大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 10

English (machine translation) 10

Language: English

10.1

Expounded by the śramaṇa Chengguan of the Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang

In the third section, "The Delimitation of Doctrinal Principles," the text of the Commentary is divided into two parts: first, a general explanation of the overarching meaning; second, from "Now to reveal the distinct teaching..." onward, opening the chapters to explain them individually. In the former part, there are three sections: first, concluding the preceding and introducing the succeeding; second, generally revealing the profound and vast; third, concluding with the classification of what is subsumed. Now for the first, there are two sentences: the former sentence concludes the preceding, meaning that in the previous subsumption of teachings it was not separately clarified what subsumes it, because among the five teachings the fifth, the perfect teaching, points to this sūtra and its meaning should already be subsumed. Furthermore, when various masters established the teachings, all took the Avataṃsaka to be the perfect teaching, so we know it is subsumed under the perfect. The latter sentence, beginning with "Not yet known...", introduces the succeeding.

10.3

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "However, this ocean of teachings..." onward: the second part generally reveals the profound and vast, possessing the doctrinal statement, the simile, and the correlation. Now, from the beginning up to "only then is the profound and vast revealed," is the doctrinal statement. The first two sentences generally present the topic. "Hong" means great, which is the meaning of vast. "Form and emptiness mutually reflect, virtues and functions are layer upon layer" explains the meaning of profound. Now, the above two sentences contain both doctrine and simile: just as the ocean has no boundaries at its margins and merges with the sky in a single colour, emptiness penetrates to the ocean floor, and the ocean reflects the sky of emptiness. This corresponds to the second of the four approaches below: generally gathering and returning to the real, all are empty and pure; principle and phenomena are unobstructed, which is form and emptiness mutually reflecting, form not obstructing emptiness, and emptiness not obstructing form. Virtues and functions layer upon layer solely clarifies the meaning of profound. Fully possessing the ten profound approaches, layer upon layer without end, this is phenomenon and phenomenon unobstructed, just as the ten virtues of the ocean mutually pervade one another.

10.4

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "Speaking of its horizontal inclusion..." onward: this explains the vast above. As in the second bhūmi below where the ten wholesome deeds of humans and devas are expounded, this is its text. From "Completely without..." onward: this jointly concludes the profound and vast. Regarding the Commentary's passage from "It is like..." onward: it clarifies by simile, which can be understood.

10.5

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "The preceding four teachings..." onward: this is the doctrinal correlation. It correlates the four teachings to the hundred rivers, and the perfect teaching to the great ocean. Within it, first is the proper correlation, and second is resolving objections. Now for the first: the statement "It is not even the third or fourth, how much less the first two" correlates to the preceding; therefore, any single drop is vastly different from the hundred rivers, which is to cite the superior to reveal the inferior. The third is the final teaching, the fourth is the sudden teaching, and the first two are the Hīnayāna and the initial teaching. Although there are precepts and wholesome deeds, these are the precepts and wholesome deeds of the perfect teaching, which are still not the same as the superiority of the final and sudden, because those [teachings] cannot achieve phenomenon and phenomenon unobstructed. How much less the inferiority of the first two, because they have not yet attained the two emptinesses, principle and phenomena unobstructed, and so forth. It is like the great ocean still being different from rivers, how much more so from ditches and drains.

10.6

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Thus it has that which it penetrates, yet lacks that which confines it": the second part resolves objections. That is, there is an objection saying: "First there was a general inclusion, and afterwards a general exclusion; the two meanings are as far apart as heaven and earth, so how can they be reconciled?" Therefore, he provides this explanation. The general inclusion is based on what it penetrates. For instance, in the perfect teaching there are the Hīnayāna dharmas of precepts and wholesome deeds, the four truths, and causes and conditions; there are the initial teaching's ten stages, ten suchnesses, eight consciousnesses, and four cognitions; there is the final teaching's principle and phenomena unobstructed; and there is the sudden teaching's cutting off of words and thoughts, and so forth. Just as the ocean contains the water of a hundred rivers, the meaning of water is identical. The subsequent general exclusion is based on lacking that which confines it. For instance, the Hīnayāna has only the emptiness of persons and self-benefit; the initial teaching has the five natures and the triyāna; the final teaching does not speak of virtues and functions all-inclusively encompassing; the sudden teaching is solely the dual cutting off of principle and phenomena, and so forth. Just as those hundred rivers do not share the same salty flavour and do not fully possess the ten virtues, the ocean, by contrast, possesses them: first, gradual deepening; second, not harbouring corpses; third, other waters entering it; fourth, universal uniformity; fifth, inexhaustibility; sixth, depth; seventh, vastness; eighth, great creatures; ninth, tides; tenth, universally receiving great rain.

10.7

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "Therefore, this perfect teaching..." onward: it concludes with the classification of what is subsumed. Within this there are three: first, generally revealing the profound and vast; next, from "The One Vehicle has two..." onward, separately explaining the profound meaning; afterwards, resolving objections. In the second, the phrase "shared teaching" means that although the two teachings—final and sudden—speak of one nature and one characteristic, having neither two nor three, they do not explain the perfect fusion endowed with virtues and phenomenon and phenomenon unobstructed, and therefore they are not the distinct teaching. Yet within the distinct teaching there are one nature and one characteristic, principle and phenomena unobstructed, and words and thoughts being severed, identical to those two teachings.

10.8

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "Subsuming the shared with the distinct..." onward: the third part resolves objections and difficulties. That is, there is an objection saying: "Since it is identical to the sudden and identical to the real, how does it differ from the sudden and real?" Therefore, he resolves this by saying: within this very shared [aspect] there must be the distinct meaning, just as principle and phenomena unobstructed must possess phenomenon and phenomenon unobstructed, like the water of a river becoming salty once it enters the ocean.

10.9

From the Commentary's "Now, to reveal the distinct teaching" onward is the second [part], opening the sections for separate explanations, which has two [divisions]: first, indicating the sections; second, from "In the first [section]" onward, explaining separately according to the sections. In explaining the first section, there are three [steps]: first, enumerating in full; next, briefly explaining; and finally, concluding the extensive by following the brief. From the Commentary's "Teaching is that which expresses" onward is the second, the brief explanation, which only explains the two pairs of teaching and meaning, and phenomenon and principle. As for "and even light, fragrance, and so forth," it means that all dharmas reveal their essential reality; anything that can express principle serves as the teaching-substance, as explained below under the teaching-substance, showing that there are cases where light performs the Buddha-work and so forth. As for "'Meaning' is that which is expressed, namely all doctrines and principles of the five teachings and so forth," as previously mentioned in establishing the teachings, in terms of the distinctions among what is expressed, the seventy-five dharmas, the eight consciousnesses, and the ten pairs of dharmas are all "meaning." As for the Commentary's "'Principle' is that revealed by the emptiness of the person" and so forth, it is endowed with the principles of the five teachings: that revealed by the emptiness of the person is the principle of the Small Vehicle's teaching; that revealed by the two emptinesses is the principle of the initial teaching; and natureless tathatā is the principle of the final teaching. Saying "and so forth" equals the principles of the remaining two teachings: the principle of the sudden teaching is also natureless tathatā whose essence cuts off establishment, where both [tathatā as] principle and nature are dually discarded yet do not depart from tathatā; the principle of the perfect teaching universally harmonizes all principles without any obstruction.

10.10

As for the Commentary's "'Phenomena' are form, mind" and so forth, "and so forth" encompasses the remaining categories of phenomena. Just as bodily forms broadly have many meanings—namely the six destinies, the four noble ones, and so on—within the gate of phenomena, there is nothing not subsumed by this.

10.11

As for the Commentary's "the rest may be inferred," it refers to the remaining eight gates. Regarding the third, "object and cognition," these are the objects contemplated by the five teachings. The cognitions capable of contemplating, when subsumed generally, do not go beyond the two truths and the two cognitions. Specifically, first, in the Small Vehicle, the four truths and nirvāṇa are the object, while untainted pure wisdom is the cognition, along with the ten cognitions such as the knowledge of others' minds. The initial teaching also encompasses the four truths, the two truths, and so forth as objects, with preparatory, fundamental, and subsequently attained cognitions, and so forth. The final teaching then has the three truths and so forth as objects, and the cognition of the unobstructedness of the provisional and real, and so forth. The sudden teaching has non-object as object, and cognition beyond [thought] as cognition. The perfect teaching has inexhaustible objects and inexhaustible cognitions. Regarding the fourth, "practice and stages," the five teachings have different cultivation of practice and distinct attainments of stages. Stages pertain to both cause and fruit; the five [teachings'] causes and fruits are not mutually interchangeable. For instance, the seven expedients and so forth are the cause, while srotāpanna and so forth are the fruit. From equal awakening on down, all are cause; wondrous awakening is the fruit, and so on. Sixth, "dependent" is the realm, and "proper" is the Buddha-body, and so on. Seventh, "essence" is the dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya, while "function" is the nirmāṇakāya, and so on. Eighth, "person" is the awakened one, and so on, while "dharma" is bodhi, and so on. Ninth, "counter" includes [Vasumitra's] insatiability and so forth, while "conforming" includes Avalokiteśvara's correct approach, and so on. Tenth, "response" refers to meeting the capacity, namely the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth; "resonance" refers to being the appropriate recipient, namely bodhisattvas, sentient beings, and so forth. Each is differentiated in accordance with the five teachings. Since all teachings possess them, it is said that they "may be inferred." Furthermore, among these ten pairs, the first is general, and the subsequent ones gradually become specific. If we discuss their sequence: when the Tathāgata speaks the teaching that expresses and the principle that is expressed, no dharma is left unexhausted. Dharmas comprise teaching, principle, practice, and fruit, and practice and fruit are both contained within the expressed principle. Second, regarding the expressed principle, though manifold, it does not go beyond phenomena and principle; that is, nature and characteristics subsume all dharmas. Third, principle covers the eight below, so setting it aside without discussion, within phenomena they do not go beyond object and cognition. Fourth, when cognition contemplates the object, there arise practices of cultivation and stages that are achieved. Fifth, before practice and stages reach the ultimate, they are entirely subsumed under cause; reaching the ultimate, they are fruit. Sixth, the many dharmas within the fruit do not go beyond the dependent and the proper; the cause also possesses them. Seventh, within each of the dependent and proper, there are essence and function: as for essence within the proper, it is the dharma- and saṃbhoga-[kāyas]; function is the nirmāṇakāya. As for essence within the dependent, it is lands of dharmatā and so forth; function is manifesting in accordance with beings and mutually interpenetrating without obstruction; the causal gate is likewise so. Eighth, within the proper, there is intrinsically the distinction between person and dharma: using dharma to accomplish the person, and using the person to propagate the dharma. Ninth, within the person, there are counter-transformation and conforming transformation. Tenth, a person's counter or conforming nature must entail resonance and response: if fit to be resonated with through counter-transformation, Vasumitra and others respond to them; if fit to be resonated with through conforming transformation, Mañjuśrī and others respond to them. If, following the subsequent ones, one unfolds one into two, then the dharmas become even more numerous. That is, if the fruit is divided into two as dependent and proper, and cause is also like this, there are four. If the proper has essence and function, and the dependent is also like this, it becomes eight. Looking at them in this way, they progressively become many; it need not be entirely so, which is why the Commentary does not explain it this way. Furthermore, regarding these ten pairs, their primary intention is to generally encompass and gather [all things] to serve as the essential phenomena upon which the ten profundities rely. If taken according to meaning, within any single phenomenon there are these ten pairs, as stated below regarding the Superior Sound Lotus; therefore, below, even a single dust mote is endowed with the ten pairs.

10.12

As for the Commentary's "Second, subsuming and returning to the real," the text of the Commentary has three [parts]: first, indicating the section; next, "true emptiness cuts off characteristics," which points to the root and branch of dharmas; finally, from "The sūtra says" onward, quoting text to corroborate and complete it. In the second, however, in the Preceptor Dushun's Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu there are altogether three contemplations: first, the contemplation of true emptiness cutting off characteristics; second, the contemplation of the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle; third, the contemplation of universal pervasion and complete containment. These are the latter three gates among the four gates of the present Commentary. The first, subsuming and returning to the real, is the contemplation of true emptiness cutting off characteristics. Within it, there are intrinsically four propositions and ten gates: 1. the contemplation of resolving form back into emptiness; 2. the contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is identical to form; 3. the contemplation of the unobstructedness of emptiness and form; 4. the contemplation of annihilation without reliance. These constitute four propositions; the first two each have four [sub-gates], hence making ten gates. Regarding the four gates of the first proposition, the first three alike state that form is not identical to emptiness. Because it is identical to emptiness, their explanations differ: 1. Form is identical to emptiness: this clarifies that it is not identical to annihilatory emptiness, because it is identical to true emptiness. 2. Form is not empty: this clarifies that blue, yellow, and so forth are not identical to true emptiness; because blue and yellow lack essence, they are identical to true emptiness. 3. Form is not identical to emptiness: within emptiness there is no form that can be identified with it, hence it is said not to be identical to emptiness; because resolving form back into emptiness leaves no essence, it is identical to true emptiness. The above three use dharma to eliminate delusion. 4. Form is emptiness itself, because it is devoid of nature. As it is with form, so it is with all dharmas. The second, the contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is identical to form, also has four gates: the first three gates correspond to the previous explanation; their words are the same, but the explanation differs merely by inverting to say that emptiness is not identical to form because it is identical to form. It also has three meanings: 1. Emptiness is not identical to form: annihilatory emptiness is not identical to form, because true emptiness is necessarily not different from form. 2. Emptiness is not identical to form: because the principle of emptiness is not blue or yellow, it is not form; the reality of blue and yellow is necessarily not different from blue and yellow, hence it is said to be identical to form. 3. Emptiness is not identical to form: emptiness is that which is relied upon, hence it is not identical to form; because it must be that which is relied upon by that which relies, it is said to be identical to form. The above three eliminate delusion. 4. Emptiness is form itself, because whatever is true emptiness is necessarily not different from form. As for the third, the contemplation of the unobstructedness of emptiness and form: form in its entirety is true emptiness, so form is not exhausted while emptiness manifests; emptiness in its entirety is not different from form, so emptiness is identical to form while emptiness is not concealed. Therefore, the two dharmas are unobstructed and of one flavor. As for the fourth, the contemplation of annihilation without reliance: this true emptiness cannot be said to be identical to form or not identical to form, identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness. All dharmas are inadmissible; even the inadmissible is inadmissible, and this statement itself is not maintained. Aloof and absolute, without reliance, beyond words and comprehension, because giving rise to mind and stirring thoughts goes against the essence of dharmas. The previous eight gates eliminate delusion to reveal principle. The third gate brings understanding to completion to head toward practice. The fourth gate directly accomplishes the substance of practice: through understanding practice is accomplished, and when practice arises understanding ceases. All the above are meanings from the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu. The reason the Commentary does not quote them extensively is that the third, the unobstructedness of form and emptiness, would be conflated with the second contemplation of the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle. The reason he established it is that the fourth, annihilation without reliance, annihilates the preceding three, and is therefore called true emptiness cutting off characteristics. Here, only the general meaning of the single gate is taken, which is also annihilation without reliance. Furthermore, it is intended to make the four gates form the four dharmadhātus: the first gate is phenomena; the next gate is principle; the third is the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle; the fourth is the unobstructedness of phenomenon and phenomenon. Therefore, within the third, the contemplation of the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle, the text of the Commentary is divided into three: first, a general indication; second, from "First, principle pervades phenomena" onward, separate explanations; third, from "The ten phenomena above" onward, a general conclusion. Now, the first: saying "the ten pairs are all unobstructed" means: 1. the unobstructedness of teaching and meaning; 2. the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle; 3. the unobstructedness of practice and stages; up to 10. the unobstructedness of response and resonance. For now, it is discussed in terms of phenomenon and principle because phenomenon and principle are the general sum among the expressed dharmas, because various passages mostly clarify the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle, and in order to accomplish the four dharmadhātus.

10.13

From the Commentary's "First, principle pervades phenomena" onward is the second, separately explaining the ten gates, which constitutes ten separate sections. Within each and every gate, it mostly first explains directly and later harmonizes with the preceding meanings. That is, regarding the meanings of the ten pairs in the previous differences between nature and characteristics, either one gate harmonizes one meaning, two gates together harmonize one meaning, or one gate harmonizes multiple meanings, as will be known when reaching the text. Furthermore, among the ten pairs, it only harmonizes dharmatā, because it is the boundary of the principles of the one vehicle of the shared teaching. As previously stated that the triyāna and the one vehicle are distinct, now it only harmonizes the one vehicle; the five natures and the one nature are distinct, now it only harmonizes the one nature. The ten pairs are all like this. Now, the first: the first gate is not harmonized [here], because it will be harmonized all at once when reaching the second gate. In the Commentary there are three [parts]: first, indicating the gate; next, from "Namely, lacking limits" onward, directly explaining: principle cannot be divided, hence it lacks limits; phenomena are differentiated in accordance with conditions, hence their stages and positions are distinct; yet they are not intermingled, and therefore achieve mutual pervasion. Now it clarifies that principle is not different from phenomena, hence it pervades phenomena. Finally, from "Therefore, each and every fine dust mote" onward, concluding and establishing the meaning of pervasion: if it did not pervade entirely, then principle would be divisible; if phenomena did not entirely subsume it, they would not be identical to principle either. As with a single fine dust mote, so it is with every phenomenon. While directly pervading this, it does not obstruct pervading the rest; therefore, it is also not the case that there is no principle elsewhere. Entirely this and entirely that, yet they are not two principles.

10.14

As for the Commentary's "Second, the gate of phenomena pervading principle," in the text there are two [parts]: first, directly clarifying; next, harmonizing with the preceding. In the former, the reason it must be entirely identical is that phenomena have no separate essence, being just like principle. If not entirely identical, they would not be like principle, and the meaning that form is not different from emptiness would not be fully established. However, these two gates of mutual pervasion transcend ordinary sentiments and are difficult to perceive. Why? Because since phenomena have divisions and principle lacks divisions, how can there be pervasion? If a dust mote pervades the dharmadhātu, the dust mote should not be small; if principle pervades and is identical to phenomena, it should be like a small dust mote. Now it is clarified that because phenomena and principle have the meaning of being neither identical nor different: because they are not different, they are entirely identical; because they are not identical, they are not destroyed. If differentiated, phenomena and principle are two divisions. Like the waves of an ocean: a single wave entirely pervades the great ocean because it is identical to the ocean; the great ocean is entirely within the small wave because the ocean is not dual, so it is entirely in a single wave, and also entirely in all waves, because they are the same single ocean.

10.15

From the Commentary's "Due to the above two meanings" onward is the second, harmonizing with the preceding meanings. Within it, there are two [parts]: first, harmonizing the one nature; next, harmonizing the one vehicle. In the former, there are three: first, clarifying the one nature and five natures; second, clarifying attaining Buddhahood and not attaining Buddhahood; third, clarifying that naturelessness is identical to Buddha-nature. In the first, it first clarifies directly and later cites evidence. In the former, it means that phenomena have limits, while principle has no limits. The five natures are discussed in terms of phenomena; the one nature is discussed in terms of principle. Now, principle pervades phenomena, so the principle of the one nature is entirely within the five natures; phenomena pervade principle, so the five natures are identical to the one nature. Hence it says, "Because they mutually penetrate and pervade, they are all identical to the one nature."

10.16

Regarding the commentary's "Therefore, the 'Manifestation' [chapter states]..." onward, this is the second [part], adducing scriptural proof. This text explains and accommodates two meanings: First, it precisely indicates the meaning of the non-obstruction of phenomenon and phenomenon, because both sentient beings and buddhas are phenomena. Here, taking the text's explanation that they all share the identical single nature, it proves the non-obstruction of principle and phenomenon. Because principle pervades phenomena, sentient beings, following principle, reside within the Buddha.

10.17

Regarding the commentary's "Because principle pervades phenomena, when one attains [buddhahood], all attain it..." onward, this is the second [part], clarifying the meaning of attaining buddhahood and not attaining buddhahood. That is to say, principle lacks two realities; therefore it encompasses multiple phenomena and all attain it. Principle is like empty space; therefore phenomena are identical with principle and there is no attainment. Regarding "The sūtra says: 'Just like empty space...'" onward, this adduces scriptural proof. It is also an implicit citation from the attainment of true awakening in the "Manifestation Chapter." The text says: "O Sons of the Buddha! Just as empty space, whether all worlds form or decay, is ever without increase or decrease. Why is this? Because empty space has no origination. The bodhi of all buddhas is also like this: whether they attain true awakening or do not attain true awakening, it is also without increase or decrease. Why is this? Because bodhi is without characteristics and without non-characteristics, without oneness and without variety." This is precisely the meaning of having nothing attained. Due to the two meanings above, if one wishes to attain, then moment to moment there is constant attainment; if one wishes not to attain, then across the ten directions and the three times there is no one who attains buddhahood. Therefore, attainment and non-attainment are sovereign and unobstructed.

10.18

Regarding the commentary's "The single nature which is naturelessness is precisely the buddha-nature," this is the third [part], reconciling the meaning of buddha-nature. First it directly reconciles it, and then from "Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra states]..." onward, it adduces scriptural proof. Because the emptiness of the ultimate truth is precisely the buddha-nature, the general purport is just this; yet wishing to exhaust the source of the Dharma, it again briefly cites [the sūtra]. Now, the twenty-seventh fascicle of this sūtra, the "Lion's Roar Chapter," inquires about the buddha-nature with six questions in total: First, it asks what the buddha-nature is (the first asks about its essential nature). Second, for what meaning is it named and explained as buddha-nature (the second asks about the meaning of the name of the nature)? Third, why is it also named permanent, blissful, self, and pure (the third asks about the virtues of the nature)? Fourth, if all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature, why do they not perceive the buddha-nature possessed by all sentient beings (the fourth asks about the reason sentient beings do not perceive it)? Fifth, in what dharmas do bodhisattvas of the ten abodes abide such that they do not see the buddha-nature clearly, and in what dharmas does the Buddha abide such that he sees it clearly (the fifth asks about the difference in the dharmas abided in)? Sixth, with what eye do bodhisattvas of the ten abodes fail to see it clearly, and with what eye does the Buddha see it clearly (the sixth asks about the difference in the eyes used)? In the answers, answering the first question, the sūtra says: "The buddha-nature is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth. The emptiness of the ultimate truth is named wisdom. What is called emptiness is not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness. The wise see emptiness and non-emptiness, the permanent and the impermanent, suffering and bliss, self and non-self. Emptiness is all saṃsāra; non-emptiness is great nirvāṇa." It further says: "Non-self is saṃsāra; self is great nirvāṇa. Seeing all as empty and not seeing the non-empty is not called the middle way." It further says: "Seeing all as non-self and not seeing the self is not called the middle way. The middle way is named the buddha-nature. For this reason, the buddha-nature is eternal and unchanging. Because they are obscured by avidyā, all sentient beings cannot perceive it." [Master] Jianfu explains: "Now, buddha-nature has two kinds: first, attained through nature; second, attained through cultivation. Buddha-nature is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth. The emptiness of the ultimate truth is named wisdom. Wisdom is the cognitive nature of the middle way's wisdom attained through nature. As the Ghanavyūha says: 'The Tathāgata's pure garbha is also named immaculate wisdom; it is permanently abiding without beginning or end, free from the four propositions and verbal expression.' It is also as stated later in the sūtra: 'Characteristicless wisdom and unobstructed wisdom are fully present within the bodies of sentient beings,' and so forth. It is not that wisdom arising from conditions is called wisdom. Because it possesses the meaning of the light of the self-nature illuminating the dharmadhātu universally, it is called wisdom. From 'What is called emptiness' onward, it clarifies the nature attained through cultivation. The cognitive nature attained through cultivation contemplates the emptiness of the ultimate truth, not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness, because it is free from the characteristics of existence and non-existence. From 'The wise see emptiness' onward, it clarifies the person who sees the middle way. The wise are the buddhas and bodhisattvas. From 'Emptiness is...' onward, it clarifies the dharmas of emptiness and existence, and so on. Emptiness is the parikalpita and paratantra; non-emptiness is the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva. A later passage says: 'All dharmas are deceptive and false; wherever they perish is precisely the emptiness of the ultimate truth,' and so on. Thus we know that the emptiness of the ultimate truth is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha, not the empty tathāgatagarbha. The buddhas and bodhisattvas contemplate both the ultimate and the conventional together, and simultaneously illumine existence and non-existence; hence it is called the middle way. Furthermore, based on a later passage saying: 'Why is the buddha-nature empty? Because of the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Why is it non-empty? Because of its permanence. Why is it neither empty nor non-empty? Because it can act as the seed for wholesome dharmas.' Based on this sūtra text, the emptiness of the ultimate truth is not the empty tathāgatagarbha." The above is Jianfu's intention, which also has deep principle. Now our correct explanation differs slightly from the above. First, saying that the buddha-nature is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth, and the emptiness of the ultimate truth is named wisdom, is to mark both emptiness and wisdom together. Because the emptiness of the ultimate truth encompasses both mind and object, clarifying that it is precisely wisdom distinguishes it from rubble and insentient things. From 'What is called emptiness' onward, the sūtra itself explains both meanings: 'What is called emptiness' takes up the emptiness of the ultimate truth mentioned above; only when both emptiness and existence are severed is it named the emptiness of the ultimate truth, hence it says 'not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness.' 'The wise see emptiness and non-emptiness' onward explains the wisdom mentioned above. The sūtra text is somewhat brief; if complete, it should say: 'What is called wisdom is able to see emptiness and non-emptiness.' Therefore, the word 'wise' (zhizhe) here is not a person, but merely an introductory particle taking up the topic. The 'seeing' mentioned here is not spoken of in terms of seeing through cultivation, but merely clarifies seeing by nature, because the fundamentally inherent cognitive nature can comprehend the meaning of emptiness and non-emptiness. If there were no fundamental wisdom, who would know emptiness and non-emptiness? The same applies to self and non-self, and so on. As for seeing through cultivation, that is discussed later in the sūtra where the Buddha answers the fifth and sixth questions, and under 'obscured by avidyā,' where seeing and not seeing are only then discussed. Now, because emptiness is clarified as identical to wisdom, it is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Wisdom identical to emptiness is precisely the eternal cognitive nature; because it does not arise, it is permanent; because it does not perish, it is eternal. The ancient master cited the two gates of emptiness and so forth in the later sūtra to prove that the emptiness of the ultimate truth is not the empty tathāgatagarbha. Examining what was cited now, it precisely proves that it has the meaning of the empty tathāgatagarbha. Why? From 'non-empty' onward only then proves the meaning of being named wisdom; only when emptiness and wisdom complete each other is it the meaning of the true buddha-nature. Thus we know that the two garbhas are also not separate: because this buddha-nature is undefiled by false dharmas, it is called empty; because it is endowed with wondrous virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, it is called non-empty. One must empty all falsehoods before the virtues of non-emptiness are revealed; hence they are not separate. Ponder this! Furthermore, speaking of the emptiness of the ultimate truth: because emptiness is discussed on the basis of the ultimate truth, we clearly know that the nature of emptiness and the nature of wisdom are not two natures; therefore it initially states that it is precisely the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Furthermore, it says that seeing all as empty and not seeing the non-empty is not called the middle way, and the middle way is named the buddha-nature. If so, only when there is seeing of both would there be buddha-nature; when not seeing both, there would be no buddha-nature. Thus we know that words such as 'all empty and non-empty' contain both the subjective and the objective: in terms of the perceived emptiness and non-emptiness, it is the middle way buddha-nature; in terms of that which can see, it is wisdom. If one does not see both, one does not recognize the buddha-nature; if one sees the middle way, it is called seeing the buddha-nature. The rest is as in that sūtra and its commentary.

10.19

Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, the 'Manifestation' says that there is not a single sentient being..." onward, this is the second [part], reconciling that there is none who does not possess the One Vehicle, which explains and establishes the meaning of the One Vehicle. If there were a single person who lacked the cognitive nature, then there would be the two vehicles and three vehicles. In the third gate, "phenomena established in reliance on principle," there are two parts: first, a general explanation; second, reconciling with the preceding. In the former, the statement "must rely on principle to be established" is because all conditioned arisings lack self-nature; it is due to the principle of naturelessness that phenomena are only then established. Thus the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas are able to be established." Furthermore, apart from the true mind, there is no other essence. Regarding the commentary's "Within this there are two..." onward, this is the second [part], reconciling the two meanings above. Because previously [it was said that] apart from the true mind there is no other essence, the initial comprehensive consciousness-only is established. Because previously phenomena were established through the principle of naturelessness, the meaning of tathatā according with conditions is established. Now for the first. What is called "comprehensive" (jufen) means that the non-arising-and-non-perishing and the arising-and-perishing are combined, neither identical nor different, and named the ālayavijñāna, which is precisely comprehensive. Because it possesses both arising-and-perishing and non-arising-and-non-perishing: the non-arising-and-non-perishing is precisely the tathāgatagarbha, which reconciles with the previous distinction between true and false in mind-only, directly connecting to the true mind. If it did not entirely rely on the true mind, phenomena would not rely on principle; if it only pertained to arising-and-perishing, it would not be comprehensive. Some say: having a substance outside the reflection is "half-headed consciousness-only" (bantou weishi); when both substance and reflection are apparent, it is "comprehensive." This is merely the comprehensive [consciousness-only] within the Consciousness-Only school. Next, adducing scriptural proof by mentioning the verses of Juelin refers to the "Verses of Praise in the Yama Deva Palace Chapter." First there is a simile saying: "Just as a master painter / distributes various colors, / falsely grasping distinct colors, / while the great elements are without difference," and so forth. The verse cited in the commentary corresponds to the first half. The first line corresponds to "Just as a master painter"; the lower three lines all correspond to "distributes various colors." Next, adducing the verse proving comprehensiveness also corresponds to "distributes various colors," all as explained in the "Verses of Praise in the Yama Palace Chapter."

10.20

Regarding the commentary's "Second, clarifying that it is established because tathatā accords with conditions," this reconciles with the meaning of according with conditions in the previous distinction between tathatā according with conditions and remaining motionless. Conditions arise from the true; hence they are established relying on principle. Because apart from the tathāgatagarbha all dharmas cannot be obtained, as explained in the "Clarifying Inquiries Chapter." Regarding the commentary's "Fourth, the gate where phenomena can reveal principle," it is divided into two: first, directly clarifying; second, adducing scriptural proof. In the former, "meaning that because phenomena gather principle to be established" takes up the preceding third gate. "Therefore phenomena are empty while principle is real": because phenomena are established by gathering principle, apart from principle there are no phenomena; therefore phenomena are empty, while principle is real. Because phenomena are empty, they can reveal real principle. If phenomena had reality, the real principle would be concealed. Because phenomena are empty, the principle within the entirety of phenomena stands prominently revealed, just as the emptiness of the characteristics of waves causes the water to appear. Because waves gather water to be formed, waves are empty and water is real; therefore waves can reveal water. If one speaks of water apart from waves, that is clarifying emptiness outside of phenomena. Regarding the commentary's "The paratantra lacks self-nature..." and so on, this explains and completes the above meaning; that is, it reconciles with the meaning of identity in the previous distinction between the emptiness, existence, identity, and separation of the paratantra. Since it says that naturelessness is precisely the pariniṣpanna, it clarifies that it is not merely without the parikalpita false nature. Distinctly possessing the pariniṣpanna is the principle that is revealed. Afterwards, from "Yama..." onward, it adduces scriptural proof. In total it cites three passages: First, the Yama verses, which are the verses of Bodhisattva Lilin, three continuous verses. Second, it cites the "Ten Forbearances Chapter," namely the forbearance of [understanding all as] an echo. Third, it cites the Sumeru verses, which are the verses of Bodhisattva Shenghui; the lower half says: "If one understands dharmatā like this, / one immediately perceives Rocana." Prior to this there is a verse that explains by inversion, saying: "Those who are deluded and ignorant / falsely grasp the characteristics of the five aggregates. / Not understanding their true nature, / such people do not see the Buddha." The profound purport therein is as in the commentary following the sūtra.

10.21

Regarding the commentary's "Fifth, the gate where principle subdues phenomena" and so on, it is divided into two: first, directly explaining; second, reconciling with the preceding. Now for the first. Saying "Since phenomena are entirely principle, phenomena are exhausted without remainder" means that apart from true principle, not a single bit of phenomenon can be obtained. In this case, when the water remains, the waves are already destroyed.

10.22

Regarding the commentary's "Therefore it is said that sentient beings and buddhas neither increase nor decrease" onward, this is the second [part], reconciling with the preceding. Within this there are three: first, directly reconciling; next, adducing scriptural proof; afterwards, from "It is not in terms of a fraction of sentient beings..." onward, distinguishing it from the provisional doctrines.

10.23

Regarding the Commentary's 'The "Tathāgatotpattisambhava Chapter" states' and so on, it adduces proof. It briefly cites two sūtras: first, it cites the 'Tathāgatotpattisambhava Chapter', which states: '...down to saying, suppose all...' and so on. What falls within the 'down to' ought to state: 'Because bodhi is without characteristics and without non-characteristics, and is devoid of oneness and devoid of multiplicity. Sons of the Buddha! Suppose someone could transformatively manifest minds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and each mind were again transformatively to manifest Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, all devoid of form, shape, and characteristics. [Suppose he did so] ceaselessly for kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Sons of the Buddha! What do you think? As this person by transformative minds transformatively manifests Tathāgatas, how many Tathāgatas' natures arise in all?' Bodhisattva Wonderfully Virtuous (Mañjuśrī) said, 'As I understand the meaning of what you have spoken, the transformed and the non-transformed are equal and without difference. Why do you ask how many there are in all?' Samantabhadra Bodhisattva said, 'Excellent, Son of the Buddha! It is just as you have spoken.'' From 'Suppose all sentient beings' onward is the same as in the Commentary. At the very end it says, 'because all are equal through being devoid of characteristics,' which by paraphrasing should read 'equal and without difference.' Why is this? Because bodhi is devoid of characteristics. If it is devoid of characteristics, then there is neither increase nor decrease.

10.24

Regarding the Commentary's 'The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa-sūtra' and so on: second, it cites another sūtra. Although the words differ slightly, their text and meaning are mostly identical.

10.25

Regarding the Commentary's 'Sixth, the gate of phenomena being able to conceal principle': this is a distinct meaning within concordance with conditions. Because [dharmas] form phenomena through concordance with conditions, and these phenomena pervade true principle, phenomena are manifest while principle is concealed.

10.26

Regarding the Commentary's 'Therefore the Dharmakāya...' and so on, it adduces proof, namely the Dharmakāya-sūtra. Regarding the Commentary's 'Cai Shou's verse says', it is from the 'Chapter on Inquiring into Clarity': 'Never has there been a single phenomenon / that could enter into the dharmatā.' The explanation says: Because the essence of delusive conceptualisation is void, there is nothing that can enter. Regarding 'Seventh, the gate of true principle being identical to phenomena': because phenomena necessarily rely upon principle and are empty and void of essence. Therefore, this principle in its entire essence is phenomena; only then is it the true principle. Just as water is identical to waves, where there is no motion that is not wetness; thus water is identical to waves.

10.27

Regarding the Commentary's 'because dharmatā does not contradict the characteristics of phenomena, and so on': the word 'and so on' stands for the rest of the text. Fully stated, it says: 'Dharmatā does not contradict characteristics, and the characteristics of phenomena do not contradict nature; arising does not contradict dharmatā, and dharmatā does not contradict arising.' These two pairs clarify that phenomena and principle do not contradict each other. Characteristics not contradicting nature, and arising not contradicting nature, naturally belong to phenomena being able to reveal principle and the eighth gate of phenomenal dharmas being identical to principle; hence it merely cites briefly the single line 'nature does not contradict characteristics.' This is in the twenty-ninth fascicle.

10.28

Regarding the Commentary's 'The above two gates...' and so on: it combines the seventh and eighth gates to integrate the previous five meanings. First, it integrates the emptiness and existence of the two truths, which is the meaning of mutual identity within departure and distinction. Wetness is an analogy for the ultimate truth, and waves are an analogy for the conventional truth. Regarding the 'Yāma verse', it is the verse by Bodhisattva Forest of Zeal (Vīryasena). His first verse says: 'All dharmas are without distinction; / there is no one who can know them. / Only Buddha and Buddha know them, / because their wisdom is ultimate.' The next text then says: 'Just as with gold and the colour of gold, / their nature is without distinction; / dharmas and non-dharmas are also thus, / their essential nature is without difference.' However, 'dharmas and non-dharmas' has two meanings: first, wholesome dharmas are dharmas, and unwholesome dharmas are non-dharmas; this follows the opening statement that all dharmas are without distinction. Second, the characteristics of dharmas are dharmas, and dharmatā is non-dharma; here gold is an analogy for dharmatā, and colour is an analogy for phenomenal characteristics. The present text specifically employs the latter intention; hence it proves that phenomenal dharmas are identical to principle, and that the two truths are mutually identical.

10.29

Regarding the Commentary's 'This also serves as an analogy for the tathāgatagarbha and the ālayavijñāna being mutually undifferentiated': second, it reintegrates the meaning of penetrating the true mind within the previous distinction between true and false in mind-only. That is, gold is an analogy for the tathāgatagarbha, and colour is an analogy for saṃsāra and so on. Therefore the Ghanavyūha-sūtra says: 'The pure tathāgatagarbha / and the worldly ālayavijñāna / are like gold and a finger-ring, / mutually without distinction.' Because it was already integrated in the third gate earlier, the word 'also' is used.

10.30

Regarding the Commentary's 'Furthermore, because phenomena are identical to principle...' and so on: it integrates non-cessation and non-permanence, which is also unfolded from within the gate of the two truths.

10.31

Regarding the Commentary's 'Furthermore, because principle and phenomena are mutually identical, arising and ceasing are simultaneous': it integrates the meaning of simultaneity within the distinction between the succession and simultaneity of the four characteristics. Phenomena are entirely identical with principle, so phenomena are immediately ceased, because phenomena are empty and devoid of essence. The verse cited is by the Bodhisattva of Excellent Wisdom (Subhadra).

10.32

Regarding the Commentary's 'It also causes the ultimate...' and so on: it integrates the active and passive aspects of severance and realisation, which is the meaning of mutual identity within departure and distinction. However, when citing the Daśabhūmika text on severing afflictions, only the first line is the characteristic of severing afflictions, for only when there is no severance in the three times is it spoken of as severance; the latter line is the characteristic of prajñā. Now, because prajñā also serves as that which severs, it is cited in passing. Therefore the treatise explains this line as saying: 'This is the characteristic of the practice of contemplation.' This means that non-conceptual wisdom in its essence transcends words and speech, and true wisdom arises internally, unlike the śrāvakas who awaken relying on sound. Since it is true wisdom, it can sever afflictions. Regarding the Commentary's 'The "Pariṇāmanā Chapter" says that there is no reality outside of wisdom': this also proves that the active and passive aspects of severing afflictions are non-dual, with the meaning as explained before. The sūtras cited above will naturally become clear when reaching the root text below.

First 32 of 48 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese