大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 14

English (machine translation) 14

Language: English

14.1

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

Below the commentary's words, "To sum up comprehensively, the asserted views do not go beyond four views": second, comprehensively gathering the eleven into four assertions, which reflects the intention of the Śataśāstra. Within this there are two parts: first, directly clarifying the assertions; and second, from "If one asserts one" onward, clarifying them in relation to cause and effect. Both are detailed as in the Śataśāstra.

14.3

Below the commentary's words, "Although there are many differences": third, concluding by reducing them to two causes. That is, gathering the above assertions of the eleven schools, up to the ninety-five kinds [of heterodoxies], none go beyond two causes: that which suddenly exists from non-existence is called "no-cause"; that which errs in what it posits is called "erroneous cause." Just as milk produces curds, milk is called the right cause; to have milk produce a straw mat is called an erroneous cause. Producing this body from ignorance and karmic formations is called the right cause; producing it from the primordial nature and the like is in all cases called an erroneous cause. All dharmas are born when conditions convene, and cease when conditions disperse; there has never been a single dharma that is not born from a cause. Both sentient and insentient environments are born from causes; to say there is no cause is indeed to commit a grave fault. That is, things that should not produce objects would constantly produce them: a barren woman should give birth to a child, tortoise hair should also produce things, and without cultivating the myriad practices one should attain nirvāṇa. Then mundane and supramundane dharmas would all be ruined at once; hence among the faults of causelessness, no fault is greater. The correspondences can be clearly seen. Outside the Buddha-Dharma, not only the ninety-five kinds, but even if there were a thousand different theories, none would fall outside of erroneous cause and no-cause. Therefore, when the single true dependent origination is expounded, there is no heterodox assertion that is not refuted.

14.4

Regarding the commentary’s section beginning with "As for Confucianism and Daoism in this land": the second part recounts [the traditions of] this land. The commentary text divides into two: first, pointing out their agreement with the two [false] causes; second, from "As in Zhuangzi and Laozi" downward, briefly setting forth their various doctrines. Now, the profundity of Confucianism and Daoism in this land does not exceed the Three Mysteries: the Zhouyi is the True Mystery, the Laozi is the Mystery of Emptiness, and the Zhuangzi is the Discourses on the Mystery. Here the commentary has two parts: first, citing the Zhuangzi and Laozi together; second, citing the Zhouyi separately. In the former there are also two parts: first, citing texts; second, judging their meaning. Now for the first. Citing directly from the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, it therefore says: "They all posit nature (ziran)." This sentence is the statement of the thesis. Thus the Zhuangzi states: "Not knowing the reason why it is so, and yet it is so, is therefore called 'nature.'" From "Saying that man models himself on earth" downward refers to the chapter on "There was a thing formed in chaos" from the Daodejing (the "Classic of the Dao") of the Laozi. Prior to this, it states: "There was a thing formed in chaos, born before heaven and earth. Silent and boundless, standing alone without changing, operating everywhere without peril, it may be regarded as the mother of heaven and earth. I do not know its name; I style it 'Dao.' Forced to give it a name, I call it 'great.' Great means departing; departing means distant; distant means returning. Therefore the Dao is great, heaven is great, earth is great, and the king is also great." The commentary [of Wang Bi] says: "It is explained according to what makes them great; those that attained the One are heaven, earth, and the king. Heaven is great because it can cover; earth is great because it can support; the king is great because he can model himself on earth, emulate heaven, and practice the Dao; therefore it says 'is also great.'" It further says: "Within the realm there are four great things, and the king occupies one of them." The commentary says: "The upright ruler is the lord of human spirits; the prosperity and decline of the myriad things are tied to him. Intending to present a model and warning, it therefore says 'and the king occupies one,' wishing to caution the king so that he has something to model himself upon." The following text says: "Man models himself on earth, earth models itself on heaven, heaven models itself on the Dao, and the Dao models itself on nature." The commentary says: "'Man' refers to the king. One who is a king should first model himself on the tranquility of the earth. Having done so, he should then model himself on heaven’s operations that generate and complete. Having generated and completed, he should then model himself on the pure non-action (wuwei) of the Dao, letting things transform of themselves. A human sovereign who can do so conforms to the nature of the Dao that models itself on nature." Furthermore, the above explanation of the Dao being great says: "Because it permeates and generates, manifesting its virtue, it is styled 'Dao'; because it encompasses all, naming its essence, it is arbitrarily named 'great.'" These passages follow one upon the other, which is why they are cited in detail; the underlying point is simply that the Dao models itself on nature. The Dejing (the "Classic of Virtue") further states: "The Dao generates the One; the One generates the two; the two generate the three; the three generate the myriad things." The previous passage was a reverse deduction; this one is a forward presentation. The commentary says: "The 'One' is the harmonious qi (chongqi). It means that the Dao stirs and emits the subtle, harmonious qi. Because this is not yet sufficient as the principle for generating things, it further generates yang qi. Yang qi cannot generate on its own, so it further generates yin qi. Accumulating the one of the harmonious qi, it therefore says 'the One generates the two.' Accumulating the two of the yang qi, it therefore says 'the two generate the three.' When yin and yang unite in pregnancy and the harmonious qi harmonizes them, only then are the myriad things richly completed; hence it says 'the three generate the myriad things.'" Right below, it further states: "The myriad things carry yin on their backs and embrace yang, harmonizing them through the harmonious qi." All the above explains that the myriad things are generated naturally; these are the words of the Laozi. If we cite the Zhuangzi, the "Great Ancestral Master" chapter of the Zhuangzi states: "Now the Dao has reality and trust, yet is without action and without form." The commentary [of Guo Xiang] says: "It has the reality of having no feelings, hence it is without action. It has the trust of being constant non-being, hence it is without form." It also says: "It can be transmitted, but cannot be received." The commentary says: "From past to present, it is transmitted and abided in, but none can receive and possess it." It also says: "It can be attained, but cannot be seen." The commentary says: "All attain self-containment, yet none see its form." It also says: "It is its own root and its own trunk; before heaven and earth existed, it had firmly endured from ancient times." The commentary says: "This makes clear that non-being does not depend on being in order to be non-being." It also says: "It spirits the ghosts and spirits the gods; it generates heaven and generates earth." The commentary says: "Now, can non-being generate spirits? It does not spirit ghosts and gods, yet ghosts and gods are themselves spirited—this is the spiriting of non-spiriting. It does not generate heaven and earth, yet heaven and earth are themselves generated—this is the generating of non-generating. Therefore, when the 'spirit' is an actual result, it is insufficient to be spiritual; but when it does not spirit, then it is spiritual. What achievement is there worthy of being possessed? What event is there worthy of being relied upon?" It also says: "Being prior to the Supreme Ultimate (taiji), it is not high; being below the six directions, it is not deep; being born prior to heaven and earth, it is not long-lasting; being older than high antiquity, it is not old." The commentary says: "This speaks of the Dao being omnipresent. Therefore, being in the high, it is without highness; being in the deep, it is without depth; being in the long-lasting, it is without long-lastingness; being in the old, it is without oldness. There is nowhere it is not present, yet wherever it is, all is non-being." It also says: "Xiwei obtained it to hold heaven and earth in order; Fuxi obtained it to inhale the primal breath; the Great Dipper obtained it and never deviated throughout antiquity; the sun and moon obtained it and never rested throughout antiquity; Kanpi obtained it to enter Kunlun; Fengyi obtained it to wander the great rivers; Jianwu obtained it to dwell on the great mountain; the Yellow Emperor obtained it to ascend to the cloudy heavens, and so forth." The commentary says: "The Dao has no abilities. These statements about obtaining it from the Dao are simply used to clarify their self-attainment." It also says: "One who knows what Heaven does and knows what man does has reached the utmost!" The commentary says: "Knowing what Heaven and man do are both nature (ziran). Then internally he sets his body free, and externally he merges with things; identical with the mysterious harmony of all, he gives rein to it and reaches everywhere." The meaning is: wherever there is knowing and action, all are acting without acting; hence they are nature. Regarding the commentary’s "If one takes nature as the cause," and so on: this is judging the meaning. Unfolding its two trajectories: the first is the perspective of the Laozi. Since the Dao generates the One, and the Dao is nature, taking the Dao as its cause is a false cause. Regarding the commentary’s "If one says the myriad things are generated of themselves (ziran)" downward: this brings out the perspective of the Zhuangzi. Then the myriad things are naturally so without anything making them so; hence it is called nature, which is [the view of] no cause. The commentary's "Like the blackness of a crow" and so on is text from the Zhuangzi and also the idea from the Nirvāṇa-sūtra.

14.5

Regarding the commentary’s section beginning with "The Zhouyi states": the second part cites the Zhouyi and so forth, in which there are also two parts: first, citing the text; second, judging the meaning. Now for the first: this is the "Xici" ("Appended Phrases"). "Xi" means attached to, and also means cardinal cords. Before this, the two words "shi gu" ("therefore") should be added. The commentary [of Han Kangbo] says: "Now, being must begin from non-being; therefore the Supreme Ultimate (taiji) generates the two modes (liangyi). The Supreme Ultimate is a designation for that which has no designation, and cannot be named. Taking the ultimate of being, it is figuratively called the Supreme Ultimate." Kong [Yingda] says: "The Supreme Ultimate is the merged unity before heaven and earth were divided, which is the Great Beginning (taichu) and the Great One (taiyi). What Laozi calls 'The Dao generates the One' refers to this Supreme Ultimate. Once the chaotic origin divided, there were heaven and earth; hence it says 'the Supreme Ultimate generates the two modes,' which is Laozi's 'the One generates the two.' The reason it does not say 'heaven and earth' is that, pointing to their physical form as contrasted with the four emblems below, it therefore says 'two modes' (liangyi), meaning the deportment and demeanor (rongyi) of the two forms." Explanation: If we refer to Liezi, there are the Great Change (taiyi), the Great Beginning (taichu), the Great Origin (taishi), and the Great Undifferentiated (taisu). The Great Change is when qi has not yet appeared. The Great Beginning is the beginning of qi. The Great Origin is the beginning of form. The Great Undifferentiated is the beginning of material substance. That commentary says: "Material substance is nature." Another explanation: the Great Change refers to the Supreme Ultimate of the Zhouyi; in this case, since the Great Beginning is not the Great Change, the Supreme Ultimate ends up being at the start. If we refer to the Yi gouming jue, it says there are five phases: the first four are the same as Liezi, and the fifth is named the Supreme Ultimate; in that case, the Supreme Ultimate is not the start. The explanation is largely the same as Liezi. "Phases" (yun) refers to cyclic numbers; "change" (yi) means alteration. The initial dispersal of the primal qi is called the Great Beginning. The inception of qi taking form is called the Great Origin. When forms alter and have material substance, it is called the Great Undifferentiated. When material substance and form are fully equipped, it is called the Supreme Ultimate. Although there are slight similarities and differences, they all hold that the primal qi generates heaven and earth. Regarding the commentary’s "The two modes generate the four emblems," and so on: Kong says, "This means that wood, metal, water, and fire are endowed by heaven and earth to exist; hence it says 'the two modes generate the four emblems.' Earth shares sovereign rule over the four seasons. Furthermore, as an offshoot of earth, there are only four emblems. That the four emblems generate the eight trigrams means that Zhen is wood, Li is fire, Dui is metal, and Kan is water, each governing one season. Moreover, Xun is identical to Zhen wood, Qian is identical to Dui metal, and adding the earth of Kun and Gen makes the eight trigrams. That the eight trigrams determine good and ill fortune means: once the eight trigrams were established, the images of the lines were inferred mutually, yielding good and ill fortune; hence good and ill fortune arise. 'Great undertakings' means that the myriad affairs each have good and ill fortune; being broad, great, and fully equipped, they can therefore generate the great undertakings of the world."

14.6

Regarding the commentary’s "Taking the Supreme Ultimate as the cause," and so on: the second part is judging the meaning. It means that if one uses the Supreme Ultimate as the cause, this posits non-being as [producing] being, which is also a false cause. Regarding the commentary's section beginning with "If one says that one yin...": this comprehensively shows both false cause and no cause. The Yi states: "One yin and one yang is what is called the Dao; the unfathomability of yin and yang is what is called the spiritual." Regarding "One yin and one yang is what is called the Dao," the commentary says: "What is the Dao? It is a designation for non-being. There is nowhere it does not permeate, nothing that does not proceed from it; it is figuratively called the Dao. Quiescent and without form, it cannot be made into an image. Only when the function of being reaches its utmost does the efficacy of non-being become manifest; therefore, reaching the point where the spiritual has no direction and change has no body, the Dao can then be seen. Thus, by exhausting changes one exhausts the spiritual, and relying on the spiritual one illuminates the Dao. Although yin and yang are distinct, non-being is the One by which they are treated. In yin it is non-yin, whereby yin is born; in yang it is non-yang, whereby yang is completed. Therefore it says 'one yin and one yang is what is called the Dao.'" Kong's subcommentary says: "(Kong's subcommentary is not by Confucius, but by Kong Yingda.) 'One' means non-being; having neither yin nor yang is precisely what is called the Dao. The reason 'one' can be non-being is that non-being is vacuous non-being, and vacuous non-being is the Supreme Ultimate. It cannot be differentiated; it is uniquely One and nothing else, so 'one' is taken to be non-being. If there were objective realms, then there would be mutual delineation of this and that, resulting in two and three, which could not be One. Therefore, in the time of yin one does not see the efficacy of being yin, and in the time of yang one does not see the power of being yang; yin and yang exist naturally. Being naturally without contrivance is precisely what the Dao means; hence it says 'is what is called the Dao.' In terms of number, it is called 'one'; in terms of essence, it is called 'non-being'; in terms of things being opened and permeated, it is called 'Dao'; in terms of being subtle and unfathomable, it is called 'spiritual'; in terms of responding to situations and transforming, it is called 'change.' Summing them up, they are all designations for vacuous non-being. The sages named it according to human affairs, establishing designations in accordance with its principles." Explanation: If one takes the change and transformation of yin and yang as being able to generate the myriad things, that is a false cause. Yet both the commentary and subcommentary state that the "One" is non-being; therefore it is [the view of] no cause. Thus it says: if one posits the One as vacuous non-being, and nature, then it is also [the view of] no cause. Because vacuous non-being can also be interpreted as a false cause, it uses the word "also."

14.7

Regarding the commentary’s section beginning with "However, regarding no cause and false cause": the third part concludes the faults of both together. When it says "if generated, they should be constantly generated," it means that if humans are born naturally, they should be born constantly, without depending on parents and the like. If sentient beings' bodhi is also born naturally, then all karmic retributions would not be obtained through practice. This is precisely the fault of [positing] no cause. If one takes vacuous non-being as the cause, that is also the fault of [positing] a false cause. Differing according to each doctrine, they are omitted and not discussed here. The above extensive refutation of heterodox doctrines is concluded.

14.8

Regarding the commentary's "Because they do not know that the triple world arises from our mind" and what follows: this is the third [section], adducing the correct to refute the heterodox. Within this there are three [parts]: first, it generally clarifies the causes and conditions of deluded inversions; next, it uses comparison to bring out the profound purport; and last, it sorts out confusion to reveal the heterodox. In the first [part], "the triple world arises from our mind" is uniquely Mahāyāna, found in the text below on the ten stages, and treatises such as the Vijñaptimātratā cite it to establish [this doctrine]. That is to say, mental dharmas continue moment by moment in their own category, flowing and revolving from a beginningless boundary [of time], neither severed nor permanent, relying on conditions and relying on cognitive objects, neither [material] qi nor endowed [by nature], mind-only and consciousness-only. How could this be the same as the Confucian and Daoist [view that] qi transforms into spirit and spirit is accomplished through qi, [or that] qi is not accomplished through conditions but emerges from spontaneity—that it is completed spontaneously, its nature transforming of itself, rather than by means of cultivation and practice? How much less [could it be] that outside the mind there are separately a primordial nature (prakṛti), subtle atoms (paramāṇu), and the like? How much less could Brahmā and the like be the creator? Regarding the commentary's "From delusion arises craving, cycling in saṃsāra without end": this is from the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra. Its meaning applies to both the Great and Lesser [Vehicles]. The Mahāyāna has two meanings: first, avidyā generates karma, and craving can moisten karma; second, past avidyā, present craving and grasping. The Hīnayāna has only the latter meaning. Although it arises from the three poisons, these two are predominant. The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also states that the roots of birth-and-death are basically twofold: first, avidyā; second, craving for existence; between these two there are birth, aging, illness, and death. Its texts [attesting this] are not singular. Regarding the Hīnayāna establishing the three poisons as the root of birth-and-death, the Madhyamakaśāstra's chapter "Examination of Lust and the Lustful" states: "A sūtra says that desire, hatred, and delusion are the root of the mundane world..." up to "...the conditions of the three poisons give rise to the three karmas, and the conditions of the three karmas give rise to the three saṃskāras; therefore all dharmas exist." The chapter "Examination of the Twelvefold Pratītyasamutpāda" states: "Sentient beings, covered by delusion, generate the three saṃskāras for the future; because these saṃskāras exist, consciousness receives bodies in the six destinies." These are all the meaning of the three poisons being the root. However, although non-Buddhists establish the three qualities (guṇas), they do not know that they are what belongs to their own mind, and furthermore they posit that functions arise from the unmanifest (prakṛti); therefore these are heterodox views.

14.9

Regarding the commentary's "deluded regarding correct causes and conditions" and so forth: mind-only, delusion, and craving are indeed the correct causes and conditions. If spoken of according to the Mahāyāna, mind-only is the cause, and delusion and craving are the conditions; the Hīnayāna also takes delusion and craving as the cause, and karma and so forth as conditions, because the Mahāyāna also takes the karmic seeds as conditions.

14.10

Regarding the commentary's "how could they know that the nature of causes and conditions is empty" and what follows: this is the second [part], using comparison to bring out the profound purport. Since they are still deluded regarding the shallow meaning—the marks of existence of causes and conditions—how could they fathom the boundaries of the true principle of emptiness of nature? Emptiness of nature applies through the initial, sudden, and final teachings; wondrous existence is the actual teaching. If it applies to the interpenetration of both texts of emptiness and existence, possessing all virtues, that is the perfect teaching.

14.11

Regarding the commentary's "As for words being confusedly identical..." and what follows: this is the third [part], sorting out confusion to reveal the heterodox. This refers to the Yijing saying, "Silent and unmoving; when stimulated, it immediately penetrates the affairs of all under heaven." The Liji says, "Human beings are quiet by birth; this is the nature of Heaven. Stimulated by things they move; this is the desire of their nature." Laozi says, "Vague and elusive, within it there is an essence; its essence is exceedingly real." Zhuangzi says, "A true ruler exists within." Regarding passages such as these, later Confucians, all because of minor verbal similarities, failed to examine what was originally established before and after, which led them to wish to conflate the three teachings. Now at the present time, Master Chengying has written commentaries on Zhuangzi and Laozi, extensively citing the Buddhist teachings to match those texts. Seeing only minor similarities in words, how could they know the great divergence in meaning? Shallow scholars of later times are all the more confused by this.

14.12

Regarding the commentary's "identical to the parable of stealing the cows in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]": this is in the third fascicle of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], answering Kāśyapa's question. The sūtra says: "At that time Bodhisattva Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! What difference is there between supramundane dharmas and mundane dharmas? As the Buddha said: "The Buddha is a permanent dharma, an unchanging dharma." The mundane world also says that Brahmā is permanent, Īśvara is permanent and unchanging, the self is permanent, nature is permanent, and subtle atoms are also permanent. If you say that the Tathāgata is a permanent dharma, why does the Tathāgata not appear permanently? If he does not appear permanently, what difference is there? Why? Because Brahmā down to subtle atoms and worldly nature also do not appear.' The Buddha told Kāśyapa: 'For example, a householder had many cows; although their colours were various, they belonged to the same herd. He entrusted them to a herdsman to let them follow water and grass, seeking only sarpirmaṇḍa and not seeking milk or curd. That herdsman, having milked them, ate it himself. When the householder died, all the cows were plundered by a band of thieves. Having obtained the cows, the thieves had no women, so they milked the cows themselves and ate it once obtained. At that time the band of thieves said to one another: "That great householder raised these cows not expecting milk or curd, but only for sarpirmaṇḍa. By what method shall we now obtain it? Sarpirmaṇḍa is called the foremost, supreme flavour in the world. We have no vessels; even if we obtain milk, there is no place to put it." They again said to one another: "We have only leather pouches to contain it." Although they had a container, they did not know how to churn it; even buttermilk was hard to obtain, how much more so fresh butter! At that time the thieves, for the sake of sarpirmaṇḍa, added water to it. Because the water was abundant, the milk, curd, and sarpirmaṇḍa were all lost. Ordinary persons are also like this: although they have wholesome dharmas, they are all remnants of the Tathāgata's correct Dharma. Why? After the Tathāgata, the World-Honoured One, entered nirvāṇa, they stole the Tathāgata's remaining wholesome dharmas such as morality, concentration, and wisdom, just as those thieves plundered the herd of cows. Although those ordinary persons obtained this morality, concentration, and wisdom, they lacked upāya and could not explain them. For this reason, they could not obtain the liberation of permanent morality, permanent concentration, and permanent wisdom. They are like those thieves who, not knowing the upāya, lost the sarpirmaṇḍa, and like those thieves who, for the sake of sarpirmaṇḍa, added water to it. Ordinary persons are also like this: for the sake of liberation, they say that the self, person, sentient being, living soul, individual, Brahmā, Īśvara, subtle atoms, worldly nature, morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the heaven of neither-perception-nor-non-perception are nirvāṇa; yet in truth they cannot obtain liberation and nirvāṇa, just as those thieves could not obtain sarpirmaṇḍa. These ordinary persons practice a small amount of brahma-conduct and make offerings to parents; through these causes and conditions they are born in the heavens and receive a little peace and joy, just like the thieves' milk with added water. But these ordinary persons truly do not know that it is due to cultivating a small amount of brahma-conduct and making offerings to parents that they are born in the heavens, nor can they know to take refuge in the Three Jewels through morality, concentration, and wisdom. Because they do not know, they speak of permanence, bliss, self, and purity; although they speak of them, in truth they do not know them. Therefore, after the Tathāgata appears in the world, he expounds permanence, bliss, self, and purity for them. Just as when a wheel-turning king appears in the world, by the power of his merit the band of thieves retreats and disperses, and the cows do not lose their lives. At that time the wheel-turning king entrusts the cows to a herdsman who has many skillful upāyas; this person, through upāya, immediately obtains sarpirmaṇḍa, and because of the sarpirmaṇḍa all sentient beings are free from affliction and suffering. When the Dharma-wheel sage king appears in the world, all ordinary persons who cannot expound morality, concentration, and wisdom retreat and disperse, just as the thieves retreat and disperse. At that time, the Tathāgata skillfully expounds mundane dharmas and supramundane dharmas, and for the sake of sentient beings causes the bodhisattvas to expound them accordingly. When the bodhisattva mahāsattvas have obtained the sarpirmaṇḍa, they further cause immeasurable and boundless sentient beings to obtain the supreme flavour of the amṛta Dharma, namely the Tathāgata's permanence, bliss, self, and purity. For this reason, good man, the Tathāgata is a permanent, unchanging dharma, not like mundane ordinary foolish people claiming that Brahmā and the like are permanent dharmas. This designation of a permanent dharma applies only to the Tathāgata, not to other dharmas. Kāśyapa! You should know the Tathāgata's body in this way.'" Explanation: Matching the Dharma to the parable, the textual meaning is clear. From this we know that the similar words of Confucianism and Daoism all originated from the Buddha's Dharma. Regarding the commentary's "how much more so churning donkey's milk" and what follows: this is the text of the third [fascicle] of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The meaning is that the Buddha's teaching is like cow's milk: through cultivation one obtains liberation, just as through churning one obtains curd, fresh butter, clarified butter, and so forth. If one does not understand how to cultivate, one cannot even obtain curd, how much less when the non-Buddhist teachings are like that donkey's milk! The Buddha is compared to a cow, while non-Buddhists are like donkeys. Donkey's milk is fundamentally not something from which curd can be produced; the teachings of non-Buddhists have no flavour of liberation, so churning donkey's milk produces only feces and urine. Practicing according to non-Buddhist teachings incurs only bitter fruit, with nothing achieved or beneficial.

14.13

Regarding the commentary's "explaining in detail the heterodox doctrines" and what follows: this is the fourth [part], pointing to the detailed [sources] while following an abridged [presentation]. It is abridged for fear of prolixity; wishing the origin to be known, it merely points out where they come from.

14.14

Regarding the commentary's phrase beginning with "Now only stating": fifth, concluding on the superiority of [the Buddha's teachings] over [non-Buddhist views]. As for the statement that "even the shallowest of the Buddha's teachings [surpasses the deepest of non-Buddhist paths]": among the ten tenets, each preceding one is shallower than the subsequent ones, and each subsequent one is deeper than the preceding ones. Looking from the first two toward the tenth, there is an eightfold depth; even [the first two] are already capable of thoroughly refuting all non-Buddhists—how much more so the third tenet, how much more so the fourth tenet, and on up to the tenth, progressively deeper and more wondrous! However, those previously cited were all the extremely profound and mysterious [tenets] of non-Buddhist schools, and now even the second [Buddhist] tenet can entirely surpass them; hence it says, "The shallowest of the Buddha's teachings already surpasses the deepest of non-Buddhist paths." Now, the non-Buddhists of the Western regions explicitly explain the three times and largely believe in cause and effect; they know to feel revulsion toward birth-and-death and happily seek nirvāṇa, yet because they slightly miss the true source, it results in their being far distant from the Way. How much more so is this the case with the Confucianism and Daoism of this land, which are merely good for a single physical lifetime: even though there is the demise of one's whole life, they have no concern for other lifetimes. Although they equalize birth and death and forcibly unify flourishing and withering, they merely hold that birth and death come from nature, and flourishing and withering are left to destiny. Nature is just the principle of spontaneity, and destiny is what is received from the void; the gathering and dispersing of qi are regarded as birth and death, and returning to the absence of things is regarded as the ultimate Way. Compared with the Buddhist teaching, they cannot be spoken of in the same breath. To briefly distinguish the difference between Buddhism and Daoism, ten points of divergence are adduced.

First, the difference between having a beginning and beginninglessness. That is to say, the Buddhists establish the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing without a fixed initial origin. Confucianism and Daoism have the Great Beginning (taichu) and the Great Origin (taishi) as preceding all things. With the Great Beginning preceding myriad things, things create and transform of themselves. With causes and conditions being the root of myriad phenomena, flourishing and perished depend on humanity.

Second, the difference between qi and non-qi. The Buddhists take the mind as the root of phenomena, with myriad practices relying upon conditions. Daoism takes the transformations of qi as spirit, with non-action spontaneously transforming. When there is spontaneous transformation, there is neither cultivation nor training, discarding wisdom and abandoning sagehood; when relying upon conditions, fulfillment necessarily requires cultivation, and myriad practices converge at the root.

Third, the difference between the three times and the absence of three times. The Buddhists hold that one receives physical form and mental consciousness, with the spiritual continuum flowing uninterrupted, arising and ceasing in accordance with conditions, transmigrating through the three times. Confucianism and Daoism take the gathering of qi as birth and the dispersing of qi as death; upon death, one returns to Heaven and Earth, neither continuing nor enduring. Since it is limited to a single body, how could they know of the three times?

Fourth, the difference between habituation and non-habituation. The Buddhists hold that good and evil arise from karma, and foolishness and wisdom are born of habituation; hence, through kalpas of accumulated perfuming and cultivation, the spiritual consciousness becomes mysterious and wondrous. Confucianism and Daoism hold that good and evil arise from destiny, and foolishness and wisdom come from Heaven: one who receives what is pure and harmonious becomes most sagacious and most divine; one who receives what is turbid and murky becomes foolish and unenlightened. Even if they speak of being careful about habituation, it is limited to a single lifetime; how could they speak of accumulating merit to benefit other lifetimes?

Fifth, the difference between receiving conditions and receiving qi. The Buddhists hold that the array of myriad phenomena is entirely produced from conditions. Confucianism and Daoism hold that wealth, nobility, good fortune, and misfortune all stem from qi and destiny. Those who receive qi cannot alter it; those who receive conditions can increase and cultivate.

Sixth, the difference between internal and non-internal. The Buddhists hold that Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things are transformed and produced by internal consciousness. Confucianism and Daoism hold that humans, creatures, and crawling and flying insects are all transformed by Heaven and Earth. When it lies within oneself, one can transform defilement into purity; when the transformation lies with Heaven, it is left to high or low.

Seventh, the difference between conditions and non-conditions. The Buddhists hold that the transmigration of the four characteristics, fleeting, empty, transforming, and ceasing, all result from the power of conditions, not what is called nature. Confucianism and Daoism hold that the daily transformations and monthly shifts, proceeding toward the new and renewing the old, all have their power spontaneously of themselves, not proceeding from our mind.

Eighth, the difference between Heaven and non-Heaven. Confucianism and Daoism divide the currents of misfortune, fortune, auspiciousness, and inauspiciousness into two: the first is Heaven, and the second is Earth. That which Earth does can be checked and stopped, hence "planning before the omen appears and breaking the fragile while it is weak"; that which Heaven does cannot be escaped or avoided, hence accepting it and rejoicing in it, forgetting it and repeating it. Therefore, those who are at peace with Heaven abandon what is human; those who cut off sagehood follow the Way—this is the purport of Laozi. The Buddhists take the retribution of causes and conditions to have two ancestral sources: the first is suffering and accumulation, and the second is cessation and the path. As for cessation and the path: neither abiding nor defiled, free from annihilation and free from permanence, soaring high above the peak of emptiness and existence, transcending far beyond birth-and-death. As for suffering and accumulation: turning in accordance with the mind, following karma high and low, coming and going among the six destinies, lingering within the three realms of existence. Therefore, those who feel revulsion toward suffering cut off its accumulation; those who rejoice in cessation cultivate the path—this is the purport of the Śākya clan. The principles of the two traditions are as clear as the palm of one's hand. When doorways number by the thousands, with disparate destinations and differing alignments, how could it be possible to force them into a single whole?

Ninth, the difference between defilement and non-defilement. Laozi holds that benevolence destroys the Way; when benevolence is abandoned, the Way naturally abides, and it does not lie in action. Desires harm one's nature; when desires are removed, one's nature is naturally attained, and it does not lie in cultivation. Gain burdens life; when gain is rejected, life naturally flourishes, and it does not lie in increase. Ritual arises from disorder; when ritual is abandoned, disorder naturally disappears, and it does not lie in instituting it. Governance proceeds from the Way; when the Way is present, governance naturally arrives, and it does not lie in sagehood. Attainment lies in the right timing; when the time comes, position naturally forms, and it does not lie in striving. Therefore, without seeking, it is naturally attained; without acting, it naturally accomplishes; whoever acts on it will surely fail, and whoever seeks it will surely lose—such is the teaching of Lord Lao. The Buddhists hold that goodness is the root of the path of blessings; cultivating goodness, one receives blessings among humans and devas. Non-goodness is the root of the evil paths; accumulating non-goodness, one sinks into the three bad destinations. Compassion is the path of non-harm; desire is the source of birth-and-death. If desire is severed, birth-and-death are necessarily eliminated; if compassion is practiced, life is long-lasting. Therefore, whoever does good surely attains, and whoever does non-good surely loses; those who abandon desire surely transcend desire, and those who do not abandon desire surely sink into desire—such is the teaching of Śākyamuni. The methods of the teachings having been distinguished, their differences are thus clearly arranged. Like cold and warmth, in principle they are difficult to combine.

Tenth, the difference between refuges. The Buddhists hold that birth-and-death is suffering, taking shape from false conceptualization. Craving is defilement, arising on account of avidyā. Arising on account of avidyā, it can be pruned and eliminated; born from false conceptualization, it can be pulled up and uprooted. Pulling up and uprooting are based on the nominality of nature; pruning and eliminating proceed from the falsity of substance. Those who understand that substance is false calm falsehood and realize nirvāṇa; those who comprehend that nature is nominal abandon the nominal and return to quiescence. Thereupon, driving the One Vehicle and sailing the raft of the six pāramitās, they cross the sea of the suffering of birth-and-death, emerge from the troublesome cage of the burning house, ascend far upon the terrace of prajñā, and wondrously enter the park of nirvāṇa. Serene, eternally joyful, enduring alongside empty space; majestically and completely luminous, melding object and cognition into dual quiescence—this is that toward which the Buddhist teaching returns. Laozi holds that birth and death are destiny, entirely wrought by the Way. Sagacity and unworthiness are nature, solely bestowed by Heaven. What Heaven bestows cannot be escaped; what the Way does cannot be resisted. Those who know that the Heavenly Way cannot be confounded or resisted are able to abide peacefully in birth and death and preserve their nature and emotion intact. When nature and emotion are intact, Heaven is not damaged; when residing in death and life, the Way is not compromised. When the Way is not compromised, anxieties of joy and aversion vanish; when Heaven is not damaged, the minds of pleasure and anger are extinguished. Thereupon, emerging from the realm of noisy dust, they roam in the land of the Way and Virtue; their principle stands solitary and eminent within the universe, and their spirit alone coalesces beyond the worldly domain. Placid and mysteriously quiescent, burdens and harms cannot intrude; tranquil in non-action, perverse qi cannot invade. One can achieve longevity and exhaust one's natural years—this is that toward which the teaching of Laozi returns. Since that toward which they return is different, their points of departure are likewise distinct; the distance between them is vast—a thousand li is not far enough [to describe it]. The ten differences above: it is hoped that you ponder them carefully and hold them deep within your heart. Mostly using the causes and conditions of the Hīnayāna to refute the mysterious subtleties of non-Buddhist traditions—how much more so the round interfusion of true emptiness and wondrous existence, principle and phenomenon; the unimpededness of the one and the many encompassing defilement and purity; and the multi-layered reciprocal illumination, thoroughly interfused moment to moment! Do not seek fleeting, petty fame by conflating the three teachings into a single alignment, cultivating the poisonous seeds of wrong views to become the profound cause of hell, opening the source and flow of avidyā, and obstructing the mysterious path of omniscient knowledge. Beware! Beware! Those who transmit and receive this must carefully discern.

14.15

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Third, the tenet that phenomena lack past and future refers to the Mahāsāṃghika": it first identifies the tenet, and from "teaching that the present exists" downward, explains it. The word "etc." encompasses seven full schools and one partial school. That is, altogether eight full schools and one partial school share this view: first, the Mahāsāṃghika; second, the Haimavata; third, the Gokulika; fourth, the Caityaśaila; fifth, the Aparaśaila; sixth, the Uttaraśaila; seventh, the Dharmaguptaka; and eighth, the Kāśyapīya. The Samayabhedoparacanacakra, in describing the Caityaśaila, Aparaśaila, and Uttaraśaila, states: "Their remaining doctrines are mostly the same as the Mahāsāṃghika"; its description of the Dharmaguptaka is also like this. In describing the Kāśyapīya, it states: "Its remaining doctrines are mostly the same as the Dharmaguptaka." The eight schools above belong to this category of view. As for "one partial school," this takes the root Mahīśāsaka school, which says: "The past and future realms do not exist; the present and the unconditioned exist." In describing the Haimavata, it says: "Their remaining doctrines are mostly the same as the Sarvāstivāda, also lacking past and future." Elder Su of Beijing said: "On account of the former meaning, the Dharmaguptaka's position in the Four-Part Vinaya, as well as the Mahāsāṃghika's position in the Four Āgamas and the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, all belong to the third tenet that phenomena lack past and future."

14.16

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Fourth, the tenet that the present encompasses the nominal and the real, etc.": this comprises one full school and one partial school. The one full school is the Prajñaptivāda. The one partial school is the branch Sautrāntika, since the root Sautrāntika is subsumed under the first tenet. As for the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra: its author was formerly a disciple of the Sāṃkhya who mistook what is produced for the producer; later, when he left home to enter the Buddha's teaching, he was subsumed under the Sautrāntika. Therefore the Tripiṭaka Master said: "The Sautrāntika holds that subtle [phenomena] are real while coarse [phenomena] are nominal; since its meaning of nominal and real is identical, it is subsumed under [the tenet that] the present encompasses the nominal and the real." This "teaching the nominal" is distinct from the Ekavyāvahārika and the Lokottaravāda. This means that within ultimate truth there are both the nominal and the real: when explaining meaning by way of the skandhas, they are real, because they are real accumulations; when explaining meaning by way of the dhātus and āyatanas, they are nominal, because they are nominal accumulations. Now, when the commentary says "its Tattvasiddhi-śāstra," it refers precisely to the partial branch Sautrāntika.

14.17

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Fifth, the tenet that the conventional is false and the ultimate is real, etc.": because the conventional is nominal, being nominal it is therefore false; the supramundane is true, and being true it is not nominal, hence it is real. It is slightly similar to the Madhyamakaśāstra, moving halfway forward.

14.18

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Sixth, the tenet that all phenomena are merely nominal": this reveals that the supramundane is also merely nominal. Hence it says that all selves and phenomena are also like the Madhyamakaśāstra: if there is a mundane, there is a supramundane; since there is no mundane, how could there be a supramundane, and so on.

14.19

Regarding the commentary's "Seventh, the tenet of emptiness and existence of the three natures": this is the tenet of the complete and actual according with reason established by the Mahāyāna masters.

14.20

Regarding the commentary's "Eighth, the tenet of true emptiness eliminating marks": this is the Mahāyāna masters' tenet that both [emptiness and existence] are empty in the ultimate sense.

14.21

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Ninth, the tenet of the unimpededness of emptiness and existence, etc.": this means that because they are mutually interfused, existence is the existence that is identical with emptiness, emptiness is the emptiness that is identical with existence, speaking of emptiness necessarily encompasses existence, and mentioning existence necessarily encompasses emptiness; hence it is called mutual interfusion. "Doubly eliminated" means that since existence is identical with emptiness, existence is eliminated; since emptiness is identical with existence, emptiness is eliminated. As for "not obstructing both subsisting": because they do not destroy characteristics, existence is identical with emptiness without existence perishing, and emptiness is identical with existence without emptiness vanishing. As for "tathatā in concordance with conditions": above it was said that emptiness and existence admit [each other], but to avoid confusion with mere emptiness, it states that tathatā is identical with emptiness, and emptiness is identical with tathatā. Furthermore, to distinguish it from being merely inert, it says "in concordance with conditions," which does not mean there is no unchanging [aspect]. As for "endowed with virtues as numerous as the sands of the Ganges": this belongs exclusively to the Dharmatā school, not being merely empty and quiescent. The above are all doctrines within the actual teaching, as distinguished previously in establishing the teachings.

14.22

Regarding the commentary's "Tenth, the tenet of round interfusion possessing all virtues": this is explained extensively as in the section on the scope of doctrines.

14.23

Regarding the Commentary's passage starting from "However, regarding these ten tenets, each subsequent one is deeper than the preceding ones": this is the third [section], the critical assessment. Within it are two parts: first, a general critical assessment of the ten tenets; second, resolving and harmonising objections. Within the former part there are five points: First, universally elucidating shallowness and depth, hence each subsequent one is deeper than the preceding ones. Now, regarding these ten tenets, the first six are completely identical to those of the master of the Mahāyāna. The Mahāyāna has eight tenets: the seventh is called "Ultimate Emptiness of Both," and the eighth is called "Conforming to Reason, Complete and Real"—namely, taking the characteristics of phenomena (dharmalakṣaṇa) as conforming to reason, complete, and real, and the nature of phenomena (dharmatā) as the ultimate emptiness of both. Now [Xianshou] switched the seventh to the eighth, and the eighth to the seventh. As mentioned previously regarding the divergence of the two schools in the Western Regions, this now accords with dharmatā, and further adds the latter two to demonstrate profound depth. Regarding the Commentary's passage starting from "The first four are solely Hīnayāna; the fifth and sixth apply to both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna": this is the second [point], the critical assessment in terms of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Although the fifth and sixth are established within the Hīnayāna, their meaning applies to the Mahāyāna, which is why it says "the fifth and sixth apply to both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna." Regarding the Commentary's passage starting from "The seventh is dharmalakṣaṇa": this is the third [point], the critical assessment in terms of provisional and real. Regarding the Commentary's passage starting from "Furthermore, the seventh is the initial teaching": this is the fourth [point], the critical assessment using the five teachings. It only adduces four teachings because the first six, being Hīnayāna, correspond to the first—the Hīnayāna piṭaka teaching. Since the critical assessment in terms of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna was already presented before, it is omitted here. Regarding the Commentary's passage starting from "Furthermore, the seventh is also called the tenet of the existence of both two truths": this is the fifth [point], the critical assessment in terms of the two truths. This is also a distinct explanation following what is difficult: it solely assesses three tenets, explaining them again because they contain divergent meanings. That the first tenet possesses both two truths is readily known. Regarding "As in the verse of the Karatalaratna": this was composed by the Bodhisattva Bhāviveka; the entire treatise merely explains this one verse. In it there is a two-tiered syllogism (anumāna). The first half is the syllogism concerning conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛtadharma). That is, it posits that conditioned phenomena are the subject (pakṣadharmadharmī/dharmin), and being definitely empty and without intrinsic nature is the predicate (sādhyadharma). The reason (hetu) is "because of being produced from conditions." The homologous example (sādharmyadṛṣṭānta) is "like an illusory phenomenon." An illusory phenomenon is produced from conditions, and an illusory phenomenon is empty and without intrinsic nature. Conditioned phenomena are produced from conditions; conditioned phenomena are empty and without intrinsic nature. Here, the reason and example are transposed, or the phrasing has not been fully adjusted. As for saying "true nature," it means the nature of the conditioned, and it is also appropriate to say that the true nature of the conditioned is empty. The second is the syllogism concerning unconditioned phenomena (asaṃskṛtadharma). It says: unconditioned phenomena are the subject; being definitely devoid of reality is the predicate. The reason is "because of not arising." The homologous example is "like a flower in the sky." A flower in the sky does not arise, and a flower in the sky is devoid of reality; unconditioned phenomena do not arise, and unconditioned phenomena are likewise devoid of reality. Thus the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "If conditioned phenomena exist, then unconditioned phenomena exist. Since conditioned phenomena do not exist, how could unconditioned phenomena exist?" This is elaborated in that treatise.

First 23 of 46 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese