大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.36

56.36

On the commentary's "If so, the three periods are without severing" and below: second, clarifying the meaning of severing without severing. Within this are two parts: first, citing the treatise text; later, from "This brings up an analogy to explain and establish" and below, the commentary interprets the sūtras and treatises. Here there are also ancient interpretations, which will be clarified below in the concluding censure; now it simply explains the correct meaning directly in terms of the non-obstruction of nature and characteristics. Within this are two parts: 1. explaining the treatise; 2. citing proof. In the first, regarding "the sūtra text properly reveals realizing-cognition": because the meaning here is great and ineffable, it exclusively reveals what is extremely profound. If the author of the treatise did not clarify both nature and characteristics, how could one know it is the meaning of severing afflictions? On the commentary's "Hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says" and below: second, citing proof to establish it. The author of the treatise uses the meaning of the flame of a lamp; yet the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-sūtra states in full: "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! Does a bodhisattva attain bodhi by means of the initial thought, or does he attain bodhi by means of the subsequent thought? The initial thought is not in the subsequent thought, and the subsequent thought is not in the initial thought. Mental factors do not coexist; how can wholesome roots increase and attain bodhi?' The Buddha asked in turn: 'For example, in lighting a lamp, does it scorch the wick by means of the initial flame, or does it scorch the wick by means of the subsequent flame?' Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! It is not that the initial flame scorches the wick, nor is it apart from the initial flame. The subsequent flame is also like this.' The Buddha asked Subhūti: 'Is the wick scorched or not?' Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'It is truly scorched.' The Buddha matched the analogy, saying: 'A bodhisattva does not attain bodhi by means of the initial thought, nor is he apart from the initial thought. The subsequent thought is also like this. From first generating the aspiration, practicing prajñā, perfecting the ten stages, he attains bodhi.'" The sūtra is already clear. How much more so when the treatise explains: "The Buddha answered with the extremely profound Dharma of causes and conditions. That is, not only does one attain it by the initial thought, nor does one attain it apart from the initial thought. Why is this? If one attained it only by the initial thought and not by the subsequent thought, the bodhisattva upon first generating the thought would immediately be a Buddha. If there were no initial thought, how could there be a second thought or a third thought? Taking the initial thought as the fundamental cause and condition. 'Neither only the subsequent thought, nor apart from the subsequent thought' means that this subsequent thought is also not apart from the initial thought; if there were no initial thought, there would be no subsequent thought. The initial thought accumulates various immeasurable merits, and the subsequent thought is replete with them, so it is able to sever affliction-habits and attain anuttarabodhi. Matching the analogy according to the Dharma: here, the lamp analogizes the bodhisattva path, the wick analogizes the flames of afflictions such as avidyā. Like the wisdom corresponding to the first bhūmi, up to the wisdom corresponding to the vajrasamādhi scorching, it analogizes the scorching of afflictions such as avidyā. It is neither the flame of cognition of the initial thought nor the flame of cognition of the subsequent thought, yet avidyā and the like are scorched, accomplishing the unsurpassable path." Since that [text] says it is not the initial, not apart from the initial, and so forth, it does not merely take the meaning of continuity alone; therefore the treatise calls it extremely profound causes and conditions. Moreover, in that sūtra, the teaching and the analogy complement each other: the teaching speaks of attaining bodhi, and the analogy speaks of severing afflictions; the two meanings mutually establish each other, and being identical, it is cited as proof. Regarding the commentary's "Nirvāṇa, fascicle twenty-nine" and so forth: yet the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "Ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment is precisely the meaning of emptiness." Because ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment has no intrinsic nature, it is not like the Hīnayāna. How is this known? At the beginning of that sūtra, Siṃhanāda asked: "Sentient beings' five aggregates are empty and have nothing at all; who is there to receive instruction and cultivate the path?" The Buddha then answered him with this sūtra: "Although they cease from thought-moment to thought-moment, there is the cultivation of the path." Know clearly that ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment is precisely emptiness, so the meaning tallies with the present treatise's simultaneous clarification of nature and characteristics.