大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Chengguan of the Great Huayan Monastery at Mount Qingliang in the Tang.

Fifth, [the condition of] relying on the manifested signs. The text of the commentary divides into four: first, generally clarifying the overarching meaning; second, revealing the differences among the signs; third, specifically clarifying the emission of light; fourth, evaluating similarities and differences. Now, as for the first, there should be four propositions: first, according with signs; second, signlessness; third, signlessness not obstructing signs; fourth, signs being identical to signlessness. 'The dharmatā is serene and solitary' is the second proposition. 'The sign of signlessness' refers to the third and fourth propositions. Below in the specific clarification there is the first proposition; therefore, one should not cling to signlessness in order to reject the various signs. Thus the sūtra below states: 'The Tathāgata does not take signs as his essence, / but is only the signless, quiescent Dharma; / yet his bodily signs and dignified deportment are completely perfected, / and the worldly, according to what they delight in, are all able to see him.' The Daśabhūmika-sūtra states: 'The Buddha abides in the profound, true dharmatā, / quiescent and signless like empty space; / yet within the supreme ultimate truth, / he manifests all manner of deeds performed. / The deeds performed to benefit sentient beings / are all attained relying on the dharmatā; / signs and signlessness are without distinction, / and entering into the ultimate, all are signless,' and so forth; this is its meaning.

5.3

From 'the teaching arises from many origins' downward in the commentary is the second, revealing the differences among the signs. Because the teachings that are given rise to differ, the signs capable of giving rise to them are distinct. For example, when preaching the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, it takes the emission of light, the shaking of the earth, and the raining of flowers as its signs; when about to preach the Nirvāṇa, it takes voice and light illuminating everywhere and universal proclamation as its signs; when preaching the Prajñā[pāramitā], it takes the scattering of golden flowers as its signs. The present sūtra possesses all such signs: the six types of quaking of the Flower-Treasury World, the raining down of flower-clouds, incense-clouds, canopy-clouds, garland-clouds, necklace-clouds, and so forth, are all its signs. Furthermore, the 'Chapter on Manifesting Signs' manifests five kinds of signs, and so forth.

5.4

From 'thus in the various assemblies' downward in the commentary is the third, specifically clarifying the emission of light. In this there are three parts: first, a general explanation; next, specific revelation from 'however, there are two' downward; finally, 'depending on the location, the emission differs, having ten lights in total; each signifies something, as will be understood when arriving at the text' re-explains according with signs. Among the three, as for the mention of ten lights: in the first assembly two lights are emitted, namely at the beginning of the 'Chapter on Manifesting Signs', where all kinds of lights are emitted from between the teeth of the Tathāgata; second, also in this chapter, light is emitted from between his eyebrows. In the second assembly, light is emitted from the wheel-marks on his feet. In the third assembly, light is emitted from his toes. In the fourth assembly, light is emitted from the tops of his feet. In the fifth assembly, light is emitted from his knee-discs. In the sixth assembly, light is also emitted from between his eyebrows. In the seventh assembly, light is initially not emitted, but the 'Chapter on Manifestation' emits two kinds of light: namely, light is emitted from between the eyebrows to empower Suprecipitous Virtue (Mañjuśrī), and light is emitted from the mouth to empower Samantabhadra. In the eighth assembly, light is not emitted at all. In the ninth assembly, light is also emitted from the white ūrṇā between the eyebrows. The first and seventh assemblies have two lights each, and the eighth assembly does not emit any; therefore, across the nine assemblies there are ten in total. As for 'each signifies something': the initial emission from the gate of the face and the teeth signifies that the path of teaching extends afar, flowing from the golden mouth, born from the mouth of the Buddha, because they are true children of the Buddha. For this reason, it is emitted from a comprehensive place. It also signifies chewing the flavor of the Dharma to nourish the dharmakāya, and so forth. That emitted from between the eyebrows universally signifies the upright and central path of the One Vehicle. The wheel-marks on the feet are lowest, signifying four meanings of faith: first, going from below to above, because faith is the very first; second, because it is the most humble; third, because it is the root of practice; fourth, because faith encompasses the ocean of fruition and is already perfected. In the third assembly, the toes signify abiding securely. Fourth, the tops of the feet signify relying on practice. Fifth, the bending and extending of the knee-discs signify that one can dedicate [merit]. Sixth, the eyebrows in the ten grounds signify that the ten suchnesses realized are fully endowed with the middle way. Seventh, the eyebrows in [the chapter on] manifestation signify the manifestation of the middle way, not abiding in the two extremes of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa; also, emitting light from the mouth signifies being born from the Buddha's mouth, because they are the true eldest sons. In the eighth assembly it is not emitted: practice arises relying on understanding, relying on the light of understanding; or it is omitted for brevity. In the ninth, the eyebrows signify realizing the middle way that exhausts the dharmadhātu. These are elaborated in the commentary below, hence it says 'will be understood when arriving at the text'.

5.5

From 'the shaking of the earth and so forth' downward in the commentary is the fourth, evaluating similarities and differences. The two meanings of celebrating what preceded and giving rise to what follows are different; therefore, it adopts giving rise to what follows, not celebrating what preceded. As for 'like the ten grounds' and so forth: the beginning of the ninth ground states: 'When this eighth ground of the bodhisattva was preached, / the Tathāgata displayed great supernatural power, / shaking the lands of the ten directions, / immeasurable, innumerable, and inconceivable,' and so forth. Since it references the eighth ground, it clearly celebrates what preceded; and having finished praising, it then requests the ninth ground, so its meaning also encompasses giving rise to what follows.

5.6

Sixth, [the condition of] relying on the person who preaches. The text of the commentary divides into two: first, generally revealing the intention of its inclusion; next, opening sections to explain specifically. Now, as for the first: it first establishes the principle. Now, the Dharma has four kinds: teaching, principle, practice, and fruition. The Dharma as principle is limpid and neither flourishes nor declines; the ocean of teachings in the dragon palace also mostly endures perpetually; but cultivating practice to achieve fruition rests with persons. Therefore the Prajñā-śāstra states: 'When the Dharma is about to perish, it is because cultivation of practice perishes.' However, propagation has two meanings: first, personal practice; second, transforming others; here we take transforming others. From 'the text below states' downward cites proof: namely the verse of Bodhisattva Superior Wisdom in the sixteenth fascicle, which in full states: 'Like a jewel in the dark / that cannot be seen without a lamp, / if the Buddha's Dharma is not preached by anyone, / though one have wisdom, none can comprehend it.' Therefore the preacher is like a lamp, capable of illuminating the jewel of sentient beings' minds.

5.7

From 'Now, those capable of preaching here pervade the three worlds' downward opens sections to explain specifically. In this there are three: first, generally clarifying the persons who preach; next, pointing to the text to reveal the preaching; finally, the differences in the manner of preaching. Now, as for the first, there are four kinds in total: first, explaining that there are three; second, opening the three into five; third, opening the five into ten; fourth, opening the ten into the immeasurable.

5.8

As for 'opening it into five' in the commentary: it is because within the three worlds, the one [world] of enlightened wisdom is opened into the three vehicles; the world of sentient beings and the world of the receptacle remain as before and are not opened, hence they make five.

5.9

As for 'further opening into ten' and so forth in the commentary: taking the three periods of time as three, the preaching of dust motes as the fourth, and the preaching of hair-pores as the fifth. From 'the receptacle and sentient beings each have partial and complete' downward in the commentary sets forth the reason for making ten. Simply speaking of the world preaching is the completeness of the receptacle; if one speaks of dust motes preaching, that is the partiality of the receptacle. Merely speaking of sentient beings preaching is the completeness of sentient beings; if one says hair-pores preaching, that is the partiality of sentient beings. When speaking of sentient beings, it encompasses the aforementioned Buddhas, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, and ordinary sentient beings. As for 'the above preachings pervade the three periods of time' in the commentary: the above seven preachings all pervade the three periods of time; that is, preaching by past Buddhas, preaching by present Buddhas, preaching by future Buddhas, and so forth. From 'thus Samantabhadra' downward in the commentary cites proof. As for 'preach in this manner and so forth', 'and so forth' includes the following line 'knows all completely', and also includes the rest of the text.

5.10

As for 'broadly, they are immeasurable, because the classes in the Chapter on the Dharmadhātu are not single' in the commentary: within the 'Chapter on the Dharmadhātu', five classes of the dharmadhātu are briefly clarified, and all have the meaning of preaching. Within each of the five classes there are again many, hence it says immeasurable. As for the five classes: first, the dharmadhātu of phenomena; second, the dharmadhātu of persons; third, both interfused; fourth, both obliterated; fifth, non-obstruction. Within the first there are ten gates: first, the dharmadhātu of events; second, the dharmadhātu of principle; third, object; fourth, practice; fifth, essence; sixth, function; seventh, accord; eighth, discord; ninth, teaching; tenth, meaning. The dharmadhātu of persons also has ten gates: first, humans; second, devas; third, men; fourth, women; fifth, householders; sixth, renunciants; seventh, non-Buddhists; eighth, the various spirits; ninth, bodhisattvas; tenth, Buddhas. Furthermore, events have many events, devas have many devas, spirits have many spirits, one hundred and ten cities, three thousand spiritual mentors, and so forth; hence it says the classes are not single.

5.11

From 'like the Saṃghī' downward in the commentary points to the text to reveal the preaching. 'Bodhi tree and so forth' refers to the preaching by the receptacle world. As for 'will be understood when arriving at the text': the sūtra states, 'That bodhi tree constantly emits exquisite sounds, preaching various dharmas without end.' And as for the mention of 'and so forth', it includes the rest of the text such as the preaching by the lion throne, and so forth. It also includes the text on dust motes and hair-pores, as the Ground of Good Wisdom states: 'Sometimes in his mind he desires to emit great rays of light and proclaim the Dharma gates; sometimes in his mind he desires that from every single hair-pore on his body the sounds of the Dharma be proclaimed; sometimes in his mind he desires that all shaped and shapeless things up to the three-thousand-great-thousand world system completely emit the words and sounds of the exquisite Dharma'; down to where it says: 'sometimes in his mind he desires that within all the fine dust motes in the accumulations of the four great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind across ineffable, immeasurable worlds, every single mote of dust completely emits ineffable Dharma gates. Whatever is thought like this, all accords with his mind and none is unattained.' What is cited above is the preaching by the receptacle world, dust motes, hair-pores, and so forth.

5.12

From 'as for those capable of preaching' downward is the third, clarifying the differences in the manner of preaching, which merely points to the text below.

5.13

Seventh, [the condition of] relying on the persons who listen. The text of the commentary has two parts: first, clarifying the overarching meaning; next, from 'namely the various assemblies below' downward, briefly pointing to the distinct classes. As for 'Ziqi was said to have passed away' in the commentary: the Liezi states, 'Boya was skilled at playing the zither, and Zhong Ziqi was skilled at listening. When Boya played the zither, with his mind set on lofty mountains, Ziqi said: "Splendid! Lofty and towering like Mount Tai!" When his mind thought of flowing water, Zhong Ziqi said: "Splendid! Vast and surging like the Yangzi and Han Rivers!" Whatever Boya contemplated, Zhong Ziqi unfailingly grasped it. When Boya wandered on Mount Tai, he encountered overcast skies and suddenly met a violent downpour; stopping beneath a cliff, feeling sorrow in his heart, he took up the zither and played it. First he made a melody of continuous rain, and then composed the sounds of collapsing mountains. Whenever a tune was played, Zhong Ziqi would exhaustively penetrate its intent. Boya then set aside the zither and sighed: "Splendid! How well you listen! What is conceived in your imagination is like my very mind; where could I hide my sounds?"' The Zhuangzi adds: 'When Zhong Ziqi died, Boya never played the zither again for the rest of his life.' The Wen Xuan states: 'A gentleman acts for the one who understands him; a woman adorns herself for the one who delights in her.' This clarifies that a person's arts and methods depend on meeting an understanding listener; the understanding listener is the one who listens.

5.14

Eighth, [the condition of] relying on virtue. The root text has three parts: first, clarifying the overarching meaning; next, from 'briefly there are two kinds' downward, specifically explaining; finally, from 'if one responds' downward, sorting out confusions. In the first part, in the commentary, from 'the river having pearls' downward is an analogy. From 'internally lacking virtue' downward is the application. Finally, 'however, this is only with respect to the preacher' differentiates and determines.

5.15

As for the ninth, relying on the persons who request: the text has two parts: first, adducing absence to reveal presence; next, from 'however, there are two' downward, specifically showing the protocol of requesting.

5.16

Tenth, relying on those capable of conferring empowerment (adhisthāna). This also has two parts: first, a general explanation of the main purport; second, from 'However, if the Buddha...' downward, a specific explanation of the reasons. In the first part, it first establishes the principle and then points it out. In the former, it borrows the sense of the Classic of Documents: chapter 4 of that text says, 'The people have no constant devotion; they are devoted to benevolence. The spirits have no constant enjoyment; they enjoy true sincerity.' From 'The mind merges with the ultimate limit' downward, it points this out: because entering samādhi tallies with the principle, the Buddhas confer empowerment. Hence the text below states: 'By the power of samādhi, one stimulates the Buddhas of the ten directions to manifest before oneself,' and so on. In the specific explanation, there are four points: 1. generally revealing presence and absence; 2. from 'The reason empowerment is conferred...' downward, stating the reasons for conferring empowerment; 3. from 'If so, then as for the Saṃkhya and the marks...' downward, resolving objections; 4. from 'Empowerment has...' downward, distinguishing the types according to category. In the second point, it first raises a question and then explains. The explanation has three meanings. When the commentary says, 'In order to reveal that the Buddhas' identical empowerment is just their identical preaching,' this is the first meaning. If the Buddha preached it himself, one could not speak of empowerment; it would only be called his own preaching. Now, because they identically confer empowerment, all granting cognition and exhorting speech, this reveals identical preaching. When the commentary says, 'One preaching is all preaching,' this is the second meaning. The former revealed the pervasive method; this reveals the consummate teaching. However, a single sūtra possesses four propositions in all, but it now mentions only one to accord with the meaning of identical empowerment. As for the four propositions: 1. one speaks, as in the 'Saṃkhya' [chapter], etc.; 2. one speaking is all speaking, as just explained; 3. all speaking is one speaking, as when Mañjuśrī in all places everywhere throughout the dharmadhātu speaks verses with one voice, revealing the non-duality of phenomena; 4. all speaking is all speaking, as when those arriving from the ten directions to bear witness all declare: 'We Buddhas also preach in this way.' The other three do not accord with identical empowerment, so the commentary does not explain them. When the commentary says, 'It also reveals that the ocean of the result...', this is the third meaning. This is because the Buddha represents the ocean of the result and the bodhisattvas represent the cause. Hence the Daśabhūmika-sūtra says: 'This place is difficult to proclaim; I now speak a small part.' The Śāstra on the Sūtra says 'one part'; the commentary explains that the fruition-part is ineffable and only the causal-part is spoken, and the causal-part is one part in relation to the fruition-part.

5.17

From the commentary's 'If so, then as for the Saṃkhya...' downward, the third point resolves objections. Within this are three parts: first, posing the objection; second, resolving the objection; third, warding off objections. This is the first.

5.18

From the commentary's 'Expressing the subtle...' downward, the second part resolves the objection. It briefly raises two points to counter the previous three points. Saying 'subtle and hard to know' counters the previous 'identical preaching' and 'all preaching'. Previously, when the bodhisattva spoke, because he received empowerment, it represented the Buddha's identical preaching. Here, because the calculation of the Saṃkhya is multiple and subtle, only the Buddha can know it. Regarding the merits of the secondary marks and light, a single mark and a single light can destroy the hells; being triply and suddenly complete, they are also difficult to know, and only the Buddha can comprehend them, so the Buddha speaks them himself. When the commentary says 'transcending cause and effect,' this counters the previous ineffability of the ocean of the result. The sense of the previous objection was: if the bodhisattva represents the cause and the Buddha now speaks himself, it should represent that the result is effable. Hence it now replies: cause is spoken in contrast to result, meaning that cause is effable. Cause does not exist outside of result; since it sinks into and becomes identical with the ocean of the result, cause is also ineffable, just as a bird's tracks are identical with empty space and the tracks are also ineffable. Since cause is not cause, result is also not result; wishing to sweep away the previous characteristics of cause and effect, the Buddha speaks himself.

5.19

When the commentary says, 'However, the provisions differ and should not be taken as a single rule,' this is the third part, warding off objections. Fearing there might be an objection saying: 'If what the Buddha now speaks represents the subtle, the rest must be coarse; if this is said to transcend, the former must be attached,' it therefore wards it off by saying: the holy teachings' provisions have a thousand differences and ten thousand distinctions, each taking one expression, so one should not rigidly fix them. Receiving empowerment represents identical preaching, yet is neither coarse nor attached; the Buddha speaking represents the subtle and reveals transcendence, yet does not obstruct identical preaching. In terms of expression there are minor differences, but the grand purport is completely the same; why not forget words? Meeting the path one produces stagnation, which is why it says 'they should not be taken as a single rule.'

5.20

From the commentary's 'Empowerment is of two kinds' downward, the fourth point distinguishes the types according to category. Within this are two parts: first, revealing the distinction; second, pointing to the text. In the former, showing that there are three karmas: oral karma exhorts speech to benefit eloquence; mental karma secretly empowers to benefit cognition; physical karma rubs the crown of the head to augment authority. However, although mental [karma] granting cognition is secret, because it is simultaneous with physical and verbal [karma], these two are manifest; following the majority over the minority, all three are termed 'manifest'. Secret [empowerment] grants only cognition, and thus there is a difference.

5.21

From the commentary's 'Universal Light and the Dharmadhātu' downward, the second points to the text. Universal Light subsumes three assemblies, namely the second, seventh, and eighth. The Dharmadhātu is the ninth assembly. These four assemblies all have only secret [empowerment]. Because in the second and seventh assemblies they do not enter samādhi, there is no manifest empowerment; yet Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra both say they rely on the Buddha's spiritual power, so it is secret empowerment. In the eighth assembly, although Samantabhadra enters samādhi, there is no conferral of empowerment, only the stirring of functional operations, so there is no manifest empowerment; he also says he relies on the Buddha's spiritual power, so there is secret empowerment. In the 'Dharmadhātu Chapter,' the Tathāgata himself enters samādhi, so there cannot be empowerment. Below, Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī have preaching without absorption, thus lacking manifest empowerment; because both rely on the Buddha's power to be able to preach and realise, there is secret empowerment. When the commentary says 'the rest all possess both,' it refers to the remaining five assemblies. 'The manifest necessarily has the secret' explains the reason for possessing both. The secret does not necessarily have the manifest, but the manifest necessarily has the secret, because the Tathāgata, possessing power and compassion, always secretly empowers. When one has not attained absorption and conditions are lacking, the manifest is not admitted, so there is only the secret. At the time of manifest empowerment, the secret is never abandoned. Furthermore, there is mental empowerment, which is why it says it is necessarily present. When the commentary says 'the rest will be explained below,' it means that the characteristics of secret and manifest empowerment have many gates of meaning, which are fully revealed following the text.

5.22

Second, subsumption by the piṭakas and teachings. The commentary's text is divided into two: first, general; second, specific. Within the general are also two: first, a general rubric; second, from 'Now, the first' downward, repeating and explaining the general name. In citing Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha: the root treatise of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha was composed by the Bodhisattva Asaṅga, and there were multiple commentaries; in this land there are two versions, namely those by the two bodhisattvas Vasubandhu and Asabhāva. The Great Tang Tripiṭaka Master translated both versions, each in ten fascicles. In the Liang dynasty, Paramārtha translated Vasubandhu's commentary in fifteen fascicles, now called the Liang Saṃgraha. Their explanatory meanings are broadly identical with minor differences, and the commentator cites them at will. Fearing confusion among the three versions, each is distinguished by a different name. However, relying on ancient masters, the Liang treatise was mostly cited; if choosing for oneself now, one mostly cites Asabhāva and Vasubandhu. When the commentary says, 'Subsuming all meanings that should be known,' this is that treatise's own explanation of the meaning of 'subsuming' (saṃgraha). Regarding 'what should be known,' the treatise provides no separate explanation; what is explained in detail below in the treatise are the ten superior characteristics, namely: 1. the superior characteristic of the basis of what should be known; 2. the superior characteristic of the characteristic of what should be known; 3. the superior characteristic of entering what should be known, and so forth. Since all ten characteristics state 'what should be known,' both principle and phenomena and all such dharmas should be known.

5.23

When the commentary says 'subsuming is containing,' the commentator takes the meaning of 'subsuming' and further explains it as 'containing'; because he previously stated 'because of containing and subsuming,' he repeats and explains it. From the commentary's 'As for the three piṭakas...' downward, the second specific explanation is divided into two: first, the three piṭakas; second, the two piṭakas. In the former are three parts: first, general enumeration; second, from 'Within the first' downward, specific explanation; third, from 'However, these three piṭakas...' downward, generally showing what is expressed. In the second part, the three piṭakas constitute three divisions, all first presenting and then explaining. From the commentary's 'Now, the first is also named...' downward, it explains. Within this are four points: 1. reconciling the Sanskrit phonetics; 2. recounting ancient translations; 3. recounting ancient refutations; 4. reconciling accord and discord. This is the first. Regarding 'The Sanskrit phonetic sūtra (sūtraṃ)': the Tang Tripiṭaka Master translated it saying, 'This is the language of Central India. Master Shi [Kumārajīva] mostly translated it as xiuduoluo (sūtra), or as xiudulu, which largely communicated with the various regions of India. Master Shi was from Kucha, close to Eastern India. Tripiṭaka Master Śikṣānanda was from Khotan, mostly close to the Northeast. However, Master Shi also travelled through the five Indias, and depending on what he received over time there were minor differences in tone and weight, but speaking of their general purport, the principle was not discordant. Yet earlier and later Tripiṭaka masters mostly said xiuduoluo.' Regarding 'The Sanskrit phonetics have variations like Chu and Xia': Qin and Luoyang were called Zhonghua (Central Cathay), also named Huaxia, and also called Zhongxia. Huainan is the land of Chu and not the central region; the phonetic pronunciations and callings of Chu and Luoyang differ in tone and weight. Now the Sanskrit language of the Western Regions resembles this: Central India is like Zhongxia, and the other four are like Chu and Shu. Among the Tripiṭaka masters who came from the west, some were from Southern India, some from Northern India, and some from Central India, with the east and west each being different.

5.24

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Anciently translated as 'tallying scriptures' (契經)” and below, this is the second part: relating ancient translations. Within this are five points: first, indicating the names; second, citing evidence from “the Great Wisdom Treatise (智度論)” and below; third, harmonizing the meanings from “Tallying means tallying with principle” and below; fourth, harmonizing with the six compound analyses (ṣaṭsamāsa) from “Namely, scriptures that tally with principle and fit capacity” and below—matching “tallying” against “scriptures” is a determinative compound (tatpuruṣa), while matching “tallying scriptures” against “piṭaka” is an appositional determinative compound (karmadhāraya); fifth, harmonizing the primary and secondary from “It is also said” and below.

Regarding the commentary's words “Some say, according to the five Indias... up to criticizing ancient masters that 'scripture' is not an exact equivalent”: this is the third part, relating ancient refutations. This “ancient” refers to the master Huiyuan of Jingfa Monastery's position in his Kanding ji. Wherever it simply says “Some say,” it refers to the author of the Kanding ji. If it says “ancient masters,” it mostly means Preceptor Fazang, as well as earlier venerable masters before him. Here it generally refers to all ancient masters. Furthermore, the commentary here merely summarizes the general meaning of the Kanding ji.

After setting forth the ancient views, the Kanding ji immediately states: “Now, carefully examining the various treatises as well as the Sanskrit originals, I truly fear it is not so. Why? Because throughout this there are three errors: 1. the error of inexact translation of names; 2. the error of taking a meaning as a name; 3. the error of not distinguishing between the general and the particular.”
What the commentary clarifies now is precisely the first error: that since the single term sūtra contains four realities, and “thread” is an exact equivalent, why would “scripture” not be one? “Scripture” is also an exact equivalent; stating that it is not an exact equivalent is called the error of inexact translation of names. Hence the commentary now says: “Criticizing ancient masters that 'scripture' is not an exact equivalent.”

The second, the error of taking a meaning as a name, means: the word “scripture” (經) is the name, while the word “tallying” (契) is its meaning; because a scripture has the meaning of tallying with principle and fitting capacity, the meaning of “tallying” was borrowed to support the name of “scripture.” Calling both words “tallying scripture” an entire name is the error of taking a meaning as a name. If it were the complete name, it should be called yukti-sūtra. The term yukti has three meanings: first, the meaning of tallying; second, according with what was anciently practiced; third, relying on correct principle. Here, adopting the meaning of tallying, since there is no word yukti [in the Sanskrit title], one clearly knows that the name lacks the word “tallying.” Furthermore, providing an analogy, it says: just as citta is named “mind,” and “accumulation and arising” is its meaning, could one translate “accumulation and arising” as its name as well? It means: since “accumulation and arising” is not the name of the mind, how could “tallying with principle” be the name of a scripture?

The third, the error of not distinguishing between the general and the particular, says: in establishing names for the piṭakas and the textual genres, each has a twofold general-and-particular relation. First, the three piṭakas and the twelve textual genres are general designations, while sūtra and the rest are specific appellations. Second, sūtra is the general title, while vinaya, geya, and so on are specific designations. What was traditionally transmitted only explained the former perspective without discussing the latter. Now, sūtra establishes its name based on the general function within the piṭakas and genres, whereas the names of the other piṭakas and genres rely on specific functions within them. Why? Because the function of a sūtra is able to thread and hold. For the teachings and those to be transformed in the other piṭakas and other genres are only accomplished through this threading and holding. Hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], fascicle fifteen, says: “From 'Thus have I heard' at the beginning to 'rejoicing, they received and practiced it' at the end, all are called sūtras.”

Explanation: The text of the Kanding ji is still somewhat difficult to understand, so I shall explain it further now. Saying that each has a twofold general-and-particular relation: for example, the twofold relation in the three piṭakas means: first, the three piṭakas are general, and scriptures, monastic discipline, and treatises are particular; second, sūtra is the general designation, and vinaya and abhidharma are specific designations. Sūtra within the three piṭakas is the general name; although bearing a general title, it receives a specific name; hence it says: “Now sūtra relies on the general function within the three piṭakas.” The ancients did not know it receives its name from the general characteristic, but only thought it was specific; thus it is called the error of not distinguishing the general and the particular. Furthermore, the twelve genres also have a twofold general-and-particular relation: first, the twelve genres of scripture are the general name, while sūtra, geya, etc., are specific designations; second, sūtra is the general name, and the other eleven including geya are specific designations. One does not take sūtra [as merely one among twelve], because sūtra is the general. Also, although bearing a general title, it receives a specific name. If so, sūtra within the three piṭakas extends through the other two piṭakas, and sūtra within the twelve divisions extends through the other eleven. If it did not extend through them, then since sūtra is called “tallying with principle and fitting capacity,” the others lacking this name would not tally with principle and fit capacity. Since all tally with principle and fit capacity, one clearly knows that sūtra is established as a name from its general characteristic. Both the three piṭakas and the twelve genres have a twofold general-and-particular relation; hence it says “each has.”

The intention of the Kanding ji also has its reason. Now, I say: if it is sūtra within the twelve genres, it extends to the eleven genres and the three piṭakas; if it is the name sūtra within the three piṭakas, it only extends to the twelve genres, but not to the other two piṭakas. What tallies and fits within the other two piṭakas naturally belongs to sūtra among the twelve divisions. Reflect on this. Because this is not strictly essential, the commentary abbreviates and does not relate it, only clarifying the first point. Fearing that some might wish to know the roots, this subcommentary relates it in full. He further refuted Master Huiyuan's three sūtras, which will be explained when we reach the “Chapter on the Ten Treasuries.”

5.25

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Examining it further now,” this is the fourth part: harmonizing the accords and contradictions. Within this are three points: first, full concession; next, partial rebuttal; finally, presenting the ancient intention. In the first: saying that “the ancient [view] is as refuted” means that both warp-threads of a loom and strings are exact equivalents [of sūtra], but asserting that string is correct while warp-thread is not is as refuted.

5.26

Regarding the commentary's phrase “If also according with the meaning” and below, this is the second, a partial rebuttal. Granting that “scripture” (warp-thread) is an exact equivalent, it rebuts the claim that it is not named “sacred teaching.” Therefore, one name contains multiple realities, and one must establish the name according with the meaning. For example, saindhava is one name with four realities: when translating a passage concerning the five flavors in a scripture, it should be translated as “salt”; when translating the saindhava ridden by a king in a scripture, it should be translated as “horse”; one cannot say “water” or “vessel.” Now in translating the Buddha's scriptures as sūtra, it ought to be named “sacred teaching”; calling it “line” or “cord” is not entirely fitting; hence it says that warp-thread naturally belongs to a mat, while the exact equivalent of sūtra should be called “sacred teaching.”
From “the Liang Saṃgraha” onwards, it cites texts as proof, which is the first treatise. However, the first two lines cited here are entirely the text of the treatise, while from “to establish sacred teaching” downwards, it explains by extracting the meaning. For that root treatise says: “The Mahāyānasaṃgraha is the Abhidharma teaching and sūtra.” The explanatory treatise says: “Saying 'Mahāyāna' here is intended to distinguish it from the Hīnayāna Abhidharma. Why not merely state the name Abhidharma, but also state the name sūtra? Because there are Abhidharmas that are not sacred teaching.” The meaning here is: if one only says Abhidharma, it does not completely distinguish the ambiguous; hence the word sūtra is added to distinguish it from treatises composed by ordinary beings, making clear that it is a treatise of sacred teaching. The intention in citing it now is that the root treatise notes sūtra, and in the explanatory treatise it actually says “sacred teaching,” making clear that sūtra is translated as sacred teaching.

5.27

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The ancient masters, seeing that both the Confucians and Mohists in this land called [their foundational texts] scriptures (jing)” and below, this presents the ancient intention. The warp-thread of a mat does not accord with the root meaning; therefore it was borrowed. “Confucian” refers to Confucian teaching, with Confucius as principal. “Mohist” refers to Mohist teaching, with Mo Di as principal; sacrificing oneself to benefit beings was its tenet, like the toil of Yu of the Xia dynasty, adopting this purpose. Confucianism has the Nine Classics, Five Classics, and so on, all called jing (scriptures/classics). A jing is that which is constant, a standard canon. Only the words of sages can be called jing. Since this land already took the words of sages as jing, translating the sacred teachings was also named jing. Saying that it “doubly contains the two meanings” refers to the sacred teachings and the meaning of warp-and-weft. “Accords with both lands” means according with the classics of Confucius and others in this land, and according with the scriptures of warp-and-weft and sacred teachings in the Western Regions. Fearing confusion with the warp of a mat, the word “tallying” (qi) was added to distinguish it. Since the ancients took the exact equivalent to be “cord,” one clearly knows they also did not understand that “tallying scripture” is partly derived from meaning; hence it is appropriate.

5.28

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Second, revealing the characteristics” and below: the main point here is taking its one name containing four realities to harmonize with the five meanings of the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya*, which is precisely revealing the characteristics of a sūtra. Within the text are three points: first, generally raising its containment; second, from “Hence the Miśraka” downwards, directly harmonizing the five meanings; third, from “Summing up the above five meanings” downwards, linking them through meaning. In the second, it is the eighth chapter of the *Miśraka*, the “Chapter on Sūtras,” which says: “As for a sūtra, it has five meanings: first, 'generating,' because it generates all meanings; second, 'bubbling spring,' because the flavor of its meaning is inexhaustible; third, 'displaying,' because it displays all meanings; fourth, 'marking line,' because it discerns what is deviant and correct; fifth, 'stringing garlands,' because it threads together all phenomena. These five meanings are the meanings of a sūtra.” The commentary's citation now of the first two meanings out of order follows the ancient commentary's citation, simply adopting whatever is convenient for the meaning.

5.29

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Summing up the above five meanings, they do not go beyond threading and holding”: within this are two points: first, generally explaining threading and holding; second, showing that which is threaded and held. In the first are three points: first, indicating the meaning; second, citing proof; third, explaining what was cited. Regarding the commentary's words “Hence the Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna, fascicle one,” this is the second, citing proof. It fully cites the text of the treatise without missing anything. And immediately below, with respect to what is explained, it says: “It should be known that here it expounds the Buddha-ground to benefit sentient beings. In reliance on the meaning explained, it is called the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra, like the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra or the Ratnarāśi-śāstra.” The meaning is: all take their names from what is explained.

5.30

Regarding the commentary's phrase “These two, threading and holding, apply across what is taught and those to be transformed” and below: this is the third, explaining the treatise that was cited. The explanation has two senses: first, general; second, specific. The above is the general. Saying that the two meanings apply across what is taught means: threading through the teachings taught and holding them so they do not scatter. Hence the commentary below cites the *Yogācārabhūmi*: “It holds the sacred speech.” Saying that the two meanings apply across those to be transformed means: threading through the mental activity of the sentient beings to be transformed, and embracing and holding them without abandoning them. The specific meaning can be known.

5.31

In the commentary, from “Furthermore, Vasubandhu’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha[-bhāṣya]” downwards is the second part, which reveals the phenomena that are threaded and gathered. Within it are two parts: first, citing the Mahāyānasaṃgraha for the direct explanation; second, citing others by analogy. In the former, it refers to fascicle 1 of that treatise. The text also has two parts: first, citing the treatise to state the overarching headings; second, from “Basis” downwards, citing the treatise for the specific explanations. The explanation of the stated four meanings is thus divided into four parts: First, in explaining the basis, three items are raised. (1) “In this place” refers to the place where the sūtra was preached, such as the Buddha residing in the country of Magadha and so forth. (2) “Due to this” refers to the causes and conditions for preaching the sūtra, namely the capacities addressed, and so forth. For example, in the Daśabhūmika-sūtra, it is due to the empowerment of the Buddhas of the ten directions, the request of Vimukticandra, and so on. (3) “For this purpose” refers to the intent of preaching the sūtra. For instance, the chapter “Generating the [Bodhicitta] Mind” states: “In order to reveal the Buddha-dharma; in order to illuminate everywhere with the light of wisdom; in order to disclose and elucidate the real meaning,” and so forth. Hence the Liang translation [of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha] says: “This place, this person, this function.” In the commentary, “Characteristics refers to the characteristics of conventional truth and ultimate truth” means what the characteristics of the World-Honoured One’s preaching of the Dharma are like. The Buddhas preach to sentient beings solely based on the two truths, and there are no other characteristics. In the commentary, “Phenomena refers to the aggregates, realms, and bases” and so forth refers to the doctrinal gateways and upholding phenomena of the expressed meaning, each and every one of which applies to both of the two truths. Aggregates refers to the five aggregates; realms refers to the eighteen realms; bases refers to the twelve bases; dependent arising refers to the twelve links of dependent arising; truths refers to the four truths; foods refers to the four foods, as stated at the beginning of fascicle 10 of Vasubandhu’s treatise. Dhyānas refers to the four dhyānas; immeasurables refers to the four immeasurables; formless refers to the four formless attainments; liberations refers to the eight liberations; bases of overcoming refers to the eight abhibhvāyatanas; bases of totality refers to the ten kṛtsnāyatanas; limbs of bodhi refers to the thirty-seven limbs [of awakening], and so on. Unhindered cognitions refers to the four pratisaṃvids; non-contention refers to the araṇā-samādhi. “And so forth” covers other numerical dharmas. These are all richly characterized in the later text of the sūtra. In the commentary, “Meaning refers to speaking in accordance with implicit intention” and so forth: “meaning” refers to the underlying reason. In preaching the Dharma, the World-Honoured One speaks either explicitly or with implicit intention. For instance, saying that “all are empty” is spoken from the perspective of ultimate truth; ordinary persons do not understand it and claim there is no conventional truth, and so forth. It is also like the four intentions and four adaptations. The Liang translation explains the meaning: “Meaning refers to what is to be done, hence it is called meaning; generating the path and extinguishing defilements are these matters.” The purport is: the sūtras preached by the Buddha are solely aimed at causing sentient beings to generate the path and extinguish defilements; this is their meaning. It is also the Buddha’s intention.

5.32

In the commentary, “Yogācārabhūmi fascicle 25 and Prakaraṇāryavācā fascicle 20” and so forth is the second part, citing others by analogy. First, citing by analogy: both of those treatises state that a sūtra refers to the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, in that place, for those sentient beings, relying on the distinct varieties of their actions, preaching unreckonable words concordant with the aggregates, and so on at length. Compiling the Dharma refers to gathering the holy words so that the Dharma may long endure, systematically compiling them in fine and wonderful language, threading and sewing together that which leads to benefit and leads to the true, subtle, and real meaning of the holy life; this is a sūtra. In the commentary, “The remaining meanings will be clarified in the Twelvefold Canon” refers to four alternate names mentioned below: (1) relying on the “Chapter on the Two Truths” of the Benevolent King Sūtra, it is called the “root of dharma”; (2) relying on the Liang translation, it is called “holy teaching”; (3) relying on the Satyasiddhi-śāstra, it is called “direct words and speech”; (4) relying on the second fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it is simply called “sūtra”. Among these four, the commentary text already contains the second and the fourth; the first and the third names appear in the chapter “Ten Treasuries”. Furthermore, the third is restricted to the sūtras among the twelvefold divisions, hence it is not explained here. Moreover, Master Huiyuan established three types of sūtras: first, general characteristic; second, specific characteristic; third, abridged characteristic. The Kandingshi refuted the latter two, both of which are treated in the chapter “Ten Treasuries”; hence it says “remaining meanings” and so forth.

5.33

Second is the Vinaya Piṭaka. The commentary text is divided into two parts: first, a general rubric; second, from “In the former” downwards, specific explanations. Within the explanation of the name are two parts: first, the direct explanation; second, distinguishing the alternate names. Now, the first.

5.34

In the commentary, “This is translated as ‘regulation and subduing’”: according to the Kandingshi, it says: “As a translation of meaning, it is ‘regulation and subduing’ (vinaya). If translated as an exact counter-term, it is properly called ‘discipline’ (lù, rules).” Master of Vinaya Su’s commentary says: “In Sanskrit it is vini, or binejia, binaye, binaye; these are all variations due to the light or heavy Sanskrit pronunciation, which have been corrupted and abridged in transmission and do not capture the correct name. The correct form is vinaya, translated here as ‘regulation and subduing’.”

5.35

In the commentary, from “Vini is also translated as ‘extinction’” downwards is the second part, distinguishing alternate names. Within it are four points; here is the first. Regarding the name “extinction”, Dongta also says vinīta, which is translated here as “already subdued”, corresponding to the meaning of extinction. Fascicle 1 of the Mātṛkā says: “Because it extinguishes all bad dharmas, it is called vini.” The subcommentary explains: If based on this explanation, vini is merely an abbreviation of vinīta, which would conflict with the meaning of “regulation and subduing” in vinaya. But as stated above, “Vini, binejia, etc., are all variations of Sanskrit light and heavy pronunciation,” so vini is also an abbreviation of vinaya, containing the two meanings of both “subduing” and “extinction”. Hence the commentary says vini is also translated as extinction. In the commentary, “Extinction has three meanings” and so forth explains the meanings: (1) “Extinguishing karmic faults” refers to not killing, stealing, and so forth; thus in the Vinaya there is “vini for transgressions” (āpattivinaya) and “vini for disputes” (adhikaraṇavinaya). (2) “Extinguishing defilements” refers to them being the root that generates karma; thus the Vinaya states: “In order to regulate and subdue greed, hatred, and so forth to make them end, the World-Honoured One instituted the training in higher morality.” (3) “Attaining the fruit of extinction” refers to the unconditioned fruit; hence the Prātimokṣa Sūtra says: “When morality is pure and endowed with wisdom, one immediately attains the foremost path.” In the commentary, “Or called śīla” and so forth is the second name, which derives its name conjointly from both cause and fruit.

5.36

In the commentary, “Also called prātimokṣa” and so forth is the third name. “Distinguished from [the morality of] concentration and the path” means it is not the two moralities concurrent with concentration and concurrent with the path. It is freedom from the bondages of karmic conditions, and thus is called liberation. In the commentary, “Also translated as ‘concordant liberation’” is a distinct meaning within the third name. Hence the Bequeathed Teaching Sūtra says: “Morality is the foundation of rightly according with liberation, hence it is called prātimokṣa.” Furthermore, the Sandhinirmocana-sūtra says: “The fivefold dharmakāya is called liberation.” In Sanskrit it is vimokṣa. If it is the liberation of nirvāṇa, in Sanskrit it is mokṣa. Based on this, it can also derive its name conjointly from cause and fruit, because “concordance” is the cause. Furthermore, the Kandingshi says: “Leaving faults behind without hindrance is called *amokṣa. Karmic functions without obstruction is called vimokṣa.” It also says: “There is further an alternate name, uparakṣā. This is the Vinaya name of non-Buddhists in the Western Regions. It is also called rājanīti (the character dī being pronounced tí). This is the name for royal law in the Western Regions.”

First 36 of 51 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese