大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.34

74.34

On the passage in the Commentary beginning with "If one relies on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha": third, citing the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. This has two parts: first, citing the treatise; second, comparing and discerning between the sūtra and the treatise. Now for the first. Not wishing to clutter the text, the Commentary cites by meaning; fearing [some] may wish to investigate thoroughly, the Subcommentary sets it out in full. The treatise states: "Furthermore, for what reason, as stated in the sūtra, are similes such as an illusion spoken of with respect to the other-dependent nature (paratantrasvabhāva)? (This is the general question.) With respect to the other-dependent nature, it is in order to dispel others' delusive doubts (this is the general answer)." Vasubandhu explains 'delusive doubts': "It refers to all doubts concerning the delusive other-dependent nature." The treatise states: "How do others further have delusive doubts regarding the other-dependent nature? (Restating the query.) Because others raise such doubts regarding this: (This is the general statement of the premise; below it is explained individually)." (1) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is truly no referent (artha), there is an objective sphere that is engaged with? To dispel this doubt, the simile of an illusion is spoken." The Subcommentary explains: The doubt here arises from the preceding [passage of the] treatise, since the preceding treatise stated that the characteristic of the other-dependent is delusive conceptualization (vikalpa), taking consciousness-only as its nature; it has no real existence and is not true referent. From this, doubt arises, and thus it says: 'If there is no true referent, how can there be an objective sphere?' The doubts below all arise from this, and thus before every doubt it asks, 'How is there no referent?'; and within the explanations of the similes, all say, 'To dispel this doubt, it speaks of the simile of a mirage, and so forth.' Asabhāva explains the intent of the illusion simile: "Just as there is no real elephant, yet there is an illusory elephant serving as an objective support (ālambana). The other-dependent nature is also like this: although there are no six sensory bases of objective support such as form, when one conceptualizes ubiquitously, it seems as though six sensory bases of objective support manifest." The Subcommentary explains: There is no reality, yet it appears to exist; why must there be a reality? The explanations of the similes below all respond with this intent. (2) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, mind and mental factors operate? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a mirage is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a mirage, when it flickers, there is truly no water, yet there is the perception of water. The external vessel world is also like this." (3) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, there are differentiated experiences of pleasant and unpleasant? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a dream is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as in a dream the collection of mind and mental factors arising from sleep is extremely dim and coarse; although there are no various external objects such as women, there are experiences of pleasant and unpleasant objects. The waking state is also like this." (4) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, differentiated pleasant and unpleasant fruits of pure and impure karma arise? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a reflected image is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a reflected image in a mirror or the like, seeing the original face again, [one takes it] to be oneself; now seeing the reflected image, this reflected image is truly non-existent; [this is like] volitional karma of good and evil belonging to the uncollected plane (asamāhitabhūmi). Taking the original archetype as the condition, the reflected image as fruit arises, and it is also like this." (5) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, various consciousnesses operate? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a light-shadow is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a light-shadow, when a puppeteer obscures the light, various shadows are produced; so various consciousnesses in the uncollected plane operate differentially with respect to what has no real referent." (6) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, various discursive proliferations (prapañca) and spoken words operate? To dispel this doubt, the simile of an echo is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a valley echo there is truly no sound, yet it makes listeners seem to hear manifold objects of speech; so too are various spoken words and verbal karma." (7) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, there is an operation involving the true apprehension of objects engaged by various samādhis? To dispel this doubt, the simile of the moon in the water is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with the moon in the water, because water has the nature of smoothness and clarity, although there is no moon, a moon can be apprehended. One is perfumed by contemplating the object of true referent, having smoothness as its nature. The mind associated with various samādhis is also like this: although there is no objective sphere of a true referent as objective support, it seems to operate. What is the difference between this and the reflected image? They differ by being in the collected (samāhita) and uncollected (asamāhita) planes. Some say: When various conditions such as a face come together, a reflected image of the face arises in water or a mirror and can be clearly apprehended. Just as by the power of multiple conditions, various colors arise in crystal (sphaṭika) and the like. Is it not so? The difference in what is apprehended is that, apart from water or a mirror, a reflected image of the moon or face can be clearly obtained. The various colors appearing in crystal and the like are not like this, and therefore it is not a parallel simile. Moreover, we do not accept that there are various true referents such as water; since the subject of the proposition (dharmin) is unestablished, it is not a valid inference (anumāna)." (8) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, there are bodhisattvas who, with undeluded minds, intentionally take birth to accomplish all matters of benefit and joy for sentient beings? To dispel this doubt, the simile of an apparition is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with an apparition, it is called an apparition based on transformation; although it has no reality, the magician is undeluded and exerts effort in the things transformed. The bodhisattva is also like this: although there are no sentient beings by imagined nature (parikalpitasvabhāva), out of compassion for sentient beings of other-dependent nature, they proceed to various places of birth to assume an embodiment." Below, the treatise concludes: "It should be known that here there are only so many instances of delusive doubt: namely, (1) inner and (2) outer, (3) differentiated experiences, (4) bodily karma, (5) verbal karma, and (6) three kinds of mental karma of the uncollected plane, (7) of the collected plane, and (8) being undeluded. Regarding these eight things, the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, have spoken eight kinds of similes. When the wise hear what is said, they can correctly understand the meanings in the two planes, collected and uncollected." The Subcommentary explains: Above, it is cited in full according to the order of that treatise. What follows "The commentary says" is all Asabhāva's commentary; what follows "The Subcommentary explains" is the author's own understanding. However, in the treatise's explanation of the doubts, it merely brings up the eight similes because the doubts differ, without necessarily linking sequentially one after the other; thus the treatise always restates the initial phrase, 'If there is no referent'. The Commentary simply cites the text of the treatise according to the sequence of the sūtra text. In the Kanding ji, they link sequentially one by one. Since the sequence differs between the sūtra and treatise, how could they form a sequential link in the sūtra as well?