大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6

English (machine translation) 6

Language: English

6.1

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

Regarding the commentary's passage beginning "Now, relying upon the power of principle and teaching, I briefly open four gates": This is the third part, opening chapters for specific explanation. Within this, it first posits and then explains. Now, this is the first. There might be an objection: Since only at the ultimate stage can it be known, how can ordinary sentiments dare to peer into the great teaching? Therefore this is said: relying upon the teaching and the principle, for the sacred teachings permit it. Thus the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "An ordinary being fully bound by defilements is capable of knowing the secret treasury of the Tathāgata." The "Chapter on Vairocana" states: "Just as by relying on the illumination of the sunlight / one turns back to see the solar disk, / so I, by the light of the Buddha's wisdom, / see the path traversed by the Buddha." That is, by relying on the Buddha's teaching, one is capable of understanding the teaching. It is simply the wisdom of reverent inference, known through faith and understanding.

6.3

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "Now, first, in the Western Regions" onward: this explains the first section. Within it there are three parts: first, positing both opening and combining together; next, from "Moreover, not dividing" onward, explaining both opening and combining together; and finally, from "For these many reasons" onward, concluding both opening and combining together. This is the first part. As for opening and combining in the Western Regions: Nāgārjuna's explanation of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and Asaṅga's commentary on the Vajracchedikā, for example, both combined without dividing; whereas Jñānaprabha and Śīlabhadra each divided [the teachings into] three periods, both opening without combining. As for opening or not opening in the Eastern Land (China): Sengzhao's commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and Sengrui's explanation of the Viśeṣacintabrahmaparipṛcchā, for example, both combined without dividing; whereas Master Sheng's establishment of the four wheels and Zhiyi's establishment of the four teachings, for example, both opened without combining. Therefore, when the venerable masters saw defects in opening, they combined; and when they saw defects in combining, they opened—one should not be rigidly attached.

6.4

Regarding the Commentary's words "different paths lead to the same destination": the Book of Changes states, "In the world, different paths lead to the same destination, and a hundred deliberations result in a single accord." This means that just as thousands of tracks and nine thoroughfares lead alike to the royal city, how could the nine schools and hundred philosophers diverge from the Great Way? The Commentary now borrows this phrasing to encompass three meanings: first, in terms of the teachings, they initially vary according to capacity and thus follow "different paths," but ultimately return to revealing the real and thus achieve "a single accord"; second, they differ in terms of capacities, but in terms of principle they are ever one; third, outside the essence there is no provisional, and the provisional is itself the real—hence "different paths lead to the same destination." Regarding the Commentary's words "Second, a single voice universally responds, and a single rain universally nourishes": the single voice is from the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and the single rain is from the "Parable of the Medicinal Herbs" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra. This means that the three kinds of herbs and two kinds of trees differ, yet alike receive the moisture of the single rain; the five natures and three vehicles are not identical, yet the Dharma rain is of one flavor without distinction. That sūtra states: "The Tathāgata knows this Dharma of a single characteristic and a single flavor—namely, the characteristic of liberation, the characteristic of detachment, the characteristic of cessation, the characteristic of ultimate nirvāṇa, constantly quiescent and ceased, ultimately returning to emptiness," and so forth. Regarding the Commentary's words "Third, tracing back to the Sage's original intent, it was for the sake of one matter": this is also the intent of the Lotus Sūtra. Thus that sūtra states: "Past Buddhas, using immeasurable and countless skillful means and various causes, conditions, parables, and words, expounded the dharmas for sentient beings; these dharmas are all for the sake of the One Buddha Vehicle." The One Buddha Vehicle is none other than the Avataṃsaka. It also states: "These nine divisions of Dharma of mine are taught in accordance with sentient beings; taking entry into the Great Vehicle as the root, I therefore teach this sūtra." All are for the sake of one matter. Regarding the Commentary's words "Fourth, with each single text, the assembly's understandings differ": this applies generally to the various sūtras. For instance, when a sūtra speaks of a single "impermanence," some understand it as impermanence because arising and ceasing alternate; some say it is called impermanence because of the absence of permanence; some say unarisen and unceasing is called impermanence; some hold that there is simply no dharma that could be permanent; or some say that the single dharma of tathatā, transforming and not remaining constant according to defiled and pure conditions, is therefore called impermanent. Or some, hearing "impermanence," immediately know that impermanence is taught in opposition to permanence, and take neither-permanent-nor-impermanent to be the Middle Way, and so forth. One clearly knows that understandings differ according to the person. Furthermore, while the four names of suffering, origination, cessation, and path are identical, according to the varying capacities of understanding, there are four kinds. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "Regarding the twelve links of dependent origination, those who contemplate with lesser wisdom attain śrāvaka bodhi; those who contemplate with middling wisdom attain pratyekabuddha bodhi; those who contemplate with superior wisdom attain bodhisattva bodhi; and those who contemplate with supreme wisdom attain Buddha bodhi." Again, as with the One Vehicle, the five teachings have different understandings according to capacity, with distinctions among the three truths. A verse in the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Dharmas arisen from conditions, / I declare to be emptiness; / it is also a conventional designation, / and also the meaning of the Middle Way." Here, many people have different understandings. Some say: Since it says "arisen from conditions," how could it be identical to emptiness? One must completely analyze causes and conditions to their end, and only then harmonize with emptiness. They refer to the emptiness of the ten directions as "identical to emptiness." "Also a conventional designation" means that the conditioned is insubstantial and weak, lacking the power to stand independently. Formed by a concourse of conditions, it is conventional because it derives from conditions—not the conventionality of setting up provisional means. "Also the meaning of the Middle Way" means that being free from annihilation and permanence is called the Middle Way—not the Middle Way of the Buddha-nature. If one adopts this understanding, although all three phrases are empty, it does not even constitute "identical to emptiness," much less "identical to the conventional" or "identical to the middle." This is the meaning within the arising-and-ceasing four noble truths. Or some say: Dharmas arisen from conditions do not need to be destroyed; their essence is identical to emptiness. Yet they cannot attain "identical to the conventional" and "identical to the middle"; even if they construct the conventional and the middle, both concordantly enter into emptiness. Why? All dharmas are identical to emptiness because they lack a master. The conventional is also identical to emptiness because it is conventionally posited. The middle is also identical to emptiness because it is free from the two extremes of annihilation and permanence. These three turns of phrasing differ, yet all concordantly enter into emptiness; stepping back, they are not the analysis of dharmas by the two vehicles, and stepping forward, they are not the separate or perfect [teachings]—this is simply the meaning of the three animals crossing the river. Or some consider "identical to emptiness, identical to the conventional, identical to the middle" to unfold progressively, each being distinct from the others. That all three are empty means: empty because of lacking a master, empty because of being insubstantially posited, empty because of lacking extremes. That all three are conventional means: conventional because they equally have names. That all three are the middle means: because of the middle of the true, the middle of the capacity, and the middle of the real. Calling emptiness "the middle" is based on the absolute truth. Calling the conventional "the middle" is based on establishing transformation according to capacity, abiding neither in transformation nor non-transformation. Calling the middle "the middle" is based on the Middle Way of the single real truth. This grasps the separate but misses the perfect. Or some consider "identical to emptiness, identical to the conventional, identical to the middle," though three, to be one, and though one, to be three, without obstructing each other. That all three are empty is because the path of words and thoughts is cut off. That all three are conventional is because they merely have names. That all three are the middle is because they are identical to the true mark. Merely taking emptiness as the name, it already possesses the conventional and the middle; awakening to emptiness is awakening to the conventional and the middle. The others are likewise. From this one knows that, according to what single dharma one hears, various understandings arise: when a perfect capacity receives the teaching, no teaching is not perfect; when a biased capacity receives the teaching, even the perfect becomes biased. Since different understandings follow from a single text, what need is there to divide and judge differences? Regarding the Commentary's words "Fifth, multiple modes of teaching the Dharma branch off into secondary streams": the above points also indirectly encompass various sūtras; here, it properly cites the present sūtra to establish the principle. The "Dharmadhātu Chapter" states: "When the Dharma is about to perish, there will be the differences of a thousand schools, a thousand modes of teaching the Dharma," and so forth. Why not trace the branches to find the root, instead of seeking to divert the source into tributaries, muddying the single flavor of the pure origin and turning it into a depleted, shallow branch stream?

6.5

Regarding the passage from the Commentary's "For these five reasons" onward: this is the third part, which provides a general conclusion. The Master (Confucius) said: "To attack heterodox ways is harmful indeed." How can one grasp differences and lose sight of unity, letting right and wrong contend with each other?

6.6

Regarding the passage from the Commentary's "Those who classify the teachings" onward: in explaining the classification of teachings, there are ten points. The first five correspond to the preceding five points, while the latter five show superiority over what came before. Regarding the Commentary's words "First, although principle is of one flavor," and so on: this means that now we wish to classify the teachings, not to divide principle. Confused about the provisional and the real, how could one accord with the Buddha's intent? In the second point, the single voice is merely the source of the teaching, not the teaching itself; the teaching resides in the capacities. In accordance with the differences among capacities, we now classify those teachings. Thus the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, / and sentient beings each understand according to their capacity." Now we merely classify according to what is understood. This is like the great wind being one, while a hundred hollows whistle differently: could one, because the single wind does not differ, claim that the hundred hollows sound in unison? The single rain is also spoken in terms of the Buddha. The three kinds of herbs are spoken in terms of the differences among capacities. Now we classify the differences in teaching for the three herbs, without dividing the single rain to make it different. Therefore the sūtra states: "Although born of one earth and moistened by one rain, the herbs and trees each have their distinctions." Because the meanings and characteristics of the single voice and the single rain are not different, it merely speaks of the single voice. In the third point, "the original intent has not yet been declared": as the Buddha originally appeared in the world for the sake of one great matter, yet for over forty years did not reveal the real truth, when we now classify the teachings of his lifetime, how does that prevent judging them as shallow or profound? As for the words "speech according to the intent of others": the Buddha has three kinds of speech: first, speech according to his own intent, because he speaks of the One Reality and so forth that he himself realized; second, speech according to the intent of others, because he solely uses skillful means to guide sentient beings; third, speech according to both his own and others' intents, because it half matches his own realization and half accords with capacities. Now we classify the latter two kinds of speech, without classifying the first, which is speech according to his own intent. In the fourth point, "words have both general and specific [senses]": as cited before, this refers generally to different understandings according to what is heard; as for what is not general, we classify according to it. For example, speaking of the emptiness of persons and the existence of dharmas is Hinayāna and cannot be named Mahāyāna. If speaking of the two emptinesses, this can be named Mahāyāna and cannot be named Hinayāna. Teaching that there are five natures is not teaching a single nature, and where a single nature is taught, it is not teaching five natures. With texts such as these, there is no room for differing interpretations; therefore they must be classified. In the fifth point, because there are two meanings, although one divides the provisional and the real, it does not form secondary branches. First, "skillfully harmonizing with the Buddha's intent": the provisional teaching spoken is according to suitability, while the real teaching spoken accords with principle and is ultimate. Second, "having opening and revealing": speaking of that provisional teaching is the gate of skillful means; speaking of the real teaching is the true mark. Not mistaking skillful means for the real, the gate of skillful means is opened; knowing the pervasive universality of the real principle, the true mark is revealed. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra states: "This sūtra opens the gate of skillful means and shows the true mark." Now, because it can open and reveal, it does not become stranded in secondary branches. In terms of the Buddha's deployment, one must distinguish the provisional and the real.

6.7

From the commentary's "Furthermore, because what is intended by the king's secret words is distinct" onwards, there are five points that demonstrate the faults of the earlier [view of] non-differentiation. This is the first. Chapter nine of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] explains that saindhava has one name and four referents: first, salt; second, a vessel; third, water; fourth, a horse. In the explanation, [they are ordered as] first water, second salt, third a vessel, and fourth a horse. Hence that text says: "These four things all share this same name. A wise minister knows this name well. If, when the king is bathing, he asks for saindhava, he immediately offers water. If, when the king is eating, he asks for saindhava, he immediately offers salt. If, when the king has finished eating and wishes to drink broth, he asks for saindhava, he immediately offers a vessel. If the king wishes to travel and asks for saindhava, he immediately offers a horse. A wise minister such as this understands the great king's four kinds of secret words well. This Mahāyāna sūtra is also just like this: there are four impermanences, which the wise minister of the Mahāyāna should know well. If the Buddha appears in the world and expounds the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa for sentient beings, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the characteristic of impermanence for those who grasp at permanence, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the contemplation of impermanence. Or again, if he says that the correct Dharma is about to be extinguished, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the characteristic of suffering for those who grasp at pleasure, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the contemplation of suffering extensively. Or again, if he says, 'I am now afflicted with illness, and the Saṅgha is broken,' the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the characteristic of non-self for those who grasp at a self, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the contemplation of non-self. Or again, if he says that what is termed emptiness is correct liberation, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding that correct liberation is free from the twenty-five states of existence, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate and train in the contemplation of emptiness. For this reason, this correct liberation is named emptiness, and it is also named unmoving. What is meant by 'unmoving' is that in liberation there is no suffering; therefore it is unmoving. This correct liberation is also signless: what is meant by 'signless' is that it has no form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and so forth; therefore it is called signless. This correct liberation is eternal and unchanging; in this liberation there is no impermanence, feverish affliction, or alteration; therefore liberation is named eternally abiding, unchanging, and refreshing. Or again, if he says that all sentient beings possess the Tathāgata-nature, the wise minister should know that this is the Tathāgata expounding the eternal Dharma, wishing to cause the monks to cultivate the correct eternal Dharma. If these monks can follow and train like this, know that such a person is truly my disciple." However, that commentary on the sūtra does not explain the reason for the lack of sequence, but merely correlates and interprets them according to the sequence [of the text], with the first four manifesting the provisional and concealing the real, and the last one manifesting the real and concealing the provisional. Now I state that in the distinct metaphors above, they are sequenced according to impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self: because water conforms to the square or round shape of the vessel, it is impermanence; salt is suffering; the vessel corresponds to emptiness, because it possesses the utility of a vessel; the horse is whipped by a person, because it lacks autonomy. In the correlation: impermanence, suffering, and non-self are the three cultivated dharmas, belonging to saṃsāra; the fourth, correlated with emptiness, is correct liberation. Yet in liberation, being empty of non-self, suffering, impurity, and impermanence is precisely [true] permanence; therefore, within the single [aspect of] emptiness it clarifies four meanings, all using the metaphor of the vessel. And finally, the Buddha-nature manifests wondrous existence, corresponding to the horse mentioned before. However, the four meanings within emptiness negate impermanence and the like, while the single meaning of Buddha-nature reveals true permanence; self, pleasure, purity, and so forth should also be fully explained, being contained within correct liberation: unmoving is pleasure; signless is purity; free from changing feverish affliction is the meaning of permanence; the horse is also the meaning of self. Thus, herein the eight practices are fully manifested. Because within the impermanence and the like of saṃsāra, permanence and the like are secretly revealed, they are secret words. Furthermore, in the initial list, salt is first, which is also sequenced as suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self, as commonly explained. Therefore this explanation is not the same as the ancient masters' interpretations. However, the intention of citing this passage is to urge that one must adeptly grasp the intent behind the spoken words; how could one muddle them together without distinguishing provisional and real? As for the commentary's "Not recognizing the provisional and real, taking the deep as shallow" and so forth, this is the second point. For example, when it is said that upon first generating the mind one immediately accomplishes correct enlightenment, yet one regards this merely as the Tathāgata's provisional exposition, this is taking the deep as shallow. Being unable to cultivate correctly and holding the sage's realm aloof, one is then unable to quickly realize anuttarabodhi; hence it says "losing great benefit." The "Chapter on Leaving the World" says: "Those who cultivate this Dharma apply little effort and swiftly attain bodhi," and so forth. As for "taking the shallow as deep and wasting their effort," this is like the World-Honoured One, in order to stop distracted thoughts, instructing people to count breaths and observe the mind, and for those who despise suffering, instructing them to transcend the three realms. Sentient beings do not understand, indulge in the taste [of these] as the true, and strive endlessly; using much effort, what they obtain is minuscule, not gaining the value of a single day of nirvāṇa. Hence it says "wasting their effort," which means fruitlessly wasting effort. As for the commentary's "To adorn the sacred teachings so as to make them deep and vast," this is the third point. This means that by analyzing the provisional and real, emptiness and existence, and choosing between the partial and round, slow and swift, one only then knows that the Buddha-Dharma is subtle, profound, and abstruse, encompassing everything. For example, if one does not sail the great ocean, how could one know its margins? If one does not recognize earth and stone, how could one know true gems? Thus the Dazhidulun, explaining the giving of Dharma, says: "Relying on sūtras and treatises, broadly elaborating meanings and establishing names for them—all are called the giving of Dharma." Furthermore, if one does not distinguish provisional and real, one would assume that the three teachings are largely identical. Now it is clarified that even the Mahāyāna has provisional and real, so how much more so the Hīnayāna? The Hīnayāna compared to the Mahāyāna is like the glow of a firefly compared to the shining of the sun. The Hīnayāna, being the Buddha's teaching, is still rebuked, so how much more so when Confucianism and Daoism are compared to the Buddha-Dharma—they are as distant as heaven and earth! By screening them with these repeated layers, one only then knows the profound depth of the Buddha-Dharma. As for the commentary's "Because within the sacred teachings they are naturally differentiated," this is the fourth point. For instance, the Saṃdhinirmocana establishes the three periods, which differs from the Jieji. The Suvarṇaprabhāsa establishes the difference of the three wheels; the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] itself differentiates the half and full, and also does so in terms of the distinction of the five flavors—all are the Buddha's own differentiations. As for the commentary's "Because the great bodhisattvas also opened the teachings," this is the fifth point. This refers to Asaṅga's support of the five natures and the three periods, and Nāgārjuna's distinction of the four gates as shared and unshared; all of these screen the provisional and real and make selections.

6.8

From the commentary's "By these many reasons" onwards, third, it concludes both division and combination, rejecting combination and following division.

6.9

In the second [section], "Agreements and Disagreements between Ancient and Modern," it first narrates [the masters of] this land and then clarifies [those of] the Western Regions. In the former, it first presents a general overview and then explains them individually. Under each master, it is mostly divided into two: first, narrating the ancient doctrine, and second, discerning agreement and disagreement. Regarding the single voice, from the commentary's "Above" onwards, it discerns agreement and disagreement. First, it brings out their intended meaning. When it says "each captures one meaning of the complete voice," the words contain both concession and refutation. Conceding it, it accords with the "Chapter on the Appearance [of the Tathāgata]" below, which clarifies that the Tathāgata's complete voice has ten meanings, and after the ten meanings, there are further six clauses of interpenetration; now they merely capture one among the ten meanings. The first master accords with how within a single sound of the goddess Shan-kou, hundreds of thousands of musical instruments harmonize together—namely, that within the Buddha's single voice there are multiple voices. The latter master accords with how like water of a single flavor it becomes different according to the vessel—namely, that originally the Tathāgata has no multiple voices. Hence it says each captures one meaning. Furthermore, regarding these two meanings, if they are not reconciled, they directly contradict each other and do not mutually concede, in which case Qi and Chu are both lost, and both should be refuted. If one takes what each bases itself on, each captures one meaning and is conceded. Yet both are the basis of teaching, and below both are refuted. As for the commentary's "Second, establishing two kinds of teachings: Dharma Master Yuan of the Sui also followed this establishment," this refers to the beginning of his Nirvāṇa Commentary where it says: "Although the sacred teachings are numerous, they are briefly of two kinds: first, the Śrāvaka Piṭaka; second, the Bodhisattva Piṭaka."

6.10

From the commentary's "This then is the text" onwards, second, it discerns agreement and disagreement. First, it clarifies its agreement: it accords with the ultimate teaching. The half and full of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] was already cited extensively above. From the commentary's "Presumably, it is in contrast to the small" onwards, it discerns disagreement. What was called agreement above merely accords with the general intent, not yet knowing the Buddha's profound intention. The words 'half' and 'full' are explicitly stated with secret intent regarding the small and the great. Furthermore, there are those who take the provisional as half and the real as full, meaning that within the Mahāyāna there are half and full. This is also like pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas: when differentiated they become two vehicles, and when combined in their commonality they are collectively called small. The provisional and real are also like this: when differentiated, the provisional may be called half; when combined in their great commonality, they are both called full. Thus, the real teaching is solely full, the small teaching is solely half, and the provisional Mahāyāna is both half and full.

6.11

From the commentary's "Although this is based on capacity" onwards, it discerns agreement and disagreement. It directly brings out that his established intention does not depart from the half and full; the agreement and disagreement of the half and full are precisely this agreement and disagreement. As for "not departing from the half and full": the sudden is the previous full, and the gradual possesses both half and full. Because it possesses the three vehicles, the two vehicles are half and the Mahāyāna is full. Therefore, adapting teaching according to capacity, there are the direct and the circuitous; hence it merely divides the gradual and sudden.

6.12

From the commentary's "Third, Dharma Master Yin of the early Tang" onwards, this is the third master, first narrating the ancient doctrine. In this there are three: first, a general overview; second, from "circuitous" onwards, properly establishing it; third, from "Furthermore, this" onwards, screening out differences.

6.13

From the commentary's "This is judged according to the mode of conversion" onwards, it discerns agreement and disagreement: first agreement, then disagreement. Within agreement there are three: first, a single sentence generally bringing out the established intention; second, warding off refutation to complete the interpretation; third, concluding the ancient doctrine. Now, this is the first. The first, half and full, is established based on the Dharma expounded. The second, gradual and sudden, is established based on capacity. Now this master establishes it based on the mode of conversion, meaning that the Buddha converts sentient beings through the Dharma with circuitous and direct [manners]; that is, the rituals and forms of the teaching methods differ.

6.14

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'However, as for the Avataṃsaka' downward: the second part refutes the criticisms and establishes the correct interpretation. This means that the Kanding ji did not accept the doctrine established by this master, first refuting the general designations and subsequently refuting the four differences. Now, in resolving this on behalf of the earlier master, it simply fends off those refutations. The text is divided into two: first, it defends the general designations; second, it defends the four differences. Now, the section up to 'hence it is called winding' defends against his refutation of the general designations. In that commentary's refutation, having first quoted the thesis, it says: 'If so, since the Nirvāṇa, Lotus, Vimalakīrti, Laṅkāvatāra, Ghanavyūha, Śrīmālā, and Buddhapiṭaka Sūtras were all spoken by Śākyamuni, they ought not elucidate the tathāgatagarbha nature, the true aspect, the dharmadhātu, and so forth (this refutes the 'winding' category on the grounds that it contains the level path). Since the Avataṃsaka and Brahmajāla were spoken by Rocana, why does the Avataṃsaka explain the four truths, and why do chapters such as 'Samantabhadra's Conduct' all state that he expounds in this way in accordance with how sentient beings should be subdued? Furthermore, in chapters such as 'Clarifying Questions', 'Pure Conduct', 'Brahma Conduct', the three grades of worthies, the ten stages, 'Transcending the World', and 'Entering the Dharmadhātu', it ought not consistently expound practices that serve as antidotes (this refutes the 'level path' category on the grounds that it contains the winding).' Now, when the Commentary states, 'Although there are individual subduings according with various sentient beings,' this quotes the passage refuting the winding within the level path teaching. When the Commentary states, 'All are simultaneously and suddenly expounded in accordance with the [true] nature,' this establishes the meaning of its being the level path; for through the skillfulness of according with the nature, boundless differences are all the level path. Furthermore, expounding simultaneously and suddenly differs from the winding, where when provisional teachings are spoken, the ultimate is not, and when the ultimate is spoken, the provisional is not; where the four truths are taught solely for the Hīnayāna, and the six perfections are taught solely to guide bodhisattvas. Therefore, that all are presented together even more clearly manifests the level path. Furthermore, speaking of 'according with sentient beings' refers to the World-Honoured One according with capacities elsewhere, not that this sūtra constitutes speaking according with capacities. When the Commentary states, 'Although the Nirvāṇa and others speak of the single ultimate,' this quotes the passage refuting the level path within the winding teaching. When the Commentary states, 'Either contrasting the provisional and the ultimate' downward, this establishes the meaning of its being winding. Saying 'winding' does not mean that if it possesses tathatā and dharmatā it is not winding; it merely refers to concealing and revealing according to capacities as being winding. These preceding two lines clarify that it is winding based on the Lotus Sūtra. Formerly provisional, now ultimate; destroying the three and revealing the one: when clarifying the provisional, the ultimate had not yet been spoken, and speaking the ultimate necessarily abandons the provisional; it is not like the Avataṃsaka, where provisional and ultimate are equally manifest and simultaneously and suddenly applied, and hence it is called winding. When the Commentary states, 'Or gathering the disparate to return to the identical' downward, it clarifies the winding based on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. The Nirvāṇa gathers the former meanings of remainder and returns them together to the single flavor of nirvāṇa; disparate first and identical later, this also constitutes winding. It is not like the Avataṃsaka, where whether identical or disparate, empty or non-empty, and so forth, they are all simultaneously and suddenly expounded. Furthermore, regarding the statement that 'all Tathāgatas either speak or do not speak it,' past virtuous masters unanimously said: 'Candrasūryapradīpa Buddha expounded the Lotus Sūtra at dawn and entered extinction in the middle of the night.' Thus, apart from the Lotus Sūtra, he did not expound the Nirvāṇa at any other time. This means that because people's faculties were sharp, after hearing the Lotus Sūtra, there was no need to expound the Nirvāṇa; thus the Nirvāṇa is either spoken or not spoken. This means that in some lands, only the triyāna is taught and never ultimately dismantled, while in other lands, only the ekayāna is taught and there are no three to be dismantled. Thus we know that the Lotus Sūtra is also either spoken or not spoken. It is not like the Avataṃsaka, which states: 'I do not see a single buddha-land where the Tathāgata does not expound this Dharma.' This clarifies that it is the level path.

6.15

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'Taking Śākyamuni as the lord' downward: the second part defends against the refutation of the four differences. That commentary's refutation states: 'Furthermore, among the four differences, the two differences regarding assembly and location both contravene the sūtra's statements, because the seven locations are all the Sahā world (this refutes the difference in location).' It also states: 'The "Appearance Chapter" says that the buddhas of the ten directions praised Samantabhadra, saying that he was able to expound this Dharma, and that in this assembly sentient beings as numerous as the dust motes of buddha-lands gave rise to bodhicitta. The "Arousing the Mind Chapter" also contains a statement identical to this. Based on this, we know that there are vessels prior to the stages (this refutes the difference in assembly). Therefore, what this master has established mostly contravenes doctrine and principle, and is extremely difficult to rely upon (this concludes the refutation).' He refuted two differences, and now the Commentary resolves two differences: the latter defends against the Kanding's refutation of the difference in location; the former fends off other masters who refuted the difference in lord, namely fearing that someone might refute it by saying: 'Since the sūtra below states, "He is sometimes named Śākyamuni and sometimes named Vairocana," it clearly shows that the two lords are not different; why say there is a difference in lord?' Therefore, it resolves this by saying: Śākyamuni as lord is merely the nirmāṇakāya among the three bodies; Vairocana as lord fully manifests the ten bodies. The nirmāṇakāya is merely one of the ten bodies, hence it is said, 'He necessarily possesses Śākyamuni.' This, then, is a difference between the whole and the part; how could one say they are not different?

6.16

Regarding the Commentary's text, 'The location of Sahā does not yet fuse the Lotus Treasury, but the location of the Lotus Treasury necessarily fuses Sahā': this resolves the Kanding's refutation of the difference in location. In other places, the Royal City and Śrāvastī are not said to be the Lotus Treasury and Sahā; now, saying that the seven locations naturally have two meanings makes them identical to the Lotus Treasury: first, in terms of the branch-and-root division, the seven locations are also within the thirteenth tier of the Lotus Treasury world; second, in terms of purity and defilement penetrating through, the ground of the country of Magadha is adamantine, and when the first chapter was expounded, the Lotus Treasury world trembled in six ways. That commentary's preface states: 'The realm embraces purity and defilement; Sahā quakes and the Lotus Treasury trembles.' Is this not the location of the Lotus Treasury being fused? Therefore, we know that in refuting the difference in location, he contradicted his own statement. As for why it does not defend against the refutation of the difference in assembly, it is because the Kanding's refutation was most inappropriate. In discussing the difference in assembly, he merely said: Śākyamuni's sūtras universally encompass the triyāna, whereas Vairocana's sūtra exclusively encompasses bodhisattvas. Thus, he refuted that position on the basis of the distinction between universal and exclusive, citing ordinary beings giving rise to the mind—how could they not be vessels for the bodhisattva [teaching], especially since the arousal of the mind in this sūtra is profoundly deep? As for the difference in preaching, others did not refute it, so it is not defended here.

6.17

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'Briefly speaking of four differences' downward: the third part concludes and establishes the earlier master's doctrine. Saying 'the differences are in fact numerous' introduces ten further points: First, difference in the ritual forms of the teaching. Within this there are multiple meanings, namely relying entirely on the ocean seal without ever emerging or entering, and expounding simultaneously and suddenly being different from sequential progression. Emitting light to assemble the throng being one or many, universal or restricted; differences in asking, answering, words, thoughts, manifested forms, and so forth; the superior and inferior inequalities in the adornments of the bodhimanda—hence it is called difference in the ritual forms of the teaching. Second, difference in the principles elucidated. The multiple differing meanings of complete interpenetration and distinct differentiation, with many distinctions among the tenfold sets of dharmas, as in the Section on Doctrinal Demarcation. Third, difference in the speed of attaining buddhahood. Namely, either a single thought-moment or immeasurable kalpas; thought-moments and kalpas interpenetrating, with length and brevity unconstrained, not restricted to three asaṃkhyeya kalpas and the manifested body. Fourth, difference in the universal or restricted nature of seeing the Buddha. Both ordinary beings and noble ones being permitted to see the ten bodies, not restricted to the distinction between before the stages and on the stages. Fifth, difference in the time periods of teaching expounded. Spoken upon first attaining enlightenment, with time having ten tiers, thought-moments and kalpas interpenetrating, not restricted to three weeks, and so forth. Sixth, difference in the breadth and narrowness of the perceived realm. The devaputra in hell and the six thousand monks penetrating far with the fleshly eye to see pervading the dharmadhātu, not restricted to the trichiliocosm having limitations. Seventh, difference in the stages of practice of cause and effect. Fully possessing complete interpenetration and graduated arrangement, with nature and characteristics mutually penetrating. Eighth, difference in the number of vehicles established. Either expounding the ekayāna or immeasurable vehicles, not definitively restricted to the three vehicles or five vehicles. Ninth, difference in the superiority and inferiority of benefits. The devaputra in hell instantly perfecting three tiers, with inexhaustible benefits across every dust mote and every land. Tenth, difference in transmission and entrustment. Continuously flowing without interruption to the end of the future, personally protected by all buddhas, not by the Hīnayāna. If one searches in detail among the distinctions, there are even more beyond these; hence it is said that the differences are in fact numerous. 'Truly as determined' concludes and establishes the earlier master's doctrine.

6.18

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'Only because' downward: the second part discusses where it is contrary [to principle]. Since it does not distinguish the depth or shallowness of the winding, it causes many teachings to be mixed together without distinction, unable to make people properly recognize the provisional and the ultimate; therefore, it is not relied upon.

6.19

Regarding the Commentary's text 'Fourth, the hermit of the Qi dynasty' and so forth: in the formal establishment of the thesis, it establishes gradual and sudden expounding in terms of the pedagogical method and time: that is the pedagogical method. The sudden is at the initial attainment of enlightenment, and the gradual has five periods: this is spoken in terms of time.

6.20

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'However, this sūtra' downward: the second part discusses conformity and contrariety; first conformity, then contrariety. Under conformity, because it relies on the pedagogical method, it accords with principle, and he then cites this very sūtra to verify and establish it. The two similes cited are both text from the 'Appearance Chapter', which was already cited previously. Regarding the Commentary's text from 'However, the gradual in terms of' downward: this discusses contrariety. Because restricting the teachings in terms of time entails various difficulties and objections, it becomes contrary to principle. The refutation is reserved for later.

6.21

In the third section establishing the three types of teaching: first, a general indication; then, from 'One, south of the Yangtze' downward, the three masters are explained separately. The first is established in common by various masters. In narrating the earlier [view], there are two parts: first, clarifying the meaning of the gradual in general; second, clarifying it in detail. The former is divided into three: first, the formal thesis; next, the rationale for establishing the three from 'Because within the gradual the small comes first' downward; finally, showing the indeterminate characteristics from 'Namely, there are distinct' downward. 'Local and peripheral' means that generally speaking, within the gradual the small comes first and the great later, yet while expounding the small, it does not preclude also expounding the great. Just as someone propagating the Vinaya for ten years is not precluded from occasionally expounding the Mahāyāna in their private chambers, it is called local, peripheral, and indeterminate. Pointing to sūtras such as the Śrīmālā and Suvarṇaprabhāsa: the beginning of the Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'King Prasenajit and Queen Mallikā have not believed in the Dharma for long.' Since it says 'not long,' it clearly belongs to the initial teaching. Since the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra is neither the first sudden teaching nor the second gradual teaching, and yet elucidates eternal permanence at the end, it clearly is indeterminate. Regarding 'the eternal permanence of the buddha-nature,' the two kinds of tathāgatagarbha expounded in the Śrīmālā-sūtra are precisely the buddha-nature. Furthermore, praising the three bodies of the Buddha corresponds to the present Sanskrit phrasing: 'All dharmas are eternally permanent; therefore I take refuge,' which is precisely the meaning of eternal permanence. This is because the 'Three Bodies Chapter' of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra extensively expounds the eternal permanence of the dharmakāya.

6.22

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'The expansion and contraction within the gradual' downward: the second part explains the meaning of the gradual in detail. Expanding the gradual to form distinct divisions naturally has four varieties, from two to five. Among the division into three, there are first three masters: first, a master who formally establishes it; the following two masters indicate identity [with him], namely the Tripiṭaka Master of the Tang and Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha. The first mentions Wuqiu, which is a mountain monastery in Suzhou. Within the third master, there are two parts: first, indicating identity with the first master; second, from 'whereas the time periods' downward, pointing out differences and establishing them separately. The Commentary's text is somewhat brief. He states: The Buddha attained the Way on the eighth day of the second month, and on the eighth day of the fourth month in the Deer Park in the country of Vārāṇasī, he turned the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths for the assembly of śrāvakas. Later, in the seventh year after attaining the Way, in the country of Śrāvastī, by the Wisdom River five li from the Jetavana, he expounded sūtras such as the Prajñā for the bodhisattvas and the assemblies of the two vehicles. At this time, it possessed two, namely the turning and illuminating wheels of the Dharma. Furthermore, thirty years after attaining the Way, before entering nirvāṇa, in the Dharma Hall of the Spirit King in the city of Vaiśālī, he expounded sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana for bodhisattvas of true permanence. At this time, it possessed the three wheels of the Dharma: turning, illuminating, and upholding.

6.23

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'Namely Master Ji of the Song dynasty' downward: the third part divides it into four. Within this, the text is divided into two: first, marking both; second, revealing both. The commentator did not wish to multiply words, and so merely added their distinctive designations beyond the previous masters; they should be enumerated in full.

6.24

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Huiguan of Daoyang," this refers to the monk from Daoyang Monastery in Shangyuan. As for the "five teachings," they are: first, the teaching of characteristics; second, the teaching of non-characteristics; third, the teaching of deprecation and praise; fourth, the teaching of shared convergence; and fifth, the teaching of eternal abiding. By "deprecation and praise," it means deprecating the śrāvakas and praising the bodhisattvas. Duke Liu's five [teachings] are: first, the teaching of humans and devas; second, the teaching of characteristics; third, the teaching of non-characteristics; fourth, the teaching of shared convergence; and fifth, the teaching of eternal abiding.

6.25

Regarding the commentary's section from "The aforementioned various masters" onward, this is the second part, which assesses compatibility and incompatibility. Within this there are three parts: first, a general explanation of compatibility and incompatibility; second, a specific refutation of what violates principle; and third, a conclusion establishing compatibility and incompatibility. In the first part, because the aforementioned masters, from the divisions into two up to five periods, all put the Hīnayāna first and the Mahāyāna later, they did not add the indeterminate [teaching]. This invited the objection that the Mahāyāna was present from the beginning; yet even though some added the indeterminate, obstacles still remained. Adding the indeterminate avoids the objection that the Mahāyāna was present from the beginning, but objections arise regarding all the designations and meanings they established. As for the statement "briefly revealing the obstacles of the five periods," it refutes them from the latter end. Since the five periods are refuted, the four, three, and two periods are also entirely refuted; hence it says, "the rest can be known by analogy."

6.26

Regarding the commentary's "First, stating that during the twelve years..." and so forth, this is the second part, the specific refutations. Specifically refuting the two masters' systems of five periods divides into two separate sections. Now, in the first, refuting Daoyang's five periods, it is divided into five. The commentary states: "The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra says: 'I now correctly elucidate the real meaning within the Tripiṭaka, and the real meaning is emptiness.'" This refutes the first period. Three passages are cited, and this is the first: citing a Hīnayāna treatise. For the intent of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra is to say: "I now establish the real meaning within the Hīnayāna"—hence it is called "completion of the real" (Tattvasiddhi)—because the "Tripiṭaka" refers specifically to the Hīnayāna teachings. Since it says that the real meaning is emptiness, it shows that the Hīnayāna had already expounded emptiness; how then can one say that [the listeners] attained the path by perceiving existence? One cannot attain the path without perceiving the real meaning.

6.27

Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, the Āgamas say..." onward, this is the second: citing a Hīnayāna sūtra. In the continuous text, the sūtra says: "There is no this old age and death, and there is no one whose old age and death it is." This clearly explains the meaning of the emptiness of both person and phenomena in the twelve links of dependent origination. "This old age and death" points to the phenomenal entity of old age and death. "One whose" refers to the person. Thus, "there is no this old age and death" means that the phenomenon of old age and death is empty; "there is no one whose old age and death it is" means that the self or person is empty. However, the reason why many sūtras and treatises explain that the Hīnayāna explains only the emptiness of the person and does not explain the emptiness of phenomena is due to two reasons: first, speaking in terms of a minority portion, the Hīnayāna mostly explains only personal emptiness; second, speaking in terms of explicit versus inexplicit, although it expounds phenomenal emptiness, it is not fully explicit, and hence it is said not to teach phenomenal emptiness. If speaking in terms of the inexplicit and minority portions, it also explains phenomenal emptiness. The present argument relies on this meaning.

First 27 of 60 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese