大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 13
English (machine translation) 13
- Language
- English
Contents
- 13.37 — 5 parts
13.1
Expounded by the śramaṇa Chengguan of Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang
13.2
Regarding the commentary's "Below it says": fourth is citing scriptural proofs. First is citing the "Practices of Samantabhadra" chapter, as explained previously under the conditions of the teaching.
13.3
Regarding the commentary's "Sixth, the essence of subsuming objects into consciousness only" and so forth: the text of the commentary is divided into two: first is a general clarification; next, from "However, there are" downwards, opening the topics to explain them separately. The first part also has two: first, the direct clarification, and second, citing scriptural proofs. Now for the first: The previous five essences are all transformed by the mind; outside the mind there are no dharmas. Just as sound is form and is an image manifested by the mind, how much more so nominal entities conventionally established on the basis of sound! What the teaching expresses and the manifestation of meaning by all dharmas are both without essence apart from the mind.
13.4
Regarding the Commentary's text from “The Vijñaptimātratā and other texts state” onward, this is the second part, which adduces proof-texts. These cite three passages, encompassing four teachings. First, citing Vijñaptimātratā represents the initial teaching. Thus that treatise states: “Only external objects are negated; consciousness represents the internal mind. Outside of consciousness, there is no other distinct phenomenon.” It adduces many scriptures to establish vijñaptimātra, and also cites the Avataṃsaka, as detailed in that treatise. As for the word “and other texts,” “other” has two senses: first, other treatises; second, other sūtras. As for the first, this refers to the Yogācārabhūmi, the Samuccaya, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and so forth. Thus Asabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, fascicle four, states: “Among them, for those who have not attained awakening through true wisdom, how are they to know this inferentially in vijñaptimātra? By means of teaching and reason, it can be inferentially known. Here, ‘teaching’ refers to the Bhagavat stating in the Daśabhūmika-sūtra: ‘The triple world is mind-only.’ Furthermore, the Bhagavat also spoke thus in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. The commentary states that the Daśabhūmika-sūtra expounds the meanings of the ten bodhisattva grounds; these are the nominal, phrasal, and phonemic bodies of the practices and characteristics of the ten grounds, which are transformed and manifested by consciousness, having accumulation as their essence. That is, the reflected images transformed upon the pure consciousness of that noble master, Vajragarbha, serve as the sovereign condition, and reflected images appearing upon the consciousness of the listeners resemble that teaching. In this way, transmitted progressively down to the present, it is called ‘teaching.’” Therefore, the various treatises all cite the Avataṃsaka to establish vijñaptimātra. The sūtra cited is none other than the gate of being subsumed by the one mind in the sixth ground. The sūtra says: “O sons of the Buddha! All that exists in the triple world is only one mind. The Tathāgata expounds the twelve branches of existence here, and all are established based upon this one mind.” Now, because the various treatises have already cited it, the commentary below simply cites the “Brahmacaryā Chapter.” Second, regarding “and other texts,” this takes the meaning found in the sudden teaching from sūtras such as the Laṅkāvatāra, where although the eight consciousnesses are empty, consciousness-only is expounded. Regarding the Commentary's text from “The Awakening of Faith also states” onward, this is the citation from the final teaching. This is the text demonstrating the correct meaning in the section on interpretation of that treatise. However, in its section on the establishment of meaning it states: “Mahāyāna, broadly speaking, is of two kinds. What are the two? The first is the phenomenon; the second is the meaning. What is called ‘the phenomenon’ is the mind of sentient beings. This mind subsumes all mundane and supramundane phenomena, and the meaning of Mahāyāna is demonstrated based on this mind.” This has already completed the clarification of the meaning of mind-only. Now, taking the text in the section on interpretation that reveals the true nature and characteristics of the mind, with truth and delusion mutually interpenetrating, one knows this is the final teaching. Examining that treatise, Xianshou's commentary states: “The ‘one mind’ is none other than the tathāgatagarbha mind. It contains two aspects: first, in terms of essence, it transcends all characteristics, which is the tathatā aspect; second, in accordance with conditions, it arises and ceases, which is the arising and ceasing aspect.” This meaning will be extensively differentiated when we reach the “Chapter on the Inquiries of the Bodhisattvas”; here it merely serves to briefly prove that the essence of the teaching is mind-only.
13.5
Regarding the Commentary's text from the “Brahmacaryā Chapter” onward, this cites our sūtra to verify the doctrine of mind-only in the perfect teaching. One understands that all phenomena are the intrinsic nature of the mind itself, not merely mind-transformations as maintained by the Characteristics School.
13.6
Regarding the Commentary's text from “However, there are...” onward, within the opening of sections and detailed explanations, it first opens the sections and then provides the detailed explanations. In the explanation, it first explains the four lines of archetype and reflected image as four points. The second line is divided into two parts: first, directly explaining that both exist; second, discussing accumulation and appearance. The former also has two parts: first, citing the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra to establish each separately; second, citing the Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā to verify both points together. In the former, the first means that the Tathāgata truly preaches the Dharma, and hence it is called the archetype. The text extends through six kinds of texts, and the meaning extends through ten kinds of meanings; all of these are below to reveal the archetypes of text and meaning. Because speaking and listening in the causal state are through the mental consciousness (manovijñāna), in the resultant state they are also solely through the mental consciousness; therefore it is said to be the pure consciousness associated with the wisdom of wondrous observation (pratyavekṣā-jñāna). Since wisdom is predominant and consciousness is subordinate in the resultant state, this consciousness is said to be associated with wisdom. This wisdom can rain down the great Dharma rain within the great assembly, and hence can expound the Dharma. The sovereign [consciousness] upon which wisdom relies is precisely the sixth, and thus it is said to be manifested by the pure consciousness. As for saying “pure,” it is because it is purely uncontaminated. The Commentary on Vijñaptimātra states: “Since it is manifested by an uncontaminated mind, it takes true uncontaminated text and meaning as its essence. Therefore, the World-Honoured One truly preaches the Dharma; to say that he does not speak is an intentional statement.” Regarding the Commentary's text “Fascicle one of the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra states: ‘There is an opinion...’” onward, this adduces the proof-text, which is understandable.
13.7
Regarding the Commentary's text from “If upon the consciousness of the listener...” onward, it clarifies that the teaching of reflected images relies on the Buddha's archetype, transformed by one's own mind. If transformed by a contaminated mind, names and so forth are contaminated. From “Buddhabhūmi-śāstra” onward, it adduces proof that there are reflected images. This is also like the previous fascicle where the Buddha is taken as the condition, and the reflected image of text and meaning in one's own mind is taken as the result. Regarding the Commentary's text from “The characteristics of this text and meaning...” onward, it explains and also resolves potential objections. For there might be an objection: If so, and it is transformed by one's own mind, why is it called the Buddha's preaching? Therefore, taking it up, it explains: one's own wholesome [roots] are the cause, the Buddha's power is the condition, and the reflected image is the result. Now, in accordance with the condition, it is called the Buddha's preaching.
13.8
Regarding the Commentary's text from “Therefore the Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā...” onward, this is the second part, which cites the treatise to jointly verify the previous two. Thus both the archetype and the reflected image teachings exist simultaneously. That is, if the listener serves as the sovereign condition, the characteristics of text and meaning arise upon the Buddha's mind; if the Buddha serves as the sovereign condition, the characteristics of text and meaning arise upon the listener's mind. Therefore it is said: “reciprocal sovereign power.” The Tathāgata's consciousness and the listener's consciousness are called the two consciousnesses, definitively establishing the teachings of the archetype and the reflected image. Regarding the Commentary's “Treatise Master Dharmapāla” and so on, it is because the various masters of Vijñaptimātra all equally establish this. The commentary by Dharma Master Dacheng states: “However, this treatise master does not fail to preach the Dharma, and therefore this interpretation is adopted.”
13.9
Regarding the Commentary's text from “However, saying that text and meaning arise reciprocally, it further says that the five minds aggregate and appear...” onward, this is the second part, which clarifies accumulation and appearance. Within this, there are two parts: first, a general explanation of the characteristics of accumulation; second, from “However, in the West...” onward, a detailed explanation of the number of five minds. As for “However, in the West there are many explanations,” by tradition there are roughly four explanations, and the present Commentary follows the first. In the Commentary on Vijñaptimātra there is also only this explanation; this is the overarching intent, and therefore the Commentary preserves it. Regarding the Commentary's text from “The rest is as in the separate chapter” onward, there are the interpretations of three masters. The first says: When first uttering the syllables, the instantaneous ear-consciousness and the simultaneous mental consciousness only perceive the sound, because they are direct perception. In the inquiring mind, because it only searches for the sensory domain perceived by the ear-consciousness, it also only perceives the sound and does not perceive the syllable or name. Although the sound transformed by these three minds possesses syllables and names—just like the characteristics of arising and so forth—it does not perceive them; when reaching the determining mind, it perceives sound, syllables, and names, and three characteristics appear. When uttering the second syllable, xing (saṃskāra), the instantaneous ear-consciousness, simultaneous mental consciousness, and inquiring mind also only perceive the sound. When reaching the determining mind, it perceives sound, syllables, and names, and six characteristics appear, because the previous two syllables each have sound, syllable, and name. When uttering the third syllable, wu (an-), the instantaneous ear-consciousness, simultaneous mental consciousness, and inquiring mind also only perceive the sound. When reaching the determining mind, it perceives sound, syllables, and names, and nine characteristics appear, because the previous three syllables each have sound, syllable, and name. When uttering the fourth syllable, chang (anitya), the instantaneous ear-consciousness, simultaneous mental consciousness, and inquiring mind also only perceive the sound. When reaching the determining mind, it perceives sound, syllables, and names, passing through twelve minds, and there are fourteen characteristics, namely four sounds, four syllables, four names, together with the sentence and the meaning, which is called accumulation. If there is no distraction, then it gives rise to minds of defilement, purity, and the like, as well as the resultant streaming mind (niṣyanda-citta); if distracted, the arising mind is indeterminate. The second says: The instantaneous ear-consciousness and simultaneous mental consciousness only perceive the sound, because they are direct perception. In the inquiring mind, it perceives sound, syllables, and names, because it is not direct perception. Thus, passing through a minimum of twelve minds, three, six, nine, and fourteen characteristics appear, which is called accumulation. If not distracted, the determining mind arises; if distracted, the arising mind is indeterminate. The third says: The instantaneous ear-consciousness only perceives the sound, while the simultaneous mental consciousness perceives sound, syllables, and names. Were it not so, what name would the inquiring mental consciousness be inquiring into? Within this, there are subtly two explanations: One says: The four instantaneous ear-consciousnesses only perceive the sound, and the four simultaneous mental consciousnesses perceive sound, syllables, and names, which are direct perception; for when perceiving the sound chang, it does not perceive the other sounds, syllables, or names. Because the five consciousnesses and simultaneous mental consciousness are all direct perception conforming with sound and so forth, the subsequent four inquiring minds are then perfected. Passing through twelve minds, there are three, six, nine, and fourteen characteristics appearing, which is called accumulation. The other says: The simultaneous mental consciousness may not be direct perception; it can perceive the past and perceive eight minds, namely the four instantaneous ear-consciousnesses and the four simultaneous mental consciousnesses. There are three, six, nine, and fourteen characteristics appearing, which is called accumulation. Question: Since simultaneous mental consciousness is direct perception, how can it perceive syllables and names? Answer: Direct perception also perceives the self-nature (svalakṣaṇa) of names and so forth, as stated in the Nyāyamukha. What it does not perceive is the mutual association between name and meaning. The above explains this in terms of the four utterances of “all conditioned phenomena are impermanent” (sarvasaṃskārā anityāḥ), to determine the number of names and words in the five minds. The text of the Commentary gives its general meaning, and its characteristics can be known; it merely states: “due to the power of the former syllable progressively perfuming, it arises linked to the subsequent syllable.” However, when uttering the syllable zhu, the three syllables xing and the rest are all in the future. When uttering the syllable xing, the two syllables wu and chang are also in the future. Although the single syllable zhu has passed into the past and currently has no archetype, by the power of perfuming and the power of vijñaptimātra transformation, it still appears on the mind at the very thought-moment when the syllable xing is uttered. What is said below about “continuous linking” should be understood along these lines. However, this accumulation, according to the Fayuan yilin zhang, in terms of the five syllables of “do not commit any evil” (zhu e zhe mo zuo), has 105 characteristics for a single verse-line: that is, when chanting the syllable zhu, there are two characteristics, namely one syllable and one name. Next, when chanting the syllable e, there are seven characteristics, namely two syllables, two names, plus one single-syllable body, making five; adding the previous two characteristics, there are seven characteristics. Next, when uttering the syllable zhe, there are sixteen characteristics: three syllables, three names, plus two single-syllable bodies and one two-syllable body, which makes nine characteristics; adding the previous seven, there are sixteen. Next, when chanting the syllable mo, there are thirty characteristics: namely four syllables, four names, with three single-syllable bodies, two two-syllable bodies, and one three-syllable body, making fourteen characteristics; adding the previous sixteen, there are thirty. Finally, when chanting the syllable zuo, there are fifty characteristics: namely five syllables, five names, four single-syllable bodies, three two-syllable bodies, two three-syllable bodies, and one four-syllable body; these total twenty characteristics; adding the previous thirty, there are fifty characteristics. The total across the five positions is 105 characteristics. These 105 characteristics above are only in terms of the two matters of syllable and name. The fourteen characteristics mentioned earlier include sound, sentence, and meaning. Furthermore, they only consider the syllables themselves, hence they speak of four syllables and four names. Now, taking into account the continuous linking, it makes 105 characteristics. If it were based on four syllables, there would only be fifty-five characteristics. However, the twelve minds do not take continuous linking into account. Furthermore, these five minds: the first and last apply to the six consciousnesses, while the middle three are solely the mental consciousness. Moreover, the first three are indeterminate, while the latter two can be wholesome or unwholesome. Furthermore, after the instantaneous five consciousnesses, there must be an inquiring mind; afterwards, it may be distracted or undistracted; if distracted, it again gives rise to the instantaneous ear-consciousness; if undistracted, it gives rise to the third, the determining mind, up to the streaming mind. Furthermore, the instantaneous mental consciousness itself is of two kinds: first, the instantaneous mental consciousness simultaneous with the five consciousnesses, which perceives present objects; second, the solitary instantaneous mental consciousness, which only perceives past objects. Here, we merely speak of the simultaneous; the remaining meanings are detailed in the separate chapter. However, all these are in terms of the state where mastery has not yet been attained, to show the accumulation and appearance of the five minds; if one is in the state of mastery, they fully appear within a single thought-moment. Consider this thoroughly.
13.10
Regarding the commentary's "Third, only images without an archetype": the commentary on the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* points to the *[Mahāyāna-]saṃgraha-[upanibandhana]* by Asabhāva as stating this, and does not take it as correct.
13.11
Regarding the commentary's "The tradition of Nāgārjuna and others mostly establishes this meaning": "and others" includes the Sudden Teaching of the *Prajñāpāramitā*. Saying "mostly establishes" means it is not necessarily entirely so, because there are three contemplations. This merely explains the single meaning of emptiness.
13.12
Regarding the commentary's "These previous four explanations" and so forth: only by fusing them into a single flavor does one accord with the Perfect Teaching. If considered in terms of gathering in sentient beings, then there are differences of shallow and deep.
13.13
Regarding the commentary's "Second, the speaker and the listener completely subsuming each other" and so forth: within the text there are three parts: first, the statement; next, the explanation; and finally, the concluding fusion. Now, in the initial statement, the reason two sets of four propositions are formed is that when the true mind fuses the two, it resembles the non-obstruction of phenomena and principle; hence it is divided again. In the first, the shared teaching, the first two propositions merely take sentient beings and the Buddha as sharing the same true mind, and therefore they mutually subsume each other. The third proposition is that they do not mutually obstruct each other, and thus both are maintained. The fourth is that because they are mutually identical, their characteristics are mutually extinguished. All of these are easily understood.
13.14
Regarding the commentary's "Second, in terms of the distinct teaching" and so forth: the four propositions of the distinct teaching pertain solely to the non-obstruction of phenomena and phenomena. This is because the characteristics of sentient beings and the Buddha remain distinct, yet they mutually reside within one another. It may also be said that the former is the gate of mutual identity and the latter is the gate of mutual entry; because the gate of mutual identity contains the non-obstruction of phenomena and principle, it is provisionally named the shared teaching. Regarding the commentary's "First, sentient beings are entirely within the Buddha" and so forth: the first proposition has two parts: first, the correct establishment; next, the citation of proof. Now, for the first part: this is because the Buddha's fruition accords with the nature, so it subsumes all dharmas without remainder, since not a single dharma lies outside the dharmatā. The entirety of the nature constitutes the Buddha, and therefore there is no dharma that is not subsumed.
13.15
Regarding the commentary's "Hence the 'Manifestation' [chapter]" and so forth: next is the citation of proof. First, it cites this very sūtra, as already explained above, which will be clarified again in the main text below. Next, under "Furthermore, the *Buddha-nature [Treatise]*", it cites a treatise as verification. In this chapter, when explaining the tathāgatagarbha, there are three meanings, and this is one of them. Regarding the three meanings, the treatise says: "Furthermore, it should be known that the meaning of tathāgatagarbha is threefold. What are the three? First, the treasury that is subsumed; second, the treasury of concealment; third, the treasury capable of subsuming." What the commentary cites here is the first, the treasury that is subsumed. Because it is subsumed by the Tathāgata, it is named tathāgatagarbha. Therefore, that treatise says: "First, regarding what is called a treasury by being subsumed: the Buddha explained that in terms of abiding in the suchness of self-nature, all sentient beings are the tathāgatagarbha. As for 'suchness', it has two meanings: first, the cognition of suchness; second, the objective sphere of suchness. Because neither is inverted, it is called suchness. As for 'come' [in Tathāgata], it is spoken of in terms of coming from the self-nature to attain the fruit; this is called the nature of the Tathāgata. Although it is a single cause called 'ought-to-be-attained' and its fruit is called 'having-arrived-at-attainment', their essence is non-dual; there is merely a difference of pure and defiled. When in the causal stage, it goes against the principle of the two emptinesses, so avidyā arises and forms afflictions. Because it is intermixed and perturbed, it is named defiled and turbid. Although it is not yet manifested, it certainly can be revealed; hence it is called 'ought-to-be-attained'. When arriving at the fruition stage, it unifies with the two emptinesses, free from further encumbrance of delusions and unstained by afflictions; this is described as pure. The fruit is already manifest; hence it is called 'having-arrived-at-attainment'. For example, the nature of water is in essence neither clear nor turbid, but based on whether it has impurities or not, it has the names clear and turbid; the two meanings of 'ought-to-be-attained' and 'having-arrived-at-attainment' are also like this," and so forth. What is called the "treasury"—all sentient beings and so on—is completely identical to the commentary. Next, the treatise immediately says: "Furthermore, the treasury is threefold: first, revealing that the correct objective sphere is peerless, for apart from the objective sphere of suchness, there is no other objective sphere that surpasses this sphere; second, revealing that the correct practice is peerless, for apart from this cognition, there is no other superior cognition that exceeds this cognition; third, displaying that the correct fruit is peerless, for there is no other fruit that exceeds this fruit. Hence it is said to be peerless. Because this fruit can subsume and contain all sentient beings, sentient beings are said to be the tathāgatagarbha." Now, what is cited in the commentary merely takes the meaning of the Buddha containing sentient beings, so it only briefly cites the beginning and end; below it further briefly cites the subsequent two treasuries. "Second, concealment as a treasury" means that prior to the path, it is still covered by afflictions and sentient beings do not see it. "Third, being capable of subsuming as a treasury" means that in the fruition stage, all merits were already completely subsumed at the time of the nature of 'ought-to-be-attained'. Now, because it adopts the subsumption by the fruit, it also does not cite the latter two treasuries. Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, below, the 'Manifestation' [chapter]" and so forth: third, it further cites this very sūtra to draw an analogy illustrating the subsumption of the listener. If all dharmas are subsumed, why only the sentient beings listening to the Dharma? Within this there are again two layers of drawing analogies: first, clarifying that a single body suddenly subsumes sentient beings; second, clarifying that cognition is as vast as empty space, so that all sentient beings and physical realms originally dwell within cognition—how could it require effort to subsume them? The first passage is the verse from the "Manifestation" chapter: "Like the mental thoughts, faculties, and desires / Of sentient beings in kalpas and lands of the three times, / Bodies such as these are all manifested; / Therefore the Rightly Awakened One is called measureless." The first two lines in the commentary merely omit the two characters "like" and "and". The statement "even all suddenly appear in a single body" reflects the meaning of the prose passage. The sūtra says: "When the Tathāgata achieves correct awakening, through a single upāya he enters the samādhi of well-awakened cognition. Having entered this samādhi, within a single vast body of correct awakening, he manifests bodies equal in number to all sentient beings, dwelling within their bodies. Just as with this one vast body of correct awakening, so it is with all vast bodies of correct awakening." That sūtra's prose uses body to subsume bodies, while the verses clarify total subsumption. Here, it merely takes the "single body" of the prose against the "vast subsumption" in the verse to reveal its unfathomability. Therefore, saying "even all suddenly appear in a single body" uses this single word "even" to draw an analogy. If a single person listening to the Dharma is analogized below to the Buddha's cognition, it further shows its vastness, which is the beginning of Samantabhadra's verse praising the Buddha in the eightieth fascicle. The sūtra says: "The Buddha's cognition is vast and equal to empty space, / Pervading the minds of all sentient beings, / Completely comprehending all worldly false thoughts, / Without giving rise to various disparate conceptualizations." What the commentary cites here intends to encompass the first half, specifically taking the great cognition to draw an analogy for the single body; hence it only cites the very first line.
13.16
Regarding the commentary's "Second, the Buddha is within sentient beings" and so forth: sentient beings are the cause; the cause accords with the dharmadhātu, and the dharmadhātu subsumes dharmas without remainder; therefore sentient beings also subsume [dharmas] without remainder. Next, under "Hence the 'Manifestation' [chapter]", it cites proof. After that, under "This clarifies the Buddha's realization", it explains: why is the Tathāgata not separate from the minds of sentient beings? The explanation says: the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings is what the Buddha has realized. If so, this is merely the principle of equality—how is it sufficient to be profound? Therefore it next says: because original enlightenment is not different. This means that the Buddha's original enlightenment and sentient beings' original enlightenment do not have two essences, for they share the same awakening. Original enlightenment is precisely the dharmakāya; hence the dharmakāya is identical. Under "Through initial [enlightenment]", [one might ask]: if the dharmakāya is identical in essence, but sentient beings have not yet realized it while the Buddha has realized the dharmakāya, how do they concern each other? Therefore it next says: through initial enlightenment being identical to the original, it is entirely within the minds of sentient beings. This means that since the *Awakening of Faith* says that initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment, there is no longer any difference between initial and original. Since the original enlightenment of sentient beings and the Buddha is already identical, now when the Buddha's initial enlightenment is identical to the original, it is completely identical to sentient beings' original enlightenment; therefore, it is entirely within the minds of sentient beings. Again, someone asks: although they are identical in terms of essence, their characteristics and functions are naturally distinct—how could they be entirely identical? Therefore it next says: function arises from essence, and function is not different from essence. Since the essence is the essence of sentient beings, how could the function be separate from sentient beings? Therefore, arising function based on essence is precisely the greatness of function of tathatā within the minds of sentient beings, with no other Buddha. If so, this meaning is already present in the *Awakening of Faith*; why is the *Avataṃsaka* alone designated as the distinct teaching? Therefore it next explains: although the *Awakening of Faith* clarifies the non-duality of initial and original and the identity of the three greatnesses, these are the individual practice and realization of one's own mind, and it does not say that sentient beings and the Buddha completely subsume each other. Thus, using the text of the *Awakening of Faith* to establish the meaning of the *Avataṃsaka* is supremely wonderful. The commentary's text should be contemplated.
13.17
Regarding the commentary's "Third, because the preceding sentient beings and Buddha mutually reside within one another" and so forth: this proposition is formed simply by combining the preceding two, both being real and not false. That is, when the Buddha first subsumes sentient beings, he completely subsumes them without before or after; therefore it is real and not false. Sentient beings' subsumption is not false, so the teaching is in the minds of sentient beings; the Buddha's subsumption is not false, so the teaching is in the Buddha's mind.
13.18
Regarding the commentary's "Therefore the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings" and so forth: this reveals the characteristic of both being maintained. That is, although they mutually subsume each other, this does not impede the speaker and listener remaining distinct. In the text it seems obscure, but the meaning is extremely clear. Please allow me to illustrate with analogies, briefly presenting two: First, it is like a bright mirror before which a master and a disciple together speak and listen; viewed from the master's perspective, it is the master's mirror; viewed from the disciple's perspective, it is the disciple's mirror. The mirror is an analogy for the one mind; master and disciple are analogies for sentient beings and the Buddha. This means that the preceptor in the disciple's mirror speaks the Dharma for the disciple in the preceptor's mirror, and the disciple in the preceptor's mirror listens to the preceptor in the disciple's mirror speaking the Dharma. May the wise carefully examine this analogy! Although this analogy has been presented, I still fear it may not be understood. Again, it is like water and milk blended together in the same place, yet mutually acting as that which blends and that which is blended. Let us provisionally accord with speaking and listening, taking that which blends as speaking and that which is blended as listening. Let us provisionally analogize water to the Buddha and milk to sentient beings. One should say: the water within the milk blends with the milk within the water; although milk and water share the same flavor, the agent and object are distinct. Although agent and object are distinct, they mutually reside within each other, mutually pervading and mutually subsuming; contemplate and apply this accordingly. Let us further analyze the commentary's text. "The Buddha within the minds of sentient beings": this clarifies that sentient beings accord with the nature and universally pervade, while the Buddha does not destroy his characteristics, residing within the minds of sentient beings. As for "speaks the Dharma for sentient beings within the Buddha's mind": this clarifies that the Buddha's mind accords with the nature and universally pervades, while sentient beings do not destroy their characteristics, residing within the Buddha's mind. It merely clarifies that the Buddha who is capable of speaking is precisely the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings. When speaking of the sentient beings who listen to the Dharma, they are precisely the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind. The matching below inverts the above; there is no other principle, merely the difference between speaking and listening.
13.19
Regarding the commentary's "Fourth, because sentient beings are entirely within" and so forth: in this proposition both are negated, and the meaning is even easier to understand. Within it, first it clarifies it directly; next, under "Therefore Xianshou", it cites proof, namely from the fifteenth fascicle. It only verifies the meaning of the fourth proposition, double negation: what is produced from causes and conditions has no production—sentient beings are negated; the dharmakāya of all Buddhas is not a body—the Buddha is negated. The latter half says: "The dharmatā is eternally abiding like empty space, / And the radiance of meaning spoken is like this." It specifically requires the first two lines, and therefore does not cite these. Furthermore, the "Verses of Praise" chapter also verifies the double negation from the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā* text, which has already been explained above.
13.20
Regarding the commentary's "Therefore these four" and so forth: concluding with their fusion, whichever single proposition is brought up must possess all four. Therefore, any single passage or single phrase, whether large or small, must possess these four, subsuming the principle completely and perfectly.
13.21
Regarding the commentary's "Seventh, integrating conditions to enter the real essence" and so forth: the commentary's text is divided into two: first, a general explanation; later, under "There is also", an expanded explanation.
13.22
Regarding the commentary's "In the *Saṃgraha* it is named the twelve divisions of teaching that flow from tathatā" and so forth: citation of proof. This cites the seventh fascicle of Asabhāva's *Saṃgraha* and the tenth fascicle of the Liang *Saṃgraha*. Next, it cites the tenth fascicle of the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*, where that treatise explains the third bhūmi among the ten suchnesses. As that commentary explains: "Because in this bhūmi one obtains the three wisdoms that illuminate the Mahāyāna teachings and contemplates the fundamental tathatā of these doctrinal teachings, it is called the tathatā of superior outflow. Alternatively, because realizing this suchness, the preaching of the Dharma is superior."
13.23
Regarding the commentary’s “Although that school does not establish…” and so forth, it resolves an objection. That is to say, an objection asks: “In that school, tathatā is static and immutable; how could it have the meaning of ‘flowing out’?” Therefore, the commentary clarifies it, saying: “Yet it states that the Buddha, having realized the essence…” and so forth. In this context, there are four phenomena in total, both in reverse and forward orders, which are reciprocally interdependent. If we trace them in reverse order: from what is this doctrinal teaching established? Answer: It is established from the Buddha's subsequently attained cognition. Upon what again does this subsequently attained cognition arise depending? From fundamental cognition. Therefore, the treatise says: “Comprehending the conventional depends on realizing the real; therefore it is called subsequently attained.” From what is this fundamental cognition established? Through merging with tathatā; therefore, tathatā is called the ultimate root. If explained in forward order, the tenth fascicle of the Liang Translation [of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya] explains: “Tathatā is the most supreme among all phenomena. Because of taking tathatā as an object, non-conceptual cognition arises; non-conceptual cognition is that which flows from tathatā, and this cognition is the most supreme among all cognitions. From this cognition there flows out subsequently attained cognition; the great compassion produced by subsequently attained cognition is the most supreme among all samādhis. Because of this great compassion, the Tathāgata, wishing to establish the true Dharma and deliver sentient beings, preaches the twelve divisions of Mahāyāna scriptures. This Dharma is that which flows from great compassion, and this Dharma is the most supreme among all phenomena. In order to attain this Dharma, bodhisattvas are able to practice all that is difficult to practice, and able to endure all that is difficult to endure; through contemplating this Dharma they gain entry into the third stage.” This can be understood from the text.
13.24
Regarding the commentary’s “Second, gathering characteristics to reveal the nature”: Above, it was explained that tathatā is the root of the teaching, but the teaching was not yet identical with tathatā. Now it is explained that the teaching is identical with tathatā; thus, gathering the characteristics of the twelvefold division of the teaching, they are identical with the nature of tathatā.
13.25
Regarding the commentary’s “The speech of the Tathāgata…” and so forth, it re-explains the meaning of the teaching being identical with tathatā. Above, it made clear that the teaching arises from conditions and lacks self-nature; therefore, the teaching is identical with tathatā. Now it makes clear that the master of the preaching accords with tathatā; therefore, the spoken teachings are all tathatā. The Vajrasamādhi-sūtra confirms this meaning, because the words of the meaning and the spoken words are all in accord with tathatā. Below, it quotes the Renwang jing to confirm the former meaning. The word “and so forth” indicates an abbreviation in the text. In full, the sūtra states: “King Prasenajit said to the Buddha: ‘How do all the Tathāgatas of the ten directions and all the bodhisattvas engage in the characteristics of phenomena without being apart from words and letters?’ [The Buddha replied:] ‘Great King! As for the wheel of Dharma: the root of Dharma is tathatā; the restatements in verse are tathatā; the prophecies are tathatā; the verses not repeated are tathatā; the self-spoken without solicitation are tathatā; the sūtras of precepts are tathatā; the parables are tathatā; the dharmadhātu is tathatā; the former events are tathatā; the expansive teachings are tathatā; the unprecedented is tathatā; and the doctrinal discussions are tathatā. These are called terms and phrases, the fruit of vocal sound, and written records of sentences—all are tathatā. If one grasps at words and letters, one does not practice emptiness. Great King! Tathatā-like words and letters cultivate the mother of all Buddhas’ wisdom.’” The above is the sūtra text. In it, “the sūtras of precepts” refers to the nidāna sūtras. Because precepts are instituted according to circumstances, this is a single meaning within the nidāna sūtras. Furthermore, “the dharmadhātu is tathatā” refers to the jātaka sūtras, because dhātu has the meaning of cause. The rest can be understood. The names and meanings of the twelve divisions are explained in the “Chapter on the Ten Treasuries.”
13.26
Regarding the commentary’s “This sūtra clarifies that the teaching is identical with tathatā…” and so forth, it further distinguishes between the general and the restricted. That is to say, if one merely says that the twelvefold division of the teaching is identical with tathatā, this tathatā is restricted within the twelve divisions. If one says that tathatā is identical with the Buddha's teaching, then all phenomena are tathatā, and therefore all are the Buddha’s teaching—this meaning is general. Hence the commentary subsequently says: “If one takes all phenomena as the essence that reveals the meaning,” it makes clear that all are the teaching. Since all are tathatā, tathatā is all the Buddha’s teaching.
13.27
Regarding the commentary’s “Eighth, the essence of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena” and so forth, it can be seen in the text.
13.28
Regarding the commentary’s “Ninth, the non-obstruction of phenomenon and phenomenon” and below, the commentary text has three parts: first, marking both together; next, directly revealing the text; and afterwards, analogically explaining the meaning. Now, in the first part, it marks both text and meaning together, selecting the text while setting aside the meaning. Next, in “the text is identical to…” and below, it directly reveals the perfect fullness of the text. “Text” refers to name, phrase, and phoneme. As for the expression “complete voice,” it has two meanings. First, following the above point that names and so forth have no substantial essence apart from sound, here the text of the complete voice essence also relies upon it. Second, since it is called a complete voice, it is only when words and phrases are all fully present that it can be called complete. If it were a single, uniform sound, the old explanation would not be correct. Below, it quotes various sūtras to establish that this teaching essence is endowed with the ten profound gates. Regarding the commentary’s “The Buddha expounds with a single wondrous voice…” and so forth, the sūtra text has three main sections: first, a single voice is heard everywhere, merely showing its pervasiveness; next, stating that it fully contains all voices, this single voice instantaneously possesses many voices—namely, the distinct voices of myriad kinds of beings, like the goddess Shan-kou; third, that the Dharma rain falls everywhere, meaning that according to each single voice, it fully preaches all vast and small, provisional and ultimate, inexhaustible Dharma gates, and moreover each single phenomenon fills the dharmadhātu. The three sections encompass four meanings: the third is unfolding one to be pervasive, and the second is one gathering all. Unfolding and rolling up without obstruction, all are simultaneous—what sound or what phenomenon is not fully present? Shortly below in that sūtra it says: “The ocean of all expressions, all voices conforming to each species, in all lands, constantly turn the unsurpassed wheel,” and so on, so the layered repetitions are even more numerous. Here it only quotes a single verse, which suffices to reveal simultaneous and complete endowment. Regarding the commentary’s “Just as written characters…” and so forth, it extracts the meaning from the “Tathāgata’s Turning of the Dharma Wheel” and quotes it in brief, hence the word “and so forth.” If quoted in full, the sūtra states: “Sons of the Buddha! The Tathāgata’s wheel of Dharma enters into all languages, words, and letters without dwelling anywhere. Just as written characters generally enter into all matters, all speech, all calculations, and all worldly and supramundane places without dwelling anywhere, the Tathāgata's voice is also like this: it generally enters into all places, all sentient beings, all phenomena, all karmas, and all retributions without dwelling anywhere. The various kinds of speech of all sentient beings are not separated from the Tathāgata’s wheel of Dharma. Why is this? Because the true mark of vocal sound is itself the wheel of Dharma. Sons of the Buddha! Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should understand the Tathāgata’s turning of the wheel of Dharma in this way.” In this sūtra text, the teaching and the metaphor themselves mirror and omit one another; therefore, the commentary extracts the meaning and quotes it in brief. Regarding the commentary’s “This mutual entry is also mutual containment,” according to the text cited, it is the meaning of mutual entry. This mutual entry is itself the gate of the mutual containment of the one and the many without identity. That which is able to enter is called ‘entering’; that which is entered is called ‘containing.’ That which is able to contain is the entered, and that which is contained is that which can enter. Their names differ according to the perspective of the meaning, but containing and entering are a single meaning. Regarding the commentary’s “All in the place of enlightenment hear it, yet it does not go beyond the assembly,” this refers to the metaphor of the Great Brahmā King and his assembly in the vocal sound section of the “Manifestation” chapter. If quoted in full, the sūtra states: “Furthermore, sons of the Buddha! Just as the Great Brahmā King dwelling in the Brahmā palace produces a Brahmā voice, and none among the Brahmā assembly fails to hear it, yet that voice does not go beyond the assembly, and all the Brahmā gods give rise to this thought: ‘The Great Brahmā King is speaking exclusively with me’; the Tathāgata’s wondrous voice is also like this: none in the assembly of the place of enlightenment fails to hear it, yet its voice does not go beyond the assembly. Why is this? Because those whose faculties are not yet mature ought not to hear it. Those who hear the voice all have this thought: ‘The Tathāgata, the World-Honoured One, is speaking exclusively with me.’ Sons of the Buddha! The Tathāgata’s voice neither goes out nor abides, yet it can accomplish all deeds; this is the fifth characteristic of the Tathāgata's voice.” The explanation states: Those in the assembly who hear it take the mature faculties as ‘inside the assembly’ and the immature faculties as ‘outside the assembly.’ The rest can all be understood. That those who ought to hear it obtain hearing is the manifest. That those who ought not to hear it do not hear it is the hidden. Regarding the commentary’s “Each understanding according to their own kind,” there is further differentiation within hearing. If one hears the Mahāyāna, the Mahāyāna is manifest; if one does not hear the two vehicles, the two vehicles are hidden. If one hears the Hinayāna, the great is hidden and the small is manifest, and so on, as can be understood. Regarding the commentary’s “It also says that the Tathāgata's vocal sound…” and so forth, it is the sixth characteristic immediately below that. The sūtra states: “Sons of the Buddha! Just as various waters are all of the same single flavor, but due to the differences in vessels the water has distinctions, yet the water has no thoughts or deliberations and also has no discrimination; the Tathāgata’s vocal sound is also like this: it is only of a single flavor, which is to say the flavor of liberation, yet in accordance with the differences in the mental vessels of sentient beings there are immeasurable distinctions, while it has no thoughts or deliberations and also has no discrimination.” However, this single text confirms two meanings: if one takes the various vessels as each receiving it without knowing one another, that is the hidden and manifest; if one takes the single flavor according to the vessels, that is the pure and mixed. The goddess Shan-kou is also from that chapter. The sūtra states: “Furthermore, sons of the Buddha! Just as the king of the Paranirmitavaśavartin heaven has a heavenly concubine named Shan-kou (Suvadanā), and from her mouth she produces a single voice, which is harmonized with a hundred thousand kinds of music, and within each kind of music there are further a hundred thousand distinct voices. Sons of the Buddha! That woman Shan-kou produces from a single sound of her mouth such immeasurable sounds. You should know that the Tathāgata is also like this: within a single sound he produces immeasurable sounds, which, in accordance with the differences in the mental inclinations of sentient beings, all reach everywhere and cause them all to attain understanding.” That is the fourth characteristic, the one instantaneously possessing all, which is the subtle and minute gate. Regarding the commentary’s “From the ‘Asaṃkhyeya Chapter’ up to ‘inexpressible’…” and so forth, “and so forth” stands for the rest of the sūtra text. The sūtra states: “Each single Buddha-dharma is inexpressible; the various purities are inexpressible; emitting wondrous sounds is inexpressible; turning the true wheel of Dharma is inexpressible. Within each of those wheels of Dharma, the expounding of sūtras is inexpressible; within each of those sūtras, the distinguishing of Dharma gates is inexpressible. Within each of those Dharma gates, the further speaking of phenomena is inexpressible; within each of those phenomena, the subduing of sentient beings is inexpressible.” In the above sūtra text there are already several layers, yet it only speaks of one single phenomenon. Every single phenomenon is like this, mutually entering in multiple layers, thus forming the inexhaustible. Again, it says in that text: “The pure true mark is inexpressible; expounding sūtras is inexpressible. Within each of those sūtras, preaching Dharma gates is inexpressible. Within each of those Dharma gates, the further speaking of phenomena is inexpressible. Within each of those phenomena, all definitive determinations are inexpressible. Within each of those definitive determinations, the subduing of sentient beings is inexpressible. Inexpressible are the phenomena of the same kind; inexpressible are the minds of the same kind. Inexpressible are the phenomena of different kinds; inexpressible are the minds of different kinds. Inexpressible are the faculties of different kinds; inexpressible are the words of different kinds. In thought after thought, in all the places of practice, the subduing of sentient beings is inexpressible,” and so forth; these are also of this category. Regarding the commentary’s “instantaneously expounding in a single thought-moment,” instantaneously expounding in a single thought-moment the teachings of immeasurable kalpas, how could the ten time periods not be mutually interpenetrating? The fifth fascicle says: “Deities under trees, numbering as the dust motes of realms, / All together rely upon this place of enlightenment; / Before the bodhi tree of each respective Tathāgata, / In thought after thought they proclaim the gates of liberation,” and so forth.
First 28 of 44 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese