大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 27

English (machine translation) 27

Language: English

27.1

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

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Furthermore, these mutual appearances reveal that fifteen subsume the eighteen perfections of the Buddha's pure land," this is the fourth, separately indicating the doctrinal gates. Within this there are three: first, subsuming the eighteen perfections; second, subsuming the accomplishment of worlds; third, determining the primary doctrine. Within the first there are four: first, general presentation; second, listing the names; third, the actual subsumption; fourth, similarities and differences. Now for the first: it generally brings together the texts of the two chapters to collectively subsume the eighteen perfections. Regarding the commentary's phrase "Speaking of eighteen," this is the second, listing the names. The text does not have the order or the word 'perfection', yet the eighteen are complete: 1. perfection of manifest color, 2. perfection of shape and color, 3. perfection of measurement, 4. perfection of location, 5. perfection of cause, 6. perfection of result, 7. lord, 8. assistants, 9. retinue, 10. sustenance, 11. activities, 12. gathering and benefiting, 13. fearlessness, 14. dwelling place, 15. paths, 16. vehicles, 17. gates, 18. perfection of basis and support. Regarding the commentary's phrase "How are they subsumed?" this is the third, directly clarifying mutual subsumption: first it asks, and from "this possesses" onward it explains. The intent of the text in the explanation is entirely the intent found in the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra, which can be known through careful study. The names and characteristics of the eighteen will be explained more extensively in the fifth pariṇāmanā; here it merely presents these fifteen names to subsume those eighteen. Where there are difficulties, it cites sūtras to harmonize and explain them.

27.3

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Abiding of kalpas and transformation are absent among the eighteen," this is the fourth, clarifying similarities and differences. In all, there are four kinds of similarities and differences, of which there are two gates here: first, similarities and differences in established names, as clarified in the separate correlations above; second, similarities and differences in expansion and contraction, which are also as stated above. However, the essence and the Buddha's abiding above each subsume two, while purity and adornment each subsume three; thus four gates subsume ten; the remaining eight gates each subsume one, and thus twelve gates subsume the eighteen—this is the difference in expansion and contraction. Third is the difference of presence and absence, which refers to the abiding of kalpas and the transformation of kalpas; the explanation for their absence has roughly two meanings: first, using the former to subsume the latter, meaning that the result subsumes the abiding of kalpas, for where there is the result of a kṣetra, there must be the time-period of the abiding of kalpas. The perfection of activities subsumes this transformation, because the bodhisattvas' supernormal powers and the Tathāgata's operations are all transformations. Second, without using the former to subsume them, why must there strictly be eighteen perfections? Adding these two makes twenty, the number being truly complete, just as making six supernormal powers into ten supernormal powers, and so forth. From "Because the abiding of kalpas exhausts the future" onward, it shows the characteristics of the two kinds of perfections. Fourth, from "From their lack of distinction" onward, clarifies the similarities and differences regarding pervasiveness and limitation. Those eighteen matters are each different from one another, whereas here 'lack of distinction' pervades all eighteen. Because 'lack of distinction' is spoken in terms of harmonious subsumption, it causes the eighteen to obtain the name 'perfection'. Thus these fourteen are all in terms of suitability; by virtue of this lack of distinction, they are termed 'perfection without distinction'. From "Since they are identical" onward, it follows the track to raise an objection: Above it says the remaining fourteen matters are all in accordance with suitability, and hence are called 'each and every'. Their lack of distinction is spoken in accordance with reality, causing the other perfections to be without distinction, not having the meaning of 'each and every'. Why does the sūtra say 'each without distinction'? The present answer here, stating "Because the matters without distinction are of multiple kinds," means that the sūtra above clarifies that each dust particle, each kṣetra, each Buddha, and each sentient being are all harmoniously subsumed; when each phenomenon is compared with another, it is called 'each and every', and each harmoniously subsuming is 'without distinction'.

27.4

Regarding the commentary's: “If we compare these ten with the Chapter on the Formation [of Worlds],” onwards: secondly, subsuming the “Chapter on the Formation [of Worlds]”. In subsuming the previous eighteen, both chapters together served as that which subsumes. Now, comparing this with the previous, each is divided into that which subsumes and that which is subsumed, so that they mutually subsume each other. The commentary, fearing it would be blamed for verbosity, could not present them in full; the subcommentary must exhaust the principles and demonstrate them one by one. As for this “Huayan Flower Store Chapter” subsuming the “Chapter on the Formation [of Worlds]”: here, “approaching and entering” subsumes two matters there—the causes and conditions for their arising, and their purity—because “approaching and entering” is precisely the three gates of liberation, which can serve as the cause of kṣetras and make the kṣetras pure. Here, “support by power” subsumes the other three matters: the emergence of buddhas, the duration of kalpas, and the transformation of kalpas. This is because “support by power” is precisely the vast joy of the Dharma; without a buddha, from where could one attain the joy of the Dharma? How much more so when there is the sustaining support of a buddha! If no buddha emerges, there is only maintenance by food. If a buddha emerges in the world, there is maintenance by Dharma. If maintained by food, the duration is brief; if maintained by Dharma, the duration of the kalpas is long. Both kinds of support by power extend to transformation: maintenance by Dharma transforms the defiled into the pure, while maintenance by food transforms the pure into the defiled. Therefore, the *Kośa* says that when the three disasters arise, there are two kinds of causes: first, craving for delicious tastes; second, indolence. Thus, by maintenance by food, the pure is transformed into the defiled. Above, using these two, those five are subsumed; the [other] five matters are completely identical, so the ten are complete. If we use the “Chapter on the Formation [of Worlds]” to subsume the “Flower Store Chapter”: above, these two headings subsumed those five; therefore, those five subsume these two. As for the remaining three matters here—namely, location, boundaries, and arrangement—what subsumes them there? They are subsumed by the two matters of “abode” and “shape” among the five identical ones, because as long as there is an abode, there are location and arrangement; and as long as there is a shape, there are boundaries. Thus, using those seven to subsume these five matters, with the [other] five matters completely identical, the ten are likewise complete. Setting forth ten matters in each of the two places leaves nothing unincluded; skillfully revealing manifold aspects, they mutually conceal and reveal, while in actual principle they mutually bring each other out in order to reveal the eighteen.

27.5

Regarding the commentary's: “Furthermore, the various passages above,” onwards: thirdly, selecting and determining the principal tenet, which is understandable.

27.6

Regarding the commentary's: “This and that mutually entering also verses ‘approaching and entering’”: thus in the commentary above, in explaining the meaning of “approaching and entering,” it took this interpretation. In this, there are two parts: first, briefly linking it to the verse text; afterwards, from “all entering yet without entering” onwards, generally explaining it. The words “entering and without entering” in the two verses are only found in the former verse, but their meaning extends to the latter verse, which is why the word “all” is used. In total, there are three meanings. The first is a contrary explanation, covering both the approach of the mutual conditionality of conditioned arising and the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā. Regarding the approach of conditioned arising: all dharmas of conditioned arising fundamentally have three meanings: first, the meaning that the various conditions are each distinct; second, the meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual assistance; third, the meaning of simultaneous coexistence without obstruction. Now, when it says, “If they enter, it destroys conditioned arising,” this is a contrary explanation of “not entering.” If they entered, they would lose conditions, and there would be no meaning of the various conditions each being distinct. The statement “if they do not enter, it destroys the function of the nature” is a contrary explanation of the meaning of “entering.” Then they cannot but enter; if they did not enter, there would be no thorough penetration of power and function, so there would be no meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual assistance, and this would destroy function. If it possesses both entering and not entering, then they simultaneously coexist without obstruction, establishing the approach of conditioned arising. As for the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā: this refers to the single word “nature.” Whenever the dharmatā interpenetrates, it fundamentally must not destroy characteristics while being identical to the true nature. If entering destroys conditioned arising, there would be nothing to mutually enter; if not entering destroys the nature, then the nature would not pervade all dharmas. Therefore, by not destroying characteristics and yet being able to pervade universally, this is truly the meaning of the interpenetration of the dharmatā. Second: “Furthermore, it must be by not entering that they are able to enter”: this is the direct explanation. It also covers both approaches, but is explained solely in terms of characteristics. If regarding the approach of conditioned arising, it must be that the various conditions are distinct and do not enter, that they are then able to mutually assist and pervade to mutually enter. If regarding the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā, it must be that phenomena are distinct, that they then follow principle to blend into all dharmas; hence it is said that if one considers only principle, there is nothing that could be identical or enter. Third: from “Furthermore, regarding the emptiness of the essence,” onwards: this is also a direct explanation, yet treats nature and characteristics jointly. In the first meaning above, characteristics meant not entering, and nature meant being able to enter. Now, in this meaning, characteristics alone or nature alone are both unable to enter; only when the two blend together are they able to enter. Therefore, saying that “if regarding the emptiness of the essence, there is no coming and no entering” is the meaning that if one considers only nature, there is nothing that could be identical or enter. The statement “regarding characteristics not being destroyed, they are undifferentiated as in the original” means that if one considers only phenomena, they cannot be identical or enter. Both of the above are the meaning of “not entering.” The statement “blending characteristics through nature, they thereby achieve mutual entering” explains the meaning of “entering” and reveals the correct meaning. That is to say, when a single phenomenon, which is not different from principle, fully subsumes the dharmatā, it causes those many phenomena, which are not different from principle, in accordance with the principle upon which they rely, to all simultaneously appear within the one, and so on. If a single phenomenon subsuming principle is like this, many phenomena subsuming principle are likewise so. Then a single phenomenon, in accordance with the principle upon which it relies, simultaneously and suddenly appears within the many; therefore, they achieve mutual entering. This is the approach of the interpenetration of the dharmatā, as in the differentiation of meanings.

27.7

Regarding the commentary's: “Because the ocean can possess flowers, it receives the name of ‘flower’”: this is because the ocean is named Boundless Exquisite Flower Light. It is like a lotus pond: the pond takes the name of the flowers. “The flower relies on the ocean and takes the name of the ocean floor”: the ocean has the mani-king banner as its floor, so the flower is named Mani-King Adornment. It is like a flower in the mud: the flower takes the name of the mud. Regarding the commentary's: “There are only two hundred and ten”: in the first tier, there are worlds numbering the dust motes of one buddha-kṣetra. In the second tier, two buddha-kṣetras: adding two to one makes three. In the third tier, adding three makes six. In the fourth tier, adding four makes ten. In the fifth tier, adding five makes fifteen. In the sixth tier, adding six makes twenty-one. In the seventh tier, adding seven makes twenty-eight. In the eighth tier, adding eight makes thirty-six. In the ninth tier, adding nine makes forty-five. In the tenth, adding ten makes fifty-five. The lower ten [tiers] with additions have fifty-five; the upper ten tiers, each gradually added one by one, in calculation also have fifty-five, yet each has ten, namely eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, and so on. The upper ten tiers further have one hundred, totaling one hundred and fifty-five. Combined with the lower tiers' fifty-five, there are therefore two hundred and ten. Question: Since there are twenty tiers, why does it only say that nineteen buddha-kṣetras are the principal kṣetras? Answer: Because the lowest tier only says “one world,” not worlds numbering the dust motes of one buddha-kṣetra. Therefore it says that going from this one realm, it says that passing above this by worlds numbering the fine dust motes of one buddha-kṣetra, one reaches the second tier; hence, the two tiers together have kṣetras numbering the dust motes of only one buddha-kṣetra. It is like stacking two thousand coins into twenty hundreds: at the very bottom, one takes one coin, like the lowest single kṣetra; passing above this by one hundred coins makes the second tier, only then totaling one hundred. Passing above this by one hundred to the third tier, it is only then two hundred. Reaching the twentieth tier, there are only then one thousand nine hundred coins. Therefore, twenty tiers constitute nineteen buddha-kṣetras; contemplate this. Regarding the commentary's: “This will be reconciled and explained below”: this is the third assembly's summary grouping of that which encircles and that which is encircled.

27.8

Regarding the commentary's: “Sixth, retinue”: that is the sūtra saying “various arrangements and various adornments,” which differentiates the characteristics of the retinue kṣetras.

27.9

Regarding the commentary's: “The heavens are a round dome”: non-Buddhist texts state that heaven is perhaps regarded as having form; thus they say that the shape of heaven is domed and vaulted, its shape like an overturned pot, hence “heaven is round and earth is square.” If according to Zhuangzi, who says “heaven is natural spontaneity,” then it has no shape or substance.

27.10

Regarding the commentary's: “It is also like the *Lotus Sūtra* saying: ‘King Brahmā is the father of sentient beings’”: this is in the sixth fascicle, in the “Chapter on the Original Conduct of the Medicine King,” which says: “Just as the Great King Brahmā is the father of all sentient beings, this sūtra is also like this: it is the father of all sentient beings.” Because King Brahmā was born at the beginning of the kalpa, and later various devas descended to King Brahmā, ordinary beings all falsely imagine King Brahmā to be their father. The various sūtras and treatises all refute this as wrong, being a view of non-Buddhists. Now in the *Lotus Sūtra*, the Tathāgata himself cites this as a simile for the *Lotus*; could the Buddha not know that this fatherhood is false? Therefore, it is merely the World-Honoured One speaking in accordance with convention. Now, speaking in accordance with convention that heaven has form, how does it contradict principle? Yet now the commentary does not disallow the view of Jingfa; it is only that once [a view] is attached to a sūtra and can be slightly accommodated, it reconciles and explains it, not wishing people to slight or disparage the sacred teachings.

27.11

Regarding the commentary's: “Mistakenly translating *lakṣaṇa*”: *lakṣaṇa*, here rendered as “mark” (*xiàng*). *Akṣara*, here rendered as “letter” (*zì*). The sounds and phonetics are close, which caused the error. The Sanskrit text is *śrīvatsa-lakṣaṇa*, which together should be called “mark of the auspicious ocean cloud” (*jixiang haiyun xiang*).

27.12

Regarding the Commentary's statement below: "However, taking this characteristic as...", the Commentary adduces an ancient master who took the auspicious sea-cloud as ten thousand (wan) and said it should be called "ten thousand characteristics," which directly confirms the correct interpretation of the Jingfa Master. Even granted that your auspicious sea-cloud is ten thousand and should be called "ten thousand characteristics," it still should not be called "ten thousand characters."

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The lands concluded here are definitively the primary lands": this is because an earlier commentator said that when the sūtra speaks of "each and every one of these worlds," it refers only to the preceding lands numbering as the dust motes of two hundred and ten Buddha lands, not to the lands numbering as the ineffable dust motes of Buddha lands. Only with the lands numbering as the dust motes of two hundred and ten [Buddha lands] as the encircled, and with the two tiers of encircling completed, is there the ineffable. Therefore, they established the rationale: "If one does not take this to synthesize the great number, first, within this world system there would not merely be immense worlds numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of lands; second, the numbers stated in the three places would contradict each other." The explanation is: What is meant above is that if the encircled already numbered as the dust motes of an ineffable number of Buddha lands, adding two more tiers of encircling lands would result in a multitude of ineffable Buddha-land-dust-mote lands. The statement that the numbers in three places contradict each other means: first, the opening statement posits the ineffable; second, the middle statement mentions only two hundred and ten; third, the concluding text has two tiers of encircling lands, where the first has an ineffable number and the latter an immeasurable ineffable number, whereas the middle does not reach an ineffable number; hence they contradict each other.

This explanation also seems plausible. Yet when the sūtra says "each and every one of these," to reach back across to the preceding two hundred and ten is extremely distant and separated. Since the text says: "In this way, there are Buddha lands numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of Buddha lands," and immediately adds: "Each and every one of these worlds is surrounded by immense worlds numbering as the dust motes of ten Buddha lands," one clearly knows it must surround the preceding ineffable number. Furthermore, regarding taking the two hundred and ten as the encircled: in the preceding middle part, lands were spoken of merely by skipping intermediate numbers, revealing two hundred and ten. Looking at the sense of the text, ascending straight up through lands numbering as the dust motes of nineteen Buddha lands, each land has numerous Buddha lands encircling it, which should amount to an ineffable ineffable number. Why? For instance, the single lowest land is already surrounded by Buddha lands numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land; passing upward across worlds numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land, one only then reaches the single land of the second tier, which is surrounded by worlds numbering as the dust motes of two Buddha lands. Why should the intermediate lands between this first tier ascending to the second tier have no encircling? If lands had no encircling, then the land-net would not be formed. Hence we know that the lands ascending straight up numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land must each have encircling; because they cannot be comprehensively stated, the text selectively skips to present twenty tiers.

Since the single land of the lowest tier has lands numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land encircling it, the next, second land above this adds one more land as an encircler, the third also adds one land, and ascending gradually in this way, upon reaching a hundred, a hundred is added; reaching a thousand, a thousand is added; reaching ten thousand, ten thousand is added, until filling the dust motes of a Buddha land. Arriving at the second tier, it also adds lands numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land as encirclers, and thus has lands numbering as the dust motes of two Buddha lands encircling it. This is likewise the case ascending all the way to the twentieth tier: each gradually increases. Thus, merely ascending straight up to worlds numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land together with their encirclers, there already exists an unknowable number of worlds—multitudes of Buddha-land-dust-motes of Buddha-land-dust-motes. Merely in terms of the number of a single period, it is termed 'ineffable.' One clearly knows that the encircled are definitively the primary lands.

If so, how does this not contradict the opening text? For the opening text merely says that one world system has worlds numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of Buddha lands, yet adding two tiers of encirclers yields far more. Answer: There are two meanings here. First, the term 'ineffable' is stated in terms of the primary [lands]. Second, the two tiers of encirclers do not fall outside the lands numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable number of lands. Why? Observing the sense of the text, the various lands simply serve mutually as primary and retinue to encircle each other. For example, when a hundred people gather together, if one person is the host, ninety-nine people encircle him. When each of the other ninety-nine people serves as host in turn, each is encircled by ninety-nine people. Were this not so, the lowest single land is already encircled by worlds numbering as the dust motes of one Buddha land, and these encircling lands would further have two tiers of encirclers, already yielding lands numbering as the dust motes of an ineffable ineffable number of lands. Consider this. One clearly knows that when they serve mutually as primary and retinue, the original number does not increase.

As for the Commentary's statement regarding "spreading laterally": in the sūtra it is shown that it is narrow below and broad above, like an inverted stūpa, with its stepped teeth pointing upwards; it should also be stated to be pointed above and broad below, like an upright stūpa, with its stepped teeth pointing downwards. Then, top and bottom closely aligned like comb teeth, they are all fully pervasive with no empty space between them, only then constituting a land-net, with upper and lower and the four perimeters all mutually corresponding. The sūtra wished to distinguish the various tiers and could not enumerate them completely; hence it temporarily increased the numbers to explain the distinction of the encircling lands. Furthermore, wishing to make them correspond when viewed diagonally, it offered this explanation. For this reason, the Brahma Net Sūtra states: "The worlds are varied, like the holes in a net." If one only takes the two hundred and ten as the encircled, one has completely missed the meaning.

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "According to this, it seems the translator's phrasing was verbose and the principle obscure": if one says "ten Buddha lands," there are only three characters, but saying "as spoken above" has four characters, hence it is verbose phrasing. Merely saying "as spoken above," with the words not distinct, is precisely the principle being obscure.

27.13

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "If we rely on the former interpretation, then it is the translator's ingenuity": since the encirclers and the encircled are so numerous, merely saying "as above" abbreviates the wording, hence it is called "ingenuity." Although there are two interpretations, the intent of the Commentary favors the second interpretation, merely using the dust motes of ten Buddha lands as the encirclers, in order to accord with the sūtra's overarching tenet of revealing the inexhaustible, and because the structural conventions before and after are uniformly of this kind. The rest is as in the Commentary text, which can be seen upon careful examination.

27.14

Regarding the Commentary's citation of the "Kośa": this merely abbreviates its meaning. The complete verse says: "The continent of Pūrvavideha / Is shaped like a half-moon: / Three sides are like Jambūdvīpa, / Its southern side is three hundred and a half. / Southern Jambūdvīpa is like a cart: / Its three sides are each two thousand, / Its southern side is three hundred and a half. / The continent of Aparagodānīya / Has a round form without flaw, / With a diameter of two thousand five hundred, / Its circumference three times this. / Uttarakuru is square, / Each side equally two thousand." The east is broad in the north and narrow in the south; the rest may be known. Therefore it concludes: "The characteristics of the four continents differ." From "now saying 'like'", the treatise was raised above as a question, and now it is harmonized and explained. The phrase "entirely like this realm" means: the arrangement of these four continents is the dwelling of a single Buddha; now this world is identical to the realm of these four continents.

27.15

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Here the text has no opening or concluding great numbers...", it takes the intermediate ocean as a parallel, as at the end of the eighth fascicle. The tenth fascicle uses the direct metaphor of the support, because the bodies of sentient beings are used as metaphors for the various lands, and also because causes are used as metaphors for conditions. Below, the Sixth Ground states: "Karma is the field, consciousness is the seed"; that is, the mind is the name-and-concept seed, acting as the direct cause and condition, named "cause." Karma acts like the predominant condition, named "condition." The rest is as explained in the Commentary.

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Three: one stanza jointly illuminates mind and karma": this is the thesis. Action is karma, hence it is explained; because mind is evident, it is not explained. That is to say, in accordance with the purity of one's mind, the Buddha land is pure: this is seeing lands differently due to differences of mind. If one practices the ten virtues, one sees life not cut short prematurely and is born in a land of great wealth and pure conduct: this is seeing lands differently in accordance with differences of karma. This jointly adduces cause and condition, and also jointly illuminates the primary consciousness and its mental concomitants.

As for the statement: "It also uses the metaphor of sentient beings having different visions in the same place": the Buddha is originally non-dual, yet seen as silver or seen as gold; the land is originally one, yet seen as pure or seen as defiled. Thus, what Śikhin saw was like the palace of the sixth heaven, while what Śāriputra saw was mounds, pits, and ditches.

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "First: one [verse on] coarse destruction and subtle preservation...": what is manifested, though ruined and foul, is coarse destruction, which is the transformation land; that place is constantly firm, which is subtle preservation, which is the self-enjoyment and other-enjoyment [lands]. The above connects briefly to the sūtra text; below, the reason is given.

As for "destruction is due to evil karma": the Lotus Sūtra says, "These sinful sentient beings, / Due to causes and conditions of evil karma, / Passing through asaṃkhyeya kalpas, / Do not hear the name of the Three Jewels."

As for the statement: "Preservation is due to two causes": this is the thesis. "One: in terms of the Buddha" refers to the self-enjoyment land. "Two: good karma" refers to the other-enjoyment [land] combined with the pure transformation [land]. Because their karma differs, their visions differ in the same place. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "Those who cultivate merit, / Being gentle and straightforward, / All see my body / Existing here expounding the Dharma."

27.16

Regarding the Commentary's passage below: "Therefore the Lotus [Sūtra]...", it cites proof. "My pure land is not destroyed" proves the self-enjoyment [land] and establishes the above "in terms of the Buddha." "Gods and humans always fill it" proves the other-enjoyment [land] and so forth, establishing the above "good karma." They prove the above in order, so the sūtra text is cited for its meaning. If quoted in full, the sūtra says: "When sentient beings see the end of a kalpa, / And it is burned by a great fire, / This land of mine is secure and tranquil, / Gods and humans always fill it. / Grounds, groves, halls, and pavilions / Are adorned with various jewels, / Jewel trees abound in flowers and fruit, / Where sentient beings disport and take joy. / The gods strike heavenly drums, / Constantly making various musical sounds, / Raining down māndarava flowers, / Scattering them over the Buddha and the great assembly. / My pure land is not destroyed, / Yet the multitude sees it burned up, / Gloomy, terrified, and full of sufferings— / All such [woes] fill it completely." Thereupon it says, "These sinful sentient beings..." and next says, "Those who cultivate merit..."

27.17

Regarding the Commentary's statement below: "However, although destruction [and preservation] are not simultaneous...", it explains and establishes the above meaning, concluding in the inconceivable; this is Master Rui's intent. One is destroyed and one is preserved, hence they are called "not simultaneous." Preservation is not apart from the place of destruction, hence it says "their arising must share the same place," just as a human sees water where a hungry ghost [sees] fire, and a hungry ghost sees fire where a human [sees] water.

As for "although they are said to share the same place, they constantly lack each other": within destruction there is no preservation, and within preservation there is no destruction, just as the palaces of rākṣasas and the palaces of humans, being in the same place, never see each other. The other-enjoyment land is also like this. If it is the self-enjoyment land, it is completely pervasive, neither identical to the three realms nor separate from the three realms. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "It is not like the three realms seeing the three realms." If it is the dharmatā land, arising and destruction are constantly thus.

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Hence it is inconceivable": this concludes the explanation of the sūtra text's "the kalpa fire is inconceivable," meaning it cannot be conceived in terms of preservation or destruction, defilement or purity.

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Worldly characteristics are not identical...", it contrasts the dharmatā land with the other-enjoyment and transformation lands.

27.18

Chapter Six: Vairocana

27.19

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "That there are further great kalpas after this is not contrary to reason": this is a rebuttal of a proposed emendation. That is to say, Jingfa stated: "According to the text below, a great kalpa contains small kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. At the beginning of the two small kalpas of human lifespan, the Buddha's lifespan was five billion years. Weiguang successively served three Buddhas, changed his karmic retribution, and was born in the heavens. Now it says that in the very first kalpa there were Buddhas as numerous as the dust motes of ten Mount Merus. Was it that within that realm there were further multiple great kalpas, and this was the first great [kalpa]? Or did it select the beginning of a small [kalpa] from among the various small kalpas?" Commentary: Having cited the passage to set up the premise, he posed two alternatives. Next, he stated: "If it refers to the beginning of a small kalpa, Weiguang should not have encountered only three Buddhas within a single retribution. If it refers to a great kalpa, how could there be many great [kalpas] within a single realm?" Commentary: This explains both alternatives. It means that since the human lifespan was two small kalpas, and within one small kalpa there were Buddhas as numerous as the dust motes of Mount Meru, he should not have encountered only three Buddhas in a single retribution. As for saying 'how could there be many great [kalpas]', just as in a single Bhadrakalpa, there are not multiple great [kalpas]. Next, he stated: "Therefore, we know that the three characters 'the very first kalpa' (最初劫) in this text should be transposed to 'the very beginning of the kalpa' (劫最初). Furthermore, moving these three characters below the phrase 'appeared in the world' (出興於世) in the subsequent line would then be faultless." Commentary: This sets up the rationale and fully transposes the text, so that it should read: 'In that world of Superior Sound, there were Tathāgatas as numerous as the fine dust motes of ten Mount Merus who appeared in the world; at the very beginning of that kalpa, the first Buddha was named All-Merit-Mountain Meru Superior Cloud.' This emendation is indeed very good. But now, not wishing to multiply citations of faults in the translated sūtra, I have merely resolved the words 'the very first kalpa' forcibly through principle. When it says 'there are further great [kalpas]', in meaning this corresponds to intermediate kalpas; conforming to Jingfa's intent, it speaks of there being 'great' ones. For example, the Bhadrakalpa has twenty increases and decreases constituting intermediate kalpas, and in the fifteenth kalpa nine hundred and ninety-four Buddhas appear; thus, a single kalpa can accommodate many Buddhas. It is only because the time of that pure kalpa is vast that within a single kalpa there were Buddhas as numerous as the dust motes of ten Mount Merus. However, not wishing to criticize the sūtra and distract from urgent practice, I preserved an abridged explanation to reconcile the principle, not that Jingfa's emendation was truly inappropriate.

27.20

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "There are briefly ten marks": the concluding text below says, "largely identical to the beginning of the sūtra," which refers to the teaching master's inconceivable marks of the ten bodies. The first is the dharmakāya. The sūtra takes the non-obstruction of body and cognition as the dharmakāya; the Commentary further merges visible forms and the like into a single dharmakāya, because the first body is the overarching general one. Since phenomena are nowhere absent and are fundamentally omnipresent, this explains the sūtra's phrase 'his body is all-pervading', which is the dharmatākāya. Next, it says: "Cognition is fused with principle, and therefore is equal to that true realm." This explains the sūtra's 'equal to the true dharmadhātu'; this is the saṃbhogakāya, which is also tathatā and cognition. Therefore, the Suvarṇaprabhāsa states: "Only tathatā and the cognition of tathatā remain alone, constituting the dharmakāya." Below the words "Capable of making physical marks...", because the true body is all-pervasive, it causes the responsive and functional manifestations to be all-pervasive as well. This present body of mine is itself the eternal body, because it is the dharmakāya. Thus, the three bodies are completely integrated into one true dharmakāya. The remaining nine are explained individually: Second is the mark of compassion, which is the mind-made body (manomayakāya). Third is the mark of realization, which is the bodhikāya. The principle, practice, time, and place constitute the bodhimaṇḍa, all as explained at the beginning of the sūtra. Fourth is the mark of form, which is the merit-body; hence, the earlier sūtra says: "The great ocean of manifold merits practiced throughout the three times was entirely purified," and thus the marvelous form is the fruit of merit. The earlier sūtra also says: "Throughout oceans of inconceivable great kalpas, he made offerings to all Tathāgatas and universally bestowed merits upon sentient beings; therefore, his dignified elegance is supreme and incomparable." Fifth is the superior mark, which is the body of majestic power. Sixth is the noble mark, which is the body adorned with marks and signs. For the time being conforming to the triyāna, it says, "surpassing the sage kings." A verse in the Kośa says: "The marks are not upright, complete, or luminous; therefore, they are not equal to a Buddha's." This explains the marks of a cakravartin. Now, being the World-Honoured One, it is said to be distinct and clear; in reality, he possesses marks as numerous as the fine dust motes of ten lotus-womb realms. Seventh is the responsive mark, which is the body of sustained maintenance (adhiṣṭhāna-kāya). It is like leaving a shadow for the nāga, maintained by force without vanishing. Eighth is the unobstructed mark, which is the vow-body. The earlier sūtra says: "Vairocana Buddha's vow-power pervades the dharmadhātu; in all lands, he constantly turns the unsurpassed wheel." Therefore, all behold it with their own eyes. Ninth is the transformation mark, which is the nirmāṇakāya. Tenth is the auspicious mark, which is the jñānakāya; this properly resides in the light of cognition, and secondarily encompasses the light of the body. From this we know that when this sūtra cites past causes and conditions, they are all completely marvelous.

27.21

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "First, generating merit and immovable karma, taking the three of giving, patience, and wisdom as wholesome roots": Karma is of three kinds: first is unwholesome karma, which is generated by the three unwholesome roots, not elucidated here. The Commentary enumerates three karmas, which are generated by the three wholesome roots. The three wholesome roots are non-greed, non-anger, and non-delusion. Here, not only is one unattached to existing sense objects, but one also can practice generous giving, completing the root of non-greed. Not only is one free from resentment toward suffering, but one also practices patience, and therefore completes the root of non-anger. Not only is one lucid with respect to sense objects, but one increases and cultivates wise understanding, which is the root of non-delusion. Possessing these three roots, one solely generates rebirth in the desire, form, and formless realms; hence, they are the roots of merit and immovable [karma]. However, according to the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, these three roots each have distinct natures and are subsumed under the eleven wholesome dharmas: non-greed takes non-attachment to existence and the requisites of existence as its nature; non-anger takes the absence of resentment toward suffering and the requisites of suffering as its nature; non-delusion takes clear understanding regarding principles and phenomena as its nature. Universally, they are just wholesome wisdom, but each has a distinct nature. Now, relying on the first fascicle of the Samuccaya, wisdom is taken as the nature of non-delusion. The Vijñaptimātratā synthesizes this by taking wisdom as the fruit of non-delusion; hence, giving and patience are also named after their fruits, because through non-greed and non-anger, giving and patience are accomplished. Therefore, the Commentary says, "taking giving, patience, and wisdom as their roots." Second, the roots of faith and the like will be explained extensively below. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Third, seeking unsurpassed wisdom, taking the five dharmas of the four immeasurables and heedfulness as their roots": the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says, "All praise kindness and compassion as the root of a bodhisattva." Having a mind of kindness and compassion, one must possess joy, equanimity, and heedfulness, which consist of diligence, non-greed, and so forth. These three take guarding against faults in what is to be severed and cultivated as their nature, and are nominally posited as one; hence, the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] speaks of the root of heedfulness as being deep and hard to uproot. Due to heedfulness, one spurs the preceding four immeasurables to attain all-knowledge; therefore, it is a root. Fourth, under "General explanation of wholesome roots...", this refers to the common nature of the above three categories.

27.22

Regarding the Commentary's statement from "First, those whose avidyā is heavy have their self-awakening cognition opened" onward, the commentary's text has two parts: first, clarifying individually; second, concluding and explaining. In the former: the first four are separation from obstacles; the fifth causes liberation, universally benefiting the triyāna; the sixth causes those without faith to have faith; the seventh causes entry into the three stages of the virtuous; the eighth causes the attainment of the first bhūmi; the ninth causes those on the second bhūmi and above to attain the eighth bhūmi; the tenth is that for those already on the eighth bhūmi who have already realized non-arising, all Buddhas encourage and arouse them to attain the ninth to twelfth bhūmis.

27.23

Regarding the Commentary's statement from "This is according to distinction..." onward, this is the second part, concluding and explaining. "Distinction" concludes the above, clarifying that this is a vertical explanation according to antidotes, concluding that the above does not refer to the three siddhāntas. From "If according to horizontal correlation..." onward, it further concludes with another approach. In contrast to the vertical preceding it, horizontally all ten phrases are applied universally to each stage; therefore, generating wholesome roots and seeing the principle contrast with the antidotes above. Generating wholesome roots is the individual siddhānta: that is, generating great faith and understanding, giving rise to superior wholesome roots, and giving rise to the mind that seeks to see the Buddha—all of these are generating wholesome roots. Seeing the principle is the ultimate truth siddhānta: like opening self-awakening cognition and proceeding toward all-knowledge, all of these are seeing the principle. There should also properly be conforming to the mundane to bring delight; the worldly siddhānta, because its benefit is proximate, is therefore not spoken of here. Horizontal and vertical are mutually unobstructed; this is the intention here. The meaning of the four siddhāntas will be analyzed in the 'Questions and Clarifications' [chapter].

27.24

Regarding the Commentary's text from “According to the *Yingluo benye jing*” onwards, it cites the sūtra to explain and establish [the point]: five hundred is correct, and twenty-five thousand is incorrect. Within this there are two parts: first it refutes and eliminates, and then from “according to the teaching” onwards it concedes and establishes. In the former, what is called the “upper fascicle” refers to the third chapter, "Contemplation of the Worthies and Nobles." Therein, Bodhisattva Respectful Head asked: “How does a bodhisattva study and contemplate the nominal characteristics and significances, and what further are the dharmas practiced by the mind?” The Buddha first answered regarding the names, listing the names of the three worthinesses, ten holinesses, and equal and wonderful [enlightenments]. Next he answered regarding the dharmas practiced by the mind, saying: “O Son of the Buddha! What you previously asked about the dharmas practiced by the mind refers to the ten minds: the first is the abiding of generating the [bodhi]mind,” and so on, extensively explaining the characteristics of the three worthinesses, ten holinesses, and equal and wonderful [enlightenments]. Next, Bodhisattva Respectful Head further asked the World-Honoured One: “From the first ground up to the final ground, there are two kinds of dharmakāya consisting of retribution and divine transformation: first, the dharmatā-dharmakāya, and second, the response-transformation dharmakāya. What are their physical forms? What are their mental characteristics?” The Buddha answered, saying: “To first answer regarding the supramundane retributions: from the first ground up to the Buddha ground, each has two kinds of dharmakāya. Because they are born from the real nature within the flowing water of the dharma of the ultimate truth, real wisdom is the dharmakāya, and dharma is named the self-essence. The accumulated storehouse is the body,” and so on, also speaking of the pure lands. Next he said: “O Son of the Buddha, as for mundane retributions: in the ten abidings, there is the copper-wheel-turning king with copper-jewel necklace, having a hundred meritorious sons as his retinue. Born in one Buddha-land, he receives the Buddha's learning and practice, transforming two continents. There is the silver-wheel-turning king with silver-jewel necklace, having five hundred meritorious sons as his retinue, born in two Buddha-lands to receive the Buddha's teaching and practice, transforming three continents. There is the gold-wheel-turning king with vajra-jewel necklace, having a thousand meritorious sons as his retinue, entering into Buddha-lands of the ten directions to transform all sentient beings, dwelling over the four continents. In the Joyous Ground, there is the Four Heavenly Kings with hundred-jewel necklace and seven-jewel mark wheel, having ten thousand sons as their retinue, manifesting a hundred dharmakāyas, teaching the heavenly sons of the ten directions in a hundred Buddha-lands. There is the king of Trāyastriṃśa with thousand-jewel necklace and eight-jewel mark wheel, having twenty thousand sons as his retinue. There is the king of the Yāma Heaven with ten-thousand-jewel-mark necklace and nine-jewel mark wheel; his retinue is also like this, incalculable in number. There is the king of the Tuṣita Heaven with hundred-million-jewel necklace and ten-jewel mark wheel; his retinue is also like this, incalculable in number. There is the king of the Nirmāṇarati Heaven with heavenly-light-jewel necklace and eleven-jewel mark wheel; his retinue is also like this. There is the king of the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven with maṇi-jewel-light necklace and twelve-jewel mark wheel; his retinue is also like this. There is the king of the Brahma Heaven with thousand-colored dragon-jewel light-wisdom necklace and thirteen-jewel mark wheel; his retinue is also like this. There is the king of the Ābhāsvara Heaven with Brahma-lion jewel-light necklace and great-response jewel-mark wheel; his retinue is also like this. There is the king of the Śubhakṛtsna Heaven with inconceivable jewel-light necklace and white-cloud jewel-mark wheel; his retinue is also like this. There is the king of the Śuddhāvāsa Heaven with million-supernatural-power jewel-light necklace and fearless-gem jewel-mark wheel; his retinue is also like this. There is the king of the Three Realms with ten-million heavenly-color jewel-light necklace and awakening-virtue jewel-light mark wheel, having all bodhisattvas as his retinue. There is the king of the Dharmadhātu with immeasurable merit-storehouse jewel-light necklace and thousand-merit mark wheel, having bodhisattvas bound to one last birth as his retinue. O Son of the Buddha! These aforementioned mark-wheels of necklaces are moved, stopped, and traveled together with by all Buddhas and bodhisattvas, constantly following their bodies, and they also transform all sentient beings; thus there are such numerical dharmas of retribution.” Explication: The above fully quotes the sūtra text, which is easy to understand in the commentary; one clearly knows that there are none exceeding twenty thousand sons. Regarding the Commentary's text from “According to Xijian” onwards, it proves with two points that only five hundred is appropriate: first, what is ruled is a single city, not ruling over the four continents, so he is not a gold-wheel-turning king. Second, since he encountered three Buddhas, and Buddhas appear during the kalpas of decrease while wheel-turning kings appear during the kalpas of increase, one therefore knows it is not so. As for the Commentary's “Knowing detachment is called the Dharma,” this comes from the first fascicle of the *Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra*: “Viśeṣacinti Brahma asked, saying: ‘World-Honoured One! What is called the bodhisattva's universal practice?’ The Buddha said: ‘Being able to purify the karma of body, speech, and mind.’ Thereupon the World-Honoured One spoke in verse, saying: ‘If the body is pure and free from evil, / if the speech is pure with constant true words, / and if the mind is pure constantly practicing benevolence, / this is the bodhisattva's universal practice. / Practicing benevolence without greedy attachment, / contemplating impurity without anger, / and practicing equanimity without ignorance, / this is the bodhisattva's universal practice. / In villages or empty wildernesses, / as well as dwelling amidst the great assembly, / his deportment never shifting, / this is the bodhisattva's universal practice. / Knowing phenomena is called the Buddha, / knowing detachment is called the Dharma, / knowing non-action is called the Saṅgha: / this is the bodhisattva's universal practice.’” Explication: This corresponds to the fourth verse, brought in incidentally here. Because one wishes to explain this verse, it is quoted so that its beginning and end are known. Since many people explain this single verse, now examining the intention of the sūtra, the three words “knowing” all refer to the practitioner of contemplation. If one can know in this way, this is the bodhisattva's universal practice. “Knowing phenomena is called the Buddha” refers to the real Buddha, the dharmakāya Tathāgata. The Buddha is precisely the Dharma, and the Dharma is precisely the Buddha. It is also like the Tathāgata being the meaning of the suchness of all dharmas. Next one should ask: the Dharma is precisely the Buddha—this meaning is already understood; what is the Dharma? Therefore the next line says “knowing detachment is precisely the Dharma,” because the original nature of all dharmas is detached, and the essence of mind detached from thought is precisely awakening. Next one should ask: if dharmas are originally detached, then there is nothing to cultivate; what kind of Saṅgha is there? Therefore it next explains: knowing non-action is called the Saṅgha. Non-action is precisely the Dharma, and the Dharma is originally detached. It is through knowing non-action that one comes to constitute the Saṅgha. Therefore the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* says: “It is through knowing the emptiness of all dharmas that Subhūti and others are distinguished.” The *Vajracchedikā-sūtra* says: “All noble ones and worthies are distinguished by the unconditioned dharma,” meaning that they all learn the unconditioned, yet differences in depth constitute distinctions, not that there are distinctions within the unconditioned dharma itself. Now the commentary specifically takes “knowing detachment is called the Dharma”: if one does not relinquish dharmas, one does not know detachment. Hence it says “dharmas also should be relinquished,” which is precisely the meaning of the *Vajracchedikā*: “Even dharmas should be relinquished, how much more so non-dharmas.” Awakening due to dharmas is like a raft ferrying people across. If one does not relinquish dharmas, it is like remaining inside the boat; one must relinquish the boat before reaching the other shore. One must forget that which is relinquished before one can truly awaken to all dharmas, which constitutes true relinquishment. Therefore the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra* says: “Prajñā is extremely profound, for it knows that the original nature of all dharmas is detached.” Furthermore, Mañjuśrī explained: just as the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, is worthy of receiving offerings because he awakens to the real nature regarding all dharmas, for this reason the sūtra says: “Truly awakening to all dharmas is the great relinquishment.”

First 24 of 41 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese