大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 62

English (machine translation) 62

Language: English

62.1

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

Second, the primary exposition. Regarding the commentary from "the treatise text in the former is divided into four" below: The commentary text is divided into four: first, analysis according to the treatise; second, analysis according to the four paths; third, analysis according to the three minds; fourth, interpreting the text according to the treatise. The first of these can be known.

62.3

Regarding the commentary's "furthermore, these four divisions are the four paths of preparation, uninterruptedness, liberation, and superior progress": The second is the analysis according to the four paths, as taught in the ninth fascicle of the Samuccaya. The "Chapter on the Wise and Noble" in the Kośa says: "One should know that all paths, briefly stated, are only four: namely, the paths of preparation, uninterruptedness, liberation, and superior progress." Explanation: The path of preparation refers to the preliminary practice before leading to the uninterrupted path. The uninterrupted path refers to the path that severs afflictions. The path of liberation refers to what is called the path of liberation after the uninterrupted path, meaning that which is first generated when one has already been liberated from the obstacles that should be severed. The path of superior progress refers to all the remaining paths apart from the previous three; because one gradually advances in excellence, it refers to all the paths that arise after the path of liberation. Being the road to nirvāṇa, it is called a path. Explanation: "All the paths that arise," according to the Samuccaya, are for severing the two obstacles—namely, afflictive and cognitive—and possess preparation and uninterruptedness. There are further differing interpretations, but their general import is identical.

62.4

Regarding the commentary from "moreover, among these four, the first one" below: The third is the analysis according to the three minds, fully as on the First Ground.

62.5

Regarding the commentary's "now, the first is the causal division": The fourth interprets the text. That is the first causal division of pure antidote practice and growth; because it is the cause of the subsequent two divisions, it merely cites the single word 'cause.'

62.6

On the Commentary's text from "Now, first, the ten dharma-illumination gates" below, the text of the Commentary has five parts: first, explaining the gate alone; second, from "Therefore the treatise-sūtra calls it entry," citing proof, for the treatise-sūtra states: "Because one should enter the fourth bhūmi by means of the ten dharma-illuminations"; third, from "Illumination is" below, explaining both illumination and gate; fourth, from "Therefore the treatise states" below, adducing the treatise to explain; fifth, from "Regarding the cognition that realizes the bhūmi" below, the Commentary explains the treatise. Within this there are five: first, directly explaining the radiance of the cognition that realizes the bhūmi; second, from "Just as" below, citing an analogy to explain; third, from "Therefore in the previous bhūmi" below, citing proof to explain; fourth, from "Regarding what is spoken" below, explaining the phrase "spoken dharmas" in the subsequent clause; fifth, from "And thereupon" below, comprehensively explaining the subsequent clause on entering into the dharmas spoken by the Tathāgata based on that cognitive radiance—what the treatise-sūtra calls "contemplation" is simply "investigation" in the present sūtra. As for the Commentary's "briefly explaining it through a threefold manner": first, explaining via general and specific; second, explaining via defilement and purity; third, explaining via the supported and the supporting—the text is explained according to the third.

62.7

Regarding the Commentary's "causal establishment has two": it refers to the two emptynesses of persons and dharmas. From "revealed by the two emptynesses" below, it harmonizes them with the three contemplations. Regarding "it is precisely tathatā," it inherently has two meanings: first, following the Faxiang school, because the two emptynesses are not [yet directly] tathatā; second, establishing the three truths: nominal designation is the truth of existence, the two emptynesses are the truth of non-existence, and tathatā is the truth of the middle way and ultimate reality—thus there are three truths and three contemplations. Furthermore, the non-duality of emptiness and existence as a whole constitutes the contemplation of emptiness; not destroying nominal designations is the contemplation of the provisional; combining the emptiness and provisional above forms the middle way. The lower contemplations of the two provisionals are established as contemplations by analogy with this, and therefore the concluding summary of continuity states: "also enters the true reality of the two emptynesses." The true reality of the two emptynesses is simply an alternative name for tathatā, termed "relative provisionality." The concluding analogy thereafter is easily understood.

62.8

Regarding the Commentary's text from "The latter five establish the supporting based on this support" below, within it there are two: first, generally clarifying; later, from "The first three phrases" below, specifically explaining. Now, the first. This consciousness also applies to both schools: if it is the consciousness of arising and ceasing producing defiled and pure other-dependence, which also exists based on mind, that is the Faxiang school; if it is the consciousness of the harmonization of true and false which also produces defilement and purity, that is the Faxing school. Both are as explained previously.

62.9

Regarding the Commentary's "clinging to desire" and so on: due to clinging to desire, there is the desire realm; due to clinging to sensation, there is the form realm, because the four dhyānas do not depart from the four sensations. Furthermore, due to clinging to proper attainment and due to clinging to ideation, there is the formless realm. Within the ideation of empty space, the ideation of consciousness, the ideation of nothingness, and neither ideation nor non-ideation, although one desires to sever ideation, one still does not depart from ideation. "The three realms are mind-only" summarizes the text above, as in the sixth bhūmi below.

62.10

Regarding the Commentary's text from "The latter two are vast" below, within it there are three: first, explaining based on the treatise; second, from "The present sūtra" below, explaining according to the present sūtra; third, from "Furthermore, both state" below, comprehensively explaining the word "realm" (dhātu).

62.11

Second, the division on purity. On the Commentary's text from "In the first [part], the text has three phrases" below, the text of the Commentary has three parts: first, explaining according to the sūtra; second, distinguishing the differences among masters; third, harmonizing and explaining the treatise. Now, the first. "In the first phrase, the ten cognitions are that which produces": these are precisely the ten phrases listed below; the cognitions become the ten cognitions on account of what is contemplated. Regarding "attains the internal dharma," the Commentary explains that because one realizes the nature, and it is also the teaching and transformative Dharma of the Tathāgata, it is therefore named "internal." When is it attained? The treatise says: "Because this dharma-illumination and entry are attained simultaneously. It should be known." If so, how does this differ from the previous division, and why is it said that the previous division is the cause for this? Answer: In the causal division, one contemplates the ten but has not yet reached the superior grade, remaining still on the third bhūmi; upon completing the superior grade, one immediately enters the fourth bhūmi, which is simultaneous with this. As Master Yuangong said: "The ten cognitions and ten entries differ in name but share one essence; therefore they can be simultaneous." Yet he asked himself: "If two dharmas are similar they may be said to be identical, but when illumination and cognition share one essence, how can they be said to be identical?" He himself explained: "Although they share one essence, they differ according to their gates; therefore they are said to be identical. How do the gates differ? The former demonstrates dharma-illumination with respect to the ten, such as sentient beings, worlds, and so forth; the present one speaks of dharma-cognition with respect to the Three Jewels and so forth; hence they are said to be distinct." Again, one might object: "Since what is contemplated is distinct, how can they be called of one essence?" Therefore, one should follow the explanation of the Subcommentary author above. Again, one might ask: "Previously, by contemplating the ten illuminations one attained entry into the fourth bhūmi; prior to this one had not contemplated the ten cognitions—how can they be said to arise?" Therefore, one should reply: "Because of two meanings. First, previously one contemplated what is transformed by means of that which transforms, whereas now one accomplishes the dharmas of that which transforms by means of what is transformed. In order to distinguish the active and the passive, the objects contemplated are somewhat distinct; because the active and passive mutually accomplish each other, they are therefore attained at the same time. Second, the previous ten gates of illumination comprehended characteristics and converged with nature, whereas the present ten cognitions, though adducing ten characteristics, are intended for the single nature; therefore they are called the internal dharma. As nature and characteristics differ slightly, distinguishing them forms two; as nature and characteristics are not separate, they are therefore attained at the same time." Question: Why is this teaching and transformative Dharma taken as the household of the Tathāgata? The treatise says: "All dharmas possessed by the Tathāgata's own body—it is by means of these dharmas that the Tathāgata is manifested." The explanation states: Without these dharmas, one is not called a Tathāgata. Therefore, these ten dharmas, where the Buddha abides, are named his "household."

62.12

Regarding the Commentary's text from "However, the Tathāgata's household" below, it is the second, distinguishing the differences among masters. According to the forest deity below, one is also born in the eighth bhūmi, because one is born into the household of anutpattikadharmakṣānti. The Tathāgata is also called the household of ultimate birth; therefore it is said to be merely brief.

62.13

Regarding the Commentary's text from "If based on the Yogācāra" below, it is the third, harmonizing with the explanations of the treatises; the intent of the two treatises is identical. The phrase from "Here cognition accords with" below reveals the essence of what is realized and accomplishes the internal dharma above; it is precisely the third upāya among the five upāyas of the previous bhūmi.

62.14

Regarding the Commentary's "Meaning that the Great Vehicle is the bodhisattva's own dwelling place" and so forth: this explains the names above. However, after the treatise master listed the four names at once and correlated them with the sūtra, he evaluated and explained them again. Now, the initial statement "ultimate cognition of one's own dwelling place" is the initial listing of the name. From "Meaning the Great Vehicle" below is the repeated explanation. The treatise states in full: "'The bodhisattva's own dwelling place' means within the Mahāyāna dharma."

62.15

Regarding the Commentary's "The above two pertain to the virtues of practice" and so forth: the Three Jewels are superior to oneself, hence they are called superior progress.

62.16

Regarding the Commentary's "The four remaining six phrases clarify the cognition of discriminative exposition": this is the name established by the treatise. From "Meaning it is teaching-cognition" below, the Commentary explains the treatise. "Because of discriminating defilement and purity" is the treatise's general explanation. From "Meaning the first two phrases" below, the Commentary explains the treatise.

62.17

Regarding the Commentary's "Therefore the treatise and the sūtra speak by implicit mutual reference": the sūtra states "birth exists due to karma," while the treatise states "the first two phrases accord with the defilement of afflictions."

62.18

When the Commentary states "this accords with the intent of the treatise," it is because the treatise states "afflictions," and now the sūtra text's "saṃsāra" is made to conform to the treatise; hence it is said that this accords with the intent of the treatise.

62.19

Regarding the Commentary's "that is, not conflating with the preceding 'birth exists due to karma'": now it says contemplating the karma of sentient beings and lands, and therefore it would conflate with the preceding.

62.20

Regarding the Commentary's "The latter two phrases are practices of self-benefit": the text of the Commentary has five parts: first, directly explaining the sūtra text; second, from "Affliction implicitly takes saṃsāra" below, harmonizing the sūtra through principle; third, from "Cognition of bodhi" below, resolving an objection against implicitly taking bodhi. For it was feared there might be an objection saying: "Since the nature of nirvāṇa is exhausted, it can be called the exhaustion of non-existence; but bodhi is not an [exhaustible] nature, so how can it be called the exhaustion of non-existence?" Therefore, to conform with principle, it is completely identified with nirvāṇa. Fourth, from "However, this is conventional truth" below, resolving: it resolves the above objection in accordance with principle, and since explaining in terms of principle conflates with the previous cognition of suchness, it therefore resolves this by stating they are distinct. What is the characteristic of their distinction? It is just as in the path of seeing with characteristics one also contemplates non-established truth, yet it is subsequent attainment [cognition]. This is also like that: although it contemplates suchness, it is teaching-cognition. From "Furthermore, the latter two phrases" below, it further reveals a distinct principle. This inherently has two meanings: first, it is the verse of four departures, meaning because of contemplating the prior limit and the posterior limit—that is, originally existing and now non-existent, originally non-existent and now existing—contemplating the exhaustion of non-existence means that for conditioned dharmas to exist in the three times is impossible; this was already extensively analyzed in the commentary to the fifth fascicle. Later, from "It is also" below, contemplating through the contemplation of dependent arising. However, the above ten cognitions directly contemplate the Tathāgata's cognition of teaching and transforming; the specific characteristics of cognition must depend on what is contemplated—without contemplating what is contemplated, how could one recognize the Buddha's cognition? The Buddha's cognition realizes that internal dharma, and the bodhisattva of the fourth bhūmi realizes it likewise. Reflect on this.

62.21

Third, the division on the cultivation of antidotes. Regarding the Commentary's "Great cognition benefits oneself and differs from ordinary beings": the two practices have four pairs in total: first, the pair of self-benefit and benefiting others; second, the pair of great cognition and great compassion; third, the pair of protecting from ordinary beings and protecting from the lesser [vehicle]; fourth, the pair of non-abiding in saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. That is, it is not the practice of ordinary beings, nor is it the practice of sages and worthies; it is the practice of bodhisattvas. Later, it concludes by establishing non-abiding so as to subsume the previous stages.

62.22

Regarding the Commentary's "The treatise master has a separate treatise on the factors of the path": this reveals the reason why he did not explain them. The present four gates also lack nothing.

62.23

Regarding the Commentary's "causes of awakening for the various vehicles": because it applies to the bodhi of the three vehicles. The Chapter on Sages and Worthies in the Abhidharmakośa states: "Awakening refers to the cognitions of exhaustion and non-arising; because they accord with this, they are named factors (aṅga)." The explanation states: "Awakening" means that the sleep of ignorance is forever severed; the cognitions of exhaustion and non-arising constitute the essence of this awakening. The thirty-seven factors accord with and proceed toward bodhi, so they are named bodhipakṣadharma. Here, "accord with" also carries the meaning of "cause."

62.24

Regarding the Commentary's "Second, revealing similarities and differences": the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, clarifying that there are differences between the Great and Lesser [Vehicles] in scope and universality; later, from "If based on the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa" below, clarifying that while dharmas are of one mind, there are differences. Within this there are four: first, establishing the principle; second, citing proof; third, distinguishing differences; fourth, extensively proving the meaning of the Great [Vehicle].

62.25

Regarding the commentary's phrase “As in distinguishing the four truths” and so forth: this is the second [section], citing textual proofs. It tacitly cites the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, namely the thirteenth fascicle [in the Northern edition], which is the twelfth in the Southern edition: “The Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honoured One! Once in the past the Buddha was on the bank of the Gaṅgā in the Śmaśāna Grove. At that time, the Tathāgata picked up a few tree leaves and asked the monks: “Are there more leaves now in my hand, or are there more leaves among all the grass and trees upon the ground?” The monks replied: “World-Honoured One! The leaves among all the grass and trees upon the ground are far more numerous, beyond reckoning. What the Tathāgata holds is so few as to hardly be worth speaking of.” [The Buddha said:] “Monks! All the phenomena I have fully awakened to are like the grass and trees growing upon the great earth. Those I have expounded for sentient beings are like the leaves in my hand.”’ (Kāśyapa challenged:) ‘World-Honoured One, at that time you spoke these words: “If the immeasurable phenomena understood by the Tathāgata are subsumed within the four truths, then they have already been expounded. If they are not subsumed within them, then there ought to be a fifth truth.”’ The Buddha praised Kāśyapa: ‘Excellent, excellent! Good son. What you ask now can benefit, bring peace, and bring joy to immeasurable sentient beings. Good son! All such phenomena are fully subsumed within the four noble truths.’ Below it says: ‘There are two kinds of cognition: the first is intermediate cognition, and the second is superior cognition. Good son! Knowing that the aggregates are suffering is called intermediate cognition. Distinguishing the immeasurable aspects of the aggregates and knowing that all of them are suffering—which is beyond the understanding of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas—is called superior cognition.’ It expounds this at length (and so forth). It also says: ‘Good son! Knowing that the conditions of craving can generate the five aggregates is called intermediate cognition. Knowing that a single person engenders craving that is boundless and immeasurable—which cannot be known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas—is called superior cognition.’ It also says: ‘Good son! Knowing the cessation of afflictions is called intermediate cognition. Distinguishing afflictions as beyond reckoning, and their cessation likewise as beyond reckoning—which is beyond the understanding of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas—is called superior cognition.’ It also says: ‘Good son! Knowing the characteristics of the path capable of leaving afflictions behind is called intermediate cognition. Distinguishing the characteristics of the path as immeasurable and boundless, and the afflictions left behind as likewise immeasurable and boundless—which is beyond the understanding of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas—is called superior cognition.’” The explanation states: All of these make clear that the four truths have immeasurable aspects, yet all are subsumed within the four truths. Thus we know that if one distinguishes the thirty-seven factors, they have immeasurable aspects; hence the thirty-seven subsume immeasurable factors of the path.

62.26

Regarding the commentary's phrase “It is only that the mental practices of the great and small differ”: this is the third [section], singling out their differences; their aspects will be seen at length in the explanatory text below.

62.27

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The *Vimalakīrti*…” and so forth: this is the fourth [section], broadly proving the Mahāyāna meaning. In total, it cites four passages from three sūtras: First, it cites two passages from the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa*. One is from the [chapter on] the youth Prabhāvyūha, which was already cited at the beginning. Now it only adduces what is stated therein: “The thirty-seven factors of the path are the bodhimaṇḍa, because one renounces conditioned phenomena.” At the end it concludes: “Good son! When bodhisattvas accord with all pāramitās to educate and transform sentient beings, wherever they act, lifting their feet and placing their feet, you should know that they all come from the bodhimaṇḍa and abide in the Buddhadharma.” The explanation states: The intent is to clarify that the place where one attains the path is itself the bodhimaṇḍa. Attaining the path through the myriad practices is itself the bodhimaṇḍa; that is, the cause of great bodhi. The second is the cause of the dharmakāya, also from the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa*, the “Chapter on Upāya”. Because kings and others all came to inquire after his illness, he broadly expounded the Dharma on the basis of physical illness: “Virtuous ones! This body is impermanent, devoid of strength, devoid of power, and devoid of solidity.” After broadly reproaching the body, he then says: “Virtuous ones! This should be loathed and renounced; you should take joy in the Buddha’s body. The Buddha’s body is the dharmakāya, born from immeasurable merits and wisdom; born from morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the vision of liberation; born from loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity; born from giving, keeping the precepts, patience, gentleness, vigorous exertion, the various dhyānas, liberations, samādhis, extensive learning, wisdom, and all pāramitās; born from the six supernormal knowledges; born from the three clarities; born from the thirty-seven factors of the path.” Since it states that they can give birth to the dharmakāya, it is clear that they are not Hinayāna.

62.28

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The *Mahāsaṃnipāta* calls them the Bodhisattva Ratnolkā-dhāraṇī”: this is the third passage. Because a jewel is endowed with all virtues, and a torch can dispel darkness, subsuming all phenomena is named a dhāraṇī—how could this be Hinayāna?

62.29

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The *Nirvāṇa* says…” and so forth: fourth, it cites the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, namely the twenty-ninth fascicle [in the Northern edition], which is the twenty-seventh in the Southern edition: “The Buddha said: ‘Good son! Sentient beings’ buddha-nature is neither one nor two. The Buddhas are equal, just like empty space; all sentient beings share it alike. If someone is able to cultivate the eightfold noble path, you should know that this person will directly see the buddha-nature clearly. Good son! In the Snow Mountains there is a grass named “patience”; if cows eat it, it turns into ghee. Sentient beings’ buddha-nature is also just like this.’” The explanation states: This is the correct meaning. Below, Siṃhanāda, citing the objection, also says: “As the Buddha has spoken: ‘If someone cultivates the eightfold noble path, they see the buddha-nature.’ This meaning is not correct…” Below, the gist of the objection is: if the path were one, other people would have no share in it. Therefore the Buddha brought up a flat and level road to illustrate the eightfold noble [path], making clear that the eightfold noble [path] is capable of seeing the buddha-nature, which means it is not Hinayāna. It is cited according to its meaning in the commentary.

62.30

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Third, clarifying the essential nature” and so forth: the commentary’s text has two parts: first, directly clarifying the essential nature, and later, generally indicating the doctrinal source. The former has three parts: 1. identifying the essence in terms of the conventional and the real; 2. identifying the essence in terms of the five aggregates; 3. identifying the essence in terms of all phenomena. The first has two parts: first, identifying and listing them, and later, analyzing how they form the thirty-seven factors. Here is the first. The “Chapter on Sages and Nobles” in the *Abhidharmakośa* also says: “These real entities are only ten, namely wisdom, vigor, concentration, faith, / mindfulness, joy, equanimity, pliancy, / and morality and investigation make up their essence.” The explanation states: Investigation (vitarka) is contemplation (saṃkalpa) here. Pliancy (praśrabdhi) is elimination; elimination is the name in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, which is the “branch of awakening called pliancy” in the sūtra. *Yi* (猗) means fine, which has the sense of pliancy.

62.31

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Because faith is two and morality is three…” and so forth: second, analyzing how they form the thirty-seven factors. Stating that “faith is two” refers to 1. the faculty of faith and 2. the power of faith. Stating that “morality is three” refers to right speech, right action, and right livelihood among the eightfold path. Stating that “mindfulness opens into four” refers to 1. the faculty of mindfulness, 2. the power of mindfulness, 3. mindfulness as a limb of awakening among the seven limbs of awakening, and 4. right mindfulness among the eightfold path. Stating that vigor is eight refers to the four right exertions being four, 5. the faculty of vigor, 6. the power of vigor, 7. the vigor limb of awakening, and 8. right vigor. Stating that concentration has eight refers to the four bases of psychic power being four, 5. the faculty of concentration, 6. the power of concentration, 7. the concentration limb of awakening, and 8. right concentration. Stating that wisdom has eight refers to the four foundations of mindfulness being four—the four foundations of mindfulness have wisdom as their essence, and they are named mindfulness due to proximity; 5. the faculty of wisdom; 6. the power of wisdom; 7. the factor of awakening of dharmapravicaya, for dharmapravicaya is just wisdom; and 8. right view, for view is just wisdom. Stating that “the remaining four are each one” refers to [the remaining four of the ten real entities], excluding [the six above]: joy, equanimity, and contemplation. Because it categorizes them into two types based on those that progressively unfold and those that do not, it does not follow the order of the *Abhidharmakośa*, but places faith first, morality second, and so on. In the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, there are twelve real entities, because within morality, right speech and right action are separated, since physical and vocal actions are not dissociated from each other; the remaining nine are the same as above. Now it relies on the *Yogācārabhūmi* and the *Abhidharmakośa*, so there are only ten.

62.32

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Again, gathering these ten to form three aggregates” and so forth: second, identifying the essence in terms of the five aggregates. In detail, there are three meanings: First, identifying the essence strictly according to reality: there are only three aggregates. Second, from “among the five categories of phenomena” downward: identifying the essence according to the five categories. Because conditioning forces (saṃskāra) are gathered as mental concomitants, among the five categories there are only two categories; thus there is no primary mind or non-associated [conditioning forces], and neither are there unconditioned phenomena. Third, from “if taking their companions” downward: identifying the essence through association. The concomitant factors must rely on primary mind, and must rely on perception (saṃjñā) to grasp the characteristics of the body and so forth; thus the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā* says: “Companions refer to that associated mind and mental factors, etc.”

62.33

Regarding the commentary's phrase “If taking their objective cognitive objects, they extend to all phenomena”: third, identifying the essence in terms of all phenomena, which can be understood. Regarding the commentary's phrase “Broadly revealing…” and so forth: second, generally indicating the doctrinal source. In order not to complicate the text, it causes one to know their source.

62.34

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Fourth, directly explaining the text, which is its active characteristics”: the commentary’s text has five parts: 1. stating the headings and providing an overview; 2. classifying the categories in general; 3. clarifying their sequence; 4. explaining them individually following the text; 5. illustrating them generally with metaphors.

62.35

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The thirty-seven factors altogether have seven categories”: this is the second section. This follows the intent of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā* and the *Yogācārabhūmi*; the meanings within it will be explained when reaching the text.

62.36

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The order of these seven…” and so forth: third, clarifying the sequence. Within this there are three parts: first, directly clarifying the sequence; second, reconciling differing explanations; third, analyzing their perfect interpenetration. Now, the first follows the intent of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā*. Therefore, that treatise, explaining the seven limbs of awakening, states: “The cognitive object of the seven limbs of awakening is precisely the true nature of the four noble truths.” Explaining the eightfold path, it states: “The objective domain of the eightfold path is precisely the subsequent true nature of the four noble truths. Because the cognitive domain after the path of seeing has precisely that previously seen true nature as its essence.” The explanation states: Here, the eightfold path is the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga). If one refers to the “Chapter on Sages and Nobles” in the *Abhidharmakośa*, the seven limbs of awakening correspond precisely to the path of cultivation. Therefore, that treatise asks: In which stages are which branches of awakening said to predominate? The verse answers: “For beginners, those conforming to penetration, / And the stages of cultivation and seeing, / The seven categories from the foundations of mindfulness onward / Should be understood to predominate in sequence.” The explanation states: “Beginners” refers to cultivating the foundations of mindfulness with specific characteristics and general characteristics. These beginners are said to be able to illuminate the four objects such as the body; because the function of wisdom is superior, the foundations of mindfulness are said to predominate. “Conforming to penetration” refers to the four stages such as warmth. In the stage of the factor of warmth, one is able to realize the superior merits of the distinct stage (the aids to penetration); because the function of vigor is superior, the right exertions are said to predominate. In the stage of the peak factor, one can maintain the good realms without retrogression; because the function of concentration is superior, the bases of psychic power are said to predominate. In the stage of the factor of patience, one definitely does not regress or fall, and good roots are firm; gaining the meaning of predominance, the five faculties are said to predominate. In the stage of the highest mundane factor, one cannot be overcome by mundane defiled phenomena; gaining the meaning of unconquerability, the five powers are said to predominate. Regarding “and the stages of cultivation and seeing”: in the stage of the path of cultivation, one is close to the stage of bodhi; because the aiding awakening is superior, the seven limbs of awakening are said to predominate. In the stage of the path of seeing, it operates rapidly; because the universal path is superior, the eightfold path is said to predominate. Other masters say: The limbs of awakening are established in the stage of the path of seeing, because one realizes and awakens to the four noble truths as they truly are. The eight limbs of the noble path are established in both stages of seeing and cultivation, because these two stages both lead directly to the city of nirvāṇa. The explanation states: This latter interpretation directly accords with the present sūtra’s putting the path of seeing first and speaking of the path of cultivation later. Seeing corresponds to the seven limbs of awakening; although the former interpretation places the seven limbs of awakening first, it calls them the path of cultivation, and the eightfold path is the path of seeing, meaning that in terms of stage, the eightfold path should be first. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* also says: “Because they are used on the path of cultivation, they are called awakening; because they are used on the path of seeing, they are called the path.” This agrees with the initial view of the *Abhidharmakośa*, which also means that the eightfold path should be first, because after the path of seeing there is the path of cultivation. Furthermore, the *Abhidharmakośa* says: “The seven limbs of awakening and the eight path factors / Are exclusively uncontaminated; / The three, the four, the five faculties, and the five powers / All extend to both kinds.” Thus, prior to the path of seeing, there is no separate cultivation. The intention of the present commentary accords with the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā* and the later master of the *Abhidharmakośa*; therefore, it takes the seven limbs of awakening as the essence of direct realization (abhisamaya) itself, and the eightfold path as that which arises after direct realization.

62.37

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Sometimes the eightfold path comes before…” and so forth: reconciling differing explanations, which is precisely the aforementioned intent of the *Abhidharmakośa*.

62.38

Regarding the commentary's "Yet the above still accords with stages…" and so on, this is the third [part], explaining perfect interpenetration. Within this there are three [points]: The initial sentence refers to the preceding, which speaks in terms of stages according to the sense of predominance. Next, "If considered in terms of practice…", various teachings serve as proof. "Initial mind-arousal cultivates all of them comprehensively" means that in both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna expositions, beginners comprehensively cultivate all of them. Later, "How much more so for a bodhisattva who has entered the stages…", the third point uses an a fortiori comparison to reveal realization upon entry. Having already realized tathatā long ago, how could they not possess them completely at once?

62.39

Regarding the commentary's "Now, first, the path for counteracting inversions…", before the main text there are seven points: first, explaining the name; second, identifying the essence; third, discerning differences among the characteristics; fourth, clarifying the reason [for their establishment]; fifth, discerning their sequence; sixth, clarifying the comprehensive and restricted aspects of the inversions; seventh, clarifying the similarities and differences in the characteristics of contemplation. Now, first, explaining the name: If one says "smṛtyupasthāna" [as "abodes of mindfulness"], "abode" (處) is restricted solely to the object of abiding. If one says "applications of mindfulness" (念住), "abiding" (住) applies comprehensively to both the active [mindfulness] and the objective [realm].

62.40

Regarding the commentary's "Its essence is actually wisdom…" and so on, this is the second [point], identifying the essence. According to the Samuccaya, its essence consists of two factors. The treatise says: "The self-nature of the applications of mindfulness consists of wisdom and mindfulness, because in the Buddha's sūtras there are the words 'contemplating accordingly' and 'applications of mindfulness'." Therefore, the present commentary follows what is predominant and states that wisdom is the essence. Thus the Kośa says: "The four applications of mindfulness, right abandonings, and bases of supernormal power have as their essence, in order of predominance, wisdom, effort, and concentration; in terms of real dharmas, they are preparatory application, and in terms of wholesome [dharmas], they are preparatory application." "Wholesome" means the associated five aggregates, which corresponds to the subsequent clarification of accompanying factors. The essences of right abandonings and bases of supernormal power are identified at the same time by analogy with these applications of mindfulness. When the commentary says "abiding is attained by mindfulness", this is the sense found in the Vibhāṣā. As for the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, it says: "In reality, it is by wisdom that mindfulness is made to abide in the object. One who sees in accordance with reality is able to remember clearly. For this reason, wisdom alone is taken as the essence." That the present commentary relies on the Vibhāṣā is because it is the source. It is necessary to remember clearly before wisdom can abide; therefore, it fully takes wisdom abiding by means of mindfulness [as the essence].

62.41

Regarding the commentary's "The Samuccaya states: 'All dharmas that are factors of awakening…'" and so on, this is the third [point], discerning differences among the characteristics. It also serves to cite scriptural proof, confirming the preceding and following texts on identifying the essence, etc., which is in the tenth fascicle of the treatise. It first lists five names, and thereafter, beginning with "Now, first...", explains them under their respective headings. First, "the object", as in clarifying the four reasons. Second, "the self-essence", as in identifying the essence above. Third, "cultivation", as in the commentary's text below. Thus these three headings simply list the names. Fourth, beginning with "crushing the four inversions", it cites the treatise to discern the results. "Entering the four truths": By the application of mindfulness to the body, one enters the truth of suffering, because the entire physical body is suffering of conditioning and is manifested by coarseness and weight. Therefore, when cultivating contemplative practice, one can counteract this, because pliancy arises distinctively in the body. By the application of mindfulness to feeling, one enters the truth of the origin, because pleasant feelings and the rest are the basis for craving in association, etc. By the application of mindfulness to the mind, one enters the truth of cessation, because contemplating that consciousness apart from a self does not exist at all, one forever abandons the fear of nirvāṇa born from fearing the eradication of the self. By the application of mindfulness to dharmas, one enters the truth of the path, because one cultivates the counteracting dharmas in order to sever the dharmas to be counteracted. The phrase "disentanglement from the body, etc." is from the treatise text. The treatise says: "Furthermore, these four kinds, in their proper sequence, are able to realize the fruit of disentanglement from body, feeling, mind, and dharmas. Through this cultivation, one is gradually able to abandon the coarseness and weight of the body and the rest." Question: Five were listed above; why are only four explained? Answer: Because of two reasons. First, the sūtra has only four; hence the commentary above says "in the text it is perhaps omitted." Second, it was already explained generally before, as when identifying the essence it says "if including accompanying factors, it takes the five aggregates as its nature." If explaining separately, the Samuccaya says: "It refers to the mind and mental factors associated with them. 'Them' refers to those two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom." Explanation: When the treatise says "and the rest", it includes the conditioning factors not associated with mind and the four concurrent characteristics, which are also accompanying factors, as their categories are not single.

62.42

Regarding the commentary's "Among these four—body, etc.—the first three are three aggregates…" and so on, this is the fourth [point], clarifying the four reasons. Within this there are two: first, in relation to the self; second, in relation to obstacles. Now, first, expanding and contracting the aggregates is done in order to crush the self. Because there are four categories of the self, they are combined into four, which explains the previously mentioned objects. The Samuccaya says: "The objects of the applications of mindfulness are precisely body, feeling, mind, and dharmas." This was already briefly explained above. It also says: "Furthermore, there are four matters, namely, the matter of the basis of the self, and so on." The present commentary merely lists the names. The treatise explains: "Through inverted perception, foolish ordinary beings mostly imagine a self: resting upon the body with faculties (namely, the matter of the basis of the self); experiencing suffering and pleasure (namely, the matter of the experience of the self); cognizing objective characteristics (namely, the matter of the self-essence of the self); and defiled by greed, etc., or purified by faith, etc. (namely, the matter of the defilement and purification of the self). Therefore, initially, in order to correctly observe the actual characteristics of things, these four matters are established as the focal objects."

62.43

Regarding the commentary's "That these four are required…" and so on, this is the second [point], in relation to obstacles. Because there are four obstacles, this is a restatement of the fifth point, the fruit of cultivation, to counteract the four inversions, combining the five into four. As for "the counteracting of the other three is readily understood", as in the first phrase, suffering counteracts the inversion of pleasure, impermanence counteracts permanence, and non-self counteracts self. Thus that treatise says: "Because of cultivating the contemplation of impurity, because of fully knowing that all feelings are suffering, and because of penetrating that the various consciousnesses change moment by moment depending on distinct conditions; observing that defilement and purity consist solely of dharmas without an agent—being able to know in this manner is called the fruit of cultivation."

62.44

Regarding the commentary's "This sequence…" and so on, this is the fifth [point], clarifying their sequence: first explaining directly, and second resolving an objection. Now, first: "From coarse to subtle" means that the physical body is the coarsest; feeling receives external objects and is next in coarseness compared to the body; mind is next again, as it does not rely on external objects; and dharmas are the most subtle, as they include nirvāṇa. The coarse is easier to counteract; hence it says "from coarse to subtle, because it teaches counteraction." Next, where it cites the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, it proves the characteristics of sequential counteraction. Later, where it says "crushing these four inversions...", it concludes with the functions of practice, which are also the fruits of cultivation. In contrast to permanence and the rest, impermanence and the rest serve as correct practice, yet they are not the true characteristic. Because one awakens to reality through them, they are called gates.

62.45

Regarding the commentary's "If so…" and so on, this is the second [point], resolving an objection. The objection is that the sequences contradict each other, and the reply shows that the principles differ. This is based on severity, whereas the former was based on coarseness and subtlety. That is to say, the inversion of permanence is the most severe, because from conceptualizing the primary mind as permanent, wrong views and the like arise, asserting that there is neither cause nor effect, neither good nor evil; hence it is the most severe. Pleasure is lighter than the former: it merely conceptualizes false pleasure, and does not necessarily hold the wrong view of grasping pleasant feeling as permanent; since the faults it generates are shallow, it is secondary. Next, conceptualizing a controlling agent in perception and formations does not obstruct the existence of cultivation; hence this is lighter still. Conceptualizing the body as pure merely generates false attachment and causes no great fault; hence it is the lightest.

62.46

Regarding the commentary's "However, within these four bases…" and so on, this is the sixth [point], clarifying the comprehensive and restricted aspects of the inversions. "Each can possibly give rise to all four" is the comprehensive meaning. For example, regarding a single body, conceptualizing its continuity and mere persistence is permanence; having a body is pleasure; the body is the self; its radiant rosy color, like a lotus or jade, is called pure. The remaining three may be inferred accordingly. Next, "from the perspective of predominant conceptualization..." discerns their restricted meaning: the body is mostly conceptualized as pure, feeling mostly conceptualized as pleasure, and so forth.

62.47

Regarding the commentary's "However, contemplating impurity, etc., is common to both the Great and Small [Vehicles]…" and so on, this is the seventh [point], clarifying the similarities and differences in the characteristics of contemplation. Within this there are four: first, directly clarifying the differing characteristics; second, citing proof to establish them; third, separately demonstrating the characteristics of contemplation; fourth, revealing that it is comprehensive and not restricted. Now, first, citing the Yogācārabhūmi to explain the Hīnayāna, it briefly indicates that the Mahāyāna is endowed with the cultivation of the two truths; however, its conventional cultivation is largely identical to the Hīnayāna, differing from the Small Vehicle only in that it knows objects are conventional designations and does not conceptualize them as real.

62.48

Regarding the commentary's "The Mahāsaṃnipāta and Prajñāpāramitā…" and so on, this is the second [point], citing proof to establish [the practice]. Within this there are two: first, directly proving the characteristics of cultivation; second, clarifying the crushing of inversions. Now, first, it cites two sūtras and one treatise to clarify that it possesses both kinds of cultivation. Later, it cites the Anābhogacaryā to show that there is cultivation in accordance with reality. And when the Upadeśa says "up to not being mindful of body, feeling, mind, and dharmas", it transcends the conventional truth; hence it says "up to". Contemplating the body as empty, etc., also without grasping at emptiness, is truly in accordance with reality.

62.49

Regarding the commentary's "However, there are two intentions…" and so on, this is the second [point], crushing inversions. Within this there are three: first, directly establishing the principle; second, extensively citing proofs; third, concluding with the correct doctrine. Now, first, the two intentions: Comprehensively embracing the preceding sūtras and treatises, the view that dharmatā solely crushes the four inversions is mostly spoken in terms of cultivating both nature and characteristics; the latter intention, that dharma-emptiness is tranquil and void, is spoken solely in terms of ultimate reality. Therefore, the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of a self, / and sometimes spoken of non-self; / within the true characteristic of all dharmas, / there is neither self nor non-self." One should also say: The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of permanence, / and sometimes spoken of impermanence; / within the true characteristic of all dharmas, / there is neither impermanence nor non-impermanence. Pleasure and purity are also like this.

62.50

On the Commentary's text from “The Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra] also says” downward, this is the second [section], which cites broadly to corroborate that [the practice] possesses the above two meanings. The Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra] states: “The consciousness of ordinary persons is inverted by two views. The cognition of all arhats and pratyekabuddhas, by contrast, is pure. As for extreme views: ordinary persons, clinging in conceptual discrimination to a view of self regarding the five aggregates, give rise to two views, which are termed extreme views—namely, eternalist views and annihilationist views. Seeing all conditioned phenomena as impermanent is an annihilationist view, not right view. Seeing nirvāṇa as permanent is an eternalist view, not right view. This is because they are conceptually discriminated views. Holding such views, they discriminate and reflect upon the sense faculties of the body. Seeing destruction in the present life, and not seeing continuation in the succession of existence, they give rise to an annihilationist view because it is a conceptually discriminated view. Regarding the succession of mind, being dull and ignorant, not understanding and not knowing, they give rise to an eternalist view regarding the perceptual domain of the conscious mind in an instant, because it is a conceptually discriminated view. Therefore, regarding that meaning, whether going too far or falling short, they make divergent conceptually discriminated notions, either of annihilation or of permanence. Inverted sentient beings form the notion of permanence regarding the impermanence of the five aggregates, form the notion of pleasure where there is suffering, form the notion of self where there is no self, and form the notion of purity where there is impurity. The pure cognition of all arhats and pratyekabuddhas has never seen the domain of omniscience and the tathatā dharmakāya. There may be sentient beings who, relying on faith in the Buddha's words, give rise to the notion of permanence, the notion of pleasure, the notion of self, and the notion of purity—these are not inverted views; they are termed right views. Why is this? The Tathāgata's dharmakāya is the perfection of permanence; those who hold such a view regarding the Buddha's dharmakāya have what is termed right view. Those with right view are the Buddha's true children, born from the Buddha's mouth, born from the right Dharma, born through transformation from the Dharma, and attaining the superior wealth of the Dharma. O World-Honoured One, as for pure cognition: it is the perfection of cognition of all arhats and pratyekabuddhas. Although this pure cognition is called pure cognition, even the noble truth of cessation is not yet its object, let alone the cognition of the four virtues.”

Explanation: The above sūtra passage actually has several layers. First, regarding seeing all conditioned phenomena as impermanent and nirvāṇa as permanent being called views of annihilation and permanence, this itself has two meanings: First, because they are seen with a mind that grasps at characteristics, they do not accord with the essence of reality. This is the most profound and mysterious. Only when both the two views of permanence and impermanence are vanished can one see the principle. Second, seeing saṃsāra as truly existing and capable of being severed, and nirvāṇa as truly existing and capable of being realized, does not accord with the essence of reality. They do not know that saṃsāra is spoken of conditionally as pure, and nirvāṇa is spoken of without dispute, because both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are unobtainable. If one knows in this way, then these are not the two views. Second, from “discriminat[ing] and reflect[ing] upon the sense faculties of the body, seeing destruction in the present life” downward, it speaks solely of giving rise to annihilationist and eternalist views with reference to the aggregates of saṃsāra. Third, from “regarding that meaning, whether going too far or falling short” downward, it concludes both of the above: because of giving rise to dogmatic adherence regarding the ultimate truth, it is “going too far”; because of not knowing that moment-by-moment destruction is annihilation and not knowing that the continuity of mind is permanence, it is “falling short.” These are the deluded views of high cognition. Fourth, from “sentient beings [form the notion of permanence] regarding the impermanence of the five aggregates” downward, it explains right view. That is to say, shattering the notions of permanence regarding the impermanence of saṃsāra and so forth constitutes the pure cognition of the two vehicles; seeing the Tathāgata's dharmakāya as permanent, pleasant, self, and pure constitutes the bodhisattva's right view. In refuting the inversions of permanence and so forth, it elaborates on the illness while keeping the medicine brief, not mentioning the cultivation of impermanence practice to refute permanence and so forth; in revealing the permanence of the Tathāgata, it merely cites the medicine while keeping the illness brief, not mentioning that the two vehicles regard the dharmakāya and so forth also as impermanent and so forth. However, both are discussed with reference to the five aggregates; that is, it generally clarifies the four mindfulnesses, meaning that each individual aggregate is capable of generating the four inversions. If one takes the words generally and their meaning specifically: the notion of permanence regarding impermanence belongs to mindfulness of mind; if there is a notion of pleasure, it is mindfulness of feelings; the notion of self regarding no-self is mindfulness of phenomena; and the notion of purity regarding impurity is mindfulness of the body. Since this refutes the eight inversions on three levels, it says: “The Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra] also takes the four mindfulnesses as capable of refuting the eight inversions.”

First 50 of 95 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese