大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.2

31.2

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."