大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 35.32

35.32

Regarding the commentary's "Faith has as its essential nature the deep conviction, delight, and desire regarding reality, virtues, and capabilities, with mental clarity": The sixth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratā states: "What is faith? It has as its essential nature deep conviction, delight, and desire regarding reality, virtues, and capabilities, with mental clarity. Its activity is to counteract non-faith and take joy in the wholesome (this generally clarifies the essence and activity). Yet the distinctions of faith are briefly of three kinds: 1. Having faith in the real, meaning deeply having faith in and conviction of the real facts and principles of all dharmas. 2. Having faith in virtue, meaning deeply having faith in and delighting in the true and pure virtues of the Three Jewels. 3. Having faith in capability, meaning deeply having faith that there is power capable of attaining and accomplishing all worldly and transworldly wholesome dharmas, giving rise to aspiration." Explanation: The three of reality, virtues, and capabilities are the bases of faith; the three of conviction, delight, and desire correspond to them in order. Saying "capable of attaining and accomplishing" means having faith in oneself and others, attaining now and accomplishing later; furthermore, unconditioned [dharmas] are attained, and conditioned [dharmas] are accomplished. The treatise states: "By this, one counteracts that non-faith, cherishing, delighting in, realizing, and cultivating worldly and transworldly wholesome dharmas." Explanation: The above explains the activity of faith; below, wanting to distinguish it, questions and answers are presented again. The treatise states: "Conviction means superior resolution (adhimokṣa); this is the cause of faith. Delight and desire mean desire (chanda); this is the fruit of faith. Then what is the question that definitely states this self-characteristic of faith? Was it not just said that mental clarity is its essential nature? This still does not understand the statement 'mental clarity'. If the word 'clarity' is precisely the mind, it should not be a mental factor. If it causes the mind to be pure, how does it differ from shame (hrī) and the like? The objection is the same for dharmas pure together with the mind." Explanation: There are three objections here: first, an appositional compound interpretation; next, a determinative compound interpretation; finally, a proximate compound interpretation. Saying "the objection is the same" means: how does it differ from shame and the like as mentioned before? It is also a primary mind, because it is a simultaneous dharma. The treatise states: "This nature is clear and limpid, capable of purifying the mind and so forth; because the mind is preeminent, it is named 'clarity of mind', just as a water-clearing jewel can clear turbid water. Although shame and the like are wholesome, they do not have clarity as their characteristic; this [faith] has clarity as its characteristic, so there is no fault of confusion with them. Moreover, defiled dharmas each individually have their characteristics: although non-faith has turbidness as its own characteristic, it can furthermore muddy the other minds and mental factors, just as an extremely filthy thing defiles itself and defiles others. Faith directly reverses that, hence having clarity as its characteristic (the orthodox doctrine ends). Some say: Faith has cherishing and delighting as its characteristic; it should pervade the three natures, and its essence should be desire. Furthermore, suffering and accumulation would not be the cognitive objects of faith (this refutes the Hinayāna Theravāda/Sthaviranikāya). Some maintain: Faith has compliance as its characteristic; it should pervade the three natures, being superior resolution and desire. If it confirms and complies, it is superior resolution; if it delights and complies, it is desire. Apart from those two essences, there is no characteristic of compliance (this refutes a deviant Mahāyāna master). From this one should know that mental clarity is the concluding definition of faith." Now, the commentary's text briefly cites the identification and explanation, and the meaning is already complete. From "Now, the Dharma jewel…" below, it correlates the treatise to the sūtra. There are again two meanings: first, separate correlation, meaning that the Dharma has facts and principle, which is the first, "reality". The Dharma has principle and practice, which are transworldly wholesome dharmas, etc., and thus the latter, "capability"; hence it says, "now within the Dharma jewel the first and last are already subsumed." Next, "Also within the Three Jewels all three are possessed": by meaning, the previous three apply generally to the Three Jewels, as is understandable from the text. Next, from "Great…" below, explains the subsequent line.