大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 49.3

Regarding the commentary's "Yogācāra thirty-nine says: If sentient beings come and seek..." and so forth: that text explains what a bodhisattva should give and should not give among twenty-three categories in total, and here it corresponds to one of them, which should not be given. Further below, the treatise states: "Why is that? If one gives to them at that time, although one temporarily causes them to generate joy toward the bodhisattva, it will also cause them to perform various disadvantageous deeds extensively. That is, because of the gift, it causes them to engage heavily in haughty, indolent, and evil conduct, and after the destruction of the body, they fall into the evil destinies." From "Now giving beautiful forms" downwards, the commentary uses the treatise to challenge the sūtra. The commentary's "It also says that when giving wife and children, they should not be given to enemies" is also the subsequent text of this treatise. As for "those of violent karmic deeds": the treatise states in full, "Furthermore, regarding their own wives, children, male and female slaves, servants, kin, and relatives, if bodhisattvas do not first instruct them with proper words to cause them to be joyful, they will never coerce them, causing them sorrow and distress, to give them to beggars who come. Even if they have first instructed them to make them joyful and generate a willing mind, they still do not give them to enemies, evil friends, yakṣas, rākṣasas, or those of violent karmic deeds; nor do they give delicately featured clan sons and daughters as wives and children to seekers who come, making them slaves." Next, the treatise also states: "If someone of the highest grade who oppresses sentient beings and delights in performing various violent and evil karmic deeds comes seeking the royal throne, the bodhisattva will never give it. If that violent and evil pudgala previously occupied the royal throne, the bodhisattva, if having the power, should even depose him, much less give it to him." Explanation: None of these should be given. Furthermore, from "Now it says various..." downwards, the commentary uses the treatise to challenge the sūtra. Below "Answer: Those who are capable of giving are of two kinds", within the answer, it first answers directly and later cites supporting evidence. Within the former, there are three points: first, whether the bodhisattva knows skillfully or does not know, both are permissible; second, knowing the woman is free of defilement; third, knowing it turns into benefit. Regarding the commentary's "Therefore in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha there is having benefit and having defilement..." and so forth: this is the eighth fascicle of Asabhāva's treatise; both versions of Vasubandhu's are the ninth, and the Liang translation corresponds to the twelfth. Here it relies on Asabhāva, though it is a paraphrase of the meaning. That treatise first quotes together the four lines of the root treatise, and then subsequently takes them up and explains them; here they are taken up and explained accordingly. The root treatise states: "If bodhisattvas, having accomplished such superior morality, superior mind, and superior wisdom, are consummated in merits and have attained great mastery over wealth and status, why is it seen in actuality that there are sentient beings who lack wealth and status?" Explanation: The above is the question. The explanatory treatise does not gloss it; the root treatise answers: "Because it sees that those sentient beings have heavy karmic hindrances regarding wealth and status." Asabhāva first clarifies the general intent of the answer, stating: "Now it should be clearly explained: due to these causes and conditions, although the bodhisattva has mastery over wealth and status, he does not give to others." Explaining the initial answer just given, it states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that those sentient beings have heavy karmic hindrances regarding their wealth and status, and therefore do not give to them, lest the charitable gift be empty and fruitless. Even if one were to give to them, they would also be unable to receive it; what would be the use of giving? As a verse states: 'Like a mother nursing an infant, / for a whole month without fatigue; / if the infant's throat is blocked, / what can the wet-nurse do?'" Explanation: This is the first: neither benefit nor defilement. Because they are wholly unable to receive it, what benefit or what defilement could there be? Second, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would hinder the arising of wholesome dharmas." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that although those sentient beings have no heavy karmic hindrances regarding wealth and status, if they were to obtain complete wealth and status, they would become very indolent and would not give rise to wholesome dharmas. They reflect thus: 'Better that they be poor and lowly for a short time in the present life, than poor and lowly for a long time in future lives.' Therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status." Explanation: This is the second: having defilement and no benefit. Third, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if those sentient beings lack wealth and status, revulsion will manifest before them." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if those sentient beings lack wealth and status, the mind of revulsion toward saṃsāra will manifest before them, seeking to transcend it. If they were to attain wealth and honor, they would immediately generate indolence; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status. They reflect thus: 'Better that they be poor and lowly, so that the mind of revulsion toward saṃsāra is constantly present before them; than that they be wealthy and honored, delighting in indolence and not giving rise to wholesome dharmas.'" Explanation: This also establishes the above having defilement and no benefit. Fourth, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would become a cause for accumulating unwholesome dharmas." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if they were to give them sufficient wealth and status, they would immediately be indolent and accumulate various evil and unwholesome karmas; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or benefits. As a verse states: 'Better to cause them to be destitute of wealth and status, / staying far from the evil destinies and various evil actions, / than to have their faculties disordered by wealth and honor, / causing them to incur a vessel of manifold future sufferings.'" Explanation: This is also having defilement and no benefit. Fifth, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would immediately become a cause for harming and distressing countless other sentient beings." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if those sentient beings obtain wealth and honor, they will immediately harm and distress countless sentient beings; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status. They reflect thus: 'Better that this single person suffer the agony of poverty, than cause harm and distress to many other sentient beings.'" Explanation: This is also having defilement and no benefit. Therefore, the root treatise concludes: "For this reason, it is seen in actuality that there are sentient beings who lack wealth and status." Herein there is a verse: "Seeing that karmic hindrances are present before them, / and because of accumulation and causing harm, / it is seen in actuality that sentient beings / do not receive the bodhisattva's gifts." Explanation: In the fivefold text above, there are only two clauses: the first is neither benefit nor defilement; the remaining four are all having defilement and no benefit. Yet their senses differ: first, hindering the arising of wholesome dharmas; second, not generating revulsion; third, accumulating unwholesome things oneself; fourth, harming and distressing others. As for having benefit and having defilement, because both harm and benefit are present, one also does not give. Because the fault of harm is slight, the treatise omits speaking of it; the rest may be known. Regarding the commentary's "The Lotus Sūtra's 'Chapter on the Four Practices of Ease'": in what the present commentary cites, the first harmonizes the meanings of various masters, while the latter three fully agree with Master [Dao]sheng. Master Sheng's first is simply called 'the sphere of practice and the sphere of association,' the intent being to clarify broadly staying away from evil and drawing near to the principle, while the three below are specific. Master [Kuai]ji of Baolin names the first 'empty practice,' the second 'free from arrogance,' and the third and fourth are the same as Master Sheng. Nanyue states: the first clarifies unattached correct wisdom, the second clarifies the mouth not speaking of faults, the third is respecting superiors and receiving inferiors, and the fourth is the same as Master Sheng. Dharma Master Dacheng: first, correct physical action; second, correct verbal action; third, the self-benefiting action of the mind being free from various evils; fourth, the other-benefiting action of the mind cultivating wholesome dharmas. Tiantai states: śamatha, vipaśyanā, and loving-kindness and compassion guide the three karmas and the vow; initially, because the body has śamatha, it leaves behind coarse physical karma; because it has vipaśyanā, physical karma cannot be apprehended. Because neither that which is capable of leaving nor that which is left can be apprehended, one does not fall into [the status of] ordinary beings;

Because they have compassion, they diligently cultivate bodily karma to broadly benefit all, not falling into the stage of the two vehicles. Because they have the practice of calming (śamatha), they wear the robe of forbearance; because they have the practice of contemplation (vipaśyanā), they sit on the Tathāgata’s seat; because they have compassion, they enter the Tathāgata’s chamber. The practice of calming being free from faults accomplishes the virtue of cessation (duḥkha-nirodha); the practice of contemplation being unattached accomplishes the virtue of wisdom; compassion benefiting others accomplishes the virtue of grace. The virtue of grace assists the virtue of wisdom, and the virtue of wisdom can penetrate the virtue of cessation; this is called the peaceful and joyful practice of the body. The remaining ones of speech, mind, and vows are also like this. Exegesis: This comprehensively explains that the three dharmas serve as that which guides, while what is guided consists of the first being the body, the second being speech, the third being mind, and the fourth being vows. Mahāyāna masters laterally established these names. However, when various masters establish them, they all divide the universally applied three dharmas based on the predominant and superior aspects. As for principle, it is profound and subtle, not displaying four distinctions. Now, taking Master Dao Sheng's meaning, body and speech are combined in the second, taking the sphere of practice and the sphere of proximity, and together with Nanyue and Baolin, a single name is established, calling it 'the practice of ultimate emptiness'. Baolin speaks only of a single emptiness, which seems restricted to the objective realm. Nanyue speaks of unattached wisdom, which speaks only of the mind. Now saying 'ultimate emptiness', mind and realm are both forgotten, emptiness and existence both converge. Therefore, Dao Sheng says: 'The sphere of proximity clarifies distancing oneself from evil and approaching principle; the sphere of practice is the essential guide for putting practice into effect, which resides solely in ultimate emptiness.' This constitutes great wisdom, and the fourth constitutes great compassion; compassion and wisdom guide each other, and in between are the two and three karmas, whereby Tiantai's meaning is also not lost. Furthermore, the first and last accomplish virtues, while the middle two are free from faults; being free from faults is the virtue of cessation. Wisdom comes first and compassion comes last, so the three virtues are fully present. Although the meaning applies universally, they are distinguished based on predominance. Therefore, as for the first, in the sūtra it is merely named the sphere of practice and the sphere of proximity, the intention being to practice approaching principle. The commentary's 'Having already entered principle' and following is Master Dao Sheng's explanation. Below, the commentary cites sūtra passages as proof; since it speaks of 'contemplating without practice', it means that quiescence and illumination flowing together constitute practicing principle. In the text below, the word 'etc.' includes the subsequent passage: 'neither practicing nor differentiating'. In explaining this, there are naturally two meanings: First, it means that 'contemplating without practice' above all refers to non-differentiation, and now 'neither practicing' means that quiescence and illumination are both forgotten. Second, it merely contrasts with the above 'contemplating all dharmas as they truly are', fearing that it might be conflated with raising contemplation from practice. It now clarifies that when properly contemplating, one also does not practice this contemplation nor differentiate this contemplation. In terms of practice and with respect to mind, one reaches principle; in terms of contemplation and with respect to illumination, one penetrates principle. Now, when mental practice does not practice and contemplation is without differentiation, then contemplation without contemplation is quiescence and illumination flowing together. Therefore, the verse below says: 'Furthermore, one does not practice superior, middling, or inferior dharmas, conditioned or unconditioned, real or unreal dharmas.' This is 'not practicing'. 'Nor does one differentiate whether it is male or female, obtaining no dharmas, neither knowing nor seeing.' This is precisely entering principle, which is also 'not differentiating'. Question: If entering principle is taken as practice, how can abiding on the ground of forbearance and so forth be the practice of entering principle? Answer: It is precisely entering principle. That is to say, the forbearance of the quiescence of the unproduced stage is the place of abiding; being gentle and compliant is the forbearance of compliance; and not being abrupt or violent, with the mind also not being startled, is the forbearance of the sound of Dharma. Because the three forbearances are all simultaneously complete, it is entering principle. Abiding on the ground of forbearance is the Tathāgata's robe; contemplating according to the true characteristic is the Tathāgata's seat; and guiding compassion with this is the Tathāgata's chamber. The commentary's 'Although not yet entering principle' and following is also Master Dao Sheng's meaning. 'Distancing from all evils' and following cites the sūtra as proof. First, it proves distancing oneself from evil words, non-Buddhists, and so forth, with 'and so forth' taking in the remaining eight. In total, there is separation from ten conditions: First, distancing oneself from the powerful and influential—meaning kings and the like—which are conditions for harm. Second, not approaching perverse people and doctrines—meaning non-Buddhists, brāhmaṇas, and so forth—which are conditions for wrong views. Third, also not fraternizing with those engaged in violent amusements, which are conditions for seeing discord. Fourth, also not fraternizing with caṇḍālas and the like, which are conditions for evil karma. Fifth, not fraternizing with those seeking the śrāvaka vehicle, which is the condition of leaving inferior companions. Sixth, furthermore, Mañjuśrī and others should not grasp at the marks on a woman's body capable of giving rise to thoughts of desire in order to preach the Dharma to her, which is the condition that fosters defilement. Seventh, also not approaching the five kinds of unmanly persons, which is the condition of non-receptiveness. Eighth, not entering another's house alone, which is the condition of reproach. Ninth, from 'if preaching Dharma for women' downwards, is leaving conditions contrary to proper standards. Tiantai says: the eighth is avoiding malice and harm; the ninth is avoiding suspicion and slander. Tenth, not taking pleasure in keeping young disciples, śrāmaṇeras, small children, and the like, which is the condition of distraction. The above clarifies what should not be approached; 'always taking pleasure in sitting in meditation' and downwards clarifies what should be approached. The above is the beginning of proximity, being the initial sphere of proximity; next it says, 'Furthermore, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva contemplates all dharmas as empty, as they truly are', and so forth, which is the second sphere of proximity, being the culmination of proximity. This properly clarifies approaching principle; because contemplative conceptualization has not yet been eliminated, it is called proximity. Second, regarding 'the body and speech being without fault', the sūtra says: 'Whether speaking with the mouth or reading the sūtras, one takes no pleasure in speaking of the faults of people or scriptures.' The prose mostly distinguishes only speech, while the verses speak of the body, since anointing the body with oil and bathing away dirt and filth also encompasses the body. Third, regarding 'the mind being free from jealousy', the sūtra says: 'In the latter, final age when the Dharma is about to be extinguished, those who uphold, read, and recite this scripture should harbor no jealousy, flattery, or deceit in their minds', and so forth. Fourth, it says: 'Giving rise to a mind of great benevolence among householders and renunciants, giving rise to a mind of great compassion among those who are not bodhisattvas', and so forth, as detailed in that sūtra. The commentary's 'However, regarding

‘Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas practice regarding suffering and pleasure with the conception of a Middle Way; by reason of this meaning, although they possess the Buddha-nature, they cannot perceive it.’ Below, the sūtra text broadens into what is not correct, explaining ordinary persons. Furthermore, the path has three kinds: namely lower, middling, and superior. The lower refers to Brahmā being impermanent yet falsely viewed as permanent, and so forth. Later it speaks of the original limit of saṃsāra, which has generally two kinds: first, avidyā; second, craving for existence; between these two there are birth, aging, illness, death, and so on—this is fixed painful practice. The commentary notes regarding the Dīrghāgama, the Twelve Nidānas Sūtra, and the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya concerning building stūpas that the matter has not yet been checked. As for the commentary's ‘The Wushangyi jing states that making offerings to a buddha-relic the size of a mustard seed completely brings about the ultimate escape from the suffering of saṃsāra’: the sūtra has two fascicles, and this is in the first. Because Ānanda followed the Buddha to beg for food and saw the storied pavilions of a new city, he thought: ‘If someone were to give such an excellent pavilion as alms to the saṃgha of the four directions, complete with the four necessities, versus after the Tathāgata's parinirvāṇa taking a buddha-relic the size of a mustard seed and enshrining it in a stūpa, raising a stūpa the size of an āmalaka fruit, mounting a spire the size of a needle, a dew-basin the size of a jujube leaf, and making an image of the Buddha the size of a barley grain—which of these two merits is superior?’ He asked the Buddha. The Buddha praised him and extensively adduced metaphors to weigh them. First he brought up filling all Jambudvīpa as dense as rice and sesame with those of the fourth fruit and pratyekabuddhas: if someone were to provide them with the four necessities of life throughout their lives, and after their passing raise great stūpas to make offerings to the buddhas, he asked: ‘Would the merit be great?’ Ānanda replied, ‘Great.’ Next he brought up Aparagodānīya, next Pūrvavideha, and next Uttarakuru, the quantities gradually broadening, the offerings made as before, comparing the pavilion built to the dwelling of Śakra, and asked Ānanda. Ānanda answered each time that it was exceedingly great. The Buddha told Ānanda: ‘If there be a good man or good woman who, after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, takes a relic the size of a mustard seed, builds a stūpa the size of an āmalaka fruit, mounts a spire the size of a needle, a dew-basin the size of a jujube leaf, and makes an image of the Buddha the size of a barley grain—this merit, compared to that previously spoken of, does not equal a hundredth part, a thousandth part, a hundred-millionth part, nor even what calculation and metaphor can reach. Ānanda! If this merit is not dedicated via pariṇāmanā toward anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi, the karmic reward of fortune obtained from this heap of merit will be to become a king of Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven, a king of Nirmāṇarati Heaven, a king of Tuṣita Heaven, a king of Yāma Heaven, or a king of the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven for as many times as there are dust motes in the entire Sahā world, not to mention a wheel-turning sage king (cakravartin).’ Explanation: According to this, it merely says the fortune is great; if one adds pariṇāmanā, it will certainly reach the ultimate. As for the commentary's ‘When attuned to its nonexistence, there is the utility of the carriage’: this is from the Dao jing of Laozi, which says, ‘Thirty spokes converge on a single hub; attuned to its nonexistence, there is the utility of the carriage.’ The annotation says, ‘This clarifies that nonexistence and existence assist one another in their function to bring it to completion.’ Furthermore, it concludes below: ‘Existence is that by which benefit is derived; nonexistence is that by which utility is had.’ The intended meaning is that shafts, carriage-box, wheels, and the like are relied upon to form a carriage, but if the inside of the carriage were not empty, it would have no utility. Thus, drawing upon the benefit of the coarse existence of physical form, it clarifies the utility of wondrous nonexistence. Borrowing this language now: the vehicle conditioned into being by the myriad practices—its internal lack of intrinsic nature is precisely its emptiness within. If it did not engage existence, there would be no means to benefit beings; if it did not enter emptiness, there would be no means for practice of the path. Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all phenomena can be accomplished; therefore it constitutes great utility. As for the commentary's ‘Overturning the three lifetimes and the hundred kalpas’: arhats cultivate merit for three lifetimes, pratyekabuddhas for a hundred kalpas; here it causes them to cultivate for hundreds of thousands of koṭis of nayutas of kalpas, and so forth. As for the commentary's ‘The tenth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says that if one violates the four grave prohibitions,’ and so on: to clarify that the text of the sūtra assists people in eliminating delusions, there are ten restatements; this is one of them. The sūtra says: ‘If there be a bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, upāsaka, upāsikā, or any non-Buddhist who can uphold such a classic, recite it fluently, and further analyze and expound it for others, or write it out oneself or cause others to write it out, these are all causes and conditions for bodhi. If one has violated the four prohibitions or the crimes of the five immediate retributions, or is possessed by wicked ghosts or virulent poisons, upon hearing this classic, all bad deeds will be entirely eliminated, just as upon seeing an excellent physician, wicked ghosts depart far away. One should know that such a person is a true bodhisattva-mahāsattva. Why? Because they have temporarily heard this Great Nirvāṇa, and also because they have given rise to the thought that the Tathāgata is eternal. If one who only temporarily hears it still obtains such [benefits], how much more so one who writes it out, upholds, reads, and recites it.’ Explanation: Thus the commentary only cites the middle portion. As for the commentary's ‘It also says: “that one who violates the four grave prohibitions does not come back to life is an impossibility”’: the fifth fascicle of the sūtra says, ‘Furthermore, liberation is called empty and quiescent, without any indeterminacy. If there were indeterminacy, such that an icchantika ultimately never moved, or that one who violated the grave prohibitions did not achieve the Buddha Path, this would be an impossibility. Why? If this person gives rise to pure faith in the Buddha's true Dharma, at that moment the icchantika is immediately extinguished. If they further manage to become an upāsaka, they also extinguish the icchantika. One who has violated the grave prohibitions, having extinguished this transgression, will then achieve buddhahood. If one were to say that they ultimately do not achieve the Buddha Path, that is an impossibility.’ As for the commentary's ‘Passages such as these are found everywhere’: the sixth fascicle also says, ‘This wondrous classic of the Great Nirvāṇa cannot be worn away or suppressed; it is exceedingly marvelous and extraordinary. If there are those who hear it, and having heard it, believe and accept it, being able to believe that the Tathāgata is an eternally abiding phenomenon, such persons are extremely rare, like an udumbara flower. After my nirvāṇa, if there are those who get to hear such a wondrous Mahāyāna classic and give rise to a faithful and reverent mind, one should know that in future ages for hundreds of thousands of koṭis of kalpas they will not fall into the bad destinies.’ The beginning of the ninth fascicle also says: ‘Just as when the sun rises, the multitudes of mists are all cleared away, so too is this wondrous classic of the Great Nirvāṇa: appearing in the world, if there are sentient beings who merely let it pass their ears, it can completely eradicate all bad deeds and the karmas of the unspaced [hell].’ Other Mahāyāna passages are also extensive and numerous. As for the commentary's ‘The ninety-five kinds of non-Buddhist heterodox treatises’: first, according to the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya, each of the six non-Buddhist teachers has sixteen kinds of paths. The commentary's second point, ‘Non-Buddhists attached to the Buddha's Dharma’: if one does not grasp the meaning of prajñā, entering into abhidharma leads to stagnating in existence. As for the commentary's ‘Therefore the first fascicle of the seven-fascicle Laṅkā[vatāra-sūtra],’ and so on: the seven-fascicle version is the one translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Śikṣānanda. While the ten-fascicle text is expansive and the four-fascicle text is terse, the seven-fascicle version is intermediate and its phrasing is polished; the scripture cited by the commentary gives the sūtra's words in full. The intention of citing it is to clarify that this designates the two vehicles as non-Buddhists. How is it known that it refers to the two vehicles? Because prior to this, the sūtra says: ‘Mahāmati!

This is the mind of the primary meaning of the intrinsic nature of phenomena awakened to by all Tathāgatas, Arhats, and Samyaksaṃbuddhas of the past, future, and present. Through this mind, the Tathāgata accomplishes the supreme worldly and transworldly phenomena, entering through the eye of noble wisdom into the various establishments of intrinsic and common characteristics, because what is established is not shared with the evil views of non-Buddhists.’ Next is the text cited by the commentary. That is to say, the preceding is the Buddha's Dharma; stating that it is not shared with non-Buddhists already encompasses the two vehicles, not to mention setting forth the characteristics—not knowing that objects are the discriminations of one's own mind, and so forth, are precisely the views of the two vehicles. Furthermore, the four-fascicle version states: ‘Mahāmati! What is being shared with the evil views of non-Buddhist treatises? It is what is called the view of conceptual proliferation regarding one's own sphere of objects, not awakening to the realization that it is what appears from one's own mind, yet having broad penetration within limits. Mahāmati! Foolish ordinary persons theorize in terms of dual views regarding existence, non-existence, intrinsic nature, and the primary meaning.’ Explanation: These are thus all views of the two vehicles, and hence are identical with non-Buddhists. As for the commentary's ‘Also, the second fascicle says’: this is also from that seven-fascicle sūtra, where the shared meaning between non-Buddhists and the two vehicles is made even more evident. The scripture cited in the commentary lacks not a single character; through these two passages it clarifies that the two vehicles are termed identical with non-Buddhists. As for the commentary's ‘Riding the vehicle of the four wheels’: the text has three parts: first, citing a treatise to directly explain; second, analytical differentiation; third, deriving the names. Now, the first. As for ‘The sixth fascicle of the Zhuangyan lun calls them the four wheels of heedfulness’: 1. the wheel of an excellent land; 2. the wheel of a good person; 3. the wheel of self-rectification; 4. the wheel of prior merit. The commentary below relies on this treatise to explain their characteristics. Regarding ‘1. Dwelling in a good land’: the treatise has a verse: ‘Easy to seek, well-protected, / a good land, also good companions, / and good serenity—in such an excellent land / the bodhisattva takes rebirth.’ The current commentary provides the prose explanation, only slightly abridged. In full it says: ‘First, easy to seek: meaning the four requisites for sustaining the body are not difficult to obtain. Second, well-protected by the king: such that wicked people and thieves cannot abide there. Third, a good land: the place is harmonious and free of pestilence. Fourth, good companions: having as companions those of shared views and shared precepts. Fifth, good serenity: meaning throughout the day there are no clamorous noises.’ The commentary's ‘2. Relying on a good person’: meaning there is a verse: ‘Learned and seeing the truth, / skillful in expounding, compassionate as well, / and non-regressing—on such a person / does the bodhisattva superbly rely.’ The explanation below covers the first three from the treatise; because it is straightforward, it is not explained further. The treatise fully says: ‘First, learned: because of accomplishing the āgamas. Second, seeing the truth: because of attaining the noble fruits. Third, skillful in expounding: because of differentiating phenomena. Fourth, compassionate: because of not craving gain. Fifth, non-regressing: because of being free from weariness.’ Regarding ‘3. Accumulating superior merit’: the verse says: ‘Pleasurable and free from difficulties, / free of illness and tranquil— / observing these five kinds / is due to having planted roots of goodness in past lives.’ The explanation says: ‘First, pleasurable; second, free from difficulties; third, free of illness; fourth, samādhi; fifth, wisdom. The first item has dwelling in an excellent land as its cause; the second item has relying on a good person as its cause; the third item has the accomplishment of self-rectification as its cause.’ Explanation: In the commentary, the expedients set forth afterward are explained intermittently by name. Regarding ‘4. Generating the great vow—that corresponds to the third [wheel in the treatise]’: the verse says: ‘Good conditions and good gathering, / good cultivation and good expounding, / and good emergence—these five kinds / are named the excellence of self-rectification.’ Its explanation says: ‘First, good conditions: because the wondrous Dharma serves as the condition.’ The following four are mostly the same, differing by only one or two characters: ‘Second, good gathering: because of being endowed with merit and wisdom. Third, good cultivation: because of timely cultivation corresponding with the practices of śamatha and vipaśyanā. Fourth is completely identical. In the fifth, the character shun (“accord”) is simply the character yu (“desire”).’ The statement above, ‘The Cheng lun calls it self-generating correct vows’: fascicle two, chapter on ‘Four Dharmas’, states: ‘Furthermore, sūtras state that the four wheels of humans and devas can increase wholesome dharmas: 1. dwelling in a good place; 2. relying on a good person; 3. self-generating correct vows; 4. having planted roots of goodness in past lives.’ Next it clarifies destroying the eight difficulties, which should be understood below. As for the commentary's ‘However, the former two pertain to the fruit’: this is the second, analytical differentiation. As for the commentary's ‘Due to what cause are these four…’: this is the third, deriving the names. Within this there are two parts: first, clarifying the derivation of the name “wheel”, which is the text of the Cheng lun; afterward, from ‘Having understood the four wheels…’ onward, is the second, explaining the derivation of the name “vehicle”. It first relies on the Yogācārabhūmi; from ‘If relying on…’ onward, it subsequently relies on the Perfect Teaching of the present sūtra to analyze the four, the textual purport of which can be known.”