, nor can one resolve the words "knowing the Buddha's mind." Since it says that through the immeasurability of wisdom one knows the Tathāgata's mind, and does not say there is no mind, it is known that it clearly does not mean there is no mind. Moreover, since mind is non-existent, how could wisdom stand alone? It would not only contradict the two treatises above, but also contradict the meaning in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra of eliminating impermanent consciousness and obtaining permanent consciousness. If one takes both meanings, one cannot avoid mutual contradiction; if they mutually cancel each other out in double negation, how could one escape frivolous proliferation? If so, what should serve as the guide? In now explaining this meaning, first I harmonize the two previous schools, and later elucidate the sūtra's intent. First, if the latter school says there are only suchness and wisdom, it is because mind is identical with the true nature; hence it is called "only suchness." Its illumination and function are not lost; hence it is called "the wisdom of suchness." How could there be a separate suchness apart from mind? Thus, being "only suchness" does not conflict with existence. The former school takes the essence of pure suchness, and therefore there is pure mind. Since mind is itself suchness, what fault is there in its existence? From this we know that the existence that is identical with the real and the real that is identical with existence mutually establish one another, existence and non-existence being unobstructed. Next, elucidating the sūtra's intent: the words "unobtainable" are because the meaning of mind is profound and abstruse, beyond words; relying on the apophatic reveals its depth. The words "only through wisdom knowing the Tathāgata's mind" rely on a mental factor to reveal its depth through the cataphatic; hence the Jin version of the sūtra states: "Only knowing that the Tathāgata's wisdom is immeasurable, one therefore knows that the mind is immeasurable." How is it profound and abstruse? If one wishes to speak of its existence, it is identical to suchness, severed of marks; if one wishes to speak of its non-existence, the subtle spirit is inexhaustible. If one wishes to speak of its defilement, the myriad entanglements have completely vanished; if one wishes to speak of its purity, innate evil is not severed. If one wishes to speak of its oneness, it encompasses without exterior; if one wishes to speak of its difference, it is of a single taste, difficult to divide. If one wishes to say it is sentient, it is no different from the nature of form; if one wishes to say it is insentient, there is no subtlety it does not penetrate. The mouth wishes to debate yet words are lost; the mind is about to cognize yet thoughts perish; just as the resultant portion is ineffable. From this we know that the Buddha's mind is both existent and non-existent, both phenomena and noumenon, both sovereign and factor, both one and many. Within mind there is not thought, nor is there not thought; within thought there is not mind, nor is there not mind. Within the sovereign there are not factors, nor are there not factors; factors do not rely on the sovereign, nor do they not rely on the sovereign. Each and every one is like this, perfectly interpenetrating and unobstructed, so that all the meanings above each accord with a single principle without violating the profound tenet. As for relying on the cataphatic to reveal the profound: since mind cannot be known by wisdom, it tentatively relies on wisdom to praise it. Wisdom is a mental factor, yet it still uses ten similes to clarify the profound; thus the mind upon which it relies is profound upon profound; therefore, the end of each of the ten similes concludes as a mark of the mind. Yet when even the Buddha does not speak of it, how would ordinary beings dare to conceive it? Because there are causes and conditions, I have ventured to rely on teachings and principles to show the profound tenet, hoping not to be blamed for being verbose and missing the essentials.