大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 34

English (machine translation) 34

Language: English

34.1

Composed by Chengguan, Śramaṇa of Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang

Seventh, the profundity of correct practice. Regarding the commentary's passage beginning "Second, for what reason": the text of the commentary has two parts: first, it universally reveals the overarching idea; second, from "The first four" onward, it explains the sūtra text in detail.

34.3

Regarding the commentary's passage beginning "Fascicle seven of the Samuccaya states that all afflictions" and so on: resolving an objection. Question: Since they are already distinguished into root and secondary afflictions, why are all called "secondary" (upakleśa)? Hence this resolution is provided. That treatise says: "'Secondary afflictions' means that all afflictions are secondary afflictions, and there are secondary afflictions that are not [root] afflictions." Exegesis: Those that are "not [root] afflictions" are things like wrath, which merely follow the root afflictions and are called secondary afflictions; not being root, they are called not [root] afflictions. And greed, anger, and ignorance are called secondary afflictions because, through these secondary afflictions, mental factors consequently afflict the mind, causing it not to leave defilement, not to attain liberation, and not to sever obstacles; hence they are called secondary afflictions. As the World-Honoured One said: 'For a long night you have been afflicted and disturbed by greed, anger, and ignorance, your minds constantly defiled.' Exegesis: The treatise's intention is that all root and secondary afflictions pursue sentient beings and cause the mind and mental factors to accord with defilement; hence all are called "secondary/accompanying." Therefore the commentary says, "because they arise following the other." "The other" is sentient beings; because afflictions follow beings, beings follow afflictions. This is precisely the sūtra's meaning, namely that the minds of practitioners follow greed and the like.

34.4

Regarding the commentary’s 'Generally explaining greed and the others as in the ninth ground,' it points to a fuller treatment elsewhere, yet in the ninth ground their distinct characteristics are explained. If explained according to their names, as the sixth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'What is greed? It has tainted attachment toward existence and the requisites for existence as its nature; it can obstruct non-greed, and has the generation of suffering as its activity; that is, because through the power of craving, grasping at the aggregates is born.' Explanation: 'Existence' refers to the fruit of maturation in the three existences of subsequent existence. 'Requisites for existence' refers to the intermediate existence of those afflictions and karmas, as well as the receptacle world. The treatise says: 'What is anger? It has the increase of hostility toward suffering and the requisites for suffering as its nature; it can obstruct non-anger, and has serving as the support for evil conduct, which is of an unpeaceful nature, as its activity; that is, anger necessarily causes feverish distress of body and mind and gives rise to evil karmas, because it is of an unwholesome nature.' Explanation: 'Suffering' refers to the three sufferings. 'Requisites for suffering' refers to all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas that can merely generate suffering; that is, wrong view and the like, because they slander the unconditioned, can also generate suffering. The treatise says: 'What is delusion? It has confusion and obscurity regarding principles and facts as its nature; it can obstruct non-delusion, and has serving as the support for all defilements as its activity; that is, from ignorance arise doubt, wrong certitude, greed, and other afflictions and secondary afflictions, which can recruit defiled dharmas in subsequent births.' Explanation: Solitary ignorance mostly confuses the principle of truths, while associated ignorance also confuses phenomenal marks, meaning that it generates hesitation toward truths and the like. The treatise says: 'What is pride? It has relying on oneself and exalting oneself above others as its nature; it can obstruct non-pride, and has the generation of suffering as its activity; that is, if there is pride, toward those with virtue the mind is not humble, and thereby one revolves endlessly in saṃsāra and undergoes all sufferings.' However, there are six fundamental afflictions; the reason doubt and evil views are not spoken of here is that those who understand the teaching mostly lack doubt and evil views. Among the latter seven secondary afflictions, in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi there are twenty secondary afflictions in total. The verse says: 'Secondary afflictions are wrath, / resentment, concealment, affliction, jealousy, stinginess, / deception, flattery, along with harmfulness, arrogance, / shamelessness, and lack of conscience, / restlessness along with torpor, / lack of faith and also indolence, / heedlessness and loss of mindfulness, / distraction, and non-correct awareness.' Among these twenty there are three grades: the first ten, wrath and so forth, arise individually and are therefore called small secondary afflictions; the two, shamelessness and so forth, pervade the unwholesome and are therefore called medium secondary afflictions; the eight, restlessness and so forth, pervade the defiled mind and are therefore called great secondary afflictions. Here there are only small secondary afflictions; in order to form ten, it merely brings up seven of them, omitting the three items of affliction, harmfulness, and arrogance. Also, arrogance is subsumed under pride, and affliction and harmfulness are gathered under anger. When it says 'concealment,' it has hiding one’s own committed transgressions out of fear of losing gain and reputation as its nature; it can obstruct non-concealment, and has remorse and distress as its activity; that is, one who conceals transgressions will later necessarily suffer remorse and distress and be unpeaceful. 'Wrath' has flare-ups directed against present non-beneficial conditions as its nature; it can obstruct non-wrath, and has seizing hold as its activity; that is, one who harbors wrath mostly displays violent physical communicative action. 'Resentment' has, with wrath as its prerequisite, harboring malice without abandoning it and forming grudges as its nature; it can obstruct non-resentment, and has feverish distress as its activity; that is, one who forms grudges cannot endure, and constantly suffers feverish distress. 'Jealousy' has following after one's own fame and gain, being unable to bear another's glory, and envy as its nature; it can obstruct non-jealousy, and has grief and sorrow as its activity; that is, one who is jealous hears and sees another's glory and deeply harbors grief and sorrow, being unpeaceful. 'Stinginess' has indulging in attachment to wealth and Dharma and being unable to give generously, and secretive miserliness, as its nature; it can obstruct non-stinginess, and has vile hoarding as its activity; the treatise says that one who is stingy has a mostly vile and withholding mind, hoarding wealth and Dharma and being unable to give them away. 'Deception' has falsely displaying virtue to obtain gain and reputation, and crooked fraudulence, as its nature; it can obstruct non-deception, and has wrong livelihood as its activity; that is, one who is deceitful harbors deceitful schemes in mind, mostly displaying untrue matters of wrong livelihood. 'Flattery' has deceitfully contriving unusual deportment to ensnare others, and crooked treacherousness, as its nature; it can obstruct non-flattery, and has obstructing instruction as its activity; that is, one who is flattering ensnares others, crookedly conforms to temporal convenience, deceitfully devises expedients to gain another’s approval or hide his own faults, and is unsuited for the upright instruction of teachers and friends. However, both flattery and deception take a portion of greed and delusion as their essence; stinginess is only a portion of greed; jealousy, resentment, and wrath take a portion of anger; concealment takes a portion of greed and delusion as its essence: fear of losing gain and reputation is greed, and not dreading future suffering is delusion. The rest can be understood by analogy. Regarding the commentary’s 'The Dharma is dharma-medicine, which must be taken and practiced,' the Vimalakīrti-sūtra says: 'Apply medicine according to the sickness, causing it to be taken and practiced.' As for 'Whether it is taken or not is not the physician’s fault,' that is from the Sūtra of the Buddha's Last Teaching. The Eight Awakenings of Great Men also says: 'You monks, regarding all merits, should always single-mindedly abandon all heedlessness as if departing from a treacherous thief. Whatever the World-Honoured One of Great Compassion wished to benefit has all been fully accomplished; you should merely strive diligently and practice it. Whether among mountains, in open marshes, under trees, or in quiet rooms of secluded places, be mindful of the Dharma you have received and do not let it be forgotten; you should always exert yourselves to cultivate it vigorously, and do not die in vain only to harbor regret later. I am like a good physician, who prescribes medicine according to the illness; whether it is taken or not is not the physician's fault. Furthermore, like a good guide who leads people onto a good path, if they hear of it but do not walk it, that is not the guide's error.' These all exhort practice.

34.5

Regarding the commentary’s 'The chapter on the Ten Practices says: Just as spoken, one can practice' and so forth, that is the tenth, the Practice of Truth.

34.6

Regarding the commentary’s 'The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa says: Being able to practice what is spoken is correct' and so forth, that is the text of the sixth fascicle. Thus the commentary’s 'Only by cultivating and practicing as spoken does one attain the Buddha-dharma' is from the sūtra text of the third ground.

34.7

Regarding the commentary’s 'Leaving behind arrogance and disrespect' and so forth, fascicle thirty-eight of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Listening to the Dharma leaves behind the defilement of arrogance through six aspects, leaves behind the defilement of disrespect through four aspects, and leaves behind the defilement of cowardice through one aspect. The six aspects are: 1. listening in due time, 2. listening with earnestness, 3. listening with reverence, 4. not doing so for injury, 5. not doing so for mere compliance, and 6. not seeking faults. The four aspects are: 1. revering the true Dharma, 2. revering the person who speaks, 3. not slighting the true Dharma, and 4. not slighting the person who speaks. The one aspect is not slighting oneself. Only when endowed with the above meanings is it called good listening.'

34.8

Regarding the commentary’s 'Seeking awakening and understanding' and so forth, the treatise says: 'Through five aspects the mind is without distraction: 1. a mind seeking awakening and understanding, 2. a mind focused on a single direction, 3. listening to the sound with attentive ears, 4. cleansing one’s mind, and 5. gathering all thoughts.' The commentary has this complete. Only when endowed with these five minds is it called examining carefully.

34.9

Regarding the commentary’s 'Saying "not only" means one must also cultivate and practice,' from here down, it takes up the sūtra text and explains it broadly, with each sentence clarifying the main idea of a section. In this there are two parts: first establishing the principle, and second citing proof. The former also has two parts: first correctly explaining, and second, from 'This clarifies that not practicing is an error' downward, eliminating misunderstandings. Because many people say that this section disparages having learned much and leads people to hold to ignorance without studying the doctrine, it therefore makes this distinction. In this there are three points: first, correctly distinguishing that it does not disparage having learned much, but merely rebukes hearing without practicing, not ordering people to practice without hearing; second, 'If there is no extensive learning, practice has nothing to rely upon' establishes the inverse: without hearing and without understanding, on what would one rely to practice? Third, from 'Therefore not practicing is an error' downward, it concludes the above meaning. Hearing much without practicing is exemplified by Devadatta and others, which the sūtra reprimands; hearing much and practicing is exemplified by Śāriputra and others, whom the sūtra does not reprove. Sunakkhatta was the Buddha’s son, and Devadatta was the Buddha’s brother; both understood the twelve divisions of scriptures, but because they did not rely on them to cultivate and practice, they fell bodily into the Avīci hell. Ānanda and Śāriputra, because they heard much and practiced, directly received predictions.

34.10

Regarding the commentary’s 'Therefore benefiting oneself and benefiting others' downward, it concludes the necessity of hearing much. From 'One should only' downward, it resolves an implicit objection. That is, there is an objection saying: All sūtras and treatises speak of wordlessness; the Merchant-Leader Deva-son Sūtra says: 'There is none who attains the Path without disparaging language'; the twenty-sixth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'If one knows that the Tathāgata constantly does not teach the Dharma, this is called being fully endowed with having heard much'; furthermore, the twentieth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'I would rather have little learning but understand many meanings and principles, than have much learning without understanding the meaning.' Therefore it offers this resolution: The Nirvāṇa Sūtra merely enjoins understanding the meaning, without disparaging hearing much; the Merchant-Leader and other sūtras merely enjoin non-attachment—how could they forbid sentient beings from hearing the teaching? Regarding the commentary’s 'The forty-second fascicle of the Vibhāṣā says' downward, the second part cites proof, citing two treatises and three sūtras in all. And the text is divided into two parts: first citing one treatise and two sūtras to prove the need for hearing much. The Vimalakīrti is the verse answering Bodhisattva Universal Manifestation of the Form Body in the second fascicle; the lower sūtra is the sūtra text of the third ground, which was already cited in the preceding text. Regarding the commentary’s 'The above exclusively revealed hearing' downward, the second part jointly cites hearing and practice. First citing the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, that is, the seventh merit in the twenty-fifth fascicle, 'Chapter on Bodhisattva Highly Virtuous King of Virtue,' says: 'Good sons! A bodhisattva-mahāsattva cultivates the subtle and wondrous scripture of the Great Nirvāṇa and contemplates thus: What dharma can serve as the proximate cause for Great Parinirvāṇa? The bodhisattva then knows there are four dharmas that serve as the proximate cause for Great Nirvāṇa. If one says that diligently cultivating all austerities is the proximate cause and condition for Great Nirvāṇa, this meaning is not so. Why is that? If one could attain nirvāṇa apart from four dharmas, there is no such possibility. What are the four? First, being close to good friends; second, single-mindedly listening to the Dharma; third, tying mindfulness to contemplation; and fourth, practicing in accordance with the Dharma. Good sons! For example, a person’s body encounters various diseases, whether cold, hot, emaciation, dysentery, malaria, or various demonic poisons, and goes to a good physician. The good physician prescribes medicine according to the illness. This person sincerely and well receives the physician’s instructions, compounds the medicine according to the instructions, and takes it in accordance with the method; having taken it, the illness is cured and his body attains peace and joy. The sick person is a metaphor for the bodhisattvas; the great good physician is a metaphor for good spiritual companions; what the good physician says is a metaphor for the Vaipulya sūtras; well receiving the physician's instructions is a metaphor for well contemplating the meaning of the Vaipulya sūtras; compounding the medicine according to the instructions is a metaphor for practicing the thirty-seven aids to the path in accordance with the Dharma; the illness being cured is a metaphor for eradicating afflictions; attaining peace and joy is a metaphor for attaining the eternity, bliss, self, and purity of nirvāṇa.' Therefore it says that the four items of the Nirvāṇa praise both hearing and practice. Regarding the commentary’s 'The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa says: Much hearing and broad wisdom' and so forth, in that treatise’s sixth fascicle there are four verses in total, and this is the first verse. The next verse says: 'Much hearing, eloquence, wisdom, and skillful words, / beautifully explaining dharmas to transform people's minds, / while oneself is not in accord with the Dharma and conduct is upright not, / is like clouds and thunder without rain. / Broadly learned, having heard much, and possessing wisdom, / but clumsy of tongue, awkward in speech, lacking skill and expedients, / unable to display the treasury of Dharma jewels, / is like having clouds without thunder or rain. / Not broadly learned, lacking wisdom, / unable to explain the Dharma and lacking good conduct, / is a wretched Dharma master without shame, / like having no clouds, no thunder, and no rain.' Here, practice is taken as rain, eloquence as thunder, and hearing and wisdom as clouds. The first verse possesses all of them, so it is cited here. The next one lacks practice; the next verse lacks eloquence and practice; the last verse lacks all three, so it is called a wretched Dharma master.

34.11

Regarding the commentary’s 'Fearing prolixity, I shall stop for now,' immediately before that in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa it says: 'Having wisdom without much hearing / is not knowing the true characteristic; / like in a dark night, / having eyes but seeing nothing. / Having heard much without wisdom / is also not knowing the true characteristic; / like in a great brightness, / having a lamp but having no eyes. / Having heard much and possessing sharp wisdom, / what one says should be accepted; / lacking hearing and lacking wisdom / is called an ox among humans.' Along with other sūtras, the texts are extremely extensive.

34.12

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Furthermore, these nine verses can also individually correspond to the meanings of the defilements such as greed": first, drowning in water is an analogy for the defilement of water-like covetous greed; second is an analogy for the defilement of stinginess, since one does not eat of it oneself; third is an analogy for the defilement of jealousy, as it is an internal disease; fourth is an analogy for the defilement of flattery, counting the virtues of others; fifth is an analogy for the defilement of anger and wrath, violating the king's law and thereby suffering hunger and cold; sixth is an analogy for the defilement of concealment, like covering one's ears to steal a bell, desiring that others do not hear; seventh is an analogy for the defilement of ignorance, being blind and without vision; eighth is an analogy for the defilement of conceit, relying on one's own habits; ninth is an analogy for the defilement of deceit, claiming virtues when one has none.

34.13

Eighth: The profound nature of the auxiliary path. Regarding the Commentary's line: "It means severing delusions and realizing the principle": this means that one slays the thief of afflictions with the sword of wisdom, and only through non-conceptual cognition can one realize tathatā. As for the phrase "guiding the practices," the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra states: "The five pāramitās are like blind people, and prajñā is like one with eyes." Thus, it can clearly see the smooth path and open the way for the myriad practices, steering the mind along the middle path to arrive at the city of omniscience. Therefore, when the other practices obtain wisdom, they all reach the other shore, and prajñā ultimately accomplishes the fruit of bodhi.

34.14

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Concluding the preceding objection": below this, there are also three levels of questioning intention: first, stating that "the preceding objection said wisdom is foremost," and now it is not by a single dharma alone that one attains buddhahood, so one should not exclusively praise it. Now there is exclusive praise; what is the reason for this? This is a direct inquiry into the cause. Second, from "must one rely on many" downward, it carries a doubtful question. Third, "if any single one brings accomplishment" concludes by raising an objection of mutual contradiction.

34.15

Regarding the Commentary's line: "It means that wisdom is foremost": above, it indicated the gist of the answer; below this, it explains it in detail. First, it explains and confirms the first point; second, from "there is never [a case where] solely by" downward, it explains and confirms the latter point; third, from "explaining the intermediate between them" downward, it explains the intermediate. In all there are five intentions: the first four are the four adaptations, and the last one subsumes them all. Now for the first: "adapting to the mind to bring delight" is the "adaptation to inclinations" below, and also the mundane siddhānta. Second: "adapting to the time to generate good" is the "adaptation to suitability" below, and also the individual siddhānta. Third: "because the hindrances to be countered differ" is the "adaptation to counteracting" below, also called the counteracting siddhānta. Fourth: "the entrance gates are different" is the "adaptation to meaning" below, also called the ultimate siddhānta. Siddhānta is translated here as "doctrinal tenet," which is the meaning in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra. This is because the teachings spoken by all buddhas do not depart from these four.

34.16

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra states: prajñā necessarily possesses all practices": this is the fifth intention. Prajñā subsumes all practices; now, praising prajñā alone is praising the rest; the rest are the remainder within prajñā, so merely praising the rest has already praised prajñā.

34.17

Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Gratifying their minds": this means that if another person delights in practicing giving, one encourages giving; if they delight in practicing morality, one encourages morality, and so forth. This complies with the mundane world, following their inclination. As for "attaching to habituation from former lives," the mind may not necessarily delight in it, but because one practiced it in past lives, encouragement easily brings accomplishment. Just as if one practiced seated meditation in the past, now encouraging seated meditation makes it easy to attain samādhi. Inclination pertains to present desires, while suitability pertains to possessing the faculties. It is also like the son of a goldsmith being suited to count breaths, and so forth. Adaptation to counteracting is understandable. Adaptation to meaning refers to entering the ultimate truth through whatever dharma is appropriate. Some awaken to the Way through dhyāna, and some awaken to the Way through wisdom; this is because the six pāramitās and myriad practices are all doorways for entering the principle.

34.18

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Yet they all pervade the four adaptations, with only one counteraction briefly cited": this harmonizes with the sūtra text. While the heading provides four explanations, there is only one here because it is an abbreviation. Therefore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is cited to prove the meaning of having four. For instance, in the single act of giving: encouraging someone who delights in giving is adaptation to inclination; having practiced it in the past and being able to generate the goodness of crossing over is adaptation to suitability; and through giving seeing the principle, understanding that wealth is like a dream, and relinquishing both mind and objects, is adaptation to meaning.

34.19

Regarding the Commentary's line: "In the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], before a stingy person, one does not praise giving": this refers to the thirty-fourth fascicle, the 'Chapter on Bodhisattva Kāśyapa': "The Buddha told Kāśyapa: 'In other sūtras I have taught that for five kinds of sentient beings, one should not turn around and preach five kinds of dharmas: for those lacking faith, one does not praise correct faith; for those who break the precepts, one does not praise morality; for those who are stingy and greedy, one does not praise giving; for those who are indolent, one does not praise erudition; for those who are foolish, one does not praise wisdom. Why is this? If a wise person speaks these five matters for these five kinds of people, you should know that the speaker cannot be called one fully endowed with knowledge of faculties and powers, nor can they be called one with compassion for sentient beings. Why is this? When these five kinds of people hear these matters, they give rise to lack of faith, an evil mind, and anger, and by this cause and condition they suffer painful retributions for immeasurable kalpas.'" Now the Commentary cites this to establish that the present text should possess the four meanings. Stating that this is adaptation to inclination is because they do not delight in it, and it is also because it is not suitable to praise it.

34.20

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Still following the previous gradual completion": this refers to the previous statement: cultivating gradually in such an order, one completes all buddha-dharmas. By relying on these words, it shows that wisdom can be foremost.

34.21

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Second, directly clarifying that their functions differ": the basis of practice is protection, which differs from giving joy; therefore, one must be endowed with both. The previous intention explained and confirmed the first meaning; this intention explains and confirms the latter meaning.

34.22

Regarding the Commentary's line: "However, the ninth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha": it cites the treatise to validate the sūtra, applying to both what precedes and what follows.

34.23

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Speaking broadly, these two are both able to guard against the external and nurture the internal": closely examining the principles of phenomena nurtures internal virtue; advancing to guard against indolence so that the various māras do not enter defends against external enemies.

34.24

In the Commentary, "clarifying the four seas" is an analogy for the aforementioned samādhi; "clearly reflecting the ten thousand mechanisms" is an analogy for the aforementioned wisdom; "bearing benevolence and looking up to the model" is an analogy for reliance.

34.25

Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Inviting endless fruits": just as the single samādhi of loving-kindness obtains fifteen fruits, which will be explained on the third bhūmi.

34.26

Ninth: The profound nature of the single path. Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Equally contemplating the nature of the mind": this is the single path of the primary path. It is the one that is uniquely one, because the dharmatā cannot be duplicated in its truth. "Cultivating the myriad practices together" combines in meaning both the primary and the auxiliary. It is the single path where a thousand buddhas follow the same rut and which remains unchanging through present and antiquity; this clarifies that being identical in category makes it one, not the number one of one, two, three, four.

34.27

Regarding the Commentary's line: "It means that since the causal path is single": within the Commentary there are two parts: first, explaining the text; second, eliminating misunderstandings. In the first part, it first explains the general sentence, which also contains three levels of questioning intention: first, directly asking the reason, hence saying "how is it seen at present?"; second, from "is it because the fruits differ?" downward, it carries doubt; third, from "if both are retained" downward, it analyzes the objection of mutual contradiction.

34.28

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Below, individually distinguishing the ten matters": this explains the sūtra text below "the so-called." It is easy to see in the text, but now the distinct characteristics should be briefly pointed out. As for "first, the realms have defilement, purity, and so forth": there are briefly ten meanings, and the word "and so forth" equates to the remaining nine: second, large and small; third, the basis; fourth, the shape; fifth, the essence; sixth, the adornments; seventh, purity; eighth, the appearance of buddhas; ninth, kalpa abiding; tenth, kalpa transformation. These are eight of the ten gates in the 'Chapter on the Formation of Worlds', not taking the causes and conditions of arising because it uses identity of cause to challenge difference of fruit; nor does it take the gate of non-difference, because it now challenges the gate of difference. In order to make up ten, defilement and purity as well as large and small were added. Large and small are just dimensions. Also, from shape, defilement and purity are opened out—that is, opened out in contrast to purity—and pervade the other eight gates. For example, the Sahā world is defiled and the Land of Utmost Bliss is pure, and so forth; small is like the Sahā single trichiliocosm, and large is like Pūrṇa's land in the Lotus Sūtra being the measure of trichiliocosms as numerous as the sands of a Ganges River, and so forth. The nine gates below are mostly like those in the 'Chapter on the Formation of Worlds'. As for "second, the differences in the good and evil of the inhabitants, and so forth": "and so forth" includes whether they are solely on the bhūmis, or solely prior to the bhūmis, or pervade both, or are of the triyāna, the ekayāna, and so forth.

34.29

Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Third, the distinctions of the various vehicles, and so forth": in some lands one vehicle is taught, or two, or three, or four, or five, up to immeasurable ones. As for "extensive or abbreviated": for instance, Śākyamuni Tathāgata extensively established the training in morality, whereas Kāśyapa was abbreviated, and there are even buddhas who preach the Dharma in dreams. "Fourth, or regulated and gathered by the three trainings": that is, using the aforementioned vehicles, teachings, and so forth to regulate and gather sentient beings—either tempered by morality, softened and subdued by samādhi, or gathered and controlled by wisdom. As for "hard and soft": this is the meaning of the Śrīmālā-sūtra, already cited above. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa also states: "The sentient beings of this land are stubborn and difficult to transform, so the Buddha speaks harsh words to subdue them, saying: 'This is hell, this is animal, this is hungry ghost, this is the place of fools, this is bodily misdeed, this is the retribution for bodily misdeed,' and so forth. Just as an unruly, stubborn elephant or horse is inflicted with all kinds of pain and poison, even piercing to the bone, and only then is subdued."

34.30

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Or the lifespan has length and shortness": as stated in the seventh fascicle of the Fo ming jing, the lifespan of the Buddha Brahmaghoṣa is one billion years, while the lifespan of the Buddha Candramukha is one day and one night. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra states that the Buddha Suśānta appeared in the morning and entered quiescence in the evening, the Buddha Amitābha's lifespan is immeasurable and boundless asaṃkhyeya kalpas, while Śākyamuni's lifespan did not reach one hundred years, and so forth.

34.31

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Light or physical characteristics are different": as in the 'Chapter on the Ten Samādhis', one might see the Tathāgata emit golden light, or see the Tathāgata emit white silver light, and so forth. As for "or possessing or lacking constant emission": Śākyamuni possesses [both], that is, a constant radiance of one vyāma, and emitting light from between his eyebrows that illuminates eighteen thousand buddha lands, and so forth. In the case of the Buddha Samantaprabhāsa, light is constantly emitted without distinction of before and after, because of constant radiance.

34.32

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Depending on whether the land is defiled or pure and the differences among inhabitants, the manifestation of supernormal powers is also distinct": this means that they differ depending on whether what is seen is superior or inferior, abundant or few. For instance, in the land of the Tathāgata Samantadarsana, the sentient beings therein all accomplish spontaneous supernormal steps, and so forth; thus, what the Buddha manifests for them is necessarily different from this realm.

34.33

Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "First, quantity": either bodhisattvas are many and śrāvakas are few, or the reverse, or both are many, or both are few. Therefore, the preceding 'Chapter on the Formation of Worlds' clarifies the appearance of buddhas by stating: "Either transforming many sentient beings, or subduing few sentient beings," and so forth. The Fo ming jing says that in the first assembly of the Buddha Merupradīparāja, there were eighty billion hundred thousand nayutas of śrāvakas, which is 'many'. As for "second, the number of assemblies": as the seventh fascicle of the Fo ming jing states, "The Buddha Merupradīparāja preached the Dharma in four assemblies, the Buddha Kusumaprabha preached the Dharma in one assembly, the Buddha Ghoṣadatta preached the Dharma in three assemblies, and the Buddha Jvālapramukta preached the Dharma in ten assemblies." Or a single sūtra is preached in multiple assemblies, such as the Avataṃsaka and Prajñāpāramitā. Or multiple sūtras are preached in a single assembly, such as the Anantanirdeśa and Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Maitreya World-Honoured One will have three assemblies under the dragon flower tree, and the number of assemblies for preaching the Dharma varies among the seven buddhas. "Third, common and noble, great and small": either only śrāvakas and such assemble, or only bodhisattvas assemble, or the triyāna gathers in the same assembly. "Ninth, the manner of conversion": as in the essence of the teaching. As for the word "and so forth," there are two senses: first, staring fixedly and so forth; second, the sequence in the manner of conversion. Either first the small and then the great, or first the great and then the small; or differences of esoteric and exoteric, gradual and sudden, and so forth—all are as stated in the subsumption of teachings.

34.34

Regarding the Commentary's line: "Tenth, the duration of the Dharma's duration": as the Lotus Sūtra states, the true Dharma of the Buddha Padmaprabha abided in the world for thirty-two minor kalpas, and the semblance Dharma also abided in the world for thirty-two minor kalpas. In the case of the Buddha Prabhāsa, the true Dharma and the semblance Dharma each abided for twenty minor kalpas. The Buddha Śailendrarājasusamparipūrṇa had an immeasurable lifespan of thousands of myriads of koṭis of asaṃkhyeya kalpas, his true Dharma abided in the world for double his lifespan, and the semblance Dharma abided for double the true Dharma; thus, the true Dharma lasted for two immeasurable thousands of myriads of koṭis of asaṃkhyeya kalpas, and so did the semblance Dharma.

34.35

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "If considered in terms of one Buddha and the ten matters": second, it distinguishes [the true meaning] to prevent confusion. Fearing that people might mistakenly think that one Buddha with a single cause comes to possess manifold fruits, this distinction is made. It clarifies that this refers to multiple Buddhas cultivating the single cause together—why, then, are various differences seen in their fruits? As for one Buddha realizing the one while the fruits are different, this has already been clarified previously; that is, Mañjuśrī asked Guṇaśirṣa: "What the Tathāgata awakens to is only a single Dharma; why then does he preach immeasurable teachings, manifest immeasurable lands, and transform immeasurable sentient beings?" and so forth; hence it says that Guṇaśirṣa had already clarified it.

34.36

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "In the second answer": the Commentary's text has two parts: first, it briefly sets forth the intention of the reply; second, it broadly investigates and explains it. In the first part, it validates that their causes are identical and explains that their fruits are different—the differences lie naturally in the beings, while the identity is the identity of the Buddhas.

34.37

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Why is it that the causes and fruits of all Buddhas have both identity and difference?": this is the second part, which broadly investigates and explains it. Within this there are two parts: first, the setting forth; second, the explanation. Now, the first: previously, Mañjuśrī used the identity of the causes to challenge the difference of the fruits; now it is clarified that the fruits also have identity—why was this not known? And the causes also have difference, so neither mentioned the other. Therefore it says that both have identity and difference. Thus, taking the Buddhas with respect to faculties, causes and fruits are both different; setting aside faculties to speak of the Buddhas, causes and fruits are both identical. However, the identity of fruits and difference of causes are hidden in characteristic, while the identity of causes and difference of fruits are manifest in characteristic. Therefore, Mañjuśrī used what was manifest to challenge what was hidden, causing beings to understand them equally and accomplish the single path.

34.38

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Meaning that they identically fulfill the ocean of practices": second, it explains the characteristics. Within this there are four parts: first, a general explanation of the four meanings; second, concluding the identity and difference; third, citing proof for identity and difference; fourth, specifically displaying the identity of the fruits. Now, the first: first, "identically fulfilling the ocean of practices" refers to the practices of the two benefits [self-benefit and benefiting others]. Second, from "taking this identical cause" onward, it distinguishes the characteristics of different causes, which also make use of the aforementioned practices of the two benefits. However, in the Faxiang school, the self-enjoyment body and the enjoyment land are accomplished by the practices of self-benefit; while the other-enjoyment and transformation bodies and lands are summoned by the practices of benefiting others. Thus, benefiting others can also follow faculties to appropriate different fruits; all Buddhas are like this, so one may also speak of identity. In the Faxing school, both of the two benefits accomplish the identical cause and the different causes. If benefiting others is not complete, how could one attain the true retribution? If self-benefit is insufficient, how could one benefit others? Therefore, along with the two practices, they jointly accomplish one's own fruit and are both able to benefit others; it is merely that in accordance with the differences in the types to be transformed as appropriate, they take on different fruits.

34.39

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Thus, in terms of the Buddha, being identical, he can accord with difference": second, it concludes the identity and difference. Above, it directly pointed to the characteristics of the identity and difference of causes and fruits; here, it integrates and reconciles them. There are five statements; this statement is solely in terms of the Buddha. Since the identical cause is turned into different causes, the identical fruit is able to become different fruits. Second, "in terms of faculties, seeing differences in the identical place" speaks solely in terms of sentient beings, because their minds are inherently different. Third, "taking sentient beings with respect to the Buddha" is like four minds contemplating the single object together: the single object does not vary, accomplishing the fundamental sense of identity. Fourth, "taking the Buddha with respect to sentient beings": although it is a single object, it causes four minds to see differently, accomplishing the sense of ability to differ. Fifth, "looking at Buddhas in relation to Buddhas": all Buddhas are able to manifest differences in accordance with faculties, which is itself the sense of identity. The conclusion says: "Just like brocade patterns, always identical and always different," which harmonizes the above five statements as not departing from the non-obstruction of identity and difference.

34.40

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle thirty-eight": third, it cites proof for identity and difference. Except for the single clause, "meaning to clarify that it is according to faculties," which is the Commentary's explanation of the treatise, the rest is the text of the treatise.

34.41

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Concerning the identity of fruits": fourth, it specifically explains the identity of the fruits, because it is difficult to see. Within this there are two parts: first, the direct explanation; later, from "therefore the Cheng weishi [lun]" onward, it cites proof, which is the tenth fascicle of that treatise. Within this, regarding the four bodies and lands, the text is divided into three: first, it explains the realized svābhāvikakāya and its land; since they are identically what is realized, it clarifies that their essence is identical, like the space within a single room. Second, self-enjoyment, like the light of a thousand lamps jointly illuminating the interior of a room. Third, the other two bodies and lands, namely the other-enjoyment and the transformation [bodies and lands]; these precisely prove what came before, and are also called identical by similarity, yet are seen as different in accordance with faculties. The Commentary's text has two parts: first, the setting forth; second, the explanation. Now, the first: concerning being seen as different in accordance with faculties, as for "having shared and unshared," being shared makes for difference, hence it is called "shared"; it is not the meaning of identity. "Unshared" is due to differences in transformation; both of the above two are different. However, shared and unshared are also called identical by similarity. Causing them to individually see the differences between shared and unshared is precisely being seen as different in accordance with faculties.

34.42

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Those transformed that are shared": second, it explains them. Within this there are three parts: first, it explains the meaning of "shared"; second, it explains "unshared"; third, it concludes both. Now, the first: as for "the Buddhas each transform," it is like the transformation body of Śākyamuni now. If a group of sentient beings previously had conditions with Akṣobhya, Amitābha, Bhaiṣajyaguru, and Ratnasaṃbhava, and ought to receive their transformation, the bodies of those to be transformed cannot be divided; being in the place of Jambudvīpa during the Bhadrakalpa, the Tathāgata Akṣobhya transforms a Buddha body into Śākyamuni, Amitābha Buddha also transforms a body into Śākyamuni, Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabha also transforms a body into Śākyamuni, and Ratnasaṃbhava Tathāgata also transforms a body into Śākyamuni, being together beneath the bodhi tree in Kapilavastu and simultaneously attaining Buddhahood, causing sentient beings merely to consider him to be one Śākyamuni Buddha. Like five lamps jointly illuminating one object and together casting a single shadow, there are in fact multiple lights each casting a shadow, but because they are blended, one considers it to be one. If one person belongs to five Buddhas, it is as clarified above. If hundreds of thousands of people together belong to five Buddhas, they likewise see the five Buddhas as one.

34.43

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "As for the unshared, only one Buddha transforms": second, it explains the unshared. Even if one sees hundreds of thousands of transformation Buddhas throughout the ten directions, they are also merely the manifold bodies transformed and manifested by a single Buddha.

34.44

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Because the classes of sentient beings belong to Buddhas differently": third, it jointly concludes and explains. It explains and accomplishes the above meaning of shared and unshared. All the above is the text of the treatise; only the phrase "because they belong to Buddhas differently" quotes the meaning of that treatise, which fully states: "Classes of sentient beings have, from beginningless time, their dispositions naturally bound to one another; either many belong to one, or one belongs to many; therefore, the beings transformed are shared or unshared. Were it not so, multiple Buddhas dwelling long in the world, each engaging in toil, would truly be without benefit, because one Buddha is able to benefit all beings." Explanation: from "were it not so" onward is the text of that treatise, refuting the views of other masters. However, there should also be "many belonging to many" or "one belonging to one"; that they are absent from the text is an abbreviation. Moreover, that treatise says, "from beginningless time dispositions are naturally so"; now, although we adopt its meaning of shared and unshared, it is merely in terms of forming conditions, not necessarily naturally so. In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, there are the opinions of three masters: the first says that all are shared, because each and every one saves all, etc.; the second says they are unshared, because the classes originally belonging [to them] are distinct, as when Maitreya and Śākyamuni served Tiṣya Buddha together, and that Buddha, seeing that those to be transformed by Śākyamuni would ripen first, entered samādhi for him, causing him to forget to lower one foot for seven days while praising the Buddha with verses, thus surpassing Maitreya to achieve completion nine kalpas earlier—how could this not be distinct? The third says that there are both shared and unshared: if exclusively shared, what use would there be for multiple Buddhas? If exclusively unshared, one should not serve multiple Buddhas wishing to save all, nor should one entrust the sentient beings one transforms to later Buddhas. Now the Cheng weishi lun follows this third correct view, briefly refuting the proponents of "all shared," but not refuting "unshared." In the verses, the Commentary briefly clarifies four points: first, previously the oneness of cause was used to challenge the difference of fruits; now this fully clarifies the single characteristic of cause and fruit.

34.45

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "However, essence is identical and meaning is different": this resolves an objection. Fearing that someone might object: "Since the first meaning takes identity of essence as oneness, then when one Buddha realizes it, all would realize it." If in terms of manifestation, it is truly as objected, for the Buddha sees that sentient beings have all already realized it. Now speaking in terms of actual affairs, this resolution is made: taking essence in relation to function, there is realized and not yet realized, like a thousand lamps in a single room illuminating the identical space. Taking the lamps in relation to space, the essence of space is non-dual; taking space in relation to the lamps, there is illuminated and not yet illuminated, each taken according to the lamp and belonging to its respective lamp. The meaning of the Buddhas is also like this. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The eight consciousnesses, the king of mind, and so forth are all unknowable": this is because it is not that the Buddha has no mind, but that its characteristics are profound, subtle, abstruse, and difficult to know. Therefore the "Appearance Chapter" says: "The Tathāgata's citta, manas, and vijñāna are all unattainable; one knows the Tathāgata's mind only through immeasurable cognition." Since it says one knows the Tathāgata's mind, then he is not without mind. There are ten characteristics there, each saying: "This is the first characteristic of the Tathāgata's mind, etc., which all bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should know in this way." Now it takes the minds of all Buddhas as unknowable, hence calling them one.

34.46

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "In the former, it accords with the original different causes": for example, if sentient beings should be transformed by a land of straightforward mind, the bodhisattva uses the cause of straightforward mind to take a land of straightforward mind, etc. That is, according to which land sentient beings ought to develop bodhisattva roots in, he takes that Buddha land, etc.; hence it says he attains such a Buddha land, meaning that the characteristics of defiled and pure lands are not uniform.

34.47

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The reply's intention is that because sentient beings do not see it, how can one say it does not exist?": this is identical to what the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says: "At that time, Śāriputra, receiving the Buddha's spiritual power, had this thought: 'If when a bodhisattva's mind is pure the Buddha land is pure, then when our World-Honoured One previously practiced the bodhisattva path, could his intention not have been pure, such that this Buddha land is impure like this?' The Buddha, knowing his thought, addressed Śāriputra: 'Are the sun and moon not pure? Yet the blind do not see them.' He replied: 'No, World-Honoured One! That is the fault of the blind, not the fault of the sun and moon.' 'Śāriputra! Because of the sins of sentient beings, they do not see the purity and adornment of the Tathāgata's Buddha land; it is not the Tathāgata's fault. Śāriputra! This land of mine is pure, yet you do not see it.'" This is its meaning.

First 47 of 110 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese