大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 55

English (machine translation) 55

Language: English

55.1

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

Regarding the commentary's "Second, praising the listeners as free from fault": the commentary text has two parts: first, a general sectioning; second, explaining the text. In the former, citing the Śāstra directly explains the preceding verse; the earlier Śāstra jointly clarified that speaker and listeners are free from fault. The commentary above has already clarified the general intent and that the speaker is free from fault, so now it only cites that the listeners are free from fault. That Śāstra says: "It further reveals that the listeners have resolution in common Dharma, and possess the desire to hear. It further shows that the others have pure minds, and further reveals that this assembly is entirely capable of hearing the Dharma, because the verse says, 'Alternately gazing at one another.'" Explanation: The above is the text of the Śāstra regarding the listeners; now the commentary matches it with the verse, which can be seen in the text. The two words "common Dharma" pervade both verses, as they are the assembly of shared birth. The two words "resolution" belong only to the first verse. "Possessing the desire to hear" is the second verse; being distinct from the "common Dharma" above, it is called "the others," hence they are of diverse births. That "this assembly all rejoices" lets us know that both are praised. "All" means both together. Regarding the commentary's "If there is desire" below: it jointly concludes the above two faculties. If one lacks it in terms of capacity, it is like an ox's footprint being unable to hold the ocean. If one lacks it in terms of desire and affection, it is like Xu You washing his ears. Regarding the commentary's "Sagacious wisdom is the faculty": this is the commentary explaining the Śāstra. "Sagacity" is glossed as wisdom; here two are distinguished: sagacity corresponds to knowledge, knowledge being able to comprehend phenomena; wisdom illuminates principle. Hence teaching and realization are distinguished. When these two are free from obscurity, it is collectively called clear understanding. The essence of the faculty is wisdom, so sagacious wisdom is used to explain the faculty. Regarding the commentary's "Vowing for great bodhi is therefore called valiant": the sūtra says "valiant and free from cowardice," whereas the Śāstra's sūtra text says "bodhisattvas of great renown." Now following the present sūtra's phrasing, vowing for great bodhi is precisely the Śāstra's explanation. Since it says "bodhi," all virtues are superior; with the great vow being primary, it is specifically spoken of. Because the Sanskrit word sattva carries the meaning of valiant, being valiant in seeking bodhi. Thus, though the words of the two sūtras differ, their meaning of vowing to seek bodhi is the same. Regarding the commentary's "Due to being internally free from cowardice": this reconciles the present sūtra with the Śāstra's sūtra text, because the Śāstra's sūtra text says "great renown." If the above three kinds of resolution are spoken of in their distinct aspects, the first two are resolution in realization, and the last is resolution in the āgama; generally, both possess both.

55.3

Regarding the commentary's "In the subsequent verse praising desire" below: the commentary text has three parts: first, brief sectioning and explanation; second, from "The Śāstra says" below, citing the Śāstra to distinguish the intent; third, from "Their minds" below, re-explaining according to essential points. In the second part, there are three: first, citing the Śāstra text; second, from "Present means desire" below, briefly explaining the meaning of "present"; third, from "The intent here clarifies" below, summarizing the Śāstra's intent. In the first, citing the Śāstra text, the Śāstra at first states: "Resolution means that herein there is resolution in the āgama, etc." The reason it first states "resolution" is that the preceding verse says "resolution in common Dharma"; resolution is the faculty, and the faculty is capable of receiving the Dharma, hence it says "resolution." The intent here states: as for the word "resolution," only when both faculty and desire are complete can it be called resolution. If there is only the faculty without desire, the Dharma vessel is incomplete and not true resolution; hence it is stated here: to speak of "resolution," one must have both faculty and desire. Regarding the phrase "herein": among the listeners there is resolution in the āgama. Regarding "not resolution in realization": it means that if the preceding verse only had the faculty of teaching and not the faculty of realization, it would also be incomplete; this conversely reveals that the preceding verse has both teaching and realization. Next, stating "having only non-present resolution and lacking present resolution": this clarifies that if the preceding verse had the faculty of teaching and realization, it would be non-present resolution, but lacking the present resolution of desire now, the Dharma vessel would also be incomplete. It concludes: "Because such a Dharma vessel is not fully complete, they cannot listen and receive"; this conversely reveals that the preceding verse has the faculty and this [verse] has desire, making it complete. The two words "if only" were added by the commentary's sense to make the meaning clear, without violating the intent of the Śāstra.

55.4

Regarding the commentary's "Present means desire" below: this is the second [part], explaining the meaning of present and non-present. Regarding "The faculty is merely implicitly possessed": someone may possess the wisdom capable of hearing as an implicit possession, but does not yet desire to hear; hence it is called implicitly possessed. Implicitly possessed means accomplished from past lives. It is like the master of the five crests, who fully possessed the seven virtues and was capable of transmitting the six categories of teachings, yet was attached to his wife and servants and did not yet desire its teaching.

55.5

Regarding the commentary's "The intent here clarifies" below: this is the third [part], summarizing the Śāstra's intent. That is, the Śāstra says: "Showing that this assembly fully possesses resolution, and is therefore capable of listening and receiving."

55.6

Regarding the commentary's "Their minds are free from cowardice" below: this is the third [part], re-explaining according to essential points. Herein are two: first, directly explaining this line; later, from "Summarizing the preceding two verses" below, jointly concluding the intent of praise, explaining the first line and the fourth line.

55.7

Regarding the commentary's "4. Turbidity of divergent thoughts": the Śāstra says, "The fourth is turbidity of divergent thoughts, due to a mind of envying the superior and a mind of destructiveness." Explanation: Envying the superior pertains to persons; destructiveness pertains to the Dharma; moreover, it also applies to both. Now, not following the Śāstra, saying "arrogance" and so forth broadens the meaning of divergent thoughts. That is, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, fascicle 38, says: "Listening to the Dharma, by abandoning six kinds of marks, one is far removed from the defilement of arrogance. By four kinds of marks, one is far removed from the defilement of contempt. By one kind of mark, one is far removed from the defilement of cowardice. The six kinds are: 1. listening at the proper time; 2. listening with earnestness; 3. listening with reverence; 4. listening without intent to harm; 5. listening without intent to oppose; 6. listening without seeking faults. The four marks are: 1. revering the true Dharma; 2. revering the speaker; 3. not disparaging the true Dharma; 4. not disparaging the speaker. The one mark is not despising oneself. Furthermore, by five marks, one listens to the Dharma with an undistracted mind: 1. a mind seeking understanding; 2. a focused and consummate mind; 3. listening to the sound and inclining the ear; 4. cleansing one's mind; 5. gathering all of the mind. Therefore, in sum there are two: being undefiled, and having an undistracted mind, listening to the Dharma single-mindedly." Now the commentary mentions the former two names, including cowardice and freedom from distraction. All of the above are divergent thoughts. Envying the superior and destructiveness—these two are particularly grave, which is why the basic Śāstra cites them.

55.8

Regarding the commentary's "5. Turbidity of deficient merit": this entire passage is the Śāstra text. "Wholesome roots being meager" speaks of the cause; "the mind takes no pleasure in abiding" clarifies the lack of present fruition. That is, because wholesome roots are meager, there are many conditions, much illness, indolence, and agitation, so that during the exposition the mind takes no pleasure in abiding.

55.9

Regarding the Commentary's statement on "sixth, the turbidity of delusion": "Delusion" refers to being confused about the teachings, and "darkness" refers to being bewildered about the principle; this explains the aforementioned "stupidity." Under the Commentary's "third, the single verse of twofold praise," there are three parts: first, a general explanation of the verse; second, harmonising the treatise and the sūtra; third, a distinct explanation of the metaphors. In the first part, "looking at one another is the general [praise]" refers precisely to the general sense of this verse. Since both assemblies are praised together, the general sense of looking at one another pervades the preceding four verses, yet the treatise specifically states that it is the general summary of this verse. The remaining verses below follow this example: each has a general and a specific [aspect]. Thus, among the praises of ordinary beings, being without turbidity is the general aspect; in the praise of desire above, desiring to hear is the general aspect; in the initial praise of faculties, determination is the general aspect; and in the praise of the one able to speak, pure awakening is the general aspect. The specific aspects and so forth can be understood accordingly. From "The Treatise-Sūtra states" onward in the Commentary is the second part, harmonising with the sūtra text, which has three subparts: first, presenting the treatise-sūtra; second, citing ancient explanations; third, harmonising with the present sūtra. As for mindfulness pervading both teaching and realisation: ripening honey is like the teaching; honey being completed is like realisation. Here, mindfulness is twofold: if one clearly remembers, that is mindfulness of the teaching; if one is mindful without thought, that is mindfulness of realisation. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: "If one knows that there is neither that which is mindful nor that which is minded, this is called accord"—this is mindfulness of the teaching; "If one is free from thought, it is called attaining entry"—this is mindfulness of realisation.

55.10

From the Commentary's "However, bees…" onward is the third part, distinctly explaining the metaphors. The joy of the Dharma is like honey, for honey is food. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "With the food of Dharma joy and dhyāna delight, / There is no further thought of other food." Liberation matches the aforementioned sweet dew (amṛta), for sweet dew is like syrup. Thus the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: "With sweet dew as the food of Dharma, / The flavour of liberation serves as syrup"—that is, sweet dew serves as food. Here, honey corresponds to food, so sweet dew is matched with liberation. Therefore, in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra as well, sweet dew is used to metaphorise nirvāṇa, since nirvāṇa is indeed liberation.

55.11

Regarding the Commentary's statement "this is the general characteristic of the response": the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, the direct explanation; second, from "Therefore, the meaning of the subsequent verse…" onward, using this prose passage to establish the text of the subsequent verse.

55.12

Regarding the Commentary's statement "eliminates the preceding doubt and distress": because previously seeing the silence generated doubt, and doubt leads to distress of mind; moreover, having requested [the teaching] but it not yet being spoken, the mind was still doubtful and distressed. Therefore it is eliminated to cause the mind to attain joy. However, the "great wisdom and fearlessness" is the compiler of the sūtra capturing the intention of that time to praise and recount the speaker; hence the treatise master uses this to accomplish the preceding general making of their minds joyful.

55.13

Regarding the Commentary's statement "second, the unhesitating response": the treatise explains: "Free from incorrect exposition: if one fears the great assembly, one is incapable of speaking; if one speaks in accordance with personal sentiments, that is incorrect exposition."

55.14

Regarding the Commentary's statement "dispels the preceding doubt of 'by what cause' and establishes that there is wisdom above": above, it said: 'By what cause and what condition does he not speak?' The treatise explains: 'Is it because the speaker cannot speak? Or is it because the listeners are incapable of hearing?' Now, saying it is difficult to speak does not mean he cannot speak; establishing that there is wisdom above is also due to it being difficult to speak. From "it is not that one lacks wisdom oneself" onward, dispelling the preceding 'what condition' can be understood by following this example. From the Commentary's "Now, the character 'difficult' at the end of the first verse" onward, the Commentary text has four parts: first, explaining the character "difficult"; second, "this difficulty is twofold," which distinctly explains the fourth line, where the first four characters elucidate the characteristics of the meaning of "difficult"; third, from "What is..." onward, explaining the first two lines to elucidate the essence of the difficult Dharma; fourth, from "this teaching and realisation" onward, explaining the third line to reveal the locus of its difficulty. In the third part, stating that "awakening to the Buddha's wisdom is why he is called 'Buddha'": however, the treatise merely says, "The root of all Buddhas is because of awakening to the Buddha's wisdom." These words confuse people, because "Buddha" is a Sanskrit phonetic transcription and "awakening" (jue) is the Chinese word. If following the Western language, one should say "Buddha-ing the Buddha's wisdom"; if following this land, one should say "awakening to the awakened wisdom." How could one take Chinese to explain Sanskrit as an explanation of the meaning? There is a profound intent here: the Buddha's wisdom is indeed bodhi, which is here simply called "awakening." "Buddha" is the person, translated here as "awakened one." Because the person attains the Dharma, he is named the "awakened one." Therefore the present Commentary says: "Because of awakening to the Buddha's wisdom, he is therefore called Buddha." Now, the bodhisattvas of the ten bhūmis are the persons able to awaken, who will also take the causal wisdom to awaken to the Buddha's wisdom, and therefore it is the root of the Buddhas. In order to distinguish person and Dharma, Sanskrit and Chinese are mutually displayed, which is the subtlety of the translator. Now the character "to" (yu) is added in order to explain the treatise. In the fourth part, "difficult to reveal and difficult to speak" is identical to the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa's "The expounder of the Dharma neither speaks nor reveals"; the subsequent treatment of "difficult to hear" corresponds to "The listener to the Dharma neither hears nor attains." However, "neither/none" is exclusively an apophatic negation, whereas "difficult" distinguishes both apophatic and kataphatic aspects. If based on the Laṅkāvatāra, the fundamental principle (siddhānta) pervades one's own practice, while exposition (deśanā) pervades revealing to the unawakened; fundamental principle and exposition are indeed teaching and realisation, and thus the two are completely distinct. Now, elucidating that teaching and realisation both have exposition: there is revealing and there is speaking, yet it merely says it is difficult. Then, if revealing is identical to speaking and identical to realisation, how can the characteristics of speaking and realisation be known? Setting aside verbal expressions to discuss the real, the true essence is of a single taste, which is spoken of as realisation; this is also as explained in the three gradual stages of the greatness of meaning and the greatness of exposition. If the ultimate and conventional expressions differ, it is expounded as the ten bhūmis and designated as the teaching; because realisation subsumes the teaching, both are difficult to speak.

55.15

In the Commentary's "second, explaining the reason why it is difficult," the Commentary text has two parts: first, generally elucidating the reason; second, explaining following the text. In the first part, it reflects the treatise's intention: when the treatise says "practice," it repeats the preceding bodhisattva practice; "matters" repeats the preceding matters of the bhūmis; "abiding in meaning" is inverted phrasing and should say "meaning of abiding." Therefore the Commentary says: "because of abiding in the subtle and profound meaning." "Profound meaning" is the wondrous principle of the greatness of meaning. From the Commentary's "The first two lines in the verse..." onward, it explains following the text. Regarding the Commentary's "because it is difficult to attain and difficult to realise": the treatise-sūtra says "difficult to attain," and the treatise's explanation says, "'difficult to attain' means difficult to realise," which explains "attaining" by means of "realising." Now the Commentary cites both the sūtra and the treatise. Because the treatise-sūtra contains the character "difficult" as well as the characters "difficult to attain," whereas the present sūtra has only the single character "difficult," it therefore cites both that sūtra and the treatise. The verse in the treatise-sūtra says: "Subtle, difficult to see, free from thoughts, / Not the ground of mind, difficult to attain; / The cognition of the realm is undefiled (anāsrava); / If heard, one would be bewildered and confounded." Under the Commentary's "difficult to attain has four [meanings]," it explains the specifics. There are three parts therein: first, explaining the contrast with the inferior to reveal the profound in the first two lines; second, from "Since it is not the four minds..." onward, explaining the third line; third, from "The final line says..." onward, explaining the fourth line. In the first part, first, "not the domain of wisdom arisen from hearing" has two meanings: first, it is not the knowable domain; second, it is not the delimited domain, because within wisdom arisen from hearing there is no such characteristic. The treatise explains wisdom arisen from hearing: "Coarse matters do not require reflection, meaning that the coarse matters of the doctrinal teachings can be attained by wisdom arisen from hearing." Second, wisdom arisen from reflection can be clearly seen in the mind. Third, mundane cultivation has not yet forgotten thoughts and deliberation, and therefore both are excluded. Question: All three wisdoms are mundane; why, regarding cultivation, is it specifically said to be mundane? Answer: Because of two meanings: first, cultivation has the genuine and the counterfeit; genuine cultivation resembles direct realisation, so it is not excluded; second, the consciousness and wisdom of karmic retribution are also wisdom arisen from cultivation, and here only mundane cultivation is taken. Under the Commentary's "fourth, transcending the ground of mind," the Commentary text has four parts: first, explaining the sūtra by means of the treatise; second, from "meaning transformation..." onward, the Commentary explaining the treatise; third, "knowing impermanence" and so forth explaining the sūtra's words "ground of mind"; fourth, from "Furthermore, this 'well attained'..." onward, re-explaining the treatise text. In the second part, the statement "well attaining the wisdom of the path of cultivation" means that it is attained upon birth without requiring cultivation and practice, hence it is called "well attained," just as one who knows by birth is superior. Stating "impermanence and so forth" includes suffering, emptiness, non-self, as well as permanence, bliss, self, and purity; because of having long cultivated undefiled causes in the past, the transformation body answering to them is called retribution-born. The statement "because of not illuminating reality" explains the inability to know. For illuminating reality involves forgetting the mind and realizing the ultimate; now, although retribution-born consciousness and wisdom know impermanence and so forth, because they do not tally with it, they cannot know this. Regarding the Commentary's "not having forgotten mind and objects is called the ground of mind": the phrase "ground of mind" generally has two meanings: first, in terms of essence, as the Brahmajāla-sūtra speaks of Vairocana Buddha's Dharma-gate of the ground of mind, meaning that the essence of the mind contains, produces, and sustains—this is also like what the Lotus Sūtra calls the "ground of all-knowledge." What is now called the ground of mind that is excluded refers to the Dharma-gate of the mind's measure; hence the Laṅkāvatāra says: "Awakening to the mind's own manifest measure, / The measure of the mind that is not mind, / I teach as the measure of the mind; / For the measure of the mind is indeed the ground of mind." Regarding the Commentary's "second, departing from arising is undefiled": as the path of seeing is called departing from arising because it is undefiled. The meaning of departing from arising has already been explained frequently before; this is truly because the treatise-sūtra states "the cognition of the realm is undefiled." For this reason, harmonising with "undefiled," arising is entirely departing from faults, deriving its name from its intrinsic essence. Producing the Buddha's wisdom is in terms of function, establishing its designation with respect to the other. Yet the two are mutually accomplished: because of being undefiled, it is able to produce the Buddha's wisdom.

55.16

Regarding the commentary's words "that is, the cognition of looking up to and inferring among the three kinds of correct cognition in the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra": that sūtra states, "Queen Śrīmālā addressed the Buddha, saying: 'What are the three kinds of good sons and good daughters who, regarding the extremely profound meaning of the Dharma, are free from self-deprecation and slander, produce great merit, and enter the Mahāyāna path? What are the three? Namely, if there are good sons and good daughters who themselves achieve the profound cognition of the Dharma; if there are good sons and good daughters who achieve the cognition that accords with the Dharma; and if there are good sons and good daughters who do not understand profound Dharmas by themselves, but look up to and infer [it from] the World-Honoured One, [thinking,] "It is not my realm, only the Buddha knows it"—these are called good sons and good daughters who look up to and infer the Tathāgata's cognition. Apart from these good sons and good daughters, other sentient beings cling persistently to false explanations regarding profound Dharmas, contravene the true Dharma, and cultivate the corrupted seeds of the heterodox traditions; they should be subdued by the power of kings and the power of devas, nāgas, ghosts, and spirits.'" Next, regarding the commentary's words "What is it that is trusted in?": this explains the phrase "the Buddha's superior cognition". Within this there are four parts: first, explaining why the cognition of the stages attains the Buddha's cognition; second, beginning with "The Buddha's cognition is of two kinds", distinguishing the meanings and explaining them separately; third, beginning with "namely, the Lotus [Sūtra]", adducing proof to substantiate the superior meaning; fourth, beginning with "Regarding these", correlating the capable with the object and concluding. In the second part there are four pairs of meanings, which jointly form a single meaning: namely, first, the former is the real cognition of bodhi, and the latter is the expedient cognition for transforming beings; second, the former is one's own practice, and the latter is benefiting others; third, the former is the path of realization, and the latter is the path of teaching; fourth, the former real cognition accords with nature and is without measure, while the latter expedient cognition is distinct and has concealment and manifestation. Preaching the expedient as the real conceals the real and displays the expedient; preaching the expedient as the expedient causes both the expedient and the real to be manifest. Its "boundless varieties" refers to the text of the treatise. Because the Buddha's bodhi has no bounds, the Dharma methods preached by the Buddha to transform beings have diverse varieties. Next, regarding the commentary's words "that is, the Lotus [Sūtra]": this is the third part, adducing proof to substantiate the superior meaning. Namely, the beginning of the "Expedient Means" chapter says: "At that time the World-Honoured One calmly arose from samādhi and addressed Śāriputra: 'The wisdom of the Buddhas is profoundly deep and measureless. Its gate of wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter.'" The treatise explains: "'The wisdom of the Buddhas' refers to the profundity of realization. 'Its gate of wisdom' refers to the profundity of the scriptures (āgama)." These two phrases are the two paths of the Buddha's teaching and realization. Hence the ancients said: "Proclaiming the two profundities first is to alert and awaken the minds of the entire assembly." That sūtra itself explains: "The Tathāgata's knowledge and vision are vast, profound, and far-reaching"—this is the real cognition; "The Tathāgata has fully perfected the pāramitās of upāya, knowledge, and vision"—this is the expedient cognition. The reason why they are difficult to understand is: first, their intrinsic essence is profound; second, the expedient and the real conceal and manifest. Therefore it says that only Buddhas can know it. The subsequent expanded text says: "The Buddhas preach the Dharma according to what is suitable, yet their intent is difficult to understand"—this is the gate of wisdom being difficult to enter; "It is solely for the sake of the one great cause that they appear in the world"—this is the wisdom being profoundly deep. Formerly, not speaking of the three was due to expedient means, so the gate of expedient means was closed; now, speaking of the three vehicles opens the gate of expedient means. When it is opened, one sees the real. Therefore that sūtra says: "This sūtra opens the gate of expedient means and reveals the characteristic of the real." The gate of expedient means is like the flower of the lotus, and the characteristic of the real is like the lotus fruit within the flower. If this flower does not exist, that is all; but once it exists, it contains both flower and fruit. If this sūtra is not preached, that is all; but once preached, both the expedient and the real are delineated. The entire sūtra is only for the sake of preaching the Buddha's wisdom. That text says: "It is for the sake of preaching the Buddha's wisdom that the Buddhas appear in the world." Because the Buddha's wisdom is not separate from teaching and realization, the expedient and the real, it speaks of the two profundities, thereby briefly showing the central tenets of the Lotus Sūtra. These two are also what the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra refers to: "The perfection of wisdom is the mother of the bodhisattvas, and upāya is their father; among all guides of the world, there are none who are not born from them." Therefore, the two paths of the cognition of the stages completely reach the two profundities of the fruit-ocean; this is what is trusted in. In the fourth part, "Because one can have faith in these two profundities", it concludes the meaning of faith. Regarding the commentary's words "The mental ground refers to the phenomenal phenomena on which the true principle of the twofold emptiness relies—that is, the characteristics of consciousness-only": this brings forth the essence of the meaning. Stating "phenomenal phenomena on which it relies" clarifies that it is not the principle that relies on them, for principle is selflessness. Stating "the characteristics of consciousness-only" reveals that it is not the nature of consciousness-only; the nature of consciousness-only is the principle of twofold selflessness, and the principle of twofold selflessness is the ultimate truth. Hence the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "This ultimate truth of all phenomena is also tathatā, because it is eternally like its nature; that is the real nature of consciousness-only." This distinguishes the two differing approaches of nature and characteristics: this very mental ground is the phenomena and principle of selflessness, neither different nor identical. Hence it is what is trusted in here. Next, beginning with "The treatise states": the treatise's explanation of the mental ground encompasses two categories. The first is the eighth consciousness; the second, beginning with "Moreover, according to the mind", encompasses the seven consciousnesses and the objects cognized by the eighth consciousness. As for "internal and external sensory realms", the six consciousnesses cognizing the six dusts are external realms, and the seventh cognizing the eighth is the internal realm. The eighth consciousness cognizing the three realms—the sense faculties, physical body, and seeds—is the internal realm, while cognizing the receptacle world is the external realm. Furthermore, the mental consciousness also generally cognizes both internal and external. The five consciousnesses also possess the meaning of encompassing both internal and external; hence it says "all realms". They are all called the "mental ground" because of the meaning of generation and maintenance: relying on the eighth, the seventh is produced, and the seventh in turn perfumes and forms the eighth; because mind transforms into realms, and relying on realms mind is produced, they all receive the name "mental ground". Next, beginning with "Regarding these two categories", the commentary brings together the meaning of the single line in a general synthesis.

55.17

Regarding the commentary's words "The first half is a metaphor, the latter half applies it", and so forth: this passage of the commentary has four parts: first, a general structural analysis; second, beginning with "The intent of the metaphor here", a general presentation of the point of the metaphor; third, adducing the treatise to explain in detail; fourth, analogously explaining preaching and silence. Within the second part there are three: first, explaining the characteristics of the metaphor; second, beginning with "Within this, the dependent...", adducing the phenomena to apply it; third, beginning with "However, drawing pictures in the wind in the sky", directly revealing the intent of the metaphor.

55.18

Regarding the commentary's words "The treatise has three sections": this is the third part, adducing the treatise to explain in detail. It fully cites the treatise text, and the structural analysis and explanation are completely provided; it can be seen by examining it closely. However, the text says: "Applying [it to] 'non-existent' above, that is, applying 'lacking intrinsic nature' to 'non-abiding' above." This is because the treatise above says: "Because lacking intrinsic nature cannot be grasped, it is non-abiding." Thus we know that lacking intrinsic nature cannot be grasped because sounds, names, and so forth lack nature through conditions and therefore cannot be grasped. Just as those drawings in the wind depend on empty space without abiding, so it says "applying lacking intrinsic nature to non-abiding above". Regarding the commentary's words "Showing the reason why lacking intrinsic nature is non-abiding": this means sounds are produced from conditions, so they have no intrinsic nature. Names are established relying on phenomena, so they are provisional. Hence Master Zhao said: "Names do not have the power to grasp things; things do not have the actuality to match names. If names lack the power to grasp things, they are not names; if things lack the actuality to match names, they are not things." If actuality were identical to names, seeing a face one should know the name; if names were identical to actuality, calling out 'fire' should burn the mouth. Hence we know that names are conventional designations; how could they have intrinsic nature? Thus they match the wind and so forth combining with empty space. Regarding the commentary's words "However, the treatise sūtra says 'the Buddha's cognition'": this is to reconcile [it with] the treatise sūtra. The similarities and differences between the two versions of the sūtra can be known.

55.19

Regarding the commentary's words "Since provisional and real differ, both are adduced together": this shows the reason for using four [elements]. That is, sounds are real, whereas names, phrases, and syllables are provisional; thus, it takes all four phenomena collectively as the meaning of the teaching-essence. Regarding the commentary's words "Furthermore, provisional and real rely on each other": this re-explains the reason for using the four. Names and the rest rely on sound to have inflections, so names and the rest are the dependents. If there were no names and the rest, mere sound alone could not express meaning, so it would not be the teaching-essence. Thus sound relies on names and the rest; hence it says that the provisional and the real rely on each other.

55.20

Regarding the commentary's words "If one uses the two metaphors to symbolize what is expressed": this is the fourth part, analogously explaining preaching and silence. That is, the above treatise text only uses the wind and drawings to symbolize that which expresses, and only uses empty space to symbolize the expressed Buddha-cognition. Now, drawing an analogy to the treatise's intent, regarding what is expressed alone there naturally are two layers of distinction between the active and passive, and when combined with the treatise's intent above, there are three layers. Within this there are two parts: first, taking the dependent toward the relied-upon, all three layers are inexpressible: 1) taking the expression toward the purport, 2) taking the characteristic toward cognition, and 3) taking the cause toward the fruit. Later, beginning with "If one follows the cause from the fruit", analogously taking the relied-upon toward the dependent, all three layers can be conveyed in words: 1) following the cause from the fruit, 2) following the characteristic from cognition, and 3) taking the purport toward the expression. In this way, the wind and drawings symbolize three phenomena: 1) the teaching, 2) the characteristics of the stages, and 3) the cognition of the stages. One should know that empty space also symbolizes three phenomena: 1) what is expressed, 2) the cognition of the stages, and 3) the fruit-ocean. In total there are four phenomena forming three layers of active and passive; when viewed forward and backward reciprocally, there are six layers, which one may contemplate for oneself.

55.21

Regarding the commentary's words "If one accords with the meaning above": this passage of the commentary has three parts: first, taking up what preceded to raise a inquiry giving rise to the intent of the subsequent verse; second, beginning with "The intent means", presenting the verse's intent in response; third, beginning with "The first line is what is realized", explaining the text.

55.22

Regarding the third [part], praising the assembly's capability to hear the request, the commentary states from "This further praises..." downward to explain the intention behind the praise. First, asking why it says "this further praises": previously, in the request that wondered at the silence and voiced doubts, there were already four verses praising the assembly's request; why repeat the praise now? From "Because of hearing the above words, realizing faith..." downward, it explains the intention behind the repeated praise: the former praise of the assembly did not arise due to stopping [the discourse], whereas now the praise arises due to the Dharma Lord having previously stopped [the discourse]; thus it is praised again. The commentary states: "1. 'Pure and clear in thought' is purity of desire," and so forth: among these five purities, the first two are the wisdom of hearing, the third and fourth are the wisdom of reflection, and the fifth is the wisdom of cultivation. Purity of desire is the mind that seeks the Dharma; delighting in the Dharma is called desire. "Accordant with the āgamas that one contemplates, obtaining skillful contemplation and awakening purity" is the text of the treatise. From "obtaining skillful means" downward, the commentary interprets the text of the treatise. What was said above about "accordant with what one contemplates" means that what is contemplated is not singular. Obtaining skillful contemplation and awakening refers to the mind capable of contemplating: contemplation is desiring contemplation, and awakening is reflective awakening. The commentator only explains the expression "obtaining skillful means." However, "skillful means" has two meanings: first, contemplation and awakening serve as the reason for the wisdom of hearing; second, not grasping onto the characteristics of contemplation. The present commentary only brings forth the profound meaning. The commentary states: "Respectful and compliant in the three karmas, giving rise to practice that seeks the Dharma": giving rise to practice to gather the Dharma is therefore called "seeking"; merely causing the cultivation of the three karmas to accord with the Dharma is termed "seeking." The commentary states: "'Purity of acquired birth' corresponds to the fourth in the treatise; here the treatise is brought to match the sūtra." "Where sentient beings are benefited" refers to the highest, superior births. "The superior contemplation of compassion and wisdom" refers to the reflective mind. This accords with the text of the treatise. If according to Master Huiyuan's meaning: the wording of the treatise is inverted and should say "purity of obtained birth"—"birth" being the superior birth sought, and "obtained" being the wisdom of reflection that amasses superior thoughts. This is also a valid interpretation. The commentary states: "'Namely, purity of reception and retention' corresponds to the third in the treatise." Retention is the wisdom of reflection, keeping in mind and not forgetting. The sūtra speaks of "drawing near to Buddhas," while the treatise speaks of "receiving and retaining"; how could their meanings be the same? Hence the commentary clarifies the intention, stating: the intent of drawing near to Buddhas lies in receiving and retaining the Dharma. However, the treatise's sūtra text considers that by seeing many Buddhas and receiving and retaining the Dharma, one constantly attains superior births, and therefore reception and retention is third. The present sūtra considers that because one obtains superior births, one sees Buddhas and receives and retains the sublime Dharma life after life, and therefore reception and retention is fourth, yet both belong to the wisdom of reflection. The commentary states: "'Roots of goodness detached from clinging': when wishing to enter realization, one must first cultivate the practices detached from clinging—the twelve dhūtas—all of which are for relinquishing clinging." The commentary states: "'Because of obtaining pure immediate cognition and excellent determination'—all above is the text of the treatise." From "meaning the true path of seeing" downward, the commentary interprets it. Therein are two parts: first, separately correlating "immediate cognition" and "excellent determination"; later, from "it may also..." downward, universally correlating both phrases. In the former, the two characters "immediate cognition" are correlated with the true path of seeing, which is the fourth, "immediate cognition wisdom on the truths" (satya-abhisamaya-jñāna), among the six clear observations (abhisamaya); clear observation of the truths is called immediate cognition. The commentary states, from "in the semblance path of seeing" downward, that the characters "excellent determination" are correlated with the semblance path of seeing. In speaking of "subsequently attained cognition": regarding the three-mind path of seeing, some correlate it with the fundamental cognition, while others correlate it with the subsequently attained cognition. That treatise takes the latter meaning as correct; therefore, in the present commentary it is named the semblance path of seeing, whereby the three minds and the sixteen minds are all correlated with the subsequently attained cognition. In speaking of "closely observing the principle and cognition": the three-mind path of seeing all takes the principle as its object; the sixteen-mind path of seeing contemplates tathatā in eight [minds] and contemplates correct cognition in eight [minds]; thus we know that the semblance path of seeing universally takes both principle and cognition as objects. The commentary states: "It may also universally apply...", and so forth, universally correlating both phrases, which previously was not permitted. That is to say, previously the semblance path of seeing was not called immediate cognition, but now it also receives this name because the treatise also terms it clear observation. The three-mind path of seeing is also subsumed under a portion of the fourth clear observation, because it observes the non-conceptually established via non-conceptual subsequently attained cognition. The sixteen-mind path of seeing is subsumed under the fifth clear observation. The commentary states: "'In the true path of seeing, determining the principle without confusion': above, the true path of seeing was only named clear observation, not excellent determination. Now it is also named 'determination' because it directly realizes tathatā and is definitive with regard to the principle." The commentary states: "'Both breaking through ignorance is called relinquishing delusion and doubt' matches and interprets the sūtra text with the above two explanations." Above, it only interpreted the treatise's words "immediate cognition and excellent determination"; here, what is clarified is that both kinds of the path of seeing break through ignorance, and therefore the sūtra says "relinquishing delusion and doubt." That is to say, the true path of seeing is directly capable of breaking through ignorance that confuses the principle, and hence it is called "relinquishing delusion." In the semblance path of seeing, it is the subsequently attained cognition, which lacks the power to break through ignorance that confuses the principle, yet can break through ignorance that confuses phenomena—namely, cognitive obscurations—and hence it is called "leaving doubt." Therefore, below Vajragarbha takes up this text, saying: 'Although this gathered assembly is pure and clear in thought, relinquishing foolish delusion as well as doubt.' One clearly knows that the two characters 'delusion' and 'doubt' differ in meaning. What was mentioned above as the six clear observations: in the ninth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, after explaining the two paths of seeing, it states: 'These two paths of seeing are subsumed within the six clear observations. What are the six clear observations? 1. Clear observation through reflection, which is the wisdom arisen from reflection associated with the superior degree of joy sensation. This is able to observe the common characteristics of all dharmas, inducing the observation of all dharmas in the path of preparation such as heat, etc. Its function being the fiercest, it is specifically established as clear observation. Heat and so forth cannot extensively distinguish dharmas, nor have they realized the principle; thus they are not clear observation.' That commentary's intent states: reflection has three degrees, and the superior excludes the other two, which are inferior and therefore not it. Associated with joy sensation excludes equanimity sensation, because this is sharp and clear. Common characteristics are impermanence, suffering, and so forth. That it can induce heat and so forth is because reflection generates cultivation. Although it has not yet realized the principle, its observation of dharmas is superior to heat and so forth, and its function being the fiercest, it is specifically established as clear observation. Heat and so forth see the objective spheres only marginally and briefly, and have not yet realized the principle; thus they are not clear observation. The treatise states: '2. Clear observation through faith, which refers to definitive pure faith focused on the Three Jewels, both worldly and transworldly. This assists clear observation so that it does not regress; hence it is established under the name of clear observation.' The commentary states: faith is also of the superior degree, penetrating the contaminated and uncontaminated; since clear observation is wisdom, faith serves as an aid. The treatise states: '3. Clear observation through discipline, which refers to uncontaminated discipline that removes the defilement of broken precepts and makes observation brighter; it is also named clear observation.' The commentary states: this is discipline concurrent with the path. The treatise states: '4. Clear observation of the truths through clear-observing cognition, which refers to all kinds of non-conceptual cognition—both fundamental and subsequently attained—that take the non-conceptually established as an object.' The commentary states: in whatever stage, as long as it takes the non-conceptually established as an object, both cognitions are subsumed here; hence it says 'all kinds.' Fascicle 75 of the Great Treatise [Yogācārabhūmi] states that the three-mind path of seeing is this clear observation. Thus we know it is also subsumed by subsequently attained cognition. That is, it consists of the two cognitions of the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. It does not take the two cognitions of the stage beyond learning because they are not distinct from the ultimate clear observation. The treatise states: '5. Clear observation of the truths through cognition marginal to clear observation. This refers to the worldly and transworldly cognitions that, following the clear observation of the truths through clear-observing cognition, take the conceptually established as an object.' The commentary states: it refers to the subsequently attained cognition that takes the conceptually established ten truths, etc., as objects. Yet it encompasses all cognitions of the path of seeing and path of cultivation, contaminated and uncontaminated, that take the conceptually established truths as objects. Fascicle 71, etc., of the Great Treatise states that 'the wisdom taking the conceptually established truths as its sphere is its self-nature.' The treatise states: '6. Ultimate clear observation, which refers to the cognition of the ultimate stage, such as the cognition of exhaustion.' The commentary states: namely, following the path beyond learning, it has the cognition of exhaustion, the cognition of non-arising, and so forth as its self-nature. The treatise states: 'This true path of seeing subsumes a portion of that fourth clear observation; this semblance path of seeing subsumes a portion of that fourth and fifth clear observations; although that second and third arise together with these, they are not of their self-nature and thus are not subsumed.' The commentary states: the fourth observation taking the non-conceptually established fundamental cognition as an object is subsumed under the true path of seeing. Taking the non-conceptually established subsequently attained cognition as an object is subsumed under the three-mind semblance path of seeing. Because the fifth observation takes the conceptually established truths as an object, it is subsumed under the sixteen-mind semblance path of seeing. And because it extends to the path of cultivation, it is called a 'portion.' The treatise states: 'When the bodhisattva attains these two paths of seeing, they are born into the Tathāgata's family, dwell in the Ground of Utmost Joy, thoroughly penetrate the dharmadhātu, attain all equalities, are constantly born into the great assemblies of all Buddhas, have already attained mastery over many hundreds of gates, know themselves that before long they will realize great bodhi, and are able to benefit and bring joy to all throughout the future.' The commentary states: 'all equalities' refers to the three equalities attained in the sixth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha—namely, all sentient beings, all bodhisattvas, and all Tathāgatas. All the above are the words of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi treatise. The commentary above has already cited the meaning to explain it; simply by observing the treatise's text, it is naturally evident. Therefore, both paths of seeing are the fourth clear observation: that which takes the non-conceptually established fundamental [cognition] as object is the true path of seeing; that which takes the non-conceptually established subsequently attained [cognition] as object is the three-mind semblance path of seeing; and because the sixteen minds take the conceptually established worldly and transworldly cognitions as objects, they are the fifth clear observation.

First 22 of 42 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese