大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 69

English (machine translation) 69

Language: English

69.1

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

In the commentary, from "Second, the main exposition..." down, there are two parts: first, sectioning according to the treatise; second, from "among the seven..." down, discernment. First, it discerns by matching the treatise with the sūtra; second, from "furthermore, the preceding two..." down, it discerns in terms of the three minds. The extensive meaning of the seven names will be known when reaching the text. They have already been briefly explained.

69.3

Regarding the commentary's statement: "First, identifying the locus of gathered virtues": within this, it first eliminates confusion and provides the correct explanation; thus the treatise states: "the general characteristic of the seventh ground." Second, from "because this is effort..." down, it provides the reason for generality. The general summary of the four stages was already explained in the first ground: namely, first, entering the stage; second, entering the ground; third, entering effortlessness; and fourth, the exhaustion of the bodhisattva grounds.

69.4

Regarding the commentary's statement: "the first three share the same characteristic": this is the characteristic of the essence, not the characteristic of identification.

69.5

Regarding the Commentary's [citation]: "First, because they supreme-most-ly realize the two kinds of selflessness": this is the text of the treatise, below which the Commentary explains it. Below [the statement that] the ten grounds equally realize the principle of the two selflessnesses, both lines have three sections: first, adducing the sūtra; second, adducing the treatise to explain it; third, the Commentary explaining the treatise. In the second, "because the path of non-abiding is purified" is the treatise. In the third, "because it is subsumed by the practice of that upāya-jñāna and fulfills the dharmas conducive to awakening" is the treatise; the rest is all the Commentary's explanation. In the Commentary: below "Fourth, constantly mindful of...", this corresponds to the sūtra's "constantly mindful of the powers, fearlessnesses, and unshared qualities of the Tathāgata"; next, it takes up the text of the treatise; afterward, the Commentary explains it. In taking up the treatise, the treatise has two clauses: first, it takes up the preceding text; second, being mindful of penetrating the Buddha-dharma, which uses the preceding to explain this. Within taking up the preceding text, it takes up text from two places: first, the discriminating cognition of the taught Dharma, which takes up the meaning within the preceding causal division; second, the purification and superiority over the cognitive obstacle in converting and guiding [sentient beings], which takes up the meaning within the preceding purification division. In the Commentary: below "meaning that the preceding ten entrances to illumination of dharmas are cognitive discrimination...", the Commentary explains the treatise, interpreting it based on the preceding two sections. First, it explains taking up the meaning within the preceding causal division; hence it states: "meaning that the preceding ten entrances to illumination of dharmas are cognitive discrimination." The preceding Commentary stated: "Illumination is the gate capable of entering; dharma is the dharma that is entered." Above this, the Commentary points to the preceding sūtra. From relying on that cognition, illuminatingly entering into the Dharma taught by the Tathāgata—this is that treatise's explanation. That treatise says in full: "Obtaining the cognitive radiance of the realized ground, relying on that cognitive illumination one enters into the Dharma taught by the Tathāgata." Explanation: "Obtaining the cognition of the realized ground" is the realization cognition of the fourth ground. Its "radiance" is the prior sign of obtaining this fourth ground's realization cognition in the preceding third ground. The cognitions of these two places both wish to penetrate the Buddha-dharma. The Buddha-dharma refers to the third ground's seeking extensive learning, and what is obtained is the sentient-being-realm, the dharmadhātu, the world-realm, and so forth observed within the ten entrances to illumination of dharmas.

69.6

Regarding the Commentary's "Next, the cognition of converting and guiding": this explains the treatise taking up the second section of the sūtra. First, it identifies and takes up the sūtra, which states in full: "Because of the ten kinds of dharmas of cognitive accomplishment, one obtains that internal Dharma and is born into the Tathāgata's family." The statement "purification and superiority over obstacles" is the treatise taking up the preceding. Below "The treatise's explanation means extinguishing the third ground...", the Commentary captures the sense in explaining the treatise. If fully stated, the treatise text says: "How does one increasingly have power in the Tathāgata's family? Because, relying on extensive learning, the cognitive obstacles are brought to an end, and because the removal and extinction of cognitive obstacles subsumes superiority." Now the Commentary has already explained it.

69.7

Regarding the Commentary's: below "The above two sections...", this explains the treatise's mindfulness of penetrating the Buddha-dharma, which uses the preceding to explain this. Both places are mindful of penetrating the Buddha-dharma, and the Buddha-dharma refers to the powers, fearlessnesses, and so forth.

69.8

Regarding the Commentary's "within the fifth ground" and so forth: this corresponds to the sūtra's "skillfully purifying the deep mind's thoughts and perceptions."

69.9

Regarding the Commentary's "three kinds of great compassion": these are great compassion as foremost, great compassion as augmenting, and great compassion fulfilled, contemplating the arising and cessation of causes and conditions.

69.10

Regarding the Commentary's "two lines in the seventh": first, with great benevolence and great compassion not forsaking sentient beings; second, entering the path of immeasurable cognition. The Commentary's stating "entering the path of immeasurable cognition because of the immeasurable realms of sentient beings" is entirely the text of the treatise. Entering the immeasurable realms of sentient beings is its first line, and the immeasurable path of cognition is its sixteenth line, because they correspond to each other. It should have twenty lines making ten pairs: the second line says entering the immeasurable karmas of the Buddhas in converting sentient beings; the third, entering the net of immeasurable worlds; the fourth, entering the pure lands of immeasurable Buddhas. The rest is extensive as in that text.

69.11

Second, the division on purifying receptivity. The Commentary text has two parts: first, a general rubric; second, below "However, non-arising...", it clarifies receptivity according to categories, fulfilling the former two sections among the preceding three sections.

69.12

Regarding the Commentary's: below "Now in the first...", the Commentary text has seven parts: first, explaining the initial general phrase on the words 'entering all dharmas'; second, below "taking up concrete phenomena...", the general rubric; third, below "among the four, the first is refuting characteristics...", revealing the functions; fourth, below "if correlated with the stages...", according to the stages; fifth, below "furthermore, among these four...", bringing out the essence; sixth, below "relying on the Treatise on Buddha-Nature...", pointing to the extensive treatment; seventh, below "non-arising of phenomena...", explaining according to the text. The first two can be known. In the third: however, actual characteristics are called phenomena; dissolving phenomena to enter principle is called the non-arising of phenomena. Truly, because non-arising through dependent origination constitutes phenomena, therefore dissolving phenomena is itself non-arising; hence being able to refute characteristics discards characteristics of existence. "Second, refuting nature" means refuting and discarding natures of existence. The essence of dharmas is called nature, because all dharmas each have their nature; dissolving natures to enter suchness is called the non-arising of nature. Truly, because non-arising through dependent origination constitutes nature, therefore dissolving nature is itself non-arising. "Third, dissolution of causes" means departing from the characteristics of causes, for causes have beginning and end. Distinctions in the three periods of time are designated as numerical differences; when realizing the real and looking back, originally there are no such numbers, because numerical differences are non-arisen. The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "Because of not knowing the ineffable intrinsic nature of phenomena, there are distinctions in the three periods of time. Because of knowing the ineffable intrinsic nature of phenomena, there is complete equality in the three periods of time." "Fourth, departure from fruits" means departing from the characteristics of fruits. The karmic functions at the fruit stage are called actions; when realizing the real and looking [upon them], there is no karma to be found, which is called the non-arising of karma. Therefore it concludes: "The former two refute characteristics to enter suchness; the latter two realize the real and abandon characteristics." The first refutes characteristics of existence; the second refutes characteristics of non-existence; both alike refute characteristics, and both alike enter suchness. The third and fourth both realize the real and abandon characteristics; ponder this according to the text. In the fourth, on correlating with stages: abandoning characteristics to enter the real is therefore the preparatory stage; doubly discarding both nature and characteristics is therefore the fundamental [cognition]; function is the subsequently attained [cognition]; in principle this is necessarily so. The third pervades beginning and end, because the three periods of time differ. In the fifth, on bringing out the essence: it is largely identical to the sixth ground. The three natures are simply combined into the real and the false. Thus the false pervades the other-dependent and the imagined, while the real is solely the fully perfected. Below "relying on Buddha-nature", the sixth, pointing to the extensive treatment, is the discrimination of the three natures. The "Treatise on Buddha-Nature" refers to its "Chapter on the Three Natures." That treatise states: "Because there are three natures, provisional teachings are spoken. Those who penetrate the three natures are spontaneously manifest and clear, which is called the definitive teaching. As spoken in the sūtra: If someone obtains the receptivity to the non-arising of dharmas, they do not fall back. Question: How is this statement established? Answer: It is established through the three natures. With reference to the discriminated nature, the Tathāgata spoke of the receptivity to original non-arising. With reference to the other-dependent nature, he spoke of the receptivity to intrinsic-nature non-arising. With reference to the real nature, he spoke of the receptivity to the original-nature non-arising of defilement, stain, and suffering." Explanation: If we take the surface text, the first seems to refer to the imagined nature, because it says original non-arising. The second likewise refers to the other-dependent, because the treatise says intrinsic-nature non-arising. The latter two refer to the fully perfected, because the third refers to defilement and purity according to stages, and the fourth refers to the Buddha clarifying what is realized. When closely examined: the first is cultivated and accomplished, possessing the other-dependent; originally existent, it is the fully perfected. Referring to stages also follows conditions; where the Buddha enters, dependent origination is all-pervading. Moreover, original non-arising covers the subsequent text; therefore the Commentary does not explain further at length, but merely points to the Commentary on the second sūtra text above.

69.13

Regarding the Commentary's: below "Within the non-arising of phenomena...", this is the seventh, explaining the text, which has two parts: first, general; second, specific. In the general part, the statement "the latter three do not decrease, which is also non-cessation" has roughly two senses: first, it is a specific meaning within non-arising, hence it next says: "subsuming the latter by the former, all are called non-arising"; second, it should also be called receptivity to non-cessation, just as stated in the preceding Commentary. Here it also follows the general, merely saying non-arising. However, this non-arising and non-cessation is the non-increasing and non-decreasing tathatā, which is specifically realized by this ground.

69.14

Regarding the Commentary's: below "Within the specific, the seven...", second is the specific explanation. Grasping reality according to characteristics is precisely what is to be countered; wishing to reveal non-arising, it conversely posits seven realities. However, the text contains two senses: first, these seven realities pervade both ordinary beings and nobles; hence the Commentary merely explains according to the text. Second, discriminating according to stages, within which there are two parts: first, clarifying that the former four discard [attachments of] the first ground and above; the latter three discard [attachments of] external ordinary beings in understanding and practice. In the former, there are again two: first, specific clarification; second, summarization. In the former, "first, the original reality among the dharmas of the pure portion" is the treatise. Below "meaning grasping at intrinsic nature...", the Commentary explains it. First, it brings out what is to be countered. Below "now to counter this...", it cites the sūtra as the counteragent; the seven below are all like this. This first one mostly refers to the first ground's nature abiding in intrinsic nature, which is ultimate emptiness, because it is first realized. If one considers that there is a thing residing in the mind as an actual phenomenal existence, that is what is to be countered, and so now it is countered. Originally there is no arising; how could non-arising be a phenomenal existence? The phrase "because originally detached from nature" is the Commentary explaining the sūtra's meaning of non-arising. Below "if there were formerly arising...", it conversely establishes it. This is as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "Dharmas originally do not arise, and now do not cease. Obtaining this receptivity to the non-arising of dharmas is entering the gate of non-duality."

69.15

Regarding the Commentary's "second, the reality of newly and newly arising": from the second ground up to the seventh ground, the path of cultivation gradually increases, which is termed newly and newly. In the counteragent, the phrase "because of arising from conditions" means that because it arises from conditions, arising is itself non-arising.

69.16

Regarding the Commentary's "third, the reality of characteristics": the sign of effortless functioning from the eighth ground to the tenth ground is the characteristic of the two above; the effortless functioning of cognition is the characteristic of accumulation and arising; the manifestation of the principle of non-arising is the characteristic of original existence.

69.17

Regarding the Commentary's "fourth, the reality of the posterior limit": the ultimate fruit of Buddhahood is the posterior, and the fruit is bodhi and nirvāṇa. In the counteragent, "tathatā emerging from entanglement" explains that there is no reality of nirvāṇa. Below "the bodhisattva becomes a Buddha...", it reveals that there is no reality of bodhi.

69.18

Regarding the Commentary's: below "The above four...", this is the subsequent summarization. There are two layers: the first layer refers to the three Buddha-natures. The meaning of the three Buddha-natures will be further clarified in the tenth ground; its general import can be known. Below "Furthermore, these four...", it progressively brings them together. That is to say: how does one know there is no original reality? Because new perfuming has no completion. How does one know there is no completion? Because the two characteristics cannot be obtained. How does one know they cannot be obtained? Because bodhi and nirvāṇa are also detached from characteristics.

69.19

Regarding the Commentary's: below "Fifth, the reality of the prior limit...", second is explaining the latter three lines, discarding attachments prior to the grounds. The first is defilement; the second is the essence of birth, because it is conditioned; the third pervades the two above and is also karma. In the counteragent of the first line, the phrase "defilement has nothing to be destroyed" is the approach of nature-emptiness. "Bodhi makes defilement" refers to the approach of wondrous existence fitting reality. In "the combination of defilement and purity constitutes sentient beings", defilement here is affliction, and purity is the tathāgatagarbha; the combination of non-arising and non-cessation is called sentient beings. Above, it clarified that non-arising does not arise; now it distinguishes that arising and cessation do not arise. "Furthermore, the former is the non-empty womb", because Buddha-nature is wondrous existence. "This is the empty womb", because it is not associated with defilement. Now, doubly discarding both wombs, it states: "neither can be obtained."

69.20

Regarding the Commentary's: below "The sūtra above states...", this is the verse by Bodhisattva Bhadramati in the "Verses of Praise atop Mount Sumeru Chapter", taking the first half as what is to be countered; the latter half, "because its nature is like empty space", speaking of inexhaustibility, is the counteragent. The rest can all be known. As for why those on the grounds are discarded first, it is because they are precisely what is realized here, moving from subtle to coarse. Furthermore, adducing what is prior to the grounds afterward uses the coarse to illustrate the subtle: the coarse have not yet realized the nature, so this ought to exist; now it cannot be obtained, how much less the nature of Buddha-nature on the grounds!

69.21

Regarding the commentary's "Second, having no intrinsic nature is the intrinsic nature" and below: within this [section on] the intrinsic nature being unarisen, there are three parts: first, reconciling the two sūtras; second, explaining the text; third, harmonising with the Middle Way. "Non-existent" is just "having no intrinsic nature," and "having intrinsic nature" is just "is the intrinsic nature"; hence it is said that their doctrinal purport is not different. Second, from "Having no intrinsic nature is..." downward explains the text. It first explains "having no intrinsic nature." Grasping phenomena as possessing an intrinsic nature is called a "self," such as the solid nature of earth, the wet nature of water, and so forth. Because there is no self, it is called the unarisen nature. The phrase "it is not that it previously existed and now is absent" excludes the non-existence of annihilationism, because the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Existing previously and being absent now—this indeed is annihilationism." From "Nor is it utterly devoid of a true essence" downward explains the words "is the intrinsic nature." Within this there are two parts: first, positing it by negation; next, from "Because of the previous contemplation of matters..." downward, directly establishing marvellous existence. From "Hence the treatise states..." downward cites proof. As for "contemplation of matters," because this principle of selflessness is the matter contemplated from the fourth stage up to the seventh stage, one clearly knows it exists. Furthermore, because it is the phenomenon endured, if there were no object to be endured, there would be no suchness to realise. Third, from "This, then, is neither existence nor non-existence..." downward reconciles and returns to the Middle Way. There are two Middle Ways, and the text has three sections: first, directly establishing the two kinds of Middle Way; second, citing the treatise as proof; third, concluding. Now for the first: 1. Neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle Way: having no intrinsic nature is non-existence, while being the intrinsic nature is non-non-existence; since having no intrinsic nature is itself the intrinsic nature, it is therefore said that these two are non-dual. This takes the nature being absent while the essence exists as the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. 2. From "Furthermore, this principle..." downward: neither identical nor separate is the Middle Way. Expressing principle through phenomena is the Middle Way of the two truths: all seven actualities are phenomena, and the single word "not" is principle; this means that in terms of truths they are ever two, yet in terms of understanding they are ever one. Now, thoroughly penetrating this non-duality is truly entering the supreme meaning. Second, from "Hence the treatise..." downward cites the treatise to prove the above. That the commentator establishes the two Middle Ways is in both cases due to the treatise master's words on the "non-dual characteristic." Because of non-duality, the principle of the selflessness of phenomena can serve as the unarisen intrinsic nature of all phenomena. Master Huiyuan's refutation of the ancients' statement that "the contemplating mind and the principle of the selflessness of phenomena are non-dual as mind and object" is incorrect, is indeed just as refuted. Third, from "This, then..." downward concludes.

69.22

Regarding the commentary's "Third, beginning, middle, and end" and below: the text of the commentary has two parts: first, directly explaining; later, eliminating confusion. Now for the first: this directly verifies the tathatā free from increase and decrease. If explained according to characteristics, at the past boundary defilement increases and purity decreases; at the future boundary purity increases and defilement decreases; and at the middle boundary it is half increasing and half decreasing. Now, treating it in terms of the emptiness of the nature of principle, both are negated.

69.23

Regarding the commentary's "However, according to the Yogācāra..." and below: this later part eliminates confusion, because it might be confused with the previous three phrases. The previous three phrases are the fourth, the future boundary actuality; the fifth, the past boundary; and the sixth, the exhaustion actuality. Because they directly take sentient beings as corresponding to the middle boundary, it is now explained: that previous passage explained the three periods of time to differentiate according to temporal eras, whereas this passage explains the three boundaries according to stages. The past boundary is prior to the seventh stage; the future boundary is subsequent to the ninth stage; and the middle boundary corresponds to the eighth stage. Although there are differences according to stage, the essence is without increase or decrease. Furthermore, among the previous three, the past boundary is exclusively defiled, the future boundary is exclusively pure, and the middle boundary is itself treated in terms of sentient beings; the present three boundaries all encompass defilement and purity, which is also different; hence the commentary concludes, "The treatise explains it with respect to defilement and purity."

69.24

Regarding the commentary's "Fourth, non-conceptual..." and below: the text of the commentary has two parts: first, directly explaining; later, summarizing. Now for the first: it cites the treatise to directly verify entering the same place as the Buddha, because the treatise on the sūtra states: "Tathatā is non-conceptual, entering the cognition of all cognitions." Therefore, the present commentary uses the Buddha's cognition to explain it. If taken directly according to the present text, it is merely the non-conceptual cognition proper to the eighth stage; only with the true non-conceptual cognition can one enter—it is not that conventional cognition can enter the unarisen.

69.25

Regarding the commentary's "Such four kinds..." downward: this summarizes. Because the treatise states, "Because the contemplation of the anutpattikadharmakṣānti is thus revealed." Now turning its phrasing around, the treatise's meaning is: the extensive explanation here of the unarisen principle accomplishes the contemplation of the unarisen on this stage.

69.26

Regarding the commentary's "Second, abandoning all..." and below: within the purity of patience, there are two parts: abandoning all conceptualisation and ideation of citta, manas, and manovijñāna, which together constitute abandoning hindrances. In the text of the commentary, it first explains the word "abandoning" and then explains the citta, manas, and manovijñāna that are abandoned. These three are divided into two categories, and the phrase "conceptualisation and ideation" applies to both places; hence it is quoted first. "1. Abandoning citta": this quotes the sūtra. It means abandoning the conceptualisation and ideation of the retribution mind; this uses the treatise to explain the word "citta" in the sūtra. However, the treatise fully states: "Ideation of conceptualising objects of retribution, and ideation of conceptualising grasped objects. Its ideation of conceptualising objects of retribution directly explains the word citta." From "That is, the eighth, the vipākavijñāna..." downward, the commentary explains the treatise, because the vipākavijñāna is the retribution mind. In that seventh stage, one cultivates untainted causes and thereby experiences this result-essence of parāvṛtti retribution, which is precisely the retribution mind. As for the statement "because the evolving, manifesting, and omnipresent also do not function": the two words "evolving" and "manifesting" are from the Awakening of Faith, because the eighth, the ālaya, has its three subtle aspects, namely karma, evolution, and manifestation. The aspect of karma is the subtlest, and only when the bodhisattva stages are exhausted can one abandon it. Now, having attained this patience, evolution and manifestation do not function, which means that the two divisions of seeing and form also do not function. As for "omnipresent," this is from treatises such as the Vijñaptimātratā. The eighth, the ālaya, is associated only with the five omnipresent mental factors, namely contact, attention, feeling, ideation, and volition. Now, being congruent with this patience, these also do not function; hence the commentary collectively says, "because the evolving, manifesting, and omnipresent also do not function." In using the word "also": for instance, upon entering the cessation attainment, the previous seven do not function, while the eighth sustains the body; now, even the two divisions of the eighth do not function, showing that it is increasingly profound—this is what the sūtra means by abandoning the conceptualisation and ideation of citta.

69.27

Regarding the commentary's "2. Abandoning manovijñāna": this quotes two words from the sūtra. "Abandoning the conceptualisation and ideation of the mind of expedient means" is the commentary drawing on the treatise's meaning to explain the sūtra's meaning. Because the seventh consciousness is just [the basis for] the previous six, this manovijñāna is born of retribution and is merely called expedient means. From "The treatise states..." downward, it uses the treatise to prove the above meaning of expedient means. As for "ideation of grasping conceptual nature": the seventh inwardly grasps, and the six consciousnesses outwardly conceptualise; these primary minds and mental factors naturally do not function. From "Meaning the sixth and seventh..." downward, the commentary explains the treatise's meaning and the sūtra's meaning, saying that the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are the primary minds. "And the mental factors therein": all the mental factors included in the sixth and seventh consciousnesses do not function. Hence it concludes, "the place of mental activities is extinguished," unlike the seventh stage, which still has the mind of contemplation and seeking.

69.28

Regarding the commentary's "Subsequently, having nothing to grasp or cling to" and below: within explaining the antidote, the text of the commentary has three parts: first, connecting the previous and introducing the subsequent; second, showing the reason for establishing it; third, separately explaining the characteristics of the text. Now for the first: it first directly explains. From "Hence the treatise states..." downward, it takes the treatise as proof. This treatise text also eliminates confusion. The above statement about extinguishing all conceptualisation and ideation of citta, manas, and manovijñāna merely refers to extinguishing the ideations of obstructing dharmas. "Ideations of obstructing dharmas" refers to ideations involving conceptual contemplation and understanding. The "ideation of the antidote" refers to non-conceptual cognition. Thus, among the five particular mental factors, the factor of prajñā is not obliterated; it is simply non-conceptual, and the previous statement meant that [conceptual] functioning ceased.

69.29

Regarding the commentary's "The reason for clarifying this..." and below: second, it shows the reason for establishing that there is an ideation of the antidote. 1. Eliminating ordinary persons and Hinayānists: this eliminates the inferior. Non-Buddhists without ideation lack this wisdom; the two vehicles in the cessation attainment also lack this wisdom, because ideation and feeling are completely extinguished. Therefore, comparing this to the cessation attainment, what functions there also does not function here; yet what is absent there—such as all the minds mentioned earlier—is present here, namely non-conceptual cognition. 2. Eliminating the Tathāgatas: this eliminates the superior, because non-conceptual cognition has not yet been forgotten. Hence the Yingluo sūtra states: "Equal enlightenment illuminates quiescence; sublime enlightenment is quiescent illumination." Now, the unarisen [patience] of the eighth stage also illuminates quiescence; if it attained quiescent illumination, it would be identical to a Buddha. Therefore, the cognitive hindrance has three gateways: first is the cognitive hindrance, namely the mind that conceptualises existence and non-existence; second is the essential hindrance, namely the understanding that contemplates neither existence nor non-existence, positing oneself as the knower, hence called the essential hindrance; third is the ideation of the antidote, namely correct wisdom containing suchness within the deluded consciousness. Relying on this stage, there are three meanings: the first one is severed from the fourth stage up to the seventh stage—the fourth, fifth, and sixth stages sever the mind that conceptually grasps existence, namely the pride of understanding dharmas, the pride of bodily purity, and so forth; upon entering the seventh stage, one severs the mind that conceptually grasps existence and non-existence; from the eighth stage upward, one severs the essential hindrance. Although the previous seventh stage eliminated the mind that conceptualised existence and non-existence, it still viewed one's own mind as the contemplator and suchness as the contemplated. The contemplated suchness was not identical to the mind, and the contemplating mind was not identical to suchness. Because mind and suchness were distinct, seeking phenomena outside the mind involved effort; because mind was established outside phenomena, there was the essential hindrance. When entering the eighth stage from the seventh stage, one breaks and abandons this hindrance, contemplating that originally there is no mind outside suchness and no suchness outside the mind; there being no mind outside suchness, the mind is not different from suchness; there being no suchness outside the mind, suchness is not different from the mind. Therefore, suchness and mind can merge into identity with the dharmadhātu, vast and unmoving, because they are not different. Seeking outward having ceased, effort is abandoned, and one no longer establishes divine cognition outside suchness; thus the essential hindrance is extinguished, and because the essential hindrance is extinguished, it is called the ideation free from hindrances. The third, the ideation of the antidote, is extinguished only upon reaching Buddhahood; therefore, upon entering the eighth stage, although one is free from the ideation of hindrances, one still possesses the ideation of the antidote. From the eighth stage upward, the essence of the anutpattikadharmakṣānti becomes progressively more quiescent, causing that ideation of the antidote to spontaneously vanish moment by moment, completely exhausted only at Buddhahood. Because it is not yet exhausted here, it is said not to be non-existent.

69.30

Regarding the commentary's "Hence it is said that this ideation, on the lower stages..." and below: third, it separately explains the characteristics of the text. It takes this treatise as a whole to explain the meaning of having an antidote, and below explains the three excellences. "1. Because of functioning naturally without effort" is the text of the treatise. "Meaning having no mind that grasps the fruit" is the commentary explaining the sūtra text. "Spontaneously advancing in accord with nature" is the commentary explaining the treatise. The contemplation mind being fully matured, without requiring deliberate attention, it moves toward the fruit spontaneously; this is called spontaneously advancing in accord with nature. Spontaneously advancing without grasping is therefore called sublime. The two emptinesses pervade everything, hence it is called the antidote being extensive, showing that the unarisen cognition leaves nothing unpervaded. Third, because it functions by entering suchness, it is profound.

69.31

Regarding the commentary's "This, then, enters..." and below: this gathers up the above meanings with the purport of the Awakening of Faith, because what is entered in the Awakening of Faith is original enlightenment. The treatise states: "What is called enlightenment means that the essence of mind is free from thought. The characteristic of being free from thought is like the realm of empty space, leaving nothing unpervaded; the single characteristic of the dharmadhātu is precisely the Tathāgata's universal dharmakāya. In reliance on this dharmakāya, it is named original enlightenment." Explanation: Now, entering empty space is precisely entering the dharmakāya of original enlightenment. Below, it cites the treatise to harmonise and explain, concluding the śamatha and vipaśyanā of the anutpattikadharmakṣānti.

69.32

Third, attaining superior practice. Regarding the commentary's "The remaining seven distinctly..." and below: the text of the commentary has two parts: first, explaining according to the text; later, summarizing the antidotes to hindrances. Now for the first: among the seven, the first clarifies that the seventh stage does not know it, hence it says, "it directly brings this out in contrast to the lower [stages]." The second demonstrates equality with respect to superiority, being equal to those who have attained the eighth stage. The third directly demonstrates the superior characteristic, hence it says, "the boundaries are uniquely severed," which is the sphere of demarcated boundaries. Therefore, below it summarizes the three phrases as the spheres and boundaries being uniquely severed.

69.33

Regarding the commentary's "protecting against all conceptualizations of the hindrances to be countered in this stage": "protecting" means guarding against and relinquishing. This is the treatise master's distinct explanation of this phrase, distinguishing it from the preceding two. Fearing someone might ask, "Simply parting from signs and conceptualizations would already suffice for the meaning; why must one further part from all attachments?", it is thus now clarified: because the aforementioned "conceptualizations of signs" refers generally to both good and bad, it is now explained that the conceptualizations of the hindrances to be countered are eliminated—namely, craving for the Buddha-Dharma. Therefore the treatise sūtra says: "Parting from all greedy attachments; not eliminating the conceptualization of non-discriminating wisdom, which is the antidote, because this antidotal conceptualization serves to protect," just as in the pure acceptance section above there is no grasping. The fourth is the essence of the practice of twofold benefit. The fifth relies on contrast to reveal superiority; its superior characteristic cannot be eclipsed or made to regress, which is why it is called "non-retrogressing." Thus the preceding two phrases are combined to form the vastness of the correct practice. The sixth parts from the agitation of effortful exertion, and the seventh possesses the antidote of fruition-practice; hence they are combined to form quiescence freed from hindrances. The present sūtra merely says, "Cessation becomes manifest," while the treatise sūtra says, "Because all is quiescent and becomes manifest; because tathatā is entirely quiescent and becomes manifest." Explanation: The upper phrase refers to the quiescence of the path of teaching; the lower phrase refers to the quiescence of the path of realization. Therefore the commentary says: "Because realizing tathatā serves as the antidote, all is quiescent." The word "all" encompasses the teaching as well.

69.34

Regarding the commentary's "Among the seven distinct [phrases] above..." onward: Second is summarizing the antidotes to the hindrances, grouping the seven into three. The first has three phrases, while the second and third each have two phrases. As for the "four kinds of afflictions," the first is the fault of having practice and intermittent arising; the second is the fault of diligent upāya in purifying the stage; the third is the fault of diligent upāya in transforming sentient beings; and the fourth is the fault of subtle conceptualized practice. These four faults go from subtle to coarse; the antidotes taught in the sūtra proceed from coarse to subtle, and hence in the metaphors below they go from subtle to coarse.

69.35

Regarding the commentary's "parting from the fourth fault of subtle conceptualized practice": this is the coarsest. Since seeking the Tathāgata's wisdom has not yet ceased, it constitutes an affliction; now that signs and conceptualizations are completely severed, this affliction is absent.

69.36

Regarding the commentary's "third, the fault of transforming sentient beings": as for the "ten immensities," etc., since one seeks the ten counterparts of the activity of transforming sentient beings, it is called diligent upāya. Now one is oneself without measure and benefits others boundlessly, parting from the two extremes of existence and non-existence; hence this fault is absent.

69.37

Regarding the commentary's "the latter two, quiescence freed from hindrances, part from the preceding two faults": this is the third section, which first parts from the second fault. The two passages cited by the commentary are both diligent upāya: one is the practice of effortless conduct in the previous section on countering that hindrance; "effortless conduct" resumes the previous outline heading. "Constantly cultivating day and night" resumes the previous treatise sūtra. In the present sūtra it says: "Child of the Buddha! With such deep wisdom, this bodhisattva observes in this manner, constantly and diligently cultivating the wisdom of upāya." Explanation: "Constantly and diligently cultivating" corresponds to "constantly cultivating day and night." Second, "as well as giving rise to the path whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, etc.," cites the passage on the two practices without interruption from the third section on the superiority of dual practice. It says: "Without a single moment of rest, abandon, or neglect, whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, or even in sleep and dreams, never for a moment being associated with hindrances." Explanation: Since one cultivates effortlessness, this is diligent upāya in purifying the stage; not yet being naturally effortless, it becomes a fault. In a single thought cultivating both śamatha and vipaśyanā, the mind of practice has also not yet ceased; hence these both constitute faults.

69.38

Regarding the commentary's "second, parting from the first fault of having practice and intermittent arising": this third section also parts from this fault. Master Huiyuan says: "In the seventh stage, the ten wisdoms of upāya initiate superior practice and effortless mind; this is called having practice and intermittent arising." Explanation: "Arising" means initiating. If one takes the ten upāyas as "having practice," this practice is the coarsest. Furthermore, if the effortless mind is diligent upāya in purifying the stage, the meaning would seem redundant. Now the antidote refers to the previously mentioned superiority of faith and the realization of greatness; both of their meanings involve the initiation of practice. As for "intermittent," it is spoken with respect to cultivating effortlessness without yet attaining spontaneous effortlessness, in which case there are intervals of effortful exertion. Moreover, it was generally stated above that the third pair of phrases commonly parts from both faults; it is also possible to understand parting from hindrances as parting from the fault of having practice and intermittent arising, and quiescence as parting from the fault of diligent upāya in purifying the stage. Because parting from faults and quiescence mutually complement each other back and forth, they are combined as a pair countering two faults. In the second metaphor, the meaning of the cessation attainment has already been explained in the previous stage and will be further clarified in the "Dharmadhātu Chapter." As for "the memories and conceptualizations of the supporting mind naturally perish": because the treatise says "without that support," this explanation is given.

69.39

Regarding the commentary's "In the application..." onward: the text of the application is divided into three: first, directly applying [the metaphor] to the sūtra text; second, concluding the departure from faults; third, distinctly explaining. "Relinquishing all effortful practices" resumes the sūtra. "Because of transcending what is to be countered" is the treatise's explanation; that which is to be countered refers to the effortful mind in the seventh stage. "Attaining effortless dharmas" resumes the sūtra. "Attaining that antidotal dharma" is the treatise's explanation, because the eighth stage's effortless, non-discriminating wisdom serves as the antidote. "Body, speech, and mind, etc., cease" resumes the sūtra. "Because by attaining effortless dharmas one acts spontaneously" is the treatise's explanation. Because acting spontaneously is without deliberate intention, it says that body, speech, and so on cease; it does not mean not engaging in practice, which is why it says "acts spontaneously." Just as when a ship enters the sea driven by the wind, one merely sees no exertion of effort, yet it is not that the ship does not advance; therefore the commentary cites the absence of grasping in the pure acceptance section as proof, and hence the earlier treatise says "it is not without antidotal dharmas."

69.40

Regarding the commentary's "parting from the first..." onward: second is concluding the departure from faults, which summarizes the intent of the application above.

69.41

Regarding the commentary's "dwelling in fruition-practice..." onward: third is distinctly explaining the antidote. "This resumes the sūtra..." onward is the commentary's explanation. The earlier intent clarified the path of teaching because effortless, non-discriminating wisdom can be expressed in words; the latter is in terms of the path of realization because it directly realizes tathatā. The path of realization has five parts: first, citing the treatise; second, from "this is in terms of..." onward, citing parallels to settle the matter; third, from "namely parting..." onward, clarifying the faults departed from; fourth, from "fruition-practice..." onward, explaining the sūtra's "fruition-practice"; fifth, from "dwelling in tathatā..." onward, re-explaining the treatise text. And there are two meanings: First, although the ālaya is cited, one takes only tathatā, because in the eighth stage the name ālaya is relinquished; hence the Vijñaptimātratā says, "Relinquished at the rank of arhat." Explanation: In the Mahāyāna, the eighth stage is equivalent to an arhat because of relinquishing delimited transmigration and exiting the three realms. Second, from "moreover, the Buddha stage..." onward, retaining the ālaya reveals that the translator of the treatise did not employ names skillfully. Because the eighth consciousness has many names, ālaya is restricted only to the mundane rank. Vipāka continues straight through to the end of the bodhisattva stages; although it is equally the eighth [consciousness], the name ālaya should not be retained. The different names of the eighth have already been seen above.

69.42

In the commentary's "second, the metaphor of waking from a dream," there are five parts: first, citing what was previously illustrated; second, revealing the intent of the metaphor; third, explaining the features of the metaphor; fourth, explaining the application text; fifth, harmonizing the metaphor and the application. Second, from "the treatise says..." onward reveals the intent of the metaphor. The intent clarifies guarding against faults; the general intent of guarding against faults is broadly the same. "Guarding against the conceptualization of those faults" is the same as the earlier "relinquishing all effortful practices." "Possessing the conceptualization of correct wisdom" is the same as the earlier "attaining effortless dharmas." Third, from "just as upon waking from a dream..." onward explains and reveals the features of the metaphor, which illustrates the preceding intent. Although there are no dream conceptualizations, this illustrates guarding against the conceptualization of those faults. It is not that there are no waking conceptualizations, which illustrates possessing the conceptualization of correct wisdom. From "simply because this practice is quiescent, it says that all that is done ceases" resolves an objection. The objection says: If there is correct wisdom, why does the text say that all that is done ceases? The intent of the answer is clear. Fourth, from "in the application, 'valorous'..." onward explains the application, merely revealing guarding against faults, such that diligent upāya in transforming sentient beings does not operate. Using inner realization to explain the non-operation of the two practices is like waking to find no two shores; using external conditions to explain the non-operation of practice with signs is like waking to find no person or boat, the boat being the noble path of transforming sentient beings. As for the rest which is omitted and not applied: in full, one would apply the bodhisattva to the aforementioned person, meaning that the seventh-stage bodhisattva arriving at the Immovable Stage is made to awaken. Fifth, from "in the application, 'seeing a person'..." onward harmonizes them. The metaphor and application can be known.

69.43

In the commentary's "third, the metaphor of being born in the Brahmā heaven," there are five parts: first, citing what is illustrated, omitting the explanation of the metaphor; second, from "in the application..." onward explains the application text, which is the text below "dwelling in the Immovable" in the sūtra; third, from "the reason it does not operate..." onward is the treatise's explanation of why it does not operate, clarifying that there is an antidote, which is omitted in the sūtra text; fourth, from "this parts from..." onward clarifies parting from afflictions and faults; fifth, from "subsequently, this bodhisattva..." onward distinctly explains. From "this bodhisattva... citing superiority" onward: the sūtra's statement that "the minds of buddhas, etc., do not operate in accordance" is because the treatise says, "Here, because minds of the two divisions of conforming operation and non-conforming operation, such as buddhas, do not operate." That is, within the one mind are distinguished two divisions, defiled and pure, using the pure to illustrate the defiled. From "then as for the mundane..." onward, the commentary organizes them into pairs. There are roughly four pairs; adding the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, there are five pairs. "As for the mundane" refers to the sūtra's "how much less giving rise to mundane minds." "As for the supramundane" refers to the minds of buddhas, etc. "As for persons" refers to buddhas and bodhisattvas. "As for dharmas" refers to bodhi and nirvāṇa. "As for cause" refers to bodhisattvas. "As for fruition" refers to buddhas. "As for wisdom" refers to bodhi. "As for severance" refers to nirvāṇa. Although the Hīnayāna is not in the sūtra, it exists in contrast to the bodhisattva, and the treatise text has it in full. The treatise says: "Because buddhas, etc., do not operate, and because of the distinctions between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and within the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, the distinctions between sentient beings and dharmas. Sentient beings are persons, distinguished into those beyond training and those in training. Distinctions in the nirvāṇa of buddhas, etc. It should be known that here, regarding conforming operation: because minds, etc., within the conforming division do not operate, as the sūtra says, 'all mind, intellect, and consciousness do not operate.' Here, regarding non-conforming operation: because buddhas, etc., within the non-conforming division do not operate, as the sūtra says, 'minds of buddhas up to minds of nirvāṇa do not operate.' As for distinctions between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna: within the Mahāyāna, there are distinctions because of the distinctions between the nirvāṇa of buddhas and bodhisattvas. Within the Hīnayāna, there are distinctions because of the distinctions between the nirvāṇa of śrāvakas and arhats, etc. As for distinctions of sentient beings in the Mahāyāna: because of distinctions between buddhas and bodhisattvas. As for distinctions of dharmas: because of distinctions between bodhi and nirvāṇa. In the Hīnayāna, there are distinctions between the assemblies of those beyond training and those in training; here distinctions of dharmas are distinctions of nirvāṇa. Distinctions of those beyond training are distinctions of arhats. Distinctions of those in training are distinctions of anāgamins, etc. Because such as these do not operate at all." Explanation: Fearing one might wish to know the treatise, it is again set forth in detail; it does not exceed the five pairs above. However, as for the treatise's word "distinctions," within each single item there are distinctions—such as among those in training having the three fruits and four fruitions, etc., and bodhi having many kinds of bodhi, etc.—which are not entirely necessary, and thus the commentary omits them. As for citing so many instances within the supramundane: attachment easily arises toward the supramundane, but now there is no attachment.

First 43 of 80 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese