大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65

English (machine translation) 65

Language: English

65.1

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

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Third, deluded about the real and giving rise to the false,' and so forth, before the text there are five points: First, marking the section. Second, from 'The Treatise says' onward, the author of the Treatise poses a hypothetical external question. From 'namely, in its own characteristic' onward, the Commentary explains the Treatise. Third, from 'Therefore the sūtra's intention' onward, it answers the Treatise's hypothetical question with the intention of the sūtra. Fourth, from 'However, the three characteristics of the completion of the answer' onward, it questions the different characteristics of the two. Fifth, from 'There are briefly five differences' onward, the answer reveals its comprehensiveness. Within this, it first explains them individually, and then from 'Having these five' onward it generally concludes. In the former, first, according to differences in what is deluded about: the preceding was deluded about selflessness, which is being deluded about true emptiness; this is deluded about real wisdom, which is wondrous existence, because there is a text stating 'not understanding the ultimate truth.' Second, according to the difference in the order of arising, which can be understood. Third, according to the temporal scope, having breadth and restriction: The statement that 'in meaning it also extends to the five periods' will be clarified in a later section. The statement that 'this is only three periods' is the thesis of this phrase. 'Because name-and-form, etc., are considered solely in terms of active manifestations' brings out the reason. In the preceding section, name-and-form and the other five were treated in terms of seeds, which makes two periods; the subsequent enumeration of the five fruits is entirely considered in terms of active manifestations, which is the fruit recompensing past causes. Based on the fruit, craving and grasping are further aroused to incur subsequent birth and death, and thus there are three periods. Now, since this section considers solely active manifestations, there are only three. That 'in meaning it also extends to one period' will be known below. Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Fourth, the preceding text wished to clarify that the three periods are fully present together,' fourth, according to conditions having the concealed and the revealed: The statement 'within ignorance' onward brings out the characteristics of full presence: ignorance being in the past while craving and grasping are spoken of as present means the three afflictions are fully present. Formations are precisely existence: before being moistened they are called formations, and when moistened they are existence. The two karmas necessarily rely on the seven sufferings, spoken of separately as five and spoken of generally as two. This clarifies that the past is fully endowed with the twelve. It merely brings up the sūtra text, 'within ignorance, craving and grasping are said to exist,' to exemplify that the rest must also be present. The statement, 'because ignorance is spoken of within the present,' clarifies that within the present the twelve are complete. Since within present craving and grasping there is ignorance, the three afflictions are complete, and then the formations that are moistened and become existence already match the past in possessing the two branches of ignorance and formations. The present eight branches are obviously known. Increase, decay, and change also fully contain birth, aging, and death.

65.3

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Fifth, the preceding was to answer a difficulty,' fifth, according to the distinction in the characteristics of the answers and taking what concludes below, all of which can be understood.

65.4

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'Within the text there are also two,' and so forth, this explains the text. However, the subsequent explanations of names mostly rely on the Kośa. The Kośa completely accords with the twenty-seventh meaning in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], with minor points of difference that will be known when reaching the text.

65.5

First is the branch of ignorance. The Commentary text has three parts: first, analyzing the derivation of the name, meaning to clarify the sequence; second, reconciling the treatise and the sūtra; third, setting forth the essence and characteristics of ignorance. Now, first, analyzing the name. From 'However, the twelve' onward, it resolves a difficulty: Why does ignorance exclusively receive the designation of 'delusion'? Later, from 'Yet ignorance' onward, the answer is revealing and readily understood. As for 'meaning to clarify the sequence,' the Yogācāra asks: 'Due to what causes and conditions do the branches such as ignorance have such a sequence? Answer: All those who are ignorant must first be ignorant regarding things that should be known, and next they initiate wrong conduct regarding them,' and so forth. This ignorance, in terms of a person being deluded about principle, arises horizontally from emptiness.

65.6

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'The Treatise-sūtra says,' and so forth, second, it reconciles the treatise and the sūtra. Because it was said above that real meaning is emptiness, it took true emptiness as the ultimate truth. According to the intention of the Treatise-sūtra, the Four Truths are the ultimate truth, which is the ultimate truth of principle among the fourfold ultimate truths. Next, it cites the Abhidharmasamuccaya to substantiate the Treatise-sūtra, which also accords with the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: 'In the past, I and you did not recognize the Four True Truths, and for this reason we wandered long in the great ocean of suffering of birth and death.' Therefore, in the Yogācāra, ignorance is broadly explained as running through all phenomena: internal or external, karma or fruit, the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, and so forth, are all [objects of] ignorance. Here, briefly citing the Four Truths subsumes everything without omission.

65.7

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'There is a distinct dark phenomenon named ignorance,' and so forth, third, it sets forth the essence and characteristics of ignorance. Within this, first it directly sets forth the essence. 'A distinct dark phenomenon' is what is countered by brightness. Next, from 'not merely' onward, it excludes conflations. This excludes two interpretations, which are the explanations of two masters. One master says: 'Ignorance means its essence is non-bright.' This is an exclusionary predication, like neither existent nor non-existent, because the essence of phenomena is not existent or non-existent. The second master says: 'It should mean the absence of brightness; this is just calling the place where there is no brightness ignorance.' Therefore, it is now excluded: it is not merely the absence of brightness, and the principle is exhausted. Still fearing it is hard to see, it fully cites the explanation of the Treatise. Fascicle 10 of the Kośa says: 'What is the meaning of ignorance? (A question.) It means its essence is non-bright (that is, the first master's "not the preceding cognitive brightness"). If so, ignorance should be the eyes and so forth.' Explanation: This is an objection. The five sense-faculties such as the eyes are also not cognitive brightness, so the Treatise says: 'If that is so, this meaning should be the absence of cognitive brightness.' Explanation: This is the second explanation, saying that the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance. The Treatise says: 'If so, the essence of ignorance should be non-existent.' Explanation: This is an objection. If the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance, absence is merely the absence of something else, and its essence should be non-existent. The Treatise says: 'In order to clarify that it has an essence (excluding the second meaning) and that its meaning is not conflated with other things (excluding the first meaning), the verse says: "Ignorance is what is countered by brightness, like non-friend, non-truth, and so forth."' Explanation: The upper line clarifies that it has a real essence: this ignorance fails to understand the Four Truths, and what is countered by brightness is named ignorance. Only that which is contrary to brightness is called ignorance; it is not that everything apart from brightness is ignorance, so it differs from the first. Nor is it that the place where brightness is absent is called ignorance, differing from the second. The lower line cites the preceding to explain and establish it. The Treatise says: 'Just as the enemy countered by friends: that which is contrary to a friend is called a non-friend, not someone different from a friend, nor the absence of a friend.' Explanation: This uses an enemy to illustrate ignorance, and friends to illustrate brightness. A non-friend is precisely an enemy; an enemy has an essence. 'Not someone different from a friend' means it is not that anyone other than a friend is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance is not conflated with the eyes and so forth. 'Nor the absence of a friend' means it is not that the lack of parents and friends is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance is not without essence. As for 'truth and so forth,' the word 'non-' above carries down to 'truth and so forth.' It is also like 'non-truth': truthful speech is called truth, and false speech countered by this is called non-truth; it is not that everything different from truth is called non-truth (such as killing), nor is the absence of truth called non-truth (this clarifies that non-truth has an essence). 'And so forth' includes non-dharma, non-artha, and non-kārya: unwholesome phenomena are called non-dharma, unwholesome meanings are called non-artha, and unwholesome matters are called non-kārya. These being contrary to wholesome phenomena and so forth are called non-dharma and so forth; all clarify that they have an essence and are not non-existent. Therefore the Treatise concludes: 'Thus ignorance has a distinct real essence; it is what is countered by brightness, neither different [from brightness] nor non-existent.' Explanation: 'Neither different' excludes the first interpretation; 'nor non-existent' excludes the second. If ignorance had no essence, how could it serve as a condition for formations? The sūtra says that ignorance can defile wisdom and make it impure, which clarifies that it has an essence. The rest is as explained there.

65.8

Regarding the Commentary's stating, "Second, that the fruit of karma performed is the link of formative activity (saṃskāra)": this comprises four parts. First, directly explaining the sūtra. Second, from "And the treatise..." onward, citing the treatise in explanation. Third, from "This presents..." onward, the Commentary explains the treatise. Because name-and-form pervades as the substance of saṃsāra, while ignorance (avidyā) and so forth are distinct dharmas such as the aggregate of formative forces, they each possess their own substance. Here, formative activity encompasses all, and therefore takes this all-pervading substance as its substance. Fourth, from "Master Yuan..." onward, adducing an ancient explanation showing there is no contradiction. It merely cites the Vibhāṣā's "name-and-form conditions consciousness." This name-and-form is within the cause, while "consciousness conditions name-and-form" is a different designation for the six sense-spheres (ṣaḍāyatana); thus it seems as if name-and-form and consciousness have an anterior and posterior sense. The Mahāyāna also holds that they condition each other. The meaning is not so: between cause and effect, both condition each other; this is the meaning of their mutually acting as conditions within the cause, as will be explained below.
Regarding the Commentary's stating, "Third, the support of formative activity... the link of consciousness (vijñāna)": first, it adduces the treatise; second, from "That is formative activity..." onward, it explains the treatise. Regarding the statement, "Due to formative activity perfuming the mind," and so forth: "formative activity" refers to the three kinds of karma, such as sinful [karma]. The Vijñaptimātratā[-siddhi] states: "Although this has only just arisen and immediately perishes without interval, lacking the capacity to directly summon the future vipāka-fruit, it perfumes the fundamental consciousness to give rise to its own function. This very function is called a latent predisposition (vāsanā); it is produced through the perfuming of karmic residual influence. It is distinguished from present karma, and is thus called a latent predisposition. Such perfuming continues in succession from one moment to the next, until at the time of maturation it summons the vipāka-fruit. This illustrates the superior predominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya) for the future fruit." The explanation says: This can be understood simply by examining the cited text and the passage from the Yogācāra commentary below.

65.9

Regarding the Commentary's stating, "Fourth, together with consciousness... the link of name-and-form (nāmarūpa)": the Commentary's text has three parts. First, directly explaining the sūtra; second, citing an alternative interpretation; third, adducing the treatise to explain "together." Now, regarding the first part: the "four aggregates" refers to form, sensation, perception, and formative forces. Thus the aggregate of form constitutes "form," and the other three aggregates constitute "name." Why is there no consciousness? Hence it next explains: "Because the aggregate of consciousness already belongs to the supporting link of consciousness." The above temporarily accords with the sūtra.

65.10

Regarding the Commentary's stating, "If one speaks of the four aggregates..." onward: second, citing an alternative interpretation. First, it cites the Vijñaptimātratā[-siddhi], namely its third fascicle, which cites sūtras to prove the existence of the eighth consciousness, to be fully presented below. Citing the treatise's words, "The supporting actualized consciousness is also exclusively the ālaya[-vijñāna]," [it explains that] since the four non-form aggregates are taken as "name," the link of name-and-form already contains consciousness. Thus the Vijñaptimātratā[-siddhi] states: "The evolving consciousnesses, such as the eye-[consciousness], are subsumed under 'name'; if this [eighth] consciousness did not exist, what could be called 'consciousness'?" The explanation says: Therefore, the eighth is taken as the link of consciousness. Lest someone should offer the defense: "The aggregate of consciousness within 'name' refers to the five consciousnesses such as the eye-[consciousness], while the link of consciousness is the sixth consciousness," the treatise therefore continues: "Nor can it be said that the aggregate of consciousness within 'name' refers to the group of five consciousnesses and that consciousness refers to the sixth, because at the stage of the kalala the five consciousnesses do not exist." The explanation says: Both the Great and Small Vehicles agree that during the initial seven days the five consciousnesses do not exist. Therefore, our Mahāyāna considers the seventh consciousness to be the consciousness within "name." The Kośa also states: "Name refers to the non-form, namely the four aggregates." Yet its aggregate of consciousness is intended as the sixth. Furthermore, what the Kośa states is explained purely in terms of stages as being subsequent to consciousness; it does not speak of simultaneous mutual reliance with consciousness. Regarding the aforementioned "kalala and so forth": here translated as "turbid impurity"—the impurity of the parents constitutes the "turbid," and its deeply repellent nature constitutes the "impurity." And as for "and so forth": this initial stage implies the remaining four stages. The Kośa summarily states: "First is the kalala," translated here as "thin curds." Second: "Next arises the arbuda," translated here as "blister." Third: "From this arises the peśī," translated here as "soft flesh." Fourth: "The peśī gives rise to the ghana," translated here as "hard flesh." Fifth: "Next is the praśākhā," translated here as "limbs and joints." These five stages all belong to the link of name-and-form. This fifth stage is also subsumed under the six sense-spheres. Below there are three lines, all of which are the link of the six sense-spheres. The verse says: "Later, hair, nails, and the like, / as well as the various marks of the physical faculties, / gradually develop and expand; / all are subsumed under the fifth stage." If one takes the whole of a single life as subsumed under name-and-form, then the six sense-spheres, contact, and sensation all belong to name-and-form, which is why it again says "and so forth."

65.11

Regarding the Commentary's stating, "The Yogācāra says..." onward: it subsequently cites the Yogācāra[-bhūmi]. Co-nascent supporting faculties have already been seen in the "Chapter on Clarifying Questions." That is, the physical faculties such as the eye are simultaneous with consciousness, and are thus called "co-nascent," with intention referring to the five physical faculties. "Equal-and-immediate support" means that the preceding moment must perish to induce the arising of the subsequent moment. This is precisely the text where the Yogācāra presents the substance of conditions in terms of the three temporal periods. However, this section of the treatise is cited in several places; it shall now be cited in full. That treatise says: "'What is the substance of dependent origination?' (This is the question.) Answer: 'Briefly stated, dependent origination is established by three characteristics: arising from the prior period into the middle period, and arising from the middle period into the subsequent period. Having arisen in the middle period, it tends either toward transmigration or toward the culmination of purification. How does it arise from the prior period into the middle period, and having arisen in the middle period, subsequently tend toward transmigration? It is said that when someone does not comprehend the prior period, being encompassed by ignorance, with ignorance as condition, with respect to meritorious, non-meritorious, and immovable bodily, verbal, and mental karma, they perform or accumulate it. Due to this, the consciousness following karma circulates without interruption up to the end of life, able to serve as the cause for the consciousness of subsequent continuity. When this consciousness is about to produce its fruit, it is accompanied by externally directed craving actively manifesting as its auxiliary. When one has discarded life from that prior period, one's self-substance arises in the present world; in the mother's womb, with the causal consciousness as condition, the successive fruit-consciousnesses arise sequentially before and after, continuing through the distinct stages such as the kalala. In the mother's womb, the successive fruit-consciousness is simultaneous with name-and-form, gradually growing up until old age, at which time the name-and-form of the experienced karma produces life and vipāka-fruit. Furthermore, the vipāka-consciousness operates in reliance upon name-and-form, because it necessarily operates in dependence upon the six sense-spheres; therefore, the sūtra states that name-and-form conditions consciousness. The co-nascent supporting faculty is called form; the equal-and-immediate supporting faculty is called name; according to their correspondence they serve as the support for the six consciousnesses, and relying on them, the consciousnesses transmigrate until the end of life. Moreover, the five physical faculties, the great elements on which the faculties depend, the locations of the faculties, and the great elements capable of generating them are called form; the remainder is called name. Because consciousness appropriates the faculties and they continue in succession, they are able to transmigrate. Therefore, these two rely upon consciousness and continue unbroken. By this principle, in the present, consciousness conditions name-and-form, and name-and-form conditions consciousness, like a bundle of reeds, operating in mutual dependence until the end of life. Such is called the dependent origination of formative forces arising from the prior period into the middle period, and having arisen in the middle period, transmigrating without interruption. One should know that here it is based on the womb-born... (and so forth). How does the dependent origination of formative forces arise from the middle period into the subsequent period? It is said that the sentient being (pudgala) already born in the middle period experiences two kinds of past karmic fruits: experiencing the internal vipāka-fruit and experiencing the external predominant fruit born of sensory objects. This pudgala, either through hearing non-authentic teachings or through prior habitual practice, is deluded regarding these two fruits. Because of delusion regarding the internal vipāka-fruit, they do not truly know the suffering of birth in a subsequent existence. Deluded regarding subsequent existence, through the predominant force of ignorance of the subsequent period, they perform or accumulate formative forces as before. Because of this newly performed karma, this consciousness is said to be the consciousness following karma. That is, within the present life, it is said that with ignorance as condition, formative activity arises, and with formative activity as condition, consciousness arises. In the present life, this consciousness is called the causal consciousness, because it is capable of encompassing the fruit-consciousness of future rebirth.'" The explanation says: This preceding passage of the treatise has three sections.

65.12

The Commentary seeks: first, to show the substance of the link of name-and-form; second, to also prove that name-and-form and consciousness mutually rely on each other; third, to prove the meaning of establishing three temporal periods across two lifetimes. Below, the text briefly indicates this, and one should consult this passage. "Namely, up to four seven-day periods": this indicates its demarcation.

65.13

Regarding the Commentary's stating, "The treatise says: because name-and-form and consciousness are co-nascent..." onward: third, adducing the treatise to explain "together," though it does not show the characteristics of name-and-form, it directly speaks of the meaning of co-nascence. However, the treatise connects two clauses, saying: "Because name-and-form and consciousness are co-nascent, and because consciousness and name-and-form mutually rely on each other." Here the Commentary separates and explains them: the preceding clause directly explains the meaning of "together." The Daśabhūmika-sūtra says: "Because name-and-form arises together with the ālayavijñāna."

65.14

Regarding the Commentary's stating, "It also says that consciousness..." onward: this presents the reason for their being "together." Stating that it explains the preceding meaning of "together," it expresses the purport of the Yogācāra cited above, and is also identical to the text in the third fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratā[-siddhi] proving the existence of the eighth [consciousness]. The treatise states: "Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'Consciousness conditions name-and-form, and name-and-form conditions consciousness; these two dharmas rely on each other in succession, turning simultaneously like a bundle of reeds.' If this [eighth] consciousness did not exist, the self-substance of the ālaya[-vijñāna] could not exist. That is, that sūtra itself provides this explanation: 'Name refers to the four non-form aggregates; form refers to the kalala and so forth. These two abide in mutual reliance with consciousness, like two bundles of reeds mutually acting as conditions, always turning simultaneously without abandoning each other. The five consciousnesses such as the eye-[consciousness] are subsumed under name; if this consciousness did not exist, what could be called consciousness?'" and so forth. The explanation says: The passage cited above from the treatise has three sections: first, directly proving the meaning of mutual reliance; second, from "That is, that sūtra itself..." onward, this corresponds to the earlier proof of the four aggregates as name, which is why it was said above that the treatise would be cited below; third, from "The five consciousnesses such as the eye..." onward, having already been cited earlier, because the meaning of the section is now complete, it is cited once again. Regarding "like a bundle of reeds": like setting up two bundles of reeds, their two heads must lean on each other before they can stand upright; remove the east one and the west falls, remove the west one and the east falls. The mutual reliance of name-and-form and consciousness is also of this meaning. The fifth section below also contains this metaphor.

65.15

In the commentary, the passage from "Therefore, the preceding reply text..." onward cites the earlier text to prove that the fruition of suffering is subsumed under name-and-form, thereby clarifying that name-and-form must certainly occur together with consciousness. However, although the preceding passages have already revealed their essential characteristics, it is not yet known why only these two are mutually dependent. Hence, the Yogācārabhūmi asks: "It has already been stated that all factors are not mutually conditioned. Why, then, is it established that name-and-form and consciousness are mutually conditioned? Answer: Because consciousness in the present state uses name-and-form as a condition, and name-and-form in a subsequent state uses consciousness as a condition. Why is this? Because when there is continuity in the mother's womb, they are said to be mutually conditioned. With consciousness as a condition, the semen, blood, and other components in the mother's womb are appropriated by name-and-form and combine together to form the kalala state; and this very name-and-form, serving as a condition, further enables that consciousness to abide here." Explanation: Of these two meanings, the first sets forth the premise, which is that name-and-form as present fruit serves as a condition for consciousness as cause, enabling consciousness to abide; this is the meaning of "name-and-form conditions consciousness." The preceding link of karmic formations also takes name-and-form as its essence, because name-and-form is overarching. The second meaning directly explains the sense of their mutual conditioning upon entering the womb, which is what is used in the present text. Having understood the characteristics of their mutual conditioning, why are the four aggregates alone all called "name"? The first master says: In the womb, one is ignorant and dull, not yet distinguishing between suffering and pleasure, possessing only a subtle name. This is according to the stages, where before the six sense bases and after the link of consciousness, this may be so. But since the two are mutually dependent and from birth to death everything is subsumed under name-and-form, why should they be designated "name"? The Abhidharmakośa-śāstra states: "'Name' is subsumed only under karmic formations. Why are all four [aggregates] called 'name'? In all, there are four explanations of the meaning of the four aggregates being called 'name.' One master says: They are designated 'name' because they transform with respect to their referents in accordance with the force of the established names, sense faculties, and sense objects. Question: How do they transform according to the force of names? Answer: Names are established collectively in accordance with various forces to transform and express their respective referents, just as with names such as 'ox,' 'horse,' 'color,' and 'taste.' Question: For what reason are they designated by the appellation 'name'? Answer: Because they transform and cognize their respective objects. Explanation: The intention of this master in the above treatise text is this: Just as names today, following the force of names in antiquity, can transform and express referents, expressing either this object or that object—and expressing those various objects is called 'transforming'—since names are like this, so too are the four aggregates. That is, the four aggregates of feeling and the rest transform and cognize objects in accordance with the force of faculties and objects, transforming just like names; therefore, they are designated by the appellation 'name.' 'Transforming and cognizing' means cognizing this and cognizing that; this is called 'transforming cognition.' The second master says: Furthermore, they are named according to categories. The intention of this explanation is that all phenomena do not go beyond two categories: the first is the category of form, and the second is the category of non-form. The four aggregates and names both belong to the category of non-form; because they resemble names, the four aggregates are called 'name.' The third master says: Because they are manifested in dependence on names. The intention of this explanation is that form phenomena are coarse and manifest, not needing names to be revealed, like being seen by the eye; whereas the four aggregates are subtle and must be manifested by names, necessarily relying on names, and therefore are designated by the appellation 'name.' The fourth master says: Other masters state that the four immaterial aggregates, having abandoned this body, transform and proceed toward another rebirth, transforming just like names; therefore, they are designated by the appellation 'name.' Explanation: This master defines transformation in terms of abandoning the body. The first master bases transformation on cognizing objects. Although 'transformation' is the same [word], the two explanations differ." Explanation: The above is all from the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra, and the commentary does not judge their merits and defects. If one seeks easy comprehension, the reasons of the second and third masters are clearly discernible, so one may accept or reject them as one pleases.

65.16

In the commentary, "Fifth, the link of the six sense bases" contains three parts: first, the direct explanation; second, resolving an objection; third, concluding the stages. In the first part, "'Name' increases to form the mental sense base" means that when the four aggregates constituted "name," the characteristics of consciousness were not yet differentiated; now mental consciousness is clear, so it is said to increase. Hence, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi stated above: "While within 'name,' there is only the seventh [consciousness]; now that the sixth is generated, it is called the mental sense base. This increase intensifies, clarifying that the increase of form multiplies, which is described as 'forming the remaining five.' When it was the solid flesh (peśī), the five faculties were not yet differentiated, being only called a single form; now the physical faculties are gradually completed, so they are expanded into five." From "the Kośa..." onward, it cites proof: "producing the eyes and the rest" refers to what comes after; "the combination of the three" refers to what comes before.

65.17

In the commentary, from "The preceding section is meant to clarify..." onward is the second part, resolving an objection. That is, someone might ask: The preceding section of the sūtra stated that the growth of name-and-form produces the five faculties; why does it now say that the growth of name-and-form forms the six sense bases? Therefore, this resolution is provided: The root of the mind originally existed, which is the seventh consciousness, so it was said to "produce the five faculties." Now, it is only that the mind increases, so it is said to "form the six sense bases," clarifying that the mind is not newly produced. In the commentary, from "Kośa, fascicle 11..." onward is the third part, concluding the stages, which collectively concludes the preceding three. In the Hīnayāna, with regard to the link of consciousness, because consciousness is obvious when first taking rebirth in the womb, the five stages from kalala onward are all the link of name-and-form; and from the fifth stage up until before emerging from the womb, all are subsumed under the six sense bases, because the fifth stage lasts for a long time. The rest is as explained previously.

65.18

In the commentary, "Sixth, contact refers to contactual confrontation": this is produced by the combination of the three—faculty, object, and consciousness—and has the capacity for contactual confrontation, so it is called contact. The Kośa verse states: "The six contacts arise from the combination of the three." Although contact is singular, it is divided into six according to consciousness. The Hīnayāna raises an objection, saying: If the faculty and object of the five consciousnesses are allowed to arise simultaneously, the combination of the three can be obtained. But the mental faculty is past, consciousness resides in the present, and dharmas may be future; how can there be a combination of the three? They have two explanations. One says: The mental faculty and dharmas are the cause, and the generation of consciousness is the fruit; this is the meaning of the combination of the three. The second says: The mental faculty, dharmas, and consciousness share the same single fruit of contact; this is the meaning of the combination of the three. Neither of the above two explanations defines the combination of the three in terms of the same time period. In the Mahāyāna tradition, the seventh [consciousness] is the mental faculty, so they can all share the same time period. However, the Sarvāstivādins hold that apart from the combination of the three, there is a distinct mental factor of contact. According to the Sautrāntikas, the combination of the three itself is contact, which directly accords with the present text. Furthermore, these six contacts are subsumed under two: the first five are called "contactual confrontation," while mental contact is called "contact with designation" (adhivacana-saṃsparśa). Although [mental] contact has no physical confrontation, its support, the eyes and the rest, possesses physical confrontation, so it receives its name based on its support. "Designation" means name; names can express and articulate, surpassing mere speech. The five consciousnesses—eye and the rest—only cognize blue and so forth, but do not cognize the name "blue"; the mental consciousness can cognize blue and so forth, and can also cognize names. Naming it based on its object, it is called "contact with designation."

65.19

In the commentary, "Although there is the combination of the three..." reflects the meaning of the Kośa. The verse states: "Before distinguishing the differences in the causes of the three feelings, it is known as contact." The "causes of the three feelings" refers to the objects of the three feelings, for objects can produce feelings and are therefore called causes. That is, for two or three years after emerging from the womb, one has not yet clearly comprehended the three [causes], and therefore it is not called feeling.

65.20

In the commentary, "Seventh, the link of feeling": the Kośa states: "Feeling is prior to sexual craving," meaning that from age five or six up to fourteen or fifteen, one has already comprehended the distinctive characteristics of the causes of the three feelings, but has not yet given rise to sexual craving; hence it is merely called feeling. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "Staining attachment to a single craving is called feeling," which refers to craving for food and clothing. The Kośa verse states: "From this arise the six feelings: five contacts are bodily, the remainder is mental." This means that from the six contacts, six feelings arise—that is, feelings produced with eye-contact as a condition, and so forth. Among the six, the first five are called bodily feeling because they rely on physical faculties; the aggregation of physical faculties is called the body, and these are feelings of the body. That produced by mental contact is called mental feeling, being a feeling of the mind, which experiences contact. This has already been explained above.

65.21

In the commentary, from "These preceding four links..." onward concludes their operational characteristics. If stated according to the Hīnayāna, explaining the links in terms of stages, all five are active manifestations. Now, according to the Mahāyāna, the link of consciousness encompasses seeds, so four are active manifestations.

65.22

In the commentary, "Eighth, the link of craving": the Kośa states: "Craving is greed for possessions and sexual craving," meaning that after age fifteen or sixteen, one covets fine material necessities and sexual craving actively manifests, but one has not yet pursued them extensively; hence it is merely called craving. However, the commentary says "entangled and seeking after pleasure and the rest." The word "and the rest" includes the other two feelings. "Entangled" refers to pleasant feeling; "seeking" applies to both [pleasant and neutral feelings]. Therefore, the Kośa states: "From these three feelings, three cravings are induced," meaning that due to the pressure of suffering, desire-craving arises toward pleasant feeling; or form-craving arises toward pleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling; or formless-craving arises solely toward neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling.

65.23

In the commentary, from "This is medium and inferior greed..." onward, all are passages from the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi.

65.24

In the commentary, "Ninth, the link of grasping": the Kośa states: "Pervasive pursuit is called grasping"; grasping means greed. Having grown older, one covets the objects of the five desires, pursuing them in all directions without dreading fatigue. As for the difference between craving and grasping: its initial arising is called craving, and its continuous intensification is separately established as grasping. From "Although it subsumes other afflictions..." onward, these are passages from the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, which directly harmonize that treatise with this sūtra text.

65.25

In the commentary, "However, the above two links encompass both active manifestations and seeds": when the link of craving initially arises, it is an active manifestation, and in that very thought-moment it perfumes consciousness into seeds. Depending on this seed of craving, grasping arises, and grasping is an active manifestation. Therefore, the sūtra says that the increase of craving becomes grasping; and below, when harmonizing with the four conditions, where craving has a causal condition (hetu-pratyaya) toward grasping, it is because the seed of craving increases to form grasping, grasping being the active manifestation of the seed of craving. Hence, they are the same greed: the initial mind is craving, and its intensification is called grasping. This very seed of craving is itself the seed of grasping; therefore, both links encompass both seeds and active manifestations.

65.26

In the commentary, "Tenth, the link of existence": the Kośa states: "Existence refers to karma that directly creates and pulls future existence." Due to pursuing, one amasses karma that can pull the fruition of future existence; karma is called existence. If one says that because there is a future fruition, this is "existent," that is merely the sense of being or non-being. If one speaks of the fruit of future existence, then existence refers to the three realms of existence. Hence, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states: "Because both can bring about the immediate fruit of a subsequent existence." Thus, existence has two meanings: first, being able to possess that fruit; second, future existence. Here, being able to possess that [fruit], the cause takes its name from the fruit; therefore karma is called existence. Although the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi is explained in terms of two lifetimes, the meaning of existence is no different.

65.27

In the commentary, "This is explained in terms of the three lifetimes": this is to distinguish it from the preceding and prevent confusion, as is understandable from the text.

65.28

In the commentary, "Eleventh, the link of birth": saying "in terms of the sovereign condition (adhipati-pratyaya), it is said to arise from karma" is because the sūtra states that "aggregates arising from karma are called birth." Karma is wholesome or unwholesome, whereas birth is an indeterminate fruit of maturation. In terms of causal conditions (hetu-pratyaya), birth is directly produced from the seeds of the two graspings, the meaning of which is as explained previously. In the commentary, from "beginning from the intermediate existence..." onward delineates its boundaries, which is also a passage from the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Saying "from the intermediate existence" is because the aggregate of intermediate existence perishes and the aggregate of subsequent existence arises. "Not yet decayed and transformed" means up to the age of forty. In the Kośa, it says: "Conjoining with future existence is called birth." Discarding life from this point, one directly conjoins with future existence. The five aggregates at this stage are collectively called birth. The future link of birth is just like consciousness at present; because future birth becomes manifest, it is established with the name "birth." This is completely identical with the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, which says that present consciousness is called birth, and present name-and-form, six sense bases, contact, and feeling are called aging-and-death. According to this sūtra and treatise, the stage of the link of birth is restricted solely to the initial conception in the womb; everything after the stage of name-and-form belongs to aging-and-death, which differs from the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi.

65.29

In the commentary, "Twelfth, the link of aging-and-death": the commentary text has three parts: first, directly explaining the text; second, demonstrating its essence; third, resolving an objection. Here, in the first part, "this refers to the various stages of decay and transformation" is also a passage from the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. After forty, one's appearance gradually declines, which belongs to aging. In the Kośa, it says: "Extending up to the experience of aging-and-death," the meaning of which is as explained under the link of birth.

65.30

As for the commentary's statement, "Therefore, the essence of the above two factors encompasses all five aggregates and is solely actual manifestation": this is the second part, showing the essence. Now, above, the Abhidharmakośa was cited; in that work, in terms of conditioned arising by stages, each factor comprises its respective stage. When it says that the five aggregates and avidyā are prominent, so it is designated by the name of avidyā, and so forth, then all twelve factors possess the five aggregates. Here, based on what is predominant, some possess [all five] and some do not; thus it concludes that these two possess the five aggregates. As for the rest, which are not so concluded, each is subsumed under the aggregates in accord with the essence of that original factor, and the same applies to seeds and actual manifestations. Although they are suffering, they are unlike the factor of consciousness above, which spans both seeds and actual manifestations.

65.31

As for the commentary's statement from "wishing to engender aversion" onward: this is the third part, resolving objections. In brief, there are three objections. The first says: Future birth and death are just the present [factors of] consciousness and so on; why are five established for the present and two established for the future? The Abhidharmakośa resolves this by merely saying, "Through abbreviating the fruit and abbreviating the cause, by means of the middle one can infer the two." In the present there are five fruits, and in the future two are stated; hence it is called "abbreviating the fruit." In the present there are two afflictions, and in the past one, avidyā, is stated; hence it is called "abbreviating the cause." Because the middle is already elaborated, the beginning and end are abbreviated. Through inferring the two it can be known, and to state anything beyond this would be useless. The above is the treatise's meaning. If so, why not—given that the beginning and end cannot be directly witnessed—elaborate the cause and fruit so as to infer the middle? Therefore, one should say: To indicate the delusion of the fundamental limit, the causes are combined into a single affliction; as for the afflictions that presently arise, their beginning and end are clearly shown so that they will not be carried out. Distinctions are delineated in terms of their distinct characteristics, and to show the five stages of future fruits to engender aversion, they are combined as old age and death. However, although the Cheng weishi lun approaches this from the perspective of two lifetimes, it also has this question. The treatise says: "For what reason are only birth and death established for what is produced, while five factors—consciousness and the rest—are separately established for what is projected?" The answer says: "Because the distinctive characteristics of the causal stage are difficult to know, the five factors are separately established on the basis of the future fruit stage. Because the distinctive characteristics of the fruit stage are easy to understand, the two factors are collectively established to manifest the three kinds of suffering." Thus the present commentary contains two meanings: wishing to engender aversion, the two factors are collectively established—this is the previous meaning of collectively establishing the two factors; manifesting the three kinds of suffering is the meaning in the Cheng weishi lun, namely that birth manifests the suffering of conditioning, old age manifests the suffering of change, and death manifests the suffering of suffering. Although the Cheng weishi lun differentiates in terms of seeds and actual manifestations, engendering aversion through the three kinds of suffering is applicable across the three lifetimes.

65.32

As for the commentary's statement that "old age is not definitively present": this is also text from the Cheng weishi lun. There should be a question: The stage of old age is extremely long; why is it not established separately? The meaning of the answer is: Because there are premature deaths that do not reach old age. As for the commentary's statement from "the five such as separation" onward: the third objection says: Grief, lamentation, and separation from what is loved are present from youth to adulthood; why are they attached to the factor of old age and death? The resolution says: Because they are frequent. Again, it should be asked: Since old age is not definitive and is attached to death to establish a factor, illness is also not definitive; why is it not attached and established? The answer says: Illness is moreover not universal and is additionally not definitive. Old age is universal throughout the three realms, and therefore it is attached to establish a factor, for among the destinies and realms, except for those who die prematurely, all have the characteristic of decay. Again, it should be asked: Name-and-form is not universal; why is it established as a factor? That is, in the form realm entirely, and in apparitional birth in the desire realm, the six sense bases arise simultaneously; how can there be name-and-form? The Cheng weishi lun answers: It is established as a factor because it is definitive, for in womb-born, egg-born, and moisture-born beings, before the six sense bases are complete, there is definitely name-and-form. Furthermore, the factor of name-and-form is also universally present: in the initial stage of taking rebirth through apparitional birth with form, although the five faculties are complete, they do not yet have functioning; at that time it is not yet called the factor of the six sense bases. In the first rebirth into the formless realm, although there is definitely the mental faculty, it is not yet clear, and it is not yet called the mental sense base; therefore there is name-and-form. For this reason the treatise says: "The twelve factors of existence, in whole or in part, are present in the higher two realms." This is the Cheng weishi lun citing the text of the tenth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi. The rest is as explained previously.

65.33

As for the commentary's statement from "However, this section on the factors of existence also applies to a single lifetime" onward: this is the second part, re-explaining by way of its implicit meaning. It means that within the present life itself, one is first deluded about the truth; second, one performs karma; third, karma relies on the initial mind to become consciousness. As in the conditioned arising of a single thought-moment below, this simply takes a single lifetime in a general sense; because it is over a long time, it is said to be established sequentially. As for the statement, "only the single factor of birth is taken broadly to include what precedes": this addresses a question: Since you speak of a single lifetime, birth occurs at the time of initial entry into the womb; now it is situated after existence—how can you speak of a single lifetime? Therefore, it now answers: It broadly takes all the preceding stages of growth as arising from existence; although this existence is past existence, it merely takes what is produced to complete the twelve. Alternatively, the five aggregates that arise after the factor of existence may be designated as birth. Since it is said to be taken by implicit meaning, it cannot be rigidly fixed.

65.34

As for the commentary's statement "in the subsequent contemplation in reverse": the commentary text is divided into two: first, straightforwardly explaining according to the text, and later, concluding with its profound depth. Within the former there are four sections: first, concluding with suffering; second, concluding with no-self; third, concluding with emptiness; fourth, concluding with the ultimate truth. Within suffering there are three sections: First, looking at the causes and fruits of two lifetimes in relation to each other, only the seven sufferings are taken as the tree of suffering, and the five causes of afflictions and karma as the conditions for suffering; therefore the five kinds [of causes] are the sprouts of suffering and the two fruits are the tree of suffering. This is from the tenth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi. In the statement from "furthermore, in the present phenomenon" onward, second, it takes causes as fruits, saying that within the present phenomenon and at the time of the present phenomenon is also the meaning of two lifetimes. As for the statement that "when moisture is applied, it increases": this also refers to moistening the seeds of karmic formations and the seeds of consciousness. Third, broadly taking the twelve links of conditioning, whether cause or fruit, as a single tree of suffering: avidyā activates karma, and is therefore the root of the tree of suffering, for if it did not activate karma, one would not receive the fruit of future existence. Consciousness and name-and-form are the trunk of the tree of suffering, because consciousness and name-and-form mutually support each other from cause to fruit, serving as the substance of birth and death. Next, the six sense bases, contact, and feeling unfold and grow upon name-and-form, receiving objects just as branches differentiate and unfold relying upon the trunk. Stated in terms of two lifetimes, this is merely speaking of the fruit within the cause. Next, craving and grasping combine to moisten and form existence, definitively ensuring future birth, and are therefore likened to flowers. Because the ten above are causes, the last two are fruits of suffering. The three above are all based on two lifetimes, whereas the last explanation can apply to three lifetimes: Relying on the two past causes brings forth the substance of consciousness and name-and-form to serve as the trunk; the actual manifestation and unfolding of the six sense bases, contact, and feeling serve as the branches, which already completes the tree of suffering. Relying upon the above, future causes arise again; hence the three [factors] serve as flowers to induce the two future fruits, serving as the fruits of the tree of suffering. Thus, although it is a single tree, its meaning has two tiers.

First 34 of 55 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese