大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 42.5

42.5

疏「假必依實同聚現故」者，諸宗正義，堅等為實，色等為假。唯成實宗，色香味觸實也，地水火風假也，以其是數論弟子，後入佛法，尚順本師故。故《智論》云「精巧有餘而明實未足」。疏「然大必能造色」下，通妨。妨云：上非即中。既云大種中無色、色中無大種。今非離中，何不言大種不離色、色不離大種？答意可知。上明真妄依持但取心中真如一門對妄染說。疏「初一亦明心境不即離」者，對上真妄，故有「亦」言。然後三偈亦似二偈，此偈似前第二偈，以因不即離之便，故先明之。後二偈似前初偈，至下當知。今初。非即離中言相見別者，且順上喻有知無知。以見分合，心有慮知義；以相分合，畫無慮知故，以器世間即是第八之相分故。疏「喻離心則無境界相故」者，三世所有皆是一心作故。疏「要由心變於境」下，解妨。妨一如前，答意亦爾。疏「次一偈喻能所變之行相」者，大同前喻「心如工畫師，分布諸彩色」等。先明喻中，先釋上三句；「所畫非心」下，釋第四句法合。言「真妄和合心」者，揀異法相宗心，即《起信》云「不生不滅與生滅和合，名阿賴耶識」是也。「恒言遮斷」等，即《唯識論》第八識初能變中第九因果譬喻門。具云「恒轉如瀑流」。論先問云：阿賴耶識為斷為常？答云：非斷非常，以恒轉故。謂此識無始時來，一類相續常無間斷，是界趣生體施設本故，性堅持種令不失故。轉謂此識無始時來念念生滅，前後變異因滅果生，非常一故可為轉識，熏成種故恒言遮斷。轉表非常猶如瀑流，因果法爾如瀑流水，非斷非常相續長時，有所漂溺。此識亦爾，從無始來生滅相續，非常非斷，漂溺有情令不出離是也。疏「含一切種」者，即第三因相門。故彼偈云「一切種相甚深細」，即含二門。彼偈云「不可知執受處了」，其了一字即第五行相門，其執受處即第四所緣行相門。其不可知，即能所緣行相之內差別之義。論先問云：此識行相所緣云何（即合問也）？謂不可知執受處了。了謂了別，為行相故。處謂處所，即器世間，是諸有情所依處故。執受有二，謂諸種子及有根身。次論云「不可知者，謂此行相極微細故，難可了知（此明見分）。或此所緣內執受境亦微細故，外器世間量難測故，名不可知。故經偈云『阿陀那識甚深細，一切種子如瀑流。我於凡愚不開演，恐彼分別執為我』」是也。疏「次句頓現萬境」者，亦即彼果相門云異熟。論云「此是能引諸界趣生善不善業異熟果故，即通辨此識能變之義，此是第一能變頓現萬境故。」《楞伽》云「譬如明鏡頓現萬像，現識處現亦復如是。」疏「下句喻所變境離心無體」者，以無體故無可相知。故〈問明品〉云「諸法無作用，亦無有體性，是故彼一切，各各不相知。」「又常不住」下，上約法相常不住言，是剎那生滅。今明不者，即是無義。常不住者，即常無住。無住即實相異名，故從無住本立一切法。斯法性宗，真心隨緣成萬有故，深廣難思。前之經偈亦可證此。疏「能畫之心念念生滅自不相知」者，心雖慮知，今取生滅不住，故不能知。以前念已滅、後念未生。未生無體，能知前念。前念已滅，復無可知。前念亦不知後，前念已滅無有能知，後念未生亦無所知。能知之心既不自知，安能知所？疏「雙喻心境」下，合文，可知。然釋此偈，總有四意：一明性空。以性空故不能知自心，以性空故不能知畫，由心故畫。二「又雖不知」下，明雖性空，不礙緣起。三「又由不能」下，明由迷真起似，若悟自心不造妄境。四「又正由」下，即以有空義故，一切法得成耳。「故云諸法性如是」者，通結四意。上來喻竟。然《唯識論》第一能變有兩偈半，而有十門，上隨用已辨，今當具出。偈云「初阿賴耶識（即自性門），異熟（二果相門）一切種（三因相門），不可知執受處（四所緣境界門）了（五行相門），常與觸作意受想思相應（六相應門），唯捨受（七五受俱門），是無覆無記（八三性門）。觸等亦如是（同上）。恒轉如瀑流（九因果譬喻門），阿羅漢位捨（十斷伏位次門）。」上之十門，疏中已有，隨配可知。前後有此相，當例可知。疏「第二五偈合」下，疏「心者」，即總相之心也，如前喻中已辨故。然「第二句諸世間即諸彩色」者，此句有二：一從能畫，即屬上因；二從「諸世間」之言，即屬於果。則上半是因能變，下半屬果能變。故《唯識》云「能變有二：一因能變，謂第八識中等流異熟、二因習氣（即種子現行門）。此二習氣俱名因能變。」此總辨也。論云「等流習氣由七識中善惡無記熏令增長（三種子中各生自現，除第八識不能熏故），異熟習氣由六識中有漏善惡熏令增長（除第七識及無記者，非異熟因，故前是因緣，此增上緣也）。二果能變者，謂前二種習氣力故，有第八識生，現種種相（即前二因所生現果，謂有緣法能變現者名果能變。種種相者，即是第八識相應心所見分等也），等流習氣為因緣故。八識體相差別而生，名等流果，果似因故（即現八識三性種子各生自現名等流果，所生之果與能生種性是一果故）。異熟習氣為增上緣，感第八識酬引業力，恒相續故，故云異熟。感前六識酬滿業者，從異熟起名異熟生，不名異熟，有間斷故。即前異熟及異熟生名異熟果，果異因故。」釋曰：以五陰無法不造，皆異熟也。疏「如次喻」等者，黑即地獄，黑黑業報故。黃即中方，修羅非天亦復非人。人白者，多善業故。天白白者，因果俱善故。九地當廣。疏「則十法界五蘊」者，謂六道四聖。四聖中，佛在後偈，二乘菩薩攝在種種之中。既言無法不造，亦不揀二乘菩薩。更云「等法」者，以今經無法不造，三科萬類皆心造也。疏「初一舉例以合」下，疏文有二：先橫論、後竪說。前中五：一正消經文、二會舊譯、三別立理、四開義門、五總融攝。今初，總釋經意。次「然心是總相」下，出心佛眾生三之別相。心是總相者，法界染淨萬類萬法不出一心，是心即攝一切世間出世間法，故名總相。餘染淨二緣，各屬二類。然總說十法界中，六道為染、四聖為淨。疏「然佛果契心」下，釋其下半。上有三法，而但說心與佛二法無盡，不言眾生者，謂眾生有盡故。心即總心，以真為體，本自不盡。佛果契心，始本無二，同一圓覺，故亦無盡。迷真起妄，無始有終，不言無盡。然其佛果契心則佛亦心造，謂四智菩提則淨八識之所造故。若取根本，即淨第八。若依真諦三藏，此佛淨識稱為第九，名阿摩羅識。唐三藏云：「此翻無垢，是第八異熟。謂成佛時轉第八成無垢識，無別第九。」若依《密嚴》，文具說之，經云「心有八識，或復有九。」又下卷云「如來清淨藏，亦名無垢智。」即同真諦所立，第九以出障故不同異熟，為九有由。又真諦所翻《決定藏論．九識品》云「第九阿摩羅識」，三藏釋云：「阿摩羅識有二種：一者所緣，即是真如。二者本覺，即真如智。能緣即不空藏，所緣即空如來藏。若據通論，此二並以真如為體。」釋曰：此二即《起信》一心二門。本覺在生滅門，一心即真如故。故論云「唯是一心，故名真如。」無論八九，俱異凡識，即淨識所造四智三身等也。疏「若依舊」下，二會晉譯，則三皆無盡，而二經互闕。唐闕眾生，晉闕無盡，故有第三別更立理。疏「應云」下，是第三也。若取圓足，合如是譯，則三事皆具無差之相，又得顯明。從「以妄體」下，出妄無盡之由。「是以如來」下，引例證，此即《涅槃經》意。天台用之，以善惡二法同以真如而為其性，若斷善性即斷真如。真不可斷，故云性善不可斷也。佛性即是真實之性，真實之性即第一義空，如何可斷？性惡不斷，即妄法本真，故無盡也。疏「又上三」下，第四別開義門，則却收晉經以為盡理。謂唐經無盡但得二法，又唯約淨；次言三皆無盡，又遺有盡之義。今云無差，盡與無盡俱無差也，亦顯染淨本無差矣。言「心總二義一染二淨」者，淨即自性清淨、染即本來之染，染淨無二為一心耳。言「各以初義成順流無差」者，眾生本有染，故隨流背佛。佛隨其染，豈相違耶？逆流例此。疏「又三中二義」下，第五染淨融攝，可知。疏「上約橫」下，第二竪論。於一人上即有三法，即觀行之人宜用此門。疏「三一偈有二義」下，言「上半合前二三偈之上半」者，心不住於身，却是色中無大種；身亦不住心，即大種中無色。此合第二偈上半也。若合第三上半，云心不住於身，即彩畫中無心；身亦不住心，即心中無彩畫。疏「心即能變」者，心境依持中心也。「及心體故」者，即真妄依持中真也。言「身即所變」下，即上境也。「及性之相」，即前妄也。疏「下半雙合前兩偈下半不離之義」者，即就不離大種而有色可得，即作佛事也。亦前就不離於心有彩畫可得，是作佛事也。「依心現境」，合前第三偈下半依體起用，即合前第二偈下半作諸佛事，雙合上二。「體用不礙」下，釋第四句。疏「為兼此義不以互無言之而言不住，譯之妙也」者，美斯經也。若不合第四偈但合第二三偈，應云心中無有身、身中無有心，即互無之言也，則不顯於彼心恒不住義。然不相住與恒不住，義則小異，文則兼之。若將此不住同前不住者，以心念念滅故不能住身，身念念滅故安能住心？思之可見。疏「末後一偈」等者，於中三：一略釋經意。二「然有二」下，開義別釋。於中有二釋者，一是結歸唯心、二「觀法」下是結歸二門。三「又一是真如實觀」下，結成觀要。言「是以暫持能破地獄」者，即《纂靈記》云「文明元年，洛京人，姓王，名明幹。既無戒行，曾不修善，因患致死。見彼二人引至地獄，地獄門前見有一僧云是地藏菩薩，乃教王氏誦一行偈。其文曰『若人欲了知，三世一切佛，應當如是觀，心造諸如來。』菩薩既授經偈，謂之曰：『誦得此偈，能排地獄之苦。』王氏既誦，遂入見閻羅王。王問此人曰：『有何功德？』答：『唯受持一四句偈。』具如上說，王遂放免。當誦偈時，聲所到處受苦之人皆得解脫。王氏三日方蘇，憶持此偈向空觀寺僧定法師說之，參驗偈文，方知是舊《華嚴經》第十二卷，新經當第十九〈夜摩天宮無量諸菩薩雲集說法品〉偈，王氏自向空觀寺僧定法師說之也。」

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The nominal must depend upon the real, because they appear together in the same aggregate”: according to the correct doctrine of the various schools, solidity and the like are real, while color-form and the like are nominal. Only in the Tattvasiddhi school are color, fragrance, taste, and touch considered real, while earth, water, fire, and wind are considered nominal. This is because [Harivarman] was a disciple of the Sāṃkhya who subsequently entered the Buddha-Dharma and still followed his original teacher. Hence the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says, “It possesses subtle craftsmanship in abundance, yet falls short in clarifying reality.”

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “However, the great elements must be capable of producing color-form,” and so forth: this resolves an objection. The objection states: In the preceding discussion of non-identity, it was said that there is no color-form within the great elements, and no great elements within color-form. Now, in discussing non-separation, why does it not say that the great elements are not separate from color-form, and color-form is not separate from the great elements? The meaning of the answer is clear. The preceding explanation of the mutual reliance of the true and the false merely took the single approach of tathatā within the mind to contrast with defiled delusion.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The first [verse] also clarifies that mind and objects are neither identical nor separate”: because this is contrasted with the true and the false above, it says “also.” Moreover, the latter three verses also resemble the two verses: this verse resembles the previous second verse, and because it is convenient to follow the theme of non-identity and non-separation, it is explained first. The latter two verses resemble the previous first verse, which will be understood below. Now, regarding the first:

When speaking of the distinction between the objective aspect (*nimittabhāga*) and the subjective aspect (*darśanabhāga*) within non-identity and non-separation, this follows the preceding metaphor of having cognition and lacking cognition. Because the subjective aspect corresponds to the mind having the capacity for cognitive discernment, and the objective aspect corresponds to the painting lacking cognitive discernment, the vessel world is the objective aspect of the eighth consciousness.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “This illustrates that apart from the mind there are no objective marks”: this is because all things in the three times are created by the one mind.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “It must be that the mind transforms into the object”: this resolves an objection. The objection is just as before, and the meaning of the answer is likewise.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The next verse illustrates the mental modes of that which transforms and that which is transformed”: this is largely identical to the preceding metaphor: “The mind is like a skilled painter, / Distributing the various colors,” and so forth. Within the explanation of the metaphor, it first explains the first three lines; from “What is painted is not the mind” onward, it explains the doctrinal application of the fourth line.

Regarding the phrase “the mind as the union of the true and the false”: this distinguishes it from the mind of the Dharma-character school; that is, as the *Awakening of Faith* says, “The non-arising and non-ceasing combined with arising and ceasing is called the ālayavijñāna.”

“The word ‘constant’ negates annihilation,” and so forth: this refers to the ninth aspect—the metaphor of cause and effect—within the first transformative consciousness (the eighth consciousness) in the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*. The full line reads: “Constantly turning like a torrent.” The treatise first asks: Is the ālayavijñāna annihilated or eternal? The reply states: It is neither annihilated nor eternal, because it constantly turns. That is, from beginningless time, this consciousness has continued in a uniform, uninterrupted stream; because it is the fundamental entity designated as the realms, destinies, and forms of birth, its nature firmly maintains the seeds without letting them be lost. “Turning” means that from beginningless time, this consciousness arises and ceases moment by moment, shifting and altering from earlier to later, with the cause ceasing and the effect arising; because it is not eternal or unitary, it can serve as a ground for the evolving consciousnesses to perfume into seeds. Hence, the word “constant” negates annihilation, while “turning” indicates impermanence. It is like a torrent: the nature of cause and effect is just like rushing water, neither annihilated nor eternal, continuing over a long duration, in which beings are swept along and drowned. This consciousness is likewise: from beginningless time, arising and ceasing in unbroken succession, neither eternal nor annihilated, it sweeps along sentient beings so that they cannot escape.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “Containing all seeds”: this is the third aspect—the causal characteristic. Hence that verse says, “The characteristic of all seeds is exceedingly profound and subtle,” which subsumes two aspects. That verse says, “Incomprehensible in its grasping, dwelling place, and cognition.” The single word “cognition” (*vijñapti*) is the fifth aspect—the mental mode (*ākāra*). “Dwelling place” (*sthāna*) is the fourth aspect—the objective support (*ālambana*) and mental mode. “Incomprehensible” refers to the differentiated nature within the cognitive mode and the object cognized. The treatise first asks: What are the mental mode and objective support of this consciousness? (This is a combined question.) It states: Incomprehensible in its grasping, dwelling place, and cognition. “Cognition” means discernment, serving as the mental mode. “Dwelling place” means the location, which is the vessel world, because it is the place relied upon by sentient beings. “Grasping” is twofold: the various seeds and the physical body endowed with sense faculties. Next, the treatise says: “Incomprehensible” means that because this mental mode is exceedingly subtle, it is difficult to discern (this clarifies the subjective aspect). Or, it is called incomprehensible because this internal grasped object of support is also subtle, and the external vessel world is difficult to measure. Therefore, the sūtra verse says, “The ādānavijñāna is exceedingly profound and subtle; / All seeds are like a rushing torrent. / I do not reveal it to the foolish, / Fearing they would conceptually grasp it as a self.”

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The next line suddenly manifests the myriad objects”: this is also the aspect of its fruitional characteristic, termed “maturation” (*vipāka*). The treatise says: “Because this is the matured fruit of wholesome and unwholesome karma that leads to the various realms, destinies, and births,” this comprehensively clarifies the meaning of this consciousness as a transformative agent; this is the first transformative consciousness suddenly manifesting the myriad objects. The *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* states, “Just as a clear mirror suddenly manifests myriad images, / So too does the manifestation consciousness manifest its domain.”

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The lower line illustrates that the transformed objects have no substance apart from the mind”: because they lack substance, they cannot cognize one another. Therefore, the “Clarifying Questions” chapter says, “All dharmas have no activity, / Nor do they possess an intrinsic nature; / Therefore, all of them / Do not know one another.”

From “Furthermore, constantly not abiding” onward: above, in terms of the Dharma-character school, “constantly not abiding” means arising and ceasing from moment to moment. Now, explaining that it is not, this carries the meaning of “non-existence.” “Constantly not abiding” means constantly non-abiding. “Non-abiding” is an alternate name for the true mark (*dharmatā*); hence all dharmas are established from the non-abiding root. This is the Dharma-nature school: because the true mind conforms with conditions to form the myriad existents, it is profound, vast, and inconceivable. The preceding sūtra verse also corroborates this.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The mind that is able to paint arises and ceases from moment to moment, and does not itself know [the painting]”: although the mind has cognitive discernment, here it takes its arising, ceasing, and non-abiding, and thus it cannot know. Because the preceding thought has already ceased and the subsequent thought has not yet arisen: that which has not yet arisen has no substance to cognize the preceding thought; and the preceding thought having already ceased, there is nothing left to be cognized. The preceding thought also does not know the subsequent thought: the preceding thought having ceased, there is no cognizer; the subsequent thought having not yet arisen, there is also no object of cognition. Since the cognizing mind does not even know itself, how could it know that which is cognized?

From the commentary’s statement, “Illustrating both mind and objects together” onward: this matches the text, as can be understood. However, in explaining this verse, there are four general intentions: First, to clarify emptiness of nature: because nature is empty, it cannot know its own mind; because nature is empty, it cannot know the painting, which arises through the mind. Second, from “Furthermore, although it does not know” onward: this clarifies that although nature is empty, it does not obstruct dependent origination. Third, from “Furthermore, because it is unable” onward: this clarifies that by being deluded about the true, the apparent arises; if one awakens to one’s own mind, one does not create false objects. Fourth, from “Furthermore, precisely because” onward: that is, because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas can be accomplished. “Therefore it says that the nature of all dharmas is like this”: this wraps up and concludes the four intentions. Thus ends the explanation of the metaphor.

Now, the first transformative consciousness in the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* consists of two and a half verses, which encompass ten aspects. These have already been distinguished above as applied; now they shall be set forth in full. The verses state: “First, the ālayavijñāna (1. intrinsic nature aspect), / Maturation (2. fruitional aspect), possessing all seeds (3. causal aspect), / Incomprehensible in its grasping, dwelling place (4. objective support aspect), and cognition (5. mental mode aspect), / Constantly associated with contact, attention, feeling, conceptualization, and volition (6. associated mental factors aspect), / Accompanied only by equanimity feeling (7. five feelings aspect), / It is unobstructed and indeterminate (8. three natures aspect). / Contact and the rest are likewise (same as above). / Constantly turning like a torrent (9. cause and effect metaphor aspect), / Abandoned at the stage of the arhat (10. abandonment and suppression stage aspect).” These ten aspects above are already in the commentary and may be known as correlated. Preceding and succeeding passages of this kind should be understood by analogy.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “The second set of five verses matches [the metaphor]”: The commentary says: “‘Mind’ refers to the mind of general characteristics,” as has already been explained in the preceding metaphor. However, regarding “The second line, ‘the various worlds,’ refers to the various colors”: this line has two aspects: First, from the standpoint of being able to paint, it belongs to the cause above; second, from the words “the various worlds,” it belongs to the fruit. Thus, the first half belongs to the causal transformation, and the second half belongs to the fruitional transformation. Hence the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* states: “There are two kinds of transformative consciousness: First, causal transformation, which refers to the seeds and latencies of niṣyanda and maturation in the eighth consciousness (the aspect of seeds and active dharmas). Both of these latencies are called causal transformation.” This is the general explanation. The treatise says: “Niṣyanda latencies are perfumed and increased by the wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate [states] among the seven consciousnesses (each producing its own active manifestation from among the three kinds of seeds, excluding the eighth consciousness because it cannot perfume). Maturation latencies are perfumed and increased by the defiled wholesome and unwholesome [states] among the six consciousnesses (excluding the seventh consciousness and indeterminate states, because they are not causes of maturation; hence the former is the direct cause (*hetupratyaya*), while this is the predominant condition (*adhipatipratyaya*)). Second, fruitional transformation refers to the arising of the eighth consciousness through the power of the preceding two kinds of latencies, manifesting various aspects (these are the active fruits produced by the preceding two causes; conditioned dharmas that can transform and manifest are called fruitional transformation. ‘Various aspects’ refers to the associated mental factors, the subjective aspect, and so on of the eighth consciousness). Because niṣyanda latencies act as the direct cause, the eight consciousnesses arise distinct in their essences and characteristics, which is called the niṣyanda fruit, because the fruit resembles the cause (the seeds of the three natures of the active eight consciousnesses each producing their own active manifestation is called the niṣyanda fruit, because the fruit produced is of the same nature as the producing seeds). Maturation latencies act as the predominant condition, inducing the eighth consciousness to recompense the power of leading karma; because it continues constantly, it is called maturation. Inducing the first six consciousnesses to recompense completing karma, arising from maturation, is called ‘born of maturation’ and is not called ‘maturation,’ because it is intermittent. The preceding maturation and that which is born of maturation are called the matured fruit, because the fruit differs from the cause.” The explanation states: Because there is no dharma that the five aggregates do not create, all are maturation.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “As in the order of the metaphor,” and so forth: black corresponds to the hells, due to the retribution of dark-black karma. Yellow corresponds to the central direction, asura being neither god nor human. Humans are white, because they have much wholesome karma. Gods are white-white, because both cause and effect are wholesome. This will be explained in detail in the discussion of the nine stages.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “Then the five aggregates of the ten dharmadhātus”: this refers to the six destinies and the four noble ones. Among the four noble ones, the Buddha is in the subsequent verse, while the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas are subsumed within the “various kinds.” Since it states that there is no dharma it does not create, it does not exclude the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas either. Furthermore, stating “dharmas and so forth” indicates that because in this sūtra there is no dharma that is not created, the three categories and myriad types are all created by the mind.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “The first verse adduces an analogy to match”: the commentary text has two parts: first, a horizontal discussion; second, a vertical explanation. Within the former, there are five points: 1. Directly explaining the sūtra text; 2. Harmonizing with the older translation; 3. Separately establishing the principle; 4. Opening up the conceptual perspectives; 5. Synthesizing and integrating them. Now, regarding the first: it generally explains the meaning of the sūtra.

Next, from “However, mind is the general characteristic” onward: this sets forth the distinct characteristics of the three—mind, Buddha, and sentient beings. “Mind is the general characteristic” means that the myriad types and myriad dharmas, defiled and pure, of the dharmadhātu do not go beyond the one mind; this mind subsumes all mundane and supramundane dharmas, hence it is named the general characteristic. The remaining two conditions, defiled and pure, each belong to two categories. Generally speaking, within the ten dharmadhātus, the six destinies are defiled, and the four noble ones are pure.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “However, the Buddha-fruit tallies with the mind”: this explains the second half. Above, there are three dharmas, yet it only speaks of the two dharmas—mind and Buddha—as inexhaustible, without mentioning sentient beings, because sentient beings have an end. Mind is the universal mind, having the true as its essence, and is originally inexhaustible. The Buddha-fruit tallies with the mind, the initial and the original being non-dual and sharing a single complete enlightenment, hence it is also inexhaustible. Delusion regarding the true gives rise to the false; this has a beginningless [origin] but an end, so it is not spoken of as inexhaustible. However, since the Buddha-fruit tallies with the mind, the Buddha is also mind-created; that is, bodhi with its four wisdoms is created by the purified eight consciousnesses. If we take the fundamental, it is the purified eighth consciousness. If we rely on Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha, this purified consciousness of the Buddha is designated as the ninth, named the amala-consciousness. The Tang Tripiṭaka Master [Xuanzang] said: “This translates as ‘immaculate’; it is the eighth, matured consciousness. That is, at the time of Buddhahood, the eighth is transformed into the immaculate consciousness, with no separate ninth.” If we rely on the *Ghanavyūha-sūtra*, the text explains it fully; the sūtra says, “The mind has eight consciousnesses, or again it has nine.” Furthermore, the lower fascicle says, “The Tathāgata’s pure garbha is also named immaculate cognition.” This is identical to what was established by Paramārtha: because the ninth has emerged from obstacles, it differs from maturation, serving as the source of the nine realms of existence. Furthermore, in the *Chapter on the Nine Consciousnesses* of the *Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī* translated by Paramārtha, it mentions the “ninth amala-consciousness.” The Tripiṭaka Master explained: “The amala-consciousness has two aspects: First, the objective support, which is tathatā. Second, original enlightenment, which is the cognition of tathatā. The cognizing subject is the non-empty garbha, and the objective support is the empty tathāgatagarbha. In general terms, both take tathatā as their essence.”

The explanation states: These two are simply the two gates of the one mind in the *Awakening of Faith*. Original enlightenment resides in the gate of arising and ceasing, while the one mind is tathatā. Hence the treatise says: “It is only the one mind, therefore it is called tathatā.” Regardless of whether eight or nine, both are distinct from the consciousness of ordinary beings; that is, the four wisdoms, the three bodies, and so forth created by the purified consciousness.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “If we rely on the older [translation]”: second, harmonizing with the Jin translation, in which all three are inexhaustible, whereas the two sūtras mutually lack [an element]: the Tang translation lacks sentient beings, and the Jin translation lacks inexhaustibility. Therefore, there is the third part, which separately establishes another principle.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “It should say”: this is the third point. If one takes what is complete and perfect, it should be translated in this manner; then the three matters would all possess the characteristic of being without distinction, and this would again be made clear.

From “Because the substance of the false” onward: this sets forth the reason why the false is inexhaustible.

From “Therefore, the Tathāgata” onward: this adduces an analogy to verify it, which reflects the intention of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*. Tiantai adopted this, holding that the two dharmas of good and evil both take tathatā as their nature; if one were to sever the nature of goodness, one would sever tathatā. Since the true cannot be severed, it is said that nature-goodness cannot be severed. Buddha-nature is precisely the nature of reality, and the nature of reality is ultimate emptiness—how could it be severed? Nature-evil is not severed, meaning that false dharmas are fundamentally true, and therefore they are inexhaustible.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “Furthermore, the above three”: fourth, separately opening up conceptual perspectives, which then incorporates the Jin sūtra as exhausting the principle. That is, the Tang sūtra’s inexhaustibility obtains only two dharmas and only treats purity; the subsequent statement that all three are inexhaustible again omits the meaning of having an end. Now, stating that they are without distinction means that both the exhaustible and the inexhaustible are without distinction, and it also reveals that defilement and purity are fundamentally without distinction. Regarding the statement, “The mind subsumes two meanings: first, defilement; second, purity”: purity is self-nature purity, and defilement is original defilement; defilement and purity being non-dual constitutes the one mind. Regarding the statement, “Each using its initial meaning establishes non-distinction in conforming to the flow”: sentient beings originally have defilement, hence they follow the flow and turn their backs on the Buddha. When the Buddha conforms with their defilement, how could they conflict? Opposing the flow is analogous to this.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “Furthermore, the two meanings within the three”: fifth, the mutual integration of defilement and purity, which can be understood.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “Above, it was discussed horizontally”: second, the vertical explanation. Within a single person, these three dharmas are present; those who practice contemplation should utilize this approach.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “The single verse has two meanings”: regarding the statement, “The first half combines the first halves of the preceding second and third verses”: the mind not abiding in the body is precisely that there are no great elements within color-form; the body also not abiding in the mind is that there is no color-form within the great elements. This combines with the first half of the second verse. If combining with the first half of the third verse: the mind not abiding in the body means there is no mind within the painting; the body also not abiding in the mind means there is no painting within the mind.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The mind is that which can transform”: this is the mind within the mutual reliance of mind and objects. “And the substance of the mind”: this is the true within the mutual reliance of the true and the false. Regarding the statement, “The body is that which is transformed”: this is the object above. “And the characteristic of the nature”: this is the false mentioned earlier.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The second half combines the meaning of non-separation from the second halves of the preceding two verses”: this refers to color-form being attainable without being separate from the great elements, which is performing Buddha-work. It is also that, as before, a painting is attainable without being separate from the mind, which is performing Buddha-work. “Manifesting objects based on the mind” combines with the second half of the preceding third verse; “arising function based on substance” combines with the second half of the preceding second verse, “performing various Buddha-works”; this combines both of the above.

From “Substance and function do not obstruct each other” onward: this explains the fourth line.

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “In order to include this meaning, it does not speak in terms of mutual non-existence but speaks of non-abiding—a marvel of translation!”: this praises this sūtra. If it did not combine the fourth verse, but only combined the second and third verses, it should say that there is no body within the mind and no mind within the body—which are words of mutual non-existence—and would not reveal the meaning that the mind is constantly non-abiding. However, “not mutually abiding” and “constantly non-abiding” differ slightly in meaning, yet the text encompasses both. If one equates this non-abiding with the preceding non-abiding: because the mind arises and ceases moment by moment, it cannot abide in the body; because the body arises and ceases moment by moment, how could it abide in the mind? Contemplating this, it will become evident.

Regarding the commentary’s passage beginning, “The final verse,” and so forth: within this, there are three parts: 1. Briefly explaining the meaning of the sūtra; 2. From “However, there are two” onward: opening up the meanings for distinct explanation. Within this there are two explanations: one is concluding by returning to mind-only, and two, from “Contemplation of dharmas” onward, is concluding by returning to the two gates. 3. From “Furthermore, one is the contemplation of the reality of tathatā” onward: concluding with the essentials of contemplation.

Regarding the statement, “Therefore, temporarily upholding it can destroy the hells”: this refers to the *Zuanlingji*, which states: “In the first year of the Wenming era, a man from the capital Luoyang named Wang Minggan, who had neither moral discipline nor had ever cultivated goodness, fell ill and died. He saw two men lead him to the hells. In front of the gates of hell, he saw a monk who claimed to be Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva. The monk taught Wang to recite a one-line verse. Its text said: ‘If a person wishes to fully know / All Buddhas of the three times, / They should contemplate thus: / The mind creates all Tathāgatas.’ Having bestowed the sūtra verse, the bodhisattva told him: ‘Reciting this verse can dispel the sufferings of the hells.’ After Wang recited it, he entered to see King Yama. The king asked him, ‘What merit do you possess?’ He replied, ‘I only uphold one four-line verse,’ just as described above. The king then released him. When he recited the verse, wherever the sound reached, those undergoing suffering were all liberated. Wang revived after three days. Remembering and upholding this verse, he spoke of it to Master Ding of Kongguan Monastery. Comparing and verifying the verse’s text, they realized it was a verse from the twelfth fascicle of the old *Avataṃsaka Sūtra*, corresponding to the nineteenth fascicle, the ‘Chapter on the Cloud-Assembly of Countless Bodhisattvas in the Yama Deva Palace Preaching the Dharma,’ of the new sūtra. Wang personally related this to Dharma Master Ding of Kongguan Monastery.”