大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 46

English (machine translation) 46

Language: English

46.1

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

Sixth, the Treasury of Giving. The commentary's passage starting with "Just as King Candraprabha gave his head..." refers to fascicle five of the Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish, which recounts King Candraprabha giving away his head. In the twenty-eighth [section of the] sūtra, it is spoken that because the Tathāgata accepted the request of Pāpīyas, he would enter parinirvāṇa after three months. Hearing this, Śāriputra addressed the World-Honoured One: "I cannot bear to see the Buddha enter parinirvāṇa; I should attain nirvāṇa first." The Buddha granted him permission. When the nirvāṇa was concluded, the Buddha told Ānanda: "Not only today did Śāriputra, unable to bear seeing me enter parinirvāṇa, pass into extinction first; in the past it was also like this." Ānanda asked the Buddha to explain this matter, and the Buddha then extensively cited it. The text of the sūtra is vast and extensive; I now cite its essence in brief. The Buddha told Ānanda: "Long ago in the past, incalculable, countless, inconceivable asaṃkhyeya kalpas ago, in this Jambudvīpa there was a king named Candrabhā (in the Jin language, 'Moonlight'), who ruled over eighty-four thousand kingdoms of Jambudvīpa. His first consort was named Sumadan (in the Jin language, 'Flower-Gift'). He had ten thousand great ministers, the foremost of whom was named Mahācandra (in the Jin language, 'Great Moon'). He had five hundred crown princes, the eldest named Śīlabhadra (in the Jin language, 'Precept-Virtue'). The city in which the king resided was named Bhadrajīva (in the Jin language, 'Virtuous-Life')." Extensively explaining its adornments, the king considered virtuous causes and extensively practiced great giving, issuing a decree throughout the kingdom causing all to make great renunciation. At that time, in a remote and distant small kingdom, there was a king named Bhīmasena, whose heart gave rise to jealousy. He issued a wide summons to outsiders asking for the king's head, but no one was willing to comply. Later he again broadly proclaimed: "Whoever gets King Candraprabha's head, I will divide the kingdom in half to rule with him, and give my daughter as his wife." There was a brahmin named Raudrākṣa who answered the summons to beg for the head. Portents had first occurred in King Candraprabha's kingdom, and the great minister Mahācandra also had an ominous dream. The city god barred [the brahmin] and would not allow him to enter. At that time, a Śuddhāvāsa deva appeared in a dream to let [the king] know. Candraprabha woke from sleep and summoned him to an audience. The great minister Mahācandra thought to exchange five hundred heads made of the seven jewels for it, but could not; his heart shattered into seven pieces and he died in front of the king. The king promised him his head after seven days and sent word throughout the kingdom. The whole kingdom came, beat their breasts against the ground, and pleaded with him to stay, but the king did not accept, saying: "When I calculate the hells I have passed through in dying, discarding my body countless times in a single day, there was ultimately no benefit. Today I give my head; by this merit I vow to seek the Buddha path and will deliver you all." Having spoken, he entered the park and tied his hair to a tree. The tree deity struck the brahmin with his hand. The king addressed the tree deity: "Under this tree I have already given nine hundred and ninety-nine heads; now it will be full to a thousand. Do not obstruct my unsurpassed Great Path." The tree deity obeyed. The brahmin cut off the king's head. The earth quaked in six ways, and the sound of the head being given resounded throughout the world. When King Bhīmasena heard these words, his heart leapt with joy and shock, and it shattered in grief and he died. At that time, the brahmin was disgusted by the foul stench of the head; he threw it to the ground and stomped on it with his feet, and people also rebuked him. Returning on the road, with no one to give him food, he was starved and emaciated. Hearing that King Bhīmasena had also died, he was filled with chagrin and fury; his heart shattered into seven pieces, he vomited blood, and died. The king and the brahmin fell into the Avīci hell, while the rest of the people who were deeply moved and died were all reborn in heaven. King Candraprabha was myself. King Bhīmasena was Pāpīyas. Raudrākṣa was Devadatta. The tree deity was Maudgalyāyana. The great minister Mahācandra was Śāriputra." Exegesis: This is the World-Honoured One's past practice, hence it is called "virtuous conduct." This clarifies that there was nothing the World-Honoured One could not give up, which makes one's giving mind be accomplished. Fearing that without skillful wisdom one cannot deliberate well, it is said that "it cannot yet be fully taken as a model." "Robbing the joy of ten thousand people and providing the death of two people" has already been fully cited above. The commentary's "If it were not so..." establishes the above meaning of the necessity of deliberation. That a bodhisattva can give but does not give clarifies that it is inappropriate; this is deliberating well. Under the eighth, the commentary's "not remaining at ease in oneself while seeking supreme pleasure" has already been reconciled with this text under the Abode of the Initial Aspiration. The commentary's "non-existence of location because it is merged with principle" clarifies the meaning of the four propositions regarding the Pure Land, namely that having substance is unfeasible, lacking substance is unfeasible, etc., as in the chapter on "Formation of the World." The commentary's "differences such as a hundred thousand": "a hundred thousand" refers to the Amitābha Sūtra, because from here to the west, past a hundred thousand buddha-lands, there is a world named Sukhāvatī. "Etc." equals the distances of other lands. The commentary's "if discussed generally, future dharmas can be comprehended conceptually": because the future has not yet arrived, it does not have a location. Because conditions coalesce and it will be actualized, being known by noble cognition, it is not without location. Because it is future, it is not internal; because it arises from the mind, it is not external. Having not yet arrived, how could there be distance? The commentary's "this is most superior among the fruits of ordinary beings": because the five above are the dwellings of the noble. The commentary's "having already attained the upper grade of mixed-cultivation dhyāna": this means that defiled and undefiled are cultivated mixed together, hence called "mixed cultivation." The Abhidharmakośa's chapter on the "Noble Ones" states: "It was previously said that the cause for an upstream being to go to the Akaniṣṭha heaven is mixed-cultivation dhyāna. Which dhyāna should first be cultivated in a mixed manner (first question)? From what stage is the completion of mixed cultivation known (second question)? For what reason is dhyāna cultivated in a mixed manner (third question)? The verse says: 'First, cultivate the fourth in a mixed manner (answers first question); / accomplishment is by the mixture of a single thought-moment (answers second question); / for the sake of rebirth, present bliss, and warding off the faults of afflictions (answers third question).'" Exegesis: The first line clarifies that when one wishes to cultivate in a mixed manner, one must first cultivate the fourth dhyāna, because the fourth dhyāna is the most competent. The second answers the stage of completion, meaning an arhat or a non-returner. "Accomplishment is by the mixture of a single thought-moment" means that one must first enter the fourth dhyāna, where multiple thought-moments of the undefiled arise in continuous succession; from this, multiple thought-moments of the defiled are induced; afterwards, multiple thought-moments of the undefiled arise again. Circulating in this way, the later ones gradually diminish, until finally there are two thought-moments of the undefiled, which next induce two thought-moments of the defiled to arise, and without interruption two thought-moments of the undefiled arise again; this is called the completion of the preparatory practice of mixed-cultivation concentration. Next, there is only a single thought-moment of the undefiled, which next induces a single thought-moment of the defiled, and without interruption there arises again a single thought-moment of the undefiled. With the defiled in the middle and the undefiled before and after, because they are intermixed, it is called mixed cultivation. This single thought-moment of mixture is called the accomplishment of the fundamental cultivation. The fourth dhyāna having already availed itself of this power, one can also cultivate the lower three dhyānas in a mixed manner. In answering for what reason one cultivates dhyāna in a mixed manner, there are three reasons in total: first, for the sake of rebirth, because of being born in the Śuddhāvāsa heavens; second, for present bliss, because of experiencing bliss in the present phenomena; third, for warding off the faults of afflictions. If a non-returner cultivates it, it is due to the previous three reasons. If an arhat cultivates it, it excludes the one on rebirth. Next, the sixth clarifies why there are only five Pure Dwellings. The treatise's verse states: "Because mixed cultivation has five [grades], rebirth has five Pure Dwellings." Exegesis: This is because the mixed cultivation of the fourth dhyāna has five grades. First, the lower grade has three thoughts: first arising undefiled, next arising defiled, and again arising undefiled. Second, the medium grade also cultivates three thoughts as above, which combined with the previous makes six. Third is the upper grade; fourth is the upper-superior grade; fifth is the upper-utmost grade. All of these, like the first, each give rise to three thoughts; three times five makes fifteen thoughts. In sequence, the five grades induce the five Pure Dwellings. It should be known that here, the power of the undefiled perfumes and cultivates the defiled to induce the five Pure Dwellings; it is not induced by the undefiled alone. Now the Sudṛśa heaven corresponds to the fourth grade, and the fifth, Sudarśana, is the utmost-upper grade, so its obstacles are extremely subtle. The commentary's "one day turning its back on gratitude like a child" is the text from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra: "Examine this body carefully; in the end it inevitably returns to the place of death. Difficult to control, lacking reciprocity, turning its back on gratitude like a child." The commentary's passage below, "Hence the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra states: 'Because of selflessness...'", is also from this same fascicle and was already cited previously.

46.3

Seventh, the Treasury of Wisdom. The commentary's passage starting with "Now, first, by the wisdom of the four noble truths..." has four parts: first, sorting the number of phrases through opening and combining; second, explaining the meaning of "knowing in accordance with reality"; third, interpreting following the text; fourth, concluding by critiquing old views. The first part has two sections: first, subsuming the ten into five, because the latter three are just three. In the first, saying "by the wisdom of the four noble truths" refers to the unconditioned four noble truths. Hence, the section on the distinguishing gates of the four truths below says: "From the perspective of the bodhisattva's capacity to contemplate, all are unconditioned." Second, under "gathering these five...", subsuming the five into two has four gates of its own: first, the distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones; second, under "moreover, if the latter three are based on the fruit...", the gate of the distinctions of the four truths; third, under "moreover, the first two are saṃsāric circulation...", the gate of saṃsāric circulation and cessation; fourth, under "moreover, the former is what is known...", the gate of knowing and seeing the subjective and objective. Among the four gates, the first three are all from the perspective of what is known; only the last includes both subjective and objective. The meaning of the four noble truths has already appeared in this chapter. Under "previously there were cessation and path...", the commentary resolves an objection. An objection states: The first two saṃsāric circulations are the five aggregates and the branches of existence, yet both have the four noble truths, namely the cessation of form, the path to the cessation of form, etc. Cessation and path are cessation itself; why call them saṃsāric circulation? The latter having suffering and origin is also like this. Therefore, it is now resolved by saying: The cessation and path in the former five aggregates, etc., mean that one only begins to cultivate the path in the aggregates, etc., in anticipation of attaining cessation. If one has already realized cessation, then there are no aggregates, etc. Saying "the latter has suffering and origin" refers to how within the three vehicles there is also suffering and origin through the four noble truths; since it is cessation, how could it have them? Thus it is now answered: Although they are noble persons, their suffering and origin are not yet exhausted, because they are only exhausted in nirvāṇa without remainder. Under "moreover, the former is what is known...", the fourth gate has two parts: first, directly clarifying it; second, under "among persons there are dharmas...", resolving an objection. The sūtra says: "Knows śrāvaka dharmas in accordance with reality, knows pratyekabuddha dharmas in accordance with reality," etc.; why say it is only the knowing person? Therefore this resolution is made: the noble persons of the three vehicles traverse the aforementioned dharmas to accomplish the three vehicles. Under "traversing the four noble truths...", it shows the characteristics of using dharmas to accomplish persons. The dharmas of the four noble truths are pervasive in the previous seven; the branches of existence that are objects of cognition are avidyā, existence, and craving. One who can know all dharmas in accordance with reality is called a bodhisattva. Below "all say 'knowing in accordance with reality'", the second part generally explains knowing in accordance with reality, which is easily understood.

46.4

From the Commentary's "Of the ten, the first seven…" onward, is the third [part], interpreting according to the text. Within this, there are two: first, interpreting the first seven; second, interpreting the latter three. In the first, there is first a general [explanation] and then a particular [one]. In the general [explanation], when it says: "Avidyā and tṛṣṇā, by their nature of being contaminated…" onward, it resolves an objection. That is, someone poses an objection: "Avidyā and tṛṣṇā are afflictions; why are all seven said to be suffering?" Hence he resolves this by clarifying that three meanings constitute suffering: Conditioned arising is origination, and all seven are conditionally arisen; "the absence of intrinsic nature is cessation", and all seven lack intrinsic nature, concluding that this is the cessation that is principle. As for "revealing cessation is the path", it reveals the principle of the absence of intrinsic nature. As for "revealing from the explanation", it explains the above "revealing cessation is the path": conditionally arisen phenomena are the explanations that reveal cessation, for if one does not proceed from conditions, one will not know the absence of intrinsic nature. It is also like practicing śamatha and vipaśyanā to reveal and attain the principle of cessation. Next, it concludes: "This then is a general explanation and in terms of the cessation that is principle." From the Commentary's "If explained particularly…" onward, he traverses each of the seven, such as rūpa, individually clarifying the characteristics of the four truths, which can be inferred through reflection. The words "due to others' speech" and so forth all reflect the meaning of the Yogācārabhūmi, and their meaning can be known. "Improper attention" also reflects the meaning of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], which will be clarified in the sixth ground. The words "namely, with the contact of avidyā as condition…" and so on also reflect the meaning of the Yogācārabhūmi. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā and others all speak of eye-contact, the sensations born with eye-contact as condition, and so on; just as the coming together of the three—eye faculty, object, and consciousness—is called contact. If one had vidyā as condition, it would not constitute a member of existence; because of being deluded by avidyā one experiences sensations, and pleasurable sensation generates craving, and is thus the cause of craving.

46.5

From the Commentary's "Among the twelve links, only two are cited…" onward, it resolves the objection regarding the brevity of the text. First it recites [the objection], and from "generating karma" onward it explains. It briefly cites three passages: First, in the Vijñaptimātra section on generating and leading, it is said that avidyā generates karma, tṛṣṇā can moisten, and karma can lead to existence; second, it merely mentions that avidyā can moisten existence; third, it merely mentions that tṛṣṇā already subsumes upādāna and bhava. Second, from "From ignorance…" onward, it cites the Vimalakīrti to explain. Third, from "From the Nirvāṇa…" onward, it cites the Nirvāṇa Sūtra as proof, which corresponds to fascicle thirty-four of the Northern edition and thirty-two of the Southern edition; among the twenty-one pairs of disputations, this corresponds to the fourteenth, on the meaning of having mental concomitants versus not having mental concomitants. This passage is slightly abbreviated; if fully cited, the sūtra says: "Good son! In the sūtras I have spoken thus: 'The five aggregates, from rūpa-skandha up to vijñāna-skandha, of the noble ones are all produced from the conditions of avidyā; all ordinary persons are likewise. From avidyā arises tṛṣṇā; you should know that this tṛṣṇā is precisely avidyā. From tṛṣṇā arises upādāna; you should know that this upādāna is precisely avidyā and tṛṣṇā. From upādāna arises bhava; this bhava is precisely avidyā, tṛṣṇā, and upādāna. From bhava arises vedanā; you should know that this vedanā is precisely saṃskāra and bhava. From the causes and conditions of vedanā are born nāmarūpa, avidyā, tṛṣṇā, upādāna, bhava, saṃskāra, vedanā, sparśa, vijñāna, and the six āyatanas; therefore, vedanā is precisely the twelve links. Good son! My disciples, having heard this teaching, did not understand my intention and declared that the Tathāgata preached that there are no mental concomitants.'" Explanation: Herein there are three parts: first, clarifying that the five aggregates of the noble ones arise from avidyā; second, drawing an analogy with ordinary persons; third, regarding ordinary persons, clarifying that mental factors arise in succession without other distinct counts. Here, the twelve causes and conditions across the three periods are discussed interchangeably in terms of the hidden and the manifest. In the text, there is first the enumeration and then the conclusion. In the enumeration, it first clarifies that the past causes arise from avidyā. When it says that from avidyā arises tṛṣṇā, and one should know that this tṛṣṇā is precisely avidyā, it means that when the mind of avidyā is defiled and attached facing sense objects, it is called tṛṣṇā; therefore, this tṛṣṇā is precisely avidyā. When it says that from tṛṣṇā arises upādāna, and one should know that this upādāna is precisely avidyā and tṛṣṇā, it means that this previous mind of tṛṣṇā clinging to objects is called upādāna, its essence being not different; therefore, this upādāna is precisely avidyā and tṛṣṇā. When it says that from upādāna arises bhava, and one should know that this bhava is precisely avidyā and tṛṣṇā, it means that when the previous mind of grasping initiates karma it is called bhava; therefore, this bhava is precisely avidyā and so forth. Next, it discusses the present fruition. When it says that from bhava arises vedanā, and one should know that this vedanā is precisely saṃskāra and bhava, this designates the link of vijñāna and takes it as vedanā; the vijñāna link is precisely the substance of the present retribution, and being obtained from causes and conditions, it is named vedanā. It is precisely the preceding link of bhava turning into this vedanā; therefore, this vedanā is precisely the preceding saṃskāra and bhava. It should also be precisely the preceding avidyā, tṛṣṇā, and upādāna, [but] it is spoken of in terms of what is immediate. When it says that from the causes and conditions of vedanā nāmarūpa is born, the increase of vedanā is named nāma, and what consciousness relies upon is established as rūpa. Arising from vedanā are avidyā, tṛṣṇā, upādāna, bhava, and saṃskāra: this is the arising of subsequent causes from the present retribution of vedanā. From the causes and conditions of vedanā are born tṛṣṇā, sparśa, vijñāna, the six āyatanas, and so forth: this is the turning from the present retribution of rūpa to arise future birth, aging, and death. It should also be declared that nāmarūpa is precisely vedanā, up to declaring that the six āyatanas are precisely vedanā, but the text is abbreviated. Below, the sūtra says: "Therefore, vedanā is precisely the twelve links"; thus this final sentence is a general conclusion that there are no separate mental factors outside vedanā: looking backward, it is identical to past avidyā, tṛṣṇā, and so on; looking forward, it is identical to nāmarūpa and so on; hence vedanā is precisely the twelve links. Because what the present Commentary cites is only the opening section, proving that avidyā and tṛṣṇā are the roots of the twelve links, it says "is precisely avidyā, tṛṣṇā, etc." The word "etc." abbreviates the rest of the sūtra text. However, the original intent of that sūtra was to clarify that there are no separate mental factors, not to establish that avidyā and tṛṣṇā are the roots of the members of existence; hence the Commentary concludes by saying "it is also similar to this meaning." From the Commentary's "Furthermore, in terms of the three junctures, avidyā is the root…" onward, it draws upon the Yogācārabhūmi, which will be distinguished in detail below in the sixth ground; here it is briefly explained for now. That avidyā arises across all and is the root can be understood, because failure to comprehend the ultimate truth is named avidyā. As for "taking tṛṣṇā and upādāna as the juncture", this refers to what arises in the present. If one further generates tṛṣṇā and upādāna, then there will be the future links of birth, aging, and death. If they are not generated, future suffering will not arise; existence and non-existence depend on them, and hence they are called the juncture. As for "between these two there are consciousness and the other five [links]", this refers to the five fruitions in the middle, between the link of avidyā behind and the links of tṛṣṇā and upādāna ahead. As for "and birth, aging, and death", this is looking toward the future world from the links of tṛṣṇā and upādāna, before the links of tṛṣṇā and upādāna have arisen; it is merely what is intermediate, because in the future they will arise again in an endless cycle. From the Commentary's "Now, having awakened from avidyā…" onward, it brings out the reason why tṛṣṇā and upādāna are the juncture; the meaning is as explained above.

46.6

From the Commentary's "The latter three are in terms of purity…" onward, is the second, interpreting the latter three passages. Within this, there are three parts: first, interpreting following the text; second, "Furthermore, knowing the śrāvaka is precisely knowing suffering" integrates the four truths, because it was earlier stated that one illuminates the ten phenomena with the wisdom of the four truths; third, from "The previous explanation is common to causes…" onward, it reconciles the two explanations. Although cause and effect are spoken of differently, they do not diverge from the intent of the four truths.

46.7

From the Commentary's "If one definitively takes the first two as fractured…" onward, is the fourth [part], concluding by refuting an ancient interpretation, namely the interpretation of the Kanding ji. The Commentary first recounts it, and from "then the three fruitions of the Hinayāna…" onward, shows the nature of its error. The latter three vehicles pertain commonly to cause and fruit; if taken now as inconceivable transformation, then the three fruitions would already have received transformation; but transformation is received only after entering nirvāṇa without remainder—how could the three fruitions already receive transformation? Furthermore, these three fruitions are not what is known here, because the three fruitions belong to fractured [saṃsāra]. As for "direct entrants up to the seventh ground" and so on: when turning from the Small to enter the Great, those from the first ground and above may receive transformation, but direct-entrant bodhisattvas receive transformation only from the eighth ground and above. Since it is taken comprehensively here as transformation, those up to and including the seventh ground would not be what is known here. Alternatively, direct entrants before the seventh ground would [absurdly] have to receive transformation. Each has two errors, and the Commentary's text only implies them briefly. As for fractured and transformational, the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says: "There are two kinds of death. What are the two? They are fractured death and inconceivable transformational death. Fractured death refers to delusive ordinary persons. Inconceivable transformational death refers to the mind-made bodies of arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and mighty bodhisattvas, up to ultimate anuttarabodhi." Explanation: Based on this, it is clearly known that the Hinayāna's three fruitions and those up to and including the seventh ground have not yet received transformation. The meaning of the four transformations has already been broadly explained before. As for the Commentary's "It also reveals the characteristics of the object of knowledge", the object of knowledge refers to nature and characteristics below; only when the object of knowledge is revealed can the cognizing subject be recognized. From the Commentary's "Knowing characteristics and knowing nature…" onward, there are three points here: first, knowing characteristics; second, knowing nature; third, knowing non-obstruction. Non-obstruction has two aspects: first, the non-obstruction of nature and characteristics mentioned above; second, using nature to fuse characteristics in manifold non-obstruction, which is the four dharmadhātus and is the object of knowledge here. As for "cognition without cognition", it is the bodhisattva's cognizing subject. That is, prajñā is without cognition, illuminating while confronting conditions. As for the Commentary's "Moreover, within the two sections the previous five categories are subsumed…" and so on, it means that earlier, with knowing in accordance with reality, one traversed the previous five categories of phenomena one by one, which is obvious in the text. Now it clarifies that the meaning in the text subsumes the previous phenomena, so the Commentary shows this fully. As for the Commentary's "From rūpa above to the cognition of all aspects below", the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā briefly lists over eighty categories, and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā is even more extensive: it takes rūpa as the first, because it is the beginning of the five aggregates; next it traverses the four aggregates, then the twelve āyatanas and eighteen dhātus, then the sensations born from eye-contact and so on, then the four smṛtyupasthānas, four truths, four dhyānas, eight vimokṣas, dhāraṇīs, ten grounds, five eyes, ten powers, great kindness and great compassion, the four equanimities, the marks and signs, the unforgotten dharmas, the cognition of all aspects, the bodhisattva practices of the four fruitions, and anuttarabodhi. Explanation: The above is what is traversed. As for the Commentary's "Presently seeing all dharmas like a mass of foam…" and so forth, it cites the meaning of the five aggregates being unreal and disintegrating to object to their being indestructible; the intention of the explanation has already appeared frequently before. As for the Commentary's "All take non-attainment and so forth as a slight upāya", the Commentary explains the slight upāya in terms of non-attainment. The sūtra below says: "With non-attainment as upāya." According to the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, taking non-arising as upāya, taking non-abiding as upāya, and taking non-reliance as upāya are all characteristics of prajñā. However, serving as an upāya has broadly two senses: first, serving as the upāya to enter existence, causing existence to be non-attainment and so forth; second, serving as the upāya to enter emptiness, also not abiding in non-attainment. Hence here it properly takes it as the upāya to enter existence. As for the Commentary's "Also like the finest ghee having nowhere it does not penetrate", the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra praises true cognition as having nowhere it does not penetrate.

46.8

Eighth: Mindfulness of the Piṭaka. The Commentary's remark, "The twelve divisions of the teaching shall now be briefly explained," refers to the fifth [item], the exposition of the teaching. Within the text there are three parts: first, explaining the general name; second, from "each has two characteristics" downward, explaining their characteristics; third, discerning what is shared and what is restricted. Within the second part, it first clarifies in general, and then from "As for sūtras..." downward, it explains them individually. This part itself has two divisions: first, distinguishing the two characteristics. Its phrase "connecting and compiling prose," etc., will be understood directly below. Second, from "However, there are still..." downward, it distinguishes different names and thereby manifests the three characteristics. Within this, there are two: first, listing the four names, just as in the first fascicle; second, from "The phrase 'source of phenomena'..." downward, explaining them individually. Within this, there are two: first, properly setting forth Master Huiyuan's explanation; second, from "Because he established..." downward, giving the reasons—namely, establishing three characteristics, because the last three among the five correspond to the characteristics of the three [types of] sūtras. Within this, it first lists and then summarizes. From "not different from the preceding" downward, it explains. Within this, there are two: first, properly explaining the general among the three characteristics, which is not different from the general among the preceding two characteristics. The other two may be understood [from this]. From "However, regarding the latter two..." downward, it refutes [opposing views] and harmonizes them. Because the Kanding ji independently established two levels of general and specific, as [mentioned in] the subcommentary to the first fascicle of the Commentary, it did not permit establishing three. In that commentary's first fascicle, it refutes [Huiyuan], saying: "Although Master Huiyuan of the Sui spoke of sūtras as having three [types]—general, specific, and abbreviated—first, this accords with the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]; second, it lacks sacred teaching and contradicts correct reasoning; third, it violates the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya. The Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya states: 'As for sūtra, it refers to prose connecting and compiling, briefly explaining the meanings that ought to be explained.' He himself explained this, saying: 'Briefly explaining the meanings that ought to be explained is precisely connecting and compiling prose. There is never any characteristic of first presenting an abbreviated heading and later explaining it in detail. The word "abbreviated" is another name for "general," meaning that the sūtra division is the general, while the remaining eleven divisions are the specific. Now, the name "sūtra" is established according to its general activity-and-function among the piṭaka divisions, whereas the names of the remaining piṭaka divisions are based on their specific activities-and-functions within the piṭaka divisions. Why is this? Because the activity-and-function of a sūtra is capable of threading and gathering. Therefore, what is explained and taught in the remaining piṭakas and remaining divisions is accomplished only through this threading and gathering. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "From 'Thus have I heard' at the beginning to 'they rejoiced and practiced accordingly' at the end, all are subsumed under sūtra."'" Explanation: This is his thesis and refutation. Now the Commentary, knowing that what he establishes is merely the general characteristic, does not recount it further. Because [the critic claimed it] "violates the Abhidharmasamuccaya," in order to distinguish the characteristics, it instead uses the Abhidharmasamuccaya, and therefore says it does not violate it. This establishes the specific characteristic; hence it says: "Prose connecting and compiling is that which is not subsumed under the other eleven." Fearing that the meaning was not yet clear, it therefore cites the "Xianshou Chapter" of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to show it, since overall prose connecting and compiling is precisely the general characteristic; how could the general characteristic exclude verses? The Commentary's "its briefly explaining the meanings that ought to be explained" applies to the abbreviated-characteristic sūtra. This is the text of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya, which it divides into two sections to bring out the textual basis for the specific and the abbreviated, using solely that single passage from the "Xianshou Chapter" above to corroborate both meanings simultaneously. When it says: "At that time Mañjuśrī, having expounded the great merit of conduct free from turbidity and defilement," this is merely prose connecting and compiling. When it says: "Wishing to show the merit of the bodhicitta," this is an abbreviated indication of the characteristics, marking what will be explained in the text below. Next, its clarification that it does not violate the Harivarman's Tattvasiddhi-śāstra may be understood. From "This then pervades the twelve divisions," it clarifies that the abbreviated characteristic is pervasive; it is not like the specific characteristic, which is not subsumed under the eleven. From the Commentary's "If, among the twelve divisions, sūtra..." downward, it concludes both by contrasting the pervasiveness and restriction between the two [senses of] sūtra in the piṭakas and in the divisions. This text is precisely directed against the Kanding [ji]'s establishment of two levels of general and specific. That text says: "In establishing the names for the piṭakas and divisions, each has two levels of general and specific: First, the three piṭakas and twelve divisions are general names, while sūtras, etc., are specific designations. Second, sūtra is the general title, while vinaya, geya, etc., are specific rubrics. Handed down from antiquity, only the former approach has been distinguished without discussing the latter." Explanation: As for that latter level of general and specific, he held it up as extraordinary; now [the Commentary] refutes it directly. His idea was: Since according with principle and fitting the faculties is called sūtra, then both vinaya and treatises also possess such accord and fitness—could they not also receive the name sūtra? Therefore it now demonstrates: What accords and fits within the other two piṭakas is simply sūtra among the twelve divisions. This covers it in terms of meaning; what need is there to establish two levels of general and specific further? Thus, the sūtra of the three piṭakas is strictly restricted to the general characteristic, whereas within the twelve divisions it is differentiated into three characteristics; hence the sūtra-piṭaka is established based on the general characteristic to distinguish it from the other two piṭakas. From the Commentary's "Merely unfolding the Abhidharmasamuccaya..." downward, it concludes by showing Master Huiyuan's authority. From the Commentary's "There are those who do not understand..." downward, it concludes by criticizing the Kanding [ji]'s claim of violating the Abhidharmasamuccaya, turning it back upon him. The remaining eleven divisions may all be understood from the text. Moreover, citing the respective sūtra as proof alongside each and every division manifests that this sūtra is complete with all twelve divisions. (Within the second part,) the Commentary's citing "The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'The Buddha formerly told the monks...'" etc., refers to the fifteenth fascicle, where the prose fully asks: What is called a geya-sūtra? The Buddha told the monks: "In the past, you and I were foolish and lacked wisdom, unable to see the four noble truths as they really are. For this reason we wandered, dwelling long in birth-and-death, submerged in the great ocean of suffering. What are the four? Suffering, origination, cessation, and path. Just as formerly the Buddha spoke sūtras for the monks..." What follows after this conclusion is completely identical with the Commentary. The character "etc." at the end of the Commentary has two meanings: First, it includes the remaining verse. There is another verse that says: "If one can see the four truths, / One will be able to sever birth-and-death. / All states of existence being ended, / One will never again receive any existence." This is what is called a geya-sūtra. Second, it includes the remaining text of the sūtra. The Commentary's "As when prophesying Maitreya": The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "What is called a vyākaraṇa-sūtra? When, as in certain sūtras and vinaya, while the Tathāgata speaks, he receives the Buddha's prophecy on behalf of various devas and humans: 'You, Ajita, in the future will have a king named Śaṅkha; you will accomplish the Buddha Way in that world, named Maitreya.' This is called a vyākaraṇa-sūtra." Fourth, gāthās: The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] cites the verse "Do not commit any evil"; the two characteristics refer to verses established for two purposes. (Within the fifth,) "Second, only being spoken in connection with an event because of knowing the root and branch": The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "What is called a nidāna-sūtra? Just as in various sūtras and verses, the underlying cause is expounded for others. For instance, in the city of Śrāvastī there was a man who caught birds with a net; having caught them he caged them, then gave them water and grass and released them again. The World-Honoured One, knowing the root-and-branch causes and conditions, spoke a verse, saying: 'Do not make light of small sins, / Thinking they bring no calamity. / Though drops of water are tiny, / They gradually fill a large vessel.'" The Commentary's "Seventh: itivṛttaka": Among the two characteristics, the eighty-first [fascicle] of the Yogācārabhūmi has only the first characteristic, saying: "As for itivṛttaka, it speaks of all events belonging to the past limit and events arising in the future limit of the Buddha." The Abhidharmasamuccaya has only the latter meaning; the treatise says: "As for itivṛttaka, it refers to proclaiming events associated with the past lives of holy disciples and others." The Commentary's "Eighth: jātaka," etc., "First, speaking of the Tathāgata": The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "As when the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, originally being a bodhisattva, cultivated various austerities, namely: 'Monks, you should know that in the past I was a deer, a bear, a roe deer, a rabbit, a minor king, a wheel-turning sage king, a nāga, or a garuḍa. Thus, when practicing the bodhisattva path, I relinquished the bodies I cherished.'" The Commentary's "Ninth: vaipulya" may be understood. All citations from the Abhidharmasamuccaya are from the eleventh [fascicle]. Expanding the general characteristic of the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, it should be said to be four, and including the general, it makes five. The rest may be understood.

46.9

From the Commentary's "These twelve, regarding the Great and Small..." downward, is the second [major section], discerning what is shared and what is restricted. Within it are three parts: first, distinguishing what is shared and restricted between the Great and Small; next, harmonizing them; and finally, discerning the mutual presence and absence among the twelve. First is the initial part. The statement, "The third fascicle of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says that those who protect the Mahāyāna uphold nine divisions," paraphrases the sūtra where it says: "If there is a monk whose provisions for the body are always abundant, who can also protect and uphold the precepts he has received, and who can make the lion's roar to expound the sublime Dharma—namely sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, gāthā, udāna, itivṛttaka, jātaka, vaipulya, and adbhutadharma—and broadly expounds these nine divisions of scripture for others for the benefit and peace of all sentient beings," etc. The Commentary's "The first [fascicle] of the Lotus Sūtra" refers to the "Expedient Means Chapter." The second half of the later verse says: "Entering the Great Vehicle is the foundation; / Therefore I speak this scripture." Below, it cites the Yogācārabhūmi, where the Hīnayāna has only eleven. From the Commentary's "However, the various sūtras..." downward, the harmonization may be understood. From the Commentary's "However, sūtras, etc...." downward, it discerns mutual presence and absence; the rest may be understood. Ninth: Upholding the Piṭaka may be understood. Tenth: Eloquence regarding the Piṭaka explains the seven eloquences; the "Ten Grounds [Chapter]" explains them in detail. The fourth assembly is concluded.

46.10

"Ascending to the Palace of the Tuṣita Heaven", Chapter Twenty-three (The Fifth Assembly)

46.11

The Commentary's "Bodhisattva Mahāyāna-piṭaka Sūtra" is also simply called the Bodhisattva-piṭaka Sūtra, consisting of only one fascicle. It is also named Homage to the Buddha, Repentance, Rejoicing, etc., and later broadly explains the merits of pariṇāmanā and so forth. It first clarifies the offering to the Buddha of seven jewels filling trichiliocosms as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and later states that the merit of practicing this pariṇāmanā surpasses the former merit, etc., thus citing an immeasurable fruit; this is indeed a paraphrase of its meaning. The Commentary's "The mind of pariṇāmanā constitutes great benefit" tacitly quotes the verse by Bodhisattva Samantarūpasaṃdarśana from the "Buddha Path Chapter" of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. The verse says: "Rich in the seven treasures of wealth, / One teaches them so they increase; / Practicing as has been spoken, / Pariṇāmanā constitutes great benefit." The remark "Therefore it is explained after the practices" is because it dedicates the preceding practices.

46.12

The Commentary's "there are also three meanings": First, in terms of place, it is called the Assembly in the Palace of the Tuṣita Heaven; second, in terms of persons, it is called the Assembly of Bodhisattva Vajradhvaja; third, in terms of Dharma, it is called the Assembly of the Ten Pariṇāmanās. In the Commentary, "Why is it spoken here?"—this sentence poses the question. From "Manifesting the stages..." downward, it replies. The reply contains six points: First, the preceding practices were in the Yāma [Heaven]; now pariṇāmanā surpasses the preceding, so it resides above in the Tuṣita, which is solely in terms of sequential order. Second, taking the name of the Heaven of Contentment. Third, explaining it in terms of the lord of the heaven. Fourth, explaining it again with reference to contentment: the former was in terms of contentment in self-benefit, while this is in terms of contentment in benefiting others. Fifth, explaining it in terms of the Middle Way. Sixth, explaining it in terms of equilibrium. As for "Furthermore, being born in this heaven and cultivating the three blessings," this refers to the thirty-second fascicle of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], which ought to state that cultivating giving and morality obtains bodies in the lower and upper heavens, while cultivating giving, morality, and concentration obtains a body in the Tuṣita Heaven. The Commentary's "Third, in terms of the fulfillment of effort," etc.: thus at the beginning of the eighth ground there is a general explanation of the division of upāya accumulation, accumulating the preceding seven grounds as the upāya for the eighth ground. At the beginning of the tenth ground, there is the division of bringing upāya to fulfillment; this is what it means.

46.13

Regarding the Commentary's "did not necessarily manifest supernatural powers," etc.: this is also just as at the beginning of the twelfth fascicle above, where supernatural powers were manifested according to each category. The remaining explanations of the four assemblies may be understood by the same analogy.

46.14

(Within the second major section:) Regarding the commentary's remark, "Or alternatively, the second section clarifies pariṇāmanā": Because in terms of stages the first [section] corresponds to the ten abodes, and the three clarities and ten pāramitās are identical with the ten practices, matching the second [section] to pariṇāmanā and the fourth to the ten stages fully completes the vertical progression of stages. This assignment is made because within the second section, "indestructible supernatural powers" and so forth also convey the sense of pariṇāmanā, and within the fourth section, "universally entering buddha-kṣetras" and so forth also possess the essential disposition of the ten stages. This is because between the second and third [sections] there is a reversal of sequence, and between the second and fourth [sections] it is not obvious. The previous [explanation] is the primary interpretation; the latter three pervade all stages. (Within the primary recompense:) Regarding the commentary's citation, "When feelings stir within, they take shape in words" and so on: This comes from Zixia's "Preface to the Book of Songs," which states in full: "Feelings stir within and take shape in words. When words are insufficient, one sighs over them. When sighing is insufficient, one chants and sings them. When chanting and singing are insufficient, unconsciously the hands dance them and the feet stamp them."

46.15

Fifth, contemplating the superior virtues of the Buddha. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Yet both the text and meaning of this passage are extensive": In the opening praise of the Buddha in the "Chapter on Transcending the World," names are given without explanations; here in the present text, explanations are given without names. The more than four sheets of sūtra text sequentially and fully explain the twenty-one virtues; hence it says "both text and meaning are extensive." The more than four sheets of sūtra text are extensive in text, and the meanings of the phrases therein completely encompass the disparate explanations across various treatises without omission; hence it says "extensive in meaning." Therefore, treatises are cited here to explain the sūtra with the treatises and corroborate the treatises with the sūtra, which is why it is called "convenient." Ancient masters also cited various treatises in [their commentary on] the "Transcending the World" chapter, but since there was no sūtra text there, the treatises had no basis. Because of these missing names, the ancient worthies were equally bewildered. The Upādhyāya Zang divided the ten concluding summary phrases below into ten sections, while the *Kanding* correlated them with the sixteen [modes of the] three karmas; both are cited below, and neither is accepted here.

46.16

Regarding the commentary's statement, "In the chapter 'Leaving the World' it is named 'marvelous awakening completely fulfilled,'" the above explained the general sentence in the sūtra; here below it reconciles the different names for that general sentence. Now, the root treatise of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* was composed by Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu and Asabhāva both commented on it; the Tang Tripiṭaka Master translated both, and each consists of ten fascicles; these all correspond to the fifth [fascicle]. Now, relying on Asabhāva's commentary on the "Characteristics of the Knowable," the causal explanation says: "If one wishes to explain the Mahāyāna teachings, it is briefly through three characteristics: first, through explaining dependent origination; second, through explaining the characteristics of dharmas arisen from conditions; third, through explaining the meanings of the words." The treatise says: "'Explaining the meanings of the words' means explaining the initial sentence, and afterwards using the remaining sentences to distinguish and reveal it, either by virtue of the loci of qualities or by virtue of the loci of meanings." His commentary states: "That which has already been attained in oneself, fulfilling and richly benefiting [beings], is named a 'quality' (guṇa). That which has not yet been attained in oneself, being complied with and sought after, is named a 'meaning' (artha)." The treatise says: "'Loci of qualities' means speaking of the Buddha's qualities, namely the twenty-one superior qualities." The commentary states: "'Most pure awakening' is the initial sentence, and by means of the remaining sentences its meaning is unfolded and revealed." Regarding the commentary's statement, "Śīlabhadra explains:" Śīlabhadra is the author of the *Buddhābhūmi-sūtra-śāstra*; the two commentaries on the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* do not explain the general sentence, but this bodhisattva himself provided three explanations, which the commentary selects, decides among, and explains by means of their meaning. However, these three explanations have two intentions: first, explaining the general sentence distinctively—first explaining the word 'correct' (samyak), second explaining the words 'most pure', and third explaining the word 'equal' (sama). In that [text] there is no word 'equal', so its meaning tallies with the present sūtra. Second, regarding the dharmas that are awakened to, they are brought out implicitly: the first takes conditioned and unconditioned as the realm that should be awakened to; the second says all [dharmas] are the realm that should be awakened to; the third takes real nature and so forth as that which should be awakened to; hence there are minor differences. Furthermore, first, conditioned and unconditioned generally clarify what is awakened to, not going beyond the two; second, all dharmas exhaustively delineate differences; third, real nature and so forth apply to both subject and object. As for real nature and so forth, they shall now be briefly stated. That is, the eleventh fascicle of the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: "'Objects at the limit of entities' refers to the nature of the limits of existence and real nature of all dharmas." Its commentary explains: "Regarding 'the limit of entities and so forth,' entities are of two kinds: first, entities of particular characteristics; second, entities of common characteristics. The former mind that cognizes exhausts the measure of dharmas; the latter mind that cognizes, as in the various sūtras, refers to all having a common essence, both being termed 'limits.'" Here, "entity" is just the cognitive object. Dividing the text into three: first stating the topic, next opening the two meanings, and afterwards distinctively explaining. The above are the first two sections, and below is the distinctive explanation. The treatise says: "'The nature of the limits of existence' refers to the aggregates, elements, and sense-bases, in order to manifest the essential entities of all knowable dharmas, there being only so much measure and limit; therefore the three—aggregates, elements, and sense-bases—are established." Its commentary explains: "It means exhausting the particular characteristics of all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas." The treatise says: "'Real nature' refers to the sixteen modes of the four noble truths, tathatā, that all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, all dharmas are non-self, nirvāṇa is quiescence, and so forth, as well as emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness." Its commentary explains: "Here it briefly clarifies four kinds of common characteristics: the first is the approach of truths, namely the four noble truths; the second is the approach of modes, namely the sixteen modes and tathatā; the third is the approach of udāna, namely from 'all conditioned things are impermanent' to 'quiescence'; the fourth is the approach of liberation, namely emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness." The root treatise cites the object, not the cognizer. The treatise says: "Because through such distinctive approaches of meaning one cognizes the knowable object, it is named 'real nature.'" The commentary first explains the general name, and next explains distinctively. This is the first, meaning that by such four truths, sixteen modes, and so forth, which are the distinctive meanings within the nature of the limits of existence, the cognizing mind cognizes all distinctions as they exist in all dharmas; hence it is named 'real nature.' The treatise says: "Or by the approach of truths, one cognizes the knowable object." Its commentary states: "It means that regarding the previously stated aggregates, elements, and sense-bases, as appropriate one cognizes them as suffering up through as the path." Its commentary explains the four distinctions as four sections; this is the first text, meaning that by generally contemplating the aggregates, elements, and sense-bases within the preceding nature of the limits of existence, regarding those that are defiled one contemplates suffering and origination, and regarding those that are uncontaminated one contemplates cessation and the path; hence it says 'as appropriate.' The treatise says: "Or by the approach of modes one cognizes the knowable object, stating that each truth has four modes, and that all dharmas without distinction are modes of tathatā." Its commentary states: "The preceding approaches of truths and dharmas were designated in terms of the objects cognized. From here below they are designated in terms of the cognizing [mind], namely each of the four truths separately has four modes; this is the previously formed general understanding of the truths that cognized the aggregates and so forth. Now, within each individual truth, forming distinct understandings of the four characteristics, one gives rise to the four modes; and forming a cognitive condition of all dharmas as the common characteristic of tathatā, one gives rise to the mode of tathatā; this is named cognizing impermanence, tathatā, and so forth. Practice-comprehension is named 'mode'; that is, the preceding sixteen modes are the locus of practice that cognizes the conventional/established, and the latter mode of tathatā is the practice that cognizes the unestablished." The treatise says: "Or by the approach of the udāna of dharmas one cognizes the knowable object, namely that conditioned things are impermanent up through nirvāṇa is quiescence." That commentary's "approach of udāna": the old [translation] had *youdana*, which was an error. Correctly translated, it is "proclamation," meaning spontaneous proclamation without inquiry. Named according to meaning, it also has the meaning of a summary overview. Or it is named the meaning of defining characteristics, meaning that all conditioned things being impermanent is the defining characteristic of the conditioned, and nirvāṇa being quiescence is the defining characteristic of the unconditioned. The treatise says: "Or by the approaches of liberation one cognizes the knowable object, namely emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, and so forth." Its commentary states: "It means that nirvāṇa free from bonds is called liberation. The mental factors of the samādhi of emptiness are the portals relied upon to enter nirvāṇa. Here, using the three portals of emptiness to cognize the preceding objects, one cognizes that the knowable dharmas are empty and signless." Exegesis: The meanings of the two natures are already briefly complete. The nature of the limits of existence is solely conventional truth, while real nature pervades both truths; this reveals the Tathāgata's particular characteristics and common characteristics. Whether what is stated in the teachings or the intrinsic nature of dharmas, there is none that is not realized and known according to factual awakening; therefore the commentary merely states: "Because of the equal awakening that simultaneously illumines the two truths." Now, when the two truths are equal, the two natures are unhindered and include everything. Since there is nothing not known, that is the meaning of all-pervading. From "meaning simultaneously illumining" below, the commentary explains the second meaning. From "that sūtra lacks 'correct and equal'" below, it reconciles the texts of the four sūtras, where the expressions are implicit or explicit, but all are inclusively contained within. First it exemplifies the four differences, and afterwards, from "'marvelous' means subtly wondrous" below, it reconciles and explains them. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Marvelous, correct, all-pervading, and supreme differ in both name and meaning, because of what they exclude:" "marvelous" excludes grasping at characteristics, "correct" excludes the erroneous, "all-pervading" excludes what is incomplete, and "supreme" excludes what has not reached the ultimate, as explained in the initial assembly; the remaining meanings can be understood. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Now matching and assigning each sentence one by one:" because the three passages in the treatise are each cited all at once—namely, the first enumerates the twenty-one sentences of the sūtra, the second root treatise all at once establishes the names of the twenty-one qualities, and the third commentary successively cites and explains them all at once—therefore, they are now individually assigned and extracted into twenty sections. In the commentary's text, each has two parts: first explaining the name and meaning, and afterwards explaining the sūtra text. Now first, regarding "non-dual manifest activity," in first explaining the name and meaning, it fully points to the sūtra, treatise, and commentary; the three sections can be known. However, in Asabhāva's commentary, it first cites the root treatise's name for the quality, and only afterwards points to the sūtra. Just as this section states, "The quality of operating wholly without obstruction regarding the knowable," this opens and reveals non-dual manifest activity. The rest should all be modeled on this. Vasubandhu, on the other hand, first cites the sūtra. The present commentary always first cites the sūtra, and afterwards cites the root treatise to establish the name; therefore, in explaining the name and meaning, it is temporarily divided into two: first citing the sūtra to establish the name, and second citing the commentary to explain. In the first, the five characters "namely contemplating the Tathāgata" are an addition of meaning by the commentary, in accordance with this sūtra's contemplation of the Buddha's qualities. The rest are entirely that treatise's text. Now first, regarding non-dual manifest activity, first citing the sūtra to establish the name, this is understood. From the commentary's "Asabhāva's two explanations" below, this is the second, citing the commentary to explain. Within it are three parts: first Asabhāva's explanation, second reconciling the two treatises, and third Asabhāva's emergent sequence. Now first, within the first explanation are again three parts: first is the commentary's explanation; second, from "this is in terms of leaving behind the cognitive obscurations" below, the commentary adopts the intent in the emergent sequence below to bring forth the essence of the quality; third, from "not like" below, the commentary explains the treatise. In the second explanation, from "this explains in two places" below, the commentary reconciles the two meanings. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Vasubandhu is identical to the latter explanation:" the text is entirely identical. However, Vasubandhu has four parts: first citing the sūtra name, second explaining on his own, third quoting the root treatise to attach it, and fourth re-explaining. Just as this section states: "Here, non-dual manifest activity (1: citing the sūtra), means that in the two manifest activities this does not exist, hence it is named non-dual manifest activity (2: explaining the meaning), which is the quality of operating wholly without obstruction regarding the knowable (3: quoting the root treatise to attach), not being like the cognition of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, which is both obstructed and unobstructed (4: re-explaining)." Most texts are like this. From the commentary's "Śīlabhadra" below, it reconciles Śīlabhadra's explanation; it is identical to this parsing of the text. From the commentary's "Asabhāva's emergent sequence says" below, this is the third section; this is Asabhāva's commentary having concluded generally, re-citing the initial emergent sequence, but those who did not understand thought it was a second explanation. Now its emergent sequence is also extracted into twenty sections, matching sentence by sentence; this follows upon the preceding general sentence to give rise to this first sentence among the particulars. Therefore the preceding explanation says, "This sūtra is in terms of leaving behind the cognitive obscurations, non-defiled unknowing"; that is, the essence of cognitive obscurations is distinguished from defiled unknowing. From the commentary's "in the text are two" below, the second part explains the text, using both treatises. First, extensively benefiting and giving joy is Śīlabhadra's intent. Leaving behind the knowable is Asabhāva's intent. Below, leaving behind afflictions is solely Śīlabhadra's intent. If in terms of Śīlabhadra's non-dual manifest activity, it abandons both obscurations and differs from both ordinary beings and the Hinayāna. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Adorned with samādhi and wisdom, generating beings' wholesome roots:" this explains the sūtra's "by the Buddha's adornment up through securely abiding in wholesome roots." The words "samādhi and wisdom" are because the first fascicle of the *Lotus Sūtra* says: "The Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle; according to the Dharma he attained, adorned with the power of samādhi and wisdom, he uses this to deliver sentient beings." Regarding the commentary's statement, "Both the abider and the locus of abiding are vast:" the locus of abiding is the dharmadhātu body, pervading all places; therefore vast cognition matches the dharmakāya and so forth, its true nature being like sunlight coalescing with space. From "possessing the above two meanings" below, it concludes by returning to the general sentence and by analogy applies to the text below.

First 16 of 23 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese