大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 51.6

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.'