大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64

English (machine translation) 64

Language: English

64.1

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

The Sixth Stage: The Direct Presence. Regarding the commentary's phrase, "the reason for its sequence": there are two intentions behind its sequence. The former is explained in terms of the imputed positions and the three trainings: the fifth is assigned to the śrāvaka, and the sixth to the pratyekabuddha; from the Fourth Stage onward, all pertain to the training in wisdom. Now, by contrasting it with the fifth to distinguish the reason for its sequence, wisdom and the imputed position are similar in name and meaning, and therefore are combined into one.

64.3

Regarding the commentary from "moreover, the Fourth Stage" onward: this is the second intention, distinguishing the reason for its sequence in terms of severing obstacles and realizing suchness. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Stages all share in the forbearance of accord, with defilement and purity coexisting; therefore, the Fourth Stage is raised. The Fourth Stage transcends the world as purely clean; the Fifth Stage sees defilement as something that can be conformed to; this stage is able to obliterate defilement and purity. As for the word "contemplation," it is spoken of in terms of preparatory practice. From "therefore the Yogācāra" onward, it cites proof. The treatise text has three points: First, it clarifies the virtues of the Fifth Stage, verifying the above point that being able to conform excels the Fourth Stage. Second, from "and not yet able to" onward, it clarifies the absence of the virtues of the Sixth Stage, verifying the above point that it cannot break the arrogant view of defilement and purity. Yet there are two meanings: first, because it does not truly contemplate the absence of defilement and purity; second, from "moreover, due to" onward, because it largely gives rise to revulsion. Third, from "in order to cause" onward, it directly addresses the inability of the Fifth Stage, which is why this stage comes next.

64.4

Regarding the commentary's phrase, "The Daśabhūmika-śāstra states: 'having subdued māra-deeds'": saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are precisely the māra-deeds of a bodhisattva. Saṃsāra is the practice of ordinary people; nirvāṇa is the practice of the two vehicles. Therefore Master Dao]sheng said: "The roads of the three realms are obstructed, and the path of the two vehicles is perilous; the five hundred yojanas are the evil realms of a bodhisattva, exceedingly difficult to cross. Now surpassing the intent of the sages and also transcending worldly feelings, one can thus subdue them." Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "Except for the true characteristic of all phenomena, everything is a māra-deed of a bodhisattva." Now, realizing prajñā can accord with the true characteristic, and therefore transcends māra-deeds.

64.5

Regarding the commentary from "mostly cultivating signlessness—this refers to the beginning of the stage" onward: this explains the treatise text above. In the commentary from "the Mahāyānasaṃgraha" onward, there are three parts: first, it cites the treatise; next, from "this explanation" onward, it reconciles the explanation; finally, from "Asabhāva" onward, it cites his subcommentary.

64.6

In the commentary from "the Vijñaptimātratā names it" onward, this text has three parts: first, it explains directly; second, the phrase "because of contemplating the ten kinds of equality" conforms the sūtra to the treatise; third, from "due to this" onward, it cites the Vijñaptimātratā again to clarify the severance of two kinds of ignorance. In the commentary from "the original division" onward, it directly cites the root treatise to provide the correct explanation. Finally, from "grasping at subtle defilement" onward, the commentary explains the treatise text and harmonizes it with the Vijñaptimātratā.

64.7

Regarding the commentary’s "Second, the main exposition": the text of the commentary has three parts: first, a general breakdown; second, from "also the initial division" onward, a comparative subsumption with the preceding; third, from "Now, provisionally relying on the treatise" onward, a direct explanation based on the treatise. Within this, there are three [subdivisions]: 1. an appraisal in relation to the preceding; 2. explaining the name of the division; 3. directly explaining the text. Now, the first has three: first, indicating the superior characteristic; second, regarding "What is the superior characteristic?", the commentary raises a hypothetical inquiry; third, from "namely, the fourth" onward, explaining and revealing the superior characteristic. Because the fourth, fifth, and sixth grounds all counter conceit, they are compared with one another. Master [Hui]yuan said: "The fourth, fifth, and sixth grounds are alike in being the forbearance of conformity (anulomikī-kṣānti), and their operational aspects are broadly the same; therefore they are compared." There is indeed reason in this. If so, why are the previous three grounds, which are alike in being the forbearance of faith (śraddhā-kṣānti), not universally compared? And the seventh, eighth, and ninth grounds are alike in being the forbearance of non-arising (anutpattikadharmakṣānti)—the challenge applies equally to them. Therefore, one universally compares these various grounds based on their countering of conceit. Below, it says "gradually subtler," which reveals that the earlier ones are coarser; thus in these three grounds, each subsequent one is subtler than each preceding one. The treatise fully indicates three conceits, yet their coarse and subtle characteristics are concealed; now they shall be pointed out. The fourth [ground] counters [conceits of] the third ground: the conceit of a sentient being, of a self, and so on arise based on the mundane, and this conceit is the coarsest; the fifth counters [the conceit of] the fourth ground: the conceit of bodily purity arises based on the supramundane, and hence is known to be subtler; the sixth counters the conceits of the fifth: it arises in reference to both the mundane and the supramundane, and hence is even subtler. Regarding the commentary's "conceit of the self of a sentient being," and so on: according to the fruit of the fourth ground, there are four conceits to be countered: 1. relinquishing attachment to the self of a sentient being—namely, relinquishing [the notions of] self, person, sentient being, and soul; 2. relinquishing attachment to the self of phenomena—namely, skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas; 3. relinquishing the conceit of understanding phenomena—the sūtra calls it "grasping," and the treatise calls it "my knowledge"; 4. relinquishing the conceit of correct absorption—the sūtra calls it "emergence and submersion," and the treatise calls it "relinquishing the self that cultivates, that which is cultivated by the self," and so forth. Here it merely says "conceit of the self of a sentient being and conceit of understanding phenomena" because among the four, the first two are the root and the latter two are what arise from them; by citing the first of the root and the first of what arises to subsume the others, it omits the conceit of phenomena and the conceit of correct absorption. The rest is as fully explained in the fourth ground.

64.8

Regarding the commentary’s "conceit of bodily purity": in the fourth ground, one attains supramundane cognition and cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness; this is called bodily purity.

64.9

Regarding the commentary's "since what is countered is already subtle" onward: this brings out the initial division as superior. Now, extrapolating from the preceding to what follows, both the non-abiding practice and its fruit division are superior as well.

64.10

Regarding the commentary's "the conceits of defilement and purity" onward: this is the second, explaining the name of the division, which is what is countered and what counters on this ground itself. Within this, there are three: 1. adducing what is countered; 2. discerning what counters; 3. resolving objections. As for the first: to begin with, it directly adduces defilement and purity, which is understandable. Next, from "furthermore, the ten equalities" onward, resolving the objection, there is first a question and then an answer. The question has two clauses. The answer from "arising reciprocally" onward should be understood.

64.11

Regarding the commentary's answer from "merely spoken in terms of purity" onward: this single line above answers both preceding points. First, the question above asked: How can the ten equal phenomena have defilement and purity? Therefore, it now answers: the previous ten equalities are spoken of merely in terms of pure phenomena, namely the Dharmas of the Buddhas of the three times and the seven purities. Second, the question above asked: at the beginning of the fifth ground, one grasps the ten superior marks, taking concordance with the path of tathatā as what counters; how could tathatā be defiled or pure? Therefore, it now answers: it is also in terms of pure tathatā that the previous ten are broken down, because purity is identical with a single tathatā.

64.12

Regarding the commentary's "when the marks of defilement have not yet perished, speaking of purity in contrast to defilement is also called grasping purity": this resolves a hidden objection. The objection says: On the previous ground, when contemplating pure tathatā, conceits of defilement may be allowed to arise, but how could there be a conceit of purity? Therefore, it now answers: regarding the tathatā contemplated previously, one is capable while entering contemplation, but upon emerging from contemplation, as occurrences take place, one still sees marks of defilement. Since the marks of defilement still exist, in contrast to the suffering and origination of defilement, there still arises the view of the marks of purity—cessation and the path; therefore, this conceit exists. Although there are three tiers of rescues against the objection, the marks of both defilement and purity still persist.

64.13

Regarding the commentary's "now, taking the equality of the ten defilements and purities as what counters": this is the second, what counters. With this single counteraction, all objections are thoroughly stilled. That is to say, since defilement and purity are equal, it differs from the previous ground's equality of the ten purities. Second, since defilement and purity are equal, one does not merely contemplate pure tathatā; this universally resolves both the second and third rescues. Furthermore, because one mostly cultivates the signless and emergence from contemplation is rare, this then serves as what counters. Regarding the commentary's "below, contemplating dependent origination" onward: this resolves an objection. Above, the earlier was adduced to challenge the later; now, the later is adduced to challenge the earlier. The reverse and forward orders of dependent origination are the same as the earlier marks of defilement and purity of the four truths. Therefore, the answer states: at the beginning of the fifth ground, one is first able to enter into the conventional, but one's awakening to emptiness is not yet deep; only with signless prajñā is one's awakening to emptiness profound.

64.14

Regarding the commentary's "within the enumeration, the ten clauses" onward: the commentary's text has two parts: first, a specific explanation; second, an appraisal.

64.15

Regarding the commentary's "in general, it states 'all phenomena'": in the sūtra there are three aspects: 1. 'all phenomena' is the substance of the equal phenomena; 2. 'signlessness' is the cause of equality; 3. 'equality' is the meaning of what is accomplished. In the specific exposition, the first seven eliminate existence by means of non-existence. However, in the commentary's explanation of the first seven clauses, there are naturally five intents: 1. Relying on the treatise. The general clause is the twelve āyatanas, so each specific clause concerns the twelve āyatanas—namely, the substance of the twelve āyatanas, the arising of the twelve āyatanas, and so forth. 2. Universally eliminating the twelve āyatanas. Applying the meaning of the three natures: the first clause eliminates the imagined nature (parikalpita), hence it says that this eliminates conceptual discrimination—'conceptual discrimination' (fenbie) was the ancient translation for the term parikalpita. The next four eliminate the dependent nature (paratantra) in both its defiled and pure divisions; the sixth and seventh both abandon the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna). The commentary's text itself contains these. 3. Countering the conceits of the previous ground: conceit arises based on the four truths. The first two eliminate suffering, so the first says 'thought' and the second says 'arising,' which are the suffering fruits of the various āyatanas. The next one eliminates origination, as it forms the cause of this suffering. The fourth clause eliminates cessation, hence it says 'not being pure only when afflictions are extinguished.' The fifth clause eliminates the path, hence it says 'referring to the path's discrimination.' The sixth and seventh also eliminate cessation; however, the fourth is called cessation in the sense of extinguishing afflictions, while the sixth and seventh reveal the cessation that is the principle of cessation, which is why both speak of tathatā. 4. In terms of advancing contemplation to the subsequent stage where there is contemplation of the twelve links of dependent origination: the first three eliminate defiled dependent origination—substance and arising being consciousness and so on, the seven sufferings, and accomplishment being the three afflictions and two karmas. The next three eliminate pure dependent origination—namely, the fourth eliminates the cessation of ignorance, cessation of conditioning activities, and so on; the fifth eliminates the cognition capable of reverse contemplation; the sixth is the true substance revealed; the seventh eliminates both defilement and purity, because defilement and purity are equal. 5. In terms of the five dharmas: the first eliminates name and false imagination, because it speaks of conceptual discrimination. The next three eliminate marks, because both defilement and purity are marks. The fifth eliminates correct cognition, because it is non-discriminative. The sixth and seventh eliminate suchness (tathatā), because by being free from grasping and rejecting, it is primordially quiescent. Master [Hui]yuan, however, had yet another interpretation, namely in terms of the three gates to liberation through emptiness. The first clause eliminates discriminative thought, which is the gate of emptiness; the middle five clauses eliminate its names and marks, which is the gate of signlessness; the final clause eliminates vows of grasping and rejecting, revealing the gate of wishlessness. This shares the same meaning with the first ground, for the first ground uses the gate of emptiness to counter discrimination, signlessness to counter marks, and wishlessness to counter grasping and rejecting. This is not without reason. Since all ten clauses universally apply to the three gates of emptiness, the commentary does not make this explicit, but merely has the five intents.

64.16

Regarding the commentary's "the above nine clauses" onward: this is the second, a general appraisal. The commentary's text has two parts: 1. explaining the elimination of the three [alternatives] and converging them into the one, namely eliminating existence, eliminating non-existence, and eliminating both existence and non-existence, thereby converging into the middle way of neither existence nor non-existence; 2. from "furthermore, this non-duality does not destroy existence and non-existence" onward, re-explaining that the ninth accomplishes the meaning of non-destruction. It can eliminate the clause of both and the clause of neither, and is thus divided into two: first, using the non-destruction of existence and non-existence to establish the meaning of neither, thereby eliminating the clause of both; second, using the non-destruction of existence and non-existence to establish the meaning of both, thereby eliminating the clause of neither. Now, the first begins by indicating non-duality. The idea is: if there were no existence and non-existence, what would be non-dual? Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "If there were no one or two, how could one say 'neither one nor two'?" Therefore, the meaning of non-duality is accomplished through non-destruction. From "speaking of emptiness eliminates attachment to existence" onward, it discerns the characteristics. Within this, it first explains non-destruction to establish neither. This clause clarifies not destroying emptiness, yet not regarding emptiness as a mark; therefore, emptiness is non-emptiness. As for "speaking of existence is to eliminate delusion about emptiness": this clause clarifies not destroying existence, yet not preserving existence; therefore, existence is non-existence. Thus neither is established. Next, it says: "Existence is the existence that is not different from emptiness; emptiness is the emptiness that is not different from existence": these two clauses reveal the sūtra's non-duality, accomplishing the meaning of non-destruction. Next, it says: "There is no separate emptiness and existence that form a duality": this directly eliminates both.

64.17

Regarding the commentary's "furthermore, since they are non-dual, it also does not destroy existence and non-existence" onward: this is the second, explaining that not destroying existence and non-existence accomplishes the clause of both and eliminates the clause of neither. The two lines above indicate it. From "then the existence not different from non-existence is the existence of non-existence" onward, second, it reveals the characteristics; this clause establishes existence by means of non-duality. Next, it says: "The non-existence not different from existence is the non-existence of non-non-existence": this establishes non-existence by means of non-difference. It is because of non-duality that there is no destruction; having no destruction, both emptiness and existence are preserved; hence it concludes, "thus eliminating neither."

64.18

Regarding the commentary's "these then are the four propositions" onward: this is the concluding praise. That is, above, it eliminates the four propositions, and furthermore borrows 'neither' to eliminate 'both,' without establishing 'neither.' Now it takes 'both' to eliminate 'neither,' without establishing 'both'; although it eliminates the four propositions, it does not destroy the four propositions, because preservation and extinction are unobstructed. Therefore, it concludes: "The hundred negations and four propositions—all views are completely severed." Master [Hui]yuan, however, had only the initial section of eliminating the three and converging into the one. He said: "This is broadly the same as the eleven emptinesses in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. There too, the first eight use emptiness to eliminate existence, the ninth single emptiness uses existence to eliminate non-existence, and the tenth, the emptiness of emptiness, eliminates both existence and non-existence." The great emptiness there is discussed in terms of emptiness and reality, which is also one valid principle. The meaning of the eleven emptinesses will be explained below.

64.19

Regarding the commentary's "Fourth, discerning the extent of practice": within the text there are four parts: 1. briefly explaining the sūtra text; 2. revealing the number and categories of forbearances; 3. harmonizing and explaining the sūtra text; 4. revealing the differences among the forbearances.

64.20

Regarding the commentary's "Benevolent Kings" onward: this is the second, revealing the number and categories of forbearances. The five forbearances in the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra], as traversed through the stages, only make fourteen; the Yingluo [Sūtra] adds one. The characteristics of the five forbearances will be reflected in discerning the differences.

64.21

Regarding the commentary's "now the fourth, fifth, and sixth [grounds] all attain the forbearance of conformity" onward: this is the third, harmonizing and explaining the sūtra text. Because conceits have coarse and subtle aspects, the forbearance is divided into three grades: the fourth ground counters the conceit of the self of a sentient being and the conceit of understanding phenomena, which are coarse, and attains the lower-grade forbearance; the fifth ground counters the conceit of bodily purity, which is subtler, and attains the medium-grade forbearance; this ground counters the conceits of defilement and purity, which are the subtlest, and attains the superior-grade forbearance. Therefore it says, "countering subtle conceits, it is called clear and keen"; 'clear' means there is nothing it does not illumine, and 'keen' means there is nothing it does not pierce. However, because counteractions increase through practice, they proceed from lower to higher; because hindrances are gradually severed, they proceed from coarse to subtle. As for "conforming to the subsequent non-arising": the forbearance of conformity has two meanings: 1. conforming to phenomena; the 'Ten Forbearances Chapter' says: "When phenomena exist, one also conformingly knows it; when phenomena do not exist, one also conformingly knows it." 2. The forbearance of conformity has not yet realized non-arising, but accords with and conforms to that forbearance. Now speaking in terms of stages, the preceding serves as the cause for the subsequent, which is precisely suitable for this explanation. Because this ground shatters marks and advances into the true realm, it conforms to the forbearance of non-arising of the higher grounds.

64.22

On the commentary passage beginning with "However, in terms of the actual stages": fourth, this clarifies the distinctions among the kṣāntis. The commentary's text also has three parts: first, it explains in general the difference between the actual and the provisional allocations; second, from "Why is it that, provisional to the stages" onwards, it raises a hypothetical question to investigate; third, from "That is to say, if in terms of the principle of emptiness and selflessness" onwards, it distinguishes their differentiated characteristics. Within this, there are two: first, it explains their common characteristics; later, it reveals their distinct characteristics. In the former: commonly speaking, it is clarified as attained on the first bhūmi. That is to say, on the first bhūmi one attains selflessness, which may also be named the principle of the equality of emptiness, and may also be named non-arising, because selflessness is itself emptiness and non-arising. The sixth bhūmi is called the equality of emptiness, yet it may also be named non-arising and selfless, because the principle of the equality of emptiness is itself non-arising, emptiness, and selflessness. On the seventh bhūmi and above, one attains anutpattikadharmakṣānti, yet it may also be named selflessness and the equality of emptiness, because the principle of non-arising is itself selflessness and the equality of emptiness. Hence it is named "common".

64.23

On the commentary passage beginning with "As for not attaining it now": this reveals its distinct characteristics. Then, not only has the first bhūmi not yet attained this kṣānti, but also this sixth bhūmi has not yet attained it, because in terms of discriminating selflessness, emptiness, and the principle of non-arising, the three characteristics are different. In the text there are two parts: first, a general heading; second, from "First, in terms of emptiness" onwards, it explains through four gates, which then divide into four distinctions. Within the first gate, it directly unfolds the previous common meaning in terms of principle to first reveal selflessness. Regarding "refuting intrinsic nature to reveal emptiness": because both person and dharma lack intrinsic nature and are therefore empty, this meaning corresponds to the kṣānti of faith. Raising the first subsumes the subsequent ones, hence it speaks of the first bhūmi.

64.24

On the commentary passage "Now on this bhūmi, refuting characteristics to tend toward quiescence is called the equality of emptiness": how could it be that only intrinsic nature is absent? Characteristics also do not remain. Hence the sūtra text says, "Being without characteristics and without essence, they are therefore equal." Not only are characteristics of existence refuted, but characteristics of emptiness are also relinquished; only then is it the principle of the equality of true emptiness. The meaning corresponds to conforming kṣānti; raising the latter subsumes the former, so the meaning covers the fourth and fifth [bhūmis].

64.25

On the commentary passage beginning with "If in terms of realizing reality": this corresponds to anutpattikadharmakṣānti; raising the first subsumes the subsequent ones, so the meaning covers the eighth and ninth [bhūmis]. As for saying "realizing reality and looking back": the above two meanings only refute the intrinsic nature and characteristics of emptiness; now, having already realized reality, looking back upon intrinsic nature and characteristics, they are originally ever quiescent—why wait until refuting is complete to then speak of selflessness and the equality of emptiness? As for saying "this principle becomes increasingly profound": then in the above equality of emptiness it should also have been said that this meaning gradually becomes deeper, but the text omitted it.

64.26

On the commentary passage beginning with "If in terms of tallying with the original, eternal quiescence": this is the kṣānti of extinction and cessation; raising the first covers the subsequent ones, so it says "attained after the tenth bhūmi". As for saying "tallying with the original, eternal quiescence": previously in anutpattikadharmakṣānti, one realized reality, but looking toward characteristics, that which was previously refuted and that which was realized were not yet identical. Now, in the kṣānti of extinction and cessation, tallying with what was refuted as being eternally quiescent is itself what is realized; hence it is called "the most marvelous".

64.27

On the commentary passage "Second, discriminating in terms of practice" and so forth: this designates arising in terms of being generated. On the seventh bhūmi it arises all at once; why is it called non-arising? Because the practices that are generated are completely pervasive, and there is nothing new to generate; hence it is merely called "non-arising".

64.28

On the commentary passage "Third, in terms of emptiness and existence": this is also the "arising" of being generated. It is not like the previous practices: depending on any single practice, emptiness and existence are present, so entering contemplation generates emptiness, and emerging from contemplation generates existence; therefore, arising intermittently is called arising. On the seventh bhūmi, one is constantly in contemplation, yet engaging in existence does not delude one regarding emptiness, and contemplating emptiness does not obstruct existence; hence it is called upāya. There is no longer any distinction of entering and emerging; hence it is called "non-arising".

64.29

On the commentary passage "Fourth, discriminating in terms of cultivation": this designates arising in terms of being raw or ripe. Being raw and unpracticed is called arising; being fully ripened is called non-arising. On the seventh bhūmi there is still effort; hence it is called raw and unpracticed. On the eighth bhūmi one advances spontaneously without effort; hence it is called fully ripened.

64.30

On the commentary passage "Second, the excellence of the practice of the unabiding path" and so forth: first is a general sectioning; later, from "Now, the first" onwards, it explains individually. When broadly considering mind and objects, Master Yuan said: "The unabiding path is explained in terms of the initial entering mind. From 'producing this thought' onwards, the unabiding path is explained with respect to correctly abiding in the bhūmi." Now this is only taken as a heading, without adopting the ancient interpretation.

64.31

On the commentary passage "Through the previous contemplation, conforming and attaining the unabiding path": hence the sūtra text of the treatise says, "This bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas in this way, and conforming, attains..."; the treatise's explanation says, "because attaining the practice of the unabiding path is excellent". The present sūtra is concise and lacks the words 'conforming and attaining', but says 'having contemplated thus'; in meaning, it must contain them, so the commentary takes the treatise, subsumes what came before, and explains it.

64.32

On the commentary passage beginning with "Now, among the first three": for now, it explains the three compassions of the contemplating [mind]. The commentary's text has three parts: first, it directly explains the text; second, it reveals the sequence; third, it analyzes the doors of meaning. In the first part, from "Because, although identical to the contemplation of omniscient knowledge" onwards, it explains the treatise's direct explanation of the character 'excellence'. If there were no great compassion, it would be identical to the two vehicles; now, having it, it is excellent. As for "the contemplation of omniscient knowledge": that is, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā uses "all-knowledge" for the śrāvakas, "knowledge of the aspects of the path" for the bodhisattvas, and "all-aspect knowledge" for the Tathāgata. This, then, horizontally correlates the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, cause and effect, to distinguish these three different categories. That the Buddha contemplates the transmigration across the three periods of time with all-knowledge uses the meaning of the sūtra below to explain the treatise's phrase "not abandoning past, present, and future". Its "revulsion against the conditioned" is the name of the contemplation in the treatise below; this contemplation is established based on great compassion taking the lead. From "Yet with great compassion" onwards, it directly explains the meaning of excellence.

64.33

On the commentary passage beginning with "That is, contemplating with the knowledge of the aspects of the path": this explains the treatise, which is the bodhisattva's own wisdom. "Not merely contemplating the three periods of time" demonstrates excellence in contrast to what precedes. Next, from "completely comprehending all dharmas" onwards, it distinguishes excellence according to its characteristics. To say that one "comprehends all dharmas" means that, whether internal or external, conditioned or unconditioned, there is nothing not known. From "Using this to guide" onwards, it clarifies that because wisdom is excellent, compassion becomes intensified.

64.34

On the commentary passage beginning with "That is, using all-aspect knowledge": this explains the treatise, which is the Tathāgata's wisdom.

64.35

On the commentary passage beginning with "Taking the three compassions as the order": second, it reveals the sequence.

64.36

On the commentary passage beginning with "Relying on the extant text of the treatise": third, an analysis of the doors of meaning. Within this there are three: first, clarifying the two protections; second, clarifying the two benefits; third, clarifying not abiding. And the text is divided into two: first, individually clarifying the first gate; later, generalizing the rule for the three gates. Now, in the first, the two protections naturally have two meanings: first, following the text of the treatise, because from the above text 'taking great compassion as foremost', not abandoning the past, present, and future is the meaning of wisdom; being subsumed by great compassion is the meaning of compassion. Compassion protects against the Hīnayāna; wisdom protects against afflictions. The latter two merely say 'because within all dharmas wisdom is pure', and 'the contemplation of the accumulation of all aspects of subtle causes and conditions', which clarifies that they are solely in terms of wisdom. From the commentary's "Since all three together" onwards: second, generalizing the rule. Contemplation protects against ordinary beings with respect to afflictions, and compassion protects against the Hīnayāna; the two protections thus possess the two benefits. Having wisdom, one does not abide in saṃsāra; having compassion, one does not abide in nirvāṇa; therefore, the three meanings are complete.

64.37

On "the former ceases and the latter arises": with avidyā conditioning saṃskāras, the former condition has already ceased, giving rise to what follows. If the former did not cease, one would fall into eternalism; if the latter did not arise, that would be annihilationism. Avidyā conditioning saṃskāras means: because the former ceases, the latter is then able to arise. The twelve links are all like this; this is naturally explained as a single meaning.

64.38

On "saying that defilement arises and purity ceases": avidyā conditioning saṃskāras, and saṃskāras conditioning vijñāna, etc., is defilement arising. Because avidyā ceases, saṃskāras cease—this is pure cessation. Below, the Abhidharmasamuccaya is cited, where it is called the contemplation of defilement and purity. Furthermore, the subsequent sūtra says: "Due to attachment to a self, the world arises, which is arising; for one who is unattached to a self, there is no place of rebirth, which is called cessation."

64.39

On the commentary passage "Second, individually clarifying the characteristics of contemplation" and so forth: the commentary's text has three parts: first, generally revealing their depth and breadth; second, citing the sūtra to distinguish their depth; third, relying on the treatise to outline and explain. Now, in the first, there are three parts: first, stating the profound principle; second, citing the treatise to briefly unfold it; third, merging them in unobstructed harmony. Now, in the first, the commentary says: "However, the profound meaning of dependent origination is the central tenet of the Buddha's teaching..." and so forth. Since ancient times, many worthy figures have said: as for the tenets of the three teachings, Confucianism takes the five constants as its tenet, Daoism takes spontaneity (ziran) as its tenet, and Buddhism takes causes and conditions as its tenet. Now, although Laozi said, "The Way generates one, one generates two, two generates three, three generates the ten thousand things," which seems to have causes and conditions, it is not correct causes and conditions. In saying "the Way generates one," the Way is empty non-being and spontaneity. He also said, "Humans model themselves on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Way, and the Way models itself on spontaneity." That which is empty and unhindered is called the Way, which is spontaneously so. Thus, although it has causes and conditions, it also becomes the meaning of spontaneity. Although the Buddha's Dharma has uninstructed wisdom and spontaneous wisdom, the eternally abiding true principle must rely on conditions to be revealed, and thus it also consists in causes and conditions. Therefore, the teaching speaks of cultivating causes across the three periods of time to tally with the fruit, and not their causelessness or evil causes. In the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, "Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: 'The Buddha speaks of the eternal and inconceivable; those non-Buddhists also speak of the eternal and inconceivable. How do they differ?' The Buddha said: 'Those non-Buddhists do not have the eternal and inconceivable, because it is without cause. I say that the eternal and inconceivable has a cause, caused by inner realization; how could they be the same?'" Thus, the truly eternal is also revealed through causes and conditions. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Expounding the Dharma as neither existing nor non-existing, because of causes and conditions all dharmas arise." The Lotus Sūtra also says: "The Buddhas, the Most Honoured of Two-Footed Beings, know that dharmas are ever devoid of intrinsic nature; the Buddha-seed arises from conditions, and therefore they expound the One Vehicle." The sūtra below says: "All dharmas take causes and conditions as their root." The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions. Therefore, among all dharmas, there is none that is not empty." Thus, true emptiness and the middle way are also causes and conditions. If so, then the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle sixteen, says: "I contemplate all conditioned things as entirely impermanent. How is this known? Through causes and conditions. If all dharmas arise from conditions, then one knows they are impermanent. There is not a single dharma among these non-Buddhists that does not arise from conditions; therefore they are impermanent. Thus non-Buddhists have causes and conditions." Explanation: this clarifies that non-Buddhists, being within causes and conditions, cling to conditional characteristics as being eternally abiding; therefore it refutes them, saying they are impermanent. Now it clarifies that the teaching explains the marvelous principle of causes and conditions as possessing both the permanent and the impermanent; how could they be identical? Furthermore, a tenet is spoken of in terms of the predominant part; therefore, that causes and conditions are the tenet should not give rise to doubt.

64.40

On the commentary passage "The hierarchical gradations of vehicles and wisdom are of multiple shallow and deep varieties": "vehicles" refers to the triyāna and the five vehicles. The triyāna contemplating conditions is already as explained above. The five vehicles' humans and devas also take the precepts and goodness as causes and conditions. "Wisdom" refers to prajñā, as cited below. One who contemplates with inferior wisdom attains śrāvaka bodhi, etc. Since the cause and effect are differentiated in the Mahāyāna, its wisdom differs from the Hīnayāna. Regarding "hierarchical gradations", there are again two senses: first, concluding above that they differ according to the vehicle and wisdom; second, just as with a single bodhi, according to the depth of contemplation there are also many gradations; hence it says "multiple varieties".

64.41

On the commentary passage "Nāgārjuna says causes and conditions are of two kinds" and so forth: second, citing proof to briefly unfold them. That is, the text of the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra says: "Namely, taking water, earth, human labor, seasons, and grain seeds as causes and conditions, sprouts are able to grow. Taking milk, yeast, warmth, and human labor as conditions, curd is able to form. Through conditions such as lumps of clay, the wheel, string, and the potter, vessels are able to be accomplished. These are all external causes and conditions."

64.42

On the commentary passage beginning with "However, the external is transformed from the internal": third, merging them in unobstructed harmony. The various external receptacle worlds are instantaneously transformed by internal consciousness, and the sovereign fruit also results from one's own karma; hence it says "transformed from the internal". Regarding "root and branch mutually subsuming": the internal is the root, and the external is the branch. In terms of the meaning of mind-only, the internal subsumes the external; relying on objects to generate the mind, the branch also subsumes the root. If one takes dharmatā as the root, dharmatā blends in harmony and dependent origination is mutually conditioned, so that a dust mote envelops a great body and a hair contains lands; therefore, they combine into a single great dependent origination.

64.43

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The doors of meaning wherein defilement and purity interpenetrate are not one; they will be briefly indicated below": The *Yogācārabhūmi* states: "What is the door of conditioned arising? It refers to relying on eight doors of the cyclic transmission of conditioned arising: (1) the door of the arising of internal consciousness; (2) the door of the ripening of external conditions; (3) the door of birth and death in the sentient realm; (4) the door of formation and destruction of the receptacle realm; (5) the door of sustenance by food; (6) the door of experiencing pleasant and unpleasant fruits obtained in accordance with karma through the predominant power of actions performed by oneself; (7) the door of mighty influence; and (8) the door of purification." Explanation: Although the treatise does not elaborate, the meaning can be briefly understood. (8) 'Purification' refers to the cessation of ignorance leading to the cessation of formations, and so on. (7) 'Mighty influence' refers to the causal arising through forceful function, such as ignorance conditioning formations, and so on. (6) 'Performed by one's own karma' precisely refers to the latencies of the branches of existence. (5) 'Sustenance by food' refers to the differences among the four foods, which are pervasive or restricted according to the realm. (4) The 'receptacle realm' can be understood. (3) 'Sentient beings' is distinguished from external insentient things. (2) 'External conditions' is as explained in the treatise. (1) 'Arising of internal consciousness' refers to the latencies of nominal designation. When it is said, "they will be briefly indicated below," it means that not only are there eight doors, but their meanings are also limitless, scattered throughout the sūtra and commentary. In the literal explanation as the text proceeds, as well as below where the explanation of conditioned arising concludes, it summarizes the import of the ten doors, subsuming the ten into five, and further revealing the four Buddha-natures fused into one great conditioned arising, and so forth. Since the doors of meaning are already manifold, for now it briefly indicates defilement and purity internally: (1) defiled conditioned arising; (2) pure conditioned arising; and (3) conditioned arising of the mutual fusion of defilement and purity. Each of these three conditioned arisings has four doors. The four within defilement are: (1) the door of conditions gathering in the one mind; (2) the door of subsuming the root to follow the branches; (3) the door of subsuming the branches to return to the root; and (4) the door of the mutual reliance and support between root and branches. The second, pure conditioned arising, also has four doors: (1) the door of original existence; (2) the door of production through cultivation; (3) the door of original existence being identical to production through cultivation; and (4) the door of production through cultivation being identical to original existence. The third, the mutual fusion of defilement and purity, also has four doors: (1) the door of overturning defilement to reveal purity; (2) the door of responding to defilement by means of purity; (3) the door of resolving defilement into identical purity; and (4) the door of defilement being exhausted and purity vanishing. Through these doors, encompassing endless phenomena and principles, internal and external, they combine together into a single, unimpeded and unhindered great conditioned arising of the dharmadhātu.

64.44

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The present sūtra text briefly reveals ten tiers," and so forth: This is the second [section], citing the sūtra to reveal profoundness. Within this there are two: first, an overarching outline of the sūtra text, where the text has ten tiers to reveal the inexhaustible; second, from "each having forward and reverse" downward, progressively unfolding and revealing to discern what is inconceivable.

64.45

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The ancients concurrently took their fruits," and so forth: The Commentary's intention does not praise this interpretation, nor does it call it incorrect; hence it cites the ancients without stating whether to accept or reject it. If one establishes forty tiers according to defilement and purity, forward and reverse, and applies the three contemplations through them, they make one hundred and twenty; this principle is indeed so.

64.46

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "As for the three contemplations of the treatise" downward: This is the third [section], outlining and explaining according to the treatise. Within this are two: first, establishing the contemplations according to the treatise; second, harmonizing the treatise with the sūtra. The former has six parts: (1) listing the names; (2) from "initially one only contemplates the two truths" downward, explaining their characteristics, all harmonized using the preceding three compassions; (3) from "the first one is shared with the two vehicles" downward, harmonizing them with the two cognitions of the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā*; (4) from "hence the *Nirvāṇa* states" downward, providing verification from the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*. The *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* differentiates the two vehicles because their teachings and practices differ. The two vehicles differ [in their path], but the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā* unifies their principle and fruit as one; hence, unifying the two vehicles, the meaning accords with this, so both could be cited; (5) from "previously in terms of [acting] for the sake of beings" downward, resolving objections. For there was an objection saying: "The sūtra has three compassions, while the treatise has three contemplations; how can one cite the former to establish the present explanation?" Therefore, this resolution is provided; (6) from "fusing these three contemplations" downward, fusing them to reveal their superiority. The "three contemplations in one mind" is identical to emptiness, the conventional, and the middle. They are cultivated suddenly by one person, not divided according to vehicle. The phrase "profound prajñā": there are two kinds of prajñā. The first is shared, as it is said: "If one wishes to attain the śrāvaka vehicle, one should train in prajñā," and so on. The *Lotus Sūtra* says: "All dharmas are entirely empty and tranquil, without birth and without cessation, neither great nor small, without outflow and unconditioned. Contemplating in this way, one gives rise to neither joy nor pleasure." This is shared prajñā, which is termed shallow. Now compassion and wisdom are operated in tandem, principle and phenomena are viewed simultaneously; therefore, that which is generated is precisely unshared, constituting profound prajñā.

64.47

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "Although the three contemplations of the treatise comprehensively explain the sūtra" downward: This is the second [section], harmonizing the treatise with the sūtra. Within this are three: first, setting forth [the topic]; second, separately explaining the expansion and condensation of the three contemplations; third, distinguishing the two benefits. Now for the first: the statement "there is expansion and condensation with respect to the ten doors" means, for example, that the first contemplation summarizes and condenses the ten doors into three, which is condensation in the treatise where the sūtra expands. Yet dividing the first half subsumed under the second [door of] one mind as the ultimate truth is expansion in the treatise where the sūtra condenses. Its third contemplation expands the first half of the first door into the contemplation of distinguishing defilement and purity, and the latter half belongs to the contemplation of reliance, which is expansion in the treatise where the sūtra condenses. Taking the eighth and ninth doors as the contemplation of beginninglessness is condensation in the treatise where the sūtra expands.

64.48

Regarding the Commentary's passage from "First, the contemplation of the knowledge of all aspects" downward: In the second [part], separately explaining the expansion and condensation of the three contemplations, the first contemplation has two parts: first, directly clarifying it; second, from "the reason for dividing into three" downward, presenting the reason. Now for the first: the phrase "the first door among the ten" refers to the door of the continuity of the branches of existence. Second, "subsuming half of the second door" refers to subsuming and returning to the one mind. The first half is where the sūtra says: "Sons of the Buddha! This bodhisattva-mahāsattva further has this thought: whatever exists in the three realms is only one mind." Third, "subsuming the remaining eight doors and a half": the half refers, within the second door of one mind, to the section from "the Tathāgata here distinguishes and expounds" downward, continuing through the end of the tenth door.

64.49

In the Commentary's [section on] "second, the contemplation of accord through great compassion," there are also two parts: first, directly clarifying it; second, presenting the reason. Now for the first: (1) "contemplating sentient beings as foolish and inverted" means they are foolishly deluded about nature and characteristics, invertedly grasping at self and what belongs to self. (2) "Seeking liberation elsewhere" means that ordinary beings are foolish and inverted; they should constantly seek their liberation within the ālaya-vijñāna and the ādāna-vijñāna, but instead seek liberation elsewhere in self and what belongs to self. The second door of one mind clarifies that it is only the one mind; it can be sought within it, for there are no dharmas outside the mind.

64.50

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "(3) seeking liberation through deviant paths": The treatise states: "As for inverted causes, there are four kinds: (1) the cause of primordial nature (prakṛti); (2) the cause of an autonomous creator (īśvara); (3) the cause of ascetic austerities; and (4) causelessness. These are refuted by the four doors in sequence: The first, the door of assistance by one's own karma, clarifies that each branch of existence has two types; they are able to arise due to karma, not due to primordial nature. The second, the door of non-abandonment, clarifies that taking ignorance and so on as the cause of formations and so on is not due to an autonomous creator. The third, the door of non-interruption of the three paths, clarifies that karma and defilement are the causes of suffering; if one wishes to seek freedom from suffering, one should sever karma and defilement. Conversely practicing austerities gives rise to deluded karma, and the mind that plans austerities is itself an affliction; how could such deluded conceptualization be the cause of liberation? The fourth, the door of transmigration through the three boundaries [of time], means that since the two branches of the previous boundary are the cause of the five branches of the middle boundary, and the three branches of the middle boundary are the cause of the two branches of the posterior boundary, how could one speak of causelessness?"

First 50 of 108 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese