大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59

English (machine translation) 59

Language: English

59.1

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

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Second, clarifying the nine middle and later branches': one may also say ten, the meaning of which is as explained before. By concealing active consciousness, it simply says nine; it will be explained extensively below.

59.3

Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'However, the Śāstra combines the concluding passage and divides it into three sections in total': the concluding passage is the Commentary's sectioning of the sūtra—that is, the beginning of the previous contemplation of possessing all sufferings, because it clarifies suffering in terms of the twelve links. The general outline says the text is divided into two: first, individually clarifying the characteristics of the conditions; second, from 'Such sentient beings...' onward, concluding as false suffering. Regarding the former, it is initially divided into two: first, clarifying the three branches of the prior limit; second, distinguishing the nine middle and later branches. Now, within the middle and later nine, the Śāstra includes the concluding passage and divides it into three sections. If one proceeds directly by the sūtra text, this down through the third—the contemplation of those two inversions—should be divided into four in total: 1. Showing the characteristics of the nine conditions; 2. from 'Such sentient beings...' onward, concluding as false suffering; 3. from 'Among these all are empty...' onward, clarifying the emptiness of the conditions' essence; 4. taking the sūtra text on those two inversions to conclude as delusion. The fourth section is the third contemplation. Now, in order to accord with the Śāstra, regarding the previous three sections, it opens the first into two, combines the latter half and the second into one, and takes the third as one, so there are also three. Within the Commentary, the text is divided into three sections: 1. Listing the three names; 2. from 'Concerning self-characteristic...' onward, explaining the three names; 3. explaining according to the text. In the second, 'concerning common characteristic, the explanation has two meanings': the first is Master Yuan's meaning; the second is the present Commentary's primary intent. Within this are four points: 1. Directly clarifying it. 2. From 'Just as...' onward, citing an analogy to explain the ordinary self-characteristic and common characteristic to verify and establish it: self-characteristic completely corresponds to common characteristic, while their breadths differ; this [one] is narrow because it only pertains to causes and conditions, while that [other] is broad because it pervades the conditioned. However, the faults of dependent origination are identical with impermanence and so forth. 3. From 'This then is the present...' onward, concluding on the concealed and revealed: concealing the self-characteristic and revealing the common characteristic in the future is meant to cause revulsion toward future fruits and sever present causes. 4. From 'This explanation accords with the Śāstra...' onward, citing the Śāstra for verification.

59.4

The Commentary states: "The phrase 'retribution characteristic' [and following]" individually explains the first characteristic. The commentary text divides into five: First, it directly explains the meaning of retribution, because vipāka is the retributive substance of the three realms. Arising together with name-and-form clarifies that it is fruition retribution. Second, "Therefore the treatise states [and following]" cites proof for the meaning that the vipāka consciousness is the retribution characteristic. Third, "This consciousness-constituent contains [and following]" brings forth its essential nature. Fourth, "Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha [and following]" cites proof for the three characteristics. Fifth, "The sūtra states [and following]" explains the text. The first three are clear. Within the fourth, there are three [parts]: First, citing the treatise and enumerating the names; second, explaining the intended meaning of that treatise; third, reconciling and explaining the two treatises. Now, the first is from Chapter Two, "The Chapter on the Support of What Is to Be Known," in the second fascicle of the treatise, which states: "The treatise says: Having thus spoken of the distinctive denominations established for the ālayavijñāna, how is the establishing of its characteristics to be perceived? The establishing of these characteristics is briefly of three kinds: first, establishing the intrinsic characteristic; second, establishing the causal characteristic; third, establishing the fruition characteristic. The first refers to relying upon all the perfuming [impressions] of all defiled dharmas to serve as the cause of their arising, through being capable of grasping and holding them in association with seeds. The second refers to that very ālayavijñāna possessing all seeds, at all times serving as the manifest cause for those various defiled dharmas. The third refers to those very defiled dharmas, from beginningless time, continually arising through all the perfuming of the ālayavijñāna." The commentary on the treatise states that analyzing the corresponding characteristics of the intrinsic characteristic of this consciousness makes two kinds, because cause and fruition differ. Explanation: "The first refers to relying upon all [and following]" is the treatise's own explanation of the characteristics. This is what the present commentary refers to by saying: "This intention clarifies [and following], which explains the intended meaning of that treatise, stating it in concise summary." If one speaks directly of the essential substance itself without reference to cause and fruition, the essential substance of the consciousness equally embraces both cause and fruition. Distinguishing cause and fruition yields the two characteristics; not distinguishing cause and fruition is the intrinsic characteristic. Therefore the above commentary on the treatise states: "Analyzing the corresponding characteristics of the intrinsic characteristic of this consciousness makes two kinds, because cause and fruition differ." Thus, the intrinsic characteristic is general, while cause and fruition are specific.

59.5

The Commentary states: "In the causal characteristic of the present treatise [and following]" is the third part, reconciling and explaining the two treatises. Question: The characteristics of cause and fruition differ; how can this cause be that fruition? Answer: Now, the fruition consciousness is taken as the cause of name-and-form, not the seed taken as the cause of the manifest consciousness; therefore, the names differ but the substance is one. Therefore, among the three characteristics here, the first two are both the fruition characteristic of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. The fruition characteristic of this treatise is naturally the fruition characteristic of name-and-form. The statement "Although the designations established differ, both are applicable to cause and fruition" clarifies that citing those three characteristics does not serve to corroborate these three; it merely clarifies that this consciousness applies to fruition as well. The cause is as in the preceding passage.

59.6

The Commentary states: "The so-called name-and-form [and following] brings forth the substance and characteristics of the sprout of suffering." The text has three [parts]: First, citing the sūtra to make a general presentation, where the sūtra states "so-called name-and-form arising together"; second, "The treatise states [and following]" cites the treatise to explain; third, "Meaning that name-and-form together with that [and following]" is the commentary explaining the treatise, because the word "that" in the treatise refers precisely to the ālaya. Within this there are three [parts]: First, generally revealing the intention of the treatise; next, "'Name' refers to non-form [and following]" brings forth the substance of form; finally, "These two and consciousness [and following]" reveals the meaning of co-arising. The meaning of a bundle of reeds will be explained in the sixth ground. That is the passage immediately following the aforementioned Mahāyānasaṃgraha, which states: "The ālayavijñāna and those defiled dharmas are simultaneously mutual causes for each other. How is this to be perceived? Just as the flame and the wick of a bright lamp simultaneously and mutually cause arising and burning; and just as a bundle of reeds mutually support each other to simultaneously not fall over." Explanation: The wick of the lamp generates the flame, and the flame of the lamp burns the wick, mutually acting as cause and fruition, which is precisely the meaning of the fruition consciousness serving as the cause for name-and-form.

59.7

The Commentary states: "Second, not being separated is the causal characteristic" cites the sūtra to indicate the name. "Directly revealing the fundamental consciousness as the cause of name-and-form" is the commentary explaining the cause. The statement "Meaning that this name-and-form [and following]" is the treatise explaining its characteristic. The statement "Name-and-form is not separated from that fundamental consciousness" is the treatise master explaining the words "not separated" in the sūtra: it does not mean that the six sense bases are present without being separated from name-and-form; it reveals that the "co-arising" in the preceding phrase means "not separated." The statement "Because it relies upon that fundamental consciousness" is the treatise master himself explaining the words "causal characteristic." From "Since it relies upon this explanation [and following]," the commentator settles the matter, clarifying that within this intrinsic characteristic and causal characteristic, there is a distinction between the consciousness-constituent and the name-and-form constituent. Ancient explanations only took what was shared with the name-and-form constituent, because the consciousness-constituent was located in the preceding erroneous views. Now, name-and-form arising based on it means arising based on that fundamental consciousness as its cause. The Commentary states: "Third, its fruition characteristic" refers to the growth of this name-and-form; since it was already analyzed in the preceding text of the lower sūtra, here it omits citing the sūtra. The commentary merely explains that fruition, precluding it from being the retribution characteristic in serving as the fruition substance; now it takes the six sense bases and so forth as the fruition of name-and-form which is the retribution characteristic. Above, the term "succession" means: name-and-form generates the six sense bases, the six sense bases generate contact, and so on, the succession being unconfused. Fearing verbosity, it points to the subsequent text. The Commentary states: "In the second, the shared characteristic," the treatise master does not explain it because it is simple, and the commentary text is also clear. However, in the sixth ground it is named the tree of suffering, and its characteristics are extensively given. The statement that the text and meaning are clear means: textually, this contains sorrow, lamentation, suffering, and so forth. The Vijñaptimātratā states: "In the stage of old age and death, there is mostly no joy"; this is another text. In terms of meaning being clear: birth-and-death is suffering, and the suffering of sorrow and lamentation is the most obvious; therefore, it is the shared characteristic.

59.8

The Commentary states: "In the third, the inverted characteristics," there are two: first, a general explanation; next, "This has four levels [and following]" provides an individual commentary. "The Sāṃkhya claims that sentience is the characteristic of the soul" refers to Chapter Two, "Refuting the Soul," in the Śataśāstra, where the outsider states: "A soul truly exists. As the Sāṃkhya scripture states, the characteristic of sentience is the soul." Next, the treatise again states: "The disciples of Ulūka recite the Vaiśeṣika scripture, stating that cognition is distinct from the soul; therefore the soul does not fall into impermanence, nor is it devoid of cognition. Why? Because soul and cognition unite. Just as a man possesses a cow." The commentary notes: "Just as when a man unites with a cow, the man is called 'possessing a cow'; likewise, when soul, cognition, sense faculties, sense objects, and mind unite, cognition arises in the soul. Because it unites with the soul, the soul is named 'possessing cognition.'" Explanation: The above is the treatise's presentation [of their view]. Now it merely says it is non-existent, without stating the reason for non-existence; the reasons are extensively given before and after. Now it should be briefly stated: the treatise refutes the Sāṃkhya, saying: "The insider says: Are the soul and sentience identical or different? The outsider says: Soul and sentience are identical. The insider says: If sentience is the characteristic of the soul, the soul would be impermanent." The commentary on the treatise states: "Just as heat is the characteristic of fire; because heat is impermanent, fire is also impermanent. Now sentience is truly impermanent, because its characteristics are distinct, because it belongs to causes and conditions, because having previously been non-existent it now exists, and because having existed it returns to non-existence." The outsider says: Because it does not arise, it is permanent—intending to clarify that the soul does not arise. The insider says: If so, sentience is not the characteristic of the soul—meaning: sentience is impermanent while the soul is permanent, and the impermanent should not serve as the characteristic of the permanent. That commentary generally explains: "These two are mutually contradictory in three pairs: first, the soul is permanent and sentience is impermanent; second, the soul is all-pervading and sentience is not all-pervading; third, the soul is one and sentience is manifold." In this first section, it generates faults precisely with respect to two pairs; soul being one and sentience being manifold is only refuted in the third level. Regarding the first pair, there are four kinds of faults: First, if the soul conforms to sentience, the soul is impermanent. Second, if sentience conforms to the soul, sentience should be permanent. Third, if they do not conform to each other, their substances are not one. Fourth, if one insists that sentience is the soul, the soul would be of two kinds: permanent and impermanent, or sentient and insentient. Now, in concluding these four faults, the sūtra text contains the first and second, which refute that sentience should exist; the third and fourth are omitted. The rest is as in that treatise. Second, refuting the Vaiśeṣika: it first refutes their analogy, stating: "The insider says: The characteristic of a cow resides in the cow, not in the one who possesses the cow." Explanation: The one who possesses the cow is a human; the human unites with the cow, but the cow is not the human. The soul unites with cognition, but cognition is not the soul; how can it serve as its characteristic? Next, it refutes their doctrine, stating: "You say that by the characteristic of the soul uniting with sense faculties, sense objects, and mind, cognition arises; this cognition knows form and so forth. Therefore, only cognition can know, not the soul knowing. Just as fire can burn, not the person possessing fire burning." Then the doctrine of cognition serving as the characteristic of the soul is not established; now it is said to be devoid of cognition. The Commentary's statement "If according to the Hīnayāna [and so forth]" means: the sensation aggregate is named sentience, sensing suffering, pleasure, and so forth. Three aggregates are named cognition: conception grasps marks, mental formations possess desire, resolve, and so on—all of which are the meaning of cognition and consciousness; further clarifying that form is neither of these two.

59.9

The Commentary states: "According to the six sense faculties, body consciousness is called sentience [and so forth]": If explained distinctly, the eye sees, the ear hears, and the nose, tongue, and body are called sentience, while the mental faculty is called cognition. Here, taking the tangible object to correlate with it is sentience, while the remaining five are spoken of as cognition.

59.10

The Commentary states: "Presently there is cognition and sentience [and following]" resolves the outsider's objection, first stating the objection; "Conforming to convention [and following]" provides the reply, which reflects the intention of the Madhyamakaśāstra.

59.11

The Commentary states: "Furthermore, mental dharmas have four [and following]" also replies to the above objection. Within this there are two [parts]: first, presenting the characteristics of the dharmas; second, concluding with an answer to their question. In the former, these four are identical to the four kinds of ultimate truth in the ninth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratā: first, worldly ultimate truth, referring to aggregates, realms, sense bases, and so forth; second, principled ultimate truth, referring to suffering, origination, and so forth; third, attained ultimate truth, referring to the tathatā of the two types of emptiness; fourth, ultimate ultimate truth, referring to the one true dharmadhātu. This is extensively discussed in the Profound Meaning. The present text first enumerates the names, and next, "Meaning in accordance with objects [and following]" explains the characteristics.

59.12

The Commentary states: "Within these four levels [and following]" is the second part, concluding with an answer to their question. What you presently perceive as existent is merely the first gateway; now, based on the latter three, it is said to be non-existent. Furthermore, using the second to refute the first, facts are no longer facts. If one uses the third to refute the preceding two, both of the preceding two are non-existent. If one uses the fourth to sweep away the characteristic of emptiness, emptiness is also not established, and only then is it named the real. Moreover, the third dispels existence through emptiness, and the fourth dispels emptiness through the real; emptiness and the real are unimpeded, so cognition is precisely non-cognition. However, refuting self and dharmas is extensive, as in the sūtra passages of the previous assemblies.

59.13

The Commentary states: "An echo can illustrate the spoken sound": this analogy also serves to prevent defending [a soul's] absence of cognition, claiming that insentient things, whether moving or unmoving, are therefore devoid of cognition and sentience, but since sentient beings possess mind, how could they lack cognition and sentience? Therefore, the analogy of an echo is cited. Sound is produced due to mind; striking a valley produces an echo. An echo has no cognition or sentience, and what is produced from consciousness is likewise so.

59.14

The Commentary states: "Those two inversions [and so forth]": inversions have three meanings: first, being deluded about the real and following the false is precisely inversion; second, due to being deluded about the real, calculating pleasure as suffering, and due to following the false, calculating suffering as pleasure; third, not recognizing the real and therefore distancing oneself from it, and not knowing the false and therefore following it. Therefore, the treatise sūtra states: "Without sentience and without cognition, one undergoes various sufferings and afflictions." Although there are three levels, their import is one; therefore, in the commentary, they are brought out alternately before and after.

59.15

The Commentary states: "Since it says 'complete with suffering,' one must know there is no joy": this forestalls an objection. Fearing that someone might ask: loving-kindness is giving joy, but the sūtra only speaks of seeing that sentient beings have suffering; why does it speak of giving rise to loving-kindness? Therefore it resolves it in this way. However, the sūtra's two contemplations of loving-kindness and compassion complement each other: in compassion, beholding the object lacks words of deliverance, while in loving-kindness, it lacks beholding the object yet includes words of deliverance, because both contemplations equally take having suffering as their object. "Giving rise to loving-kindness [and following]" reiterates the preceding object to clarify deliverance, accomplishing the compassion above. Establishing them in a place of peace and joy gives rise to the loving-kindness below, and the meaning is completely fulfilled.

59.16

Regarding the commentary's statement, "First, explaining the basis upon which giving relies": this refers to the sūtra's phrase, 'in accordance with such great loving-kindness and great compassion, one can eliminate their suffering and grant them joy.' If explained separately: material giving eliminates present suffering of poverty and grants present joy of wealth; giving of the Dharma eliminates future suffering and grants transmundane joy; and giving of fearlessness eliminates present terror and grants peaceful joy. In the passage, focusing on the first, it mostly explains material goods and speaks of 'great renunciation.' It also states, 'whatever there is,' thereby including everything. Regarding the commentary's statement, "First, external wealth; second, internal wealth": these were already expounded extensively in the previous assemblies and are easy to grasp, so the commentary does not explain them again. The treatise's text is very extensive, and I shall now set it forth in full. In explaining the general phrase 'able to renounce all things whatsoever,' the treatise states: 'Regarding "all things," there are briefly two kinds: first, external; second, internal.' Next, in explaining 'the specifics below,' it first explains external things and then internal things. Within external things, it further divides into general and specific. Explaining the general phrase, it says: 'As for the external, there are again two kinds: first, things used; second, things accumulated. As the sūtra states, "all wealth, grain, storehouses, and so forth, in this order."' Explication: Here, wealth and grain are things used, and storehouses are things accumulated. Regarding the specifics from 'gold and silver' onward in the sūtra, the treatise's commentary states: 'Among them, there are extensively eight kinds, from gold and silver up to all cherished things.' 'All cherished things' refers to the sūtra's 'and other precious curiosities,' and by additionally taking the internal things below, it makes nine. The treatise explains: 'In this renunciation of external things, the first renunciation is general, and the remaining nine are specific. Relying on this, there are two kinds of joy: first, the joy of accumulating and storing; second, the joy of benefiting. The joy of accumulating and storing refers to gold, silver, and so forth. The joy of benefiting again has eight kinds.' Explication: Wanting to combine the internal things below to jointly constitute the two joys, it designates external things as having nine. In the specific explanation below, the eighth is indeed internal things. However, the order among the eight differs from the present one; here we follow the order of this sūtra. 1. The joy of benefiting through adornment: precious jewels and necklaces. 2. The joy of benefiting through conveyances: elephants, horses, and carriages. 3. The joy of benefiting through substituting for toil: slaves and common people—this corresponds to the fourth in the treatise. 4. The joy of benefiting through sovereignty: cities and villages—this corresponds to the fifth in the treatise. 5. The joy of benefiting through amusement: gardens, groves, pavilions, and observation towers—this corresponds to the third in the treatise. 6. The joy of benefiting through relatives: wives, concubines, sons, daughters, and inner and outer kinsfolk. 7. The joy of benefiting through firm attachment: and other precious curiosities. 8. The joy of benefiting through gratifying the mind: head, eyes, hands, feet, and so forth. The last three follow the order of that treatise. Regarding the commentary's statement, "According to what is appropriate for the capacities" by means of which Dharma: the sūtra has three phrases. This phrase is general, and the two phrases below are specific. What is appropriate? Second, what is appropriate according to their capacity; third, what is appropriate according to their present habituation. As for what is appropriate according to present habituation, for example, the son of a washerman should be made to cultivate the contemplation of impurity, and so on.

59.17

From the commentary's "knowing the proper time" onward, it explains the aspects of practice. There are three phrases for the aspects of practice, because knowing the time and knowing moderation are combined into one. When opening up the times, there are three; the third time carries the meaning of knowing moderation. The phrase "in such times one should cultivate concentration and so forth" is from the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, which has already been cited above.

59.18

Regarding the commentary's statement, "During the day, hold one's mind," and so on: this is from the Bequeathed Teaching Sūtra. The sūtra states: 'O you bhikṣus! During the day, diligently cultivate wholesome dharmas with your mind, not allowing time to be lost. Do not neglect this in the early night or late night either. In the middle of the night, recite the sūtras to refresh yourselves; do not, on account of sleep, let an entire life pass in vain without gaining anything. You should reflect that the fire of impermanence burns the worlds; seek your own deliverance early, and do not sleep. The thieves of the afflictions constantly watch for an opportunity to kill people, worse than mortal enemies; how can you sleep without alerting yourselves? The poisonous serpent of afflictions sleeps in your mind, just like a black viper sleeping in your room; you should use the hook of upholding the precepts to eliminate it early on. Only when the sleeping serpent has been cast out may you sleep in peace; to sleep when it has not been cast out is to be shameless. The clothing of shame is the foremost among all adornments. Shame is like an iron hook that can restrain people from unrighteousness. Therefore, bhikṣus, you should always feel shame and guilt, never letting it lapse for a moment. If you abandon shame, you will lose all merits. One who has guilt possesses wholesome dharmas; if one is without guilt, one is no different from beasts.' Explication: Simply by examining what has been cited, the commentary's text is easily understood.

59.19

Regarding the commentary's statement, "That is, measure one's capacity, both cherishing and spurring oneself on, and do not let it become excessive": this is from the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, as already cited above. It is also like teaching Śroṇa the method of tuning the lute. As for the phrase "afterwards abandoning it": the Chapter on Cultivation and Faith of the Awakening of Faith discusses people who, due to delusion by māras, suddenly arouse vigorous effort and afterwards abandon it. Now, having them not become excessive ensures that it is not suddenly aroused, nor is it abandoned later. However, the commentary explains the three times according to their specific aspects; it is also possible that these three are the beginning, middle, and end: the first is simply bearing clearly in mind; the next is diligent cultivation day and night; and the last is practicing without interruption. Regarding "This refers to the practice of the two benefits of shame and guilt above": this explains the sūtra. Within this practice, the latter three practices subsume and protect the former seven. Within shame and guilt, the practices of the two benefits across the preceding seven gates have already been encompassed; the present two benefits are precisely the preceding seven, but consist of cultivating firmness among the practices protected by shame and guilt. From "wishing to seek deliverance early" onward, it explains diligent cultivation. From "renunciation" onward, the text directly reveals the aspects of practice. This phrase generally explains the essence of firmness, which is the text of the Bequeathed Teaching cited earlier. From "not retrogressing from one's own stage" onward, it specifically explains the characteristics of firmness; the Maitreya-paripṛcchā-sūtra has already been cited in the preceding sūtra.

59.20

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Material provisions and correct practice possess two offerings": in the evaluation of vows above, there were three offerings: first, the offering of material provisions; second, the offering of reverence; third, the offering of correct practice. Here, because reverence applies to both of the above, it only divides them into material wealth and Dharma.

59.21

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Third, 'O sons of the Buddha' onward concludes with the essence and function of the ten names": the commentary's text has two parts. First, it explains the text. Later, from "However, abiding..." onward, it discerns the dharmas, which also answers the question regarding repetition. In that text, there are two parts: first, a question; later, from "The treatise states..." onward, it cites the treatise to reply. First, it cites the treatise; later, from "The phrasing of the previous sentence is brief..." onward, it is the commentary explaining the treatise. In the treatise, there is no question, but only a discernment. To state it fully, the treatise says: 'The thirty phrases spoken earlier, from faith being predominant and so on up to constantly seeking the supreme, superior path, obtain the purifying dharmas of the stage. Now these ten phrases, from faith up to making offerings to all Buddhas, are all purifying dharmas that counteract the obstacles of the stage; this is called the excellence of evaluation in cultivation.' Yet Master Huiyuan says: 'The former is what is purified, and this is what purifies. The meaning is: because the former stage is fulfilled, it can purify this dharma, and hence it is what is purified. As for the ten practices here, without these ten, the stage would not be thoroughly fulfilled, and hence they are what purifies.' This has not grasped the intended meaning, as it does not conform to the treatise and the Yogācārabhūmi.

59.22

Third, the evaluation of the fruits. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Third, explaining the scope," and so forth: the commentary's text has four parts. First, it generally indicates the scope, which is the distinction between cultivation and non-cultivation, taking cultivation and retribution as their respective scopes. Second, from "Cultivation of practice resides only in..." onward, it discusses their scope in relation to the beginning and end of the stage itself, which is based on whether the above two meanings are pervasive or non-pervasive. Third, from "Moreover, the first two and the last one..." onward, it discusses the scope in terms of presence and absence. Fourth, from "Moreover, the first two fruits..." onward, it discusses the scope in terms of dharma and fruit. The intention here is specifically to resolve a difficulty on behalf of the treatise master: Master Anguo, seeing that there was a concluding text after the two fruits, maintained that the first two fruits were solely dharmas of the stage and only the latter two were fruit dharmas, which are the emerging minds. Therefore, it is resolved here that the first two apply both to dharmas and to fruits; as dharmas they are easy to see because of the concluding text that follows, but as fruits they are difficult to see, and therefore the treatise determined that they belong to the fruits. From "failing to understand this intention" onward, it concludes by criticizing Anguo.

59.23

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Now speaking of the dharmakāya refers to the dharmakāya of merit": everything on the Buddha stage is universally called the dharmakāya. Considered in terms of realizing the ten superior merits of tathatā, one sees the merit-body; also, considered in terms of realizing the ultimate extremity of the Tathāgata, the true dharmakāya is not a visible characteristic.

59.24

Regarding the commentary's statement, "In principle, truly entering the Lotus Store," and so forth: the above was explained in terms of allocated stages, whereas from here onward it reveals the actual reality; this is the intended meaning within the fruit of vows and cognition.

59.25

Regarding the commentary's statement, "also includes making offerings to the saṃgha": the omission of the Dharma is because one has already directly realized tathatā, which is true offering. Furthermore, this refined practice is genuine cultivation, which is the Dharma offering; hence it is simply omitted. As for making offerings to the Buddhas, because the sūtra text is easy, the commentary briefly omits its explanation. The treatise says that regarding offerings, there are three kinds: first, the offering of reverence, namely praising and so forth to reveal the Buddha's merits; second, the offering of respect, namely bowing and so forth; third, the offering of presenting gifts, namely flowers, incense, and so forth, which is the text from 'clothing' onward. The 'great mind' and 'deep mind' are the minds capable of making offerings. That is, because one seeks Buddhahood, it is called the 'great mind.' Because the mind is earnest and sincere, it is called the 'deep mind.' Because they are identical with the vow of offering in the evaluation of vows above, the commentary omits them all. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Removing coarse defilements corresponds to the third in the treatise": in the treatise's sūtra text, it is also the second, but in the treatise's explanation, it corresponds to the third.

59.26

Regarding the commentary's statement, "In third, the specific aspects of practice on the stage": first, it directly explains it. Second, from "If it were not so..." onward, it establishes it by counter-questioning. Third, from "Therefore, possessing..." onward, it generally explains the categories of meaning to establish the preceding reasoning. In its statement, "Fifth, according to perfect interpenetration, one possesses all": there are further three meanings: first, in terms of mutual assistance, the meaning of dāna subsumes the six [pāramitās] and so forth; second, in terms of correspondence, a single thought-moment completely cultivates them; third, in terms of principle interpenetrating in accord with the nature, the one and the many mutually subsume each other.

59.27

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Collectively gathers the three entries," and so forth: this refining and purifying has a beginning and an end. At first, it simply explains refining, which is its beginning; later, it brings up pariṇāmanā, which can refine and make pure, which is its end. Therefore, the earlier treatise master placed pariṇāmanā after the two practices, first explaining self-benefit and benefiting others, and later pariṇāmanā as superior progress. As for the statement, "Purifying dharmas such as faith are what is refined": this corresponds to what the treatise below says: 'Wholesome dharmas such as faith are like genuine gold, entering the fire repeatedly.'

59.28

Regarding the commentary's statement, "In the second simile below...": the commentary's text has two parts. First, it directly explains the simile. Later, from "The nature of gold is inherently present..." onward, it resolves objections and establishes the explanation. Within that, there are two parts: first, a question; later, from "There are two kinds of faith and so forth..." onward, it explains. The explanation opens into two gates: faith prior to the stages is not compared to gold, whereas faith that realizes tathatā is compared to gold. In the tathāgatagarbha, being obscured by defilements, it is like being inside ore; with the initial purification at the first stage, it has already emerged from the ore; within the stages and at the fulfillment of the stages, all are entering into the fire.

59.29

Regarding the commentary's statement, "These two are non-dual, and both can be compared to gold": this means that the true mind is the essence, not distinct from the characteristics of faith and so on, with no duality whatsoever. Because the true mind is free from the turbidity of lack of faith, it is called faith; the absence of harming in the second and third is loving-kindness and compassion; the fourth, being without stinginess, is giving; the fifth is without indolence; the sixth is without ignorance; the seventh is not failing to revere the worthy; the eighth is not failing to fear wrongdoing; the ninth is being without fragility; the tenth is not going against the Buddha's teaching. Therefore, these ten practices are merely the single true mind serving as two meanings; thus they do not have two essences and are both inherently present, and so both can be compared to gold.

59.30

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Although it relies on the conditional cultivation of offerings and so forth to accomplish true virtue": The second sense inherently contains two meanings: first, in terms of the virtue of the nature that is revealed; second, in terms of the virtue accomplished through conditional cultivation that is capable of revealing [it]. For example, by knowing that the dharmatā has no stinginess or greed, one accordingly cultivates the dānapāramitā, now accomplishing the virtue of giving. Distinguishing strictly, the first meaning can be compared to fire, because it is an antidotal practice; what is revealed is compared to gold; and accomplished virtue is like the ornaments. Now, fusing the latter two to serve as the simile for gold: because virtue arises based on the real, it is identical with what is revealed. Thus it says, "the ornaments subsequently accomplished are also not different from gold." The ornaments serve as a simile for the subsequent grounds, as extensively explained above. The cases of gold are uniformly gold. Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Once one has understood the real" and so forth: it again fuses the first meaning as also not being different from gold. Because the initial [aspect] takes deluded consciousness as its essence, now the real and the deluded completely interpenetrate. Delusion arises from the real, and the real encompasses the branches of delusion. The real is not outside of delusion; precisely delusion penetrates to the source of the real. If so, there is neither that which refines nor that which is refined. Thus it says: "Provisionally lodging in characteristics to reveal the real, therefore it divides into the agent and the object."

59.31

Second, the fruit of advancement. Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The first asks about superior progression": although superior progression is directed toward the second ground, its cultivation takes place on the first ground; thus it may also be called asking about the first ground.

59.32

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The characteristics, the fruit attained," and so forth: these are the characteristics of the attained Dharma. The text of the Commentary has three parts: first, explaining the characteristics according to the treatise; second, pointing out their essence; third, re-elucidating the essence of the Dharma. Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Characteristics are expedient cognition" and so forth: the Commentary points out their essence, which is identical to the three gradations in the Tathāgata's empowerment and request. As for the words "characteristics of that which contemplates and that which is contemplated": "characteristic" has two meanings. First, because of the distinction of characteristics; second, because of being able to reach the reality of the ground, they are called characteristics. That is, the gradation of contemplation. Contemplation precisely brings forth the obstacles to reveal the characteristics of the antidotes; thus both that which [contemplates] and that which is [contemplated] are characteristics. Second, "attainment" is the gradation of realization. Third, "fruit" is the gradation of cultivation. Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Moreover, these three" and so forth: third, it re-elucidates the essence of the Dharma. It opens fundamental cognition to form the two paths; thus it does not take preparatory application. As for the statement: "Preparatory application on the grounds is subsumed under superior progression": as when wishing to enter the second ground one generates ten types of mind, this is preparatory application, yet it is the superior progression of the first ground. The intended meaning is: since superior progression is subsequent attainment, it is not expedient means.

59.33

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "If according to the intent of the treatise" and so forth: the intent of the Commentary now is to clarify that the dharmas of the grounds differ according to the cognition of the respective grounds; while the treatise says that it accomplishes the dharmas of the grounds, referring to faith and the like.

59.34

Second, regarding "knowing," there are three parts: first, briefly presenting the intent of the sūtra; second, the treatise's explanation under "The treatise subsumes the ten phrases"; third, subsuming knowing through the questions. In the second part, the statement "subsuming the ten into five" is because [they are] one-two, two-three, three-four, and five-one.

59.35

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Skill in cultivation of practice": the treatise below says "skill in accomplishment and destruction, skill in increase"; it does not designate that which is able to know as expedient means. These five expedient means are all possessed on each ground, but they are distinguished according to their characteristics. The first one is in the stage of understanding and practice; "attainment" is on the first ground; "superior" is on the second ground and above; "non-retrogression" is on the eighth ground and above, extending up to the tenth ground. The third, superior expedient means, also accomplishes excellence of virtues; therefore, the cultivation of practice is not sudden, having distinctions of initial, middle, and final; thus there are three phrases. The remaining phrases can be understood accordingly.

59.36

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "If by means of characteristics and so forth": third, subsuming knowing through the questions. In this there are two parts: first, using the sūtra's questions to subsume the five of the treatise; second, as for "if subsuming the ten phrases," using the sūtra's questions to subsume the knowledges of the sūtra.

59.37

Third, the fruit of adopting retribution. Regarding the Commentary's statement: "First the practice, later the vows": the practice is also one's own portion, and the vows are also superior progression.

59.38

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Whether giving or gathering": giving fundamentally extends to both benefits, but here it is spoken of from the aspect of benefiting others. Question: The first of the four means of gathering is already giving, why must it be spoken of separately? Answer: Because there are four intents. First, giving is fundamentally self-benefit, but now the bodhisattva practices it to cause sentient beings to emulate it in relinquishing stinginess and greed, hence it is the giving among the means of gathering for benefiting others, purely for benefiting others; second, giving simply discusses giving, while giving among the four means of gathering is a condition for gathering; third, giving extends to the three kinds of giving, while the four means of gathering pertains solely to the giving of material goods, since the giving of Dharma belongs within kind words; fourth, this ground is precisely the stage of giving, therefore it is spoken of separately. In the sūtra, it first clarifies universal giving, and later, under "constantly practicing," constant giving.

59.39

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Like this, all... below does not lose self-benefit": in the text there are three parts: first, generally explaining the intent of the text; second, citing the treatise to explain the intent; third, directly explaining the text.

59.40

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Meaning in the matters of benefiting others" and so forth: second, citing the treatise to explain. The treatise says: "The word 'not departing' indicates not departing from self-benefit. Having practiced amidst such matters of mindfulness, one achieves great reverence and eliminates all false thoughts." Explanation: Because the treatise is difficult to understand, the Commentary inserts explanations to complete it. "Great reverence" refers to the Buddhas and so forth who are recollected. "Eliminates all false thoughts" is precisely the meaning of mindfulness. Therefore, previously clarifying the giving of self-benefit causes beings to eliminate stinginess; now clarifying the practice of benefiting others does not lose self-benefit—this is the bodhisattva's skillfulness in cultivation of practice.

59.41

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Those recollected are ten" and so forth: third, explaining the text. These eleven mindfulnesses are also identical to the six mindfulnesses: the first three mindfulnesses are the same; the fourth also recollects the Saṅgha, because it is the bodhisattva Saṅgha; the next three are mindfulness of virtues, which are giving and precepts—among the six mindfulnesses it briefly brings up only two, but the present text is extensive and thus provides all perfections; the last four are mindfulness seeking the supreme truth, which is mindfulness of the devas, because they are the devas of the supreme truth.

59.42

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Radiance and virtues": the essence of the practice is pure, because it is free from the defilement of obstacles.

59.43

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "Distinguishing dharmas and meanings": distinguishing the two unobstructed cognitions of dharma and meaning by means of etymological analysis and eloquence.

59.44

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The superior activity of cultivation and definite realization of dhyāna": meaning generating a hundred samādhis based on the four dhyānas and the four formless attainments. Therefore the treatise says: "Generating a hundred samādhis in a single thought-moment is because of obtaining sovereign power over samādhi."

59.45

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The intent of the treatise takes supernatural power" and so forth: the treatise says: "Because of obtaining samādhi, with respect to the Buddhas of the ten directions and that which the Buddhas empower, it is the wisdom cultivated by all bodhisattvas." Explanation: like Bodhisattva Vajragarbha expounding the ten grounds and so forth for all bodhisattvas.

59.46

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The next three have capacities for awakening": first, going to kṣetras; second, radiance; third, directly conferring the Dharma.

59.47

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "These are real virtues of perfect fusion, hence it says 'surpassing this'": this explains the sūtra's phrase "again surpassing this number"; "this number" is the hundred samādhis and so forth in the previous fruit of leaving household life. The treatise text here is extensive. The sūtra says: "The power of the bodhisattva's vows manifests surpassing all numbers, displaying various supernatural powers: either bodies or radiances, either supernatural powers or eyes, either spheres or sounds, either practices or adornments, either empowerments or faiths or actions. These supernatural powers cannot be counted or known even in immeasurable hundreds of thousands of koṭīs of nayutas of kalpas." The treatise's explanation says: "Among these, 'body' is the fundamental support for all bodhisattva practices. Relying on that body, there are radiance and supernatural powers. Relying on radiance, there is the divine eye; because of having the divine eye, one sees the spheres before one. All eyes are of five kinds, it should be known. Relying on supernatural powers, there are sounds and practices, adornments, empowerments, and so forth. 'Sound' is to accord with their speech. 'Practice' is reaching everywhere in the ten directions. 'Adornment' is producing various manifestations. 'Empowerment' is empowerment through supernatural power. 'Faith' is displaying supernatural powers based on gates of samādhi, accomplishing benefits according to the faith of sentient beings. 'Action' is displaying the expounding of the Dharma based on dhāraṇī gates subsumed by the wisdom eye. In brief, each of all grounds has cause, essence, and fruit characteristics, which should be known." Explanation: The subsequent concluding summary of cause, essence, and fruit characteristics has already been fully explained in the Commentary. Because the previous sūtra and treatise are both easily understood and analogize to the previous hundred bodies, hundred samādhis, and so forth, the Commentary does not display them.

59.48

Second, the Ground of Freedom from Defilement. Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The reason it comes next": the text has two parts: first, citing the treatise; second, the Commentary's explanation under the words "Speaking of the correct stage." That is, relying on the path of seeing above, there is the path of cultivation; the path of cultivation cultivates the three trainings. The above directly explains the treatise; below, under "the previous ground," it resolves an objection. The objection asks: "Could the first ground lack precepts?" The intent of the answer can be understood.

59.49

Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The term 'freedom from defilement'" and so forth: second, explaining the name. First, it cites the Yogācārabhūmi. Next, under "referring to the precepts of nature," the Commentary implicitly cites the seventh fascicle of Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha to explain the Yogācārabhūmi, which selects the inferior to reveal the superior, explaining that the above phrase "extreme detachment" does not lie in deliberate attention, yet is without error. If cited in full, the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle 48, says: "Thus is briefly spoken the bodhisattva's dwelling in higher precepts: that is, because of pure resolve, because of being endowed with the precepts of nature, because of being free from the defilement of transgressing the precepts of a single type, and because of thoroughly understanding all paths of karma and all causes and effects." Up to: "If spoken of extensively, it is as explained in the Ground of Freedom from Defilement in the Daśabhūmika-sūtra. Because the Ground of Freedom from Defilement is extremely detached from all defilements of transgressing precepts, that Ground of Freedom from Defilement is precisely the dwelling in higher precepts." Explanation: Since that text points to this, it is fitting to cite that commentary. In the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, the statement "endowed with pure śīla" has two meanings: first, it says being endowed with the prātimokṣa, concentration-concomitant, and path-concomitant [precepts]; although concentration begins to increase on the third ground, when capable of leaving faults this ground is already perfected, hence it has concentration-concomitant [precepts]. Second, it says or it is solely the prātimokṣa, being also capable of completely leaving preparatory, fundamental, and subsequent transgressions. The Daśabhūmivibhāṣā is precisely in the first fascicle, Chapter on Entering the First Ground, explaining the names of the grounds. Regarding the Commentary's statement: "The term 'wrong conduct'" and so forth: third, severing obstacles, which is the text of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. First, severing obstacles; later, severing delusion. In [the section on] obstacles, the treatise does not explain the name. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Refers to the obstacle of wrong conduct of body and so forth in all existences." The intent is: the three karmas of body and so forth have ten evil actions, named the obstacle of wrong conduct. Under "refers to the cognizable": pointing out the essence. "Cognizable" distinguishes it from afflictions; "innate" distinguishes it from the conceptually differentiated. Because the conceptually differentiated are already completely severed on the first ground, this portion belongs solely to being severed on this ground. From "capable of obstructing the second ground" downward, the treatise fully says: "Capable of obstructing the extremely pure śīla of the second ground; when entering the second ground, one is able to sever it forever." Explanation: Because it is easy, it is not displayed.

First 49 of 112 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese