大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31

English (machine translation) 31

Language: English

31.1

Composed by Śramaṇa Chengguan of the Great Huayan Monastery at Mount Qingliang in the Tang

Regarding the Commentary's statement "First, the purpose of its occurrence," and so forth, the text of the Commentary has two parts: first it marks [the outline], and later from "Generally speaking..." onward it explains. In the general [explanation] there are two parts: first, the purpose of occurrence of the division, which extends directly through the seventh assembly; second, from "In the cause that generates understanding..." onward, it clarifies only the purpose of occurrence of the lower three chapters. Within this there are two intentions: first, relying on the ancient masters, faith and the abodes are clarified together; second, from "Moreover, it directly answers the ten faiths..." onward, this is the Commentary's specific explanation, which answers only the ten faiths. Because the question on the ten faiths was omitted from among the initial ten questions of the second assembly, these three chapters now answer it, not answering the abodes. However, in Xianshou's view, the initial teaching separately establishes the stages of faith. As the Liang *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* states: "Just as there are four stages prior to the path of seeing for a srotāpanna—namely, warmth, summits, receptivity, and the supreme worldly dharma—so too there are four stages prior to the path of the bodhisattva: namely, the ten faiths, ten abodes, ten practices, and ten pariṇāmanās." Furthermore, that treatise and the *Buddha-nature Treatise* (*Buddhagotra-śāstra*) both state that prior to the bhūmis one cultivates four kinds of practice: the ten faiths cultivate the practice of having faith in and rejoicing in the Mahāyāna, the ten understandings cultivate the practice of prajñā, the ten practices cultivate the practice of samādhi, and the ten pariṇāmanās cultivate the practice of great compassion; because in this order they are precisely the four stages. Moreover, in order to eliminate the principal entanglements of the four classes of hindrances, these four stages are established: namely, the first eliminates the icchantika's hindrance of disbelief; the second eliminates the non-Buddhists' hindrance of grasping at self; the third eliminates the śrāvaka's hindrance of fearing suffering; and the fourth eliminates the pratyekabuddha's hindrance of abandoning great compassion. Furthermore, faith forms the causal seed of the virtue of purity, understanding forms the causal seed of the virtue of self, practice forms the causal seed of the virtue of bliss, and pariṇāmanā forms the causal seed of the virtue of eternity. Moreover, the *Benevolent Kings Sūtra* (*Kāruṇikarāja-sūtra*) lodges [them] in the four wheel-turning kings: namely, iron, copper, silver, and gold. Based on the above doctrinal meanings, one knows that the ten faiths also constitute stages. If according to the final teaching, the ten faiths are merely the upāyas of the ten abodes and do not themselves have separate stages. This is because the *Benevolent Kings [Sūtra]* in explaining the three worthies speaks of ten faiths, ten cessations, and ten steadfast minds, so the ten faiths are precisely the abodes. The present Commentary, without debating whether they constitute stages or not, in all cases uses the three chapters to answer them separately; because the question on faith is answered in a separate assembly and ought to have a question, as was explained earlier. Regarding the Commentary's statement "Second, explaining the title," the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, how it gets its title; and later from "Although the various..." onward, explaining the title. In the former part, it first explains generally, and later from "However, there are two questions..." onward it explains specifically. Within this there are three points: first, considering it in terms of the treatise; second, distinguishing guest and host; third, considering it in terms of the principle of dharmas. Now for the first: Questioning is posing a difficulty; clarifying is answering. Now, in response to those difficult questions, the answer is called "clarification." This clarification is restricted to the respondent, yet it has two meanings: first, revealing the principle is clarification, which belongs to oneself; second, from "Clarification is also..." onward, shattering darkness is clarification, which is considered in terms of answering others so as to make others clear. In the Commentary, from "Moreover, in the prose..." onward is the second: distinguishing guest and host. The question belongs solely to the questioner, while clarification pertains to both question and answer. As for "causing the respondent to be speechless," it is like in the question on the profundity of dependent origination which says: "The nature of the mind is one; why is it manifold? If one says conditions make it manifold, why then do they not know each other?" This anticipatorily refutes his rebuttal, causing him to be speechless. As for "causing the respondent to explain easily," it means the intent of the question says: "Since it is of one nature, why is it manifold? If one wants to say it is manifold, they again do not know each other." Therefore, the intent of the answer says: "Because they do not know each other, they are able to form the manifold; the manifold has no self-nature, which is precisely not knowing each other, and thus does not contradict the single nature." Thus it is easy for the respondent to explain. In the Commentary, from "Moreover, 'clarification' is the clarification of dharmas..." onward is the third: explaining in terms of the principle of dharmas, which also speaks in terms of teaching and meaning. That is to say, the question is the teaching; the explanation involves exchange; therefore clarification is the dharma. Clarification is subsumed under meaning: namely, the ten profundities are the ten kinds of clarification of dharmas. With regard to this clarification of dharmas, it is further considered in terms of mind and object: dharma is the object, and clarification is the mind. Because the light of wisdom illuminates the dharmas of the two truths, it is called the clarification of dharmas. Fourth, explaining the text. In the Commentary, from "In the former, because the ten bodhisattvas each preside over one gate..." onward, the text of the Commentary has three parts: first, considering the ten profundities; next, indicating the specific principles; and finally, directly explaining the text. In the former there are two: first, listing the ten names. Now, these ten profundities were formulated by Chan Master Qian, and both past and present adhere to them. Later, from "These ten profundities..." onward, it clarifies the sequence. As for "The profound principle of dependent origination universally covers all dharmas," whether defiled or pure, defiled and pure interpenetrate so that nothing is not encompassed. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: "When a bodhisattva first trains, they should first contemplate the true causes and conditions of all dharmas, in order to accomplish correct faith and correct understanding."

31.3

In the Commentary, from "Moreover, these ten kinds..." onward is the second: indicating the specific principles. Within this there are two: first, matching them with the ten faiths; second, matching them with the virtues of faith. In the former there are also two: first, directly matching and explaining them. Now, the ten minds of faith are: first, faith; second, diligence; third, mindfulness; fourth, concentration; fifth, wisdom; sixth, non-retrogression; seventh, morality; eighth, protecting the Dharma; ninth, vow; tenth, pariṇāmanā. Their matching with the text can be known. Later, from "Because this is perfect harmony..." onward, it resolves objections. That is, someone objects: "The characteristics of faith, diligence, and so forth are easy to understand in their explanations; now the text and meaning of the ten profundities are extensive and broad, so how can they be the ten faiths and the rest?" Therefore, this answer is given. Regarding the Commentary's statement "Moreover, it also subsumes the ten virtues of the ten faiths," faith has ten virtues: first, associating with good spiritual friends; second, making offerings to all buddhas; third, cultivating wholesome roots; fourth, aspiring to seek the superior Dharma; fifth, having an ever-gentle mind; sixth, being able to endure when encountering suffering; seventh, having deep and vast loving-kindness and compassion; eighth, equality of body and mind; ninth, cherishing and delighting in the Mahāyāna; tenth, seeking the wisdom of the buddha. Matching them with the ten profundities: the first is the profundity of the correct teaching, because one approaches the Buddha, who is a good spiritual friend, and hears the teaching and Dharma; the second is the profundity of the field of merit; the third is the profundity of action and result; the fourth is the profundity of dependent origination; the fifth is correct practice; the sixth is aids to the path; the seventh is teaching and transforming; the eighth is the single path; the ninth is expounding the Dharma; the tenth is the realm of the Buddha, because universally speaking, the Buddha's wisdom is that which is trusted. Since they contain multiple implications, the text and meaning are extensive and broad. In the Commentary, from "Taking them provisionally as the ten profundities..." onward is the third: explaining the text. Regarding the Commentary's statement "Wondrous wisdom pervades all practices," Mañjuśrī represents wondrous wisdom, and the nine leaders represent all practices, each presiding over one gate. Thus, the questions are that which accomplishes, and the answers are that which is accomplished; therefore, wondrous wisdom and all practices serve mutually as active and passive. Regarding the Commentary's statement "The non-duality of these two constitutes the contemplative understanding within faith," this harmonizes the above two. That is, practice and dharma are non-dual: comprehending the dharma accomplishes practice, and practice accords with the dharma. Furthermore, Dharma Master Yan said: "One person questioning many symbolizes understanding the immeasurable within the one. Many persons questioning one symbolizes understanding the one within the immeasurable. Moreover, Mañjuśrī is the host, and the remaining nine are the companions. Mañjuśrī is the general, and the remaining nine are the specific. Since this is not entirely essential, it is omitted and not brought out."

31.4

Regarding the Commentary's statement "Second, revealing the profound principle," the text of the Commentary is divided into two: first, directly clarifying it, causing those who first engage to immediately awaken to the fact that the nature of the mind transcends vast boundaries, hence it says "from beginning to end all is real." From "The Awakening of Faith states..." onward is the second: citing proof. Within this there are four: first, up to "should be explained" marks the initial passage of the treatise. Second, from "What is called dharma is the mind of sentient beings" is the section setting forth the fundamental principles. Furthermore, the treatise states: "Next, the section setting forth the fundamental principles is expounded. Mahāyāna, generally speaking, has two kinds: first, the dharma; second, the meaning. What is called dharma is the mind of sentient beings. This mind encompasses all worldly dharmas and world-transcending dharmas. Relying on this mind, the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed. Why? Because the characteristic of the tathatā of this mind is precisely the essence of Mahāyāna. The characteristics of the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing of this mind can reveal the essence, characteristics, and functions of Mahāyāna itself." Explanation: "Dharma" extends to that which holds its own nature and serves as a standard, and can also reveal the meanings below; hence it is called dharma. It covers defilement and purity; its general stage is in the cause; hence it says "the mind of sentient beings," which serves as the basis for defilement and purity, thus encompassing worldly and world-transcending [dharmas]. From "Why?" onward, it brings out the reason for encompassing: because it possesses the three greatnesses. The three greatnesses are the greatnesses of meaning, whose stage is in the fruition. Here, taking it as universally being the root of dependent origination, it merely cites the dharma to verify that the true mind accords with conditions. Third, from "relying on the one mind dharma, there are the gate of tathatā and the gate of arising and ceasing," it draws on the meaning of the section explaining and demonstrating correct meaning to explain the preceding dharma. The treatise states: "As for demonstrating the correct meaning: relying on the one mind dharma, there are two kinds of gates: first, the gate of the mind as tathatā; second, the gate of the mind as arising and ceasing. These two gates each completely encompass all dharmas without remainder. What does this mean? Because these two gates are not separate from each other. The gate of the mind as tathatā is precisely the essence of the great general characteristic dharma-gate of the one dharmadhātu, namely, the nature of the mind is unarisen and unceasing," and so forth. Below this, explaining the arising and ceasing of the mind, it says: "Regarding the mind as arising and ceasing, relying on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing. The so-called unarisen and unceasing combined with arising and ceasing, being neither one nor different, is named the ālaya-vijñāna," and so forth. It is fully as explained there. Now, using tathatā to verify that the nature of the mind is one, and according with conditions it arises and ceases to become manifold, this constitutes this profound principle. Fourth, from "because that treatise relies on this to generate pure faith," it concludes and indicates that it is real. Aśvaghoṣa relied on this to compose the treatise to cause beings to generate faith; how could one not believe it? Regarding the Commentary's statement "Second, relating the intent of the question," within this there are three: first, directly explaining the previous difficulty. Second, from "Supposing that they rebut..." onward explains. From "karma does not know..." onward, the sūtra text first brings out the concealed difficulty, and later from "in order to preclude this rebuttal..." onward cites the sūtra to explain generally. Third, from "Since apart from the true nature neither has independent subsistence..." onward concludes the fundamental difficulty. Within this there are two: first, bringing out the reason; only afterward concluding directly. Now for the first: As for "neither has independent subsistence," the *Awakening of Faith* states: "If one attains thoughtlessness, one knows the mind's characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing. Because of the equality of thoughtlessness, there is in reality no difference of initial awakening; because the four characteristics exist simultaneously, none having independent subsistence, being fundamentally equal as the same single enlightenment."

31.5

In the Commentary, from "Since the nature of the mind is one..." onward is the second: concluding directly. First, it uses the root to challenge the branch; later, from "Since phenomenal dharmas are many..." onward, it uses the branch to challenge the root. Therefore, it first concludes: "The root and branch contradict each other." This conclusion has four aspects: first, the root and branch contradict each other, considered in terms of that which produces and that which is produced; second, phenomena and principle, speaking directly of essence and nature; third, oneness and difference, speaking solely of their characteristics—yet oneness has both phenomenal and principled, and here it is principled oneness; fourth, truth and delusion, speaking solely of their substance—yet truth also extends to phenomena, such as the Buddha's true wisdom and so forth, but here it also considers principle as truth. Because their contained meanings differ, there are four conclusions, which are broadly the same with slight differences.

31.6

Regarding the Commentary's statement "Third, determining and delimiting what is questioned," the meaning is: this is a question by a Master of Dharmalakṣaṇa in name only, desiring to reveal the meaning of Dharmatā; it is not a question by a Master of Dharmatā to reveal the meaning of Dharmalakṣaṇa. Hence it is said to determine and delimit. Within this there are three: first, directly delimiting; second, precluding rebuttals; third, drawing the conclusion.

31.7

In the Commentary, from "Nor can it be said..." onward is the second: precluding rebuttals; that is, the rebuttal of the Dharmalakṣaṇa master. This is the Dharmatā master challenging the Dharmalakṣaṇa doctrine: As for "the nature of the mind is one," the eight consciousnesses as mind-kings are equally mind, hence called "of one nature." This is refuted: generating the manifold refers to the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and so forth, and thus they do not contradict each other. From "Nor is it the eighth..." onward, it precludes his modified rebuttal. The rebuttal says: "If the eight consciousnesses are not one, the eighth, ālaya, has this meaning of oneness." Now it refutes him: "Your eighth is precisely one; the mind-substance that is perfumed contains many seeds, and perfuming the one brings about the manifold, which also does not contradict." From "The words 'the nature of the mind'..." onward directly breaks down [his view] with principle: the eighth is merely the mind's characteristic of arising and ceasing, not the nature of vijñapti-mātra. Since the answer states that dharmatā displays arising, and does not state that the unarisen eighth displays arising, it is clear that this is the meaning of tathatā according with conditions.

31.8

In the Commentary, from "Mañjuśrī..." onward is the third: drawing the conclusion.

31.9

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Fourth, harmonizing apparent contradictions": this section follows from what preceded. That is, if one establishes that the tathāgatagarbha undergoes concordance with conditions according to the above [teaching], it contradicts passages in texts such as the Yogācārabhūmi; therefore, it is now harmonized. First, setting forth what is contradicted was already explained in the overarching exposition; next, from "Replying to the Yogācāra etc." onward, it harmonizes and reconciles them. Within this, there are also two parts: first, harmonizing with the intention of the Faxiang school; second, from "The Laṅkā[vatāra] and the Ghanavyūha" onward, expressing the intention of the Faxing school. Within this, there are three parts: first, direct explanation; second, citing proof texts; third, concluding establishment. Regarding the commentary's phrase "Hence the Ghanavyūha": the second part, citing proof texts, collectively cites two sūtras and three treatises to establish this principle. First, citing the Ghanavyūha: it contains two passages, both from the end of the "Subtle and Secret Ālaya Chapter" in the third fascicle, where two verses occur consecutively with commentary between them; hence the text inserts the word "again." Prior to this, there is also a verse that says: "The Tathāgata's pure store / Is also called stainless wisdom. / Permanently abiding, without beginning or end, / Free from the discourse of the four propositions." Immediately following this, it says: "The Buddha spoke of the tathāgatagarbha," and so on. That commentary explains: "The first half of the verse determines the essence of the ālaya, stating that it is the tathāgatagarbha combining with defiling delusion that is named the ālayavijñāna, having no separate essence. Because this is taught by the actual teaching, it cites what the Buddha spoke. The second half of the verse explains harmonizing with the provisional teaching, stating that those who cling to the provisional teaching and cannot comprehend that the tathāgatagarbha constitutes the ālaya should know that they are persons of faulty intelligence. This rebukes those who cling to the provisional so as to lead them to return to the actual teaching." The next verse is: "The Tathāgata's pure store," and so on; that commentary explains: "This verse explains and establishes the previous principle, the first half being a doctrinal statement. Bringing up the two states below, it explains and establishes it in terms of a metaphor. That is, just as one makes a ring out of gold, the characteristic of the ring is empty and non-existent while the essence of gold is revealed; hence it is said to have no difference. When the tathāgatagarbha constitutes the ālaya, the characteristic of the ālaya is empty while the principle of the nature of the store is revealed; hence it says it is identical." It can also be said that because sentient beings are deluded, it constitutes the ālayavijñāna, and because the Tathāgata is awakened, it constitutes the tathāgatagarbha; since their essence is not two, it is said to have no difference.

31.10

Regarding the commentary's phrase "In the Laṅkāvatāra, the true consciousness and manifest consciousness are like a lump of clay," and so on: if the full text of that [sūtra] is cited, it states below "likewise": "Mahāmati! If the lump of clay and the subtle particles of dust were different, the former would not be made of the latter. But in truth it is made of them; therefore they are not different. If they were not different, the lump of clay and the particles of dust would have no distinction. Likewise, if the transforming consciousness, the store consciousness, and the true characteristic were different, the store consciousness would not be the cause. If they were not different, then when the transforming consciousness ceases, the store consciousness would also cease. Yet one's own true characteristic can never really cease; therefore, it is not one's own true characteristic that ceases, but only the karmic characteristic that ceases." Xianshou explained: "Here, the true characteristic is the tathāgatagarbha, the transforming consciousness is the seven consciousnesses, and the store consciousness is the ālaya." This explanation is most fitting. However, the metaphor contains two things, namely the lump of clay and the subtle particles of dust, while the application contains three; its meaning is slightly difficult to see. This is in the first fascicle of the sūtra: first it clarifies the three characteristics of consciousness, and next it clarifies the three consciousnesses. First it says: "Consciousnesses have three kinds of characteristics: the transforming characteristic, the karmic characteristic, and the true characteristic." Explanation: these three kinds of characteristics apply generally to the eight consciousnesses. When the mind arises, it is called transforming; because all eight arise together and all possess arising and ceasing, they are called the transforming characteristic. Movement is karma, just as the initial karmic characteristic among the three subtle [characteristics]. Because the eight consciousnesses all move, they are all called the karmic characteristic. The true nature of the eight is entirely called the true characteristic. Therefore, the sūtra says: "Consciousnesses have three kinds of characteristics," so one knows that the three characteristics apply to all eight consciousnesses. Next, the sūtra distinguishes the three consciousnesses, saying: "Mahāmati! In brief, there are three kinds of consciousness, and in detail there are eight kinds of characteristics. What are the three? They are the true consciousness, the manifest consciousness, and the consciousness that differentiates objects." Explanation: the tathāgatagarbha mind that is not combined with delusion is taken as the true consciousness. The manifest is the eighth. Hence the sūtra says below: "Just as a bright mirror manifests various forms and images, the abiding manifest consciousness manifests in the same way." This clarifies that it is the eighth. The remaining seven are all called the consciousness that differentiates objects. Thus, the three consciousnesses are distinguished into three classes: the manifest is only the eighth, and the differentiating is only the first seven. In terms of the Buddha, the true characteristic is the eighth free from entanglement; in terms of ordinary beings, it is within the eighth and also shared with the remaining seven. However, the sūtra passage on the lump of clay incorporates the previous two sections; its intent is to clarify the three consciousnesses while mingling the names of the three characteristics. The transforming consciousness is the name of the transforming characteristic; because its meaning is the consciousness that differentiates objects, in Yogācāra it is called the seven transforming consciousnesses. The store consciousness is the manifest consciousness. From this, one can know that the true characteristic is the true consciousness. The first two take the classification of consciousnesses, and thus bring up the names of consciousnesses; the true characteristic only takes the truth that applies generally to the eight consciousnesses, and thus brings up the name of characteristic. As for the sūtra passage above saying, "If they were different, the store consciousness would not be the cause": this means that if the three were different, the store consciousness would not share the true characteristic and transforming consciousness as causes. Since it is perfumed by the transforming consciousness, the true consciousness accords with conditions to become the store consciousness; thus one knows they are not different. It does not mean that the store consciousness is the cause of the two consciousnesses; contemplate this. Hence below it confirms again, stating: "It is not one's own true characteristic that ceases, but only the karmic characteristic that ceases." Thus the three items are complete. That is, within the metaphor there are three: first, dust; second, water; third, mud. Only when dust is blended with water is a lump of clay established. When the true characteristic is perfumed by karma, the store consciousness then arises. Karma corresponds to water: only water ceases while dust remains; thus karma perishes while the true endures. When the sūtra says, "If one's own true characteristic ceased, the store consciousness would cease," it inversely reveals that the store consciousness is formed by the combination of the true and the false: only its falsity ceases while the true essence is not non-existent. Hence below it uses water to illustrate the tathāgatagarbha and waves to illustrate the seven consciousnesses, which combine to form the moving ocean, which is the store consciousness; but the characteristics of waves cease while the nature of wetness is not destroyed—this is precisely this meaning. The meaning of "not different" is easy to understand. The phrase "all are this meaning" means that all are the meaning of the tathāgatagarbha according with conditions to become consciousness. However, where it says "one's own true characteristic," the ten-fascicle version merely says "one's own characteristic." Master Wonhyo explained: "The mind of original enlightenment does not rely on false conditions; its nature is inherently spiritual and understanding, so it is called one's own true characteristic, spoken in terms of the meaning of not being identical. Furthermore, when it undergoes arising and ceasing following the wind of ignorance, the nature of spiritual understanding is not different from the origin; this is also called one's own true characteristic, spoken relying on the meaning of not being different." Regarding the commentary's phrase "Furthermore, that sūtra says: The store of the tathāgatagarbha, perfumed by beginningless evil habit energy, is named the store consciousness": above it distinguished its combining with the seven to become the store consciousness; now it clarifies that beginningless ignorance is the cause. Hence the treatise states below: "Ignorance is the cause that generates the three subtle [characteristics], and external objects are the conditions that generate the six coarse [characteristics]." Here, it directly takes ignorance as the cause that generates the three subtle [characteristics]; since the three subtle [characteristics] belong to the ālaya, it has already become the store of consciousness. That is, the full text of the fourth fascicle states: "Mahāmati! The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of good and non-good, capable of universally producing all destinies and births. It is like an actor manifesting various destinies, free from 'I' and 'mine.' Because of not awakening to that, it arises through the expedient means of the combination of three conditions. Non-Buddhists, not awakening, cling to it as an agent; perfumed by beginningless deceptive and evil habit energy, it is named the store of consciousness. It generates the ground of the abiding of ignorance and coexists with the seven consciousnesses, arising continually without interruption like waves of the sea. It is free from the faults of impermanence and arising, free from doctrines of self," and so on. Regarding the commentary's phrase "Furthermore, the Lankāvatāra says" onward: previously it cited the Laṅkāvatāra's [statement about] coexisting with the seven consciousnesses, and next it cited the Laṅkāvatāra's [statement about] being perfumed by evil habit energy; now it cites it again because it contains both, the general idea being no different. The statement "and coexists together with ignorance and the seven consciousnesses": coexisting with ignorance is the second meaning above; coexisting with the seven consciousnesses is the first meaning. Regarding the commentary's phrase "Furthermore, the Awakening of Faith says" onward: it cites three treatises. First it directly cites the Awakening of Faith, and later it cites two treatises together. Now, the first is at the beginning of the gate of arising and ceasing among the two gates. In full, it says: "As for the arising and ceasing of the mind: relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing. What is called the non-arising and non-ceasing combining with arising and ceasing, being neither identical nor different, is named the ālayavijñāna." Explanation: the first two lines set out the premise; from "What is called the non-arising and non-ceasing" onward, it analyzes the characteristic. That which neither arises nor ceases is the tathāgatagarbha's naturally pure mind. Stirred by the wind of ignorance, its entire essence accords with conditions to act as the mind of arising and ceasing, not separating from one another; hence it is said to be "combined," not that there is a separate arising and ceasing coming to unite with the true. The reason this mind arises and ceases is that it arises due to ignorance. This mind of arising and ceasing originally arises from original enlightenment, and therefore possesses two meanings without having two essences. Hence the treatise states below: "Like the water of the great ocean, stirred into waves by the wind, the characteristic of water and the characteristic of wind are not separated from one another," up to detailed explanations. Here, movement is the characteristic of wind, and wetness is the characteristic of water. Because the entire essence of the water moves, water is not separate from the characteristic of wind; because there is no movement that is not wet, movement is not separate from the characteristic of water. The mind is also like this: because the entire essence of the mind that neither arises nor ceases moves, the mind is not separate from the characteristic of arising and ceasing. Because the characteristics of arising and ceasing are nothing other than the true, arising and ceasing are not separate from the characteristic of mind. Such is termed "combination"; this is the mind that neither arises nor ceases combining with arising and ceasing, because it is the gate of according with conditions. It is not arising and ceasing combining with the non-arising and non-ceasing, because this is not the gate that faces toward the original tathatā. As for "neither identical nor different": because the entire essence of tathatā moves, the mind is not different from arising and ceasing; yet as it constantly maintains its unchanging true nature, it is not identical with arising and ceasing. This takes the three subtle [characteristics] as arising and ceasing, and thus movement and quiescence are already contained within the eighth. If according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra it says: "The defiled dharmas of the seven consciousnesses are arising and ceasing, the pure dharmas of the tathāgatagarbha are non-arising and non-ceasing; because these two combine to become the ālayavijñāna, on account of combination they are neither identical nor different"—this is explained in terms of coarse and manifest levels. However, the meaning of neither identical nor different is explained extensively as in the illusion-like forbearance of the "Ten Forbearances Chapter." Furthermore, the name tathāgatagarbha was already explained in the first chapter. As for "neither arising nor ceasing" and so on, Master Dan said: "Its nature encompasses beginning and end, its essence is without arising and terminating. Its essence pervades delusion and awakening, its nature is neither realization nor delusion. Therefore it is said to neither arise nor cease. If one is unaware and uncomprehending, its capacity to make birth and death continuous is called arising; initial enlightenment's ability to extinguish birth and death is called ceasing."

31.11

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Furthermore, as the verse in the *Dharma Sūtra* [states]" onward: it cites two treatises together. Within this, there are two parts: first, setting forth the sūtra verse. As for calling it a verse from the *Dharma Sūtra*, the second fascicle of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, in explaining the support of the knowable, says: "Here, first of all, the support of the knowable is stated, which is the ālaya. Where did the World-Honoured One speak of the ālayavijñāna as the ālaya? The Bhagavān spoke of it in the *Abhidharma-mahāyāna-sūtra*." Explanation: this merely refers generally to the Mahāyāna sūtra as an Abhidharma sūtra. The text only quotes the first half. The second half states: "Because of this, there are all destinies / And the realization of nirvāṇa."

31.12

Regarding the commentary's "[The Mahāyāna]saṃgraha, etc.," secondly, this cites two treatises to explain [the verse]. The first represents the treatises of the Faxiang school, where "etc." includes the Yogācārabhūmi, the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā, and so on. That treatise explains: "'Beginningless' means that it has no initial limit. 'Realm' (dhātu) means cause—that is, the seeds, which are the causal seeds of consciousness. 'All phenomena' refers solely to those that are defiled, not pure. That they are 'the basis (āśraya) of all those phenomena' means that it can sustain them; this does not mean causality, for the nature of that which is based and that which is the basis are distinct. Were it not so, the word 'realm' would have already sufficed, and the word 'basis' would be superfluous." Therefore, the third fascicle of the treatise states: "Herein, is the permeation of hearing (śrutavāsanā) of the intrinsic nature of the ālayavijñāna, or is it not of the intrinsic nature of the ālayavijñāna?" The treatise below answers: "This permeation of hearing, in whatever basis it functions, resides in the maturation consciousness, operating together with it in concord like milk and water. Yet it is not of the intrinsic nature of the ālaya, because it has the nature of the seed of the non-conceptual wisdom that counteracts that ālaya." The last two lines are easy to understand: it clearly shows that the ālaya is merely [conditioned by] arising and ceasing, and is not constituted of the true nature.

31.13

Regarding the commentary's "The Ratnagotravibhāga translates...", this represents a treatise of the Faxing school. The single line in the commentary is merely a paraphrased quotation; the complete verse in that treatise states: "The nature (dhātu) from beginningless time / Serves as the basis for all phenomena. / Relying on this nature there exist all realms of rebirth / And the realization of the fruit of nirvāṇa." This is in the fourth fascicle of the treatise. That treatise explains: "What meaning does this gāthā elucidate? 'The nature from beginningless time': as a sūtra states, 'All Buddha Tathāgatas, relying on the tathāgatagarbha, say that the beginningless root limit of all sentient beings cannot be known.' What is called 'nature': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'World-Honoured One! The tathāgatagarbha spoken of by the Tathāgata is the dharmadhātu-garbha, the transmundane dharmakāya-garbha, the supreme transmundane garbha, the naturally pure dharmakāya-garbha, for it is the naturally pure tathāgatagarbha.' 'Serves as the basis for all phenomena': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'Therefore the tathāgatagarbha is the support, the holder, the sustainer, the foundation,' and so forth. Next, the treatise says, 'Relying on this nature there exist all realms of rebirth': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'World-Honoured One! Samsāra relies on the tathāgatagarbha. World-Honoured One, because there is the tathāgatagarbha, samsāra is spoken of; this is called well-spoken.' 'And the realization of the fruit of nirvāṇa': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'World-Honoured One! Relying on the tathāgatagarbha there is samsāra; relying on the tathāgatagarbha one realizes nirvāṇa. World-Honoured One, if there were no tathāgatagarbha, one could not loathe suffering and delight in seeking nirvāṇa, nor desire nirvāṇa, nor aspire to nirvāṇa.' What meaning does this elucidate? It elucidates that the tathāgatagarbha is ultimately not different from the Tathāgata's dharmakāya; the ultimate essence and characteristics of tathatā are called the essence of the Buddha-nature. It should be known that at all times it is completely without remainder in the bodies of all sentient beings." Regarding the commentary's "Relying on these passages...", thirdly, this synthesizes both schools. In this, it first properly concludes: since all the teachings above take the tathāgatagarbha as the essence of consciousness, we know that the essence and nature of the mind is precisely the tathāgatagarbha. There are no phenomena outside of this, and hence it is profound. Regarding "Furthermore, the Vijñaptimātratā...", this cites passages from the Triṃśikā to conclude that it is identical with the Faxing. Thus the treatise states: "This ultimate truth of all phenomena / Is likewise just tathatā, / Because it is eternally thus in its nature; / It is the true nature of consciousness-only." Explanation: since it takes tathatā as the true nature of consciousness, it is clear that Vasubandhu also used the tathāgatagarbha to constitute the essence of consciousness. However, subsequent commentators only posited [the aspect of] unchangingness; hence it is said that "the fault falls on later generations." Moreover, Vasubandhu composed the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Foxing lun), drawing extensively on the Śrīmālā-sūtra. Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, the nature of the false mind...", this subsequent pair establishes the previous two meanings, but with two senses. First, they establish the previous [points] in sequence: that the nature of the false mind establishes the nature of mind, because nature and characteristics are not identical; that the nature of the true mind establishes the above "identity with nature," because the true mind is identical with nature. Second, they establish them comprehensively: these two natures are respectively named the two garbhas; both previous natures possess both garbhas, yet when covered by falsity, it is called the tathāgatagarbha. Speaking directly of the essence of the garbha, it is the mind of self-nature. Hence, this naturally pure true mind, when not combined with falsity, is named the empty garbha; endowed with virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, it is named the non-empty garbha. The previous section explained identity and separation; this section explains emptiness and existence, hence it is restated. "All are equal and non-dual": the previous two modes of identity and separation differ; due to "the nature of mind" it is not identical, and due to "mind being identical with nature" it is not separate—being neither identical nor separate is the nature of mind. In the latter two, the real that is identical with emptiness is the non-empty, and the emptiness that is identical with the real is the empty garbha; emptiness and existence being non-dual is the nature of mind. Yet the nature of the non-duality of emptiness and existence is itself the nature of neither identity nor separation; hence it is simply said to be "one."

31.14

Regarding the commentary's "The five destinies and various faculties differ in total and specific retributions": for example, upholding the five precepts obtains a human body, which is karma of total retribution. Because in the cause there were anger, patience, and so forth, within the total retribution of being human there are beauty and ugliness, which is called karma of specific retribution. The Vijñaptimātratā also calls these "projecting karma" and "fulfilling karma." That which can bring about the eighth [consciousness], projecting the fruit of true maturation, is called projecting karma; that which can bring about the sixth, fulfilling the fruit of true maturation, is called fulfilling karma. The Abhidharmakośa also says: "A single karma projects a single life; many karmas can bring it to completion. Just like painting an image: first sketch the contours, and later fill in the various colors," and so forth. However, the volition (cetanā) that can generate projecting karma must arise from the sixth mental consciousness; as for the volition that generates fulfilling karma, it arises from the five [sense] consciousnesses.

31.15

Regarding the commentary's "Progressively differentiating and agreeing to form many distinctions": there are sixty-two propositions in total. That is, the first pair consists of good and evil, making two. The second pair unfolds the two into four, which together with the previous two makes six. The third pair unfolds the four into eight, matching the previous six to make fourteen. The fourth pair unfolds the eight into sixteen, which together with the previous fourteen makes thirty. The fifth pair unfolds the sixteen into thirty-two, matching the previous thirty to make sixty-two. This is based on adding the former to the latter, thus making sixty-two; strictly speaking, there are only thirty-two, because when the latter unfolds the former, the former has no separate entity. For instance, unfolding good and evil destinies into complete and deficient [faculties] yields only four: first, good destiny with complete faculties; second, good destiny with deficient faculties; third, evil destiny with complete faculties; fourth, evil destiny with deficient faculties. Outside of these four, there are no distinct good and evil destinies. Moreover, if unfolded two by two, they form only thirty-two. If one further expands them by the four modes of birth, then they form even more propositions: the third pair first multiplies the above four propositions by the four modes of birth, four times four making sixteen propositions; further multiplying these sixteen by superior and inferior already makes thirty-two, which paired with the six makes thirty-eight. When unfolded successively thereafter, the number of propositions becomes even greater: the fourth pair unfolds into sixty-four, and the fifth pair unfolds into one hundred and twenty-eight. If from the initial good and evil one unfolds into the six destinies, the number of propositions would be even greater, all of which may be deduced accordingly. Hence it says: "Each subsequent one necessarily entails the previous ones, progressively differentiating and agreeing to form many distinctions." Regarding the commentary's "Third, concluding and establishing the previous challenge": herein the text has two parts. First, it generally shows the intent of the text; second, from "having understood the main import" downward, it explains the text. Now for the first: according to the questions of the various bodhisattvas below, all have three sections. The third section mostly concludes directly. Next, in explaining the text, the commentary says "First, in terms of the fundamental consciousness": karma is a mental factor (caitta), and therefore relies on the mind. The mind is the eighth [consciousness], which is the fundamental basis. From "apart from the based, there is no based-upon" downward, it explains the meaning of not knowing one another by way of the approach of mutual dependence. "Apart from the based, there is no based-upon" means: since there is no primary mind (citta) that is the basis, there is also no karma that relies upon it. Now karma exists in reliance on the mind, and karma arises from conditions and thus lacks intrinsic nature, unable to know the mind. "Apart from that which relies, there is no basis" means: apart from the karma that relies, the mind is not a basis. Now, because of karma it becomes a basis; since the basis lacks intrinsic nature, it cannot know karma. It concludes with "because each...": meaning that each is formed from conditions, is empty of nature and devoid of entity, and relies on the other without efficacy; hence it is said to have "no function." Bodhisattva Jñānamūrti also states that because they lack entity and function, they do not know one another.

31.16

Regarding the commentary's "Second, in terms of the sixth consciousness, karma is that which is created and the mind is that which creates": it names the sixth consciousness "mind" in terms of accumulation, speaking according to its general characteristic. That is, the sixth consciousness, through the ignorance of clinging to self, is deluded about the true principle of maturation. Through volition associated with good and non-virtuous [states], it creates the three actions of sin, [merit, and immobility], perfuming the ālayavijñāna, and is capable of inducing various retribution characteristics such as the agreeable and disagreeable in the five destinies. Mentioning only the sixth is because the five consciousnesses have no grasping, cannot initiate or moisten [rebirth], and thus are not deluded about the principle; lacking deliberation, they cannot generate karma. Although they generate fulfilling karma, this is not by their own power, but is only accomplished because the mental consciousness guides them. Next, "they all swiftly perish" explains their not knowing one another. Generally speaking, both are explained by their lack of entity and function; specifically speaking, the operational approaches differ. Here two approaches are used: first, the approach of impermanence, hence saying "they all swiftly perish." The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, in the "Chapter on the Disciples," states: "Upāli! All phenomena arise and cease without abiding, like an illusion, like lightning. Phenomena do not depend on one another, not abiding for even a single thought-moment; all phenomena are false views," so both mind and karma are empty. The sūtra below states: "All retributions arise following karma; / Like a dream, they are not real; / In every thought-moment they constantly perish and disintegrate; / The later ones are also like the earlier." Thus, owing to impermanence, they cannot know one another. From "when arising, it does not say 'I arise'" downward is the approach of non-self. It explains mutual non-cognition in terms of the non-self of phenomena. Hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, in the "Chapter on Inquiring after Illness," states: "Furthermore, the arising of this illness is entirely due to attachment to self. Therefore, toward the self one should not produce attachment. Having recognized the root of illness, one immediately removes the conception of self and the conception of sentient beings, and should give rise to the conception of phenomena. One should reflect thus: it is merely a collection of various phenomena that constitutes this body; when arising, only phenomena arise; when ceasing, only phenomena cease." Explanation: the above uses phenomena to dispel self. Next the sūtra states: "Furthermore, these phenomena do not know one another; when arising, they do not say 'I arise'; when ceasing, they do not say 'I cease.'" Explanation: this generally reveals the emptiness of self, elucidating mutual non-cognition. Next the sūtra states: "That ill bodhisattva, in order to extinguish the conception of phenomena, should reflect thus: this conception of phenomena is also an inversion; inversion is a great malady, and I should abandon it. What is abandoning it? It means abandoning self and what belongs to self. What is abandoning self and what belongs to self? It means abandoning dualistic phenomena. What is abandoning dualistic phenomena? It means not dwelling on internal and external phenomena, practicing equality. What is equality? It means equality of self and equality of nirvāṇa. Why is this so? Self and nirvāṇa are both empty. By what are they empty? They are empty merely by designation. Such two phenomena have no determinate nature." Explanation: this refutes phenomena to reveal emptiness. Here it only takes the meaning of the mutual non-cognition of self and phenomena, and thus briefly uses two sentences. Next, the sūtra below states: "Attaining this equality, there is no other illness, only the illness of emptiness. The illness of emptiness is also empty." Explanation: this uses the emptiness of emptiness to refute emptiness; it is not essential to the present context, but is cited in passing to complete the meaning of the passage.

First 16 of 49 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese