大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 68

English (machine translation) 68

Language: English

68.1

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

In the commentary's "From here down is the third major textual division: the superiority of their fruit," the text has three parts: first, subsuming the stages; second, the general division from "Relying on the treatise" onward; third, the direct explanation from "Now the first" onward.

68.3

Regarding the commentary's "Now the first intent extends to the five fruits": this directly brings up the intention of referencing what precedes in the sūtra, intending to clarify that the ten gates universally accomplish the five fruits, and to reject ancient masters' separate assignment. That is, Master Huiyuan said: "1. The superiority of counteracting and leaving behind obstacles is the fruit of counteracting superior arrogance. Previously, one cultivated the contemplation of the equality of the ten kinds of dharmas as a counteragent; at the fulfillment of this stage, one further uses the profound three liberations as counteragents, hence it is called superiority of counteracting. Previously one counteracted the obstacle of arrogance regarding defilement and purity in the fifth stage; now this text further eliminates subtle self-centered mind, existence, non-existence, and so forth, hence it is called superiority of destroying obstacles. 2. The superiority of cultivation is the fruit of the superiority of practice in the non-abiding path mentioned earlier. Based on the previous non-abiding, one further gives rise to superior cultivation, hence it is called superiority of cultivation. 3. The superiority of attaining samādhi explains the fruit in relation to the previous superiority of counteracting. Previously one cultivated the three liberations as counteragents; those counteragents progressively increase, hence it is called superiority of samādhi. 4. The superiority of attaining an indestructible mind explains the fruit in relation to the previous destruction of obstacles; due to destroying obstacles, the mind of samādhi cannot be destroyed, hence it is called indestructible mind. 5. The superiority of sovereign power explains the fruit in relation to the previous cultivation; relying on the previous cultivation, one advances upward without obstruction, hence it is called sovereign power." Explanation: the above meaning clarifies that the first two fruits arise from the preceding text, and the latter three fruits arise from the first two fruits. Now the commentary has two meanings: first, a general explanation; second, the progressive explanation from "It may also be said" onward. Now in the first, it merely clarifies that all are fruits of the superiority of practice in the non-abiding path, and the superiority of practice in the non-abiding path. Initially it generally marks out the mind and its objects, possessing three compassions and three cognitions. The sūtra says: 'Further, taking great compassion as primary, with great compassion intensified, and great compassion fulfilled, one contemplates the arising and ceasing of the world.' Explanation: contemplating the arising and ceasing of the world is cognition; paired with the above three compassions, they form three cognitions. Thus the five fruits do not depart from these two. Within this are three steps: the first two are the cultivation and counteraction of compassion and cognition; the next two are the stability accomplished by compassion and cognition; the last one doubly clarifies the sovereignty of the two fruits. This is a parallel correspondence across alternating phrases.

68.4

Regarding the commentary's "Revealing that the functions of the two selves are empty": this intends to clarify that both person and dharmas have the meaning of being capable of acting, hence both are called agents, and it is not only in terms of the self of persons that it is empty.

68.5

In the destruction of obstacles under the commentary's "Second, the gate of signlessness" onward, the commentary text has four parts: first, a general explanation. Second, from "That is, if entering the gate of emptiness" onward, bringing up the correct to reveal the cognition that is not. The treatise (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*) says: 'These three liberations are only one dharma in the Mahāyāna, yet because of the conditions of practice they are said to be threefold. Contemplating the emptiness of all dharmas is called the gate of emptiness. Within emptiness, one must not seize on signs; at that time, the gate of emptiness shifts to be called signlessness. Within signlessness, one should not engage in activity causing birth in the three realms; at that time, signlessness shifts to be called wishlessness. Like three gates of a city, one person's body cannot enter through all three gates at the same time. The true nature of all dharmas is the city of nirvāṇa, and the city has three gates. If one enters the gate of emptiness, does not grasp emptiness, and does not seize on signs, this person enters directly; because the task is already finished, the other two gates are not needed.' Third, from "If seeing that dharmas existed previously" onward, bringing up the incorrect to reveal the cognition of cultivation. The treatise says: 'If one grasps the sign of emptiness of all dharmas, producing arrogance and saying: "I know the real mark," one should study the gate of signlessness to destroy the sign of emptiness.' Fourth, from "Therefore cultivating signlessness" onward, concluding the intention of cultivation as being to destroy obstacles. Master Huiyuan said: 'In the second, 1. destroying obstacles: that is, the mind that grasps an intrinsic nature perishes; 2. obtaining the counteragent: that is, obtaining principle as the counteragent; 3. notions and thoughts not functioning: that is, the mind that grasps signs is extinguished. Furthermore, the first distinguishes from ordinary beings, and the latter two distinguish from the two vehicles.'

68.6

Under the commentary's "Third, the gate of wishlessness," in "First, the basis," the *Upadeśa* (*Dazhidulun*) says: 'If within signlessness one produces prapañca and discrimination, engaging in activity, one should cultivate the gate of wishlessness.' Now, being free from prapañca and discrimination, one can cultivate wishlessness; hence it serves as the basis.

68.7

Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, the above three emptynesses" onward: selecting the doctrinal cognitions. The treatise says: 'In the Abhidharma, the gate of emptiness takes the truth of suffering as its object and subsumes the five aggregates; the gate of signlessness takes the cessation through deliberation (*pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha*) as its object; wishlessness takes the three truths as its object and subsumes the five aggregates. The three gates of the Mahāyāna universally take the real mark of all dharmas as their object. By using these three gates of liberation to contemplate the world, that itself is nirvāṇa.' Explanation: matching with the text, it is self-evident. As for the statement "The rest is as in the *Upadeśa* (*Dazhidulun*)": the treatise says, 'The sūtra speaks of one gate to nirvāṇa; now in speaking of three, although the dharma is one, its meanings are threefold. Furthermore, one should cross over three kinds of obstacles, namely excessive craving, excessive views, and equal craving and views. For those with excessive views, one teaches the gate of emptiness; for those with excessive craving, one teaches the gate of wishlessness; for those with equal craving and views, one teaches the gate of signlessness. That is, having no signs of male, female, and so forth severs craving; having no signs of oneness, difference, and so forth severs views—these are all remaining meanings therein.'

68.8

Regarding the commentary's "First, separating from three notions": separating from the notion of that self is the first separation; the notion of an agent is the second separation; the notion of an experiencer is the third separation. Although the notions of existence and non-existence apply to both gates, the single gate of wishlessness mostly concerns separating from existence.

68.9

Regarding the commentary's "This uses profound emptiness to eliminate and separate from the two selves": that is, separating from the notion of that self applies universally to the non-existence of both the personal and dharmic selves. Why is it called profound? The fifth stage solely speaks of the ten equalities in terms of pure dharmas; now it directly speaks of profound emptiness. Furthermore, previously it was applied contemplation, whereas now one already abides in emptiness and prajñā is manifest; second, the bodhipakṣadharma of the fourth stage involves the body, feeling, and so forth; third, the beginning of this stage uses the ten equalities, wherein the ten signs are not yet obliterated.

68.10

Regarding the commentary's "First, the sign of revulsion": previously in the vigorous cultivation, one knew first and revulsed later; now in the cultivation of the aspiration of a great man, one revulses first and realizes later, showing progressive superiority.

68.11

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Furthermore, because both are not yet perfected, one abides in neither, as fully explained in the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa": this refers to the third [fascicle], the "Practice of the Bodhisattva" chapter of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. When the bodhisattvas from the World of Multitudes of Fragrances wished to return to their native land, they addressed the Buddha, seeking the Dharma, saying: "May it be so, World-Honoured One! We pray that you bestow a small teaching upon us, so that upon returning to that land, we may be mindful of the Tathāgata." The Buddha told the bodhisattvas: "There is a Dharma-gate of liberation termed 'the exhausted and the inexhaustible', which you ought to learn. What is meant by 'exhausted'? It refers to conditioned phenomena. What is meant by 'inexhaustible'? It refers to unconditioned phenomena. As for the bodhisattva, he does not exhaust the conditioned, nor does he abide in the unconditioned. What is meant by not exhausting the conditioned? It means not departing from great loving-kindness, not abandoning great compassion, and generating the mind of sarvajñā without ever forgetting it." Up to the words: "Through the Mahāyāna teaching he forms the bodhisattva Saṅgha, his mind free from indolence, never losing the multitudes of good. Practising such a Dharma is called the bodhisattva not exhausting the conditioned. What is meant by not abiding in the unconditioned? It means training in and studying emptiness without taking emptiness as an actualisation; training in and studying signlessness and wishlessness without taking signlessness and wishlessness as an actualisation." Up to the words: "Contemplating all phenomena as empty and false, without self, without person, without master, and without sign; yet because his original vows are not yet fulfilled, he does not render merit, dhyāna-concentration, and wisdom futile. Practising such a Dharma is called the bodhisattva not abiding in the unconditioned. Furthermore, because he is endowed with merit, he does not abide in the unconditioned; because he is endowed with wisdom, he does not exhaust the conditioned. Because of great loving-kindness and compassion, he does not abide in the unconditioned; because of fulfilling his original vows, he does not exhaust the conditioned. Because of accumulating the medicine of the Dharma, he does not abide in the unconditioned; because of dispensing medicine according to needs, he does not exhaust the conditioned. Because of knowing the illnesses of sentient beings, he does not abide in the unconditioned; because of eradicating the illnesses of sentient beings, he does not exhaust the conditioned."\nExplication: However, the intent of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa is merely to distinguish [bodhisattvas from] the two vehicles; that is, the two vehicles exhaust the existent and abide in the non-existent. Conditioned phenomena have the three marks, hence they are called 'exhausted'; unconditioned phenomena lack marks, hence they are called 'abiding'. Whether exhausting or abiding, there is obstruction; not exhausting and not abiding constitutes the unobstructed Dharma. Yet it is a single Dharma differentiated according to phenomenal aspects, and is thus distinguished into two. If one exhausts the existent, there is no ground for initiating practice and cultivating virtue; if one abides in the non-existent, the capacity for transformation through compassion is severed. For this reason, the Great Being engages in neither. In the text of that sūtra, it first directly explains non-abiding and non-exhausting; then, from "Furthermore, because he is endowed with merit..." onwards, it explains the rationale for non-abiding and non-exhausting. This means that the accumulation of virtue must traverse the ford of existence; if one abides in the unconditioned, then merit will not be fully possessed. As for "because he is endowed with wisdom, he does not exhaust the conditioned": the illumination of wisdom necessarily depends upon breadth; if one abandons the conditioned, then wisdom will not be fully possessed, and hence through great compassion one does not exhaust it. However, because the text is extensive, it simply points to that text. If compared to the present sūtra, that is merely the meaning of not abiding in the unconditioned, and lacks the meaning of not abiding in the conditioned. Now, the Commentary's previous statement that because the aids to the path of merit are not yet fulfilled, one does not abide in the unconditioned, is entirely identical to the intent of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa's text. As for the statement that because the aids to the path of wisdom are not yet fulfilled, one does not abide in the conditioned, this implicitly adapts the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa's "being endowed with wisdom, he does not exhaust the conditioned, for by exhausting the conditioned one cannot achieve extensive wisdom, hence one does not exhaust it." Here, because abiding in the conditioned does not achieve profound wisdom, one does not abide in it. This is simply the meaning that because one is endowed with wisdom, one does not abide in saṃsāra, and because one is endowed with great compassion, one does not abide in nirvāṇa. As for the statement, "Furthermore, because both are not yet perfected, one abides in neither," this should invert the above: because the aids to the path of wisdom are not yet fulfilled, one does not abide in the unconditioned; because the aids to the path of merit are not yet fulfilled, one does not abide in the conditioned. This means that if one abides in the unconditioned, one will not achieve omniscient wisdom (sarvākārajñatā)—which is to say, without entering the great ocean of saṃsāra, one cannot produce the jewel of all-knowledge (sarvajñā). If one abides in the conditioned, one sinks into saṃsāra oneself; how could one accomplish the merits of the Buddhas? It is also that because one possesses great wisdom, one does not abide in nirvāṇa, and because one possesses great compassion, one does not abide in saṃsāra. For if one abides in nirvāṇa, it is not wisdom that forgets conditions; if one abides in saṃsāra, it is not compassion free from attachment and views. The remaining meanings will be explained below. The Commentary's passage from "In the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā..." downwards also establishes the above meaning. If it is the time of realization, one abides in the unconditioned. Therefore, the Seventh Ground states: "Although practicing the bhūtakoṭi, one does not make it an actualisation."

68.12

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "This purpose is itself the rationale": the purpose is to accomplish wisdom, not abiding in the conditioned, and so forth. The rationale is that because one possesses wisdom, one does not abide in the conditioned. The rest can be understood by analogy.

68.13

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Because the tathāgatagarbha embraces everything without exterior, it is called 'great'": Master Yuan said: "'Great' means vast and broad. 'Vast' means that within the essence of the true consciousness, the Buddha-dharmas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges throughout the dharmadhātu are universally contained; they arise in mutual correspondence with the equality of their shared essence, with not a single dharma separately maintaining its own nature; therefore it is called empty. Conforming to the dharmadhātu, there is no gateway in which it is not present; hence it is called great emptiness."

68.14

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Fifth, contemplating the seven transforming consciousnesses..." and so forth: these are the functions of the true consciousness. Operating as function while being constantly quiescent, they are therefore said to be empty. Thus the Commentary states "they all lack self-substance," which is precisely the meaning of emptiness.

68.15

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The Laṅkāvatāra says..." downwards: this has already been cited in the "Inquiry and Illumination" [chapter], and will be further clarified in the "Ten Forbearances" [chapter].

68.16

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Relying on understanding, practice is initiated, and the cultivation of practice is brought to its ultimate consummation": this has two meanings. First, it explains the term 'non-indolence' in the treatise; because what was undertaken is brought to consummation, it is free from the fault of indolence. Second, precisely because of this cultivation being brought to consummation, the sūtra praises it as foremost. As cited below from the treatise's commentary, this can be understood.

68.17

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Fourth, 'conditioned by affairs'": initiating function based on virtue explains the meaning of 'cause'. Virtue is the cause of function. "Discrimination constitutes an obstacle to wisdom" means discriminating the marks of causes and conditions.

68.18

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Furthermore, these ten are largely identical to the eleven emptinesses in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]..." and so forth: in the sūtra it corresponds to the sixteenth [fascicle], the fifteenth in the Southern edition, and in the commentary it corresponds to the sixth. In order to answer regarding the fruit of cultivating renunciation, Bodhisattva Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honoured One! What is called emptiness?" The Buddha said: "Good son! Emptiness refers to internal emptiness, external emptiness, internal and external emptiness, conditioned emptiness, unconditioned emptiness, beginningless emptiness, nature emptiness, non-existence emptiness, ultimate-truth emptiness, emptiness of emptiness, and great emptiness." That commentary explains: "The first ten are the emptiness of marks, and the last one is true emptiness. Clarifying the meaning of emptiness with regard to the dharmas grasped by deluded sentiment is called the emptiness of marks. Discerning the meaning of emptiness with regard to the true consciousness is called true emptiness." One may also state: the first ten are the emptiness of objects, and the last one is the emptiness of wisdom—the emptiness of true wisdom. When, in the realm of delusion, there are dharmas conceived outside of consciousness, refuting them reveals quiescence; therefore, in ten kinds, emptiness is elucidated with regard to objects. Inquiring according to reality, there are no dharmas outside the mind; all dharmas are themselves the true mind, and the essence of the true mind is quiescent; hence the last one speaks of emptiness with regard to wisdom. Therefore the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states: "All dharmas are as such; stating that their self-substance is empty is called the self-emptiness of wisdom." Among the first ten: the first eight take non-existence to refute existence as emptiness; the ninth, ultimate-truth [emptiness], takes existence to dispel non-existence as emptiness; the tenth, the emptiness of emptiness, because it is neither existent nor non-existent while simultaneously upholding both existence and non-existence, is called the emptiness of emptiness. This is identical to the ten equalities in the Daśabhūmika-śāstra. Among the first eight: the first seven clarify that sentient beings and dharmas lack intrinsic nature and are therefore empty; the last one clarifies that sentient beings and dharmas lack marks and are therefore empty. Clarifying the absence of nature within the provisionality of causes and conditions is called 'naturelessness emptiness'. The absence of the marks of causes and conditions in ultimate emptiness is called 'marklessness emptiness'. Among the first seven: the first six clarify that sentient beings lack intrinsic nature, which is the emptiness of sentient beings (pudgala-nairātmya); the last one clarifies that dharmas lack intrinsic nature, which is the emptiness of dharmas (dharma-nairātmya). Furthermore, among the first six: the first five contemplate emptiness in regard to the present; the last one contemplates emptiness in regard to the past. In the present: the first three contemplate the principle of emptiness in regard to internal and external phenomena; the latter two contemplate emptiness in regard to the marks of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Among the first three: sentient beings are termed 'internal', insentient things are 'external'. In internal dharmas, contemplating the absence of a spiritual master, sentient being, or life-span is called internal emptiness. As for the entity of external emptiness, contemplating that external dharmas are not self or mine is called external emptiness, and so on. As for beginningless emptiness, the sūtra states: "The bodhisattva sees that saṃsāra is beginningless, and all is empty and quiescent. That which is called empty: permanence, bliss, self, and purity are all empty and quiescent, without alteration. Sentient beings, life-span, the Three Jewels, Buddha-nature, and unconditioned dharmas—this is called the bodhisattva's contemplation of beginningless emptiness."

68.19

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The foremost emptiness is there named emptiness-of-emptiness," this corresponds to the tenth [emptiness]. Master Huiyuan says: "'Being existent and being non-existent' discerns principle through expression. 'Being existent' takes up the aforementioned emptiness of the ultimate truth, using existence to demolish non-existence, hence it says 'being existent'. 'Being non-existent' takes up the aforementioned first eight emptinesses, since among those first eight emptinesses, non-existence was used to demolish existence, hence it says 'being non-existent'. It is through this existence and non-existence that the meaning of emptiness is expounded, hence it is called 'emptiness-of-emptiness'." As for "'it being right, it not being right, this is named emptiness-of-emptiness'," this demolishes the expression to reveal the principle. Although the previous clause discerned principle through expression, it did not retain that expression; therefore, it further demolishes it, saying: whether it is the aforesaid existence, the aforesaid non-existence, both, or neither, only then is it named emptiness-of-emptiness, not retaining existence and non-existence to declare them emptiness-of-emptiness. What does this mean? It has already been discerned above. Because conditioned phenomena share one and the same essence in their existence and non-existence, non-existence is said to be existence, and existence is said to be non-existence. Because non-existence is existence, existence is precisely non-existence; because existence is non-existence, non-existence is precisely non-non-existence. Being neither existent nor non-existent, it is therefore called emptiness-of-emptiness. Third, from "the bodhisattvas of the tenth ground" downward, the superiority is revealed in terms of persons. Fourth, from "such as" downward, the distinction is revealed through juxtaposition. In the Abhidharma treatises, it is said that śrāvakas first contemplate that the five aggregates are not the self or what belongs to the self, which is directly called emptiness; later they contemplate the former cognition as also not being the self or what belongs to the self, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. In the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, one first contemplates that sentient beings and phenomena are empty of self-nature, and their being empty of self-nature is directly called emptiness; later one contemplates the former cognition as also being empty and without self-nature, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. What is discussed here is free from the characteristics of existence and non-existence, hence it is stated to be different. The ten emptinesses above and the ten equalities of dharmas in the *Daśabhūmika-śāstra* are alternately set forth, and their meanings are similar: in the latter, the first one explains emptiness in general characteristics, while the remaining nine are specific. Among the specific ones, the first seven demolish existence with non-existence, identical to the first eight here. The eighth there demolishes non-existence with existence, identical to the ninth here. The last one there demolishes both existence and non-existence through a double negation, identical to emptiness-of-emptiness here. Explanation: All of the above was Master Huiyuan's intent, harmonising the eleven emptinesses with the ten equalities. Now, if we take the eleven emptinesses to harmonise with the ten emptinesses, the meaning is entirely different. However, these ten emptinesses are perfected through the preparatory practices of the aforementioned equalities, so the two places are mostly identical and may corroborate each other. Master Huiyuan's explanation of the meaning does not contradict principle, yet when applied to deciphering the sūtra text, it becomes contrived. Furthermore, making conditioned and unconditioned belong solely to the emptiness of sentient beings makes the meaning too narrow. Also, broadly taking the previous existence and non-existence to explain emptiness-of-emptiness is likewise not subsumed under the sūtra's [teaching of] non-self. Now, the commentary explains emptiness-of-emptiness in five parts: First, it takes up the names and aligns them with the sūtra. Second, from "referring to the previous emptiness" downward, it explains briefly. Third, from "hence that sūtra" downward, it cites the sūtra. Fourth, from "referring to right and wrong" downward, it explains the sūtra. As for "also fundamentally empty in essence," this explains the sūtra's meaning of "it being right, it not being right, this is named emptiness-of-emptiness," meaning that not only are existence and non-existence so, but affirmation and negation are also like this. Emptiness and existence both perishing is considered 'right'; conceiving of this right as right, it is therefore named 'right-right', which is the former word 'emptiness'. Yet this does not obstruct both coexisting; hence this 'right-right' is precisely 'not-right-right', which is the latter word 'emptiness', and thus it says 'emptiness-of-emptiness'. Thus, right being non-right is therefore not right; non-right being right is therefore not non-right. Hence the commentary says: "Affirmation and negation are also fundamentally empty in essence." Fifth, from "such emptiness-of-emptiness" downward, it praises its supremacy. The above outlines the commentary, and below explains it. Now, the sūtra has two clauses. The brief explanation prior to the sūtra in the present commentary represents the intent of the sūtra's first clause. When the sūtra says, "Being existent and being non-existent is named emptiness-of-emptiness," the meaning is: emptiness itself is existence, and existence itself is non-existence, hence it says "being existent and being non-existent." Since non-existence is already existence, then non-existence is not non-existence, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. Since existence itself is already emptiness, then emptiness is also not emptiness, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. This directly accords with the non-duality of existence and non-existence among the ten equalities, and thus there is equality. Because of non-duality, both are maintained; because of non-non-duality, both are negated. Therefore, the present commentary says: "Whether existent or non-existent, they are originally and naturally empty." Because existence itself is non-existence, existence is empty; because emptiness itself is existence, this is emptiness-of-emptiness. Therefore, discarding emptiness generally has two meanings: First, using an additional emptiness to discard emptiness, as the *Vimalakīrti* says, "There is only the sickness of emptiness, and the sickness of emptiness is also empty"; and the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says, "The Buddhas have declared the teaching of emptiness to depart from views of existence; if one again sees emptiness as existing, the Buddhas cannot convert them." Second, using existence to discard emptiness. This means that emptiness itself is existence, hence it is not empty. Therefore, the sūtra says: "Form is precisely emptiness; it is not that the extinction of form is emptiness." Therefore, emptiness is not empty. Thus, an emptiness that is not different from existence means emptiness is not empty; an existence that is not different from emptiness means existence is not existent. Now we precisely take the meaning that emptiness is not empty, because emptiness being not empty is precisely the meaning that existence is not existent. Furthermore, because of emptiness, there is non-existence; because emptiness is repeated, there is non-emptiness. Moreover, because of emptiness, it does not obstruct emptiness; because emptiness is repeated, it does not obstruct existence. Neither empty nor existent, capable of being empty and capable of being existent, both fusion and mutual elimination are sovereign and unimpeded. Therefore, the tenth ground penetrates a minor portion of it; how could this be known by the two vehicles? Hence it is called foremost.

68.20

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Now it also refers to a minor portion," this resolves an objection. The objection states: Since it is said that the tenth ground penetrates its minor portion, how could it be realised here on the sixth ground? Therefore, it says that it also refers to a minor portion. The rest of the text may be inferred.

68.21

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Now, first, the indestructible mind": saying that due to abandoning hindrances and attaining cessation, this is the first fruit. "Accomplishing practice" is the second fruit. "As for cognition," it is the first of the third [division]. "As for compassion," it is the second.

68.22

Regarding the commentary's statement, "It may also be aligned with the minds of the ten samādhis above," Master Huiyuan says: "These nine specific phrases are the samādhis of the ten emptinesses. Because the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of the ultimate truth are combined, the nine subsume the ten. Among the nine there are also four: the first four explain indestructibility in terms of the preceding contemplation; the next one explains indestructibility in terms of the preceding diligence; the next one explains indestructibility in terms of the preceding attainment of superiority; the final three explain indestructibility in terms of the preceding causal circumstances." Now, as for the first, the commentary says: "First, faith in principle is decisive." The treatise says: "First, the indestructible faith in contemplation," which explains indestructibility in terms of previously entering the samādhi of emptiness, because the treatise sūtra previously stated "due to faith in the samādhi of emptiness." Second, the commentary says: "Practice is capable of being supple." This corresponds to the treatise's "indestructible adaptability." This explains indestructibility in terms of the preceding samādhis of the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of the ultimate truth: grasping at existence in the mind ceases, and one is able to enter the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Thus the treatise says, "adaptable to emptiness without attachment"; and the sūtra says, "purely good and without attachment to emptiness," which is the emptiness of the ultimate truth. The commentary adds the word "practice," which refers to the preceding practice of contemplating the two emptinesses. Third corresponds to what the treatise calls "indestructibility without shock or fear in the secret place," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding great emptiness. The ālāyavijñāna is subtle, secret, and difficult to fathom, hence it is called the secret place. The sūtra says "profound"; being able to enter the secret, it is termed without fear. Fourth corresponds to the treatise's "indestructibility through non-movement in one's own vehicle," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding harmonious emptiness. Practice accords with the tathāgatagarbha, hence one does not regress in one's own vehicle. Fifth corresponds to the treatise's "indestructibility through arousing vigour," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding samādhi of the emptiness of the ultimate truth through diligence. Being able to arouse practice and cultivation, it is called vigour; hence the commentary says, "supreme progress without cessation." Sixth corresponds to the treatise's "indestructibility through abandoning the defilements of stinginess, jealousy, and broken precepts," explaining indestructibility in terms of the preceding samādhi of emptiness aroused by attaining superiority. The former concerned the virtue of practice, whereas this concerns the virtue of severing. The former was regarding benefiting others, whereas this is regarding self-benefit. However, the treatise sūtra says "due to a pure mind," explaining it in terms of severing. The present sūtra says "a vast mind"; vast is the mind of compassion, and great is the mind of cognition. These are the minds of the two benefits, and the two minds guide each other. The three kinds of indestructibility from "annihilating self and other" downward explain indestructibility in terms of the three preceding causal circumstances, except that the seventh and eighth reverse order: because the sixth generally explained compassion and cognition, now the seventh and eighth explain compassion and cognition separately, and both orders are viable. The seventh is the treatise's indestructibility of broadly benefiting sentient beings, explaining indestructibility in not relinquishing the samādhi of emptiness in the preceding causal circumstance of transforming sentient beings. The eighth is the treatise's indestructibility of seeking supreme liberation above, explaining indestructibility in the samādhi of emptiness that truly does not differentiate in the preceding causal circumstance of purifying cognitive hindrances, the meaning of which is as stated before. The ninth is the treatise's indestructibility of the practice of transforming sentient beings, explaining indestructibility in the samādhi of emptiness that is free and not free in the preceding causal circumstance of vowing to take up existence; carrying emptiness while engaging existence, it is therefore said to accord with expedient means (upāya). Thus, although the commentary avoided tedious text and did not assign each fully, the explanatory text already contains and provides them all.

68.23

Regarding the commentary's statement, "According with the Buddha's bodhi means being able to deeply enter and proceed toward it": because the treatise sūtra says, "accommodating, accomplishing, arousing, and proceeding toward anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi without regressing," it makes this explanation. This word "accommodating" is also accommodating patience (anulomikī kṣāntiḥ), because it accommodates and proceeds toward anutpattikadharmakṣānti. Because the sūtra speaks in terms of the ultimate, it directly states "according with bodhi."

68.24

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Namely, the power capable of subduing others": this is an explanation from the treatise, aligned with the preceding overall clause on the indestructible mind and the decisive mind. The names of the various powers below are all from the text of the treatise. The second says: "Due to obtaining the emptiness of phenomena," aligned with the purely good mind, because earlier the purely good [mind] was aligned with the samādhi of the emptiness of phenomena. However, the first clause quotes the sūtra text in full; the second clause paraphrases the sūtra text; the seven clauses below do not quote the sūtra text, but directly cite the treatise text: the third corresponds to the preceding fourth, the non-regressing mind; the fourth corresponds to the preceding third, the profound mind, hence the commentary says, "this and the preceding two reverse order," because by not moving one enters the profound, and by being profound one does not move, hence it says "mutually fulfilling"; the fifth corresponds to non-resting; the sixth corresponds to vast; the seventh corresponds to boundless; the eighth corresponds to the ninth; the ninth corresponds to the eighth. Harmonising their order before and after is provided in full in the commentary.

68.25

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The Manifestation Chapter contains four kinds of wind-discs such as the one capable of sustaining": this is the initial general explanation. In the "Manifestation" [chapter], the first is called capable of sustaining, because it can sustain the great waters; the second is called capable of evaporating, because it can evaporate the great waters; the third is called establishing, because it establishes all locations; the fourth is called adorning, because its adorning distribution accomplishes skillfulness. Explanation: Since it sustains and adorns, it is not scattered or destroyed. As for "the wind of scattering and destruction does not have four kinds," the ninth characteristic in the mental karma states: "Sons of the Buddha! Just as when the wind disaster destroys the world, a great wind arises named scattering and destruction, capable of destroying the great trichiliocosm, so that the Iron Ring Mountains and so forth all turn to dust." Thus the wind of scattering and destruction is single and does not have four.

68.26

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: It is only the characteristics of mind that cease, not the essence of mind that ceases": in the treatise there is a question: If the mind ceases, how can there be continuity? If there is continuity, how can one speak of ultimate cessation? The answer states: That which is called cessation means only that the characteristics of the mind cease, not that the essence of the mind ceases. Just as wind, relying upon water, has the characteristic of movement: if the water ceases, then the characteristic of the wind is severed and has nothing upon which to rely. Because the water does not cease, the characteristic of the wind continues; only because the wind ceases does the movement cease accordingly, not that the water ceases. Ignorance (avidyā) is also like this: relying on the essence of the mind, it moves. If the essence of the mind ceased, then sentient beings would be severed and have nothing upon which to rely. Because the essence does not cease, the mind attains continuity. Only because delusion ceases do the characteristics of the mind cease accordingly, not that the essence of the mind ceases. Explanation: The present text can be understood from this. The *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* also says: "If the essence of the mind were to cease, then the fundamental consciousness would cease; and if the fundamental consciousness ceased, that would be no different from the annihilationist prapañca of non-Buddhists."

68.27

Seventh, the Ground of Far-Reaching (Dūraṅgamā-bhūmi). First, there are two reasons for its occurrence: first, the primary explanation in terms of wisdom, discerning both simultaneously by referencing the ground's position; second, from "Yogācāra" downward, citing proofs in terms of wisdom. Therein, it first adduces the sixth ground as the cause of entry, and second, from "in order to cause" downward, directly discerns this occurrence.

68.28

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "The term Far-Reaching (Dūraṅgamā)": explaining the name comprises three parts, namely positing, explaining, and concluding. Second, the passage beginning with "The Cheng weishi [lun]" explains the name by presenting five interpretations in total; its purport accords with the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi because it encompasses them. As for the statement "This has three meanings": first, it is called "Far-Reaching" because one skillfully cultivates signlessness and reaches the limit of signlessness; second, it is called "Far-Reaching" because purposive effort reaches its culmination; third, it is called "Far-Reaching" because it surpasses what came before. As for the explanation of "skillful cultivation," both are as stated previously. Second, the quotation of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra refers to its fourth fascicle, which also concerns "progressing far." The latter "far" refers to the two meanings above being earlier and later. Third, the quotation from the Mahāyānasaṃgraha with its accompanying explanation refers to its seventh fascicle. Fourth, the quotation from the Suvarṇaprabhāsa corresponds to its third [fascicle]. Fifth, the quotation from the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra corresponds to its thirteenth [fascicle], where a verse states: "Departing from the paths and bordering the single path, / Going far away is called 'Far-Reaching'." The treatise's commentary states: "Because on the seventh ground the bodhisattva approaches the path of the One Vehicle, it is called 'going far away'. Question: Who goes far away? Answer: Purposive effort and upāya reach culmination; this can go far, hence it is called 'Far-Reaching'."

68.29

The Commentary's passage beginning with "Although there are four meanings" concludes [the explanation]. It concludes by returning to two meanings: the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā refers to the first fascicle, which corresponds to the latter meaning. The Renwang [jing] corresponds to the "Chapter on Receiving and Holding" in the lower fascicle. Since it says "reaching far," it also generally means arriving at subsequent stages from the preceding ones.

68.30

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "However, the practice that can go far": third is departing from obstacles, which first links to what precedes to introduce what follows, and then from "therefore what is departed from" onward explains it directly. This is also from the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, which fully states: "The obstacle of the active manifestation of subtle signs on the seventh ground refers to the innate portion within the cognitive obscurations that grasps the active manifestation of subtle signs of arising and cessation. It obstructs the wondrous path of signlessness on the seventh ground; upon entering the seventh ground, one can permanently sever it. Due to this, the seventh ground is said to sever two kinds of ignorance and their gross heaviness: first, the ignorance of the active manifestation of subtle signs, which here means grasping that there is arising, because one still grasps the subtle signs of arising in transmigration; second, the ignorance of exclusively directing attention to seek signlessness, which here means grasping that there is cessation, because by grasping the signs of cessation and return, one exclusively directs attention and strives to seek signlessness, unable to initiate superior practices of existence within emptiness." Explanation: Now the Commentary uses words of explanation to interpret it, and its meaning is already fully provided. Due to grasping cessation and return, one seeks signlessness. Furthermore, there are two kinds of signs: first, existence, and second, non-existence; non-existence is subtle.

68.31

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "Because always abiding": fourth is distinguishing the tathatā that is realized. Within this there are two parts: first, presenting the antidote that cures the preceding obstacle; second, from "therefore able to" onward, directly distinguishing what is realized. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states: "The undifferentiated tathatā of the seventh ground means that although this tathatā is variously posited across many doctrinal teachings, it is without difference." Its subcommentary explains: "It means that although various doctrinal teachings are established on the basis of tathatā, tathatā is without difference. Moreover, although various names are established within the teachings, in the true mark of the dharmadhātu tathatā is without difference." Now the Commentary's statement, "Because one comprehends that the various doctrinal teachings are identical to the true signlessness," means that although the various doctrinal teachings vary according to the faculties [of beings], they do not lose the mark of equal single-flavor. Thus the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra states: "The dharmadhātu realized in the seventh ground is called the undifferentiated nature of diverse phenomena. By penetrating this, one knows that phenomena are signless, and does not engage with diverse phenomenal marks of sūtras and the like."

68.32

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "Because of being able to": fifth is the completion of practice.

68.33

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "and so on": sixth is obtaining the fruit. Wishing to show that the principles of the seven gateways are mutually consonant, it says "and so on." As for obtaining the fruit, the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra states: "Because penetrating the dharmadhātu that is undifferentiated in diverse phenomena obtains the fruit of the signlessness of all phenomena." From "therefore one knows that by" onward, it concludes with the general intent.

68.34

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "Within practice there are five kinds of characteristics": the text has three parts. First, listing the names; second, from "among the five" onward, examining and sorting them against the three minds; third, from "first it says" onward, explaining their names and characteristics.

68.35

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "Now, first, being fully endowed with the six grounds": the commentary text has six parts. First, briefly assigning it to the sūtra text. The statement "the meaning contains what is remedied" directly intends to conclude what came before. Second, from "meaning that the former took delight in unconditionedness" onward, it separately explains the reason for the superior path of upāya and prajñā. Because one took delight in unconditionedness, one could not engage in existence; hence it was not upāya, and superior practices were not initiated. How could it be a superior path? From "now through the ten kinds" onward, it reveals the reason for obtaining its name. Third, from "this then is" onward, it explains its two names. Fourth, from "in what is it predominant" onward, it clarifies what it surpasses. Fifth, from "the previous six grounds" onward, it resolves an objection concerning confusing their characteristics. The objection says: On the previous six grounds there was also engagement in existence right within emptiness; why did they not obtain the name of the superior path of upāya? The answer's meaning can be known. Sixth, from "although practicing emptiness and practicing existence" onward, it resolves the objection that the name of what is remedied is too narrow. This also raises an objection building on what precedes, saying: Since the previous ground already allowed traversing both emptiness and existence, why was it exclusively named the practice of delighting in unconditionedness? The explanatory meaning can be known. One should further ask: Why did the previous ground exclusively take delight in unconditionedness? Answer: To remedy the conceit of grasping existence on the previous five grounds.

68.36

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "The treatise master subsumes the ten into four kinds": this separately explains them. Among the four, the first three are self-benefit and the last one is benefiting others. Among the former, what the treatise regards as the first is now the second, and its second is the first. Now, following the order of the sūtra, the first is departing from faults and the latter two are accomplishing virtues. Within accomplishing virtues, the former accomplishes karmic reward and the latter accomplishes internal virtue.

68.37

Regarding the Commentary's line, "First, the opening phrase is the matter of the cause for protecting against bad deeds": within this, it first presents bad deeds, and then from "now due to the upper phrase" onward clarifies protection. The upper phrase protects the lower phrase so that there are no bad deeds of craving and views; the lower phrase protects the upper phrase so that there are no bad deeds of abandoning benefit and happiness.

68.38

Regarding the Commentary's line, "Second, namely the matter of the cause for excellence in wealth and body": this accomplishes superior reward. The lower phrase is body and wealth; by obtaining the upper phrase, both body and wealth are superior. The upper phrase obtains the lower phrase, hence it does not stagnate in quiescence. It is identical to the first phrase. From "superior wealth then accords with objects" onward, it distinguishes the marks of the two excellences. If these two are superior, they can accumulate the aids to the path.

68.39

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "Third, protecting the roots of good": within this there are two parts: first, explaining directly. The statement "is the predominance of obtaining that superior cause" means that the predominance of the superior cause is the wisdom contemplating emptiness. Second, from "although there is" onward, it resolves objections and concludes. It means that although the first phrase has compassion, it is only an aspiration and does not yet directly benefit others; hence the three are self-benefit. However, the Commentary's explanatory text always first explains the lower phrase's superior practice of engaging in existence, and later explains the upper phrase to guide the lower phrase; both mutually assist each other, just as in the first gateway.

First 39 of 82 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese