大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 19

English (machine translation) 19

Language: English

19.1

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

Regarding the commentary from "Thus we know that briefly taking" downward: the fifth part concludes with praise for their inconceivability, which can be understood. In the sixth section, "The Gathering of the Ocean-like Assembly in Cloud-like Multitudes," the commentary says: "First, to serve as shadow and echo, and to be masters and companions": these ten intentions among the reasons for assembling all silently draw upon the subsequent sūtra text. This first intention cited means that the great bodhisattvas and the Tathāgatas confirming the Dharma below all serve reciprocally as masters and companions, just as a shadow follows a form and an echo responds to a sound.

19.3

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Second, to serve as an entourage" and so forth: this is also an implicit citation of the meaning.

19.4

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Third, to protect and guard" and so forth: the sūtra says: "All of them constantly made great vows throughout immeasurable kalpas in the past, wishing to constantly draw near to and make offerings to all Buddhas." Moreover, the subsequent sūtra text says: "Wherever the transformed forms of all Buddhas reside, they all follow the transformations and go; wherever all Tathāgatas dwell, they constantly and diligently protect and guard them."

19.5

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Constantly adorning and purifying the Buddha's palaces": this refers to the virtue of the city-ruling spirits. The subsequent sūtra text says: "All of them, throughout immeasurable, inconceivable kalpas, adorned and purified the palaces inhabited by the Tathāgatas." The reason why the heading indicates the site-of-enlightenment spirits while the explanation instead cites the city-ruling spirits is that the word "etc." here includes the city spirits. Now, the site-of-enlightenment spirits ought to adorn the site of enlightenment, but in the verse praising the virtues of the site-of-enlightenment spirits, it only says: "All of them met immeasurable Buddhas in the past, fulfilled the power of vows, and extensively made offerings." Explication: Because there is no text mentioning adornment [there], it uses "etc." to include the text of the city spirits. Regarding "Fifth, to make offerings" and so forth: because the meanings are numerous and multilayered, they are cited in general terms. Below "Gāthā praises": the "Wondrous Adornment" chapter. The phrase "flower banners, etc." refers to the twenty-second fascicle, the "Ascending to the Tuṣita Heaven Palace" chapter.

19.6

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Sixth, acting as initiators, namely Vimukticandra," and so forth: the seventh is also cited in a summary manner, while the eighth, ninth, and tenth are evident and easily understood. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Second, the causes of gathering are also ten," and so forth: "cause" means the reason. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "First, having previously [cultivated roots of goodness] together with Vairocana," and so forth: this comes from the virtues of the bodhisattvas, where it says, "These bodhisattvas all, in the past, cultivated bodhisattva practices together with the Tathāgata Vairocana, gathering roots of goodness." "Second, having previously been gathered in by being received by the Buddha's four means of gathering": this is from the beginning of the second fascicle, in the passage praising the assembly in general, which says, "All this was because in the past, during seas of kalpas, when the Tathāgata Vairocana cultivated bodhisattva practice, he gathered them in using the four means of gathering." The third is an implicit citation from the "Entering the Dharmadhātu" chapter, where the various śrāvakas and others, formerly residing in saṃsāra, had never heard this and therefore did not see or hear it; this inversely shows that the bodhisattvas had indeed heard it in the past. The fourth is the virtue of the yakṣa kings, which says, "They all diligently protect all sentient beings," which is also an implicit citation. As Haiyun says, "Arousing a mind of compassion, they protect all who have fear," and so forth, which is that text. The fifth is the virtue of the body-assembly spirits, where the text says, "All of them, in the past, fulfilled great vows to make offerings to and attend upon all buddhas." The sixth is the virtue of the foot-traveling spirits, where the text says, "All of them, throughout immeasurable kalpas in the past, closely served the Tathāgata, following him without forsaking him." "Without forsaking him" means without satiety. The seventh is the virtue of the gandharva kings, where the text says, "All of them deeply aroused faith and understanding in the Great Dharma, rejoicing, cherishing, respecting it, and diligently practicing it without weariness." The eighth is the virtue of the wind-ruling spirits, where the text says, "All of them diligently disperse and destroy the mind of egoistic pride." It is also the virtue of the asuras, where the text says, "All have diligently subdued egoistic pride and all afflictions." The ninth is the virtue of the bodhisattvas, where the text says, "The great ocean of merits of all tathāgatas all entered their bodies, and to whichever lands all the buddhas resided in, they went according to their vows." It can also be explained according to the general sense: only those who possess the two adornments can reach the abodes of all buddhas everywhere. The tenth is also the virtue of the bodhisattvas, where the text says, "All were born from the ocean of the Tathāgata's roots of goodness."

19.7

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Among them, the cause of gathering also conveys the intention of gathering": this refers to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth. The fifth is in terms of past vows: coming in reliance on the vows is the intention of gathering; being able to come due to the vows is the cause of gathering. The sixth is in terms of following: the mind delighting in following is the intention of gathering; being able to come and assemble due to delighting in following is the cause of gathering. The seventh is in terms of coming out of delight in hearing the Great Dharma, which is the intention of gathering; being able to come due to delight is the cause of gathering. The eighth is in terms of dispersing the ego: doing so to praise the dispersal of the ego is the intention of gathering; only by dispersing the ego being able to be present in the assembly is the cause of gathering. The first four and the last two are merely causes: because of jointly gathering goodness and so forth, they were able to be at the place of awakening (bodhimaṇḍa), which serves only as the cause of gathering, not as an intention to come specifically. Because it was for jointly gathering goodness and so forth, it is not the intention of gathering.

19.8

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "And according to the various assemblies, each has its specific cause": this refers to the subsequent scripture text praising their virtues according to their names. However, what was cited above is indeed its text. Yet the scripture, according to what is appropriate, praises virtues differently. As with the wind spirits, saying "disperse and destroy the mind of egoistic pride" expresses the general idea. Summarizing these ten causes, they apply universally to many assemblies; therefore, here it specifically explains the distinct causes according to the respective assemblies.

19.9

Regarding the Commentary's "Fourth: determining the number": the text of the Commentary is divided into three parts: first, explaining separately according to the characteristics; second, from "However, these various assemblies" downward, harmonizing and explaining; and third, from "This is still in terms of distinguishing characteristics" downward, integrating and interpenetrating.

19.10

Regarding the Commentary's "Fifth: provisional and real," and so forth: the text of the Commentary is divided into two: first, discerning provisional and real in general; second, from "Compared with the previous ten classes" downward, distinguishing them individually against the previous. When it says, "Mutually serving as host and companion, they are neither provisional nor real": provisional and real are of two kinds: first, the source is exalted while the trace is base, like a buddha acting as a bodhisattva; second, the source is base while the trace is exalted, like a bodhisattva acting as a buddha. Now, since they are already buddhas, they are not of a base trace, but are truly Tathāgatas. Moreover, their source is not base, and therefore they are real and not provisional. Since there is no provisional with which to contrast them, they are also not real, because they share the same ocean of fruition. Regarding the Commentary's "Formerly acting as the teacher of Śākya," and so forth: there are two sūtras for this: the first is the *Sūtra on Releasing the Bowl*, which merely says that formerly he was the teacher of Śākya; the second is precisely the *Sūtra of the Bodhisattva Dwelling in the Womb*. The fourth fascicle states: "Calculating my body of a realized buddha, this land is the smallest. Because there was doubt in the assembly, I manifested transformation in the womb. My body is like minute particles of dust, now in other lands; with the thirty-two marks clearly distinct, there is nowhere it does not appear. In the past I was the teacher of the Capable Sage (Śākyamuni), and now I am the Buddha's disciple. The Buddha Path is exceedingly vast, pure without increase or decrease. I wished to manifest a buddha's body, but two Honoured Ones do not stand together; in this realm I presently receive instruction, while in my own land my buddha-body is seen." Below, it cites according to the general sense. The buddha-land is named Unhindered, the buddha is named Ascending Immortal Honoured One, and it concludes by saying, "My body is indeed Ruoshou (Mañjuśrī)." It also says: "The land is named Ultimate, and the buddha is named Great Wisdom." It also concludes by attributing this to himself, saying, "My body is indeed Ruoshou."

19.11

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The primary recipients are solely real": from equal awakening above down to before the stages below, all share the meaning of listening, and all are called real. The remaining eight apply to both provisional and real, which can be grasped from the sense.

19.12

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Correlating this with the previous provisional and real," and so forth: this is the eighth section, where the Commentary's text is divided into two: first, directly explaining; and from here downward, evaluating and selecting against the preceding. First, it evaluates and selects against the fifth section. If against the previous ten classes, it evaluates and selects against the third section.

19.13

Regarding the Commentary's "Seventh: sequence," and so forth: this refers to listing the assembly, where other sūtras either proceed from the superior, listing bodhisattvas first and śrāvakas later, or proceed from the subtle to the prominent, or list śrāvakas first and bodhisattvas later. Now, in this ocean of assemblies, which comes first? The text of the Commentary is divided into three: first, directly explaining; second, resolving objections; third, concluding to reveal the Dharma. Now, for the first: listing them and praising their virtues differ in sequence; yet bodhisattvas are taken as the root and the miscellaneous classes as the branches. In the praise of virtues below, the first three fascicles first clarify the praises by the miscellaneous classes, and only in the fifth fascicle are the bodhisattvas' praises clarified; hence it is called "tracing the branches to return to the root."

19.14

From the Commentary's "Furthermore, flowing from the root to the branches" downward, it resolves an objection. An objection states: In the initial listing, since bodhisattvas are the root and the miscellaneous classes are the branches, putting the root first and the branches later, then among the various devas it should be that from the Maheśvara Deva (Paranirmitavaśavartin/Īśvara), next comes the Bṛhatphala, and next lists the third dhyāna, and so on; why does it first clarify the desire realm and later list the first dhyāna, second dhyāna, and so on? This would be putting the lesser first and the greater later. Therefore, it now answers: The bodhisattvas are the root, like the One Vehicle. The miscellaneous classes are the branches, like the flowing of the three vehicles. Among the three vehicles, initially at the Deer Park the Four Truths were turned, gradually returning to the Great; therefore it lists the desire realm first and the form realm later, ascending in proper sequence; hence it says "the lesser first and the greater later." Thus Īśvara is the branch, and "branch" means the very last. Regarding "gathering the branches to return to the root": another objection states: In the praises of virtues, to symbolize tracing the branches to return to the root, bodhisattvas are explained last, so it should be that the praises of the Sun and Moon devas are explained first, and only at the very end are the praises of the Īśvara devas explained. Why, among the miscellaneous classes, are the praises of Īśvara explained first? Therefore, it now answers: Gathering the branches to return to the root must proceed from the deep to the shallow. Bodhisattvas are the root to which one returns, and the miscellaneous classes are the branches that are gathered. Gathering the branches must proceed from the superior; for this reason, it first gathers the provisional teaching of the Mahāyāna. Just as the ocean gathers the hundred streams, it must first gather the Yangtze, next gather the great rivers, next gather the small streams, and next gather the ditches and gutters. Therefore, when gathering and returning to the One Vehicle, it first gathers the provisional Mahāyāna, next gathers the pratyekabuddhas, next gathers the śrāvakas, and next gathers humans and devas; not a single hair of goodness is left ungathered. Therefore, first explaining the praises of the Īśvara devas symbolizes that among those gathered, the superior are gathered first. Later explaining the Sun and Moon devas and so forth symbolizes that among those gathered, the inferior are collected later.

19.15

From the Commentary's "However, all reveal the dharmadhātu" downward, the third part concludes to reveal the Dharma. This also has two parts: first, concluding to form sovereignty; second, from "Furthermore, symbolizing the forty-two stages" downward, concluding to form interpenetration.

19.16

Regarding the Commentary's "Eighth: presence and absence," and so forth: within the text there are two parts: first, explaining separately. Here there are three parts: first, generally clarifying the first three; next, distinguishing the fourth separately; and afterwards, explaining the remaining six together. Later, from "The above ten are tentatively according to characteristics" downward, it is consummate and interpenetrating.

19.17

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Fourth, in terms of vehicle, there are no two vehicles, because it is an unshared teaching," and so forth: this section has four parts: first, directly explaining. Second, from "Below, in order to reveal the Dharma" downward, resolving an objection. That is, an objection states: If there are no two vehicles, how could they be present in the ninth assembly? The answer is: It is merely to reveal the Dharma. Next, another objection states: If it is to reveal the Dharma, then the two vehicles are present? The answer is: They also neither see nor hear, which is identical to absence. Third, from "The *Dazhidulun* states" downward, citing evidence to clarify that the absence of the Hinayāna is the meaning of being an unshared [teaching]. Fourth, from "Or Mahāyāna sūtras" downward, resolving objections in four tiers, directly resolving the *Dazhidulun* and concurrently resolving the correct meaning. That is, someone asks: There are cases where only the Hinayāna is listed and yet it is a Mahāyāna text, as in the *Vajracchedikā*; why say that listing the Hinayāna first means it is solely a Hinayāna sūtra? The answer is: It is for the purpose of guiding and gathering. The *Dazhidulun* speaks in terms of the general case, so listing only the Hinayāna means it is a Hinayāna sūtra. Texts like the *Vajracchedikā* operate on a distinct principle. When it says that listing only the Mahāyāna is also not the One Vehicle, meaning that host and companion are not fully present, texts like the *Laṅkāvatāra* and others are examples of this.

19.18

Regarding the Commentary's "Ninth: hearing or not," and so forth: within this there are three parts: first, directly explaining. Next, from "Even though not arising from the former" downward, resolving an objection. That is, someone asks: If, in terms of the real assembly, they do not hear one another, then since the Tathāgata's preaching of the Dharma does not arise from the former to proceed to the latter, how is it that the listening assemblies cannot hear one another? Therefore, it now answers: In terms of the Buddha, before and after are consummately interpenetrating; in terms of faculties, they are mutually unaware. Thus Dharmamati says: "Everyone in Jambudvīpa says the Buddha is in their midst; we now see the Buddha dwelling on the summit of Mount Sumeru." Thus we know that they are mutually unaware of one another.

19.19

On the Commentary's "The above nine headings" onward: third, the summary conclusion on the doctrinal headings. Among the ten, where the Commentary says, "Other explanations are myriad, but do not accord with the treatise's intention": this refers to an explanation stating that śrāvakas are identical and bodhisattvas are different, because [śrāvakas] are identical in having severed afflictions in the lesser vehicle. Another says that renunciant bodhisattvas and śrāvakas are identical, while the rest are all different, because this is considered in terms of identical outward form. Both of the above two explanations depart from the treatise's intention, because in the eight assemblies of the sūtra there are no śrāvakas; because in the treatise's commentary on the Daśabhūmika-sūtra the sūtra also lacks them; and because at the initial attainment of right awakening there was no renunciation. Another says that ascending the grounds constitutes identity because of identically realizing reality, while all the rest are different; hence, before the grounds is termed the state of ordinary beings (pṛthagjanatva). Another says that those from the eighth ground and above are identical because of identically possessing untainted marks. Both of the above two explanations also contradict the treatise text, for the treatise master merely says that "Vimukticandra belongs to the congregation of identical birth," and never originally said this was defined by stages. Furthermore, the treatise explains that when the great assembly made request, it says there was a request from the congregation of identical birth and there were those before the grounds. How it is known that there were [such beings] is that Vajragarbha said: "There are those whose practice is not yet long and who have not yet attained understanding; they act according to consciousness and not according to gnosis; hearing this, they would give rise to doubt and fall into evil destinies; pitying them, I do not speak." Relying on this, the great assembly then made request, making it clear that among the great assembly there were those whose practice was not yet long—namely, those before the grounds. There is yet another explanation stating: the miscellaneous classes are identical because they assume those various bodies of identical kinds; bodhisattvas are different because they are not considered in terms of being of the same kind as those sentient beings. This also contradicts the treatise, because Vimukticandra is considered identical. Furthermore, another explanation says: bodhisattvas and the miscellaneous classes are both identical, because the dharmadhātu is without duality; the rest are all different, because of the differentiated meanings of the dharmadhātu. As this is framed in terms of the ultimate meaning, how could it serve to explain the distinction between identity and difference? One clearly knows that all the above are not correct interpretations. Therefore, the Commentary says that other explanations are myriad, but do not accord with the treatise's intention.

19.20

On the Commentary's "How is it called..." onward: the preceding elucidated the entities of identical and different birth, and now it explains the meaning of identical and different birth. However, there are two explanations: the first is based on phenomenal characteristics, and the second is based on expressing the Dharma. Furthermore, some correlate these forty assemblies with stages, dividing the congregation of identical birth into two: namely, the ten Samantabhadra Bodhisattvas are the complete cause, serving as the object of faith for the preceding bodhisattvas; from Sāgaracandraprabha onward and the Vajra-holders constitute the ten abodes. They further correlate the ten names within each stage, in order, with the ten perfections. The ten bodhisattvas, such as Sāgaracandraprabha, are correlated with the abode of the initial resolve; this stage fundamentally corresponds to dāna, and these ten bodhisattvas are further correlated with possessing the ten within dāna, thereby endowing the ten abodes themselves with one hundred pāramitās. Proceeding through the five stages, there are five hundred pāramitās, because the stage of equal awakening also has ten stages. The ten assemblies from the harvest spirits onward are correlated with the ten practices; from the asuras downward are correlated with the ten dedications; from the Trāyastriṃśa heaven downward are correlated with the ten grounds; and the preceding ten Samantabhadra Bodhisattvas are the ground of equal awakening. One who makes such correlations seems to be inventing them out of sentiment; yet the textual dynamics are manifold, and correlating them is also not an error—it is just not necessary to be so disordered like this. Namely, correlating the forty assemblies with the three stages of worthies and the ten stages of sages, the assembly at the lion throne below with equal awakening, and the assembly emerging from between the eyebrows with wondrous awakening—thereby correlating forty-two assemblies with the forty-two stages—is exceedingly straightforward in principle.

19.21

On the Commentary's "Now first, sages are fundamentally without names..." onward: this first summarizes the general idea. In this there are three parts: first, it generally indicates establishing names where there are no names; hence the Zhuangzi states: "The ultimate man has no self; the spiritual man has no merit; the sage has no name." Now, with regard to benefiting sentient beings, names are forcibly established where there are no names. Next, from "Although they obtain thousands of different names" onward, it generally explains the reasons for establishing names. Below this, it explains the specific causes for establishing names. Where it says "mostly based on virtues of practice," this is because there are also those [named] based on lineage, based on parents, and so forth. Lastly, from "all possessing virtues of practice" onward, it resolves an objection. That is, there is an objection saying: "Since they are based on virtues of practice, yet all bodhisattvas are endowed with both virtues and practice, how do they become distinct?" Therefore it says "specifically designated according to suitability," which means in accordance with convenience. For instance, as a verse states: "A disciple firm in the bodhicitta / receives the stage of consecration from the master, / exquisitely cultivates concentration and wisdom, constantly contemplating, / and deeply enters the skillful gate of karmic activity"—this is Samantabhadra Bodhisattva. It also says: "Guiding all sentient beings to superior bodhi, / gathering them in with the four means of embracing"—this is Vajrarāja Bodhisattva. "Tireless great compassion, never abandoned"—this is Vajrarāga Bodhisattva. "Seeing a slight good practiced, immediately praising it"—this is Vajrasādhu Bodhisattva. "Non-abiding generosity, equal to empty space"—this is Vajraratna Bodhisattva, also another name for Ākāśagarbha Bodhisattva. "Able to shatter folly and darkness with the light of wisdom"—this is Vajrasūrya Bodhisattva, also called Vajraprabha. "Whenever there is a wish sought, never opposing it"—this is Vajraketu Bodhisattva. "Uttering speech, first smiling to cause the mind to rejoice"—this is Vajrahāsa Bodhisattva. "Able to abide within the wondrous Dharma free of defilement"—this is Vajradharma Bodhisattva. "Skilled in using prajñā to sever all defiling propensities"—this is Vajratīkṣṇa Bodhisattva, who is also Mañjuśrī. "The unexcelled wheel of Dharma, constantly non-retrogressing"—this is Vajrahetu Bodhisattva, also called Vajradharmacakra Bodhisattva. "Expounding with the four unimpeded knowledges without fear"—this is Vajrabhāṣa Bodhisattva. "Amidst the activities of all buddhas and sentient beings"—this is Vajrakarma Bodhisattva. "Constantly donning the armor of firm vows and compassion"—this is Vajrarakṣa Bodhisattva, also called Vajrakavaca Bodhisattva. "Destroying the superior host of Māra's army"—this is Vajrayakṣa Bodhisattva, also called Vajradaṃṣṭra Bodhisattva. "Firmly holding the secret gates of all buddhas"—this is Vajrasaṃdhi Bodhisattva. Furthermore, as riding upon sounds to rescue beings is named Guanyin (Avalokiteśvara), and raining flowers from the hand is named the Bodhisattva Flower-in-Hand, all are according to virtue and according to suitability.

19.22

On the Commentary's "Now first, the 'universality' (samanta) of the ten names is the general of the particular": there might be an objection saying: "Since it was previously stated that the ten universalities reveal the virtue of the general characteristic of the dharmadhātu, how can there further be distinctions such as Universal Virtue and Universal Light?" Therefore, it provides this resolution.

19.23

On the Commentary's "This is past and present..." onward: it clarifies the reason for listing them first, which may be understood. However, the explanations of their names all draw upon the Dharma gates attained below to form a harmonious interpretation. Because they attained liberation, each established their name in accordance with what they attained; this is why it was previously stated that names are established based on virtues and practices. If this is not understood, one need only search the subsequent sūtra and it will naturally become clear. On the Commentary's "Furthermore, 'vi' means 'various'..." onward: secondly, it explains the name Vairocana. Because Sanskrit words contain multiple meanings, there is this explanation. In this there are two parts: first, a general explanation; second, from "Therefore the Samantabhadradhyāna-sūtra..." onward, it cites the sūtra for a specific explanation. That sūtra was taught because Samantabhadra instructed practitioners to repent. The practitioner asked: "Where should I repent?" Therefore there was this teaching. Now, since the Commentary alternates with the sūtra, it should be cited in full. The sūtra states: "Śākyamuni is named Vairocana Who Pervades All Places; that Buddha's dwelling place is named Constantly Quiescent Light, the place encompassed and formed by the permanence-pāramitā, the place established by the self-pāramitā, the place where marks of existence are extinguished by the purity-pāramitā, the place where marks of body and mind cannot be apprehended through the bliss-pāramitā, the place where the marks of all phenomena as existent or non-existent are not seen, like quiescent liberation up to the prajñāpāramitā, because form is an eternally abiding phenomenon." Merely observing the sūtra text, the sūtra and the commentary will naturally be distinguished.

19.24

On the Commentary's "Host and companion are of three kinds": first, the host and companion of dedication (pariṇāmanā), wherein the roots of goodness cultivated are mutually dedicated, so that now having attained buddhahood they mutually serve as host and companion. Second, those of identical practice, who identically cultivate practices such as dhyāna and śīla. Third, both according with the nature, naturally containing each other.

19.25

On the Commentary's "Meaning that the Buddha's virtues are boundless..." onward: this explains the meaning of "ocean," which reflects the meaning in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa. A verse in that sūtra states: "The Buddha's virtues are boundless like the great ocean; / limitless wondrous treasures accumulate within it; / the water of the virtue of wisdom is always ever brimming; / hundreds of thousands of superior samādhis are all replete." Thus, it is identical to an ocean.

19.26

On the Commentary's "Born from the ocean of one's own Buddha's roots of goodness": because Samantabhadra and the others themselves fully complete the ten bodies, and among the ten bodies there is the Tathāgata body, relying on the Buddha body they give rise to bodhisattva functions, which is called being born from that.

19.27

On the Commentary's "Because a great being must venerate virtue..." onward: it first clarifies the intent of the praise, with the first two lines stating the theme. Regarding "venerating virtue and broadening enterprise," the Upper Commentary of the Zhouyi states: "The Master said: 'Is not the Changes the utmost? For the Changes is that by which the sage venerates virtue and broadens enterprise.'" The commentary states: "Exhausting principles and entering the spirit—its virtue is venerated. Comprehensively rescuing the myriad things—its enterprise is broad." Next it further says: "Wisdom is venerated, propriety is humble; veneration emulates heaven, humility models on earth." The commentary states: "Wisdom values veneration, propriety takes humility as its function." It also says: "Abundant virtue and great enterprise are the utmost! Abundant possession is called great enterprise; daily renewal is called abundant virtue." Regarding "emptying the mind and treating the body as external," this reflects the intent of Laozi. He states: "Empty his mind, fill his belly; weaken his ambition, strengthen his bones." He also states: "Putting his person last, his person is first; treating his person as external, his person is preserved." Here his words are borrowed. This means that bodhisattvas make their minds empty and vast, their wisdom transcending subject and object, forgetting themselves for the sake of beings and single-mindedly benefiting others. Thus a later passage of the sūtra states: "The meritorious practices cultivated by bodhisattvas / are not for oneself or for others; / but solely with the mind of supreme wisdom, / they dedicate them for the sake of benefiting sentient beings." This is the meaning.

19.28

On the Commentary's "Because of venerating virtue..." onward: second, it explains the four matters above, which may be understood.

19.29

On the Commentary's "Among the five eyes, the wisdom-eye contemplates principle": the five are (1) the flesh-eye, (2) the divine-eye, (3) the wisdom-eye, (4) the Dharma-eye, and (5) the Buddha-eye. The explanation of their characteristics is as in the "Chapter on Transcending the World"; here only the wisdom-eye is taken up. Regarding the "ten eyes," beyond the preceding five eyes five more are added, and their karmic functions are largely different. The text states: "Namely, the flesh-eye because of seeing all forms; the divine-eye because of seeing the minds of all sentient beings; the wisdom-eye because of seeing the realms of all faculties of sentient beings; the Dharma-eye because of seeing the true mark of all phenomena as it is; the Buddha-eye because of seeing the Tathāgata's ten powers; the gnostic eye because of knowing and seeing all phenomena; the radiant eye because of seeing the Buddha's radiance; the eye transcending birth and death because of seeing nirvāṇa; the unimpeded eye because what it sees is unobstructed; and the omniscient eye because of seeing the universal-gate dharmadhātu." The explanation says: seeing the realms of all faculties is seeing phenomena, which is identical to the seeing of the Dharma-eye among the five eyes. Thus, regarding the expression "bright and penetrating," "bright" corresponds to the gnostic [eye] among the ten eyes, and "penetrating" corresponds to the wisdom[-eye] among the five eyes.

19.30

On the Commentary's "Vertically, it deeply enters into the boundless": thus the Lotus Sūtra states: "Dhyāna, wisdom, liberation, and samādhi deeply enter into the boundless."

19.31

On the Commentary's "Those who should be embraced..." onward: this is from the text of the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra. Regarding "Because by fully practicing this, one enters the true Dharma": this draws upon the meaning to conclude it. That sūtra says: "Subduing and embracing cause the true Dharma to abide long; mostly subduing the obstinate and embracing the compliant."

19.32

Regarding the commentary's citation: "According to the *Buddhadhātu-śāstra*, there are five garbhas," this refers to the second fascicle of that treatise, in the fourth division, "Analysis of Characteristics," Chapter 1, "Characteristics of Essential Nature," where there are two meanings. The first is "Characteristics of Essential Nature." Quoting and explaining it, [the treatise] states: "The characteristics of essential nature are of two kinds: first, specific characteristics; second, common characteristics. Specific characteristics are of three kinds. What are the three? First, wish-fulfilling virtue; second, unvarying nature; third, moistening and soothing nature. As for the characteristic of wish-fulfilling virtue, it means that the tathāgatagarbha has five kinds. What are the five? First, the tathāgatagarbha, whose meaning of 'garbha' is intrinsic nature. All phenomena do not go beyond the Tathāgata's intrinsic nature, taking non-self as their characteristic; therefore, all phenomena are spoken of as the tathāgatagarbha. Second, the saddharmagarbha (treasury of the true Dharma), whose meaning of 'garbha' is cause. Because all noble beings take this nature as the objective realm for the true dharmas such as the four bases of mindfulness, so that those not yet arisen are enabled to arise, and those already arisen are brought to fullness, it is called the saddharmagarbha. Third, the dharmakāyagarbha, whose meaning of 'garbha' is attainment. All noble beings faithfully rejoice in the correct nature, faithfully rejoice and aspire to hear it; through this faithful mind, all noble beings are made to attain the four virtues, up to all Tathāgata virtues exceeding the sands of the Ganges; therefore, this nature is called the dharmakāyagarbha. Fourth, the lokottaragarbha (supramundane treasury), whose meaning of 'garbha' is reality. The mundane world has three faults: first, it can be entirely extinguished by antidotes, hence it is called 'mundane'; this dharma has no antidote, hence it is called 'supramundane.' Second, abiding in impurity is called 'mundane,' because the fruits of retribution of the false mind arise and perish from moment to moment without abiding; this dharma is not so, hence it is called 'supramundane.' Third, owing to inverted views, when the mind is in the mundane world it constantly holds inverted views, just as a person whose mind is in the three realms definitely cannot attain the patience regarding the truth of suffering and so forth; because it is false, it is called 'mundane'; this dharma can transcend the mundane, hence it is called 'reality' and is the lokottaragarbha. Fifth, the prakṛtipariśuddhagarbha (treasury of intrinsically pure nature), whose meaning of 'garbha' is secret. If all phenomena accord with this nature, they are called 'internal'; being correct and not erroneous, they are pure. If phenomena contravene this principle, they are called 'external'; being erroneous and not correct, they are called defiled. Therefore it is called the prakṛtipariśuddhagarbha. Hence the *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* states: 'World-Honoured One, the Buddha-nature is the tathāgatagarbha, the saddharmagarbha, the dharmakāyagarbha, the lokottaragarbha, and the prakṛtipariśuddhagarbha.' Because these meanings of the five garbhas are explained, the wish-fulfilling virtue is manifested. In order to illustrate this meaning, the simile of the wish-fulfilling jewel is spoken. For instance, suppose a person, by virtue of past karma, obtains a wish-fulfilling jewel. Having obtained this jewel, it can follow their wish, and whatever they delight in naturally comes to pass. Buddha-nature is also like this: by serving good spiritual friends and cultivating merits and wisdom, one attains this nature, and it then accords with the practitioner's wish, each personally attaining the fruit of the triyāna; therefore, the wish-fulfilling virtue is its antecedent characteristic." Explanation: The five garbhas cited in the commentary are taken from Xianshou's commentary; its fifth garbha corresponds to the treatise's second, the saddharmagarbha. The names differ slightly, but the principal import is the same. Taking the last one accords with the sūtra's meaning of the dharmadhātugarbha; thus it is placed fifth and renamed the dharmadhātugarbha. Now, the treatise says of the saddharmagarbha that 'cause' is its meaning. The present commentary says it encompasses cause and effect because it serves as the cause for the virtues of all the stages of cause and effect; as the treatise states, it serves as the cause for all noble beings' four bases of mindfulness and so forth.

19.33

Regarding the commentary from "The garbha that is realized is equal; only non-discrimination tallies with it" onward, it explains the non-differentiation of wisdom. Within this, there are two parts: first, the direct explanation; second, resolving an objection. In the former, there are three explanations that join to form a single meaning. First, wisdom itself is non-differentiated, like fitting a round lid to a round box; here it only discusses the roundness of the lid. That is to say, because what is realized is equal, non-differentiated wisdom is required to realize the principle; if it were differentiated wisdom, it could not realize this. Second, from "Precisely by virtue of the above meaning" onward is the second meaning: "the cognizer and the cognized are not distinct," stating that wisdom is non-differentiated, like the matching halves of a fish tally. Third, from "Moreover, this realizing [wisdom]" onward clarifies the non-differentiation of being of a single flavor, like water blended with milk. When it says "This again has two," the former is the single flavor of true emptiness, and the latter is the single flavor of marvelous existence. The former is signlessness, and the latter is dharmatā.

19.34

Regarding the commentary from "If all are of a single flavor" onward, this is the second part, resolving the objection. Within it, first comes a question, and then from "Ancient masters" onward comes the answer. In the answer, there are two parts: first, citing the past answer; second, setting forth the present intention. Within this, there are three: First, the direct explanation: because the characteristics of wisdom are exhausted, it is not existent, thereby sharing the single flavor of tathatā. Because it can cause the characteristics of wisdom to be exhausted, it is not non-existent, meaning wisdom possesses the function of reflecting back upon the emptiness of wisdom; not grasping onto wisdom is true wisdom, hence it is not that there is no wisdom. Second, from "Otherwise" onward is the converse explanation, conversely establishing the meaning of not being existent as a single flavor. Third, from "Therefore, with respect to the objective realm, it does not obstruct the true while constantly being conventional" onward, it concludes the formulation. Within this there are two points: first, contrasting quiescence and illumination with the two realms of the true and conventional to analyze their being neither one nor different; second, from "The realm is emptiness and existence" onward, concluding the non-differentiation.

19.35

Regarding the commentary from "What has been explained above" onward, this is the second part, setting forth the present intention. Within this there are three parts: first, establishing the past interpretation; next, from "has not exhausted" onward, analyzing accordance and discordance; finally, from "Now correctly" onward, presenting the doctrine. Now for the first. In establishing the past interpretation, it clarifies that it has textual authority, deriving from the *Awakening of Faith*; yet in drawing out the treatise's intention, it shows that the past interpretation did not exhaust its source. That is, in the previous conclusion, with respect to the objective realm, it does not obstruct the true while constantly being conventional; with respect to wisdom, it does not obstruct quiescence while constantly illuminating. Although it clarifies non-obstruction, if they are individually matched, the intention is to match the mind's quiescence with the realm's truth, and the mind's illumination with the realm's convention. Matching illumination with convention, mind and realm are not one; matching quiescence with truth, mind and realm are not different. This clarifies that illumination is solely matched with convention, and quiescence is solely matched with truth. Next, although it merges both the realms of emptiness and existence, it ultimately cannot be said of the two minds of quiescence and illumination that the realm does not obstruct convention while constantly being true, and the mind does not obstruct illumination while constantly being quiescent—which would mean mind and realm are not different. Thus we clearly know that the original intention was an individual matching. Therefore, the present commentary adopts that intention to show the treatise's meaning, saying that true principle's silent aloofness accords with calming quiescence, and conventional truth's flux accords with contemplative illumination. When it says, "In the *Awakening of Faith* and so forth, it is provisionally explained this way," it reveals the source upon which it relies. "And so forth" includes the *Yogācārabhūmi* and other sūtras and treatises. As for in the *Awakening of Faith*, in its section on Cultivating Faith and Practice it states: 'How does one cultivate the gate of calming and contemplation? What is called calming means putting to rest all characteristics of objective realms, because it accords with the meaning of śamatha contemplation. What is called contemplation means discerning the characteristics of arising and ceasing through causes and conditions, because it accords with the meaning of vipaśyanā contemplation. How does one accord? By gradually cultivating these two meanings without abandoning each other, so that both manifest before one. If one cultivates calming, one resides in a quiet place, sits erect with a correct mind, not relying on breath, not relying on form, not relying on emptiness, not relying on earth, water, fire, or wind, and even not relying on seeing, hearing, perceiving, or knowing. All thoughts are eliminated as they are recollected, and the thought of eliminating is also dispatched. Because all phenomena are fundamentally free of thoughts, from moment to moment unborn and from moment to moment unceasing, one must also not follow the mind to think of external realms and then use the mind to eliminate the mind. If the mind scatters, one should immediately gather it back to abide in correct mindfulness. As for this correct mindfulness, one should know it is only mind, with no external realms. Furthermore, this mind also lacks an intrinsic characteristic, unobtainable from moment to moment. If one rises from the seat, coming and going, advancing and stopping in whatever one undertakes, at all times constantly mindful of upāya, observing in accordance with it, when cultivated for a long time until pure and mature, one's mind will come to abide. Because the mind abides, it gradually becomes sharp and keen, and one accords and enters the samādhi of tathatā.' Explanation: All the above is text from the treatise. Within calming, one knows signlessness and being neither born nor extinguished; within contemplation, one is constantly mindful of upāya and discerns arising and ceasing through causes and conditions; this clearly shows that calming accords with principle, and contemplation accords with phenomena. Furthermore, a later passage in the treatise states: 'Moreover, if a person only cultivates calming, the mind will sink or give rise to indolence, not delighting in good deeds and distancing itself from great compassion; therefore, one cultivates contemplation. One who cultivates contemplation should contemplate that all conditioned phenomena of the world cannot endure for long, changing and disintegrating in an instant, and that all mental formations arise and cease from moment to moment, and are therefore suffering,' and so forth. Explanation: The above also mostly explains contemplation in terms of phenomena. Furthermore, the treatise states below: 'Except when sitting, when one focuses exclusively on calming, at all other times one should contemplate what should and should not be done, with calming and contemplation proceeding together. That is to say, although one is mindful that the intrinsic nature of all phenomena is unborn, one is simultaneously mindful of the conjunction of causes and conditions, and that the retributions of good and bad karma, suffering and pleasure, are not lost or destroyed. Although one is mindful of causes, conditions, and good and bad karmic retributions, one is also simultaneously mindful that their nature is unobtainable.' Explanation: This simultaneous proceeding also clarifies that being mindful that intrinsic nature is unborn is calming, while being mindful of the conjunction of causes and conditions is contemplation. Hence the commentary draws out the treatise's intention, saying that true principle's silent aloofness accords with calming quiescence, and conventional truth's flux accords with contemplative illumination. As for the earlier word "and so forth," it includes fascicle 77 of the *Yogācārabhūmi*, which also explains that dhyāna has three divisions: first, the śamatha division; second, the vipaśyanā division; third, the yuganaddha (conjoined) division. Its broad tenets are mostly identical with the *Awakening of Faith*, which is why it says 'and so forth.'

19.36

Regarding the commentary from "has not exhausted its source" onward, it analyzes accordance and discordance. Although the text accords with the treatise, not knowing that treatises provisionally rely on a single characteristic, it directly opposes quiescence and illumination against the true and the conventional, and is therefore in error. The commentary states: "Because making illumination of the true unable to be called illumination, and at the time of illuminating the conventional it cannot be immediately quiescent," which presents the reason why it is in error. Because quiescence is matched with the true, when solely illuminating the true there is no illumination; because illumination is matched with the conventional, when solely contemplating the conventional there is no quiescence. Therefore, taking together the intentions in the sūtras and treatises: sometimes contemplation of principle is matched with calming regarding phenomena, which is tallying with principle to halt delusion; sometimes contemplation of phenomena is matched with quiescence regarding principle, which is knowing the realm without thought; sometimes contemplation of phenomena is matched with calming regarding phenomena, which is contemplating a single realm while the mind does not waver; sometimes contemplation of principle is matched with quiescence regarding principle, which is forgetting the mind and illuminating the ultimate. Four are briefly cited; they are treated extensively as in the "Chapter on Xianshou." This is based on single contemplation; if based on the mutual merging of phenomena and principle, it is as in the commentary text below. If one relies on the ancient interpretation, there would be no calming regarding phenomena at all, nor contemplation of principle; how could one further achieve the three contemplations in one mind and the three calmings operating simultaneously? If one says that in terms of the true, realm and wisdom are non-dual, and in terms of the conventional, realm and wisdom are not one, this would be reasonable. But its conclusion says, "The realm is emptiness and existence being non-dual, and wisdom is quiescence and illumination mutually merged"; we clearly know it merely merges the previous contemplation illuminating phenomena with the quiescence tallying with principle. Please examine this in closer detail.

19.37

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'As for correctly explaining now' onward, this is the third [part], presenting the correct meaning for the present. Within this there are four parts: first, explaining the meaning of the non-identity and non-difference of object and cognition in terms of realizing principle; second, clarifying it in terms of illumining phenomena; third, explaining it in terms of fused harmonization of phenomena and principle; fourth, explaining it in terms of the perfect fusion of the three contemplations. First is the present [part]. This adopts the purport of Sengzhao's Treatise on the Unknowingness of Prajñā, interpolating it throughout the commentary to explain it. In that treatise, an objection is first raised: 'The absence in noble cognition and the absence in deluded cognition are both free from production and cessation; how are they distinguished?' The answer says: 'The absence of noble cognition is unknowing; the absence of deluded cognition is knowing absence. Though their "absence" is the same, that by which they are absent is different. Why? The noble mind is empty and quiescent, with no knowing to be negated; it can be called "unknowing", but not "knowing absence". Deluded cognition has knowing, and hence there is a knowing to be negated; it can be called "knowing absence", but not "unknowing". Unknowing is the absence of prajñā; knowing absence is the absence of absolute truth. Therefore, as for prajñā and absolute truth, spoken in terms of function they are identical yet distinct; spoken in terms of quiescence they are distinct yet identical. Because they are identical, they are without mental partiality toward one or the other; because they are distinct, they do not lose the efficacious function of illumination. Therefore, that which articulates identity is identical within distinction, and that which articulates distinction is distinct within identity; thus they cannot be attained as distinct, nor can they be attained as identical. Why? Internally there is the clarity of solitary reflection; externally there is the reality of the myriad dharmas. Though the myriad dharmas are real, yet without illumination they are not apprehended; internal and external cooperate with each other to accomplish this efficacious work of illumination—this is where the sage cannot make their functions identical. Though internally illumining, it is unknowing; though externally real, it is characterless; internally and externally quiescent, they are mutually and completely absent together—this is where the sage cannot make their quiescence distinct. Therefore the sūtra says that all dharmas are not different: could this mean lengthening the duck's legs and shortening the crane's, leveling the mountains to fill the ravines, and only then being not different? Truly, because non-difference is within difference, although they are distinct, they are not different. Thus the sūtra says, "How wonderful, World-Honoured One! Within undifferentiated dharmas you speak of the differentiation of dharmas." It also says: "Prajñā and all dharmas are neither of a single characteristic nor of different characteristics." This is truly trustworthy.' Explanation: Merely by examining the text of the treatise cited above, host and guest are naturally distinguished within the Commentary. Merely by observing the commentary's interpolation explaining the treatise in between, the purport of the treatise is readily apparent.

First 37 of 69 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese