大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 51.5

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.