大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 61

English (machine translation) 61

Language: English

61.1

Expounded by the śramaṇa Chengguan of the Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang in the Tang

Third, the portion of revulsion. From "The treatise says..." onward is the arising through question and answer; first, it adduces the treatise; second, from "not delighting..." onward, the commentary explains the treatise. First, it explains the name "revulsion"; from "its immeasurable..." onward, it resolves an objection, because that is the fruit of revulsion, not the portion of revulsion itself. The intent of resolving the objection can be known.

61.3

Regarding the commentary's passage from "The sūtra text..." onward: it divides the explanation into seven characteristics; bundling them into three based on differences in meaning accords with the textual division into sections.

61.4

Regarding the commentary's passage from "Now, the first: this bodhisattva..." onward, explaining cultivation: within this there are three: 1. directly explaining the text; 2. citing the Yogācārabhūmi to generally demonstrate cultivation and realization; 3. comprehensively integrating them through the intent of the sūtra. Now, the first: this takes up the mental application immediately below to explain. The texts of the four characteristics herein all have four parts. The four parts within the first are: 1. "having heard the Dharma," which repeats the sūtra text; 2. "depending on what does one cultivate?", which generally indicates the characteristic of the meaning; 3. "because of depending on the true Dharma," which explains and establishes the above meaning; 4. "namely, the mental application of comprehending characteristics," which subsumes it under the treatise's meaning. Below, in the Yogācārabhūmi, in order to accord with worldly dhyāna, one comprehends the characteristics of aspiration and revulsion: that is, revulsion toward the suffering, coarseness, and obstruction of the lower realms, and aspiration toward the purity, excellence, and separation of the higher realms. Here it says "true Dharma," and its meaning extends deeply. In terms of lodging within stages, it is completely identical to the Yogācārabhūmi. In terms of diligently seeking pure bodhisattva practice, the heard Dharma must indeed be deep and wonderful, like the four dhyānas attained by the night goddess below. The three below each have four parts, which can be understood by analogy with this.

61.5

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Next, collecting the mind to dwell peacefully": this is the second characteristic. The statement "namely, the mental application of gathering delight" is explained below in the Yogācārabhūmi as experiencing partial realization, which is the characteristic of the benefit of preliminary application.

61.6

Regarding the commentary's passage from "Next, in an empty..." onward: this is the third characteristic. The statement "namely, the mental application of detachment" is explained below where detachment is said to be "coexisting with the path of severance." In the present context of a secluded place, how is it named the path of severance? Therefore, the commentary above says, "seclusion applies to both phenomena and principle"; the seclusion of principle is precisely the severance of the path.

61.7

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Next, reflecting thus": this is the fourth characteristic. The statement "namely, for what reason does one cultivate?" is the reason for cultivation, for truly, if one does not cultivate, one does not realize. The statement "namely, the mental application of resolute faith (adhimokṣa-manaskāra)" is explained below as proper cultivation; that is, resolute faith has confirming and holding to an object as its nature, and its function is to be unshakeable, so cultivation cannot be accomplished without this.

61.8

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Yogācāra [bhūmi], fascicle thirty-three" onward: this is the second part, which comprehensively demonstrates practice and realization. Within this there are two sections: first, correctly citing the treatise; second, demonstrating it in correlation with the text. In the former part, it briefly explains that, transcending from here the application of hearing and reflection, one practices cultivation, engenders superior resolution (adhimukti) with respect to the characteristics of the object that arise, and cultivates śamatha and vipaśyanā. Having practiced repeatedly, one repeatedly engenders superior resolution in accordance with the coarse characteristics and purified characteristics as investigated and scrutinized; such is called the superior mental application (adhimokṣa-manaskāra). The first five are understandable. As for "the sixth, the mental application of the culmination of preparatory training (prayoga-niṣṭha-manaskāra)," the treatise says: "From this point, one delights even more doubly in abandoning, cultivates śamatha and vipaśyanā, and thoroughly and solemnly observes and cultivates the antidotes. Constantly observing what was previously abandoned, due to these causes and conditions, one's mind attains release from all defilements bound to the desire realm. Because this is a skillful means of suppressing and abandoning at this time of release, it is not the ultimate, eternal eradication of seeds. At that time, before the ground of the first dhyāna meditation, the path of preparatory training has already reached culmination, and the mental applications that serve as antidotes to all defilements have already been generated; this is called the mental application of the culmination of preparatory training." As for "the seventh, the mental application that is the fruit of the culmination of preparatory training (prayoga-niṣṭha-phala-manaskāra)," the treatise says: "Immediately following this, due to these causes and conditions, one realizes and enters the mental application associated with the fundamental concentration of the first dhyāna; this is called the mental application that is the fruit of the culmination of preparatory training." Explanation: The treatise briefly explains its characteristics with respect to the first dhyāna, and what follows is modeled on the rest. Here the commentary adduces them as a whole, hence it merely takes the general import to explain it briefly. The subsequent cases can be understood by analogy.

61.9

Regarding the commentary's phrase "in the cultivation above" onward: this is the second part, demonstrating it in correlation with the text. "Each of the eight lower concentrations has the latter two" means that being separated from desires and evil, unwholesome dharmas, and so forth, is the mental application of the culmination of preparatory training; abiding in the first dhyāna and so forth is the mental application that is the fruit of the culmination of preparatory training.

61.10

Regarding the commentary's phrase "therefore, because there is comprehensive cultivation here, there is also comprehensive manifestation below": there are four propositions. 1. Comprehensive cultivation and comprehensive manifestation: this means cultivating the general characteristics without exclusively cultivating a single one, where the eight concentrations arise simultaneously, called comprehensive manifestation. 2. Particular cultivation and particular manifestation: this means exclusively cultivating the first dhyāna and manifesting the first dhyāna, cultivating the second and manifesting the second, cultivating [the realm of] space and manifesting [the realm of] space, and so on. 3. Comprehensive cultivation and particular manifestation: cultivating the general characteristics, yet manifesting only a single concentration, and so forth. 4. Particular cultivation and comprehensive manifestation: cultivating only a single concentration, yet manifesting many concentrations. The first two correspond to how one cultivates, while the latter two do not correspond. What is the reason for this? When one cultivated exclusively in previous lifetimes, although one now cultivates comprehensively, one manifests only a single concentration. It is like the earth having a single seed: although the rain moistens it everywhere, only a single shoot sprouts. In the fourth case, one cultivated multiple approaches in the past; although one now cultivates only one, all concentrations manifest together. It is like many seeds being in the same place: with a small amount of fertile moisture, all shoots sprout simultaneously. In relation to the concentration appearing before one, it is called "manifestation" (fa); in relation to the person acquiring it through cultivation, it is termed "entry" (ru). Now, this is indeed the meaning of the Tiantai school. Here, the bodhisattva cultivates comprehensively, and below they all manifest comprehensively. As for the characteristics of particular cultivation, they are fully as explained in the Yogācārabhūmi, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, and so forth.

61.11

Regarding the commentary's phrase "however, they are all identical to the delusive" onward: third is harmonizing them into a general characteristic through the intent of the sūtra. The reason they are harmonized is that the text is entirely differentiated and sequential, and furthermore it cites the terms "delight and revulsion" from the Yogācārabhūmi. Fearing that someone might consider this to be completely so, it eliminates this here. Because of lodging in these stages, it cites the Dharma-character school (Faxiang) to corroborate the sūtra text; according to the intent of the bird's tracks, they must in principle be harmonized.

61.12

Regarding the commentary's phrase "first, concluding what precedes, which is when cultivation and realization occur" onward: the commentary's text is divided into four. 1. Correctly explaining the text. 2. Under "the treatise-sūtra" onward, distinguishing the differences with respect to that. 3. Under "the present sūtra lacks" onward, citing what the present sūtra lacks to inversely corroborate what the treatise has. 4. Under "only what precedes" onward, bringing out the intent behind why the sūtra lacks it.

61.13

Regarding the commentary's phrase "as detailed in a separate chapter": Master of the Great Vehicle [Kuiji]'s Fayuan and his Lotus Commentary and so forth all have chapters on this; here the commentary's four sections have already summarized the essentials. In the first section, "the intention behind entering," there are four parts: 1. Directly revealing the intent of the sūtra. 2. Under "the treatise says" onward, citing the fundamental treatise's explanation. 3. Under "furthermore, showing the entry into dhyāna" onward, harmonizing provisional and ultimate. 4. Under "however, immeasurable" onward, resolving objections. In the second part, it first asks. Master Huiyuan says: "A bodhisattva should properly cultivate the supramundane path, dhyāna, and so on; why is it necessary to enter mundane dharmas? Answer: It is for the sake of five kinds of sentient beings; because there are four classes of dharmas, which open up by the four equals, they therefore constitute five kinds." The phrase "fifth, for those who take wrong refuge" and so forth means that people of wrong refuge possess meager wisdom and give credence only to what they see and hear; therefore, one displays supernormal powers for them, and only then can they believe and accept.

61.14

Regarding the commentary's phrase "first explaining the four dhyānas" and so forth: the commentary's text has three parts. First, the correct explanation; second, under "therefore the Yogācāra" onward, citing corroboration; third, under "for this reason, quiescence is able to" onward, determining by elimination.

61.15

Regarding the commentary's phrase "next, the formless" onward: second, explaining the formless realm's transcending, being contrary to and harming, and having no capacity to arise. What are these three characteristics? "Transcending" means that the dharmas of this level are superior. "Being contrary to and harming" means running counter to and harming the physical. "Having no capacity to arise" is like flowers in fire.

61.16

Regarding the commentary's phrase "'formless' means without form": the citations from the Abhidharmakośa are all from the twenty-eighth treatise of the "Chapter on Concentration," which will be fully cited below. As for "in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya it extensively refutes the presence of form": the treatise says: "Because all are without form, the name 'formless' is established. An external objection says: 'This reason is not established, because we admit there is form.' Next, turning to query them: 'If so, why is it called formless?' They reply: 'Because that form is subtle, it is called formless, just as something slightly yellow is also called not-yellow.' The treatise master asks: 'What characteristic do you admit the form in that realm has? If that realm only has bodily and vocal restraints, since body and voice do not exist, how could restraint exist? Furthermore, without the great elements, by what could form be made? If you say it is like having untainted restraint—it is not so, because the untainted relies on the tainted great elements, and furthermore it is also precluded from existing in that concentration. If you admit that there is a physical sense-basis body there, how can you say that its form is subtle and scarce? If you say it is because that body's size is small—minute insects in water, being extremely microscopic things, should also be called formless, because their bodies are also small and invisible. If you say that because that body is extremely pure and subtle, there should be form within it; if you say that that body is the most extremely pure and subtle, then only the Peak of Existence should obtain the name formless, since bodies produced by concentration have superior and inferior degrees.'" There are further extensive refutations; this briefly conveys the gist.

61.17

Regarding the commentary's phrase "first, attained through cultivation; the Kośa says it is subsumed under the nature of wholesomeness": the verse says: "The four dhyānas each have two kinds; / Among them, those by birth have already been explained. / Concentration is said to be a wholesome one-pointedness, / Together with its attendants, its nature is the five aggregates." The explanation says: Dhyāna is of two kinds: first, dhyāna by birth; second, dhyāna by concentration. Concentration is what is attained through cultivation. The phrase "among them, those by birth have already been explained" refers to the "Chapter on the World" explaining that the seventeen heavens are dhyānas by birth, which take the five non-obscured indeterminate aggregates as their nature. The present commentary has this completely. The phrase "subsumed under the nature of wholesomeness" is still broad; speaking definitively, it takes wholesome samādhi as its nature. The phrase "one-pointedness of mind" means being able to cause the mind to focus exclusively on a single objective condition.

61.18

Regarding the commentary's phrase "the formless" onward: setting forth the essence of the formless. Within this there are two parts: first, correctly explaining it by clarifying it according to the Hīnayāna; second, evaluating it according to the various teachings. Now in the first part, citing the Kośa's phrase "the four aggregates separated from lower grounds": the subsequent verse says: "Together with the upper three access concentrations, / It is collectively termed the elimination of notions of form. / 'Formless' means without form; / Subsequent form arises from the mind." Now this directly cites the first seven characters to set forth the essence of the formless. That is, it also uses one-pointedness of mind subsumed under the nature of wholesomeness, taking wholesome samādhi as its intrinsic nature, but its attendants merely exclude the form aggregate, because in the formless realm there is no attendant form. Its separation from lower grounds belongs to a separate establishment. The four names differ within a single line; it was cited here merely in passing, and below it will be explained separately.

61.19

Regarding the commentary's phrase "if according to the Mahāyāna school" onward: second, evaluating according to the various teachings. "No divergent track" applies across the various teachings. Under "if unifying characteristics" onward, it correctly clarifies the Initial Teaching. Under "if phenomena are exhausted and principle becomes manifest" onward, it distinguishes the Final Teaching. From "complete obliteration" onward, this is the Sudden Teaching. Under "if phenomena and principle are interpenetrating" onward, it distinguishes the Perfect Teaching.

61.20

Regarding the commentary's phrase "among the four dhyānas" onward: the commentary's text is divided into two. First, the doctrinal principles; second, explaining the text. Preceding the text it is divided into four: 1. Equally establishing the four factors. 2. Distinctions across the successive dhyānas. 3. Adducing their actual real entities. 4. The reasons for establishing them. Now in the first part, it is divided into three: first, listing the names of the factors; next, under "among the four, the latter three" onward, evaluating similarities and differences; finally, under "although the subsequent ones" onward, resolving an objection. The objection states: An objection arises regarding the first one not being a factor. The objection asks: "If the initial abandonment of obstacles is in all cases not a factor, the second dhyāna's abandonment of obstacles is said to be the cessation of investigation and scrutiny; investigation and scrutiny are precisely the two factors of the first dhyāna, so how can one say they are not factors?" Now it answers: Although they are factors of the preceding one, with respect to me they are not factors. The other two are also like this.

61.21

Regarding the commentary's phrase "however, speaking generally of the four dhyānas, there are eighteen factors": this is the second part, distinctions across the successive dhyānas. Within this there are also two parts: first, correctly clarifying; second, setting forth the reasons. Now the first. The Kośa verse says: "The first dhyāna possesses five factors: / Investigation, scrutiny, joy, pleasure, and concentration. / The second dhyāna possesses four factors: / Internal purity, joy, pleasure, and concentration. / The third dhyāna possesses five factors: / Equanimity, mindfulness, discernment, pleasure, and concentration. / The fourth dhyāna possesses four factors: / Equanimity, mindfulness, neutral feeling, and concentration." Therefore the present commentary says: "The first and third each have five; the second and fourth both have four."

61.22

Regarding the commentary's phrase "for desires and evil" onward: setting forth the reasons for establishing more or fewer factors there. When the disease is severe, the medicines are many; when the bandits are weak, the soldiers are few.

61.23

Regarding the commentary's phrase "excluding repetitions among them" onward: third, adducing their actual real entities. This relies on the three instances of behavioral equanimity in the Mahāyāna, which differ from the subsequent feeling of equanimity.

61.24

Regarding the commentary's phrase "if one distinguishes the two kinds of pleasure, there are eleven": the Kośa says: "These real entities are eleven: / The pleasure of the first two is pliancy; / Internal purity is the faculty of faith; / Joy is precisely the feeling of joy." This means that the pleasure of the first and second dhyānas is the pleasure of pliancy (praśrabdhi), while the pleasure of the third dhyāna is the pleasure of pleasurable feeling; hence they make eleven.

61.25

Regarding the commentary's phrase "if internal purity has no separate essence, there are only nine": this means that in the Kośa, internal purity is precisely the faculty of faith. The Mahāyāna Samuccaya and other texts merely combine the three factors of equanimity, mindfulness, and correct awareness of the third dhyāna to constitute internal purity, having no separate internal purity; therefore there are only nine.

61.26

Regarding the commentary's phrase "all of these are to conform with and benefit" onward: fourth, the reason for establishing them as factors. Because they benefit dhyāna, "factor" (aṅga) has the meaning of a part and the meaning of a cause. Under "the Yogācāra" onward, it cites corroboration.

61.27

Regarding the commentary's phrase "first, desire as defilement; second, desire as objective things": defilement is explained in terms of the internal; desire as objective things is explained in terms of the external. When the inner mind is not associated with greedy desire, it is called "separation through non-association." When one is undefiled by external objects, it is called "separation from objective spheres."

61.28

Regarding the commentary's phrase "investigation and scrutiny are the coarseness and subtlety of mind": this is from the "Chapter on the Realms." Explanation: Investigation (vitarka) is seeking out; scrutiny (vicāra) is discerning examination. The coarse nature of mind is called investigation; the subtle nature of mind is called scrutiny.

61.29

Regarding the commentary's phrase "realms and so forth": "and so forth" includes the thoughts of clan and caste, as well as pliancy. "Thoughts" refers to the eight thoughts, as detailed in the "Chapter on the Merits of Generating the Aspiration [for Enlightenment]."

61.30

Regarding the commentary's phrase "third, joy and pleasure born of separation": fascicle eleven of the Yogācārabhūmi clarifies the abandonment of five dharmas, namely joy and pleasure induced by desire, and grief, joy, and equanimity induced by unwholesome states and sorrow; from those five feelings, joy and pleasure are born. "Joy" means profound jubilation and delight. "Pleasure" means bodily and mental agreeable delight, attaining freedom from harm, and the pleasure of liberation.

61.31

Regarding the commentary's phrase "rejoicing over separation from desires, evil, and so forth": "and so forth" includes unwholesome dharmas. As for the phrase "the body and mind resting in pliancy": yi means beautiful and peaceful. This pleasure of pliancy is distinct from the pleasure of liberation.

61.32

Regarding the commentary's "obtaining great pliancy (praśrabdhi), body and mind being harmonious and unhindered, having capability": this cites the text to re-explain the meaning of pliancy. The sixth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Pliancy means being free from heaviness, harmonizing and easing body and mind, having adaptability as its nature; its karmic function is to counter torpor and transform the basis (āśrayaparavṛtti)." Explanation: Being free from the heaviness of afflictions is 'pliant' (light); body and mind being harmonious and unhindered is 'peaceful'; causing the supporting physical body to be pliant and joyful is termed 'having capability'. The commentary accords with the Yogācārabhūmi, omitting an explanation of 'pliant' (light).

61.33

Regarding the commentary's "Fourth, dwelling in the first dhyāna" and so forth: it first explains the reliance; later, from "As for saying 'first'" downward, it explains the word "first dwell".

61.34

The second dhyāna. Regarding the commentary's "vitarka and vicāra are coarse and active, giving rise to three consciousnesses": these refer to eye, ear, and body [consciousnesses]. Master Huiyuan says: "Within the first dhyāna, vitarka and vicāra are threefold: first, the concentrated mind; second, when emerging from concentration; third, the vitarka and vicāra of the coarse and active force of the bodily consciousnesses. All three are turbulent minds; the superior stillness of the second dhyāna dispels them all." Second, the meaning of 'inner serenity' was previously explained in general; here it includes two traditions. The Xianyang and Samuccaya call it 'inner equal serenity'. Fascicle two of the Xianyang says: "That is, in order to counter vitarka and vicāra, gathering mindfulness and correct knowledge, one's mind abides in equanimity within one's own internal essence; because it is free from the defiled dharmas of vitarka and vicāra, it is called inner equal serenity." The commentary to the Samuccaya says: "What is called 'equal' means that the essence of inner concentration, through freedom from vitarka and vicāra, obtains an essence of abiding in impartial equanimity. Furthermore, since mindfulness and wisdom are not single, it is called equality." If according to the Vibhāṣā, it says: "That is, faith is equal, causing the inner mind to be serene."

61.35

Regarding the commentary's "Having previously extinguished vitarka and vicāra" downward, it resolves an objection. The objection says: If above one extinguished vitarka and vicāra, and now again says 'without [them]', is this not redundant? The point of the answer says: Previously mentioning vitarka and vicāra indicated what is extinguished here, showing what is countered. Here, saying 'without' differs from the first dhyāna using this vitarka and vicāra as the counteragent; it shows that the counteragent is absent. Master Huiyuan says: "The previous extinguishing of vitarka and vicāra is like calling the truth of cessation 'undefiled'. This 'without vitarka and vicāra' is like calling the truth of the path 'undefiled'."

61.36

Regarding the commentary's "The basic treatise explains one mind saying" downward: first it cites the treatise; later, from "Wishing to differ from the worldly, it is true cultivation" downward, the commentary explains the treatise text. The above explained undefiled; from here down explains one mind. However, the treatise and sūtra state that "one mind means the mind operating in one place"; now, explaining the treatise text, it uses two meanings to explain operating in one place: first, by uninterrupted samādhi, that is, referring to the continuity without interval of the undefiled, which is the vertical explanation of one mind; second, by operating on a single object-field, referring to matters facing conditions, which is the horizontal explanation of one mind, because from the second dhyāna upward it operates on dharmadhātu objects solely by mental consciousness. From "Through this, it is precisely called" downward, it concludes the samādhi as undefiled. Merely focusing on one object is samādhi; here it is furthermore continuous, hence it is undefiled, as no defiled dharmas come to intervene between them. The Yogācārabhūmi says: "Worldly dhyāna only abandons the heaviness of that category, not the seeds. Undefiled dhyāna abandons both kinds, hence there is no interval."

61.37

Regarding the commentary's "like a clear mirror and still water": desire and evils are like mud; the concentration of the first dhyāna is like clear, moving water. Now, devoid of desire and evils and having further extinguished vitarka and vicāra, it is like clear, still water. Thus, the first dhyāna rejoices in what it has left behind; this [second dhyāna] rejoices in what it has attained, because it attains the fading of illumination.

61.38

Regarding the commentary's "If according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa" downward: this recounts a differing explanation. The previous interpretation of 'born of concentration' placed concentration in the second dhyāna. Now, stating 'born of concentration', concentration is located in the first dhyāna. Because one turns one's back on the first dhyāna's concentration with vitarka and vicāra and attains the second dhyāna. Since the desire realm has no concentration to turn one's back upon, the first is called 'born of separation'.

61.39

Regarding the commentary's "Although the second dhyāna is separated" downward: it resolves a difficulty. The difficulty says: If the first dhyāna leaves desire and evils and is thus called 'born of separation', the second dhyāna leaves vitarka and vicāra and should also appropriately be called 'born of separation'. Therefore it resolves this. The resolution says: The first dhyāna leaves desire and evil and, having no concentration [prior to it], is called 'born of separation'; the second dhyāna leaves vitarka and vicāra and, having concentration [prior to it], is called 'born of concentration'. However, raising this difficulty only challenges the previous interpretation. And in resolving the difficulty, it says: The first dhyāna having concentration, both interpretations are established. Since the desire realm has no concentration to be turned away from, that establishes the previous interpretation; since the first dhyāna has concentration to be turned away from, that resolves the latter interpretation.

61.40

Regarding the commentary's "The first dhyāna is separated from the great obstacle of desire": explaining in terms of the size of obstacles, being separated from the great obstacle of desire, the first is called 'born of separation'. The second lacks a great obstacle, so the second is not called 'separation'.

61.41

The third dhyāna. Regarding the commentary's "First, dwelling in equanimity": that is upekṣā. The 'number' (caitta) refers to one mental factor among the eleven wholesome factors. As for the eleven wholesome factors, the Vijñaptimātratā verse says: "Wholesome means faith, shame, modesty, / the three roots of non-greed and so forth, / diligence, pliancy, vigilance, / equanimity of activity, and non-harming." Here, clarifying 'equanimity of activity' is precisely one of them. That treatise explains: "'Equanimity of activity' means diligence and the three roots, having as its nature causing the mind to abide in equality, uprightness, and effortless application, having as its function countering restlessness and non-quiescent abiding." Explanation: This takes four dharmas as its essence, hence it says diligence and the three roots. The three roots are the wholesome activities of non-greed and so forth. Next, the commentary says "distinguishing it as not being the feeling of indifference (upekṣā-vedanā)": the feeling of indifference is solely indeterminate, not of a wholesome nature. Equanimity of activity is of a wholesome nature, hence it is now distinguished. "The active mind being harmonized and poised": equanimity of activity universally abandons the three unwholesome roots of greed and so forth; here, facing the joy (prīti) of the second dhyāna, it refers to abandoning the fault of joy.

61.42

Regarding the commentary's "Xianyang" downward: it cites the treatise to reveal the characteristics of equanimity. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi generally explains equanimity of activity; the Xianyang directly explains the equanimity in the third dhyāna, hence it says 'dwelling in equanimity'.

61.43

Regarding the commentary's "not consenting to the joy that has already arisen": the words 'not consenting' are the meaning of equanimity. Regarding the commentary's "impartial, upright, and abiding unshakeably": the three grades of equanimity's characteristics are identical to the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi: equality is the first, because it is free from sinking and restlessness; uprightness is the second, because it is not timid before defilement; abiding unshakeably is the last, which is quiescent abiding. That is what the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi above states: "Effortless abiding, not forgetting and clearly remembering, because this is the meaning of mindfulness." Master Huiyuan explains: "Mindful of the previous fault of joy, one guards the mind on a single object."

61.44

Regarding the commentary's "Third, correct knowledge": correct knowledge is wisdom (prajñā). Master Huiyuan says, "discriminating the fault of joy." As for stating 'correct', the treatise calls it 'peaceful wisdom'. Master Huiyuan says, "Wisdom being quiet is called peaceful." 'Peaceful' is the meaning of 'correct'; quietness and discernment flowing together is called 'correct'; because it is correct, it attains peace.

61.45

Regarding the commentary's "The above three" downward: it concludes the superior meaning.

61.46

Regarding the commentary's "Even if the mental sensation experiences bliss" downward: it cites the Yogācārabhūmi where both the material body and the mental body are called 'body'. From "Therefore the Yogācāra" downward: it cites evidence. Herein there are five parts: first, clarifying the counteragent; second, from "causing the mind" downward, revealing its counteracting capability, namely the previous freedom from joy; third, from "freedom from joy is quiescent" downward, introducing the meaning of the physical experience of bliss in the subsequent text, clarifying that it is bliss free from joy, hence saying "arising of mental sensation contrary to joy"—the arising of mental sensation is precisely the mental body experiencing bliss; fourth, from "that, in..." downward, directly explaining the meaning of the bodily experience of bliss; fifth, from "therefore" downward, concluding and explaining the sūtra text. The above was spoken according to the fundamental. Master Huiyuan says: "Bodily sensation: sensation has two kinds, namely distinguishing bodily and mental as two: first, distinguished according to the root. Sensations of the five consciousnesses and so forth arise relying on physical faculties, hence they are called bodily sensations. Sensation within the mental consciousness arises from the mental faculty, hence it is called mental sensation. Second, distinguishing body and mind according to what is benefited. Inferior sensation, its ease and fluency being in the mind, is called mental sensation. Superior sensation, its ease pervading body and mind, is named after the branch based on what it pervades, hence it is called bodily sensation. Now, following the latter meaning, bliss is actually a mental dharma. Here, being predominantly pervasive throughout body and mind, it is spoken of as bodily sensation. Revealing the superior bliss of bliss, its meaning as mental sensation goes without saying." Explanation: Master Huiyuan has two meanings, intending only to take the latter, whereas now the commentary uses both. The above citation of the Yogācārabhūmi confirms the former meaning: the mental consciousness is called 'body', hence saying mental sensation is also called bodily sensation.

61.47

Regarding the commentary's "Like earth and stone" downward: citing the mountain and water metaphor accords with the latter meaning. Spoken according to what is benefited, there are degrees: then earth is a metaphor for mind, and stone is a metaphor for body. Water is a general metaphor for bliss: in the first dhyāna, bliss is mental, so it is like water not entering into stone. In the second dhyāna, it already pervades body and mind, like water pervading a mountain without stone obstructing it. However, covered by joy, like earth covering water, it is merely latent moistening. In the third dhyāna, bodily bliss pervades increasingly, like pond water on the outside and water pervading the inside of the mountain; this can be known clearly.

61.48

Regarding the commentary's "Explaining to establish the superior meaning": having raised the three mountains above, one already knows the bliss of the third dhyāna is superior; hence now it presents the superior meaning. In this there are six points: 1. The previous phrase indicates it. 2. "Namely, lower..." directly clarifies the superior meaning. "There is no such bliss": there is no superior bliss without joy. "And uninterrupted equanimity": clarifying that there is no counteractive equanimity of activity. For lower stages have bliss without equanimity, and higher stages have equanimity without bliss; here, having both equanimity and bliss, bliss is supreme. 3. "Therefore" downward cites evidence to unpack the sūtra, clarifying that it has both bliss and equanimity. 4. "Therefore all blisses" downward concludes the superior meaning. 5. "This Yogācāra" downward concludes by criticizing differing interpretations. Namely, Master Huiyuan attached the two words 'capable of abandoning' to the previous phrase, saying 'all āryas declare one capable of abandoning'. He explained: 'Only ārya disciples can speak, can surpass, and have capability to abandon, not being what ordinary people can do, displaying the depth of this bliss.' Now, attaching the two words 'capable of abandoning' below, it says that by being capable of abandoning, having mindfulness, and experiencing bliss, bliss is superior; hence all āryas together declare this bliss to be the most superior. Master Huiyuan merely said bliss is superior, not knowing why it is superior; contemplate this. Therefore it concludes that there being both textual and rational grounds, one should not interpret it differently. 6. "In the text" downward harmonizes the sūtra with the treatise. Stating "merely having mindfulness of equanimity already differs from above and below": by having mindfulness of equanimity it differs from below; by having bliss it differs from above.

61.49

Regarding the commentary's "The fourth dhyāna": first, it directly clarifies the question and answer. If the first dhyāna has bliss, why has suffering not yet been severed? The meaning of the answer can be understood.

61.50

Regarding the commentary's "If according to the Hīnayāna" downward: it distinguishes differences according to the teachings. Thus the Kośa says: "The first two have the bliss of pliancy", which shows that the previous treatises all referred to the feeling of bliss (sukha-vedanā). From "Furthermore, this directly severs" downward clarifies its appropriateness; this also fends off an objection. The objection says: Being subsumed in the same manner, why not raise neither-grief-nor-joy to subsume suffering and bliss? The reply says: First, among the five sensations there is no distinct name; second, the bliss it opposes is near, whereas grief and suffering are far, having been severed previously.

61.51

Regarding the commentary's "The joyous mind is fluctuating and active" downward: it explains the reason for lacking correct knowledge. 3. From "If distantly revealing purity" downward: re-revealing the word 'purity'. Above it only clarified the four purities in contrast to the third dhyāna. Now it clarifies purity generally in contrast to the previous three: first citing the treatise text; later, regarding "This treatise briefly raises six matters", the commentary explains that because the treatise text lacks suffering and grief, it says 'briefly raises', also because they are distant. Directly clarifying the calamities of lower stages coming from the first dhyāna, the active functioning of severed grief and suffering are both in the desire realm, hence they are briefly not mentioned. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: "The fourth is named unmoving, because it is free from the eight calamities." The eight calamities are vitarka, vicāra, suffering, bliss, grief, joy, exhalation, and inhalation.

61.52

Regarding the commentary's "Second, the four formless [attainments]" downward: explaining this is divided into four: 1. Analytical discussion of principles; 2. Explaining the text; 3. Referring to wider expositions; 4. Contemplative practice. Among the four: first, revealing differences; second, explaining distinct names; third, categorizing into four by analogy; fourth, clarifying branch distinctions. Now, the first: namely, what was previously cited regarding the four aggregates leaving the lower stage; the phrase 'leaving the lower stage' reveals the difference.

61.53

Under the Commentary's "Differences being thus," the second part explains their distinct names. Within this there are six [subsections]: first, a general raising of the question; second, under "Its next verse," quoting the treatise to answer; third, under "Refers to cultivating concentration," explaining the text of the treatise; fourth, under "Because the prior three," bringing forth the reason for their difference—the reason why, though all alike belong to the four formless [realms], they receive different names, is that the root [absorptions] of the prior three do not take a single object; fifth, under "The Yogācāra," adducing an analogous case as proof; sixth, under "Preparatory practices and so forth," indicating that the characteristics are in the text. In the fifth, however, the Yogācā[rabhūmi] actually contains two meanings. This is one meaning, where the treatise states: "Herein, based on the preparatory stage (sāmantaka), up until one has not yet entered the higher root absorption, one only takes space and the like as object. If one has already succeeded in entering the higher root absorption, one also takes space as object and also takes the aggregates of one's own stage as object." Explanation: Saying that the preparatory stage only takes space as object is spoken in terms of a minor portion within the eight paths of liberation (vimokṣamārga), because liberation also takes the aggregates of one's own stage as object. In the nine uninterrupted paths (ānantaryamārga), this does not discuss the root at all. Regarding "also taking the aggregates of one's own stage as object": the mind of the first moment takes the aggregates of one's own stage as object, while subsequent minds can take both upper and lower aggregates as object. Now, in order to exclude subsequent minds, it says "also." According to the second explanation, the preparatory practices of the prior three also take their own aggregates as object, taking the sense of partially taking them as object in the path of liberation, and because the uninterrupted path takes its own aggregates as object. The former explanation follows the majority; the Kośa adopts only one meaning.

61.54

Under the Commentary's "However, these four," the third part categorizes them analogously into four.

61.55

Under the Commentary's "Question: If there are," the fourth part reveals the differences among the factors: first asking, then answering. Within the answer there are four [points]: first, responding to both; second, under "Sūtras and treatises," reconciling them; third, under "Like the first," demonstrating existence; fourth, under "Therefore the five," concluding the demonstration.

61.56

Under the Commentary's "Now, the first, the station of [infinite] space," explaining the text, there are three [parts]: first, stating the topic. As for saying "station" (āyatana), the Nyāyānusāra says: "The four formless [absorptions] are called stations because they are the places where sentient beings are born and grow." Second, under "In the text," explaining the text; third, the general conclusion. In the second, the three phrases constitute three distinctions. In explaining the first phrase there are two: first, stating both. Now, as for this first phrase, because three phrases of the sūtra are joined to form a single semantic phrase, it subtly has three parts. Under the Commentary's "Regarding 'transcending hindrances'," both are explained: first explaining the transcendence of hindrances, and then explaining the antidote. First, the former: the Commentary's text has four parts: first, a general introduction; second, explaining the three phrases separately; third, a general explanation of the word 'notion' (saṃjñā); fourth, resolving objections. First, the former: as for saying "meaning transcending the three kinds of material forms with resistance and so forth," in the "Chapter on the Dhātus" of the Kośa, in explaining the distinctions among the various gates of the eighteen dhātus, there are twenty-two gates in total. Now here two are needed, namely the question: How many are visible or invisible? How many have resistance (sapratigha) or lack resistance? The verse says: "One is visible, which is form (rūpa); ten are physical and have resistance." Explanation: Among the eighteen dhātus, there is the single form dhātu (rūpadhātu), which is visible. Because it is observed and illuminated by the eye faculty, it is called visible. The ten dhātus of the five faculties and five objects are physical and have resistance. That is, because the essence of these ten dhātus is form, being composed of subtle atoms, they mutually obstruct one another, and are therefore called having resistance. The treatise says: "Like a hand obstructing a hand, or a stone obstructing a stone. Or both obstructing each other, hand and stone being called both. One should know that there are three kinds of resistance in total: First, resistance by obstruction (āvaraṇa-pratighāta), which takes the ten forms as its essence. Obstruction itself is resistance; this is a karmadhāraya compound. Second, resistance by objective sphere (viṣaya-pratighāta), referring to thirteen dhātus, namely the six faculties, the six consciousnesses, and a portion of the dharmadhātu. That is, within the dharmadhātu, taking only mental factors (caitasika); because these thirteen dharmas can apprehend objects such as visible forms, being bound by the objective sphere, they are called having resistance. The resistance of the objective sphere is a tatpuruṣa compound. Third, resistance by cognitive object (ālambana-pratighāta), whose essence is the seven mind dhātus in their entirety." Now we say the six consciousnesses, the manas, and also a portion of the dharmadhātu, which are also mental factors. What is called "cognitive object" refers to the six objects such as visible form. What is called "having resistance" refers to the seven minds and so forth, because they are constrained and obstructed by the six objective spheres. However, resistance means obstruction, and obstruction is of two kinds: first, obstruction by impediment; second, obstruction by constraint. Among the three kinds of resistance, resistance by obstruction is obstruction by impediment, while the other two kinds of resistance are obstruction by constraint. The treatise asks itself: What is the difference between objective sphere and cognitive object? The treatise answers: If this [faculty/consciousness] has the capacity regarding that dharma, then that is called the objective sphere of this dharma; mental dharmas and mental factors arise having grasped that, and that is called the cognitive object for the mind and so forth. Explanation: "That" refers to the six objects; "this" refers to the faculties, consciousnesses, and so forth. The meaning is: if the faculties, consciousnesses, and so forth have the capacity to see and so forth regarding objects such as visible form, then visible form and so forth are named "my objective sphere." As for the mind and mental factors, like a frail person who cannot rise without a staff, they arise only by relying on an object; thus objects such as visible form are called the cognitive objects of the mind and so forth. That being so, in resistance by objective sphere, the power of that which takes the object is strong; in resistance by cognitive object, the power of the cognitive object is strong. Therefore, within cognitive object there are only the seven minds, whereas within objective sphere there are both faculties and consciousnesses, because faculties do not arise by relying on objects. Therefore, the aspect of being able to apprehend the object is called resistance by objective sphere, and the aspect of being drawn by the object is called resistance by cognitive object. But Dayun's commentary says: "The aspect of obstructing the apprehension of the object is called resistance by objective sphere. The aspect of obstructing the cognition of the object is called resistance by cognitive object." This seems not to be the original meaning. For the treatise quotes the fourfold classification of resistance by objective sphere from the Prajñaptipāda: first, obstructed in water but not on land, like the eyes of fish and so forth; second, obstructed on land but not in water, like the eyes of humans and so forth; third, obstructed in both, like the eyes of fishermen, frogs, and so forth; fourth, obstructed in neither, referring to faculties other than the former. Explanation: Through this it is clarified that seeing and so forth are considered obstruction, not that seeing and so forth are obstructed. Furthermore, the treatise itself explains the meaning of obstruction: "Why, when the eye and so forth operate regarding their own objective sphere and own cognitive object, is it called having obstruction? Answer: Because it does not operate beyond that, regarding others." Explanation: That is, because the eye perceives visible form and does not hear sound and so forth, the eye regarding visible form is called having obstruction, obstructing my other cognitions. Then the meaning of obstructing the apprehension of objects also has reason. Yet the Commentary does not speak of obstructing the apprehension of other objects, but only speaks of the aspect of obstructing the apprehension of objects, which therefore is not the intent of the treatise. The meaning of the three kinds of resistance was difficult in that treatise, but has now been briefly clarified. However, as for the third resistance, although its essence is the seven minds, it necessarily takes the six objects as cognitive objects, and therefore also possesses form. Furthermore, saying "and so forth" is to be equivalent to the distinct non-resistant forms below. This non-resistant form is also subsumed under the dharmadhātu among the six objects.

61.57

Under the Commentary's "The treatise says," the second part explains the three phrases separately. Each phrase has three parts, as in the first phrase: first, stating the sūtra; second, "transcending eye consciousness" and so forth, the treatise's explanation; third, this clarifies transcending visible [forms] with resistance, which is the Commentary explaining the treatise. The lower two phrases are also like this. Its Commentary explaining the three phrases is also the section distinguishing coarse and subtle among forms within the five aggregates in the "Chapter on the Dhātus" of the Kośa: First, visible [forms] with resistance, referring to the object of visible form. Second, invisible [forms] with resistance, referring to the five faculties of the eye and so forth, and sound, smell, taste, and tangibles. Third, invisible and non-resistant [forms], being unmanifest form (avijñapti-rūpa). Now, the first, visible [forms] with resistance, is the "one visible is called form" in the previous "Chapter on the Dhātus," which the Yogācāra calls transcending manifest colors. The treatise says: "Next, because of giving rise to the resolute conviction in space, all notions of manifest color associated with blue, yellow, red, and white, because they do not manifest and because of revulsion toward them, can all be transcended."

First 57 of 111 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese