大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56

English (machine translation) 56

Language: English

56.1

Exposited by the Śramaṇa Chengguan of the Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Fourth, the superiority of lineage,' the text of the Commentary has four parts: first, identifying the name and connecting to the sūtra; second, from 'within it there are again two' downwards, opening sections to explain separately; third, from 'due to the above four meanings' downwards, concluding by returning to the second level of the general; fourth, from 'above it was stated that two kinds of empowerment' downwards, concluding by returning to the first level of the general, because possessing the two empowerments empowers Vajragarbha. Within this, it first concludes the two empowerments, and later, from 'now this one possessing virtues' downwards, concludes the empowerment of Vajragarbha. In the former part, regarding the statement 'having a body upon which the Dharma relies,' this refers to the body possessing marks and signs, which already existed before Buddhahood was attained, and therefore is not yet the fruit. Cultivating and giving rise to it later based on the body is only then called the fruit. Previously, regarding the fourth superiority among the four superiorities, the Dharma of the Śākya Lion was explained by separately distinguishing two meanings: the single character 'Dharma' alone is called the family of Dharma, and the rest is the family of birth. Now, for the two empowerments, taking Śākya Lion alone constitutes the empowerment of the body, and taking the Dharma of the Śākya Lion as a whole constitutes the empowerment of possessing the fruit.

56.3

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'The purpose of empowerment in the second verse,' within the Commentary there are three parts: first, generally discerning the intent; second, from 'within the text' downwards, the general outline; third, from 'the treasury of meaning is the superior, wondrous practice' downwards, connecting to the sūtra to explain separately. Now in the first part, it causes the treasury of Dharma to be opened, in order to manifest and reveal it. Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'It is that upon which the exposition relies,' it is because the exposition relies on the Buddha's supernatural power. Thus the treatise states: 'In this verse, why is it made evident that one relies on the Buddha's power to speak? Answer: There are sentient beings who generate thoughts of slight and disdain toward the Tathāgata, thinking that because he cannot speak himself, he requests another to speak. To prevent this, it reveals that it relies on [his] power, not that the Buddha is incapable.' Regarding the words 'the single line "opening the superior treasury" is general,' this is the line 'opening this most superior treasury of the Dharma King.' However, this superior treasury belongs to the Tathāgata, hence it says 'opening the treasury of the Dharma King.' The treasury of meaning is the essence of the bhūmi; the treasury of words is the characteristic of the bhūmi. Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Because defilement and purity are unhindered, it is called supernatural power,' the sūtra merely says: 'Superior—the treatise names it as "supreme," because supernatural power is superior.' The Commentary harmonizes and explains: In the non-abiding path, abiding in saṃsāra without defilement does not obstruct nirvāṇa; abiding in nirvāṇa without realizing [it] does not obstruct saṃsāra. This is being unhindered in defilement and purity. Furthermore, the treatise merely says: 'Practice is the auxiliary path; its realization is non-abiding.' The Commentary explains by analogy with the treatise; because the meaning flows smoothly, the treatise merely raised one corner. Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Thus displaying the profound, wondrous, superior, and supreme meaning,' this summarizes the treasury of meaning. 'Profound' is the auxiliary path, because the auxiliary path can exhaust reality, so it is spoken of as 'profound and wondrous,' concluding the path of realization. The two characters 'superior' and 'supreme' together conclude non-abiding. The treatise-version says 'supreme,' and the present sūtra says 'superior'; the treatise's conclusion clarifies both 'superior' and 'supreme.' Second, regarding 'the treasury of words is the extensive wisdom of the various bhūmis and the discriminative exposition,' if considered from the sūtra text, the phrase 'discriminative exposition' applies to both treasuries, because the treatise-version takes the single line 'discriminating the meaning of the wisdom-bhūmi' as the treasury of words; here, adopting the textual agreement, it combines the four characters of the third line and the three characters of the fourth line to correspond to it.

56.4

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'If one receives the above empowerment, then the jewel of Dharma enters the mind and accomplishes retention through hearing,' this properly accords with Liberation Moon's praising both person and Dharma in his request: speaking of this inconceivable Dharma, this person shall receive the Tathāgata's mindful protection and give rise to faithful acceptance. Because the Dharma is superior, one receives the Buddha's empowerment; because one receives the Buddha's empowerment, the jewel of Dharma enters the mind; the jewel of Dharma entering the mind is retention through hearing. Since empowerment occurs because the Dharma is superior, it is clear that he makes the request by citing the superior benefit of the Dharma. Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'The latter verse concerns the superior benefit at the time of rebirth,' the Commentary has six parts: first, revealing the intent and the general outline; second, from 'the treatise-version only has...' downwards, harmonizing the two sūtras; third, from 'the general idea here...' downwards, generally revealing the meaning of the text; fourth, from 'because difficulties do not obstruct hearing...' downwards, using the treatise to explain the text; fifth, from 'above, following the treatise's explanation...' downwards, separately stating the intended purpose; sixth, from 'question: if according to...' downwards, questioning and answering to discriminate. In the first part, regarding the statement 'a person possessing a firm seed,' this refers to one possessing the adamantine seed, who hears the sūtra even while in the eight difficulties. In order to manifest that the benefit of hearing the sūtra is deep and far-reaching, because the seed is unsurpassed, the heavenly prince in hell is suddenly and completely fulfilled in the threefold manner. Regarding the Commentary's statement: '"Capable of receiving" in the present sūtra means resolute faith,' this is precisely the harmonizing explanation. If one lacks faithful mind, even in good destinies one cannot hear it, how much less in evil destinies? Therefore next it discerns the general idea: if one has faithful mind, even in places of difficulty one hears it, how much less in places of non-difficulty. Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Because difficulties do not obstruct hearing, it says "although"' downwards, this is the fourth part, using the treatise to explain the text. Within it, it only explains the first half and second half, having already presented the general idea in the general outline. Regarding the explanation of the first half, the Commentary has two parts: first, general clarification; second, particular explanation. Now in the first part, this statement has two meanings: first, establishing the above reason why it asks not whether it is a difficulty or non-difficulty, because non-faith obstructs hearing, not difficulties obstructing hearing; second, seizing upon this meaning to explain the character 'although' (雖). 'Although' is a word of concession and denial, its phrasing containing gain and loss: the eight difficulties are evil yet do not obstruct hearing, so although difficult, they are not difficult. Regarding the statement 'ocean water and kalpa fire are precisely the difficult places of rebirth,' this generally points to the sūtra text to explain the treatise's meaning of rebirth.

56.5

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'The great ocean is precisely the evil destinies' downwards, this is the second part, the particular explanation. First, it explains that within ocean waters one is capable of hearing, because there are sūtras in the dragon palaces, and dragons go to the Buddha's assemblies. Later, under 'in the kalpa fire,' it explains hearing the sūtra within fire. The Commentary has five parts: first, properly explaining the sūtra; second, harmonizing and explaining the treatise text; third, harmonizing the sūtra with the treatise; fourth, explaining the word 'and so forth' in the treatise; fifth, harmonizing the breadth and narrowness of long life. The first text can be known.

56.6

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'This refers to the second dhyāna' downwards, this is the second part, harmonizing and explaining the treatise text, because the treatise says: 'from the Ābhāsvara Heaven upwards.'

56.7

Under the Commentary's statement, "However, the texts of both sūtras are skillfully condensed," this third [part] harmonizes the sūtra with the treatise. The phrase "skillfully condensed" is explained below as "if it were spoken fully, it should say..."; this reveals the meaning of the sūtra. While the text is condensed, the reason it is called "skillful" is that—as stated below—"taking up the beginning to subsume the end and balancing it against the water forms the textual composition." This is the skillfulness; the meaning of condensation is clear.

56.8

Under the Commentary's statement, "The word 'etc.' subsumes by extension...," this fourth [part] explains the word "etc." in the treatise. In this there are two parts: first, revealing the treatise's comprehensiveness. There are three destructions of the kalpa: water, fire, and wind. Fire destroys the first dhyāna, and those from the second dhyāna and above are able to hear; water destroys the second dhyāna, and those from the third dhyāna and above are able to hear; wind destroys the third dhyāna, and those from the fourth dhyāna and above are able to hear. The expression "kalpa-fire" also refers to the fire kalpa, distinguishing it from the water and wind kalpas. When the treatise-sūtra says "in the fire at the end of the kalpa," it specifically refers to the completion of the twenty kalpas of abiding. Furthermore, when nineteen kalpas have finished destroying sentient beings, this is called the "end of the kalpa." The one kalpa of destroying the receptacle [world] is called "in the fire." Under the Commentary's statement, "Now, taking up the beginning subsumes the end...," the second part reveals the sūtra's skillfulness. Taking up the fire kalpa to subsume water and wind demonstrates skill in meaning. Countering the seawater above by saying "kalpa-fire" demonstrates skill in phrasing. That this says [the beings of] the long-lived heavens, standing in contrast, are able to hear is because, first, there are devas there who once heard from the Buddha and explain the Dharma for them; and second, they are able to go down to the Buddha and listen to the Dharma. As stated in the initial enumeration of the assembly, all of them, due to faith, find that a difficulty is not a difficulty. Those for whom it is a difficulty are those who have never heard and perfumed [the seeds of Dharma] and who indulge in the taste of dhyāna. Under the Commentary's statement, "According to the Treatise on the Great [Prajñāpāramitā], etc.," the fifth [part] reconciles the broader and narrower scopes of the long-lived heavens. That is, Treatise [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā], fascicle 38, says: "'Long-lived heavens' refers to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, because of its eighty thousand great kalpas. Alternatively, some say: all formless absorptions are collectively called 'long-lived,' because there is no bodily form that can be transformed. They are incapable of attaining the Path and are always places of ordinary beings. Alternatively, it is said that the heaven of non-conception is called 'long-lived,' as it is also incapable of attaining the Path. Alternatively, it is said that from the first dhyāna up to the fourth dhyāna, excluding the Pure Abodes, all are called 'long-lived,' because by clinging to the taste of dhyāna and wrong views, they cannot receive the Path." Above, the word "etc." in "the Treatise on the Great [Prajñāpāramitā], etc.," subsumes by extension the Liang [translation of the] Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra; both agree with the explanation of the third master in the Treatise on the Great [Prajñāpāramitā]. The intent of all the above treatises is that because the lifespans in the upper two realms are long, and they also indulge in the taste of dhyāna, they are incapable of receiving the Path, and are therefore places of difficulty. Now, where there is faithful mind, none of them are difficulties. This concludes the above clarification of the long-lived heavens. As for the Commentary's statement, "Now, the first dhyāna is not adopted," this clarifies that the treatise is slightly narrower. It is excluded for two reasons: first, it has vitarka and vicāra, whose meaning extends to other places; second, "in the actual burning" strictly conforms to the text of the treatise. If one were to say that the first dhyāna is the difficulty of the long-lived heavens, there would be no ground to speak of the fire kalpa. Now, since the fire burns the first dhyāna and there is no one in the first dhyāna, it is explained in terms of those from the second dhyāna and above being able to hear, so that those in the difficulty of long life are able to hear.

56.9

Under the Commentary's statement, "The above conforms to the treatise in its explanation...," this fifth [part] separately presents the underlying intention. In this there are two parts: first, concluding the intention of the treatise; second, under "In truth and principle, the eight difficulties...," directly presenting the distinct import. In this there are again two parts: first, resolving the eight difficulties. Although the eight difficulties are not complete here, there are not merely two. That is, the treatise already has two; adding before and after a Buddha makes three; the ocean subsuming the hells makes four; the asuras subsuming the pretas makes five. When explaining the meaning in terms of the five destinies, asuras are also subsumed under pretas. Those born deaf and blind have their seeing and hearing completely cut off; it cannot be said that they hear, but there is only latent benefit. If they were suddenly caused to grow ears and eyes, they could also potentially see and hear. Worldly knowledge and eloquence also do not obstruct hearing. As for the Commentary's statement, "The present sūtra merely says 'in the fire,'" the second part separately explains the words "in the fire." This is the meaning found in the Lotus Sūtra, which was already cited in the "Flower Treasury" chapter. The "Flower Treasury" states: "The burning of the kalpa is inconceivable; / although what appears is ruined and bad, / that place is constantly stable and firm." This specifically clarifies hearing within the fire. Fire-washed cloth, fire-dwelling rats, and insects born inside red-hot iron balls—since the karmas of sentient beings are varied, how could anything prevent hearing the Dharma in the midst of fire? Just as in the case of the ocean water, they are right in the midst of it.

56.10

Under the Commentary's statement, "Question: If we rely on the previous meaning...," this sixth [part] is an interrogation and discrimination. First is the question, which is clear. In the reply that follows, there are three parts: first, directly answering according to principle; second, harmonizing and explaining the sūtra text; third, concluding with exhortation and adducing proof. Now for the first. Precepts can prevent transgression and stop evil, and in the near term obtain a human or celestial body. The vehicle, conveying through principle, is all-carrying, and far off realizes the fruit of nirvāṇa. Because their functions are unequal and their benefits have shallowness and depth, the vehicle is praised while precepts are treated lightly. However, precepts have those adhering to characteristics and those transcending characteristics. The essence of the threefold pure morality is itself the vehicle. If absorption and wisdom possess outflows and grasp at characteristics, they also cannot convey one out. Here, the moral discipline adhering to characteristics, being unmoved and not departing [saṃsāra], cannot be called the vehicle; absorption and wisdom that comprehend nature and characteristics, moving and departing [saṃsāra], are called the vehicle. Each takes one side so as to praise the marvel of the vehicle. "First, slack in the vehicle and strict in precepts": this refers to those whose mundane precepts are rigorous and without the slightest infraction, yet whose minds of threefold contemplation are completely unopened and unenlightened. Because they are strict in precepts, they take birth among humans and devas, or following the dhyāna Brahmā worlds, they indulge and become intoxicated in the joy of absorption. Even though a Buddha is in the world preaching the Dharma to deliver people, there is utterly no benefit for this sort of person; even if they happen to meet [a Buddha], they are unable to awaken and understand. An entire country like Cīnasthāna remains unawakened and unknowing; three hundred million in Śrāvastī neither hear nor see; the devas attached to pleasure and those born in places of difficulty do not come to listen and receive: they are of this sort. It is like an imprisoned person who uses wealth and goods to seek help from powerful people, lengthening the days and months in the hope of meeting an imperial pardon. Being among humans and devas is also like this: hoping that a spiritual mentor will guide them to cultivate the vehicle, they will then be able to attain liberation. If among humans and devas they do not cultivate the vehicle, when their retribution is exhausted, they will fall back into the three evil destinies, and even if hundreds of thousands of Buddhas appear, they will ultimately never attain the Path. "Second, strict in the vehicle and slack in precepts": this person's virtue is shallow and defilements are heavy; driven by afflictions, their mundane precepts are entirely devoured by rākṣasas, yet they exclusively keep the precepts of principle, their contemplative practice continuing unbroken. Because they are slack in mundane precepts, at the end of life they fall into the three evil destinies to receive karmic retribution. Among the vehicles, whichever vehicle is stronger—the stronger will pull them first. If the One Vehicle is stronger, they immediately hear the Avataṃsaka and so forth. "Third, strict in both vehicle and precepts": this refers to those who fully uphold all precepts, unblemished in principle and phenomena, and whose contemplation and mindfulness of the wondrous vehicle continue unbroken; in this very life they should immediately attain the Path. If they have not yet attained the Path, this karma is the strongest, and the stronger pulls first; they will certainly ascend to good destinies. In accordance with the superior or inferior quality of their precepts, there are differences such as the desire or form realms; in accordance with the superior or inferior quality of their vehicle, their being conveyed out is also different. If they are strict in the One Vehicle, then within a human or celestial body they hear the Avataṃsaka and so forth. "Fourth, slack in both vehicle and precepts": this refers to those who completely violate all precepts and moreover lack the vehicle; they forever fall into niraya and lose human and celestial retribution. Their spirit is dark and obstructed, with no time of attaining the Path, sinking and turning over and over, incapable of being delivered.

56.11

Under the Commentary's statement, "Now, the ocean water and kalpa-fire...," the second part harmonizes and explains the sūtra text; this is clear. Under the Commentary's statement, "Exert yourselves!", it concludes with an exhortation and adduces proof. Adducing proof refers to fascicle 6 of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. Because of clarifying that bodhisattvas neglect infractions to protect the Dharma, Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, for a bodhisattva-mahāsattva such as this, who is extremely slack regarding the precepts, are the precepts originally received still intact or not?" The Buddha said: "Good son, you should not speak like this now. Why? The precepts originally received are not lost from their original state. If there is an infraction, he should immediately repent; having repented, he is pure." And it goes on to say: "Good son, one who is slack regarding the vehicle is called slack; one who is slack regarding the precepts is not called slack. A bodhisattva-mahāsattva who does not give way to laxity or pride regarding this Great Vehicle is said to uphold the precepts; in order to protect the True Dharma, he bathes himself in the water of the Great Vehicle. Therefore, although a bodhisattva appears to break precepts, he is not called slack." Explication: The intent here takes only the Great Vehicle as the vehicle; the intent of the present Commentary's text also takes the True Dharma of the Great Vehicle as the vehicle, which is why it concludes with the exhortation, "keep your mind on the essentials of the Dharma." Zhan (旃) is equivalent to zhi (之).

56.12

The Commentary says, "Second, the one verse on the bounds of the taught doctrine." The Commentary's text is divided into five parts: first, comprehensively revealing the meaning of the text; second, under the word "gradual progression," explaining the general name; third, under "What are the three?", listing the names and bringing out their essence; fourth, under "Those of the path of superior cognition...," explaining following the text; fifth, interrogation and discrimination. In the third, contemplation is what is called contemplative understanding. The initial mind's discrimination is called contemplation. Realizing the real relying on understanding is called realization. The realized mind's pure liberation and fulfillment of virtue is called practice, just as purified gold becomes an adornment. From "This refers to within the ten grounds..." downward, it brings out the essence, which is the three cognitions. Master Huiyuan has another explanation: "Understanding and practice are contemplation; the first ground is realization; the second ground and onward are called practice." Now, because the intent of the treatise consistently speaks of the contemplation, etc., of the ten grounds, we rely solely on the former explanation. As for the Commentary's statement, "that is, the gradual progression of contemplation," the Commentary's text has two parts: first, taking the intent of the treatise to explain comprehensively; second, under "meaning that it explains the preparatory contemplation of the various grounds...," citing the treatise to discern the characteristics of its contemplation. Now for the first. "Path means cause": this is because superior cognition is the cause of the cognition of the grounds. Taking path as cause, the path is the preparatory stage. In Master Huiyuan's interpretation, the three types of wisdom are called cognition, their gradual increase is superior, and penetrating openness is called path. In discerning the characteristics of contemplation, contemplation is that which contemplates, the underlying principle relied upon is that which is contemplated, and the correspondence of principle and cognition can produce the subsequent grounds. Yet Master Huiyuan says: "Initial contemplation is contemplation; abiding correctly is called relying; being fulfilled within a ground and giving rise to what follows is ability to produce." These three of themselves form the gradual progression within contemplation, which seems not to be the treatise's intent; hence the Commentary does not follow it, but only takes the preparatory stage as the gradual progression toward realization. As for the Commentary's statement, "Because subsequent cognition must depend on realizing the real before it can comprehend the conventional," etc.: only after realizing the real can one comprehend the conventional, which is why it is a gradual progression. Thus among the three gradual progressions, realization alone corresponds to realization. The treatise above itself says, "The three minds are taken as the gradual progression; the remaining two are gradual progressions by comparing self to other."

56.13

On the Commentary's text from “Query: As for the direct realization in each stage…” onward: this is the fifth [section], questions, answers, and analytical distinctions. Herein, first is the question, followed by the answer from “The ancient masters…” onward. In this there are two [parts]: first, Xianshou's explanation is presented; next, from “This is also in accordance with reason…” onward, the Commentary harmonizes and explains them. Because the Kanding [ji], drawing upon the meaning of the Vijñaptimātra[siddhi], bases itself on the differences among virtues and thus maintains ten direct realizations while refuting [the view of] the cognition’s clarity and obscurity, the Commentary harmonizes them so as to accept both meanings. In this there are two [parts]: the initial clause generally designates [the stance], and second is the specific reconciliation. Now for the first: stating “This is also in accordance with reason” does not mean rejecting the correct doctrine of that [tradition]—the correct doctrine being the meaning in the Vijñaptimātra[siddhi]—hence it says “This is also in accordance with reason.” That commentary has two [parts]: first it challenges the ancient explanation, and then it states the correct doctrine. The challenge to the ancient [view] consists of three [points]. The first challenge says: It is said that object and cognition conform to each other, so based on the cognition there is the realization of ten tathatās. Why should object and cognition not conform to each other such that, based on the object, there is the realization of a single tathatā? The second challenge says: The preparatory and subsequent cognitions are not direct realizations, so one could say that those cognitions have clarity and obscurity. The fundamental cognition cognizes tathatā without transforming into an image—how can one claim that this [cognition] has clarity and obscurity? The third challenge says: The agent of realization has limits, whereas the object of realization has no limits. If one realizes the limitless with the limited, how could object and cognition conform to each other? Below, it presents the correct doctrine, saying: One should know that the term “direct realization” is only termed “direct” relative to the preparatory and subsequent [cognitions] of that respective ground; it is not called “direct realization” relative to the subsequent grounds. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Its meaning is clear. Now I shall first resolve these challenges on behalf of the ancient masters. First: if I accepted that there are ten tathatās, it should be as challenged. But I only establish one tathatā; on what basis does this challenge arise? Therefore, replying in kind to the first [challenge], one should say: Object and cognition conform to each other, so the cognition is said to realize ten times throughout. Object and cognition conform to each other, so in terms of the object there is only a single realization. Second, replying to the second: You realize ten tathatās without transforming into images, speaking of ten tathatās with respect to a single tathatā. I realize tathatā without transforming into images—what prevents a single cognition from directly realizing it ten times? Third, in answering the third, there are two points: First, resolving it in accordance with the challenge: since the agent conforms to the object of realization, you do not grant clarity or obscurity. If the object conformed to the agent of realization, tathatā would have to be cognition. Second, countering with a reverse challenge: tathatā has no limits, and you do not grant that it has clarity and obscurity. Since the essence of tathatā is not distinct, how could the ten virtues be established? Thus the previous challenges were not truly essential.

56.14

On the Commentary's text from “Therefore, the Vijñapti[mātra]…” onward: this is the second [part], specifically harmonizing and explaining. Herein there are four [points]: 1. citing the correct doctrine of the Vijñapti[mātra]; 2. borrowing its text to resolve the meaning; 3. establishing [the point] through a counter-challenge; 4. demonstrating it through an analogy. Now for the first: the Vijñapti[mātra]'s direct response to the challenge on tathatā's lack of distinction is [misinterpreted by] the Kanding [ji], which uses this pretext to criticize its root teacher. Yet the Commentary on the Vijñaptimātrasiddhi explains: “Tathatā is in reality without distinctions; in accordance with what is realized and the superior virtues generated by the agent of realization, ten types are provisionally established.” Explanation: Since it says that ten types are provisionally established according to the superior virtues generated by the agent of realization, the sense of the cognition's clarity and obscurity is already present. On the Commentary's text from “It also says: ‘Although within the first ground…’” onward: this is the second [point], borrowing the text of the Vijñapti[mātra] treatise to resolve Xianshou's meaning. Now, this passage in the Vijñaptimātrasiddhi Treatise itself clarifies elimination and establishment. There might be a query: “If one does not comprehend the ten tathatās within the first ground, there should be no fruit of progressing [forward] that can comprehend subsequent marks and attain the fruit. If one has already fully comprehended them, why does one not realize the ten virtues of tathatā all at once?” Therefore, it now answers: “As for comprehending, one comprehends them all at once; but because the practices of realization are not yet complete, the stages of practice are ten, and hence there are ten kinds of fully accomplished tathatā, up to the Tathāgata being able to completely understand all ten.” As the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra discriminates at length: “Stating ‘the agent of realization’ is because, through the completion of practice, the practices of each subsequent ground gradually become complete.” Does this not refer to the cognition having the sense of obscurity and clarity? Although the explanation in that commentary was originally intended for elimination and establishment, by means of this principle one can resolve [the issue of] clarity and obscurity, and thus it could be cited. Because it does not demonstrate the meaning of resolving [the issue that] tathatā is without distinction within the treatise, the present Commentary says: “It also has the sense that the agent of realization possesses obscurity and clarity.”

56.15

On the Commentary's text from “If one solely considers the object of realization…” onward: this is the third [point], establishing [the point] through counter-challenges. This contains two challenges: First, the challenge that the first ground has not yet realized [tathatā]: If tathatā has ten virtues and the first [ground] only realizes one, how could this be realizing tathatā? Second, the challenge of failing to resolve the fundamental objection: The fundamental objection says: Since tathatā is originally without difference, how can there be ten realizations? Now to say that realizing one virtue on that respective ground is called direct realization—how could that avoid the objection regarding non-differentiation?

56.16

On the Commentary's text from “Just as a person viewing space…” onward: this is the fourth [point], demonstrating it through an analogy. Eyes may be small or large, but space is without distinction. It was therefore on the basis of this principle that Master [Daosheng] established the doctrine of sudden awakening, clarifying that only the Buddha's awakening realizes tathatā exhaustively. The sages of the ten grounds are all within the scope of faith and have not yet completely realized tathatā. Thus he said: “Now, that which is termed ‘sudden’ clarifies that principle cannot be divided. ‘Awakening’ speaks of ultimate illumination. When clarifying awakening through suddenness, its meaning does not admit of duality. Non-dual awakening tallies with undivided principle; when principle and cognition are both released, this is called sudden awakening.” This is precisely the meaning. Although it diverges greatly from conventional discussions, it is also a mystery beyond conventional bounds.

56.17

On the Commentary's text from “From here below, the third is the scope of consenting to expound”: the text of the Commentary divides into two: first, revealing the intent and providing the overall outline; next, from “Now first…” onward, directly explaining according to the text. In this there are two [parts]: first, explaining the etiquette of exposition; next, explaining the intent of exposition. In the former there are two: first, citing the treatise to explain the sūtra; next, from “Contemplating the Buddhas of the ten directions…” onward, the Commentary's explanation. The treatise itself has two intentions: 1. Taking absence of pride toward the Buddhas, and not being partial toward the audience: if requested by the Buddhas and not expounding, that would be arrogance; now expounding by relying on their power, how could one dare to be proud? 2. From “Alternatively…” onward: desiring to show thoroughness, it conversely takes absence of pride toward the audience, and not being partial toward the Buddhas. On the Commentary's text from “Desiring that the great assembly…” onward: explaining the intent of exposition. The text of the Commentary has four parts: 1. Explaining according to the sūtra. However, the Commentary's presentation of the exposition and the grounds proper encompasses both Greatnesses; Master Yuan took the presentation of the exposition to be the Greatness of the Teaching and the grounds proper to be the Greatness of the Meaning, which ends up being far-fetched. 2. From “According to the treatise…” onward: citing the treatise to explain. 3. From “Because the previous master of exposition…” onward: the Commentary explains the words “repeatedly increasing” in the treatise and sūtra. 4. From “How is this joy obtained…” onward: revealing the sense of rejoicing. In this there are four: i. inquiring to explain generally; ii. from “The meaning of the name…” onward, explaining the names of the two Greatnesses; iii. from “Hearing the two Greatnesses…” onward, concluding with the arising of joy; iv. from “However, as for the essence of the two Greatnesses…” onward, revealing their essential natures. In this there are two: first, generally indicating; next, from “Master Yuan…” onward, specifically revealing the two masters. Master Yuan said: “That which is indicated by the path of realization is precisely the dharmas of the grounds. The path of realization concerns the person, whereas the tallying with the dharmas of the grounds exists inherently. It is like the twelve links of dependent origination: applying the dharmas to the person, they transmigrate through the three times; setting aside the person to discuss the dharmas, their nature and characteristics are eternally fixed.” On the Commentary's text from “Xianshou…” onward: this master's text has three [parts]: first, directly clarifying the two Greatnesses; second, from “However, his later interpretation…” onward, distinguishing it from the former; third, from “Ancient masters therefore…” onward, clarifying the expressible and the inexpressible. In this there are two: first general, then specific. In the former, stating “the treatise below clarifies this itself” means that according to the treatise, the causal stage is expressible and the fruitional stage is inexpressible; citing this text of the treatise directly refutes the ancient masters. From “not without some outline…” onward, it conditionally grants the ancient meaning, because there is no obstacle to the wondrous principle.

56.18

In the commentary, regarding "Among them, first with respect to the greatness of meaning" and so forth, this is the second [section], the specific explanation. Here there are three parts: first, stating the rubric; second, specifically revealing it; third, fusing and harmonizing them. In the commentary, from "Within meaning there are three" down is the specific revelation. Saying "it can be indicated so that people are made to know of its existence" generally reveals that the three points constitute the greatness of meaning and all can be indicated, just as the preceding seven verses represent this matter. "Cannot be pointed to or rebuked" is what the text means by "speech cannot reach it." The commentary says: "Second, with respect to the locus of realization" and so forth; this takes the place trodden by a bird's foot as a metaphor for what is realized, and saying that this place is neither existent nor non-existent is what makes it expressible, while the place of the trace cannot be displayed, which is termed inexpressible. The commentary says: "Third, with respect to fundamental cognition" and so forth; this takes the bird's trace in the sky as a metaphor for realizing cognition: stating that there is a trace in the sky is the expressible, while being unable to show its length, shortness, largeness, or smallness is the inexpressible. The commentary says: "The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that non-conceptual cognition is free from five characteristics"; this doubly proves the meaning of expressibility and inexpressibility. This refers to Asabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, fascicle eight, the ninth chapter, "Adhicitta." The śāstra states: "Herein, non-conceptual cognition takes freedom from five kinds of characteristics as its intrinsic nature: first, because it is free from non-mental application; second, because it is free from the ground that transcends vitarka and vicāra; third, because it is free from the quiescence of the cessation of saṃjñā and vedanā; fourth, because it is free from the intrinsic nature of rūpa; fifth, because it is free from conceptualizing the true meaning differently. Free from these five characteristics, it should be known to be non-conceptual cognition." The commentary [by Asabhāva] says: "Relying on the intrinsic nature of cognition, it is said to be free from five characteristics; through the approach of apophasis, the essence and characteristics of cognition are spoken of, because it cannot be spoken of through the approach of kataphasis. Through the approach of dispelling conceptualization, the characteristics of non-conceptual cognition can be understood. If it were different from this cognition, conceptualization would follow. What conceptualization would there be? It refers to what is explained at length below, such as non-mental application and the rest. If non-mental application were non-conceptual cognition, then having no mental application in sleep, intoxication, and so forth would constitute non-conceptual cognition. But this should not be accepted, because by being free from effort one would attain freedom from afflictions. If the second were it, then the second dhyāna and above would constitute non-conceptual cognition. If the third were it, the essence and characteristics of this cognition could hardly be established, because that [state] is free from mind and has no mental factors. If the fourth were it, it would not constitute cognition, like that produced by the four great elements. If the fifth were it, this cognition would not be established, because that which is non-conceptual in nature would possess conceptualization." The verse of the śāstra states: / The intrinsic nature of all bodhisattvas / Is far removed from five kinds of characteristics; / This is non-conceptual cognition, / Not conceptualizing truth as different. / The commentary states: "The first three lines negate the five. The fourth line directly speaks of the intrinsic nature." The above cites the śāstra. Now, the commentary's mention of "sleep, intoxication, and so forth" briefly presents one of the five characteristics. The word "and so forth" has two meanings: first, it includes the other four, all to establish the third [meaning] with respect to cognition. Second, it includes the absorption of non-conception and the retribution of non-conception, because among the five states of mindlessness, only two are briefly mentioned. The fifth, the absorption of cessation, has already been distinguished within the third characteristic. From "Because direct expression does not reach it" down, this explains the intent of the śāstra, fully as cited above: the preceding phrase is the inexpressible, and the following phrase is the meaning of the expressible. Furthermore, the above three meanings temporarily align with the ocean of fruition and so forth according to specific meanings, but in reality all three meanings apply across the ocean of fruition, principle, and cognition; all three can be indicated, but cannot be pointed out. Resorting to words to dispel words, relying on apophasis and relying on kataphasis—contemplate this! Furthermore, regarding the above three meanings, there are two further senses to elucidate expressibility and inexpressibility: First, with respect to the true dharmas of the intrinsic essence mutually revealing one another, this is termed expressible. As the sūtra states, "Cognition arises [from] the Buddha's realm" and so forth, meaning that revealing cognition through tathatā and revealing tathatā through cognition is termed expressible; but not being able to grasp this nature and characteristic separately is termed inexpressible. Second is the opposition between subjective delusion and ultimate reality. Viewing ultimate reality from subjective delusion, there is truth outside of delusion, so it can be spoken of. Resting on truth in relation to delusion, there is no delusion outside of truth; by what means could speech arise? The commentary says: "Because it is supramundane, it is inexpressible": because subsequent cognition must proceed from realizing the true, it is therefore supramundane; how could it be expressible? "Because speech does not reach the mental modes within contemplation": because cultivating the middle contemplation must be cultivated in accord with the nature, and the nature transcends names and words, it is therefore inexpressible. Hence Maitreya said: "I have briefly spoken of the coarse characteristics of the gotra; all remaining true meanings are known only by the Buddha." The commentary says: "Furthermore, the individual characteristics of all dharmas are all inexpressible, while the common characteristics of all dharmas are all expressible": this relies on the Hetuvidyā treatises, meaning that the real referent in all dharmas is named the individual characteristic, because the individual characteristics and common characteristics in all dharmas each adhere to their own essence and are not shared with others. If the conceptual mind establishes a single category, the signifier and the signified apply across all dharmas, like a thread stringing flowers together, which is named the common characteristic. This must be provisionally established through the conceptualization of the distracted mind, and is the object of inference. All states of concentrated mind are free from this conceptualization, and all are named direct perception. As explained in the tenth fascicle of the Commentary on the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. However, within the greatness of teaching, this meaning is introduced parenthetically with respect to preparatory cognition, because its preparatory contemplation of dharmas is vast. It pervades the contemplation of mental discourse, and therefore is introduced parenthetically. In the commentary, from "Furthermore, the ocean of fruition is separated from conditions" down: the expressibility and inexpressibility mentioned above apply to all six tiers; viewing the six tiers below against one another, the first and the last each have only one, while the middle ones possess both.

56.19

In the commentary, from "This inexpressible above" down is the third [section], fusing and harmonizing. Within this there are two: first, directly fusing and harmonizing; second, citing proof. Now, the first: "Because the true principle is omnipresent": the true principle is inexpressible, yet it is omnipresent throughout phenomena, and therefore it is expressible. As for "Because cultivation dependent on conditions lacks intrinsic nature": cultivation dependent on conditions is indeed expressible; but because it lacks intrinsic nature, it becomes identical with the true principle, and is inexpressible. In the commentary, from "Therefore" down cites proof. First, it cites this sūtra itself, namely the final verse: "I shall now speak a small portion." In the commentary, from "The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also says" down is the second, citing another sūtra, namely the Northern Edition of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle twenty-one, the chapter on "Noble Virtue King Bodhisattva," where in explaining the cause of the first merit of wisdom among the ten merits, it discusses practicing the Mahāparinirvāṇa and hearing what has never been heard before. Bodhisattva Vaiḍūryaprabha came from the eastern world of Acala, from the Buddha Pūrṇacandra, to question the Buddha, whereupon he clarified the meaning of reaching and not reaching. The World-Honoured One explained and established the meaning of reaching and not reaching through production, non-production, and so forth, which briefly comprise six propositions: four propositions are compound: 1. the production of non-production is inexpressible; 2. the production of production is inexpressible; 3. the non-production of production is inexpressible; 4. the non-production of non-production is inexpressible; two propositions are simple: 5. production is also inexpressible; 6. non-production is also inexpressible. Now to briefly explain them: The first proposition: dharmas not yet produced are called non-production; having the nature capable of being produced, this is termed production. Since they are not produced and are produced by another, they cannot be spoken of as non-production. The second proposition means that the characteristic of production can produce dharmas capable of being produced, which is termed the production of production. Now, the characteristic of production cannot produce itself; since it does not produce itself, why would it produce another? Therefore it cannot be spoken of as the production of production. The third proposition means that the characteristic of production can produce dharmas not yet produced, which is termed the non-production of production. Now, because non-production is undefiled, it cannot be spoken of as the non-production of production. The fourth proposition means that when not yet produced, there is no phenomenon of production, which is termed the non-production of non-production. Just as before space is produced, there is no phenomenon of production, and it cannot cause defiled dharmas to be produced. Since when not yet produced there is no phenomenon of production, if there is an aggregation of conditions, can it then produce? Therefore it cannot be spoken of as the non-production of non-production. Fifth, the characteristic of production is production, but it cannot produce itself, so it is inexpressible. Sixth, not yet produced is non-production, but when conditions aggregate it is produced, so it is inexpressible. As for "Because there are causes and conditions, it also cannot be spoken of": the sūtra says: "If there are ten causes and conditions, it can then be spoken of." Master Yuan offers two explanations: First, taking the twelve links of conditioned arising, the first ten together serve as the cause for the link of birth. Second, they are the ten causes of the Bodhisattvabhūmi and so forth: namely, 1. cause of conventional designation; 2. cause of dependence; 3. cause of attraction; 4. cause of grasping; 5. cause of generation; 6. cause of initiation; 7. cause of differentiation; 8. cause of co-action; 9. cause of opposition; 10. cause of non-opposition. The subcommentator explains: The latter meaning is superior, as explained at length in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and elsewhere. However, that sūtra explains at length the characteristics of non-production and so forth; here we merely cite briefly to prove the purport of speaking and remaining silent, so it is not presented in full.

56.20

In the second [section], directly stating the verses, under the commentary's "Now first, directly displaying the subtle and wondrous characteristics of the stage-cognition" and so forth, the commentary has three parts: first, determining the dharma to be displayed; second, from "Within this, the śāstra-sūtra" down, briefly harmonizing the śāstra-sūtra; third, from "As for 'subtle and wondrous'" down, taking up the text to explain it. Now, the first: according to Master Yuan's idea, the first three and a half verses display the subtlety and wondrousness of the Buddha-dharma, while the subsequent three verses present that Buddha-dharma to display the stage's transcendence of speech. Therefore, we now distinguish this, clarifying that the first three and a half verses also display the subtlety and wondrousness of the stage-cognition, and do not speak of the Buddha fruition. Here there are three parts: first, generally identifying it as the stage-cognition; second, citing proof; third, concluding with a critique.

First 20 of 40 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese