大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 42.6

42.6

Tenth Bodhisattva. In the commentary, "Therefore the fourth line of the Sanskrit text reads: 'In that which is unthinkable, what is there to think?'": this is Master Kanding quoting the Sanskrit text to substantiate that the fourth line also serves to state the thesis, establishing the Jin translation’s meaning that what is thought of is unthinkable. The present commentary adopts what he cited, also establishing that the fourth line bears the meaning of a summary conclusion—namely, that one should not conceptualize or think about phenomena that are inconceivable. From "By means of the one true mind" onward, it summarizes the characteristics of what is difficult to conceive. The wording of the text is self-evident. In the commentary, "The next four [verses] explain 'cannot be seen'" and so forth: if one accords with the Jin translation, all four state theses, and their explanation is likewise divided into four. The first two would be like the three [gāthās] where one verse explains that what is heard cannot be heard, and the four [gāthās] where two verses explain that what is thought cannot be thought. Here we do not follow this. In the commentary, "grasping a stone as a jewel": in the parable of the spring pool in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, those who enter the water in search of a pearl vie to grasp grass, wood, tiles, and stones, each person thinking for themselves that they have obtained a vaiḍūrya gem; rejoicing and bringing it out, they only then realize it is not genuine, and thus they have deceived themselves. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra states that someone saw hail, thought it was vaiḍūrya, and collected it in a jar, whereupon it all turned into water. Later, upon seeing genuine vaiḍūrya, they also thought it was hail, discarded it, and did not take it. Worldly people are all like this: they grasp what should not be grasped, and do not grasp what should be grasped. In the commentary, "Furthermore, grasping it as limited or unlimited leads to falling into annihilationism or eternalism": this has two meanings. First, grasping it as limited leads to falling into annihilationism, while grasping it as unlimited leads to falling into eternalism. Second, if one grasps it as eternal, one falls into annihilationism; if one grasps it as annihilated, one falls into eternalism. Therefore the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: "Those who cultivate all things as eternal fall into the view of annihilationism. Those who cultivate all things as annihilated fall into the view of eternalism. Just as an inchworm must rely on its front feet in order to move its hind feet, those who cultivate annihilationism or eternalism are also like this: they must rely on annihilationism or eternalism." This has already been analyzed in detail in the [commentary to the] third dwelling. In the commentary, "Now, first: manifesting form that is non-form": this has three explanations. First, manifesting function based on essence, which is not the same as [merely] boundless. Second, from "Furthermore, form is immediately emptiness" onward: phenomenon and principle are mutually identical, and the wondrous is precisely the boundless. Form being immediately emptiness is already wondrous form; form and emptiness being mutually identical is free from the extremes of emptiness and existence. Third, from "Furthermore, that which is manifested by pure consciousness" onward: it is only in terms of the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena that it constitutes wondrous form; this is also the bounded being immediately boundless, and only the boundless is vast, like the initial boundlessness. That which is manifested by pure consciousness is the gate of manifestation by mind alone; the mutual interpenetration of emptiness and form is the gate of the interpenetration of the dharmatā. These two are precisely the causes of the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena. In the commentary, from "The latter two verses on the simile of pure space manifesting form" onward: the text of the commentary has two parts. First, directly explaining the sūtra text. In saying "This refers to the ending of conceptualization within seeing": because past masters took the latter two verses to explain that what is thought cannot be thought, and now it is explained that unthinkability pervades all three preceding sections, it therefore refers here to unthinkability within bodily karma. The subsequent reference to unthinkability within speech karma is likewise so. Second, from "Question: regarding the two similes" onward: sorting through questions and answers. Therein are two parts: first the question, then the answer. The phrase "the earlier sūtra [text]" in the question refers to the text of the teaching in the first verse. It is also found in the preceding sūtra text; here it is simply required that this also contradicts various treatises—namely, the Yogācārabhūmi, Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, and so forth. In the commentary, from "An ancient worthy said" onward: the second part, the answer. In the answer there are three parts: first, Xianshou's answer; second, Master Yuan's refutation; third, the commentary's synthesis and reconciliation. In the first part, there are inherently two meanings: first, the intent of the two similes is the same; second, from "It may also be said" onward, the purports of the two similes are different. In the second part, from "Some say" onward, Master Yuan refutes the master. Therein are five parts: 1. citing teaching to counter with a question; 2. from "If one clings to the Buddha-fruit being solely tathatā" onward, defining what the master established; 3. from "The untainted aggregates and realms" onward, using principle to counter-interrogate; 4. from "It also contradicts" onward, citing texts to directly refute; 5. from "This meaning is fully as stated in" onward, pointing to scriptural authority to corroborate and prove that the master was not correct. Within the first two, the expression "solely possessing tathatā" and so forth refers to the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra as well as the thirteenth fascicle of the Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. The root treatise says: "The essential nature body is the Tathāgata’s dharmakāya." The commentary on the treatise says: "Solely the solitary existence of the cognition of tathatā is designated the dharmakāya." It also says: "'Body' has the meaning of basis." What dharma serves as the basis? The root treatise says: "It is the sovereign basis in relation to all dharmas." Therefore the commentary on the treatise says: "It refers to the ten kinds of sovereignty." Up to its saying: "How does this dharma serve as a basis? The dharmakāya is not separated from purity and consummate cognition. Cognition is precisely tathatā, and tathatā is precisely cognition." Therefore, apart from the ultimate teaching, the aggregates and realms have not yet departed from the views of annihilationism and eternalism. In the commentary, "Fully as stated in the Sarvabuddhaviṣayāvatārajñānālokālaṃkāra-sūtra": this citation was originally Xianshou's corroboration of the similes of the mani jewel reflecting according to conditions, and so forth. This sūtra is also named Sūtra on the Adornment of Wisdom Penetrating the Realm of All Buddhas in one fascicle, spoken atop Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain in Rājagṛha. The Tathāgata emitted light, and all bodhisattvas assembled like clouds, looking up reverently at the Buddha. Above the palace of the dharmadhātu atop the mountain, a great jewel-lotus lion throne and immeasurable mani-jewel palaces arose. From within the mani throne, verses emerged. The above cites the general idea. Next, Mañjuśrī asked: "What is the characteristic of non-arising and non-ceasing?" The Buddha answered: "Non-arising and non-ceasing is precisely the Tathāgata. Mañjuśrī! For example, suppose the great earth were made of vaiḍūrya, and the palaces, offerings, and utensils of Śakra's Vaijayanta were reflected therein. The people of Jambudvīpa, seeing the reflections of the various palaces on the vaiḍūrya ground, would join their palms in worship, burn incense, and scatter flowers, praying: 'May I be born in such a palace, and may I sport like Śakra,' and so forth. Those sentient beings do not know that this ground merely bears the reflections of palaces, and so they practice giving, maintain precepts, and cultivate various merits in order to obtain the retributive reward of such palaces. Mañjuśrī! Such palaces originally have no arising or ceasing; because the ground is pure, reflections appear therein. The reflections of those palaces are both existent and non-existent, neither arising nor ceasing. Mañjuśrī! Sentient beings seeing the Buddha is also just like this: because their minds are pure, they see the Buddha's body. The Buddha's body is unconditioned, neither arising nor ceasing, neither appearing nor ending, neither form nor non-form, neither visible nor invisible, neither worldly nor non-worldly, neither mind nor non-mind. Because sentient beings' minds are pure, they see the Tathāgata's body, scattering flowers, burning incense, and making various offerings, praying: 'May I attain such a physical body,' practicing giving, maintaining precepts, and performing various merits for the sake of attaining the Tathāgata's subtle and wondrous body. Thus, Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata's spiritual power appears in the world to cause sentient beings to obtain great benefit, like a shadow and like an image, appearing in accordance with what sentient beings see." Next, he brought up the simile of sunlight universally shining without deliberate intention, shining first on high mountains and so forth, with various distinctions according to what is illuminated. Next, it says: "Mañjuśrī! Just as in the great ocean there is a mani jewel named 'Fulfilling All Sentient Beings' Wishes,' which, when placed upon a banner, provides according to what sentient beings require, yet that mani jewel has no mind, intellect, or consciousness. The Tathāgata having no mind, intellect, or consciousness is also like this: immeasurable, peerless, unobtainable, ineffable, eliminating faults, eliminating ignorance, neither real nor unreal, neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither luminous nor non-luminous, neither worldly nor non-worldly," and so forth, extensively going through various negations. It concludes: "Mañjuśrī! The pure Tathāgata abides on the banner of great compassion, manifesting various bodies and preaching various dharmas in accordance with what sentient beings delight in." Explanation: The general meaning is that the essence has no arising and ceasing yet does not obstruct arising and ceasing, just as "non-form" refers to essence while "not non-form" refers to function, and so forth. Next, he also raised the simile of an echo having no reality. Immediately following that, there is the simile of empty space, saying: "Mañjuśrī! Just as empty space is equal, having no lower, middle, or upper, the equality of the Tathāgata is also like this. Sentient beings themselves see upper, middle, and lower, but the Tathāgata does not formulate ideas of lower, middle, or upper. Why is this? The Tathāgata's dharmakāya is equal, free from mind, intellect, and consciousness, and without discrimination. Mañjuśrī, all dharmas are completely equal." Up to: "If one attains the dharmatā, one has no expectations," and so on. It also says: "If sentient beings cling to all dharmas, they give rise to defilements and do not attain bodhi." Mañjuśrī asked: "How does one attain bodhi?" The Buddha answered: "It has no root and no locus." Mañjuśrī questioned again, and the Buddha said: "The view of self is the root; improper reflection is the locus. Mañjuśrī! The Tathāgata's wisdom is equal to bodhi and equal to all dharmas; therefore, having no root and no locus is attaining bodhi." It also says: "Mañjuśrī! The Tathāgata being unmoving is called the reality of tathatā. As for the reality of tathatā, seeing neither this shore nor that shore is seeing all dharmas. Seeing all dharmas is termed the Tathāgata. Furthermore, bodhi is an indestructible phrase. An indestructible phrase is a signless phrase. A signless phrase is suchness." Below, it extensively explains that the general meaning is that negating faults constitutes "indestructible," and revealing reality constitutes the "phrase." It also says: "Because originally non-arising and non-ceasing is reality." It also says: "Bodhi enters non-activity by means of activity. Through activity, one conditions all wholesome dharmas; through non-activity, one cannot grasp any wholesome dharmas." It also says: "Non-arising and non-ceasing means not giving rise to mind, intellect, and consciousness, and not thinking or discriminating. Therefore I say that seeing the twelve links of dependent origination is seeing the Dharma; seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha. Seeing in this way is named inconceivable." It also says: "How does one practice the bodhisattva practice? Answer: Not practicing non-arising and non-ceasing is practicing the bodhisattva practice," which is also extensively explained below. Later, evaluating the merit, it says: "Supposing all sentient beings / were entirely born in the human realm, / and all generated bodhicitta, / seeking omniscience; / if all such bodhisattvas / became great donors, / and with various articles of offering / made offerings to countless Buddhas, / as well as bodhisattvas, / pratyekabuddhas, and śrāvakas, / up to their entering extinction, / building for each a seven-jeweled stūpa, / a hundred yojanas in height, / adorned with various jewels; / if someone upholds this sūtra, / or speaks even a single verse, / their merit surpasses this, / immeasurably and boundlessly, / because of what this sūtra explains: / the signless dharmakāya." Explanation: The above has comprehensively summarized the sūtra text. The vaiḍūrya ground illustrates the minds of sentient beings; the reflection illustrates the Buddha's body, which is simultaneously form and non-form. The simile of the mani jewel is identical to this sūtra. The space having no lower, middle, or upper is also identical to this sūtra's manifesting of form in pure space. Therefore, Xianshou's intention was to substantiate solely tathatā and the cognition of tathatā. Master Yuan mistakenly quoted the Preceptor's citation; hence it has been briefly set forth in full. In the commentary, from "However, regarding the above two interpretations" onward: thirdly, the commentary synthesizes and reconciles them, with the intention of preserving both and harmoniously identifying both meanings. Therein are eight points: 1. general reconciliation; 2. from "Subsuming the branch into the root" onward, incorporating Xianshou's meaning; 3. from "Since that which is manifested is immediately suchness" onward, incorporating Master Yuan's meaning; 4. from "However, there are no dharmas outside of suchness" onward, hypothetically posing Master Yuan's renewed objection. The intent is: since suchness gathers all dharmas without leaving anything out, why speak of the manifestation of forms in response to capacities being inexhaustible? 5. From "The myriad dharmas are immediately suchness" onward, resolving this for Xianshou. Because the myriad dharmas are suchness, in truth nothing is manifested; therefore, precisely at the time of manifestation, it is also solely suchness. This is the commentator establishing the principle to incorporate Xianshou. 6. "Suchness and form being mutually identical, existence and non-existence thoroughly interpenetrate": directly harmonizing the previous two. 7. From "If one rigidly clings" onward, mutually critiquing the previous attachments. 8. From "Therefore, the present two similes" onward, drawing out the purport of the non-obstruction of existence and non-existence to explain the text of the similes. The phrase "Non-existence merely means non-existence of others": this borrows the idea from the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra to reconcile the distinct principles of the two similes. Because the old Kośa explained unconditioned dharmas as "unconditioned dharmas are neither cause nor effect," the Tripiṭaka Master of the Tang said: "Unconditioned dharmas are efficient causes; how could one say they are not causes? Unconditioned dharmas are fruits of disjunction; how could one say they are not effects?" Therefore the new translation says "unconditioned dharmas lack cause and effect," meaning they lack the other five causes and lack the other four effects; hence it says "lack." Therefore, generally speaking, "not" means not that its own essence is non-existent, but rather that it lacks others. The two words "not" and "lack" are far apart in principle; here we borrow this phrasing and apply it. The mani jewel manifesting colors illustrates the body of personal enjoyment, which has its fundamental form, but lacks differences such as blue and yellow; the differences of blue, yellow, and so forth arise as reflections in accordance with capacities. Empty space illustrates the dharmatā-body; empty space is originally not a physical form, so how could it be the same as a mani jewel? The above reveals the distinct characteristics of the two similes, which is the manifest text. From "These two are non-dual" onward, it directly clarifies their harmonious synthesis, which brings forth the sūtra's intent. Therefore, the subsequent sūtra text says "Below it merely cites this text to prove the latter meaning, so as to support Dharma-characteristics": because it does not allow for non-form, the textual meaning of existence is evident. As in Master Yuan's objection, the mutual interpenetration of emptiness and form constitutes the true body. This is also a discourse transcending appearances, which can simultaneously shatter both attachments. In the commentary, "Therefore, grasping by sound is walking a heterodox path; if one grasps by departing from sound, one cannot avoid nihilistic non-existence": concluding the above meaning. The first line reflects the meaning of the Vajracchedikā-sūtra: "If one sees me by form, or seeks me by sound, this person walks a heterodox path and cannot see the Tathāgata." The second line reflects the meaning of the verse of praise in Tuṣita, hence the verse says: "The form-body is not the Buddha, and sound is likewise so; yet not departing from form and sound, one sees the Buddha's supernatural power." The intentionless celestial drum will be analyzed in the "Manifestation" chapter. In the commentary, "If according to the provisional teaching" and so forth: the four propositions on archetype and reflection are just as in the overarching discussion. If according to this school, all four propositions serve to know that all dharmas are immediately the mind's own nature; hence the archetype is also one's own mind.