大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 57

English (machine translation) 57

Language: English

57.1

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

The Commentary states from "The above still applies generally to the actual teaching" onwards: third, concluding by demonstrating the perfect interpenetration, which can be understood as usual. Herein there are two parts: first, directly concluding with the perfect interpenetration; next, from "If fully demonstrated" onwards, pointing from the extensive to the concise. The extensive is as in the distinctions of the five teachings, which is a separate chapter and was already briefly analyzed above. That is, concluding with the criticism [of Huiyuan] as identical to the Abhidharma and the *Satyasiddhi* represents the Hīnayāna meaning of eradicating fetters. Quoting the text of *Vijñaptimātratā* and [the doctrine of] possessing the three times represents the meaning of the initial teaching. Properly speaking in terms of the unobstructed nature and characteristics represents the meaning of the actual teaching. In the fifth, concluding with the perfect interpenetration, it properly reveals the meaning of the perfect teaching. Within "neither eradication nor non-eradication" it also includes the meaning of the sudden teaching. That is, if there is no eradication, it is because all conforms to the principle; if there is nothing not eradicated, it is because when one is eradicated, all are eradicated—this is the meaning of the perfect teaching. If one says there is not even eradication, how could there be non-eradication?—its nature is originally serene and empty, where speech ceases and thought is severed; speaking of this as eradication is the meaning of the sudden teaching.

57.3

The Commentary says: "Three lines clarify the three virtues." This is the preceding [notion that] complete endowment with essence and virtue is the characteristic of nirvāṇa. If spoken of distinctly: the dharmakāya is the essence, while prajñā and liberation are virtues. If spoken of with regard to their common characteristic: all three are called virtues, uniting to form the essence of nirvāṇa; hence it is called the nirvāṇa of the three virtues. This corresponds to the preceding liberation in all destinies. The destinies have three defilements: prajñā corresponds to afflictions, liberation corresponds to bondage of karma, and the dharmakāya corresponds to the suffering of birth. Overturning the three defilements constitutes the nirvāṇa of the three virtues. In explaining these three virtues, the text of the Commentary has three parts: first, explaining them distinctly; then, concluding generally. The Commentary says: "The first line is prajñā." Pointing to the sūtra to discern the virtue, it is precisely that which words cannot reach. The statement "is the characteristic of contemplative practice" establishes the name based on the Śāstra. Yet the Śāstra lacks the words "contemplative practice"; the name was established merely based on the concluding line below saying "because of contemplating thus." The Commentary from "Contemplation free from discrimination" onwards explains by drawing out the intent of the Śāstra. The Śāstra fully states: "Can such liberation be contemplated as identical to the sounds of another? No. How is it contemplated? The verse says: 'It is not spoken of by words, because it is divorced from language.'" This Śāstra has three clauses: first, a rhetorical question discerning what is incorrect; second, from "How is it contemplated?" onwards, a direct question revealing what is correct; third, "because it is divorced from language" explains what is correct to distinguish it from what is incorrect. Now the Commentary text has two parts: first, taking the intent to provide the direct explanation, wherein it first discerns what is correct, and then from "unlike" onwards eliminates what is incorrect. Next, from "Earlier, it was said that contemplative wisdom" onwards, it eliminates confusion. The earlier refers to abiding in the equality of nirvāṇa. Earlier it was said: "Equalizing the two extremes is the characteristic of contemplative wisdom," meaning that through wisdom one definitively realizes the principle of the equality of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Now, this is prajñā among the three virtues, tallying with reality through practice. The rest is harmonized as before.

57.4

The Commentary states from "The next line is the characteristic of the dharmakāya as the basis of transformation" onwards: "Dharmakāya" mentions the virtue, differing from the preceding prajñā; it is the characteristic of the basis of transformation, named on the basis of the Śāstra. "Transformation" means revolution: formerly it was impermanent, but now it is entirely permanent. "Transformation" also has the sense of departure: departing from impermanence, afflictions, karma, and so forth.

57.5

The Commentary explains according to the intent of the Śāstra from "Meaning the basis of impermanence is transformed" onwards. However, in *Vijñaptimātratā* there are four aspects of transformation of the basis: "1. The path capable of transforming. This again has two types: First, the path capable of suppression, meaning suppressing the power of the latencies of the two obstructions so as not to allow them to give rise to the active manifestations of the two obstructions. This extends across both the mundane and supramundane paths, as well as the three wisdoms of preparatory, fundamental, and subsequently attained, gradually or suddenly suppressing them as appropriate." Expounding: The six practices suppressing afflictions are called mundane; the preparatory [wisdom] gradually suppresses, while the fundamental and subsequently attained [wisdoms] can suddenly suppress. The treatise says: "Second, the path capable of eradicating. Meaning permanently eradicating the latencies of the two obstructions; this path is definitely not mundane or preparatory." Expounding: Of the two paths, the mundane is excluded; of the three wisdoms, the preparatory is excluded. The treatise explains the exclusion of the mundane due to two reasons: first, because the mundane is induced by habitual grasping to characteristics; second, because characteristics have not yet been eliminated. The treatise explains the exclusion of the preparatory by saying that the preparatory seeks after what is to be realized, and what it induces has not yet been accomplished. Expounding: The fundamental is taken because the fundamental is precisely what is able to eradicate afflictions. The subsequently attained is taken because, although the subsequently attained cannot eradicate the latencies of delusion regarding principle, it has clear and present, non-inverted realization of designated and undesignated characteristics; therefore it can also permanently eradicate the latencies of delusion regarding phenomena. The treatise says: "2. The basis that is transformed. This also has two types: First, the basis holding seeds, meaning the fundamental consciousness. Because of this, it can hold the seeds of defiled and pure phenomena, serving as the basis together with defiled and pure phenomena. The noble path transforms it, causing it to abandon the defiled and attain the pure. Although other dependent phenomena are also bases, they do not hold seeds and therefore are not discussed here. Second, the basis of delusion and awakening, meaning tathatā. Because of this, it can act as the root of delusion and awakening, upon which all defiled and pure phenomena are born. The noble path transforms it, causing it to abandon the defiled and attain the pure. Although others also act as bases for phenomena of delusion and awakening, they are not the root and therefore are not discussed here. 3. That which is abandoned through transformation. This again has two types: First, that which is abandoned through eradication, meaning the seeds of the two obstructions. When the true uninterrupted path is present before one, the obstruction and its antidote are mutually opposed, so those [obstructions] are eradicated and never again accomplished; this is called abandonment. Because their seeds are eradicated, they no longer become active. The grasped self and phenomena of the false grasping to self and phenomena, being without an object facing the deluded mind, are also said to be abandoned. This is called abandoning the conceptually constructed nature." Expounding: The real self and real phenomena are inherently non-existent by nature, but merely appear falsely as existent in relation to the deluded mind. Now that the deluded mind is severed, there is no realm confronting the mind, and metaphorically this realm is also said to be eradicated. According to this principle, it is called abandoning what is grasped. Where texts speak of eradicating the conceptualized, the meaning lies here. The treatise says: "Second, that which is cast off, meaning all mundane seeds and inferior uncontaminated seeds. When the diamond-like samādhi is present, it induces the utterly complete, luminous, purely immaculate fundamental consciousness; because [the consciousness] is not their basis, they are all permanently cast off. Having abandoned those seeds, active mundane phenomena and inferior uncontaminated phenomena will never arise again; since they never arise again, they are also said to be abandoned. This is called abandoning the inferior phenomena of saṃsāra." Expounding: The remaining mundane refers to mundane wholesome phenomena remaining outside the two obstructions. The inferior uncontaminated seeds refer to the active manifestations produced within the ten stages. "Complete" means fulfillment. "Luminous" means the cognitive characteristics are distinct, differing from the bodhisattvas who are not yet completely luminous. This pure eighth consciousness is not the basis for remaining mundane and inferior uncontaminated phenomena; hence they are all cast off. This is the general explanation. Below are the opinions of two masters. One says: These mundane and inferior uncontaminated [seeds] are abandoned simultaneously with the seeds of the two obstructions, because the two exist on account of the seeds of the two obstructions. The second master says: Within the uninterrupted path the seeds of the two obstructions are eradicated; only within the path of liberation are these two cast off. Because within the uninterrupted path one is still a bodhisattva, still possessing saṃsāra and a perfumed consciousness, and is not yet a Buddha; therefore they are both cast off using the path of liberation. The treatise says: "4. That which is attained through transformation. This also has two types: First, that which is attained through revelation, meaning great nirvāṇa. Although this is originally pure by nature, it is obscured by adventitious defilements so that it is not apparent. When the true noble path arises, eradicating those obstructions, it causes its characteristics to become apparent, acquiring the name nirvāṇa. Second, that which is attained through production, meaning great bodhi." However, the treatise explains that nirvāṇa has four kinds: 1. purity of original nature; 2. with remainder of basis; 3. without remainder of basis; 4. non-abiding. The treatise also explains that bodhi has four kinds, which are the four wisdoms, to be extensively harmonized and explained in the "Manifestation Chapter." The treatise cited above is already briefly complete; now we should harmonize it with the Commentary. However, the original Śāstra explains this text in four sections: 1. Rhetorical question discerning what is incorrect. The Śāstra says: "Can it be like mundane wisdom relying on the mundane? No." 2. Direct question revealing what is correct. The Śāstra says: "How does it rely? The verse says: 'Transcending the three times.'" 3. Explaining what is correct and distinguishing what is incorrect. The Śāstra says: "Transformation of the basis relies on the permanent body; therefore it is not like the impermanent wisdom of mental consciousness relying on impermanent causal and conditional phenomena." 4. Citing the sūtra to verify and establish. The Śāstra says: "As definitively stated in the sūtra." The quotation of the Śāstra above is complete, and the thematic analysis and explanation are finished. Within the Commentary text there are also four sections, though with combined and split arrangements: combining the first two into one, and splitting the third into two and three. Now, the first combines the first two sections of the Śāstra, taking their intent for a brief explanation; thus it says: "Meaning transforming the impermanent basis, said to transcend the three times." The second, from "Therefore this subtle wisdom relies on the permanent dharmakāya," is the Śāstra explaining what is correct. The third, from "The Śāstra says: 'Not like'" onwards, is the Śāstra distinguishing what is incorrect. The above two open the Śāstra's explanation of what is correct and its distinguishing of what is incorrect into two. The fourth explains the Śāstra's citation of scriptural proof. In the third, distinguishing what is incorrect, "incorrect" refers to the causal state. Herein there are two parts: first, citing the Śāstra; second, from "This excludes the time prior to transformation of the basis" onwards, the Commentary explains the Śāstra. Herein there are two parts: first, a general indication; second, from "Impermanent mental consciousness" onwards, the explanation. First it explains the time prior to transformation of the basis; later it explains its becoming that which is transformed now. First, "The fundamental consciousness holding seeds is the impermanent cause" refers to the basis holding seeds among the bases transformed in *Vijñaptimātratā*. Because this ability to hold acts as the cause, it is directly what is perfumed, becoming the nominal seeds. Second, "The defiled and pure seeds and so forth that are held are impermanent conditions" refers to the seeds of mundane wholesome and unwholesome karma, and so forth. The statement "relying on these causes and conditions, impermanent mental consciousness arises" refers to active manifestations arising based on seeds. This is the eighth consciousness; seeds and active manifestations together serve as the basis, and the preceding seven transforming consciousnesses and so forth are all that which relies. In *Vijñaptimātratā*, with respect to the ability to hold seeds, it only takes the eighth consciousness as the basis, while seeds and so forth are all that which relies.

57.6

The commentary states: "Now, transforming the impermanent consciousness..." and so on, explaining that it is now the locus of transformation. That is, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra states: "The noble path transforms it, causing it to abandon the defiled and attain the pure." This means that in the causal stage it holds both the defiled and the pure; now, upon attaining the noble path, it abandons the defiled and attains the pure, which is called transformation of the locus. Therefore, this "transformation" also means "abandonment."
In the commentary, it first explains the dependent cognitions and later explains the locus depended upon. First, regarding the former: the meaning of the four cognitions has already appeared at the beginning of the first fascicle of the sūtra. As for why there are only two here, the Cheng weishi lun states: "The mental associate corresponding to the cognition of equality first arises at the initial stage when the bodhisattva's path of seeing becomes manifest, because it opposes the two grasps. The mental associate corresponding to the cognition of wondrous observation and the observation of the emptiness of phenomena first arises at the stage of the bodhisattva's path of seeing, because the uncontaminated cognition of the emptiness of phenomena has already been attained. As for the mental associate corresponding to the great round mirror-like cognition, there is one opinion that it is attained in the unobstructed path of the vajropamasamādhi; there is another opinion that it only first arises upon reaching the path of liberation, because when the seeds of the ripening consciousness are present before the vajropamasamādhi, they are not yet abruptly abandoned, as they are not incompatible with the unobstructed path. It is not that it obstructs the contaminated and inferior uncontaminated dharmas, but it is definitively incompatible with the Buddha-fruit. Because there is no consciousness to be perfumed in the vajropamasamādhi, the uncontaminated does not increase, and one must attain buddhahood." Explanation: this meaning specifically clarifies that only after abandoning the ripening consciousness is it first transformed and named the great round mirror-like cognition. "As for the mental associate corresponding to the cognition of accomplishing activities, there is one opinion that during the bodhisattva's path of cultivation, being induced by the subsequent [cognition], it also first arises." Explanation: this means that, being induced by the subsequent [cognition] of the sixth mental consciousness, it generates the five consciousnesses in the pure land. The treatise states: "There is an opinion that it only first arises upon attaining buddhahood, because during the ten bhūmis the eyes and other [faculties] manifested based on the ripening consciousness are not uncontaminated; it is unreasonable for contaminated uncommon, necessarily simultaneous, and shared-object faculties to generate uncontaminated consciousnesses. These two differ in clarity and obscurity regarding their objects. Therefore, this category can only manifest upon attaining buddhahood, based on uncontaminated faculties, and because it is repeatedly interrupted, it arises through deliberate attention." Explanation: "Uncommon" refers to the uncommon eye faculty, because the faculty is the basis solely for the visual consciousness and so on. "Necessarily simultaneous" refers to the simultaneous basis, because faculty and consciousness are concurrent. "Shared-object" refers to the shared-object basis, because faculty and consciousness together apprehend a single object. Although these three names differ, they are all the five faculties and are subsumed under the simultaneous basis among the three bases. Since the eye and other [faculties] depended upon are contaminated, they cannot generate uncontaminated consciousness and cognition. Saying that "these two differ in clarity and obscurity regarding their objects" means that the two are the contaminated and the uncontaminated: the uncontaminated is clear, while the contaminated consciousness is obscure. Since the five consciousnesses of the ten bhūmis are contaminated, they only become the basis upon reaching the Buddha-fruit. The meaning of the simultaneous basis is cited in detail as in the chapter "Inquiry on the Manifest" (Wensheng pin). Here the commentary takes the position that it is attained at the time of buddhahood, and therefore it is not mentioned here.

57.7

The commentary states: "Relying on the fundamental consciousness, the tathāgatagarbha nature, the true thusness dharmakāya, as the locus": this secondly explains the locus depended upon. "True thusness" is what the aforementioned Vijñaptimātratā called the basis of delusion and awakening, which the noble path transforms so as to abandon the defiled and attain the pure. However, that true thusness is just the nature of consciousness-only; hence that treatise says: "This ultimate truth of all dharmas is also just true thusness, because its nature is ever thus; it is the real nature of consciousness-only." Here, within the fundamental consciousness, one relies on the nature of true thusness. Furthermore, in the Dharmatā school, the characteristics of consciousness and the nature of consciousness completely interpenetrate each other. Now, within the one consciousness there are two aspects: first, the aspect of true thusness; second, the aspect of arising and ceasing. In the aspect of true thusness, the dharmakāya is subsumed under the aspect of true thusness. Hence the sūtra says: "The body of true thusness, impartial and without characteristics." If in the aspect of arising and ceasing, the dharmakāya is called the tathāgatagarbha nature. The tathāgatagarbha nature is just original enlightenment; hence the Awakening of Faith says: "What is meant by the meaning of 'enlightenment' is that the essence of the mind is free from thought. The characteristic of being free from thought is equal to the realm of empty space, with nowhere it does not pervade. The single characteristic of the dharmadhātu is the Tathāgata's impartial dharmakāya. Based on this dharmakāya, it is called original enlightenment; however, the harmony of the true and the false is called the ālayavijñāna." Ordinary beings merely perfume seeds through the false consciousness, whereas noble cognition eliminates falsehood. Although the fundamental consciousness has not yet abandoned the ripening [aspect], these two cognitions rely solely on the constant principle of the true thusness dharmakāya; hence the treatise says: "Transforming the locus, because one relies on the permanent body."

57.8

The commentary states: "The treatise says: 'As the sūtra states...'" and so on: fourth, explaining the treatise's citation of scriptural proof. Within this there are two parts: first, stating the treatise; second, from "Because it is of definitive meaning" downward, the commentary's explanation. Within this there are also two parts: this sentence brings out the intention that, because it is of definitive meaning, the sūtra definitively speaks of it. The commentary states: "The Nirvāṇa Sūtra..." and so on, citing the sūtra text; within this there are also two parts: first, directly citing it; second, resolving an objection. First, this is the thirty-fifth chapter, "Kauṇḍinya," in the Southern edition of the sūtra: "At that time the World-Honoured One said to Kauṇḍinya: 'Form is impermanent. Through the cessation of this form, one attains the permanent form of liberation. Sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness are also impermanent. Through the cessation of this consciousness, one attains the permanent consciousness of liberation.'" That sūtra subsequently states: "Suffering, emptiness, and impurity are also like this; therefore it is said that the Tathāgata's five aggregates are permanence, bliss, self, and purity." As for "its texts are more than one," this refers to the second fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which, in setting forth the doctrine and revealing the virtues, immediately speaks of permanence, as has already been extensively distinguished in the profound discussion. Throughout this sūtra, above and below, its texts are more than one.
The commentary states: "Question: The locus is fundamentally present..." and so on: secondly, resolving an objection. First asking, and later, from "If according to Consciousness-Only..." downward, explaining. Within this there are also two parts: first, according to the Dharmalakṣaṇa school. Saying "it is not permanent in self-nature": the self-nature is permanently immutable, which refers to the dharmakāya. The saṃbhogakāya is called permanent in continuity; that is, the dependent [cognition] is also spoken of as permanent. Third, the nirmāṇakāya is called permanent in non-interruption, because its functioning in response is uninterrupted. The commentary states: "If according to the Awakening of Faith..." and so on: secondly, according to the Dharmatā school. First citing the treatise, meaning that original enlightenment is the dharmakāya, and initial enlightenment is the saṃbhogakāya. Since it says that initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment, there are no longer separate names of initial and original; in ultimate enlightenment, the two permanences are without distinction. Master [Dao]sheng also said: "The true principle is spontaneous; awakening also tallys with it obscurely. Since truth is without difference, how could awakening be mutable? The immutable essence is serene, ever illuminating," and so forth, all as stated earlier.
The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says: "All dharmas are permanently abiding. If speaking separately of the three bodies: 'The Tathāgata's wondrous form-body is without equal in the world, incomparable and inconceivable; therefore I now pay homage'—this speaks of the nirmāṇakāya. 'The Tathāgata's form is inexhaustible, and his wisdom is likewise'—this praises the saṃbhogakāya. 'All dharmas are permanently abiding'—this praises the dharmakāya. 'Therefore I take refuge'—this generally praises the three bodies." Since it says that all dharmas are permanently abiding, how could the upper two bodies not be permanently abiding? This is also like the Lotus Sūtra's "The characteristics of the world are permanently abiding." If even the world is permanently abiding, how could the three bodies be impermanent?
The commentary states: "Third: its characteristic is like empty space, which is the characteristic of liberation": first, it adduces the sūtra to establish the name; second, from "Unlike the śrāvakas..." downward, it explains and reveals its characteristics, also taking up the intention of the treatise. The treatise also has three parts: first, a reverse question distinguishing what it is not, saying: "Can it be the same as the liberation of the wisdom of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, which still has hindrances? No." Second, a direct question revealing what it is, saying: "What is liberation? The verse says: 'Its characteristic is like empty space.'" Third, explaining what it is and distinguishing it from what it is not, saying: "Because it is free from all afflictions and hindrances." Explanation: afflictions—this is what the Lotus Sūtra calls: "Freedom from all bonds of suffering is called attaining liberation. From what has this person attained liberation? Merely departing from falsehood is called liberation; in reality he has not yet attained all liberation. He has not escaped the knowable, because there are three remainders." Now, escaping the two hindrances, it is not like that.
The commentary states: "The meaning of the three virtues has already appeared above..." and so on: third, concluding generally with the three virtues. Within this there are two parts: first, concluding generally with the three virtues; second, speaking specifically of the transformation of the locus. In the former, pointing generally by saying "appeared above" refers to the "Inquiry on the Manifest" chapter, yet below in the "Appearance" chapter it will again be extensively clarified. The commentary states: "However, its consummation is in the Buddha..." and so on, distinguishing according to stages. This is the meaning of Zhiyi of Tiantai, clarifying according to the six identities of the Perfect Teaching. First, the three virtues of identity in principle: that all sentient beings equally possess the three defilements—affliction is prajñā, karma-bondage is liberation, and suffering retribution is the dharmakāya. Delusion forms the three defilements, yet their essence is just the three virtues. Second, the three virtues of identity in name: regarding the perfect principle, whether cause or fruit, one understands clearly. Third, the three virtues of identity in contemplative practice: the three virtues are cultivated perfectly; there is no hindrance that is not stilled, no principle that is not illuminated; stillness and illumination flow together, seeing through to the mind-nature. Furthermore, one emptiness is all emptiness, which is prajñā; one provisionality is all provisionality, which is liberation; one middle is all middle, which is the dharmakāya. Fourth, the three virtues of identity in resemblance: the six faculties are purified, the body is like lapis lazuli, illuminating the true characteristic of dharmas, unbound by the ties of karma. Fifth, the three virtues of identity in partial reality: as in the Abode of the Initial Aspiration, one attains the Tathāgata's single body and immeasurable bodies, with sovereign mastery in preaching the Dharma and wisdom activities. Sixth, the three virtues of ultimate identity: that is the Tathāgata. Here this corresponds to the three virtues of identity in partial reality. Saying now "its consummation is in the Buddha" refers to the three virtues of ultimate identity. The opening and unfolding in the ten abodes is partial reality. Here, in terms of the cause, it says "partially attained," which is also partial reality, because from the initial mind of the ten abodes straight up to the ten bhūmis, all are called partial reality. The fruit-sea depended upon is equal to the ultimate.

57.9

Regarding the commentary's "Reversal of the basis is likewise," this secondly specifically harmonizes the reversal of the basis (āśrayaparavṛtti). That is, before the tenth [fascicle] of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi explains the four reversals of the basis, it first states: "Thus, throughout the ten grounds, the bodhisattva vigorously cultivates the ten superior practices, severs the ten obstacles, realizes the ten tathatās, and is able to realize and attain the two reversals of the basis (the fruits of the two reversals of the basis are bodhi and nirvāṇa)." In distinguishing the stages of the reversal of the basis, there are briefly six kinds: First, the reversal by diminishing power and augmenting capacity, meaning that in the first two stages, by cultivating superior understanding as well as shame and remorse, one diminishes the power of the defiled seeds in the fundamental consciousness and augments the capacity of the pure seeds within the fundamental consciousness; although one has not yet severed the seeds of the obstacles to truly realize the reversal of the basis, yet by gradually subduing active manifestations, it is also named "reversal." Second, the reversal of penetration, meaning that in the stage of penetration, through the power of the path of seeing, one penetrates tathatā, severs the heaviness of the two conceptually-discriminated obstacles, and realizes a portion of the true reversal of the basis. Third, the reversal of cultivation, meaning that in the stage of cultivation, through repeatedly cultivating the practices of the ten grounds, one gradually severs the heaviness of the two innate obstacles and successively realizes the true reversal of the basis. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that the reversal of penetration is in the true six grounds, where the contemplation with marks and the contemplation without marks penetrate both truth and conventionality, appearing alternately in succession, causing the true and the non-true to appear and not appear; hence it is called [the reversal of] cultivation. The reversal [of cultivation] is in the final four grounds, where the pure contemplation without marks appears for prolonged periods, vigorously cultivating and eliminating heaviness, mostly causing the non-true not to appear. The explanation says: Penetrating truth and conventionality means that with the contemplation with marks one penetrates the conventional, and with the contemplation without marks one realizes the true. Saying "causing the true and the non-true to appear and not appear" means that entering the contemplation without marks the true appears and the non-true does not appear, while emerging from the contemplation the true does not appear, and because one enters [the contemplation] with marks the non-true appears. Saying "the final four grounds mostly cause the non-true not to appear" means that because one is constantly in the contemplation without marks, it mostly does not appear. Due to mixed afflictions, it is not yet termed purified. Thus, the non-true still appears, which is why it says "mostly." The treatise [says:] Fourth, the reversal of the fruition's full perfection, meaning the ultimate stage, where through cultivating boundless, difficult-to-practice, and superior practices for three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas, when the vajropamasamādhi appears before one, one permanently severs all original heaviness, suddenly realizes the fully perfected reversal of the basis of the Buddha fruit, and benefits and gladdens beings endlessly to the exhaustion of future boundaries. Fifth, the inferior reversal, meaning the stages of the two vehicles exclusively seeking self-benefit: (1) weary of suffering and longing for quiescence, (2) only able to penetrate the tathatā of the emptiness of persons, (3) severing the seeds of affliction, (4) realizing true analytical cessation, (5) lacking superior capability, and (6) termed the inferior reversal. The explanation says: Because it has the above six meanings, it is called inferior. Sixth, the vast reversal, meaning the Mahāyāna stages, where for the sake of benefiting sentient beings one proceeds toward great bodhi, having neither longing nor aversion toward saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, able to penetrate the tathatā of both emptinesses, doubly severing the seeds of the obstacles of the knowable and of affliction, suddenly realizing anuttarabodhi and nirvāṇa, and having superior capability; this is termed the vast reversal. Here, the meaning intends the vast reversal of the basis, because it is realized and attained by abandoning the two kinds of heaviness. Question: Why is the reversal of the fruition's full perfection not taken? Explanation: Spoken in contrast for the bodhisattva, it is therefore not taken. The intention clarifies that the above all pertain to stages, and do not go beyond the latter two of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Because the Hīnayāna is not taken, only the sixth is taken. Now, the text of the commentary merely does not take the Hīnayāna and diminishing power and augmenting [capacity]; diminishing power and augmenting capacity are only the provisions and expedient preparations, whereas now we are discriminating the grounds.

57.10

Regarding the commentary's "These different characteristics are obtained from the previous identity" and so forth, this secondly generally concludes and harmonizes. Within it are two: first concluding and harmonizing the meaning of identity, and afterwards from "In the treatise" merely concluding difference. Now, as for the first: there should be a question saying, "If liberation is like empty space, it is fundamentally unobstructed; how does it differ from the characteristic of identity?" Therefore this harmonization is made. Identity concerns essential emptiness; this concerns matching emptiness. Awakening to fundamental bondage-free nature is named true liberation; hence it says "obtaining the previous identity accomplishes these differences." That can accomplish this, and this can reveal that; the accomplisher and accomplished are not one. In concluding the differences, only five phrases are concluded, because liberation is the general, and among the various destinies it is the place of liberation, so it is not concluded. Saying "contemplating in this way and contemplating, etc." means one should contemplate by thus matching reality, not making other contemplations that do not match. Saying "etc." inclusively takes the liberation of reliance, meaning one should rely on the permanent in this way, and not rely on the impermanent; one should doubly depart from the liberation of the two obstacles in this way, and not be like the śrāvakas. Saying "the latter three reveal the real in contrast to the false": first, prajñā says it is not like the śrāvaka relying on sound to awaken; second, the dharmakāya says it is not like the wisdom of impermanent mental consciousness relying on impermanent causes and conditions; third, liberation says it is not like the śrāvakas who still have the obstacle of the knowable. Hence it cites the real to conclude these three, causing one to rely on the real and not on the false. It may also be that the latter three are just nirvāṇa, because the former two are not separate from the three, as already explained above. In the treatise, after this, it harmonizes the six characteristics, saying: "Having spoken thus, among them essential emptiness is the general, and the three kinds of wisdom-emptiness are the particulars." The explanation says: this harmonizes the characteristic of identity. The treatise further says: "Liberation is the general, and the five kinds of liberation are the particulars." The explanation says: this harmonizes the characteristics of identity and difference. It only harmonizes the general and particular, because identity, difference, formation, and disintegration can be briefly known.

57.11

Regarding the commentary's "The second single verse analogizes the subtlety of the practice of the grounds" and so forth: Master [Hui]yuan further said, "The latter three verses analogize and reveal the reality of the grounds through the qualities of the Buddha fruit." His idea was: the former two nirvāṇas are the sphere of the Buddha and therefore difficult to speak of, and by analogy the reality of the grounds is also difficult to speak of and hear. Although there is this reasoning, the previous four verses never spoke of the characteristics of the Buddha fruit; they only pointed out that the nirvāṇa attained by bodhisattvas is the nirvāṇa practiced by Buddhas. Therefore the present commentary states that by means of the wisdom of the higher grounds, it analogizes and reveals the practice of the grounds as extremely subtle. Hence the treatise explains "practice" by saying: "It refers to the practices of giving (dāna) and so forth, not the reality of the grounds." In the commentary there are two parts: first, a general topical outline; and afterwards, from "In the first" onward, citing and explaining the text. In explaining the upper half there are three parts: first, stating the verse's intention; next, from "quiescent is the characteristic of identity" onward, specifically explaining; third, from "Why not speak directly?" onward, examining and explaining, which can be understood. In explaining the lower half which is analogized, there are five: (1) directly explaining, (2) citing the treatise, (3) from "speaking of the contemplation of objects" onward, commenting on the treatise, (4) "supposing the ground is the essence," selecting and eliminating confusion, (5) from "taking this wisdom of the ground" onward, re-explaining the treatise. In the fourth, it directly selects and eliminates Master Yuan's view that what is analogized is the reality of the grounds. Because the earlier treatise said, "The ground is the contemplation of objects," and the commentary explained it as the preparatory contemplation, now it concedes: even granting that the ground is the reality of the grounds, and that the contemplation of objects is not preparatory [contemplation] but the reality of the grounds, the intention takes the practice arising from the reality of the grounds, not the reality of the grounds itself. Hence the treatise states: "Practice refers to concordant practice, because the reality of the grounds is just the realizing wisdom, which is concordant with those differentiated practices of giving and so forth." One clearly knows that it takes practice.

57.12

Regarding the commentary's "The third single verse lodges contrast to manifest subtlety," within the text there are two parts: first, generally revealing the intention of taking contrast, which means the wisdom born of hearing and thinking, and inclusively takes retribution-born consciousness. Afterwards, from "The first line" onward, citing and explaining in accordance with the text. The four lines have three divisions, because the middle two are joined. The first line has three: (1) Grasping the meaning and directly explaining. Saying "'arising' is the preparatory and subsequent [wisdoms]" means these two are that which is able to arise. The single character "wisdom" of realization is that which is arisen. "Both contemplate tathatā," and tathatā is also able to give rise, hence it says "both are that which is able to give rise." (2) From "Hence the treatise says" onward, using the treatise to explain the previous words about preparatory and subsequent: what contemplation is preparatory, and what concordant practice is subsequent? (3) From "This is the previous verse" onward, commenting on the treatise text. However, the treatise merely poses the question asking what contemplation, etc., are, without a separate answer; now the commentary directly points to the verse's commentary explaining contemplation and concordant practice. From "both say 'what'" onward, it directly shows the characteristic of the answer, namely that following the ground, preparations and so forth give rise to realizing wisdom. As for that word "wisdom" in the treatise, the previous commentary has already explained it. Regarding the commentary's from "The latter line clarifies" onward, it explains the third line. Saying "Hence in the Lotus [Sūtra] preaching is taken as the gate of wisdom" means that [the sūtra] explains that the wisdom of all Buddhas is profoundly deep and measureless as the profoundly deep realization, and explains that its gate of wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter as the profoundly deep āgama. Āgama is just the doctrinal teaching. Master [Dao]sheng said: "Knowing that wisdom lies in preaching, preaching is then the gate. Not only is wisdom incomprehensible, but the gate is also difficult to understand; understanding the gate, one reaches the three non-existences. If the three non-existences are difficult to understand, how is it that preaching is always taken as the gate?"

57.13

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The fourth verse is an analogy': the text of the Commentary has four parts: 1. Selecting the essence of the analogy; 2. Explaining the text section by section; 3. Concluding with praise of supreme capability; 4. Differentiating it by contrast with what preceded. Now, for the first part: it is identical to the preceding analogy of painting in the wind. From 'The treatise states' onward in the Commentary, is the second part, explaining the text section by section. Within this, there are two: first, explaining the analogical depiction; second, explaining the application of the analogy. Within the first, there are two: first, citing the treatise; second, from 'Overall revealing the analogy' onward, the Commentary's explanation. Below this, the treatise further states: 'Why? In empty space, the marks of a bird's tracks cannot be distinguished'; thus it is not that there are no tracks of flight in empty space. The present Commentary merely applies this in principle, so it is implicitly mirrored in the application. From 'Here, the locus of the tracks' onward in the Commentary is the explanation of the applied analogy. Within this, there are two: 1. Correctly explaining according to the treatise; 2. Grasping the meaning to elaborate the application. Within the first, there are three: first, generally applying the empty space and the tracks; second, from 'Why does it not speak' onward, applying what was said above about their length, shortness, largeness, smallness, and so forth being unspeakable; third, from 'The above clarifies the coarse characteristics' onward, applying what was said above about their not being non-existent. Within this, there are two: 1. Directly applying their non-existence; 2. From 'Moreover, using space to subsume tracks' onward, space and tracks mutually reveal neither existence nor non-existence. From 'If one wishes to unpack the bird' onward in the Commentary is the second part, grasping the meaning to elaborate the application. Within this, there are three: 1. Unpacking into three matters, by adding the bird. 2. From 'If one further unpacks' onward, unpacking into four matters, by splitting space into two. 3. From 'If one uses the tracks to illustrate realization-cognition' onward, explaining by analogy with the preceding, which also has four meanings. However, regarding the former four: 1. Great space illustrates the ocean of fruition; 2. The space at the locus of the tracks illustrates realization-cognition's ten suchnesses; 3. The tracks in space illustrate the characteristics of the grounds; 4. The bird illustrates the verbal teachings, whereas the tracks do not illustrate realization-cognition. Now, drawing an analogy with painting in the wind, where the tracks illustrate realization-cognition, one should say: 1. Great space illustrates the ocean of fruition; 2. Space at the locus of the tracks illustrates the ten suchnesses; 3. The tracks in space illustrate realization-cognition; 4. The bird illustrates the verbal teachings, since the characteristics of the grounds are all the path of teaching. As for the statement 'As analyzed in the painting in the wind', this is because the aforementioned painting in the wind in empty space is analogously identical to the present tracks. However, the root treatise in that section merely used painting in the wind to illustrate the āgamas, and the underlying space to illustrate realization-cognition; yet those āgamas were explained in terms of verbal teachings. Next below, the Commentary states that if one takes the two analogies to illustrate what is expressed, there are still two levels: 1. Using the painting in the wind to illustrate the characteristics of the grounds, and the underlying space to illustrate realization-cognition; 2. Using the painting in the wind to illustrate the cognition of the grounds, and the underlying space to illustrate the ocean of fruition. The present passage specifically follows the second intention; but painting in the wind is used three times before the four matters are completed: 1. Illustrating the verbal teachings; 2. Illustrating the characteristics of the grounds; 3. Illustrating realization-cognition, together with the underlying space illustrating the ten suchnesses realized; 4. Great space illustrating the ocean of fruition, making four. However, apart from painting in the wind in empty space, there is no other painting in the wind, just as the bird is distinct from the tracks; therefore, the painting at the locus of space where the wind paints illustrates the characteristics of the grounds, and the painting illustrates the expressing [teachings]. From 'By means of these bird tracks' onward in the Commentary is the third part, concluding with praise of supreme capability. From 'Here, the bird tracks' onward in the Commentary is the fourth part, differentiating it by contrast with what preceded. Within this, there are three: first, citing the treatise to raise a question; second, from 'The treatise states' onward, citing the treatise to give the direct answer; third, from 'This intention means' onward, the Commentary's explanation of the treatise's text. Within this, there are two: first, explaining the different intents of the two analogies; second, from 'If with an attached mind' onward, citing the treatise to explain the fault of seizing with attachment. Within this, there are four: 1. Directly presenting the five faults. The author of the treatise gave only five names; the Commentary raises the names in one phrase, as in saying, 'First, incorrect faith,' and in one phrase explains the treatise, as in saying, 'Because understanding in accordance with words does not match reality.' The remaining four are all like this. Throughout this, there are three sections: 1. Directly presenting the five faults: the first two contravene practice, the middle two contravene persons, and the last one contravenes the Dharma. 2. From 'The intent is to cause' onward, generally revealing the text's intention. 3. From 'People today' onward, concluding by censuring divergent interpretations. This means: speaking of 'people today' is not in contrast to ancients, but merely refers to the fact that nowadays there are such people. 4. From 'Therefore praising that it is difficult to preach' onward brings out the essence, raising the detriments of the five faults, which inversely become five virtues. The five virtues are: 1. Correct faith; 2. Courage; 3. Correct preaching; 4. Accordance with the Buddha; 5. Revering the Dharma.

57.14

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'Now, first, stating the meaning of the three accomplishments': the Commentary text has two parts: first, revealing the purpose of the name; afterwards, explaining the text. Within the former, there are four: 1. Explaining the name; 2. Discerning the stages; 3. Discerning and determining with respect to the text; 4. Resolving objections. Now, the first also has two: first, explaining the name; second, resolving objections. Now, the first: if distinguished by coarse characteristics, it is the three prajñās of hearing, contemplation, and cultivation. If discerning characteristics in detail, the prajñā of cultivation is twofold: true cultivation is the third, and cultivation directed toward conditions belongs to the second. From 'The previous two do not resemble genuine realization' onward is the second part, resolving objections, while also explaining the common name. That is, someone asks: 'None of the three kinds of accomplishment are great in meaning; why is it that the third alone selects meaning?' The intended answer is clear. From 'In terms of their own respective divisions' onward, it again resolves an objection. That is, an objection states: 'If all are causes, how are they called accomplishments?' The explanation states: they are called accomplished in terms of their own respective divisions, not called accomplishments in contrast to causes. Explaining accomplishment by 'acquisition' (prāpti) is because the Abhidharmakośa states, 'Acquisition means gaining accomplishment'; thus, this text is used to explain the common name, terming them the three accomplishments.

57.15

Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The stages of these three': this is the second part, discerning the stages. Master Huiyuan calls this determining according to loci. The Commentary's intention means: all ten grounds possess the three kinds of accomplishment. For the three accomplishments of the first ground, the first two are before the grounds, and the rest are all on the grounds; thus it says that the first two are allowed to be before the grounds. As for Master Huiyuan's intention, there are two overall ideas: 1. Provisionally assigning to the causes of loci. This has three senses: (1) Assigned to lineage (gotra), where lineage seeds establish the greatness of causal accomplishment, because they accord with it; (2) Assigned to understanding and practice (adhimukti-caryā), where understanding and practice initiate cultivation to enter the path of departure, and causes gradually become accomplished, because they accord with it; (3) Assigned to the stages on the grounds, where the accomplishment of virtues on the grounds is taught as cultivation, because it accords with it. 2. Explaining according to the locus of actual practice, which broadly agrees with the Commentary's intent; since the latter meaning is essential, one should only take the latter explanation.

First 15 of 37 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese