大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 51

English (machine translation) 51

Language: English

51.1

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

The eighth pariṇāmanā. Regarding the commentary's "Naming it from that which is relied upon, the meaning extends to both the active and the passive": merely speaking of the characteristic of tathatā refers to the roots of goodness that are relied upon. Because they coalesce with tathatā as one, the meaning extends to both the active and the passive. Within this there are five: 1. the correct explanation above; 2. citing proof from "Hence the Benye" downward; as for "constantly illuminating," since there are active and passive, it illustrates the single coalesced characteristic. There are further two meanings: 1. the non-duality of existence and non-existence is the single coalesced characteristic, because they are identically tathatā; 2. cognition and sphere merge, transcending active and passive; thus extending to both active and passive makes the characteristic of tathatā; 3. matching the Sanskrit text from "If according to the Sanskrit" downward; 4. presenting the essence from "Namely, taking the dharmadhātu" downward, because the union of active and passive is the dharmadhātu; 5. discriminating against confusion from "This, compared with before and after" downward. "Before" refers to the seventh, because of equally according with sentient beings. "After" refers to the ninth and tenth: the ninth is because of freedom from the bondage and attachment of active and passive; the tenth entering the dharmadhātu is also because of union; hence these four names are mostly liable to be confused with one another, and the commentary discriminates them so that they may be understood. Regarding "The rest is like the fourth pariṇāmanā": in that one, because roots of goodness are like bhūtakoṭi, they reach all places. Previously this was already discriminated against, so now it is not discriminated against the fourth.

51.3

Regarding the commentary's "Among the four, the first sentence generally marks out": the text of the commentary is divided into two parts: first, explaining the general sentence; second, under "The thirty-one vows," explaining them individually. Within the explanation, it first explains "delightful," and thereafter, under "Explaining this," it formally clarifies the topical outline and explanation. Within this there are three parts: first, marking both together; next, under "As for the general," briefly explaining the word "general"; third, under "As for horizontal," explaining both chapters together. Regarding the commentary's "The third encompasses enjoyment and transformation": as it merely states "purity," transformation also possesses purity. Being without afflictions constitutes enjoyment. Since sentient beings are reborn there, it applies to both. Regarding "The remainder are all matters within the land": the fourth is the dissemination of Dharma teachings; the fifth, the practices, is the cultivation of the bodhisattvas; the sixth is the divine eye, for those born in the World of Constant Joy see thoroughly into the ten directions with the divine eye. The seventh is the water, birds, trees, forests, flower-ponds, and jeweled pavilions; the eighth is protecting the Dharma; the ninth is realizing the Dharma; the tenth is the mind being without attachment. The commentary's "forest of unpolluted Dharma" and so on is from the "Buddha Path" chapter of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: "The trees in the forest of unpolluted Dharma, the garden park of dhāraṇī," because the sūtra below states, "taking samādhi as a garden park." Regarding the commentary's "Matching the grass and trees above": the three kinds of grass and two kinds of trees are from the "Medicinal Herbs Parable" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, already cited in the first assembly; because the differences among the five vehicles are due solely to differences in cognition, he matches superior observation cognition against the grass and trees. Regarding the commentary's "The second and third vows clarify the three virtues of fruition-perfection": that which is able to sever is prajñā; that which is severed is liberation; cognition pervading the dharmadhātu is the dharmakāya, taking what is realized. Furthermore, the first is the virtue of cognition, the next is the virtue of severance, and the last is the virtue of grace; by virtue of grace, one can manifest in the world. Therefore, regarding the three virtues of nirvāṇa, it is said in the explanation that the Tathāgata's body is also not nirvāṇa, because it includes the form body.

51.4

Regarding the commentary's "The first sentence establishes the thesis": this means that although one skillfully cultivates correct karma, one knows that the nature of karma is empty. The syllogistic formulation is: Correct karma is the subject (dharmin); being unimpeded between emptiness and existence is the property to be proved (sādhyadharma); the reason (hetu) is "because being established through conditions is just being devoid of intrinsic nature"; the homogeneous example (dṛṣṭānta) is "like an illusion." An illusory phenomenon is born from conditions, and emptiness and existence do not obstruct each other. Correct karma is born from conditions, and like that illusory phenomenon, they do not obstruct each other.

51.5

Regarding the commentary's "Ten sentences and five pairs cause the four minds to become increasingly firm": this answers the question regarding abidance in Vasubandhu's Prajñā[-pāramitopadeśa]-śāstra. If one relies on Asaṅga, it corresponds to the first, the abidance of arousing the mind. However, of Asaṅga's eighteen abidances, each and every abidance answers three questions. The three questions are: how should one abide, how should one cultivate, and how should one subdue one's mind? The Qin sūtra lacks the question on cultivation, combining it in the [other] two. Regarding the abidance of arousing the mind, the sūtra states: "The Buddha addressed Subhūti: 'A bodhisattva should thus subdue his mind. As for all the varieties of sentient beings—whether egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, or miraculously born; whether having form or formless; whether having conception, lacking conception, or neither having conception nor lacking conception (this is the vast mind)—I will cause all of them to enter remainderless nirvāṇa and attain extinction (the supreme mind). Having thus brought measureless, countless, and boundless sentient beings to extinction, in truth there are no sentient beings who attain extinction (the constant mind). Why is this? Subhūti! If a bodhisattva has the notion of a self, the notion of a person, the notion of a sentient being, or the notion of a living being, he is not a bodhisattva (the non-inverted mind).'" The verse of the treatise states: "Vast, supreme, constant, / and the mind not inverted; / abiding in the profound mind of benefit, / the merits of this vehicle are perfected." The first half of this verse marks out the four minds; the second half explains the meaning of abidance. The benefit of the four minds possesses practices for both oneself and others; therefore, in this profound mind the bodhisattva should abide, and the merits of the Great Vehicle will be completely perfected. As for the four minds: liberating all nine classes across the three realms completely is the vast mind. Causing them to enter remainderless nirvāṇa is the supreme mind. The two vehicles still have three remainders and cannot be said to be without remainder, so they are not called supreme; here, between the two kinds of nirvāṇa, remainderless is supreme. Among the four kinds of nirvāṇa, only non-abiding nirvāṇa is supreme. Here, the mention of remainderless is just the Buddha's non-abiding [nirvāṇa]. In former times there were only three nirvāṇas, so remainderless was not stated. That commentary topicalized the above two minds as the abidance of preparatory application. As for the constant mind, the treatise states: "Thus regarding sentient beings as one's own body, constantly never abandoning them, is called the constant mind. The verse uses 'benefit' to explain its meaning of constancy, meaning that when liberating sentient beings one never departs from great compassion of identical substance, like one's own mind; hence it is called constant." The commentary topicalized this mind as the meditation of cultivation. As for the non-inverted mind, the commentary topicalized it as breaking scattered thoughts. As for being non-inverted, the treatise states: "This demonstrates the characteristic of leaving behind dependence on the view of a body, sentient beings, and so forth. Relying on the body and grasping at a self is called the view of a body; possessing the four notions of self and so forth means one is not a bodhisattva, which is called inverted. Now, leaving behind these four means one is a bodhisattva, which is the non-inverted mind." Dayun stated: "This text is just fundamental cognition. The prior text's great compassion is subsequent cognition. Because through fundamental cognition one departs from the view of self, the prior great wisdom contemplating the absence of the characteristic of sentient beings can only then be accomplished." Furthermore, Dayun explained that "in truth there are no sentient beings who attain extinction" comprises five meanings in total: First, because the nature of sentient beings is empty, there is nothing that can be brought to extinction. Second, through the bodhisattva's subsequent cognition and compassion of identical substance, apart from one's own body there are no distinct sentient beings, meaning there is no substance of another. In fundamental cognition one must first leave behind the characteristic of the view of a self, meaning one has no substance oneself. Since there is neither self nor other, in truth no sentient beings attain extinction. Third, all sentient beings are originally in quiescence and extinction, and are not extinguished again. Fourth, in accordance with the dharmatā: the dharmatā is devoid of thought; if the mind gives rise to thought, it contradicts the dharmatā. Fifth, understanding that the dharmadhātu does not liberate sentient beings. Vasubandhu explains: in the equal, true dharmadhātu, the Buddha does not liberate sentient beings. Because of the name 'sentient being,' the name is just the dharmadhātu. The aggregate-body of sentient beings: the aggregates are just the dharmadhātu. Sentient beings and Buddhas are of the same dharmadhātu; how, within this principle, could one liberate sentient beings? Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'All noble and worthy ones are also thus, and even Maitreya is also thus. If Maitreya is to obtain prediction, all sentient beings should also obtain prediction.' Because they are of the same thusness, there should be no distinction; this principle is particularly profound. The reason Vasubandhu has this explanation in the text below is that he is teaching the great bodhisattvas on the stages, because above the first stage they fully realize tathatā, causing those on the stages to learn the Buddha's contemplation of the equal dharmadhātu. And now Vasubandhu precisely explains this text: great compassion of identical substance teaches those before the stages to learn the contemplation of those on the stages, which is why he provides this explanation. Vasubandhu's wondrous intent is clear today." The explanation states: The above is entirely Master Hui's view. Now I say this is not so. Let us ask: are quiescence-extinction and emptiness one or different? If one says they are one, then the first and third are not distinct. If one says they are different, what are their different characteristics? Does it not denote that the dharmatā is originally empty and quiescent? Furthermore, does the phrase 'quiescence and extinction' merely mean the exhaustion of characteristics, or does it reveal the real? If it reveals the real, it is identical to the fifth, the same dharmadhātu. Furthermore, how could compassion of identical substance differ from the same dharmadhātu? And what distinction is there between the fifth, the dharmadhātu, and accordance with the dharmatā? If it is not cognition devoid of thought, it is not called true understanding. Hence we know that when the treatise clarifies the dharmadhātu, sentient beings and the Buddha are viewed in relation to each other; when the treatise clarifies identical substance, the bodhisattva is viewed in relation to sentient beings; therefore they should not be two. Thus the above five explanations should only be made into two. Its meaning of absence of thought should be subsumed under the non-inverted mind. The sūtra only brings up 'self' as inverted; if attachment to dharmas is not obliterated, how could that not be inverted? Therefore, 'non-inverted' refers to stopping and cutting off false conceptions, while the constant mind of identical substance contemplates and merges with the true principle. Therefore, the text of the sūtra explains the above constant mind by means of being non-inverted, asking 'Why is this?': only by being free from delusion can one accord with reality, and only by according with principle can one be free from delusion; the two meanings mutually fulfill each other, so 'there are no sentient beings who attain extinction.' First, according with empty thusness: because its nature is empty and quiescent, there is nothing that can be liberated; second, according with non-empty: they are of the same dharmatā, and because the dharmatā is equal, there is nothing that can be liberated. This sufficiently demonstrates that the profound and marvelous all pertain to the contemplation mind of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, and are not solely regarding principle. Therefore, the commentary text now directly takes the intent of the treatise as the correct explanation. Furthermore, it accords with the present sūtra, using the present sūtra to verify that Vasubandhu's explanation of the sūtra marvelously accords with the holy intent.

51.6

Regarding the commentary's "According with conditions is called thusness (ru)": this is the meaning of concordance with conditions. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "Dharmas accord with thusness, because there is nothing to be accorded with." Now I say that thusness accords with dharmas, because there is no agent that accords; it is because the nature of thusness is empty that it is able to accord with conditions and bring about all things. Regarding the commentary's "Yet the Awakening of Faith says" and so on: within the section on explanation in this treatise, it first explains the gate of the tathatā of the mind, directly presenting the entity of the Dharma in two parts: first, directly revealing the entity of thusness; second, resolving attachments and explaining the name. As for the first gate, the treatise states: "As for the tathatā of the mind, it is the entity of the Dharma-gate of the great general characteristic of the one dharmadhātu; that is to say, the nature of the mind is neither arising nor ceasing. All dharmas are differentiated solely based on false thoughts; if one is free from thoughts of the mind, then there are no characteristics of any realms of objects whatsoever. For this reason, all dharmas from the origin onward are free from the characteristic of speech, free from the characteristic of names, free from the characteristic of mental conditioning; they are ultimately equal, without variation, indestructible, and only one mind; hence it is named tathatā." The explanation states: The text of the treatise above naturally has three sections: first, briefly marking it out based on reality; second, under "All dharmas," resolving falsity and revealing the true; third, under "For this reason," concluding with the true and departing from falsity. These three all directly reveal the entity of thusness, which means being free from falsity and deceit constitutes the true, and being free from differing characteristics constitutes thusness. What is now cited in the commentary is resolving attachments and explaining the name. In full, the treatise states: "Because all spoken explanations are provisional designations without reality, and merely follow false thoughts, they are ungraspable. What is called tathatā is also without characteristics; it is the culmination of speech, using words to dispense with words. This entity of tathatā also has nothing that can be dispensed with, because all dharmas are completely true. Nor is there anything that can be established, because all dharmas are identically thus. One should know that because all dharmas are inexpressible and unthinkable, they are named tathatā." The explanation states: Within the text of the treatise above there are two parts: first, explaining; thereafter, under "One should know that all dharmas," concluding. The former divides into three: First, directly resolving attachment. Fearing that someone might become attached, saying: 'The above stated that it is free from the characteristic of names; why then establish the name of tathatā again?' Therefore it says that this name 'tathatā' is also a provisional explanation. Second, under "The culmination of speech," resolving doubt with regard to the name. The doubt says: 'If it is merely provisionally established, why not establish other names instead of establishing tathatā?' The explanation says: tathatā is the culmination of speech; beyond this there are no further names. Therefore in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, tathatā is called the ultimate name; hence it is called 'the culmination.' Using words to dispense with words, this culminating name is established. Without this name, there would be no way to dispense with names. If one retains this name, one likewise does not dispense with names. Third, under "This entity of tathatā also has nothing that can be dispensed with," explaining dispensability with regard to characteristics. The ancients had many explanations, none of which are now relied upon. Now I say that this is just non-posited tathatā. If explained according to posited [tathatā], dispensing with falsity is called true, and revealing principle is called thusness, agreeing with the intent of the Vijñaptimātra. Now it directly sweeps away both: no dharma is not true—what falsity can be dispensed with? Then the true is not true. No dharma is not thus—what principle can be revealed? Therefore thusness is not thusness. This, then, being without dispensing and without establishing, is non-posited tathatā. Therefore the commentary concludes by saying: 'Solely based on apophatic expression, the true principle is suddenly manifested.'

51.7

Regarding the Commentary's phrase, “Second, clarifying the varieties,” in total there are six approaches: namely, one, two, three, seven, ten, and one hundred, making six categories. Among the twofold [division], there are three and six tathatās, which, together with the eight tathatās, make ten meanings in total. The rest are as explained in the “Ten Treasuries” [chapter] and previous assemblies. Here, only the seven tathatās should now be explained. That is to say, in the third fascicle of the Prakaraṇāryavācā-śāstra, Chapter on Gathering Phenomena (first part, section three), the treatise states: “Regarding the characteristics of mental engagement with tathatā, it refers to mental engagement that takes the seven kinds of pervasive tathatā as its cognitive object, as explained extensively in the sūtra. First is the mental engagement with the tathatā of transmigration, which means having already seen and spoken of the bodhisattvas who, through the practice of superior phenomena, cultivate and master mental engagement, contemplating the real nature of the beginningless transmigration of conditioned phenomena during defiled and pure phenomena. Having contemplated this, they become free from the view of no cause and the view of unequal [causes]. Second is the mental engagement with the tathatā of real characteristics, which means, as previously explained, up to contemplating the nature of the selflessness of persons and the nature of the selflessness of phenomena in all phenomena regarding the causes of defiled and pure phenomena. Having contemplated this, all views of personal identity and mental engagements that conceptualize and discriminate various characteristics no longer arise. Third is the mental engagement with the tathatā of consciousness-only, which means, as previously explained, up to contemplating the consciousness-only nature of all phenomena regarding the basis of defiled and pure phenomena. Having contemplated this, they truly understand that it is solely because the mind is defiled that sentient beings are defiled, and solely because the mind is pure that sentient beings are pure. Fourth is the mental engagement with the tathatā of conventional establishment, which means, as previously explained, up to contemplating the truth of suffering with regard to the essence of defiled and pure phenomena. Having contemplated this, in order to enable them to know it, they preach it for sentient beings. Fifth is the mental engagement with the tathatā of erroneous practice, which means, as previously explained, up to contemplating the truth of arising with regard to the causes of defiled phenomena, preaching it for sentient beings in order to enable them to sever it. Sixth is the mental engagement with the tathatā of purification, which means, as previously explained, up to contemplating the truth of cessation with regard to the essence of pure phenomena. Having contemplated this, they preach it for sentient beings in order to enable them to realize it. Seventh is the mental engagement with the tathatā of correct practice, which means, as previously explained, up to contemplating the truth of the path with regard to pure practice. Having contemplated this, they preach it for sentient beings in order to enable them to cultivate it.” Commentary: The meaning of “mental engagement” is precisely the bodhisattva's contemplation; the rest can be known accordingly, and the Commentary merely lists the names and briefly enjoins them. Regarding the Commentary's phrase, “First, perfecting the function of being a support,” this corresponds to the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra's assertion that tathatā is the support for delusion and awakening. As extensively differentiated in the exposition on the fourfold transformation of the basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti), and discussed again in the “Ten Stages” [chapter]. Regarding the Commentary's phrase, “The Awakening of Faith explains the three greatnesses,” and so forth: the text of the Commentary has four parts: 1. citing the three greatnesses from the treatise; 2. correlating them with the present text; 3. explaining the treatise's greatness of function; 4. correlating them with the one hundred approaches. As for the first, it is entirely the text of the treatise. Yet, under the greatness of essence, following “First, the greatness of essence,” it merely lacks the words “all phenomena.” This is in the section Establishing the Meaning, where that commentary explains the essence, saying: “The true nature is profound and vast, and both ordinary persons and sages, defilement and purity, all take it as their support; hence it receives the name ‘great.’ Conforming to the flow [of saṃsāra], when defilement is added, it does not increase; opposing the flow, when defilement is eliminated, it does not decrease. Moreover, opposing the flow, when purity is added, it does not increase; conforming to the flow, when purity is lacking, it does not decrease.” Truly, because it is neither diminished by defilement nor purity, and does not alter from beginning to end, it is said to be “equal, without increase or decrease.” Second, the greatness of characteristics: the treatise says, “It means the tathāgatagarbha is replete with boundless intrinsic merits.” That commentary explains: “Among the two kinds of garbha, it is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha.” The present Commentary abridges and omits the words “tathāgatagarbha,” solely speaking of the characteristics in terms of tathatā, meaning the virtues not different from the essence; hence they are called “intrinsic merits,” just as the eight virtues of water are not different from water. Third, the greatness of function: this is entirely identical to that commentary. It explains: “It means that conforming to pure karma, in terms of the natural great function and the coarse and subtle functions of the two bodies—reward (saṃbhogakāya) and transformation (nirmāṇakāya)—it causes all sentient beings to first accomplish worldly goodness and ultimately accomplish supramundane goodness.” The text below in that treatise fully reveals the characteristics of this function. Regarding the Commentary's phrase, “However, based on that mind,” and so on: this is the second part, correlating [the treatise] with the present sūtra, and is also resolving an objection. The objection states: “That treatise establishes the three greatnesses based on the one mind, and tathatā is merely one of them; how then can tathatā be endowed with all three greatnesses?” Hence, in its section Establishing the Meaning, it says: “Mahāyāna, generally speaking, has two kinds. What are the two? First is the phenomenon (dharma); second is the meaning (artha). What is termed ‘phenomenon’ refers to the minds of sentient beings; this mind subsumes all worldly and supramundane phenomena, and based on this mind, the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed. What is termed ‘meaning’ has three kinds: first, the greatness of essence,” and so on. Since the broad and the restricted are different, how can it be cited here? Thus it is resolved below, saying: by using the one to unite the two, both belong to tathatā. Therefore, below in the Explanatory Section, it divides into three gates, where tathatā is precisely the essence of the great general-characteristic dharma-gate of the one dharmadhātu. Furthermore, because these two gates are not separate from each other, tathatā must necessarily possess both characteristics and function. Regarding the Commentary's phrase, “However, running contrary to the true,” and so on: this is the third part, explaining the greatness of function. The meaning seems overly narrow, and this also resolves an objection. The objection states: “Since tathatā is the essence of all phenomena and becomes phenomena by conforming to the flow, why does it not say that it can produce evil causes and effects?” Hence this resolution is made. Thus the Yingluo jing says: “Initially giving rise to a single thought dwelling on conditions: conforming to the ultimate truth is named good; turning away from the ultimate truth is named evil.” In terms of the aspect of running contrary, it does not speak of producing evil. Within this, it first clarifies the reason why it does not produce evil, and after “Yet, though contrary and conforming differ,” it explains it as the essence of evil. Master Fazang said: “Because it runs contrary to the true, it cannot be separate from the true; because it runs contrary to the true, it is not its function.” Thus the present Commentary says: separate from tathatā, there would be nothing to run contrary to, so it is not separate. Just as waves run contrary to water, yet apart from water there are no waves. Regarding the Commentary's phrase, “If correlated with this sūtra,” and so on: this is the fourth part, correlating and explaining; whether the sūtra text is complete or lacking will be known below.

51.8

Regarding the Commentary's phrase, “Fourth, the differences according to the teachings may be deduced by analogy”: the Hīnayāna only has the emptiness of the person; the initial teaching establishes the two emptinesses and the six, seven, etc., which are not identical to concrete phenomena; the final teaching maintains that concrete phenomena are themselves tathatā; the sudden teaching mostly employs the non-established meaning; and the perfect teaching is precisely the hundred gates, layered and inexhaustible.

51.9

Regarding the Commentary's 'Fifth, explaining the text,' within this there are three parts: first, recounting past [interpretations]; second, from 'the principle in all [of them] is difficult to reconcile' below, examining agreement and contradiction. Within this are two points: first, refuting [the division]; next, from 'if one accepts' below, conceding and validating the sense of division, rebuking that its characteristics are not set forth, yet in fact conceding and establishing two meanings. Third, from 'for now, [taking] ten times ten' below, presenting the present correct interpretation. In the above examination of agreement and contradiction, both hold reason; yet because the latter has the ultimate division, its reasoning is superior. In the text, it first explains generally; second, from 'first, pervading all' below, it details [them] individually, comprising ten sections. Relying on the ninth [fascicle] of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, although previously expounded separately according to the grounds, they are now cited together to correspond to the text by categorization. Now, first, pervading all places and having signlessness as its sign is the all-pervading tathatā. This tathatā is revealed by the twofold emptiness, for there is not a single dharma wherein it is not present. Vasubandhu explains, 'This dharmadhātu pervades all conditioned formations, because there is no minor dharma that is not devoid of self. Now it is said to be the twofold emptiness, because there is no dharma that is not the twofold emptiness.' Now the Commentary says 'all-pervading,' displaying the meaning of all-pervading, and 'having signlessness as its sign' is the mark of the twofold emptiness. Regarding the Commentary's 'In the second, nothing can measure,' the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi explains the supreme tathatā, saying: 'This tathatā possesses boundless virtues and is most supreme among all dharmas.' The note says: 'Due to departing from the defilement of transgressing the precepts, one realizes this tathatā adorned with virtues.' Now, 'immeasurable and peerless' is the meaning of supreme. Regarding 'In the third' below, the treatise explains the tathatā of supreme outflow, saying: 'The teachings flowing from this tathatā are most supreme among all other teachings.' The note says: 'Due to obtaining the three wisdoms that illuminate the Mahāyāna teachings, one contemplates this tathatā which is the root of the teachings; thus it is named the tathatā of supreme outflow. Or, because one realizes this suchness, one's preaching of the Dharma is supreme.' Now it says 'unhindered in regard to dharmas'; that is, the teachings and the like serve as the eye for all dharmas, which is also supreme outflow. Regarding 'In the fourth' and so on, the treatise says: 'Fourth, the ungrasped tathatā: this tathatā has no attachment or belonging, not being the basis of apprehension for the grasping of self and the like.' Vasubandhu explains: 'In this suchness, there is no conceptualization of what is mine and no grasping of what is mine, just as the people of the Northern Continent have no attachments.' It should be said that this suchness is not what is taken as a basis by the grasping of self, arrogance, love of self, avidyā, extreme views, views of what is mine, and the like. Now, 'non-attachment and non-abiding' is precisely ungrasped. In the fifth, the treatise says: 'Fifth, the tathatā without differentiation of kind: this tathatā has no differences in kind, not being distinct in kind like the eyes and so on.' The note says: 'Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both equal; hence there is no differentiation.' Now it says 'ultimately inexhaustible and unchanging'; how could there be differentiation? In the sixth, the treatise says: 'Sixth, the tathatā free from defilement and purity: this tathatā is by original nature undefiled, nor can it be said to become pure only afterward.' The Madhyāntavibhāga explains: 'Because the sixth ground contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination and knows that dependently arisen dharmas are without defilement and without purity, it is not referring to suchness itself. Because of tathatā dharmas are without defilement and purity; this tathatā is designated as free from defilement and purity.' Now it says 'without conceptual discrimination'; how could there be defilement and purity? In the seventh, the treatise says: 'Seventh, the tathatā of dharmas without difference: although many teachings are variously established, this tathatā is without distinction.' The note says: 'Although various teachings are established based on suchness, suchness is without distinction.' Now it says 'nowhere not present'; how could there be difference? Existence and non-existence are identical in suchness; how could dharmas be differentiated? In the eighth, the treatise says: 'Eighth, the tathatā without increase or decrease: this tathatā is free from attachments to increase or decrease, not increasing or decreasing along with defilement and purity. This is also named the tathatā that is the basis for mastery over marks and realms, for having realized this tathatā, one attains mastery in manifesting marks and manifesting realms.' The note says: 'It does not decrease at the stage of an ordinary person, and does not increase at the stage of a noble one.' Therefore, now it says 'pure and equal'; how could there be increase or decrease? In the ninth, the treatise says: 'Ninth, the tathatā of mastery in knowledge: having realized this tathatā, one attains mastery in unhindered comprehension.' The note says: 'Attaining unhindered comprehension in this ground is named mastery in knowledge.' Now it pervades all knowledge; how could it not know that the realm of the Buddha is true mastery? In the tenth, the treatise says: 'Tenth, the tathatā of mastery in karma: having realized this tathatā, one universally attains mastery in all supernormal actions, dhāraṇīs, and samādhi doors.' Now it says 'abiding in all grounds and becoming buddhas and bodhisattvas,' which is mastery in karma. However, these ten suchnesses distinguish essence in terms of linguistic expression. Were it not so, it would be as if suchness were not all-pervading previously and only now became all-pervading; if one does not speak of what dharmas it pervades in terms of linguistic expression, the above is only a brief abstraction. In the text, each possesses two meanings to form its name; the remaining eight meanings follow the categories of their original names, which may be understood conceptually. Regarding the Commentary's 'Revealed distinctly according to the grounds, only ten suchnesses are spoken of' below, this is the second part, resolving objections. In all, there are four objections: first, the objection on the difference between ten and a hundred; second, the objection on the absence of suchness before and after; third, the objection on the difficulty of perfecting the contemplation of suchness; fourth, the objection that pariṇāmanā is not suchness. Now, the first objection says: 'That [treatise] only mentions ten suchnesses, whereas here a hundred are mentioned; why must the hundred be equated with the ten?' Therefore, it explains: 'To conform to the ten grounds, ten suchnesses are tentatively spoken of. In reality, tathatā possesses inexhaustible virtues; through the mutual containment of ten times ten, a hundred gates are tentatively expounded. Both a hundred and ten constitute one complete cycle and one perfection, their numbers simply conforming to the inexhaustible.' Regarding the Commentary's 'Practiced generally before the grounds' and so on, this is the second part, resolving the objection on the absence of suchness before and after. The objection says: 'If one correlates the hundred gates of suchness with the suchnesses of the ten grounds, then the stages before the grounds, equal awakening, and sublime awakening would be devoid of suchness.' Therefore, to resolve it, it says: 'Before the grounds, one generally cultivates the ten suchnesses; equal awakening universally equals the ten suchnesses; sublime awakening exhaustively realizes the ten suchnesses; they merely correspond to the suchnesses of the grounds without any difference.' Regarding the Commentary's 'However, differences follow distinction in meaning' below, this is the third part, resolving the objection on the difficulty of perfecting the contemplation of suchness. The objection says: 'A bodhisattva of the ten grounds contemplates only one suchness within one ground, realizing that one only after the preliminary practice is perfected. Now that a hundred are enumerated, how could contemplation be perfected? Furthermore, how could one harmonize with suchness which has a single flavor?' Therefore, it replies: 'In terms of graded practice, they are realized separately as ten suchnesses; in terms of completely interfused cultivation, one contains all wonders. The preliminary practices have differences, so they are spoken of as ten distinct ones; when directly realized and integrated, they are originally of only one flavor. Following the gates to enter the principle, a hundred gates are briefly spoken of; if one accords with a single gate, it naturally contains all wonders. Just as a single drop of the ocean possesses the flavor of a hundred rivers, pulling one corner of a garment brings the entire body along.' Therefore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'Although the essence of tathatā has no distinction, ten kinds are provisionally established in accordance with its superior virtues.' Since the ten are provisionally established, the same applies to the hundred gates; virtue and function have many gates, yet their essence is not un-unitary. As for 'the capable pariṇāmanā is also interfused and unhindered': because suchness is interfused, practice conforming to suchness is also interfused. Therefore, in the first ground, one completely penetrates the ten suchnesses, and they are established progressively according to the practices capable of realizing them. Regarding the Commentary's 'Arising practice in accordance with suchness' below, this is the fourth part, resolving the objection that pariṇāmanā is not suchness. The objection says: 'Suchness is omnipresent, and there is no dharma that is not suchness. How could there be another pariṇāmanā outside of suchness to serve as the illustrated?' To resolve the meaning, there are two points: first, illustrating what is not believed through what is believed; second, from 'if one takes the text and meaning' below, establishing the essence and form, whereby the previous objection does not apply.

51.10

Regarding the Commentary's 'Within the hundred gates' below, this is the third part, explaining the text. Within this are two parts: first, general; second, from 'the very first' below, specific. Since it relies on the ten suchnesses, it classifies them into ten times ten. Regarding the Commentary's 'The Great Prajñā says: All buddhas of the three periods take nature-emptiness as the buddha-eye,' this is because seeing the nature is the buddha-eye. Regarding the Commentary's 'The principle is devoid of deluded projections, and existence and non-existence are both real,' this comes from Master Daosheng's fourteen sections on the meaning of the true mark, where it states in full: 'When deluded sentiments are attached, both extremes are lost; losing the principle and turning away from the source, whatever is projected is entirely false. When the principle is devoid of deluded projections, existence and non-existence are both real. Being real, speaking of emptiness can dispel the delusion of those stagnated in existence, and clarifying existence can resolve the confusion of those clinging to emptiness. Thus, the teachings of both emptiness and existence attain reality in their purports.' The explanation says: Herein are three points: first, the falsity regarding sentiment; second, the correctness regarding principle; third, the truth regarding doctrine. Now, we are in the middle of these, applying only the correctness regarding principle. Regarding the Commentary's 'There is not a single' below, within the text are three parts: first, taking up the sūtra; second, from 'If suchness pervades insentient things' below, raising an objection; third, from 'Therefore one should explain' below, harmonizing them. However, this section of the commentary is intended to block the false attachment to the view that all insentient things possess buddha-nature. Regarding the attachment to this view, there are shallow and deep levels. The first claims that spirit transforms into earth, wood, metal, and stone, or that owls and beastly creatures carry lumps [of dirt] to produce offspring, sentient beings turning into insentient things and insentient things turning into sentient beings. This is a heterodox view, no different from non-Buddhists who believe that living grass and trees have life; hence it is unacceptable. If one says that insentient things share the same one nature, this is somewhat closer to the principle, yet one must still grasp the meaning. Their original intention relies on the omnipresence of tathatā's own essence; thus the real nature is not two. For this reason, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says that ultimate emptiness is buddha-nature, and within all dharmas there is the nature of peace and bliss; gathering the objective realm into the mind, there is nothing that is not mind, because the nature of form and the nature of wisdom are non-dual in essence. Passages such as these are found in all sūtras. Now, I consider this interpretation too reductive and extreme, conflating the sentient and the insentient, and destroying nature and characteristics. If one uses the ultimate emptiness of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to encompass both mind and objects universally, why does the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] exclude tiles and gravel, saying they have no nature? This is broadly refuted elsewhere. Now, directly revealing the correct principle: nature and characteristics are neither one nor different, and sentient and insentient are also neither one nor different; therefore one should explain: 'taking the nature to follow conditions' and so on. First, 'as in the Nirvāṇa,' because it excludes walls, tiles, gravel, and the like. Second, 'without awakening or non-awakening,' because within the true nature there is neither mind nor object. Third, 'nothing is not awakened,' because the insentient nature interfuses with the nature of awakening. Therefore it cites the Awakening of Faith, omitting one phrase. However, this meaning has already been cited previously, yet here it is needed again for that treatise's answer to the question: 'Question: If the dharmakāya of all buddhas is free from form-characteristics, how can it manifest various form-characteristics? Answer: Because this dharmakāya is the essence of form, it can manifest form. That is to say, from the beginning form and mind have been non-dual, because the nature of form is the nature of wisdom. The essence of form is formless, called the wisdom-body; because the nature of wisdom is the nature of form, it is called the dharmakāya pervading all places.' Here, it merely takes the meaning of the two natures being mutually identical and interfused to explain it. When the treatise says and so on, it cites it as proof, not as direct proof for what precedes; hence it says it can also prove this. What can serve as proof is that wisdom and the locus of wisdom are identical in prajñā. From 'Since the two natures are mutually identical' below, it concludes the explanation of the sūtra text. From 'How much more so when the mind is the universal mark' below, it adduces a comparison to explain. The former concluded the meaning of one nature; this now concludes the meaning of consciousness-only. As the universal mark, there is nothing it does not encompass. Furthermore, manifold interfusion is the intention of this sūtra: whenever a single dust mote is raised, it contains the dharmadhātu; how could the objective realm of form not be of one nature?

51.11

The ninth pariṇāmanā. Below, 'Now first, taking up the name,' the text has four [parts]: first, explaining the name; second, from 'This is based on the unhindered great function' onward, concluding with how it obtains its name; third, from 'Based on liberation from the afflictive hindrances' onward, correlating the six interpretations of compounds; fourth, from 'Namely, the aforementioned essence and function' onward, identifying the essential nature. Now, the first has three: 1. Explaining freedom from bondage and attachment in terms of practice. In the cited proof, 'all dharmas are without duality' refers to freedom from attachment to the object seen; 'prajñā is unarisen' refers to freedom from attachment in the seeing subject. 'All dharmas are without duality' applies to both the subject and the object above: all dharmas are without duality, and prajñā is unarisen. 'The single unified characteristic of the three periods of time' discusses freedom from attachment longitudinally. The phrase 'single unified characteristic' occurs in the text on the three periods of time, but its meaning applies to the preceding three: first, that all dharmas are without duality; second, that prajñā is without [conceptual] knowing; third, that the above two tally and unite. 2. From 'Furthermore, liberation' onward, the name is explained in terms of function. 3. From 'To what is there no bondage or attachment?' onward, bondage and attachment are specifically analyzed. Therein are four: first, indicating the preceding general explanation; second, setting forth the ten items individually; third, from 'If in terms of' onward, each single item having two [aspects]; fourth, affliction-bondage and attachment, having two [aspects] within one meaning: (1) saṃsāra is the binder, and because of detachment from ordinary worldlings it does not bind. Saying that it is not bound by saṃsāra means merely not being bound by saṃsāra. This is non-bondage and non-attachment to characteristics, while the two vehicles are non-attachment to the object seen. (2) The characteristic of the objective realm does not bind, and the seeing subject is unattached. (3) Active afflictions do not bind, and the object seen is unattached, for the seeds are precisely what is seen. (4) Existence cannot bind, and the emptiness of what is seen cannot attach. (5) Afflictions cannot bind, and seeing and cognition cannot attach. Thus, although there are ten items, they do not go beyond characteristics, afflictions, and the seeing subject and object.

51.12

In the commentary, 'a single tip-of-hair's worth of good' onward is Master Daosheng's interpretation. In the Lotus Sūtra, a single tip-of-hair's worth of good reveals the origin and displays buddhahood, so that raising a hand or bowing the head has already achieved buddhahood. Saying 'none is not an outflow of the Buddha' conveys the meaning of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], where even the scriptures of non-Buddhists are outflows of the Buddhadharma, how much more so internal teachings? This is because teachings of both the greater and lesser [vehicles] all flow forth from the Tathāgata's great compassion.

51.13

In the commentary, 'vowing to become Samantabhadra combines both pariṇāmanās': post-stage Samantabhadra is the Buddha, which is the dedication toward bodhi; before the stage of equal awakening, it is the dedication toward sentient beings.

51.14

In the commentary, 'separately there are fourteen faculties': it says fourteen following the count in the sūtra text, but in meaning they accord with the twenty-two faculties, as explained in the eleventh [fascicle] of the Kośa. In the commentary, 'because of the meaning of superior function, predominance, and luminescence': that treatise explains 'faculty' (indriya) with two meanings, here relying on the Sarvāstivāda school. Thus that treatise says: 'What is most supreme, autonomous, and luminescent is called a faculty; thereby the predominant meaning of faculty is entirely constituted.' The explanation says: because the essence of a faculty is superior, it is 'most supreme'; because the function of a faculty is superior, it is called 'autonomous'; when essence and function are both manifested, it is called 'luminescent'. Having these qualities of being most supreme, autonomous, and luminescent, it is termed 'predominant' (adhipati), using the meaning of predominance to explain 'faculty'. The treatise says: 'With respect to what does this predominance apply?' The exposition says: toward what are the twenty-two faculties predominant? The verse says: 'It is traditionally said: five over four, / four faculties over two kinds, / five and eight in defilement and purification / are individually predominant.' The exposition says: 'It is traditionally said: five over four' means that the five faculties—eye and the rest—exercise predominance over four matters: 1. adorning the body; 2. guiding and nourishing the body; 3. generating consciousness and the rest; 4. exclusive functions. The exposition says: First, being blind, deaf, and so forth is not an adornment. Second, the eye seeing and the ear hearing avoid dangers and difficulties; smell, taste, and touch are of the nature of morsel food, capable of being enjoyed. Third, 'generating consciousness and the rest' includes mental factors. Fourth, 'exclusive functions': the eye only sees, and so forth. 'Four faculties over two kinds' means that male, female, life, and mind are called the four faculties, each obtaining predominance over two kinds. The male and female [faculties] obtain predominance over two: first, differentiation of sentient beings, referring to the difference between male and female kinds; second, differentiation of distinct marks, referring to differences in shape, voice, breasts, and so forth. The life faculty [predominates over] two: first, being able to continue past common destiny (nikāya-sabhāga); second, being able to sustain present common destiny. The mind faculty [predominates over] two: first, being able to continue future existence; second, autonomous accompanying. That is, the sūtra says: 'Mind can lead the world,' which is the meaning of autonomy; 'Mind can encompass and gather all,' which is the meaning of accompanying. In this way, the dharmas of the one mind are all autonomously accompanying. 'Five and eight in defilement and purification': the five refers to the five feelings of pleasure and so forth; the eight refers to the five faculties of faith and so forth plus the three uncontaminated faculties. The five feelings accord with the defilement of the three poisons; the eight faculties of faith and so forth accord with pure dharmas, following their generation and growth. Next, the treatise recounts an alternative view: 'Predominant in cognizing their own objects, / six faculties are established in total (meaning generating consciousness to cognize objects is why they are called predominant faculties); / from the body two faculties are established, / predominant over male and female nature (the same differentiation as before). / Because of predominance in dwelling together, defilement, and purification, / know that life, the five feelings, faith, and so forth are established as faculties.' The exposition says: the lower two lines obtain the meaning of predominance from the upper two lines, hence establishing the name 'faculties'. That is, the life faculty obtains predominance over dwelling in common destiny, the five feelings obtain predominance over defiled dharmas, and faith and so forth, in the stages of heat and summit, suppress the afflictions and induce the noble path. This is largely the same as the previous explanation. The verse says: 'The faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, / and likewise the faculty of complete knowledge, / are predominant in obtaining the later and subsequent paths, / nirvāṇa, and so forth.' The exposition says: 'Likewise' shows analogously that each can individually be a faculty. The faculty of what is not yet known belongs to the path of seeing; the faculty of what has been known belongs to the path of cultivation; the faculty of complete knowledge belongs to the path of no-further-learning. The faculties of what is not yet known and what has been known have predominant functions toward the path of faculties, because the path of seeing induces the path of cultivation. What has been known has a predominant function toward the path of the faculty of complete knowledge, because it induces no-further-learning. Complete knowledge has a predominant function toward nirvāṇa, because through the faculty of complete knowledge the mind attains liberation, and only when the mind is liberated is nirvāṇa realized. What has been known follows what is not yet known, and complete knowledge follows what has been known, hence it says 'later and subsequent'. There is also an alternative view: what is not yet known and what has been known are each predominant in severing afflictions on their own paths, while complete knowledge is predominant in dwelling in pleasant abiding in the present life. The meaning of the faculty of what has been known is established by the standard doctrine. Among the twenty-two faculties, the sūtra omits the two faculties of male and female, while all the rest are present.

First 14 of 27 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese