大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 13.37

English (machine translation) 13.37

Language: English

13.37.1

Regarding the Commentary's statement beginning, "However, the heterodox views of the Western Regions": Second, this extensively reveals what is refuted. Within this there are three parts: first, recounting [the doctrines of] the Western Regions; second, recounting [those of] this land; third, conjointly concluding their faults. The first part also has three: first, grouping the ninety-five kinds into eleven schools; second, grouping the eleven into four tenets; third, concluding the various tenets by returning them to two causes. Now, regarding the first: The ninety-five kinds are cited as in the sixth pariṇāmanā. Now, that which is exceedingly marvelous and unobstructed is designated "the Path"; when the mind wanders outside of the Path, one is termed an "outsider" (tīrthika). Therefore, only the Buddha's is the correct Path, while all others are called outside; hence these are refuted overall. That which makes them eleven is based on the teachings and texts currently transmitted and practiced in the Western Regions. The Commentary's statement beginning, "Or positing that the twenty-five principles are produced from the primordial nature": This is one tenet among the eleven. This is the tenet of the Sāṃkhya masters. Examining the Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya (Golden Seventy Treatise), it says that there was a non-Buddhist named Kapila, which translates here as "Yellow-Red"; his beard, hair, and complexion were all yellow-red, so the world at that time called him the Yellow-Red Ṛṣi. That person posited four virtues spontaneously produced from the primordial darkness: first, dharma; second, knowledge; third, dispassion; fourth, mastery. Having attained this knowledge, he taught it on the basis of great compassion: first speaking it for the Ṛṣi Āsuri; next, Āsuri transmitted it to Pañcaśikha; Pañcaśikha transmitted it to Garga; Garga transmitted it to Ulūka; Ulūka transmitted it to Vārṣagaṇya; and Vārṣagaṇya transmitted it to Īśvarakṛṣṇa. Pañcaśikha extensively explained this knowledge in sixty thousand verses. This Īśvarakṛṣṇa, whose clan was Kauśika, saw that the great treatise was difficult to receive, so he made a summary extraction of seventy verses. When this brāhmaṇa first entered the country of Suvarṇakarṇa, he bound his belly with iron plates, carried a fire pot on his head, beat the royal disputation drum, and sought to debate doctrine with the monks. Arising from a dispute over whether the world initially exists and subsequently does not, he slandered the monks as inferior, and subsequently composed this Seventy Treatise to express the Sāṃkhya school. The king's mind favored him and rewarded him with seventy catties of gold. The non-Buddhist, wishing to make manifest his fine reputation, thereupon titled it with the name "Golden Seventy." The Commentary on the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "The foremost among his subsequent disciples, like the school-heads among the eighteen nikāyas, was named Vārṣa, which translates here as 'rain.' Because he was born at the time of rain, he took it as his name. That his followers are named the 'Rain-Hosts' corresponds in sense to Vārṣagaṇya, from whom Īśvarakṛṣṇa received [the teaching], differing only in the Sanskrit sound. In Sanskrit it is called Sāṃkhya, which translates here as 'number' (or 'enumeration'). 'Number' is the enumeration of wisdom; taking the enumeration and calculation of all phenomena as the fundamental basis, they established the name; the treatise that arose from enumeration is called the Sāṃkhya treatise. Because the treatise can generate enumeration, it is also called the Sāṃkhya treatise. Those who composed the Sāṃkhya treatise and those who study Sāṃkhya are all called Sāṃkhya masters. Its root origin was Kapila's composition; the Golden Seventy Treatise was the verses composed by Īśvarakṛṣṇa, and the prose commentary is the explanation by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu." Regarding the "twenty-five principles," following the Śataśāstra, it states: "From primordial darkness mahat (intellect) is produced; from mahat the ego-sense (ahaṃkāra) is produced; from the ego-sense the five subtle elements (tanmātra) are produced; from the five subtle elements the five great elements are produced; from the five great elements the eleven indriyas are produced; the spiritual self (puruṣa) is the master, whose characteristic is constant consciousness, residing within, neither destroyed nor dispersed, grasping the indriyas. In this system, the five great elements are also producers." Now we explain it according to the Golden Seventy Treatise. The twenty-five principles, summarized in brief, are three; in the middle, four; and extensively, twenty-five. Regarding "summarized in brief as three": they are, first, prakṛti (primordial nature); second, the knower (puruṣa); third, vikāra (modifications). Prakṛti is the first principle; anciently called the primordial nature (mingxing), it is also named the superior nature. Before it produces mahat and so forth, when it merely abides in its own status, it is called prakṛti (self-nature). When it produces mahat and so forth, it is called the superior nature, because its function is increased and superior. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra states: "The non-Buddhists, through their supernormal powers, observe up to eighty thousand kalpas; beyond eighty thousand kalpas they are in total darkness and do not know, so they deem it the primordial principle (tamo-tattva). From this, conscious cognition is first established; hence it is called the primordial principle." Second, regarding "the knower": this is the twenty-fifth principle, which is the spiritual self (puruṣa). Third, "modifications": the intermediate twenty-three principles, which are produced by prakṛti, are called modifications. Thus there are three positions. Regarding "in the middle as four": that treatise says: "A non-Buddhist asked: 'How does one distinguish prakṛti (the root nature), vikāra (modifications), and the knower?' The answer states: 'The root nature is fundamentally without modification; mahat and so forth are both root and modification; sixteen are merely modifications; the knower is neither root nor modification.' This means that the root nature can produce mahat and so forth, and is therefore called the root. It is not produced from another, and is therefore not a modification. Second, mahat, ahaṃkāra, and the five tanmātras: these seven are both root and modification. Mahat is produced from the root nature, and is therefore a modification. It can produce ahaṃkāra, and thus can be a root. Ahaṃkāra produces the five tanmātras; the five tanmātras produce the five great elements and the five cognitive faculties; therefore all of these are both modification and root. Third, the five great elements, the five cognitive faculties, the five faculties of action, and the mind faculty (manas) as the equalizer: these are only produced from others, and therefore are merely modifications. They cannot produce others, and are therefore not called roots. Fourth, the knower, which is the self-knower: because of its essence, it is not produced from another nor does it produce another, and is therefore neither root nor modification." If following the Śataśāstra, where the five great elements produce the eleven faculties, then the five great elements are both root and modification. Among those that are solely modifications, there are only the modifications of the eleven faculties. Regarding "extensively there are twenty-five": as cited above from the Śataśāstra, there are altogether nine stages. Within the intermediate twenty-three principles, there are seven stages: first, mahat; second, ahaṃkāra; third, the five tanmātras; fourth, the five great elements; fifth, the five cognitive faculties; sixth, the five faculties of action; seventh, the mind faculty as the equalizer. Together with the first and the last, there are twenty-five. The question asks: "Prakṛti cannot be seen; how is it known to exist?" The answer: "Because it has an essential reality of phenomena. Because it has subtle characteristics, it cannot be seen. Just as when heat disperses into empty space, how could one say it does not exist?" [The question asks:] "If it is not seen, how is it known to exist?" The answer: "Because phenomena such as mahat are produced from prakṛti and possess the three guṇas." The question asks: "How can prakṛti serve as the generative cause for all phenomena?" The answer: "Because the three guṇas combine. Those three guṇas lie dormant and inactive in the primordial nature; when in the twenty-three stages such as mahat, they awaken. The twenty-three are each and every one composed through the combination of the three guṇas." Regarding the "three guṇas": in Sanskrit they are called sattva, rajas, and tamas. Sattva is translated here as sentient being, and also as energetic/valiant; here we take the sense of energetic. Rajas is translated here as minute; the dust on the tip of a cow's hair and so forth are all called rajas; it is also called dust/defilement; here we take the sense of dust. Tamas is translated here as darkness, namely the darkness of dullness. The three guṇas should be named energy, dust, and darkness. If translated according to secondary meanings, the old translations had passion, coarseness, and blackness; the new translations have yellow, red, and black. Anciently they were called joy, sorrow, and darkness; newly they are called greed, anger, and delusion. Anciently they were called suffering, pleasure, and delusion; newly they are called suffering, pleasure, and equanimity.

13.37.2

Directly speaking, they are the three poisons capable of generating the three feelings, termed suffering, pleasure, and equanimity. Yellow, red, and black are their color-attributes: because greed has an abundance of lightness and brightness, its color is yellow; because anger has an abundance of agitation and restlessness, its color is red; and delusion, being heavy and covering, has black as its color. Because prakṛti is thus united with the three guṇas and capable of generating all phenomena, prakṛti is the agent, while the self is not the agent. If [the self] is not the agent, what purpose does the self serve? The reply is: It is for the sake of witnessing the objects. 'Objects' means the cognitive realms; it is for witnessing the cognitive realms, meaning that the twenty-four principles are what is known by me. The self is the seer and not the agent, whereas the others cannot know. The question asks: Prakṛti is the agent and the self is not the agent; what need is there for their union? The verse answers: 'The self seeks to see the three guṇas, / while prakṛti exists for isolation; / like the union of a lame person and a blind person, / through their purpose the world is born.' This means: The self has such an intention, [thinking,] 'I must see the prakṛti of the three guṇas.' Alternatively, regarding union with prakṛti and 'prakṛti exists for isolation': 'I am a distressed person possessing only the capacity to see and know. Now, for its sake, I shall cause it to attain isolation.' For this purpose, prakṛti unites with the self. It is like a person uniting with a king, and also like a blind person uniting for a lame person. The self is taken as the lame person because it cannot act. Prakṛti is taken as the blind person because it cannot see. Because these two unite, they can generate the world for the self to experience and enjoy. When the blind and the lame reach their destination, each obtains their distinct place. When the self sees prakṛti, it immediately attains liberation, causing the self to abide in isolation. The question asks: It has already been explained that their union can generate [the world]; what is the sequence of this generation? The reply is: Prakṛti sequentially generates mahat, the self-[sense], ahaṃkāra, and the sixteen. Within the sixteen there are five, and from these are generated the five mahābhūtas. That is, prakṛti first generates mahat. 'Mahat' has the meaning of 'great growth' because the characteristics of prakṛti increase. It is also called intellect (buddhi), or thought (saṃjñā), or pervasive (vyāpaka), or knowledge (jñāna), or wisdom (prajñā). Mahat is indeed knowledge; therefore mahat obtains the name of knowledge. Next, mahat generates the conception of self. As for the conception of self: prakṛti initiates functioning, contemplates the self, and knows that the self requires objects; hence it is also called the self. Ahaṃkāra is also called the beginning of the five mahābhūtas, or called mutation (pariṇāma), or called flaming radiance. Next, ahaṃkāra generates the sixteen, namely the five tanmātras, the five buddhindriyas, the five karmendriyas, and the internal organ (manas). Within these sixteen, the general meaning indicates that they are all generated from ahaṃkāra. Among the sixteen, it should first generate the five tanmātras, and the five tanmātras generate the sixteen; hence it is said: 'Within the sixteen there are five, and from these are generated the five mahābhūtas.' This corresponds to [what is taught in] the Śataśāstra: from the self-mind the five subtle particles are generated, from the five subtle particles the five mahābhūtas are generated, and from the five mahābhūtas the eleven indriyas are generated. As for the first generation of the five tanmātras: first, sound; second, touch; third, form; fourth, taste; and fifth, smell. Each of the five has its own substance, because there is a measure capable of being cognized. 'Tanmātra' (only-measure) also has the meaning of determination, because only and definitely these are used to form the five mahābhūtas. The five tanmātras have no distinctions because they are subtle and tranquil. From these, the five mahābhūtas are generated. The great elements have distinctions, while the five tanmātras have no distinctions; these are precisely the great elements. Mahat is free from sorrow and delusion, consisting solely of joy and pleasure. The five mahābhūtas are differentiated because they possess the three poisons. From the sound-tanmātra, the space-element is generated. The Ci'en Commentary states: 'There is a distinct substance named space, which is not unconditioned space.' The touch-tanmātra generates the wind-element, the form-tanmātra generates the fire-element, the taste-tanmātra generates the water-element, and the smell-tanmātra generates the earth-element. The Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya merely states that each generates one. Some say: Depending on the number of elements relied upon, from the single element of sound the space-element is formed; from the two elements of sound and touch the wind-element is generated; from the three of form, sound, and touch the fire-element is generated; from form, sound, touch, and taste the water-element is generated; and using all five elements together, the earth-element is generated. That which relies on more elements is weaker in power, while that which relies on fewer elements is stronger in power. Therefore, the four mandalas form the world, and the space mandala resides lowest of all. Next, regarding the five mahābhūtas generating the eleven indriyas: they first generate the five buddhindriyas, next generate the five karmendriyas, and afterwards generate the internal organ (manas). How do the five mahābhūtas generate the five buddhindriyas? The sound-tanmātra generates the space-element, and the space-element forms the ear-indriya; therefore, the ear-indriya turns back to hear sound. The touch-tanmātra generates the wind-element, and the wind-element forms the body-indriya; therefore, the body-indriya turns back to experience touch. The form-tanmātra generates the fire-element, and the fire-element forms the eye-indriya; therefore, the eye-indriya turns back to see form. The taste-tanmātra generates the water-element, and the water-element forms the tongue-indriya; therefore, the tongue-indriya turns back to cognize taste. The smell-tanmātra generates the earth-element, and the earth-element forms the nose-indriya; therefore, the nose-indriya turns back to smell scent. Yet the Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya merely says that the ear-indriya is generated solely from sound. Only being of the same class as the space-element can it grasp sound. As for the sage Ulūka, he posited the doctrine of pervasive production, stating that the five mahābhūtas produce the eye-indriya, but the fire-element is predominantly abundant; since form is the quality (guṇa) belonging to fire, the eye-indriya can only see form. The other four are understood by analogy: all are formed using the five mahābhūtas, with each having one that is predominantly abundant. Next, as for generating the five karmendriyas: the Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya states that they are formed using the five mahābhūtas collectively, namely: first, the organ of speech; second, the hands; third, the feet; fourth, the organ of urination; and fifth, the organ of defecation. Here, the organ of speech refers to the mouth, tongue, and so on. The hands and feet are a small portion of the skin-indriya, for they consider the body-indriya to be the skin-indriya. Furthermore, the excretion of male, female, urine, and feces each have their respective functions. Hence a verse says: 'Seeing only the dust of forms and so forth / is the function of the five buddhindriyas; / speaking, grasping, walking, sexual play, and excretion / are the functions of the five karmendriyas.' As for what is called the internal organ (manas): the Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya takes discrimination as its essence; hence the treatise states: 'Discrimination is the characteristic of manas.' Thus the function of the mind is also completely formed by the five tanmātras, universally cognizing all objects. Furthermore, the treatise states: 'The functions of mahat, ahaṃkāra, and manas / have their three individual characteristics as their functions, / because the mind can universally grasp differentiated objects.' Some say: It takes the physical heart-flesh as its essence. As for the twenty-fifth, the self as knower: it takes volition (cetanā) as its essence. Both the Vijñaptimātratā and Hetuvidyā texts state that the Sāṃkhyas uphold volition as the self. As the Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya states: 'How is it known that the self exists? The verse states: Because aggregations are for the sake of another, / because it is distinct from the three guṇas, because of being the support, / because of being the enjoyer, and because of isolation— / through five reasons the existence of the self is established. First, just as when a person gathers beds, mats, and the like, it is necessarily for the sake of a person, so too from the aggregation of mahat and the rest, one knows that the self exists.' Second, 'distinct from the three guṇas': because the preceding twenty-four all possess the three guṇas. Third, 'because of being the support': just as a person depends upon a body, so that the body has function. Fourth, 'the enjoyer': just as when a person sees a taste, one knows there is a distinct taster; when a person sees that mahat and the rest are what is known, one necessarily knows there is a knower. Fifth, 'because of isolation': apart from the body, there is a self. If there were only the body, the liberation taught by the sages would have no purpose; therefore, one knows that the self exists. What characteristics does the self possess?

13.37.3

Now, the Suvarṇasaptati-śāstra, comparing the primordial nature (prakṛti) with its transformations (vikāra), identifies nine ways in which they are dissimilar and six ways in which they are similar. The self (puruṣa) reverses these similarities and dissimilarities. As for the nine dissimilars: first, having no cause; second, being eternal; third, being one shared by many; fourth, pervading all things; fifth, lacking agency in activity; sixth, not perishing; seventh, having no parts; eighth, not relying on another; ninth, not belonging to another. The primordial nature has these nine qualities and is not similar to the transformations, whereas the transformations have causes and so forth. The self has eight characteristics that are the same as the primordial nature and dissimilar to the transformations; however, the single characteristic of being one shared by many differs from the primordial nature, because each individual has their own self. As for the primordial nature having six characteristics that are similar to the transformations: first, equally possessing the three qualities (guṇas); second, being inseparable, meaning the three qualities cannot be divided; third, all serving as objects enjoyed by the self; fourth, equality, in that both are enjoyed by all selves, just like one maidservant employed by many masters; fifth, being insentient, in that root and branches are equally devoid of consciousness, the self alone having consciousness; sixth, being able to produce, since the primordial nature can produce, and the intellect (mahat) and so forth can also produce. Yet the conscious self also lacks these six similarities; therefore it is said overall that the self reverses the similarities and dissimilarities. That is, it also lacks the three qualities, cannot produce, and so forth. The self having eight dissimilars to the transformations thus constitutes eight qualities. Lacking the six similars to the transformations constitutes only two qualities: first, lacking the three qualities; second, being the knower; the remaining four similars are qualities of the primordial nature and the transformations, not qualities of the self. The remaining points can be understood from this. Some say: Because the three qualities are the cause of saṃsāra, and because what they transform into agitates and disrupts the self, one cannot attain liberation. If one can eliminate the impermanent transformations of those twenty-three categories of truth, generate revulsion, and cultivate the path, the primordial nature will conceal its traces and no longer produce the categories of truth, and the self will then be liberated. The Suvarṇasaptati says: 'Man is neither bound nor liberated, nor does he transmigrate through birth and death, because he lacks the three qualities, lacks transformation, and is not an agent. If so, who attains liberation? Answer: Transmigration and bondage, as well as liberation, belong solely to the primordial nature. It is bound because of the transformations of the primordial nature; if it attains correct and complete knowledge, it then attains liberation.' This is intended to explain that knowing the twenty-five categories of truth constitutes correct and complete knowledge, clarifying that bondage and liberation do not derive from the self. Speaking of the self's liberation merely refers to its natural release. The treatise summarizes: 'This secret wisdom should be bestowed on a brāhmaṇa of five virtues: first, born in a good land; second, of a good clan and lineage; third, of pure conduct; fourth, possessing capability; fifth, free from desire.' The above briefly recounts their doctrine according to the Suvarṇasaptati-śāstra. The variations among them, combined with the intended meaning of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, have all been fully explained. For detailed refutations, they are as in treatises such as the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, the Madhyamakaśāstra, and the Śataśāstra; the commentary below merely refutes them in brief. In the commentary, 'or positing the six categories' refers to the doctrine of the Vaiśeṣikas. The new translation is Vaiśeṣika-śāstra, translated here as the Superior Treatise (Sheng lun). 'Feishe' is also written 'beishe'; 'feishe' is correct. It is called this either because the establishment of the six padārthas is the most superior, or because the treatise was composed by a superior person. The person who composed it lived at the end of the kalpa of formation, when human lifespan was immeasurable; an outsider teacher appeared in the world named Ulūka, translated here as 'Owl'. By day he avoided sights and sounds, concealing his traces in mountain thickets; by night, cutting off sight and hearing, he went about begging for food. People of the time thought he was like an owl, so they called him the Owl Sage. He is Ulūka in the Śataśāstra. He was also named Kaṇabhuk; 'kaṇa' is translated here as 'grain-embryo', and 'bhuk' translates to 'eat'. Formerly, when roaming by night, he frightened the young wives of others, so he stopped begging by night and instead collected and ate the grain-embryos from among the chaff on the threshing floors; hence he was known at the time as the Grain-Embryo-Eating Sage. Cultivating the path for many years, he attained the five supernatural powers, thought he had realized bodhi, and rejoiced at entering cessation. But lamenting that what he had realized had no successor, and pitying the sentient beings of the world who were foolish and lacked the eye of wisdom, he looked for seven virtues before transmitting the teaching to be handed down: first, born in the Central Country; second, both parents being of brāhmaṇa caste; third, possessing the nature for parinirvāṇa; fourth, fully endowed with physical marks; fifth, intelligent and eloquent; sixth, gentle in nature and conduct; seventh, possessing great compassion. An immeasurable time passed without anyone possessing all seven virtues. Later, after many kalpas, in the country of Vārāṇasī there was a brāhmaṇa named Māṇavaka, translated here as 'Brahmin youth'. This Brahmin youth had a son named Pañcaśikha, translated here as 'Five-Tufted', because the hair on his crown had five whorls and his head had five protuberances. Although this man possessed the seven virtues, his faculties matured rather slowly, and being ensnared by wife and slaves, it was difficult to quickly convert him to the path; [Ulūka] waited an immeasurable number of years for his faculties to mature. After three thousand years, on the occasion of entering a park for an outing, he quarrelled with his wife over a flower, and Ulūka used this opportunity to mount his supernatural powers to convert him, but Pañcaśikha would not comply, and the sage returned. Another three thousand years passed without succeeding in converting him. After yet another three thousand years, the couple's quarrelling grew even worse; experiencing intense mutual revulsion, he looked up and thought of the sky-faring sage. The sage immediately used his divine power to transform and guide him into the air, welcoming him to the mountain where he lived, and explained to him the teaching of the six categories (padārthas) that he had realized: first, substance (dravya); second, quality (guṇa); third, motion (karman); fourth, universal existence (sāmānya / mahāsattā); fifth, particularity and commonality (viśeṣa / sāmānya-viśeṣa); sixth, inherence (samavāya). Substance means the substantial reality of phenomena, the locus upon which qualities and motions depend; hence it is called substance. Qualities and motions do not depend on the nature of existence and so forth. Quality means virtuous attributes. Motion means operation, the meaning of movement. First, substance is of nine kinds: 1. earth, 2. water, 3. fire, 4. wind, 5. space, 6. time, 7. direction, 8. self, 9. mind. Second, quality is of twenty-four kinds: 1. form/color, 2. smell, 3. taste, 4. touch, 5. number, 6. dimension, 7. distinctness, 8. conjunction, 9. disjunction, 10. priority, 11. posteriority, 12. cognition (buddhi), 13. pleasure, 14. pain, 15. desire, 16. aversion, 17. effort, 18. heaviness, 19. fluidity, 20. viscidity, 21. disposition/velocity (saṃskāra), 22. merit (dharma), 23. demerit (adharma), 24. sound. Third, motion is of five kinds: 1. throwing upward (utkṣepaṇa), 2. throwing downward (avakṣepaṇa), 3. contraction (ākuñcana), 4. expansion (prasāraṇa), 5. locomotion (gamana). Fourth, universal existence is singular, because substance, quality, and motion are all identically existent. Apart from substance, quality, and motion, there is a distinct dharma serving as its essence; it is through this universal existence that substance and the rest exist. Fifth, particularity and commonality is also singular; for example, earth with respect to earth has the meaning of commonality, but with respect to water and so forth it has the meaning of particularity. The particularity and commonality of earth is that it is earth and not water; the same applies to water and the others. Apart from substance and the others, it also has a distinct, real substantial entity. Sixth, the category of inherence refers to the inherence and aggregation of dharmas. Through the category of inherence, just as when a bird flies in the air and suddenly lands on a tree branch, abiding there without leaving, it is due to the category of inherence that it abides, and so on. The above is a brief recount. Detailed expositions of their essential characteristics and detailed refutations are found in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and its commentaries, as well as commentaries on the Śataśāstra and so forth.

13.37.4

Regarding the words in the commentary, "Or asserting that [all things are] produced by Īśvara, Brahmā, and the like": this comprises three assertions. First, the ash-smearing tīrthikas together with various brahmins, who collectively posit Maheśvara as the cause of all things. The first fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Some maintain that there is a single Great Īśvara, whose substance is real, omnipresent, and eternal, capable of producing all phenomena. That is, they posit that this deity possesses four attributes: (1) his substance is real; (2) he is omnipresent; (3) he is eternal; and (4) he is capable of producing all phenomena. Furthermore, they assert three bodies: first, the dharmakāya, whose essence is eternal and all-pervading, whose measure is identical to space, and who is capable of producing all things; second, the saṃbhogakāya, residing above the Form Realm heavens; and third, the nirmāṇakāya, which assumes forms throughout the six destinies to teach and transform sentient beings. Furthermore, they assert two dwelling places for this deity: one at the Snowy Mountains and one at Mount Malaya in the Southern Sea. In the past, in the kingdom of Magadha, there were two brothers who worshipped Īśvara and traveled together to the Snowy Mountains seeking to behold that deity. When they reached the mountains, they suddenly saw a brahmin who said: 'Maheśvara is the Śākyamuni Buddha of your realm; why do you not worship and serve him?' The brothers replied: 'What we have learned and practiced of old is only to worship the deva.' Thereupon the brahmin transformed into the divine form, with three eyes on his face, showing four arms or eight arms, and told the brothers: 'You should return to your realm, construct an image of Śākyamuni defeating Māra to the east of the Bodhi Tree, and behind the Bodhi Tree dig a pond to relieve those who are thirsty and exhausted.' That school consequently posited these two dwelling places, considering this unerroneous." The seventh fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "They think thus: The various things in the world must definitely have a separate creator, producer, and transformer who is their father, namely Īśvara." Or there are other such views, which are refuted in detail as in that treatise. The tenth fascicle of the Prakaraṇāryavācā also states the same. The Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra likewise refutes it in detail. Second, regarding the words "produced by Brahmā and the like": this refers to the assertion of the fourth, the Veda theorists, and the fifth, the Aṇḍa theorists of the Vedic lore. This teacher posits that the deity Nārāyaṇa produces the four castes, whereas this [other] theorist posits that Brahmā produces all things. The *Treatise on Refuting the Nirvāṇa of Heterodox Paths and the Hīnayāna* by Bodhisattva Āryadeva says: "From the navel of the deity Nārāyaṇa a great lotus flower arose; atop the lotus flower was the Forefather Brahmā, which means Brahmā is the ancestor of all things. That Brahmā created all sentient and insentient things: from Brahmā's mouth the brahmins were born, from his two arms the kṣatriyas were born, from his two thighs the vaiśyas were born, and from his two feet the śūdras were born." Therefore the seventh fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "The brahmin is the most supreme caste, and the kṣatriya and others are inferior castes. The brahmin is of the white and pure class, and the other castes are of the black class. The brahmin caste alone attains purity, not any other class. Brahmins are the sons of King Brahmā, born from the belly and mouth of Mahābrahmā, transformed by Brahmā, and the direct offspring of King Brahmā." The detailed refutation is as found there; the Prakaraṇāryavācā is also the same. Therefore, the word "and the like" above includes the deity Nārāyaṇa; since Nārāyaṇa generates Brahmā, and Brahmā is the ancestor of all things, the text primarily speaks of production by King Brahmā. Including Nārāyaṇa, and furthermore including King Brahmā, is the fifth assertion—the assertion of the original limit by the Aṇḍa theorists. "Original limit" refers to the very beginning of the past. That is, they assert that at the very beginning of the world there was only great water. At that time a great egg (aṇḍa) emerged, shaped like a hen's egg and golden in color. Later it divided into two halves: the upper became heaven, and the lower became earth. In the middle, a single Brahmā was born, who was capable of creating all sentient and insentient things. For this reason, Brahmā is the cause of all things. Because of these two assertions—the fourth and the fifth—one posits Nārāyaṇa as the origin and one posits the egg as the origin, both subsequently generating King Brahmā, and King Brahmā generating all things. Therefore the commentary says "produced by Brahmā and the like," thereby including the egg and Nārāyaṇa. This assertion of the egg is also similar to the theory in this land [of China] that in the beginning of heaven and earth, the shape was like a hen's egg, in primordial chaos and undivided, from which heaven, earth, and all things were then born. Regarding the commentary's words, "Or asserting that time, space, atoms, space [as an element], or actions done in past lives are the origin of the mundane world and nirvāṇa": this comprises six assertions. First, regarding "time": this refers to the tīrthikas of the Dispersion of Time, who assert that all things are produced from time. Therefore, time is eternal and single; it is the cause of all things and the cause of nirvāṇa. The Śatakaśāstra-vaipulya says: "Furthermore, some assert that time is real and eternal because they observe that when numerous conditions such as planting combine, sometimes they produce fruit and sometimes they do not. Time has function, either expanding or contracting, causing those branches and the like to flourish or wither accordingly. The cause thus spoken of possesses separation and union; hence one definitely knows that time really exists." The detailed refutation is as found there. The Śataśāstra also says: "Thus, although time is subtle and cannot be seen, on account of seasons, flowers, fruits, and the like, one knows there is time." This clarifies inferring the cause through observing the effect. Next, regarding "space" (direction): this refers to the seventh, the theorists of direction, who assert that human beings are produced from space, humans produce heaven and earth, and after extinction they return to space. Therefore, space is eternal, single, the cause of all things, and the cause of nirvāṇa. Hence the Śataśāstra says: "The opponent says: Direction really exists, because an eternal characteristic exists. It is said that the locus of conjunction is the characteristic of direction," and so forth. Regarding "atoms": this refers to the eighth, the Lokāyata theorists, who assert that material and mental dharmas are all made of atoms. Lokāyata is translated here as "tīrthikas who accord with the world"; they assert that all material and mental dharmas take the atoms of the four great elements as their cause. However, the most subtle and spiritual among the four great elements is capable of cognitive reflection, which constitutes mental dharmas. Just as, although all material forms are great elements, a lamp emits light while others do not; therefore, that among the four great elements there is one capable of cognitive reflection is surely without fault. Hence the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Some tīrthikas assert that the atoms of earth, water, fire, and wind are real and eternal, capable of producing gross matter; not exceeding the measure of their cause, although [the products] are impermanent, their substance is real." The explanation says: This means they are born from the four great elements and afterwards return to the four great elements. "Gross matter" refers to the child-atoms. "Not exceeding the measure of their cause": the cause is the parent-atoms; the primary, initial atoms are named "parents" because by aggregating they produce the various matters. That which is produced is called the "child-atoms"; though the child-atoms are impermanent, they do not exceed their parents, and therefore they are real existents. They are also refuted in detail as in that text. These are merely false conceptualizations following emotional attachment. The ninth fascicle of the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: "Furthermore, those who assert that atoms are permanently abiding do so by giving rise to such views based on mundane dhyāna. Because they do not truly know the dharmas of dependent origination, they posit that existence comes first, and then effects accumulate and arise; dispersal comes first, and then effects are destroyed. Due to this cause and condition, they assert that gross material effects are produced from the nature of numerous atoms, and by gradually analyzing gross things down to the atom, therefore gross things are impermanent while atoms are permanently abiding." The Yogācārabhūmi is the same as this.

13.37.5

Regarding "empty space": this refers to the ninth, the theorists of the power of causes, who assert that empty space is the cause of all things. There is separately a dharma that is real, eternal, and single, which is the cause of all things. From space is produced wind; from wind is produced fire; fire produces warmth; warmth produces water; water produces ice; the hardening of ice makes earth; earth produces the five grains; the five grains produce life; and when life ends it returns to space. Therefore, empty space can be the cause of all things and is the cause of nirvāṇa. The Śataśāstra also says: "The opponent says: The dharma of space definitely exists, and it is eternal, omnipresent, and partless, because at all times and in all places it is believed to exist," and so forth. The detailed refutation is as found there. Regarding "actions done in past lives": this refers to the tenth, the theorists of past actions, who assert that the experiences of suffering and pleasure by all sentient beings all accord with the causes and conditions of past karmic actions. Therefore, if one maintains precepts and exerts vigor, enduring physical and mental suffering, one can exhaust the fundamental karma. Once the fundamental karma is exhausted, the various sufferings are also destroyed. When all sufferings are completely destroyed, one attains the fruit of nirvāṇa. For this reason, past actions are the cause of all things. The Yogācārabhūmi says: "By what cause and condition do those tīrthikas give rise to such views and establish such treatises? Answer: They see that in the world, even when endowed with right means, people incur suffering; and even when endowed with wrong means, they incur pleasure. They think thus: 'If human activity in the present life were their cause, this would be contrary. Because what is seen is not contrary, therefore these dharmas all have past actions as their cause.' By this principle, they give rise to such views and establish such treatises." Fascicle thirty-five of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra refutes this view in detail. When the commentary says "and the like," it includes the eleventh, the theorists of causelessness, who assert that all things have neither cause nor condition, but are spontaneously born and spontaneously extinguished. Therefore this spontaneity is eternal; it is the cause of all things and the cause of nirvāṇa. This view asserts that all things have no cause for defilement or purity, just as thorns are naturally pointed, the color of a crow is not dyed, and the color of a crane is naturally white. A Mahāyāna master says: There is separately a dharma that is real and eternal, called spontaneity (nature), which can produce all things. This shares the same meaning with the theories in this land [of China] below. The seventh fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "By what cause and condition do those tīrthikas give rise to such views and establish such doctrines? Answer: It is because they see that in the world there are no causes and conditions; sometimes suddenly a great wind abruptly arises, and sometimes on a certain day it becomes quiet and ceases; sometimes suddenly swirling sand covers the expanse and then in a moment abruptly empties and vanishes; sometimes trees and fruits flourish luxuriously, and then in a moment they wither and decline with a rustle. Due to such things, they give rise to the view of causelessness and establish the doctrine of causelessness." The Prakaraṇāryavācā is also the same. Here, causelessness is taken as spontaneity, not as a separately existing entity. For detailed analyses of these various heterodox assertions, see Yogācārabhūmi fascicles six and seven, Prakaraṇāryavācā fascicles nine and ten, Mahāvibhāṣā fascicles eleven and twelve, as well as the Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya (*Suvarṇasaptati*), Śatakaśāstra-vaipulya, and the like.

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese