大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 71

English (machine translation) 71

Language: English

71.1

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

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Distinctions between the determinate and the indeterminate in the ninety-two propositions," and so forth: the text of the Commentary has two parts: above this marks the section heading; below, beginning with "the preceding line explains," provides the specific explanation. First, it explains the ninth proposition, in three parts: first, it raises the text of the treatise; second, it explains the sūtra text; third, it explains the treatise's meaning of determinate and indeterminate. Under the Commentary's statement, "This means what is performed in the present," and so forth: the Commentary's explanation of the meaning of the three feelings in the sūtra text has already been fully provided in the Commentary's text. However, the Sautrāntika masters say: Karma whose retribution is experienced in the present life has the most superior power and must receive rebirth retribution. As for subsequent retribution: if it accords with rebirth retribution, its power is somewhat inferior, and it must receive subsequent retribution and not present retribution. Karma whose retribution is experienced in subsequent lives has the most inferior power; it is not received in the present or in the next rebirth, but only received in subsequent lives; according to the position of its first ripening, it is named "in accordance with the present," and so forth. Explanation: The meaning seems to leave something unsaid. Some people each perform different karmas: karma of one lifetime may be performed for both human and heavenly realms; if one first receives human retribution and subsequently heavenly retribution, why should one be made to receive human rebirth again? Now, these three types of experience briefly speaking have three causes: First, due to the cause: for instance, making offerings to the Buddha, the Saṅgha, or to those in the absorption of loving-kindness, the absorption of cessation, the non-contention absorption, or on the paths of seeing and cultivation, yields pleasant retribution in the present life; committing acts that harm and torment parents, kings, and so forth yields painful retribution in the present life. Second, due to the substance of the karma: such as unshakeable karma yielding pleasant rebirth retribution, and the five acts of immediate retribution yielding painful rebirth retribution. Third, due to practice and vows: a person of vast merit may have their sins incurred as rebirth retribution, receiving them lightly in the present world and swiftly attaining bodhi. A person of many sins has no present retribution at all, because performing heavy evils leads straight to rebirth retribution; all karmas producing the auspicious marks and signs receive subsequent retribution, for one cannot become a Buddha in a single lifetime. Moreover, universal wheel-turning kings mostly receive subsequent retribution, cultivating the cause during the kalpa of decrease and receiving the fruit during the kalpa of increase.

71.3

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Within these three, each has determinate and indeterminate,” this is third, explaining the treatise's words on determinate and indeterminate. Therein, the first two lines set forth the heading, and from “meaning the first two” downward is the explanation. This follows the meaning of the Abhidharmakośa, which versifies: “These have determinate and indeterminate; determinate are the three: experiencing in the present [life], and so forth. Some say karma is fivefold, while other teachers speak of four alternatives.” The explanation says: The first line states the heading; the next line distinguishes experiencing in the present life, the next life, and subsequent lives, these three being the three determinate karmas. Adding the indeterminate yields four karmas. As for “some say karma is fivefold,” some wish to divide the indeterminate karma further into two types, holding that there are determinate and indeterminate with respect to both fruition (vipāka) and time, unfolding them into two: first, fruition is determinate but time is indeterminate, meaning the result must definitely be experienced across the three times, but the time itself is not fixed; second, both fruition and time are indeterminate, meaning both the result and the time are experienced indeterminately. There is only “result determinate, time indeterminate”; there is none where “time is determinate, result indeterminate,” for if the time is determinate, the result must be determinate, because apart from the result time has no distinct nature. Although unfolding and combining differ, their principle is not different. As for “other teachers speak of four alternatives,” this refers to the Dārṣṭāntikas, who divide karma into eight kinds, hence forming four alternatives. They allow that time may be determinate while the result is indeterminate; within the indeterminate, time is further divided into three, which, combined with the previous five karmas, makes eight kinds. The first alternative is: determinate regarding the time period, indeterminate regarding fruition. This means that for the three karmas of experiencing in the present and so forth, the time across the three periods is determinate, but the result is indeterminate. If one obtains its result in the present life, one experiences it; if it is not experienced in the present, it is never experienced again. It is determinate as to time, indeterminate as to result. If this is so for experiencing in the present, it is likewise for experiencing in the next and subsequent lives. This divides into three: first, experiencing in the present is determinate while the result is indeterminate; second, experiencing in the next life is determinate while the result is indeterminate; third, experiencing in subsequent lives is determinate while the result is indeterminate. The second alternative is: there is karma that is determinate regarding fruition and indeterminate regarding time. This means that indeterminate karma definitely obtains its fruition; this constitutes only one kind, namely result determinate and time indeterminate. The third alternative is: there is karma where both are determinate, meaning experiencing in the present and so forth definitely obtain their fruition. This has three kinds: first, experiencing in the present with both time and result determinate; second, experiencing in the next life with both time and result determinate; third, experiencing in subsequent lives with both time and result determinate. The fourth alternative is: there is karma where both are indeterminate. This means that indeterminate karma does not definitely obtain its fruition; this constitutes only one kind, namely result indeterminate and time indeterminate. The explanation says: The above three masters in the Abhidharmakośa gradually unfold [the categories]; the commentary summarizes them with slight differences. Saying that “all three have determinate and indeterminate” already embraces the three masters, but primarily takes up the first master. That is what the Abhidharmakośa means by “These have determinate and indeterminate; determinate are the three: experiencing in the present, etc., which, together with indeterminate, make four.” The commentary's passage from “meaning the first two” downward distinguishes their characteristics. Although it accommodates the four alternatives of the third master, there are broader and narrower applications. The first two having determinate time is because if it is experienced in the present, it is called karma of present retribution; if it is not experienced in the present, it is not karma of present retribution. The same applies to retribution in the next life: only when it must be experienced in the immediately following birth is it named retribution in the next life; therefore, it is said that the time of the first two is determinate. Regarding “retribution admits of both determinate and indeterminate”: there may be one who creates karma for present retribution, which should properly be experienced in the present, but encountering superior conditions it is displaced and not experienced—this retribution is indeterminate. Retribution in the next life is also like this. Because there is no shifting this to a different time, there is no indeterminacy of time. The latter one admitting of both determinate and indeterminate refers to the fourth alternative where both time and retribution are indeterminate, the third alternative where both time and retribution are determinate, and the second alternative where retribution is determinate and time indeterminate. This means that with indeterminate karma experienced in subsequent lives, there is karma that is definitely experienced but indeterminate as to whether it is in one birth, two births, or many births; this is retribution determinate, time indeterminate. There is indeterminate karma that should properly be experienced in the third birth, but encountering conditions the karma is destroyed; this is time determinate, retribution indeterminate. Or again, there is karma whose number of births is not yet determined before the retribution is experienced, and suddenly encountering conditions it is destroyed, so that both are indeterminate. However, in the Abhidharmakośa, retribution determinate and time indeterminate applies generally across the three retributions; why does it here apply only to experiencing in subsequent lives? Answer: The Abhidharmakośa takes karma in relation to time, meaning there is karma definitely experienced, but it is either present, in the next life, or subsequent. Here, we clarify by taking karma according to time: only when retribution is experienced in the present is it called present karma. If it is experienced in the present, it is determinate present karma; if it is not experienced in the present, it is not present karma; hence, there is no indeterminacy of time for present retribution. If it is experienced in the next life, it is next-life karma; if it is not experienced, it is not karma of next-life retribution; hence, there is no indeterminacy of time for next-life retribution. Each adopts a distinct perspective, and they are not contradictory. Question: We see at present that some karma properly incurs present retribution, but through force it is displaced so that one incurs retribution in the next life. Or, properly incurring retribution in the next life, due to different causes and conditions one incurs subsequent retribution. For example, Queen Mallikā devotedly observed giving and precepts and properly should have incurred retribution in the next life being born in Tuṣita Heaven; yet at the point of death, a slight anger arose, so that she was first born among scorpions, and after seven days her retribution shifted and she was born in heaven. Question: According to this, all three karmas have retribution determinate and time indeterminate; how can one say there is none? Answer: When present retribution is displaced by conditions and experienced in the next life, it simply is retribution of the next life; it is not called present retribution with indeterminate time. The same applies to next-life retribution; through reflection this can be understood. In relation to the previous three masters, the commentary's intention corresponds to the fourth master. The power of karma is extremely profound; there is no harm in explaining it broadly, or it may be clarified in other sūtras and treatises.

71.4

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The determinate are difficult to cross over,” this refers to those of the non-vehicles and of the two vehicles who are already determinate within their own allotments. If those of the Great Vehicle are determinate, they no longer need to be crossed over; for this reason it does not say that the determinate are easy to cross over.

71.5

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The faculties and other gates all become eighty thousand,” because there are afflictions, there is karma; afflictions have gradations, and karma is likewise. Afflictions exist depending on faculties, and their superior and inferior natures have differences. Understandings have depths and shallows. Desires have lightness and heaviness. Each constitutes eighty thousand. Regarding “Reversing this then manifests...”: below, it clarifies that the antidotes that can cure each and every affliction and so forth all reach the other shore. To exhaust principle and fully realize the nature is precisely the eighty-four thousand gates of transcendence. If one is tranquil toward delusions and unmoving with respect to afflictions and so forth, that is precisely the eighty-four thousand samādhis. If one is unhindered by each and every affliction and so forth, that is the eighty-four thousand liberations.

71.6

Fourth is the thicket of faculties. The meaning of faculties has already appeared in the ninth pariṇāmanā.

71.7

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Within the distinctions, ten characteristics form nine differences,” this is an overall outline. The nine are gathered into three: the first six are distinguished according to the doctrinal meaning of phenomena; the next two are distinguished with respect to persons, because the treatise says “on account of śrāvakas and bodhisattvas”; the last one discerns their faculties based on practice. Within the first group there are also three: the first three are pure faculties, the fourth is defiled faculties, and the latter two apply to both defiled and pure.

71.8

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Receptivity has slowness and quickness,” the dull-witted are slow and scant, the sharp-witted are quick and plentiful, and the intermediate are between these; depth and shallowness are likewise.

71.9

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The dispositions of the faculties of the three vehicles compared with one another,” the Small Vehicle is lower, the pratyekabuddhas are intermediate, and the Great Vehicle is superior. This is just like comparing the sizes of sheep, deer, and oxen.

71.10

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Meaning joy, pleasure, and so forth,” joy and pleasure arise from greed, sorrow and suffering arise from anger, and the faculty of equanimity arises from delusion. Afterward, they have dominant functions with respect to afflictions of this kind; hence, they are defiled faculties with abundant afflictions.

71.11

Regarding the commentary's phrase “In the Great Vehicle, the matured are determinate,” the previous section clarified determinate and indeterminate with respect to karma; here it is clarified with respect to faculties, which are naturally distinct. Furthermore, the previous section clarified difficult and easy to cross over with respect to determinate and indeterminate, whereas here it merely clarifies determinate and indeterminate with respect to matured and unmatured.

71.12

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Namely, awaiting the time to transform them as in the [chapter on] ‘Transcending the World’,” that text has ten kinds of pure equanimity, yet there are two kinds of awaiting the time, both of which apply here. First, the fourth equanimity says: “The pure equanimity of awaiting the time to transform sentient beings who are vessels of the Dharma, while not harboring dislike toward those who are not vessels.” The explanation says: Here it only uses awaiting the time for vessels of the Dharma. Second, the ninth equanimity says: “Or there are sentient beings whose faculties have already matured and who generate insightful mindfulness, yet are not yet able to know the supreme Dharma: the pure equanimity of awaiting the time to transform them.” Here this is applied completely; hence the commentary says, “Temporarily leaving them aside for now.”

71.13

Regarding the commentary's phrase “First, conforming to practice dependent on the body,” this is an inversion of phrasing in the treatise, which should say “conforming to practice based on the body”; now the commentary adopts the correct reading.

71.14

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Meaning that the six sense bases reciprocally bind one another,” it is like the mental consciousness universally cognizing among the six faculties, where the faculties and dharmas also proceed in accord with consciousness. Among the six, the eye sees its own body, and the ear hears its own sound; sound and body are both subsumed within the internal faculties. Because the faculties follow consciousness in cognizing the eye faculty, they cause the faculties to be bound and unable to attain liberation. The rest can be understood by analogy. Hence it says “reciprocally.” Regarding the commentary's phrase “Second, conforming to practice in arising and ceasing,” this phrasing is an inversion; if correct, it should say “conforming to the arising and ceasing of practice.” The faculties and the mind-king mutually accompany each other in defilement, hence they conform to arising and ceasing. Regarding “easily differentiated and extinguished,” it explains lightness by means of arising and abiding, transformation by means of differentiation, and destruction by means of cessation. Regarding “Third, conforming to practice in meditative observation,” it is because the discursive and investigating mind functions with respect to the six sense objects.

71.15

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Subsumed within the net of faculties,” the six faculties grasp the six sense objects, so the faculties net the sense objects. The six sense objects attract the six faculties, so the sense objects net the faculties. Therefore, regarding the net of faculties, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha takes its characteristics.

71.16

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Seventh, the purity of the śrāvaka,” the next two concern persons. Now, first is the śrāvaka. Regarding “In comparison with worldlings, the practice of the two vehicles is predominant,” the treatise below re-explains: “The purity of the śrāvaka is predominant in practice because of the capacity to accomplish the destruction of obstacles.” Now the commentary draws on the treatise to explain the sūtra. Above, this explains predominance: in comparison with worldlings who do not seek nirvāṇa, the pure faculties of the two vehicles can now seek it, and therefore they attain predominance with respect to world-transcendence. From “Because the faculties of the two vehicles” downward, it explains being indestructible, and concurrently explains “the capacity to accomplish the destruction of obstacles” in the treatise.

71.17

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Eighth, the purity of the bodhisattva,” these are the faculties of the Great Vehicle. The three non-retrogressions are precisely the correct mindfulness of stage.

71.18

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Ninth, distantly following,” this one concerns practice, which is the sūtra's phrase “the distinct characteristics of distantly following co-arising.” The treatise on the sūtra says “the various distinct characteristics of deeply entering co-arising”; “various” is “distinct,” and “deeply entering” is “distantly following.” Regarding “showing that all faculties subsume,” this is the treatise explaining the sūtra. The treatise re-explains: “The distinctions subsumed by all faculties are because of the differences in the faculties of beginning practice, upāya, and the ripening of retribution.” From “meaning the three untainted” downward, the commentary explains the text of the treatise. Initial cultivation is beginning correct practice; skillful means is upāya; and ultimate realization is called the ripening of retribution. Matching them with the three untainted faculties, the meaning was seen above. From “meaning the aforementioned faith and so forth” downward, it harmonizes the treatise with the sūtra, explaining the words “distinct” and “distantly following.” Faith and the rest being together with the three untainted faculties explains the meaning of “co-arising,” because faculties arise in association with the practice of dharmas. From “and following” downward, it explains the meaning of “distinct.” From “from beginning to end” downward, it explains the meaning of “distantly following.” From “these three faculties” downward, it explains the establishment of the meaning of faculties, because they are named faculties on account of their superior function, radiance, and predominance. And from “the nine above” downward, it summarizes them by meaning. All are as in the “Chapter on Pariṇāmanā.”

71.19

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Fifth, analogized to three,” the three of understanding, disposition, and desire are briefly as in the section on the ten powers, and extensive as in the “Chapter on the Merit of the Aspiration for Enlightenment.” Regarding “Nature and characteristics conform and enter”: based on faculties understanding arises; based on understanding disposition is formed; based on disposition desire arises. All of them resemble one another, so they are called conforming. The principles interpenetrate, so they are called entering. By analogizing these to faculties, they are not elaborated further.

71.20

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Sixth, explaining the latent defilements (anuśaya)": first it explains the general name, and afterwards, below "Separately, there are...", it subsumes and explains according to the treatise. Now, to begin with the first: regarding the phrase "this is only in terms of seeds," the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle two, states: "Among the seeds present within the essential nature of all phenomena, if they are subsumed under the category of defilements, they are called both unrefined heaviness (dauṣṭhulya) and latent defilement (anuśaya). If they are subsumed under the category of heterogenous maturation (vipāka) and other non-defined categories, they are called only unrefined heaviness, not latent defilement. If they are seeds subsumed under wholesome roots such as faith, they are neither unrefined heaviness nor latent defilement. Why is that? Because when these phenomena arise, the essential nature on which they depend has only adaptability, not non-adaptability."

71.21

Regarding the commentary's phrase "The first six clarify where [they] pursue and adhere," and so forth: in the treatise, this is clarified provisionally based on pursuing and adhering. If considered in terms of bondage, it should also say: where are they bound? By what are they bound? If according with "latent defilement", it should also say: where are they latent? Through what are they latent? Therefore, the explanation below says: "the place where they have long lain dormant," and so forth.

71.22

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Now, the first has five [parts]": 1. Clarifying the locus in terms of the mind; 2. Clarifying the locus in terms of the realms; 3. Clarifying the locus in terms of stages; 4. Clarifying the locus in terms of time; 5. Clarifying the locus in terms of practice. Now, for the first: regarding "maturation mind" (vipākacitta), it is the overall fruition-entity of the heterogeneously maturing ālayavijñāna. Meanings such as subtlety have appeared frequently in the text above. Regarding "because it arises without departing from present phenomena, it is simply called 'mind'", thus the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and other texts designate the first seven consciousnesses as "born of maturation" (vipākaja), and not as the fruition-entity itself. Since they repay seeds of past minds, they cannot be called the fruition [itself]. Yet the seven consciousnesses all arise presently by relying on the eighth and engaging conditions; this is called "not departing from present phenomena." The seeds, following the present arising, may be present or absent; this is called "the place where they temporarily turn," like a person dozing off, not necessarily in their original room.

71.23

In the commentary's "Second, associated and unassociated": first it takes the treatise's intention to establish the names; below "Only with...", the commentary explains the characteristics of association, and so forth. Below "Hence the treatise says...", it quotes evidence to speak of them in terms of the realms. From "defilements of the formless realm are subtle" onward, the commentary explains the treatise's words "lower, middle, and upper": by inclusion taking the defilements of the form realm as middle, and the defilements of the desire realm as upper; this is in terms of the defilement-entities themselves. Master Yuan says: "Taking the desire realm as lower, etc., is in terms of the superiority or inferiority of the realms." From "Although latent defilements..." onward, it resolves an objection. That is, someone asks: in whichever single realm one resides, one possesses all latent defilements belonging to the three realms. For instance, when born in an upper realm, the defilement-seeds of the lower realm are also fully possessed. How can it be said that there are associated and unassociated? Therefore it now replies: the association of seeds is spoken of in terms of their active defilements, not that being born in an upper realm causes one to lose the seeds of the lower realm, and so on. However, examining the sūtra now, there are only the words "associated and unassociated," which is why this explanation is made. If following the sūtra text of the treatise, which says "the characteristic of being associated, unassociated, and not separated," then active defilements have association and non-association, while latent defilements are never separated.

71.24

Regarding the commentary's phrase "First, reaching the pinnacle of the vajra[-like samādhi]": this means that prior to the vajra-like samādhi, there is still the existence of saṃsāra, hence it is called "pinnacle of existence" (bhavāgra). This is because the innate defilement-seeds are only severed at this time. Since in the defilement dense forest above it was said "descending down to the vajra," this is naturally spoken in terms of seeds. Although there are two meanings, the commentary's intention favors this one; therefore the heading above said "Third, clarifying the locus in terms of stages." From "Now taking it generally..." onward, it reconciles with the treatise's sūtra text. Not mentioning the vajra is because it intends to encompass both the Great and Small [Vehicles]. Since the verse below says "Extinguished only in the vajra-path is it ultimately complete," the former meaning is indeed primary. The phrase "nine grounds" also admits of two meanings: when contrasted with the aforementioned pinnacle of the three existences, it refers to the nine of the three realms and nine grounds—that is, the desire realm, the four dhyānas, and the four formless [attainments] make nine. If conforming to the former meaning, it refers to the stage of Good Intelligence (sādhumatī-bhūmi), because the tenth [stage] corresponds to the rank where they are completely severed. The fourth, in terms of time, is easy to understand. Regarding the commentary's phrase "Only wisdom can terrify..." onward: this reflects the treatise's intention, because the treatise's sūtra text says "the characteristic of not having been terrified since beginningless time," for which the treatise provides this explanation. The treatise says: "In boundless worlds, only wisdom can terrify [them], fearing [them] like hostile bandits. Because one has never possessed the wisdom of hearing, contemplation, and cultivation, they are not eliminated." The commentary adopts the treatise's intention to reconcile and explain the present sūtra, which is easily understood. Regarding the commentary's phrase "unable to comply with correct practice": because below "supernormal powers" in the treatise's sūtra text there are the words "correct practice." The rest can be understood.

71.25

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Below, the three realms...": in clarifying by what they pursue and adhere, except for the fourth line which manifests that the essence of latent defilements is unreal, the remaining five also clarify pursuing and adhering based on the previous loci, though the text does not follow their order. The first clarifies pursuing and adhering based on the previous second [heading], clarifying the locus in terms of the realms. "Unceasing" is precisely the characteristic of pursuing and adhering. The second discerns pursuing and adhering based on the previous fourth [heading], clarifying the locus in terms of time. This is the sūtra's phrase "the characteristic of causing boundless minds to continually arise in succession," while the treatise's sūtra text says "the characteristic of beginningless continual accumulation." The commentary reconciles both "beginningless" and "boundless"; yet the continual succession is precisely the characteristic of pursuing and adhering. "Third, opening the gates of the āyatanas" discerns pursuing and adhering based on the first [heading], clarifying the locus in terms of mind. "Accumulating and giving rise to the six consciousnesses" is precisely the characteristic of pursuing and adhering. The rest is as in the commentary text. But in saying "the present sūtra's meaning contains [it]," it is because among the āyatanas, the mind-āyatana (manāyatana) subsumes the ālayavijñāna. Regarding the commentary's phrase "firm and solid..." onward: it manifests that the essence of latent defilements is unreal, and does not rely on the previous locus. Regarding "unreal and firm": the sūtra says "firm and hard to cure," and the treatise says "unreal pursuing and adhering." That which is unreal is precisely the latent defilements pursuing and adhering up to dhyāna, and so on; therefore it is "firm," meaning that being unreal and hard to cure is the characteristic of pursuing and adhering.

71.26

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Fifth, the loci of the grounds, and so forth": the fifth discerns pursuing and adhering based on the previous third [heading], clarifying the locus in terms of stages. Regarding "the six sense bases within the nine grounds": because the treatise's sūtra text says "the characteristic of compliance and non-compliance of the grounds and entries," the treatise explains: "Because within the nine grounds, the body of defilements of the six sense bases pursues and adheres." The explanation states: "body" (kāya) means entity. Below "However, the nine grounds...", it is the commentary explaining the treatise. In contrast to the two pinnacles of existence, two sets of nine grounds are preserved. Second, in terms of the nine grounds up to Good Intelligence (sādhumatī): regarding the seeds of the cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa), the tenth stage still has the two kinds of ignorance of equal awakening; since entering the first stage, each stage severs two successively. In the nine grounds eighteen have already been severed; hence it says that this stage has partial severance. Next, it quotes "only completed in the vajra" to doubly verify the two above. "Only completed in the vajra" clarifies that the tenth stage still possesses them. Since it says "only then completed," it clarifies that the nine [grounds] have already had some removed. Furthermore, in terms of the seeds of the afflictive obscurations (kleśāvaraṇa), they are severed simultaneously at the vajra[-like samādhi], which also establishes the sūtra's meaning that in each and every stage they are fully possessed.

71.27

Regarding the commentary's phrase "Sixth, pursuing and adhering free from suffering": this discerns the meaning of pursuing and adhering based on the previous fifth [heading], clarifying the locus in terms of practice. That it can only be abandoned through the supramundane noble path conversely reveals that worldly paths, various concentrations, and so forth cannot abandon it. Hence the treatise says: "Because other practices cannot abandon them." Here, being unable to abandon them is precisely the characteristic of pursuing and adhering. In the previous fifth, having full possession was the characteristic of pursuing and adhering.

71.28

Seventh, the dense forest of taking birth (upapatti-gahana). "The treatise generally takes it as eight": among the eight, the first seven contrast causes to manifest fruits, and the final one clause reveals the accumulation capable of producing in contrast to subsequent suffering. Within the first seven, they are subsumed into three pairs: namely, the first two, the middle three, and the final two. Within these three pairs, the first in each discusses birth in terms of its direct characteristic, and the second speaks of birth in contrast to its cause. Within the first pair, "1. The varieties of bodies" discusses birth in terms of its direct characteristic. "2. The varieties of karmic causes" discerns birth in contrast to causes: because karma varies, the births that are generated are manifold. Among the three clauses of the second pair, the first two clauses discuss birth in terms of their direct characteristics. "3. The varieties of dwelling places": not only the six destinies, for within a single destiny there are immeasurable places. Regarding the commentary's phrase "4. The two lines of the fourth and fifth: the varieties of upper and lower in form and perception": the present sūtra's two lines form a single clause in the treatise. The sūtra says: "the diverse characteristics of having form and being formless, the diverse characteristics of having perception and being non-percipient." Two realms possess form, while the formless realm is formless; the heaven of non-perception is non-percipient, while the rest are all percipient. As for saying "upper and lower": taking the formless as upper and having form as lower; taking non-perception as upper and having perception as lower. There should also be neither-perception-nor-non-perception, which is also subsumed under non-perception. Yet the treatise only says "upper and lower in form and perception"; hence Master Yuan asked: "How can the formless be considered upper and lower within form?" The explanation states: "That realm lacks coarse form, but has subtle form." He also asked: "How can non-perception be considered upper and lower within perception?" The reply has the same meaning as before, intending that that realm lacks coarse perception, but has subtle perception. The rest is as discerned in the first stage. The commentary's phrase "5. The varieties of causes identical to external form" discerns birth in contrast to causes. Because it cites causes past karma to manifest that sprouts exist, as detailed in the sixth stage. In the third pair, "6. The varieties of individual essences" discusses birth in terms of its direct characteristic, also as in the sixth stage. However, some essences are solely form, and some essences possess both; hence it says "varieties."

71.29

Regarding the commentary's phrase "7. Complying with the root of birth..." onward: this discerns birth in contrast to causes. The above is the treatise text. Below "meaning ignorance and craving...", the commentary follows the treatise's explanation. If [one considers what] Master Yuan said: "The phrasing of the treatise is inverted; if corrected, it should say 'conforming to the root causes of birth.' That is, present birth is originally caused by ignorance and craving. Based on this present birth, one again gives rise to ignorance and craving; hence it says 'conforming to the root.'" This also does not contradict principle. Regarding the commentary's phrase "8. The final two lines..." onward: it manifests their production of accumulation in contrast to subsequent fruits, hence it is named "the varieties of the truth of suffering's accumulation." Below "Meaning the three quests...", the commentary takes the treatise's intention to provide an explanation. Therein, first it explains the treatise's name in general, and afterwards, below "The upper line...", it separately interprets the sūtra text. First, it explains the two quests of the upper line. Regarding "desiring sensation": sensation means pleasant sensation. Desiring to produce the five desires, one intensifies grasping and seeking, thereby inviting future suffering. Regarding "desiring birth": its essence is perception; grasping at the superior characteristics of the three realms, one desires to be born [there]. In "The lower line is the quest for false celibacy (brahmacarya)", first it explains in general. The word "transmigration" here corresponds to the treatise's "coming and going, ascending and descending." Next, below "Greedily seeking the three realms...", it explains separately. "Small" is the desire realm; "great" is the form realm; "immeasurable" is the two formless [attainments] of space and consciousness; all as in the eighth stage. "Falsely calling it nirvāṇa" is spoken in terms of general characteristics. "Or patting the belly": that is, the Brahmin Daṇḍin patted his belly and proclaimed: "My body is itself the Way." This is positing the desire realm as the Way. "Non-perception" is positing the form realm as the Way. "Neither-perception" is positing the formless realm as the Way; thus the upper two formless [attainments] are also included therein. That among the two realms these two heavens are singled out is because non-Buddhists mostly grasp them as nirvāṇa. However, the treatise's sūtra text says "greedily attached to the three realms, conceiving perceptions of leaving perception." And the treatise explains the word "perception" in the sūtra by means of the heaven of non-perception, meaning: that realm has subtle perception, which non-Buddhists falsely imagine to be non-perception. Having perception, they call it non-existence; this is called "conceiving perceptions of leaving perception." The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra also maintains that the heaven of non-perception merely lacks coarse perception, but possesses subtle perception. Therefore the treatise concludes: "Non-Buddhists falsely imagine this to be escaping the wheel of existence." Thus we know that the three quests merely increase the causes of accumulation, repeatedly incurring suffering.

71.30

Eighth, the dense forest of latent habituations (vāsanā-gahana). In general there are four parts: 1. Jointly presenting the headings; 2. Quoting scriptural evidence; 3. The direct explanation; 4. General conclusion. Now, the first: namely, residual habituation and perfuming constitute two meanings, because presenting the headings covers both.

71.31

Below the commentary's phrase "Although presenting latent habituations...", it quotes text to substantiate the meaning of perfuming (vāsanā); hence the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, fascicle two, states: "Internal seeds must grow through perfuming; directly capable of producing fruit, they are the direct causes (hetupratyaya). The perfuming of external seeds may be present or absent; they serve as indirect conditioning factors (adhipatipratyaya). The accomplished fruits brought about must invariably take internal seeds as their direct causes, because they are fruits produced by seeds of shared characteristics."

71.32

Regarding the commentary’s text from “Perfuming means to fumigate and scorch” onward: this is the third [part], the direct explanation. Within this there are two: first, explaining the name, which is the text of the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*; second, from “That is, the ālaya[-vijñāna]” onward, explaining the meaning of perfuming (vāsanā). Within this there are three: first, the Dharma-characteristic school; second, the Dharma-nature school; third, general elimination of misconceptions. Now, the first is also the text of the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*. The chapter “Clarifying Questions” has already elaborated on it; now the commentary text contains it completely, so it is briefly indicated again here. The treatise says: “What is perfumed and that which perfumes are each endowed with four characteristics; because they cause the seeds to grow, it is called perfuming. What are the four characteristics of what is perfumed?” Explanation: when the commentary says “taking the ālaya-vijñāna as what is perfumed,” it brings out the essence of what is perfumed. Only the ālaya is endowed with the four characteristics, and therefore it receives the name of “what is perfumed.” From “Because it perpetually abides in a single category” onward, it brings out the four characteristics. This single preceding sentence is the first characteristic. The treatise says: “First, the nature of enduring steadfastly: if a dharma is a continuous succession of a single category from beginning to end, capable of holding habit-energy, then it is what is perfumed. This excludes the evolving consciousnesses, sound, wind, and so forth, because their nature does not endure steadfastly, and thus they are not what is perfumed.” “Second, being indeterminate in nature” is the second characteristic. The treatise says: “Second, indeterminate nature: if a dharma is even and without conflict, capable of accommodating habit-energy, then it is what is perfumed. This excludes wholesome and defiled [dharmas], whose power is overwhelmingly strong so that they accommodate nothing, and thus are not what is perfumed. On this account, the eighth pure consciousness of the Tathāgata only carries old seeds and does not newly receive perfuming (because it is supremely wholesome).” “Third, because it is receptive to perfuming” is the third characteristic. The treatise says: “Third, the nature of being receptive to perfuming: if a dharma is sovereign and its nature is not solid and dense, being capable of receiving habit-energy, then it is what is perfumed. This excludes mental factors and unconditioned dharmas, which are dependently arisen and solid and dense, and therefore are not what is perfumed (mental factors are not sovereign, and the unconditioned is solid and dense in nature).” “Fourth, concordant harmony between the agent and recipient [of perfuming]”: the treatise says, “Fourth, having the nature of mutual concordance with that which perfumes: if it is at the same time and same place as that which perfumes, neither identical nor distinct, then it is what is perfumed. This excludes another’s body or preceding and succeeding moments, which lack the meaning of concordance, and thus are not what is perfumed.” This meaning is presented together by the commentator under the fourth [characteristic] of that which perfumes. When the commentary says “taking the previous seven evolving consciousnesses as that which perfumes,” it brings out the essence of that which perfumes. From “Because there is arising and ceasing” onward, it brings out the four characteristics. The treatise says: “What are the four characteristics of that which perfumes? First, having arising and ceasing: if a dharma is impermanent and capable of function to grow habit-energy, then it is that which perfumes. This excludes the unconditioned, which is unchanging before and after and lacks the function of growth, and thus is not that which perfumes.” “Second, possessing augmented power” is the second characteristic. The treatise says: “Second, having superior function: if having arising and ceasing, its power is augmented and capable of inducing habit-energy, then it is that which perfumes. This excludes the mind and mental factors of ripening, whose power is weak and inferior, and thus are not that which perfumes.” That commentary explains: “Regarding ‘superior function,’ it means that the previous seven consciousnesses can be that which perfumes; this excludes those arising from ripening among the previous six consciousnesses, as well as the eighth mental king and its mental factors, which, although capable of cognizing objects, are not strong and powerful, are not termed ‘superior,’ and thus are not that which perfumes.” “Third, because there is increase and decrease” is the third characteristic. The treatise says: “Third, having increase and decrease: if having superior function, it can increase and decrease, gathering habit-energy of the faculties, then it is that which perfumes. This excludes the fully perfected wholesome dharmas of the Buddha fruition, which neither increase nor decrease, and thus are not that which perfumes. If those were capable of perfuming, they would not be consummate, and there would be superiority and inferiority among the Buddha fruitions before and after.” When the commentary says “because agent and recipient harmonize together, it is called perfuming,” it combines and examines the fourth characteristic of that which perfumes. As for the fourth, the treatise says: “Fourth, operating in concordance with what is perfumed: if it is at the same time and in the same place as what is perfumed, neither identical nor distinct, then it is that which perfumes. This excludes another’s body or preceding and succeeding moments, which lack the meaning of concordance, and thus are not that which perfumes (self and other cannot mutually perfume each other; before and after cannot mutually perfume each other).” The treatise says: “Only the seven evolving consciousnesses and their mental factors possess this superior function with increase and decrease; being endowed with these four characteristics, they can be that which perfumes.” Explanation: the reason why the fourth characteristics of the agent and recipient are combined is that there are two points: first, because the two fourth characteristics differ only in agent and recipient, while their phrasings are completely identical; second, this distinct text is used to make a general conclusion. The treatise concludes: “In this way, that which perfumes and the consciousness which is perfumed arise together and cease together, so that the meaning of perfuming cognition is established, causing the seeds within what is perfumed to grow, just as in the perfuming of sesame seeds; only then does it warrant the name of perfuming.”

71.33

Regarding the commentary’s text from “Relying on the *Awakening of Faith*” onward: the second is the meaning of perfuming in the Dharma-nature school, all of which is as explained in “Clarifying Questions”.

71.34

Regarding the commentary’s text from “Although hearing was mentioned above” onward: the third eliminates misconceptions and resolves difficulties, which is also the meaning of the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*, hence it says “above.” It also serves to distinguish this from the *Awakening of Faith* and other texts, in which hearing the Dharma from a good friend serves as external perfuming.

71.35

Regarding the commentary’s “Now both encompass this”: this generally concludes the preceding meaning of perfuming and the meaning of eradicating habits across both the Nature and Characteristic schools; both are fully present in the sūtra text.

71.36

Regarding the commentary’s text from “In the specific [explanations], there are ten distinctions” onward: the second is the specific explanation. The text of the commentary has two parts: first, explaining line by line; second, general conclusion. The conclusion is brief; if explained fully now, the first seven explain habit-energy in terms of time, the next one in terms of the path, and the last two in terms of persons. Within the first, there are again three: the first two explain habit-energy with respect to the past; the next three explain habit-energy viewing the present with respect to the present; the last two explain habit-energy viewing the subsequent with respect to the present; all are fully contained in the text of the commentary. Now for the first: the first phrase is the habit-energy of causes; the second is the habit-energy of fruits.

71.37

Regarding the commentary’s “As in the *Sūtra of the Questions of the Ṛṣi Great Light of Majesty*”: that text is called the *Sūtra on Inquiring into Doubts*, in which this ṛṣi is the foremost, containing extensive questions and answers. At the end the ṛṣis asked about this meaning, saying: “Sentient beings' holding of meanings is like shooting stars, each distinct and separate; how can a true gathering together be achieved?” Below, the gist is cited. The Buddha said: “There is no time, direction, or place in which gathering together is attained. Only after passing beyond the single vehicle, in the bodhisattva grounds, is gathering together attained; in nirvāṇa without remainder is gathering together attained, like a hundred rivers returning to the ocean.” He also said: “Although I have spoken of gathering together in the equality of defilements, it is also not a gathering together. Just as insects blown by the wind gather in one place, and when the wind ceases they scatter again, sentient beings are also like this: blown by the wind of karma to gather in places such as the hells and hungry ghosts, when karma is exhausted they scatter again.” They also asked with the meaning: Having previously been together in the six destinies and later meeting among humans, how may it be known that they were previously gathered together? The Buddha said: “Great Ṛṣi! When any sentient beings see each other and their minds are displeased, giving rise to wrath and harboring hatred, or at times suffer headaches, or lose control of urination and defecation, you should know that these people show the signs of having once gathered together in the hells in previous lives.” They also asked: “If in previous lives they were once among animals, with hundreds of thousands of bodies in one place, how can this be known?” The Buddha said: “When they are born among humans and see each other, they form enmity and resentment, constantly looking for an advantage against each other, [thinking], ‘When shall I find an advantage over them?’ This is the sign of having previously gathered together among animals. If they have come from among hungry ghosts, they constantly delight in foul stench and are greedy for food; even if they wish to give to another, their minds cannot let go, and they produce distress and greedy attachment. Or again, seeing the wealth and influence of others, their minds give rise to jealousy, and they constantly desire to obtain the other person’s property. If they were in previous lives together in one place among humans, then in the present life when they see each other, they give rise further to minds of lust. If they were in previous lives together among the gods, then when they see each other, their gazes from afar draw each other in, and they mutually feel fond affection.” Hearing this, the ṛṣi praised the Tathāgata as omniscient.

First 37 of 58 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese