大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 60
English (machine translation) 60
- Language
- English
60.1
Expounded by the śramaṇa Chengguan of Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang
60.2
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Second, ‘broadly observing obstacles and remedies’ below,” within the commentary there are two parts: First, it explains in general the incoming purpose, within which there are two: First, it explains the contemplation; hence the treatise says: “Furthermore, [the bodhisattva] observes the unwholesome courses of action and their fruits, which are the obstacles, and the wholesome courses of action and their fruits, which are their remedies; and [observing] the supreme purity, arouses the superior mind.” From “seeking to learn” downward, it directly points out the mental practice; this is entirely from the treatise’s text.
60.3
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “If one directly approaches…” downward, it interprets the text: First, following the sūtra, it first explains contemplation, while “resolving one's mind to integrate the wholesome” is practice. Now, since the treatise treats [these] universally as belonging to the wholesome of the Buddha, the Buddha's wholesome then pervades both contemplation and practice, whereas the preceding four types of wholesome merely explain contemplation, because the bodhisattva does not practice the first three types of wholesome, and the bodhisattva's wholesome has already been practiced previously. The commentary temporarily divides it into two: [Regarding] “first observing the unwholesome” and so forth, herein there are four gates in all: 1. The differentiation between obstacles and remedies, because the unwholesome is what is remedied; 2. The differentiation between ordinary beings and noble ones, devas and humans being ordinary, and the triyāna being noble; 3. The differentiation between the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, because the two vehicles are Hīnayāna; 4. The differentiation between cause and fruit, because the bodhisattva is the cause and the Buddha is the fruit. Within these four layers, it assesses the five layers of the ten wholesome [actions]; the unwholesome pertains solely to what is remedied, and is therefore treated as a separate section.
60.4
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Because it accords with principle and benefits beings, directly opposing evil,” this clarifies that the wholesome is the remedying agent. Hence the Yingluo [jing] says: “Arousing a mind that accords with principle is called wholesome; violating [it] is evil.” Furthermore, benefiting beings is wholesome, and harming beings is evil; thus it says: “directly opposing evil.”
60.5
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Or, depending on the minds at the three times…” and so forth, it briefly presents four levels: First, in terms of time: as in the time when one desires to perform the wholesome, the time when one is performing the wholesome, and the time after one has performed the wholesome. When all three times are weighty, it is the superior wholesome; when one or two are light, it is middling; when all three times are light, it is inferior. Second, in terms of the object: as in non-killing—not killing mosquitoes and gnats is superior, not killing beasts is middling, and not killing humans is inferior wholesome; killing is the reverse of this. Third, in terms of the gravity of the mind: in relation to a single object, such as killing a beast, a fierce and weighty mind, a middling mind, and a mind of killing out of no other choice constitute the three grades—superior, middling, and inferior—of evil. The three levels of non-killing are the three grades of wholesome. Fourth, in terms of “performing it oneself or instructing others”: having both oneself and others is superior, only oneself and not others is middling, and not performing it oneself but instructing others to do so is inferior.
60.6
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Discussing its meaning in detail, there are many different grades,” when the above four aspects are intertwined and correlated with each other, they result in many grades. For instance, in terms of the object of killing: the object is one layer; if accompanied by a weighty mind, that makes two layers; further, if weighty at all three times, that makes three layers; and if one further instructs others to kill, that makes four layers. The rest may be inferred by analogy. As for the statement, “For unwholesome actions, it can be understood in reverse,” this has two meanings: First, the general aspect: previously it was only in terms of non-killing, whereas now it concerns killing and so forth; second, as in the single object of killing: previously, not killing mosquitoes and gnats was superior wholesome and so forth, whereas now, killing mosquitoes and gnats is inferior evil, killing beasts is middling evil, and killing humans is superior evil, and so on. The quotation of the sixtieth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi to explain unwholesome actions will be clarified below.
60.7
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “First, it indicates that the wholesome practices cultivated are identical,” among the four [types of] ten wholesome [actions] below, only the single wholesome of the Buddha is uniquely called “supreme-superior,” whereas the preceding three merely say: “Furthermore, these superior ten wholesome [actions].” As for stating that the wholesome of the triyāna is identical: if judged by the treatise text of the sūtra, the bodhisattva is also called “supreme-superior.” However, stating “superior” refers to the highest of the three grades among the previous wholesome actions of humans and devas. The five pure abodes are the wholesome of the form realm and are considered superior; and since the noble ones cultivate based on these, their distinctions are discussed in terms of the superior wholesome.
60.8
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Next, it displays the differences in their application,” this phrasing is borrowed from the words of the first chapter, 'Free and Easy Wandering', of the Zhuangzi. Huizi said to Zhuangzi: “The King of Wei gave me the seeds of a great gourd. I planted them and they grew, producing a fruit of five piculs. If used to hold water or soup, its solidity could not sustain its own weight. If split to make ladles, they would be so flat and wide that they could hold nothing. It was not that it was not magnificently large, but because it was useless, I smashed it to pieces.” Zhuangzi said: “You, sir, are certainly clumsy in your use of what is great! A man of Song was skilled at making an ointment to prevent chapped hands; for generations, his family had engaged in bleaching silk floss (the medicine prevented hands from splitting and stiffening, so they constantly rinsed silk in water). A traveler heard of this and said: ‘Please sell me the recipe for a hundred pieces of gold.’ [The family] gathered their clan and deliberated: ‘We have bleached silk floss for generations and made no more than a few pieces of gold. Now in a single morning we can sell our craft for a hundred pieces of gold. Please let us give it to him.’ The traveler got it and used it to persuade the King of Wu. Yue caused trouble, and the King of Wu made him a general. In winter, he fought a naval battle with the men of Yue and severely defeated them; he was enfeoffed with granted territory. The ability to prevent chapped hands was one and the same; yet one used it to gain an enfeoffment, while the other could not escape bleaching silk floss: this is the difference in how it is used. Now, sir, you had a gourd of five piculs; why did you not tie it around your waist as a great float to drift upon rivers and lakes, instead of fretting that it was too flat and wide to hold anything? You, sir, still have a mind full of tangled weeds! (Tangled weeds means not penetrating directly. This chapter states that each thing has its proper suitability; if one attains its suitability, wherever one goes, how could one not wander freely and easily?)” Now, borrowing these words: the single type of ten wholesome [actions] is like the ointment to prevent chapped hands. Ordinary beings use it to abide in saṃsāra; the two vehicles use it to barely escape on their own, which is like bleaching silk floss; the bodhisattvas use it to benefit all universally without exception, which is like being granted territory and enfeoffed.
60.9
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Herein, the first phrase demonstrates superiority relative to the preceding,” the triyāna all have distinctions of superiority and inferiority; yet the preceding inferior is also called the objective sphere of contemplation, while the subsequent superior is precisely the practice that contemplates. As for the statement “cultivated with the wisdom of the real mark,” because the sūtra states “cultivating with wisdom,” the treatise text of the sūtra states “practicing in conjunction with the contemplation of wisdom,” and the treatise states: “The contemplation of wisdom means contemplating the real mark.” Explanation: The so-called real mark is the principle of the four noble truths. Luminously illuminating both phenomenon and principle is the real. The meaning of the four truths will be concluded and demonstrated below. That is, cultivating the ten wholesome [actions] within the mind of wisdom.
60.10
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “First, the accumulation of causes,” having accumulated minor causes in the past, one now completes minor practices. Because one accumulates the path on their basis, it is called accumulation. “Second, fearing suffering,” because one is disgusted by future suffering. “Third, a relinquishing mind,” meaning seeking only self-deliverance. “The lower two also apply to the inferior pratyekabuddha”: the fourth does not reach self-awakening, and the fifth does not reach contemplating conditions. That sūtra states “hearing sound,” and the treatise states: “The contemplator is mindful of voice and sound. What voice and sound? It means that self, person, sentient beings, and so forth merely exist as names.” Explanation: The treatise’s meaning here says that śrāvakas, because sentient beings and self and person exist only in name, are called “mindful of sound.” In terms of meaning, hearing sound does not necessarily mean auditory hearing; both meanings should be present. Hence Yogācārabhūmi fascicle 82 says: “Hearing the sound of the correct Dharma from another, and also causing others to hear the correct Dharma and nirvāṇa, one is therefore called a śrāvaka (voice-hearer).” That is, a śrāvaka [hearing] a śrāvaka. Furthermore, Yogācārabhūmi fascicle 84 expounds four kinds of śrāvakas; here it refers to the one who inclines toward quiescence. The meaning of the four kinds of śrāvakas has already been clarified in the Profound [Meaning]. Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “concluding and establishing one’s own vehicle,” the treatise states: “In this way, through understanding and entering that sound, there is no-self of sentient beings, but not no-self of phenomena.” The meaning is: because there is only the absence of a sentient being [self], one merely achieves the śrāvakayāna.
60.11
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “However, the remedy…” downward, it concludes by establishing the four truths as the śrāvakayāna. Both substances—evil causes and evil fruits—are eradicated, whereas the substance of the wholesome is not eradicated; therefore, what is above constitutes the path. Delusion regarding the ultimate truth and so forth gives rise to the ten wholesome [actions]; this immediately accords with cessation. Cessating this is different from humans and devas. As for the statement, “establishing the śrāvakayāna implicitly contains the path and cessation,” the path is the causal vehicle, and cessation is the fruitional vehicle.
60.12
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Third, the wholesome of the pratyekabuddha,” speaking in general terms, pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas each have two categories. The śrāvaka contemplates the truths, and the pratyekabuddha contemplates conditions. The śrāvaka relies on sound, and the pratyekabuddha relies on manifest phenomena. That each constitutes two: 1. The śrāvaka-śrāvaka: meaning one who originally sought [the vehicle of] the śrāvaka and also contemplates the four truths, encountering a Buddha in their final body to attain the fruit. 2. The pratyekabuddha-śrāvaka: meaning one who formerly sought [the vehicle of] the pratyekabuddha and contemplated the twelve conditions, encountering a Buddha in their final body who expounds the teaching of the twelve causal links for them; because they awaken based on sound, they are named a pratyekabuddha-śrāvaka. As for the two types of pratyekabuddhas: 1. The pratyekabuddha-pratyekabuddha: meaning one who originally sought [the vehicle of] the pratyekabuddha, does not encounter a Buddha's era in their final body, and attains the path on their own by relying on the conditions of manifest phenomena. 2. The śrāvaka-pratyekabuddha: meaning one who previously sought [the vehicle of] the śrāvaka, awakened and attained the first fruit, but has not manifested nirvāṇa, cycling seven times through humans and devas; after the seven cycles are complete, they encounter an era without a Buddha, and attain the path and fruit by relying on the conditions of manifest phenomena. Here, the wholesome dharmas are clarified in terms of the pratyekabuddha-pratyekabuddha, because this person is superior.
60.13
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Upāya is incomplete, and power is insufficient to explain,” when a pratyekabuddha appears in the world, there are no ninefold scriptures, so there is nothing to rely on, and thus they cannot expound; it is not that their wisdom is inferior to that of a śrāvaka. The rest may be inferred accordingly. As for “detailed as in the Local Division of the Yogācārabhūmi,” there are seventeen grounds: the Śrāvakabhūmi corresponds to the thirteenth, discussed from fascicle 21 to 34; immediately following in this fascicle, it clarifies the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi. Fascicle 14 concludes this topic, establishing five marks of the pratyekabuddha: 1. Gotra, 2. Path, 3. Cultivation, 4. Abode, and 5. Practice. Regarding gotra, it means it should be correctly understood by means of three characteristics: First, an intrinsically solitary-awakened one, who before having realized that bodhi, possesses a nature of thin defilements, whereby they take no pleasure in tumult and take deep pleasure in stillness. Second, possessing a nature of thin compassion, taking no joy in the enterprise of benefiting beings. Third, possessing a middling faculty, being of proud conduct and aspiration, realizing the two paths without a master or rival; this also has three [aspects]: First, attending upon Buddhas in person for a hundred kalpas, cultivating skill in the aggregates and so forth; second, encountering a Buddha's era, drawing near to good spiritual friends and hearing the Dharma, but not yet attaining warmth and so forth; third, having already attained the śramaṇa fruit, but not yet finalized. Third, cultivation means cultivating the wings of awakening based on these three types. Fourth, abode: the first is called the rhinoceros horn, taking pleasure in solitary, quiet places; the latter two are called flock-goers, who also take pleasure in groups, and so on. Fifth, practice means relying on villages and so forth, guarding the faculties with correct mindfulness, and converting beings through supernormal powers without preaching the Dharma in words. It also says: Everything originally and single-mindedly inclines toward quiescence. Explanation: In the present sūtra and treatise, all three gotras are covered. The summary phrase 'cultivates' shows that one possesses both cultivation and the path. 'Self-awakened' at the beginning is precisely the rhinoceros horn. 'Incapable of speaking' is precisely that practice, and is also the previously clarified gotra of thin compassion. 'Contemplating a limited objective realm' has two meanings: the former meaning is due to having the path; the latter meaning is explained in terms of the general mark. The rest are largely the same.
60.14
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Fourth, the ten wholesome actions of the bodhisattva,” the text of the commentary has three parts: First, it adduces the four names in the treatise; second, from “among the four” downward, it assesses them; finally, from “the phrase ‘accumulation of causes’” downward, it interprets them by citing the treatise.
60.15
Regarding the commentary’s [statement], “Second, being endowed with compassion is the function of the bodhisattva,” the treatise states: “Seeing sentient beings practicing the causes of suffering and experiencing suffering, [the bodhisattva] gives rise to a mind of compassion.” The meaning is: seeing them practice the causes of suffering, he pities their future suffering; seeing them already experiencing the fruit of suffering, with sorrow he wishes to eradicate it.
60.16
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "First, contemplating and seeking the practice that realizes the perfection of the wisdom-pāramitā": the Treatise says, "Third, receiving the ground of the great station; therefore, one seeks to realize the Buddha's vast and great wisdom. Second, completely purifying all obstructions and severing the twenty-two [kinds of] ignorance. One has already severed twenty. Only on the Tathāgata ground are there still two [kinds of] ignorance: first, ignorance extremely subtle in its attachment to all cognitive objects; second, ignorance extremely subtle in its obstruction. Only the Buddha's goodness can sever them." The Treatise asks, "Here, merely speaking of the vast perfection of the bodhisattva ground would suffice; why further speak of the purification of the ground and the purification of the pāramitās?" The explanation states: this means that on the tenth ground's purity, merely using the initial phrase already demonstrates that the wisdom ground is fulfilled; why use the latter two? The meaning of the Treatise's reply is: the two lower phrases are used to bring out and establish the deep and vast practice of the first phrase. That is to say, first, from the first ground onward, one progressively purifies obstructions until reaching this culmination; therefore, the Treatise says, "Because there is superior and supreme purification." Second, on each single ground, a single pāramitā is purified; therefore, the Treatise says, "Because it is the purification of the foremost Dharma. The foremost Dharma refers to the meaning of pāramitā."
60.17
Fifth, the Buddha's goodness. Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "The preceding three belong to the Buddha": this reveals the Buddha's virtues, explaining solely the portal of contemplation. The latter one, emulating [the Buddha], then has two meanings: first, in terms of the virtues sought, emulating [the Buddha] on the second ground is precisely the portal of practice; second, it reveals the pre-eminence of the Buddha-dharma, which is also the portal of contemplation. Among the four: first, in contrast to worldlings, it displays purity; second, in contrast to the lesser [vehicle], it displays relinquishment; third, by universally contemplating all bodhisattvas, it explains upāya; fourth, by contrasting oneself with the Buddha, it explains seeking.
60.18
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "First, cessation": this refers to the unwholesome courses of action; this is halting evil. Halting evil is contrasted with habituation, so it is spoken of in common.
60.19
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Second, relinquishment": this refers to sovereignly accomplishing the ten powers and so forth; the ten powers' subduing of Māra is an overpowering achievement, which the two vehicles do not possess; therefore it is called 'relinquishment.'
60.20
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Third, upāya": this universally cites the bodhisattva's skillful cultivation, which brings the Buddha's ten wholesome deeds to fulfillment.
60.21
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Fourth, the bodhisattva seeks without satiety": the commentary text has four parts: first, it cites the sūtra to explain seeking; second, from "Although above..." downward, it distinguishes the wholesome deeds practiced; third, from "When the Buddha's goodness is viewed from one's own standpoint..." downward, it cites the intent of the Treatise to gloss [the text], for the Treatise says "insatiable with respect to what remains"; fourth, from "Omniscience..." downward, it explains the sūtra's words "should cause to be fully complete and pure."
60.22
Third, the precept of embracing sentient beings. Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "In the preceding, this precept is shown to be predominant": this refers to the initial opening of the Treatise, which says, "The above is based on the predominance of the precept of benefiting sentient beings through great compassion." The above was merely self-goodness; now compassion combines with succouring, so it is said to be 'predominant.'
60.23
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "The Treatise calls it 'distinction of time'": the Treatise, speaking with regard to cognition, says, "There are three characteristics: first, distinction of time; second, distinction of retribution; third, distinction of karmic impression (vāsanā)." Here, the latter two are placed under knowing the fruit; knowing the cause is the distinction of time.
60.24
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Committing for one's whole life and so forth": for one's whole life is the superior grade; for a long time is intermediate; for a short time is inferior. And as for saying "and so forth": this is from the fifty-third fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi, which explains the hundred practices, also called the hundred faults. When applied to the ten wholesome deeds, they are called the hundred practices; when applied to the ten unwholesome deeds, they are the hundred faults. "And so forth" includes: partial killing, killing for the most part, total killing, committing it oneself, instructing others, praising and commending it through immeasurable approaches, witnessing the killing of living beings and giving rise to profound delight and great joy. Going through the ten unwholesome deeds in this way constitutes the hundred faults.
60.25
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "The remaining three grades are as explained above in the ten wholesome deeds": in the ten wholesome deeds above, the explanation of the three grades is finished; by inverse analogy, committing unwholesome deeds can be known by reversing this. The sixtieth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi broadly reveals these distinctions. What is indicated here as the "three grades" briefly has four aspects there: first, in terms of the three periods of time, which has now been fully explained; second, in terms of the superior or inferior nature of the object; third, in terms of the light or heavy state of mind; fourth, in terms of committing it oneself versus instructing others. In the preceding ten wholesome deeds, not killing a superior object is an inferior wholesome deed, while not harming mosquitoes and gnats is a superior wholesome deed; here it is the reverse of this, as has been explained before. Regarding the third aspect, the light or heavy state of mind: the first meaning concerned the lightness or heaviness across the three periods of time, whereas here it concerns lightness or heaviness within a single moment. Thus the sūtra states, "Killing an ant with a heavy mind surpasses killing a person with a light mind," and so on; light mind, middling mind, and heavy mind are taken as the three grades. This lightness or heaviness of mind is also determined by whether the defilement that gives rise to it is superior, middling, or inferior. Hence the eighth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "'Mild' means unwholesome deeds arisen from mild greed, anger, or delusion, and so forth for the three grades; committing it oneself versus instructing others is light or heavy as in the preceding wholesome deeds." That which is broadly explained in the sixtieth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi specifically speaks of evil. The Treatise says: "The evil karma generated by taking life has four propositions: first, there is that which is done but not accumulated, as in the case of young children, or acting without thinking and then regretting, and so forth. Second, that which is not done but accumulated, meaning thinking of and desiring to kill and so forth. Third, both; fourth, neither—both can be understood. The remaining karmas are also like this. Among the three mental karmas, the second proposition does not exist; in the first proposition, there is no acting without thinking, or being coerced by others to do it." The explanation states: of the above four propositions, the first is the middling grade, the second is the inferior grade, "both" is the superior grade, and "neither" or accidental killing and so forth are not among the three grades. All the above represents the intent of the Yogācārabhūmi. If we follow the Tathāgataguhyakośa-sūtra: "Mahākāśyapa asked the Buddha: 'Among the ten unwholesome deeds, which are the heaviest?' The Buddha replied: 'Killing and wrong views.'" The explanation states: this is the mutual comparison among the ten unwholesome deeds. Next it also says: "Even minor transgressions up to the ten unwholesome deeds are called violations if obstinately clung to; if not obstinately clung to, then even the [five deeds of] uninterrupted retribution are not called violations." The explanation states: this is in terms of the mind, intending to clarify that obstinate attachment to wrong views is heavy. Saying "not a violation" means it is slight, so in the text below it first says: "Stealing the property of a stūpa or monastery is not called a violation," and later says: "This person falls because of this and is liberated because of this, just as a person falls to the ground from the sky and also rises by relying on the ground." Next, the sūtra also says: "If a father has attained the pratyekabuddha path and the son terminates the father's life, this is called the heaviest among killing. Plundering the property of the Three Jewels is called the heaviest among stealing. If a mother has gone forth and attained arhatship, and one engages in impurity with her, this is the heaviest among sexual misconduct. If one slanders the Buddha with untrue words, this is the heaviest among false speech. If with divisive speech one divides the Saṅgha of noble sages, this is the heaviest among divisive speech. If one reviles a noble person, this is the heaviest among harsh speech. If one's words confuse and disorder a person seeking the Dharma, this is the heaviest among frivolous chatter. The initial undertaking of the five deeds of uninterrupted retribution is the heaviest among anger. Desiring to rob the belongings of a person who upholds the precepts is the heaviest among greed. The heaviest among wrong views is called extreme view. In conclusion, these are the heaviest among the ten unwholesome deeds." The explanation states: this is in terms of the superior or inferior nature of the object; it merely cites the heavy ones, and the middling and inferior can be understood from them. It also says: "Kāśyapa! If there are sentient beings endowed with these ten unwholesome deeds who understand and know the Dharma of causes and conditions spoken by the Tathāgata—without self, without person, and without phenomena, their fundamental nature being constantly pure—I do not say that this person is heading toward the evil destinies. Why? Because there is no accumulation." The explanation states: this is the intention of the repentance through contemplation of principle in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and it is also the above idea that lacking a mind of obstinate attachment is not called a violation. It is also like the Tathāgata saying to King Ajātaśatru: "There is no one who can kill, and so forth—this is not what is currently essential, but is brought in by way of convenience to cause people to understand and extinguish [guilt]." Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Relying on the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra, within the three destinies each has peripheral and central [retribution]": this can be understood.
60.26
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Which is the remnant retribution in the human realm": the heavenly realm also has remnant retribution, but because it is heavy and frequent in the human realm, it is specifically spoken of. Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Treatises such as the Samuccaya and the Yogācārabhūmi open the fruit of karmic impressions, taking it as two": this refers to the seventh fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, where the treatise says: "Furthermore, regarding the maturation fruit (vipākaphala) of the ten unwholesome courses of action: according to inferior, middling, and superior, one receives the maturation of animals, hungry ghosts, or hells in the three evil destinies. Regarding the causally concordant fruit (niṣyandaphala): each, according to its characteristic, brings about the decline and damage of one's own bodily requisites, namely a short lifespan, constant poverty, and so forth, as appropriate. Regarding the sovereign fruit (adhipatiphala): each, according to its characteristic, brings about the decline and damage of all external things; namely, external requisites lacking lustre is the sovereign fruit of taking life." Below, it cites sūtras to list and explain them, yet for the causally concordant fruit it merely cites one, which mostly accords with this sūtra. For the proper unwholesome causally concordant fruit, its sovereign fruit also cites only one, only the fruit of sexual misconduct. It only mentions dust and dirt; for false speech, it says much foul stench; the rest are largely the same. However, the ten wholesome deeds also have three fruits: for the causally concordant fruit, it merely says: "Namely, in that very place, each, according to its characteristic, brings about the flourishing of one's own bodily requisites. Regarding the sovereign fruit: namely, in that very place, each, according to its characteristic, brings about the flourishing of external things." It does not explain them separately any further, but by analogy with evil, one should obtain long life, freedom from illness, and so forth; because the sūtra and the treatise do not separately show them, the Commentary also does not clarify the remaining differentiated retributions. The ninth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi largely accords with this explanation. If we follow the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, it says: "Due to what cause do these ten each incur three fruits? Answer: Because they cause others to suffer, cut off life, and cause destruction. First, taking life causes others to suffer, so one receives the maturation fruit. Because it cuts off others' lives, one receives the causally concordant fruit. Because it causes others to lose their dignity, one receives the sovereign fruit. The remaining evils may be known by analogy." In the forty-fourth fascicle of the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra, the meaning is also the same as this; yet taking suffering as the preparatory stage, one falls into hell. Terminating life as the fundamental act brings about the causally concordant fruit. Another master says: first one receives the maturation, and later receives the proximal sovereign fruit and the distal sovereign fruit. This largely accords with the present [view], whereby both the preparatory and the fundamental acts incur the three fruits.
60.27
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Mostly, the former is heavy and the latter light": because the causally concordant fruit of anger is light in the former and heavy in the latter, it says "mostly."
60.28
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Like water flowing toward moisture": the 'Qian' hexagram of the Book of Changes states, "Water flows toward moisture, fire approaches dryness, clouds follow the dragon, wind follows the tiger." Thus, each follows its own kind.
60.29
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Protecting the lives of sentient beings as one protects one's own life" and below: this also is precisely the preceding relinquishment through remedy.
60.30
Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Because of being mindful of sentient beings by relying on predominant compassion": this directly explains the character 'accumulation' (ji). Relying on the preceding embracing of wholesome dharmas to give rise to compassion and embrace sentient beings is called 'predominance of precepts'; here, relying on superior compassion to desire to rescue sentient beings, the compassionate mind is able to initiate acts that benefit sentient beings; hence it is called 'accumulation.'
60.31
Regarding the Commentary's statement, 'The treatise distinguishes particular aspects into eight kinds of sentient beings': these ten minds have both similarities and differences with the six minds in [the section on] abandoning anger, so the treatise's explanation is also slightly different. The previous six minds were: first, the mind of loving-kindness (maitrī); second, the mind of benefiting; third, the mind of compassion; fourth, the mind of joy; fifth, the mind of enrichment; sixth, the mind of taking in. Compared to these ten minds, there are four distinctions: First, the difference in dividing and combining: the sentient beings of evil conduct previously [mentioned] are divided into two here, namely those of evil conduct and non-Buddhists. Sentient beings who embrace the vow of bodhi previously mentioned are divided into two here, namely fellow practitioners and those who embrace the vow of bodhi, hence they are equivalent. Second, the difference in general and specific: previously, toward impoverished and suffering sentient beings, two minds were aroused together—namely compassion and giving joy. Here, they are given separately; that is, toward suffering sentient beings one gives rise to a mind of peace and joy, and toward the impoverished one gives rise to compassion. Third, the difference in how the mind arises: previously, toward the impoverished, one aroused compassion because one pitied the suffering of poverty; here, toward the non-impoverished, one arouses a mind of compassion because one wishes to pull them out of suffering. Furthermore, previously, toward sentient beings experiencing pleasure, one aroused the mind of enrichment to make them abandon negligence and abide in wholesome dharmas; here, one arouses a mind of compassion, considering that they will suffer multiple painful retributions in the future. Fourth, the difference in order: the former second [class], sentient beings of evil conduct, is the first here; that former fourth [class], suffering and afflicted sentient beings, is the third here; that former first [class], hostile sentient beings, is the third [sic: second] here; that former third [class], impoverished sentient beings, is the fourth here. Except for these four differences, the rest are similar. As for the Commentary's 'toward impoverished and suffering sentient beings': previously it only said 'suffering,' which meant the oppression of adverse conditions; now it says 'impoverished and suffering,' meaning that favorable conditions are deficient. As for 'pitying their negligence': it is because they will suffer. Hence a sūtra says: 'Due to the power of merit, they are born with much negligence; because negligence arises, they lack the mind that maintains the precepts; due to these causes and conditions, they fall into hell.' However, the reason the ten phrases become eight is that the last three are generally oriented toward bodhi, having lower, middling, and superior levels: toward those inferior to oneself, one takes them in as [one would] oneself; toward those equal to oneself, one defers to them as a teacher; toward those superior to oneself, one regards them as identical to a Buddha.
60.32
Regarding the Commentary's 'evil cognition (durbuddhi) and evil desire': the treatise states: 'Evil intention and evil mind. In Sanskrit it is *manas*, which is translated here as intention (意). In Sanskrit it is *mati*, which is translated here as cognition (慧).' Their phonetic articulation is close, which caused an error by the translator. The present sūtra is correct.
60.33
Regarding the Commentary's 'self and purity,' etc.: the four inversions (viparyāsa) depend on falsely conceptualizing the five aggregates. Relying on dharmas, one conceptualizes a self—that is, relying on the aggregates of conception and volition, and relying on the body, one conceptualizes purity; that is, relying on the aggregate of form, one grasps appearances, and through discursive thought spontaneously conceptualizes a self. Covered by thin skin, one spontaneously conceptualizes purity; hence it does not require deliberate mindfulness. If one conceptualizes the mind as permanent, it mostly arises from deliberation; conceptualizing feeling as pleasure requires being confronted with objects and losing mindfulness. Thus, self and purity are like innate [defilements], while permanence and pleasure are like conceptually differentiated [ones]; hence there are degrees of difficulty and ease. Master Yuan took 'self' as the root of 'permanence' and 'purity' as the source of 'pleasure,' and thus used 'root and branch' to explain difficulty and ease. In doing so, he spoke of nine kinds of root and branch: First, as in the *Awakening of Faith*, tathatā is the root and avidyā is the branch, because avidyā exists depending on tathatā. Second, avidyā is the root and the three inversions are the branch. Third, among the three inversions, the inversion of view is the root, and thought and mind are the branches. Fourth, the three inversions are the root and the four inversions are the branch. Fifth, among the four inversions, self and purity are the root, and permanence and pleasure are the branch. Sixth, the four inversions are the root and birth into the dense thickets of the evil destinies is the branch. Seventh, these very [thickets] are the root and active afflictions are the branch. Eighth, all afflictions are the root and all karmas are the branch. Ninth, all karmas are the root and painful fruitions are the branch. Here, he only cites the fifth. These nine layers are not essential here, but they hold some measure of reason, so they are recorded once more.
60.34
Regarding the Commentary's 'Due to conceptualizing...', etc.: conceptualizing a self leads to abundant desires, which is termed conceptualizing purity and desiring forms. 'As in the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]*': this was already cited in the 'Chapter on Arousing the Mind [for Awakening]'.
60.35
Regarding the Commentary's 'practicing the true path': the treatise explains right mindfulness. Right mindfulness refers to the four mindfulnesses (smṛtyupasthāna), because they counter the four inversions.
60.36
Regarding the Commentary's 'second, facing an enemy in one's mind': because the text is out of sequence, it is cited and patched here. Regarding the Commentary's 'concluding the above three karmas': wrong speech and wrong action both belong to wrong livelihood. As for 'meaning precious toys and consumption': precious toys corresponds to greed, and consumption corresponds to anger. 'Burned by afflictions' is spoken generally with respect to the three poisons.
60.37
The Commentary's 'However, delusion has two aspects,' etc., distinctly clarifies the characteristics of delusion. The Commentary's 'Moreover, not knowing...', etc., completes the above point on delusion preceding greed and anger; this represents the intention of the *Lotus Sūtra*. That sūtra states: 'Although the father had compassion and gave gentle words of inducement, the children took pleasure in playing games and refused to believe or accept them; they were neither alarmed nor afraid, having no intention of leaving at all. Nor did they know what fire was, what the house was, or what loss was; they simply ran back and forth playing, only glancing at their father.' However, the fire in that sūtra encompasses both cause and fruition; hence that sūtra says: 'In order to save sentient beings from the fire of the three poisons—birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, and distress.' Here it directly clarifies the fire of the three poisons. Precious toys and consumption are also the fire of fruition; hence that sūtra states: 'Also due to the wealth and profit of the five desires, they suffer various pains.' 'Loss' refers to not knowing that one has lost the dharmakāya, and also not knowing the faults of suffering and its origin. Here it directly clarifies the arising of delusion, which is why the Commentary does not cite it. 'What the house is': the house represents the five aggregates, which is used in the subsequent text.
60.38
Regarding the Commentary's 'second, having no intention of seeking escape': this refers to delusion regarding cessation and the path; that is, not knowing what the house is. Therefore, the Commentary says 'deludedly taking the burning house as pleasant'; this means failing to recognize cessation and not understanding how to cultivate the path, where seeking escape constitutes having no intention of seeking escape. Regarding the Commentary's 'first, foolishness': the four faults are all faults of accumulating evil conduct, and foolishness is their root. It means committing transgressive deeds for the sake of small immediate pleasures and incurring great future suffering; hence it is foolishness. The six characters beginning with 'deep darkness' distinctly clarify the three faults, two characters per fault. What they cover and obstruct applies to both meanings above.
60.39
Regarding the Commentary's 'second, entering obscurity and shade,' etc.: it opens this name of the fault into two meanings. First, in increasing evil, 'obscurity and shade' is delusion, and the 'dense forest' is a metaphor for the driving defilements (anusaya), which are latencies. Because the foolish mind serves as the cause for the driving defilements, taking the cause as reliant on the fruit forms the 'forest of obscurity and shade'; hence the Commentary says 'increasing the bondages and driving defilements.' Increasing the bondages and driving defilements means increasing evil; this increasing of evil is the fault of karma. As for 'this clarifies keeping distant from goodness': the treatise says, 'Being far removed from undefiled wisdom.' Undefiled wisdom is goodness, and it is also due to delusion that an obstruction to this goodness exists.
60.40
Regarding the Commentary's 'third, traveling in the wilderness on perilous paths': the Commentary captures the intent of the treatise and interprets it in accordance with the sūtra. However, these two lines differ between the treatise's sūtra [text] and this sūtra. The treatise's sūtra says: 'Falling into a place of great darkness, falling into what they view, arriving at various perilous paths.' The treatise explains: 'Incurring the fault of reaching a great confrontation, as the sūtra says, "falling into a place of great darkness." Here,
60.41
Regarding the Commentary's 'or regretting what was previously cultivated': this means that feeling regret without being able to cultivate contemplative practice as a remedy merely gives rise to regret that disturbs one's mind. Therefore, the *Vimalakīrti* comforts sick bodhisattvas by saying, 'Speak of regretting prior sins, but do not speak of dwelling in the past.' Second, regarding the Commentary's 'or giving rise to evil views': this means having cultivated a little goodness during one's lifetime but having committed very many sins, and when facing evil retribution at death, repudiating goodness as useless; this is termed 'evil views'.
60.42
Regarding the Commentary's 'first, seeing reality as it is': this applies to both phenomenal facts and the ultimate principle. Factually, it means having clear faith in cause and effect; principally, it means not grasping at appearances. Thus, the treatise's sūtra states: 'Because one attains unhindered knowledge that is entirely true to reality and not reliant on others.' Regarding the Commentary's 'the first phrase is its self-entity': this phrase is both general and specific. Specifically, it is the self-entity of saṃsāra that one follows. Generally, it is that which is able to abide, meaning people who cultivate goodness. The general aspect has already been clarified by the Commentary. Regarding the Commentary's 'even though a Buddha appears in the world': it is because they possess the seven difficulties, excluding [the period] before or after a Buddha.
60.43
Regarding the Commentary's 'and even...', etc.: this is because the treatise states, 'Believing that Brahmā and so forth, or the world of Brahmā and so forth, constitute the supramundane right view.' Explanation: Brahmā is the sentient being (proper recipient), and the Brahmā world is the insentient environment (basis).
60.44
Regarding the Commentary's 'the first phrase is relying upon': this is because the treatise's sūtra has three phrases. The treatise states: 'Departing from good guides and relying on unwholesome ground,' as the sūtra says, 'far removed from skillful guides.' Second, 'relying on enemy ground,' as the sūtra says, 'entering the dense thicket of demonic intent.' Third, 'far removed from the ground of acting as a spiritual friend,' as the sūtra says, 'far removed from the mind of the Buddha.' The present sūtra, because the first resembles the third, omits the first phrase. The Commentary completely conveys the intent of the treatise, combining the first two phrases to explain one phrase of the sūtra: 'relying on an enemy' is the second phrase, and 'losing the abandonment of evil dharmas' is the first phrase, because relying on an enemy necessarily results in losing the teacher who is far removed from evil. Since these two complement each other, they can be combined into one.
60.45
Regarding the Commentary's 'the first is the difference of paths': the path refers to transmigration, so it is compared to a flowing river; the realm refers to the difficulty of escaping, so it is compared to a prison. From 'all increasing the fault of suffering' onward, it clarifies the fault of non-Buddhists and the Hīnayāna largely diverging from the path.
60.46
Regarding the Commentary's 'seeking existence and sinking within': creating wholesome and other karma to seek the fruition of existence is termed 'sinking within'.
60.47
Regarding the Commentary's 'however, within the general [aspect]': generally, the six destinies are taken as the river, but here it takes the constant flowing of the ālayavijñāna. 'The waves of the seven consciousnesses' are just as described previously.
60.48
Regarding the Commentary's 'therefore this painful fruition': this refers to the meaning of continuity; just as a river, though deep, easily dries up if it has no continuous flow.
60.49
Regarding the Commentary's statement "in this saṃsāra": the eighty-sixth [fascicle of the] Yogācārabhūmi explains that, based on five kinds of characteristics, one should understand being swept away and drowned along the flow: first, wherein one is swept away and drowned; second, whereby one is swept away and drowned; third, based on which one is swept away and drowned; fourth, how one is swept away and drowned; fifth, the time of being swept away and drowned. The Commentary has already annotated these in detail below the text while also explaining the root treatise; because the sūtra separately adds the four floods as distinct from craving, it combines the fourth and the fifth into a single [aspect of] being swept away.
60.50
Regarding the Commentary's statement "whereby one is swept away and drowned": this is the second in the Yogācārabhūmi, being swept away due to craving. Just as a river has a great name, it must be deep and wide, like the Ganges and so on.
60.51
Regarding the Commentary's statement "first, showing the river's swiftness": this is the fifth in the Yogācārabhūmi, the time of being swept away and drowned. Slow waters are easy to cross; if saṃsāra were slow, the noble path could arise. Robust vigor does not halt, shifting and changing from moment to moment; no sooner does one wish to cultivate the path than samādhi is already gone. This is from the perspective of the fruit.
60.52
Regarding the Commentary's statement "following desires and so on": the objects of the five dusts all have favorable and unfavorable aspects, therefore generating the three thoughts as well as the eight thoughts, as in the "Aspiration Chapter." This is from the perspective of the cause; hence it says "based on which one is swept away and drowned," for if there were no evil thoughts, there would be no being swept away. This is the second among the five in the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra.
60.53
Regarding the Commentary's statement "the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] takes desire and so on": that is, in the second roll of the sūtra, Cunda conversely instructs Mañjuśrī to reveal the unconditioned nature of the Buddha. The parable says: for instance, a poor woman stays at someone else's guest-house and gives birth to a son. The master of the guest-house drives them away and expels them. Holding and carrying this child, she wishes to go to another country. Along the way she encounters evil wind and rain, cold and bitter suffering arriving together, and is bitten and eaten by gnats, mosquitoes, wasps, and venomous insects. Sengzong says: "Being broken down and opposed by heterodox teachings is compared to the wind and rain, not yet escaping affliction. Devouring roots of goodness is compared to venomous snakes and insects." The Commentary's intention now means: the sūtra uses the six destinies to allegorize the river and so on, which is the river of the fruit. One should take desire and so on as allegories for the venomous insects, following [Seng]zong's explanation. The treatise has no separate explanation, so it cites an alternative interpretation.
60.54
Regarding the Commentary's statement "the second, the arising of difficulties, has four": the first is view, the next two are craving, and the last is conceit. Regarding "clinging due to the view of self-existence": this is also as the Kośa states: "By two, one does not transcend desire; by three, one returns down below again." Explanation: these are the five fetters that bind to the lower realms. Those by which "by two, one does not transcend desire" are sensual desire and ill will. Those by which "by three, one returns down below again" are the view of self-existence, adherence to rules and rituals, and doubt. The sūtra mentions only the view of self-existence, which is why the preceding line of the Commentary says: "The word 'grasping' also subsumes adherence to rules, which are delusions that likewise cause return to the desire realm." It simply omits doubt. Thus, the two of greed and ill will are like jailers, while the three of the view of self-existence and the rest are like patrol guards.
First 54 of 131 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese