大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 36

English (machine translation) 36

Language: English

36.1

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

In the commentary on "the eighth, the samādhi of the radiance from the pores benefiting [beings]", the statement "cognition accords with the gate of liberation" and so on generally brings forth the causes of the radiance, because it possesses both compassion and wisdom. First, this preceding line concerns cognition and is also an explanation based on representation: the pores represent the gates of liberation, and the radiance represents wisdom; second, directly clarifying wisdom, it therefore says, "cognition accords with the gate of liberation."

36.3

The commentary's statement, "compassion perfuming bodily, verbal, and mental karma", is explained in terms of compassion and wisdom, because the bodhisattva has perfumed and cultivated the three karmas with compassion over vast kalpas.

36.4

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The latter is endowed with the four dhāraṇīs": first, the dhāraṇī of teaching; second, the dhāraṇī of meaning; third, the dhāraṇī of mantras; fourth, the dhāraṇī of non-arising patience, as explained extensively in the Seventh Ground. When all four dhāraṇīs are possessed, how could one not be sovereign?

36.5

Regarding the commentary's statement, "One should not, because of not seeing, doubt the bodhisattva's lack of radiance", and so forth: below this, it separately explains the meaning of severing doubts. It severs three doubts: first, through not seeing, doubting there is no radiance; second, not rescuing from severe suffering, thinking the radiance is of no benefit. The sūtra text, by using [the analogy of] a blind person not seeing the sun, dual-explains both doubts. Third, below "nor elevating too high the fruition-functioning", it dispels another doubt, namely that this functioning is the fruition-functioning of a Buddha, not of the ten faiths.

36.6

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Since it says the measure equals the three thousand [great trichiliocosm], it does not disrupt the sequence": this also refutes disbelief in the ten faiths achieving the eight aspects of attaining Buddhahood, which is thought to be possible only on the ten grounds; hence it says "does not disrupt the sequence". It means that when a bodhisattva of the ten grounds receives the office [of consecration], there is a great lotus whose measure equals a hundred myriad three-thousand great trichiliocosms. The "Chapter on the Ten Concentrations" explains that an equal-awakening bodhisattva has a single lotus whose measure pervades the dharmadhātu. Pervading the dharmadhātu is solely great, whereas among the hundred myriad koṭis it only speaks of three thousand; hence it is inferior to the latter two. Now, regarding the commentary's "twelve verses in six pairs, each pair having ten meanings in five pairs", etc.: the text of the commentary is divided into six: first, general presentation; second, below "wishing to distinguish non-obstruction", generally distinguishing concentration and wisdom; third, below "saying five pairs", directly clarifying non-obstruction; fourth, below "the non-obstruction explained above", generally showing the gate of entry; fifth, below "furthermore, earlier it was said that the nature of form", revealing its containment; sixth, below "this is the bodhisattva", general conclusion urging cultivation. The first passage can be understood. In the second, generally distinguishing concentration and wisdom, there are three parts: first, generally indicating the characteristics of concentration and wisdom in the current text; second, below "although concentration and wisdom are many", revealing their different categories; finally, below "the reason why those of narrow view", generally showing the gains and losses. Within the second, there are also two: first, generally distinguishing them into two; second, the difference in using the two. Now, this is the first.

36.7

The commentary's statement, "Restraining it in one place, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished", is a line from the *Bequeathed Teaching Sūtra*. However, it can also be applied to principle, because the earlier and later analogies mostly concern phenomena. That is, in that sūtra's eight awakenings of great people, the beginning of the second, explaining diligence, says: "O monks! Having been able to abide by the precepts, you must restrain the five faculties and not let them be heedless. ...Up to: These five faculties have the mind as their master; therefore you must properly restrain the mind. The mind is more fearful than poisonous snakes, evil beasts, and hateful bandits; even a rampant great fire cannot surpass it. It is like a person carrying a vessel of honey, moving rashly and frivolously, seeing only the honey and not seeing the deep pit. It is like a mad elephant without an iron hook, or a monkey finding a tree, leaping and jumping, hard to restrain. You must urgently subdue it and not let it be heedless. Giving free rein to this mind ruins a person's good deeds. Restraining it in one place, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished. Therefore, monks, you must diligently advance to subdue your mind."

36.8

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Being able to contemplate the mind-nature, according with principle and unmoving": the upper line is the meaning of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*. Fascicle twenty-seven of that sūtra, the "Chapter on the Lion's Roar", says: "Because it establishes three grades of concentration." The sūtra says: "Good son! All sentient beings possess three kinds of concentration, namely superior, middling, and inferior. The superior is the Buddha-nature; therefore it is said that all sentient beings completely possess the Buddha-nature. The middling is that all sentient beings are fully endowed with the first dhyāna and so on. The inferior is the mental-factor of concentration among the ten universal mental factors." Here it is cited only according to its meaning. From "according with principle and unmoving", this is explained conceptually. Contemplating its mind-nature is the gate of contemplation. Yet it is called "concentration" because mind-nature is principle, and contemplation accords with principle; being in resonance with principle, it is serenely unmoving, hence called "concentration".

36.9

The commentary's statement, "clear comprehension of the characteristics of dharmas is phenomenal contemplation", is as in the *Awakening of Faith*, etc.

36.10

The commentary's statement, "skillfully comprehending non-arising", is the Seventh Ground; the sūtra says: "Comprehending dharmas as unarisen is called prajñā," which is this.

36.11

The commentary's statement, "In various sūtras and treatises, sometimes phenomenal concentration is spoken of alone", and so forth, is the second: the difference in using the two.

36.12

Regarding the commentary's statement, "As the *Awakening of Faith* states: calming all characteristics, up to...", the treatise says: "How does one cultivate the gate of calming and contemplation? What is called 'calming' means calming all characteristics of cognitive objects, because it accords with the meaning of śamatha contemplation. What is called 'contemplation' means discerning the characteristics of arising and ceasing through causes and conditions, because it accords with the meaning of vipaśyanā contemplation. How does one accord? By gradually practicing these two meanings without departing from one another, so that both manifest together." Next, the treatise says: "Whether walking, standing, lying down, or rising, one should practice both calming and contemplation together. That is to say, although one is mindful that all dharmas do not arise of their own nature, one also simultaneously is mindful that, through the conjunction of causes and conditions, the wholesome and unwholesome karma and the fruit-retributions of suffering and pleasure are neither lost nor destroyed. Although one is mindful of the karmic retributions of wholesome and unwholesome causes and conditions, one also simultaneously is mindful that their nature cannot be attained." Explanation: Herein, first calming does not obstruct contemplation, and later contemplation does not obstruct calming; in both cases calming concerns entering principle and contemplation concerns contemplating phenomena. In the first fascicle [of the commentary], the text has already been cited at length along with a clarification of the main idea; comparing the commentary with the treatise text, the textual characteristics can be known.

36.13

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Or contrasting contemplation of principle with phenomenal concentration", and its citing the later sūtra's "one mind unmoving, etc.": this is the verse text of the Seventh Ground. However, the present sūtra says: "Unmoving in the path is cultivating dhyāna; patiently accepting non-arising is called prajñā." It is cited according to its meaning, so there is a slight difference.

36.14

Regarding the commentary's citation, "Dhyāna concentration holds the mind always on one object", and so forth: this is the thirty-third fascicle of the sūtra. It fully explains the ten pāramitās, saying: "Just as one makes pariṇāmanā, so one practices giving, and likewise firmly maintains the precepts, with long-term diligence without retreating, and forbearance gentle with mind unmoving"—from "dhyāna concentration" downwards is the same. Here it only takes the text clarifying concentration and wisdom.

36.15

Under the commentary's statement, "Saying five pairs": third, directly clarifying non-obstruction. Within this, it first explains separately, and then concludes generally. In the former, the five pairs constitute five separate points. However, the five pairs all rely on the sūtra text, taking the text differently. The first pair takes the faculties and objects: as the first verse contrasts the upper "in the eye faculty" with the lower "in the form dust" to construct its meaning. Within this there are three: First, clarifying entering the faculty and emerging from the object. Second, below "to show", bringing out the reason: as for why there is non-obstruction, there are briefly three meanings: first, because it is only the manifestation of mind; second, because conditioned arising depends on one another; third, because dharmatā is mutually penetrating, as explained extensively in the Prolegomena. Because this is the first, it fully sets out the reasons; below it mostly summarizes briefly. Third, "entering the object and emerging from the faculty is also like this": this explains the later verse by analogy.

36.16

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The second pair": this constructs its meaning upon entering correct concentration. In this text there are four: First, directly clarifying it. As for the commentary's "discerning phenomenal characteristics" and so forth: because the emerging is from the form dust, one clearly knows that the entering in the eye faculty is its concentration on principle.

36.17

Regarding the Commentary's statement, '"wishing to contemplate the emptiness of nature," and so forth': since arising at the eye and so on is an arising in terms of principle, one clearly knows that entering in the visible form dust is an entering in terms of phenomena. Second, from 'Because it accords with principle, which is identical to phenomena' onward, it presents the reason. It explains the reason solely in terms of the non-obstruction of phenomena and principle, within which there are two parts: first, establishing the above [point that] differentiating phenomenal characteristics should enter phenomenal samādhi, yet enters samādhi of principle; and second, from 'restraining the mind in phenomena, which are identical to principle' onward, establishing the above [point that] wishing to contemplate the emptiness of nature should enter samādhi of principle, yet enters phenomenal samādhi. Third, from 'Yet the sūtra text merely says' onward, it presents the reason why the two samādhis obtain their names, showing that the text corresponding to the above entering into right samādhi is due to its correspondence with the contemplation. Fourth, 'One should also correlate the phenomenal eye organ with the noumenal sense object to distinguish non-obstruction': this concludes by drawing a parallel. This means there should be two verses, saying: 'Entering right samādhi within the eye organ, / Arising from samādhi in visible form with a mind undistracted, / One understands that visible form is unproduced and has no arising, / Its nature is empty, quiescent, and without activity. / Entering right samādhi within visible form dust, / Samādhi arises within the eye organ; / One differentiates the eye's nature as inconceivable, / Such that gods and worldly people cannot know it.'

36.18

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The third pair: non-obstruction of principle and phenomena,' and so forth: this constructs the meaning by taking the sūtra text's 'arising from samādhi' in correlation with the latter half [of the verses]. The text of the Commentary has three parts: first, directly explaining; next, from 'because the contemplated' onward, presenting the reason; and third, from 'one should also' onward, making an inverse parallel. In the first part, the Commentary's text only deals with the first verse and does not deal with the second verse. If stated completely, it should say: Wishing to understand the true principle, one ought to arise from the contemplation of principle, yet conversely arises from the contemplation of phenomena. This means that in the preceding verse, manifesting the nature of visible form is phenomenal, and thus the arising of samādhi within the visible form dust functionally corresponds to the contemplation of principle. In the second verse, saying that the eye is unproduced and has no arising is the nature of principle, and thus the preceding [phrase] 'arising from samādhi in the eye organ with a mind undistracted' functionally corresponds to the contemplation of phenomena. The explanation of the reason is clear. The Commentary states, 'One should also correlate the phenomenal and noumenal sense objects with the noumenal and phenomenal sense organs to distinguish non-obstruction': this is the third part, making an inverse parallel. This intent is somewhat concealed, so one should first ask: 'Above, in distinguishing the two samādhis, it merely said that one should also correlate the phenomenal sense organ with the noumenal sense object; why does it now speak of both, correlating the phenomenal and noumenal sense objects with the noumenal and phenomenal sense organs?' Hence one should reply: 'Because the above two samādhis cannot distinguish themselves; one must rely on the arising of contemplation to know phenomena and principle. For example, when entering samādhi in the eye, one does not yet know what kind of samādhi it is; because upon seeing the sense object one understands the distinctions of visible form, this is the contemplation of phenomena. In order to make it unobstructive, it says that entering samādhi within the sense organ is a samādhi of principle. In entering in the sense object and arising in the sense organ, since one understands that the nature of the sense organ is empty, it says that one enters into phenomenal samādhi within the sense object. Thus the sūtra text has already distinguished the noumenal sense organ in correlation with the phenomenal sense object; therefore it was only proper to draw a parallel by correlating the phenomenal samādhi of the sense organ with the noumenal sense object. Now these two contemplations do not depend on samādhi to be distinguished; on both the sense organ and the sense object there are two contemplations each. That is, entering samādhi in the sense organ, one arises from the contemplation of principle in the sense object to differentiate phenomena; entering samādhi in visible form, one arises from the contemplation of phenomena in the sense organ to differentiate principle. The sūtra text already contains these two, but it has not yet [included] arising from the contemplation of phenomena in the sense object to differentiate principle, nor arising from the contemplation of principle in the sense organ to differentiate phenomena.' If one were to compose verses, they should say: 'Entering right samādhi within the eye organ, / The contemplation of phenomena arises within the visible form dust; / Declaring that visible form is unproduced and has no arising, / Its nature is empty, quiescent, and without activity. / And: entering right samādhi within the visible form dust, / The contemplation of principle arises within the eye organ; / Differentiating all supreme, wondrous eyes, / Such that gods and worldly people cannot know them.' This, then, is arising in phenomena on the sense object to contemplate principle, in correlation with arising in principle on the sense organ to contemplate phenomena; hence it says, 'One should also correlate the phenomenal and noumenal sense objects with the noumenal and phenomenal sense organs to distinguish non-obstruction.'

36.19

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The fourth pair: non-obstruction of exiting and entering': this constructs its meaning from the sūtra's words 'entering right samādhi' in correlation with 'arising from samādhi', as well as 'arising from samādhi undistracted'. Within this there are two parts: first, directly explaining; and second, from 'if correlated in terms of phenomena and principle' onward, examining and sorting the number of propositions. Of the four propositions of phenomena and principle, it only presents two, taking the remaining two as implied—namely: third, entering in principle and arising in phenomena; fourth, entering in principle and arising in principle. The above merely stated the simple forms as having four propositions; if simple and compound are correlated, they would constitute nine propositions. Adding five propositions to the previous four, namely: entering in phenomena and arising in both phenomena and principle; entering in principle and arising in both phenomena and principle; entering in both phenomena and principle and arising in phenomena; entering in both phenomena and principle and arising in principle; entering in both phenomena and principle and arising in both phenomena and principle—hence there are nine propositions. The Commentary states, 'It further forms four propositions': this refers to the exiting and entering of sense organ and sense object forming four, of which it only raises one. If stated completely, it should say: second, entering in the phenomenal sense object and arising in the phenomenal sense organ; third, entering in the noumenal sense organ and arising in the noumenal sense object; fourth, entering in the noumenal sense object and arising in the noumenal sense organ. If further interlinked, they would form ten propositions: fifth, entering in the phenomenal sense organ and arising in the noumenal sense object; sixth, entering in the phenomenal sense object and arising in the noumenal sense organ; seventh, entering in the noumenal sense organ and arising in the phenomenal sense object; eighth, entering in the noumenal sense object and arising in the phenomenal sense organ; ninth, entering in the phenomenal and noumenal sense organ and arising in the phenomenal and noumenal sense object; tenth, entering in the phenomenal and noumenal sense object and arising in the phenomenal and noumenal sense organ. Because their mutual correlation in terms of phenomena and principle belongs to the previous four propositions of phenomena and principle, it only mentions four.

36.20

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The fifth pair: non-obstruction of essence and function in the two benefits': this contains two levels of non-obstruction: first, the non-obstruction of essence and function; second, from 'non-obstruction of the two benefits' onward, taking up both and explaining them. The statement that 'the mind being undistracted is the essence' takes the three lines of arising in the sense organ in their entirety to construct the meaning in correlation with the latter two lines of arising in the sense object; thus the three lines of arising in the sense organ are the essence and also self-benefit. This refers to: 'arising from samādhi in the eye with a mind undistracted, / saying that the eye is unproduced and has no arising, / its nature is empty, quiescent, and without activity.' And as for the statement 'not obstructing manifestation in the broad realm', this takes the previous lines 'manifesting the nature of visible form as inconceivable, / such that gods and worldly people cannot know it' as the broad realm, and also takes these two lines in their entirety as benefiting others. From the Commentary's 'Truly because' onward, it explains the non-obstruction of the two benefits by means of essence and function being non-dual. However, the Commentary above only takes the sense organ and sense object of eye and visible form as essence; by analogy with the remaining five sense organs and sense objects, it can be understood.

36.21

Regarding the Commentary's statement from 'The above ten meanings together form one group' onward: this is the second part, concluding the ten pairs as a whole. Within this, there are also two parts: first, directly concluding; and second, from 'Furthermore, the sūtra for now addresses sense organs and sense objects' onward, illustrating by drawing parallels. If it were sense objects correlated with sense objects, that is subsumed below under sovereignty in one's own and others' bodies. Here, sense organs correlated with sense organs and so forth are not explained simply because they are omitted for brevity; by analogy, they should also be present. If fully stated, it should say: 'Entering right samādhi within the eye organ, / Arising from samādhi within the ear organ, / Manifesting the ear's nature as inconceivable, / Such that gods and worldly people cannot know it. / Entering right samādhi within the ear organ, / Arising from samādhi in the eye with a mind undistracted, / Saying that the eye is unproduced and has no arising, / Its nature is empty, quiescent, and without activity,' and so forth, constituting the mutual functioning of the six sense organs. Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'Entering right concentration in one dust, arising from samādhi in multiple sense organs,' and so forth: this is also merely omitted for brevity. If fully stated, it should say: 'Entering right samādhi within the visible form dust, / Arising from samādhi within the six sense organs, / Manifesting the six sense organs as inconceivable, / Such that gods and worldly people cannot know them. / Entering right samādhi within the six sense organs, / Arising from samādhi in visible form with a mind undistracted, / Saying that visible form is unproduced and has no arising, / Its nature is empty, quiescent, and without activity,' and so forth. There should also be entering in one sense organ and arising in multiple dusts; hence it says 'and so forth'. The word 'and so forth' encompasses two levels: first, multiple sense organs entering and arising in one dust; second, one sense organ entering and arising in multiple dusts. If fully stated, it should say: 'Entering right samādhi within the eye organ, / Samādhi arises within the six dusts; / Differentiating the six sense objects as inconceivable, / Such that gods and worldly people cannot know them. / Entering right samādhi within the six sense objects, / The eye organ arises from samādhi with a mind undistracted, / Saying that the eye is unproduced and has no arising, / Its nature is empty, quiescent, and without activity.' The remaining sense organs correlated with dusts are also like this; hence it says, 'They are all omitted and therefore not spoken of.'

36.22

Regarding the Commentary's statement from 'The non-obstruction described above is profound, wondrous, and difficult to conceive' onward: this is the fourth part, generally indicating the entry point. First it asks; then, from 'Now we shall' onward, it directly shows that knowing the non-obstruction of phenomena and principle in sense organs and sense objects is also like a general contemplation. 'Thoughts and deliberations do not arise' is general cessation, which is the main import of the gate of Chan.

36.23

Regarding the Commentary's statement from 'Furthermore, having earlier said that the nature of visible form is difficult to conceive' onward: this is the fifth part, displaying its comprehensive subsumption. Within this there are also two parts: first, gathering dhāraṇīs and so forth to harmonize with the Buddha Names Sūtra; second, harmonizing with the Dazhidulun in terms of the three contemplations. In the first part, the twelve sense bases, in terms of their comprehensive subsumption, are all called dhāraṇīs; in terms of their nature being empty and ultimate, are all called pāramitās; in terms of their nature being fundamentally pure, are all gates of liberation; and in terms of the nature of awareness being completely luminous, all obtain the name of Buddha. Thus the Buddha Names Sūtra says: 'Eye Dhāraṇī Sovereign Buddha, up to Mind Dhāraṇī Sovereign Buddha; Form Dhāraṇī Sovereign Buddha, up to Dharma Dhāraṇī Sovereign Buddha,' and so forth.

36.24

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'It is not merely that apprehending characteristics is defilement and having no mind is purity': this concludes by critiquing the Northern School of Chan as only attaining one portion of the meaning. That is, they say: 'When the eye sees form, if the mind concurs and recognizes, it is the defiled dharmadhātu; if the mind does not concur and recognize, it is the pure dharmadhātu. When the mind concurs and recognizes, that is the Eye Dhāraṇī Sovereign Buddha, the eye and so on as dhāraṇīs and gates of deliverance,' and so forth. We now say that this is also one meaning, but it only attains the meaning of thoughts not arising, which is unlike the ten levels and five pairs of non-obstruction and sovereignty described above.

36.25

Regarding the Commentary's statement from 'Furthermore, using the three contemplations of the Dazhidulun' onward: this is the second part, harmonizing with the Dazhidulun by means of the three contemplations. Within this there are three parts: first, explaining the three contemplations; next, distinguishing the three cessations; and last, concluding both together. In the first part, it first explains the gradual three contemplations; then 'the three have no before and after' refers to the three contemplations in one mind. Saying that these two are non-dual and that the nature of visible form is difficult to conceive is the contemplation of the middle way. Here there are two kinds of middle way: first, merely combining the above two to form the middle way; this middle way is the initial gate of the Mahāyāna. Second, that the nature of visible form is difficult to conceive is the middle way of Buddha-nature; this is the consummate and wondrous one. Wishing to distinguish what is subsumed, both are presented.

36.26

Regarding the Commentary's statement from 'Correlated with these three contemplations' onward: this distinguishes the three cessations. First is the cessation that accords with conditions via upāya, which is the cessation of the contemplation of the conventional—meaning that by upāya one engages with existence, abiding in a single object in accordance with each condition. Second is the cessation that realizes reality, which is the cessation of the contemplation of emptiness, thoroughly realizing the true principle and merging with it. Third is the cessation free from the discrimination of the two extremes, which is the cessation of the middle way, not grasping the two characteristics of existence and non-existence. Because the above corresponds to the order of the sūtra text, it placed the contemplation of the conventional first; now, in matching the contemplations above, it also places upāya at the head. If according to the Dazhidulun, first is emptiness, next is conventionality, and last is the middle, whose meaning is as distinguished before.

36.27

Regarding the Commentary's statement from 'Since cessation and contemplation are operated simultaneously' onward: this is the third part, concluding both together. Within this there are also two parts: first, concluding cessation and contemplation. Many places explain the three contemplations in one mind; since there is simultaneous operation, one should also properly speak of the three cessations in one mind. If complete, one could also speak of the three cessations and contemplations in one mind.

36.28

Regarding the Commentary's statement from 'identical to the one yet being three' onward: this is the second part, concluding that the three and the one apply to both cessation and contemplation. Being identical to the one yet being three is because essence accords with characteristics and function; being identical to the three yet being one is because characteristics and function are identical to essence. Simultaneously illuminating the three and the one, essence and function are manifest; simultaneously negating the three and the one, mutually canceling, both are extinguished. That is, because essence is identical to function, it is not one; because function is identical to essence, it is not three.

36.29

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'Explaining the text passage by passage can be seen by reflecting accordingly': we now correlate the three contemplations with the sūtra text's three contemplations, and negating, illuminating, and so on are also like this. That is, the characteristic of visible form being difficult to conceive is the contemplation of conventionality, and the eye samādhi is cessation according with conditions; the nature being empty and quiescent is the contemplation of emptiness, and the visible form samādhi is cessation realizing reality; the nature of visible form being difficult to conceive is the contemplation of the middle way, and the eye organ is cessation free from the discrimination of the two extremes. Since the nature of visible form has three meanings: if taking mutability and obstructiveness as its nature, it is subsumed under the contemplation of conventionality; if taking true inconceivability as its nature, it is subsumed under the middle way. Therefore both contemplations are operated simultaneously, which is the correlation of sense organ and sense object; both being completely manifest is simultaneous illumination; both being unobstructed, mutually canceling, and both vanishing is simultaneous negation.

36.30

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'This is the bodhisattva's consummate and harmonious merit,' and so forth: this is the sixth part, concluding generally and encouraging cultivation, which is clear.

36.31

In the fifth section, "Analogies and Figures for the Profound Purport", where the Commentary states, "'Sentient beings' encompasses the preceding three," it is because the two words "karmic retribution" are the fourth; hence the first encompasses the four.

36.32

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The Bodhisattva's supernatural power, being due to three characteristics, excludes the Buddha's final two": this is because freedom from obstructions is defined by the exhaustion of the two obstructions, and establishing sentient beings is not yet universal. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Yet it takes a partial analogy": because it was said above that there is nothing that can serve as an identical analogy, how then can there be an analogy now? Hence it is called a partial analogy. As for there being nothing that can serve as an analogy, the text below states: "All phenomena, existent or non-existent in the three realms, cannot serve as an analogy for the Buddha." As for a partial analogy, analogies are of eight kinds: first, direct; second, inverted; third, manifest; fourth, negative; fifth, prior; sixth, posterior; seventh, prior-and-posterior; eighth, comprehensive, as explained in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. The earlier text already cited this, so comprehensive analogies exist; here, in contrast to comprehensive analogies, it only takes a small part. For instance, saying that the Buddha's face is like the full moon takes only the meaning of roundness without deficiency; the present analogy is also like this. As for "using the small to illustrate the great": just as in the Yijing "shooting a falcon on the high wall" is used to illustrate the realm under heaven, such cases are very numerous. As for the Commentary's statement, "Causing those who hear the analogy to forget the image and grasp the idea, hence praising them with wisdom": the Zhouyi lüeli states: "Now, images are what express ideas. Words are what clarify images. Nothing exhausts ideas like images; nothing exhausts images like words. Words arise from images; therefore one may follow words to observe images. Images arise from ideas; therefore one may follow images to observe ideas. Ideas are exhausted through images; images are made apparent through words. Therefore, words are that by which images are clarified; having attained the image, one forgets the words. Images are that by which ideas are preserved; having attained the idea, one forgets the image. Just as a snare is that by which one catches a hare; having caught the hare, one forgets the snare. A trap is that by which one catches fish; having caught the fish, one forgets the trap. Thus, words are the snare for images, and images are the trap for ideas. Therefore, one who clings to words is not one who attains the image; one who clings to the image is not one who attains the idea. Images arise from ideas, yet if one clings to the image, then that which is clung to is not the image. Words arise from images, yet if one clings to the words, then that which is clung to is not the words. Therefore, one who forgets the image is the one who attains the idea; one who forgets the words is the one who attains the image. Attaining the idea lies in forgetting the image; attaining the image lies in forgetting the words. Therefore, images are established to exhaust ideas, yet images may be forgotten; lines are doubled to exhaust dispositions, yet lines may be forgotten. Hence, anything categorized by association may serve as its image, and whatever accords with the meaning may serve as its verification." The present Commentary uses this text, thereby bidding one forget the image and grasp the idea. For example, water manifesting the four divisions of an army is an analogy and an image; once one knows that the Bodhisattva spontaneously manifests them without intent, the water-reflection may be forgotten. All analogies are like this. If one can forget the image and grasp the idea, this is a wise person; clinging to the image and missing the idea results in foolish stagnation. Therefore, the Lotus Sūtra says: "All those who are wise attain understanding through analogies." Regarding the Commentary's citation, "People south of the Yangtze do not believe in a felt tent for a thousand people": this is from Yan Zhitui, courtesy name Jiewen, in the "Guixin" chapter of his Family Instructions.

36.33

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Acting as a poison-smeared drum": chapter nine of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], the "Chapter on the Tathāgata-Nature", states: "Furthermore, good sons! It is like a person who smears a great drum with mixed poison and beats it among the crowd to produce sound; even if they have no desire to hear it, all who hear it die, except for one person who does not suffer untimely death. The drum corresponds to nirvāṇa; death illustrates the elimination of afflictions; the one who does not suffer untimely death illustrates an icchantika." "Ultimately becoming an indestructible seed": this refers to the "Chapter on the Manifestation of the Tathāgata" below, as frequently cited above.

36.34

Third Assembly: Chapter Thirteen: Ascending to the Peak of Mount Sumeru

36.35

Regarding the Commentary's phrase "faith preceding this understanding": this is the Commentary's original intention. Because the Commentary uses the preceding assembly on faith to answer the question regarding faith that was omitted at the beginning of the second assembly. Next, the abodes consist of two sections, which follows the ancient masters' intention.

36.36

Below the Commentary's "Two, the chapter is named Sumeru", the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, a direct explanation; later, from "representing the stages" downward, an explanation in terms of representing dharmas. Within this, there are four points: 1. directly regarding representation; 2. from "If devas represent purity" downward, raising a hypothetical objection; 3. from "Wondrousness has ten meanings" downward, resolving the above question; 4. from "If in terms of contemplating the mind" downward, explaining in terms of contemplating the mind. The first two are self-evident. Point three is divided into four: 1. in terms of that which represents; 2. from "the practices of the ten abodes" downward, matching that which is represented; 3. from "revealing the merits of the ten abodes" downward, concluding the explanation; 4. from "however, what was explained above" downward, distinguishing provisional and real. In the first of these, there are two: first, explaining "wondrous"; second, explaining "high". In the former, regarding the Commentary's statement, "Namely, seven golden mountains surround it in seven tiers": a verse in the "Chapter on the World" of the Kośa states: "Sumeru is in the center (su means wondrous, meru means high); next is Yugaṃdhara (translated as 'Yoke-Holder', because the mountain top has two ridges, and the mountain can uphold these, hence its name); the Īṣādhara Mountains (translated as 'Axle-Holder', for the mountain peaks rise up like cart axles, held up by the mountain peaks); the Khadiraka Mountains (the Kośa Commentary states: 'This is the name of a western tree.' The Great Commentary translates it only by shape, without providing the name. The Verse Commentary says: 'This region also has it, called Yanmu Mountain, because the precious trees on the mountain resemble it'); Sudarśana (translated as 'Good to Behold', for those who see it praise it as good); Aśvakarṇa (translated as 'Horse Ear', because the mountain's shape resembles one); Vinataka (translated as 'Elephant Trunk', because the mountain's shape resembles one); Nimindhara Mountains (the Kośa Commentary states: 'The name of a fish; that fish has a sharp snout, and the mountain's shape resembles it.' The Huayan Yinyi explains this, saying: 'It means the Border-Holding Mountain'). Outside the great continents and so forth, there are the Iron Ring Mountains, the preceding seven being composed of gold. Sumeru consists of four jewels; its immersion in water is eighty thousand [yojanas], and Wondrous-High's protrusion is also like this. The remaining eight decrease by half and half, and their breadths all equal their height." Explanation: What was cited above directly verifies the seven golden [mountains]; the rest is incidental, and only needed in the commentary below. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "And seven fragrant oceans with ocean-seal swirling currents": the Kośa verse states: "Between the mountains are eight oceans; the first seven are called the inner, the first being eighty thousand broad, each of its four sides three times that; the remaining six are narrower by half and half; the eighth is called the outer, three hundred twenty-two thousand yojanas." Explanation: The first seven are called the inner because they are within the seven golden [mountains]. The eighth is called the outer because it is outside the seven golden [mountains]. The outer is within the Iron Ring [Mountains], and is also called between the mountains. The first of eighty thousand is the inner ocean of Yugaṃdhara. The inner oceans of the seven golden [mountains] are all waters of eight merits; hence it says "fragrant water swirling currents". The outer ocean and Iron Ring are merely brought up incidentally.

36.37

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Inhabited solely by devas": the Kośa verse says: "Wondrous-High has four tiers, each spaced ten thousand [yojanas] apart, projecting outward sixteen thousand, and quantities of eight, four, and two thousand. The Firm-Handed, Garland-Bearers, and Ever-Intoxicated deva-king hosts dwell respectively on the four tiers, and also inhabit the other seven mountains." Explanation: This means from the water's edge up to the end of the first tier, the distance is ten thousand, projecting outward sixteen thousand. For the three tiers above, the upward distance is the same in number, while the outward projection decreases by half progressively. The second tier is eight thousand, the third is four thousand, the fourth is two thousand, tapering progressively upward. These four tiers directly upward cover the lower half of Wondrous-High, forty thousand yojanas. On the first tier there are yakṣa spirits called Firm-Handed, and so on up to the fourth, which is the Four Heavenly Kings; the rest are all governed by the Four Heavenly Kings, hence it says "inhabited solely by devas". At the peak of Wondrous-High, in the eight directions, thirty-three heavens additionally reside; therefore all are inhabited by devas. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The pārijātaka is able to benefit the hosts of devas": pāri here is translated as 'everywhere' or 'encircling'; jātaka (citra) is translated as 'variegated adornment'. This means that the multicolored flowers of this tree encircle and adorn it, or it is called 'round and wondrous adornment'; this is the Garden-Born Tree of the Kośa. Thus the Kośa states: "In the northeast is the Garden-Born Tree; in the southwest is the Hall of Good Dharma." The commentary on the treatise explains: "Its Garden-Born Tree has coiled roots fifty yojanas deep and wide; its trunk ascends aloft, its branches spread outward, its height and breadth equaling one hundred yojanas. Sprouting leaves and blossoming flowers, its wonderful fragrance is rich and sweet; wafting with the wind, it fills one hundred yojanas, and wafting against the wind, it still pervades fifty. It is the place where the hosts of devas disport and take pleasure." The rest of the text is self-evident.

36.38

Below the Commentary's "In order to reveal that the merits of the ten abodes are wondrous and high", this is the third part, concluding the explanation. Within this, there are three points: first, directly concluding the explanation. Next, from "the Four Heavenly Kings dwell halfway up" downward, resolving an implicit objection. That is, an objection says: "If Wondrous-High represents [the abodes], the Four Heavenly Kings also dwell on Wondrous-High; as a sequential order, why do they not dwell here?" Hence this resolution is provided. Later, from "the youth Sudhana" downward, citing precedents as proof.

36.39

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The single chapter of verse praises combines two meanings": the former is the ancient meaning, and the latter is the new meaning, as can be known. That the outlines of the ten sections all contain terms like "all", "both", "equal", and "pervading" is because they universally pervade the dharmadhātu in terms of conclusion.

36.40

Regarding the commentary's passage, "Here, clarifying its pervasiveness is the first of the ten layers of locations of preaching": this refers to the initial 'this Jambudvīpa' among the conditions for preaching the sūtra in the first fascicle of the commentary. The text of the commentary divides into three: first, a general explanation of the meaning of the text; second, from "Why is it necessary to cite these..." onward, explaining the reason for citing the two assemblies; third, from "Why it is restricted solely to the tree of awakening..." onward, resolving objections. Here it resolves two objections. The first objection says: Since the previous [assembly] is not dispersed, one should cite both assemblies; why then does it only say 'not rising from the tree of awakening'? Therefore, this resolution states: The initial assembly is the root, and furthermore, the second assembly is proximate to the initial assembly. Second, from "If simultaneous..." onward, it resolves yet another objection. In the text, it first raises the objection, and later, from "One should say that the immediate function..." onward, it resolves and explains it, which is easy to understand. Regarding the commentary's passage, "Movement and quiescence conflict with each other; departing and abiding are separated by a great distance..." onward: the text of the commentary has five parts: 1. raising the issue with hypothetical questions; 2. recounting past interpretations in terms of concordance and contradiction; 3. presenting the present correct understanding; 4. integrating past meanings; 5. resolving contradictions through questions and answers. Regarding the commentary's passage, "In the past there were many explanations..." onward: this is the second part, recounting past interpretations in terms of concordance and contradiction. In the past, there were five positions, and the text has three sections: first, jointly recounting three masters; second, recounting the fourth; third, recounting the fifth. Because the first three masters all relied on the three bodies [of the Buddha] and their types of meaning were largely identical, and since he wished to refute them all together, he first recounted the past [opinions], as can be understood. Regarding the commentary's passage, "None of these is the intention of the text..." onward: this is the second, discerning contradictions. In general, there are two contradictions: first, contradicting the present text, because both departing and abiding are the Buddha Vairocana; second, contradicting the central doctrine of the sūtra, because the ten bodies are not the three bodies (those belong to the latter two assemblies, whereas this is the present text). Regarding the commentary's passage, "One says that departure is immediately non-departure..." and so on: this is the second, recounting the fourth master, who does not differentiate the three bodies but simply discusses nature and characteristics with respect to the single body; this is the intention within the school of the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle (shili wu'ai), which does not contradict the fundamental essence, but does not accord with the present text. Within this, it first recounts the past [view], and afterward discerns its contradiction. In the former, it first explains it correctly; later, with "like coming through the characteristic of non-coming" and so forth, it is an ancient master citing a parallel to substantiate and establish it. This is the speech of Vimalakīrti in the "Inquiring about Illness" chapter of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, where the sūtra states: "Then Vimalakīrti said, 'Welcome, Mañjuśrī! Coming through the characteristic of non-coming, seeing through the characteristic of non-seeing.' Mañjuśrī said, 'So it is, householder! If one has already come, one does not come again; if one has already departed, one does not depart again. Why is that? That which comes comes from nowhere; that which departs goes nowhere; that which can be seen can no longer be seen.'" Here, it only cites Vimalakīrti's words and omits the rest. Master Sengrui explained: "Mañjuśrī's mind rests in the true characteristic, and his form pervades the dharmakāya; internally and externally dark and tranquil, he has no characteristic of coming whatsoever. Having no characteristic of coming whatsoever, he is able to come by means of it. This clarifies that his mind is merged with the ultimate principle and his essence transcends departing and coming, responding to beings in concordance with conditions without destroying coming and departing. Furthermore, as for Mañjuśrī's reply below, he grasps the intended meaning and confirms his statement, using the approach of the three times to confirm his 'coming through the characteristic of non-coming', and using the approach of contact and non-contact to establish his 'seeing through the characteristic of non-seeing'. In the former, he briefly mentions one of the three times because the characteristic is evident." The "three times" refers to the verse in the "Chapter on Going and Coming" of the Madhyamakaśāstra: "In that which has already gone, there is no going; in that which has not yet gone, neither is there going; in that which is currently going, there is also no going." Inverting this, it would say: In that which has already come, there is no coming; in that which has not yet come, neither is there coming; in that which is currently coming, there is also no coming. That is to say: that which has already come has already ceased, and cannot be said to come; that which has not yet come does not yet exist, so how could it be said to come? That which is currently coming does not abide, and is divided between the past and future, so neither is there coming. The absence of going is likewise. Therefore, a subsequent sūtra states: "If it is past arising, past arising has already ceased; if it is future arising, future arising has not yet arrived; if it is present arising, present arising has no abiding." Yet what Vimalakīrti saw was Mañjuśrī coming from the Āmrapālī Grove, whereas the assembly in the Āmrapālī Grove thought Mañjuśrī had departed. Therefore Mañjuśrī said: "It is not only that the householder sees me as coming without coming; from the Āmrapālī Grove they see me as departing, and I also depart without departing." Under "Why is that?", Mañjuśrī himself questions and explains the above meaning, stating that if there were a pre-existing entity that came from there, since it does not exist beforehand and comes through the meeting of conditions, therefore within the three times there is no coming. The absence of going is likewise. Coming must have a source, and departing must have a destination, so the three phrases distinguish them. Furthermore, having coming and going does not go beyond the three times; now, since there is no coming in the three times, coming has nowhere from which it comes; since there is no going in the three times, going has nowhere to which it goes. The phrase "that which can be seen can no longer be seen" establishes the above 'seeing through the characteristic of non-seeing' by means of the approach of contact and non-contact. This means seeing must have three things, namely, the viewer, the viewed, and the act of seeing, before seeing is established. The viewed is established dependent on the other two, so there is no viewed. Since the viewed is absent, how could the other two exist? Therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The vision and that which is seen, these three are each in different quarters. Since these three things are different, there is never a time of their contact. Different things cannot make contact, and non-different things have nothing to contact." The treatise also says: "Vision cannot possess seeing, and non-vision does not see either. If one has already refuted vision, one has thereby refuted the viewer." Therefore, at the very moment of seeing, there is immediately no seeing. Drawing upon what was cited by another, I have briefly demonstrated the essential tenets. Regarding the commentary's passage, "If so, this is only..." onward: this is the second, discerning contradictions. It is only that ascending is immediately non-ascending, and apparent departure is immediately non-departure; how could there be an unmoving body beneath the tree? If there were Mañjuśrī in the Āmrapālī Grove, and Vaiśālī furthermore saw the Wondrous Virtue, that could substantiate this. The meanings here and there are different; how can this be adduced?

First 40 of 71 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese