大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 79
English (machine translation) 79
- Language
- English
79.1
Composed by Śramaṇa Chengguan of Da Huayan Monastery on Mount Qingliang under the Tang
79.2
Chapter 37: The Manifestation of the Tathāgata
79.3
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Answering the question on the practices of the second assembly": because in the Chapter on Inconceivable Dharmas, manifestation is precisely the practice of the second assembly.
79.4
Regarding the Commentary's "Second, explaining the name," the commentary's text is divided into three: first, the correct explanation; second, from "If restricted only to transformation..." onward, concluding with a critique of ancient interpretations; third, from "However, 'coming' is precisely 'manifestation'..." onward, harmonizing with the six compound analyses. In the first part, there are four: 1. A general explanation. 2. From "Although the Tathāgata..." onward, concluding what came before and introducing what follows. 3. From "If based on the dharmakāya..." onward, the specific explanation. However, as for the dharmakāya, if discussing dharma upon the recompense [body], one should say that tathatā emerging from entanglement is the manifestation of the dharmakāya; now, taking emergence from entanglement as the recompense, and approaching it directly upon the essence, it therefore says "constantly manifests according to principle." The remaining two can be known. 4. From "Now, taking the newly [awakened] Buddha..." onward, fusing and harmonizing the explanations. Therein are two: first, harmonizing the three bodies and the ten bodies; next, harmonizing the chapter title to substantiate the previous meaning. In the former part, there are three: first, contrasting the dharma and recompense [bodies]; second, contrasting the true and the responsive; third, concluding with the fusion of the three and the ten. Now, the first: the statement "the newly [awakened] Buddha and the originally accomplished [Buddha] have never had two essences" approaches the dharma from the recompense, like an image emerging from a mold: the image is fundamentally originally accomplished, and therefore there are not two essences. The statement "in the newly accomplished and original Buddha, dharma and recompense seem divided" approaches the recompense from the dharma, like gold forming an image: gold and image seem divided, because there is gold that has not yet formed an image. Now that the image is formed, they seem divided into two. The former contrast is non-difference; this contrast is non-oneness; non-oneness is non-difference, so it says they seem divided, while ultimately there are not two essences.
79.5
From the Commentary's "There is nothing to which it does not respond in time" onward, the second [part] contrasts the true and the responsive to discern their fusion. Since the dharma and recompense are both the constant functioning upon the true essence, the true precisely becomes the responsive; since function is not separate from essence, the responsive is precisely the true.
79.6
From the Commentary's "The perfect fusion of the three Buddhas" onward, the third [part] concludes with the fusion of the three and the ten. That is to say, subsuming the ten Buddhas with the three Buddhas does not go beyond the three bodies. Since the three bodies are fused, the ten bodies are precisely the three, their own essence being unimpeded. From "Therefore, discerning responsive manifestation..." onward, it concludes to establish the correct meaning.
79.7
From the Commentary's "Therefore, the Jin [translation's] title..." onward, the second [part] harmonizes the chapter titles. The titles of the two sūtras form two divisions. First, harmonizing the Jin sūtra. The first two lines are a general presentation, using the Jin sūtra to substantiate the previous meaning; hence the words "therefore." The phrase "although it is an interpretive addition" is because it is absent from the Sanskrit text. Next, from "Because although the responsive accords with conditions..." onward, it explains that the meaning of 'nature-arising' accords with the meaning of 'responsive manifestation.' Therein, there are altogether six meanings substantiating nature-arising. Now, the first: establishing the portal of the principle being non-contradictory. However, the meaning of 'manifestation' is also called 'conditioned arising,' and also called 'nature-arising.' If explained in terms of characteristics, gathering conditions to manifest is called conditioned arising, meaning that through the karmic resonance of sentient beings and the Tathāgata's great compassion, it manifests. The eight aspects of achieving enlightenment are born from the dharmatā, and therefore it is called nature-arising. Now, taking conditioned arising from conditions without own-nature, that is precisely called nature-arising. Furthermore, pure conditioned arising constantly accords with the nature, and is also called nature-arising. Therefore it says: "Although the responsive accords with conditions, it does not contradict the nature."
79.8
Regarding the Commentary's "There is nothing that does not flow from this dharmadhātu": the second [part] cites the Liang Treatise (*Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya*) as substantiation. That is, the portal of mutual accomplishment, clarifying that nature accomplishes conditions. This nature-arising itself has two meanings: first, arising from conditions without own-nature constitutes nature-arising; second, the dharmatā according with conditions is called nature-arising. The preceding passage is the first meaning; the present passage is the second meaning. It should also be stated: there is nothing that does not revert to witnessing this dharmakāya. This is the mutual accomplishment of conditions and wisdom, which is conditions accomplishing nature; this is the previous meaning. However, the previous [passage] took non-contradiction, while the present takes mutual accomplishment; therefore, this is the portal of mutual accomplishment.
79.9
Regarding the Commentary's "With purity depriving defilement, the nature precisely arises": the third clarifies the portal of mutual deprivation, which also resolves an objection. That is, someone asks: nature-arising is solely pure, while conditioned arising encompasses defilement; how can conditioned arising be precisely nature-arising? Therefore, this resolution is made: conditioned arising has two kinds: first, pure; second, defiled. 'Pure' refers to the Tathāgata's great compassion, the bodhisattvas' myriad practices, and so forth; 'defiled' refers to sentient beings' afflictions and karma, and so forth. If defilement deprives purity, then it belongs to sentient beings, and is thus solely conditioned arising. Now, with purity depriving defilement, it belongs solely to all Buddhas, and is therefore called nature-arising.
79.10
Regarding the Commentary's "If separated from conditions, nature cannot be spoken of": this fourth is the portal of identity, and also resolves an objection. That is, someone asks: conditioned arising concerns phenomena, while nature-arising concerns principle; how can they be identical? Therefore, this resolution is made: from conditions having no own-nature, nature-arising is only then revealed. Furthermore, by observing conditions, one deduces and knows nature-arising; if separated from conditions, what nature could one further discuss? Having nature apart from conditions is annihilated emptiness. In the Commentary, "Below, adding nature-arising..." is the fifth passage, citing this sūtra as proof, which is the portal of using persons to represent the Dharma.
79.11
From the Commentary's "Although delusion is precisely the true..." onward, the sixth is the portal of delusion concealing the true, which also resolves an objection. The objection says: if conditions are precisely nature, delusion is fundamentally empty of itself, and its very essence is nature; why can defilement not deprive purity? Therefore, this resolution is made: pure conditions accord with nature, whereas defiled conditions contradict it. Therefore, the *Yingluo jing* says: "Initially giving rise to a single thought and abiding in conditions: according with the supreme truth is good; contradicting it is evil."
79.12
From the Commentary's "Now, because the meaning of 'arising' contains much, it simply says 'manifestation'..." onward, the second [part] harmonizes with the present sūtra. Thus, 'nature-arising' is restricted to nature, whereas 'manifestation' is precisely 'arising'; 'arising' contains both conditions and nature, hence it is said to contain much. The words "from nature" refer to nature-arising, which is the dharmakāya. "From causes" refers to conditioned arising; conditioned arising is the recompense body. "From the true and from resonance" is precisely the transformation body. And "from the true" approaches the Buddha, penetrating both conditions and nature: arising in transformation based on the dharma and recompense [bodies] is called "from the true." "From resonance" approaches sentient beings, which is conditioned arising. Due to the above meanings, it is therefore said to contain much. The conclusion criticizing the six interpretations is both clear and knowable.
79.13
Regarding the Commentary's "First, the external adhipati-karma of sentient beings": this distinguishes it from internal, maturation karma.
79.14
Regarding the Commentary's "Meaning that many sentient beings who ought to be born in this realm share the common karma that jointly transforms [it]": this is the single character "place" in the *Cheng Weishi Lun*'s explanation of the primary transformer. The treatise says: "Regarding what is called 'place': the maturation consciousness, through the power of the maturation of common seeds, transforms into the semblance of the characteristics of the receptacle world such as forms, namely the external great elements and the forms derived from them. Although the transformations of various sentient beings are each distinct, their characteristics are similar and their locations do not differ, just as the illumination of many lamps each pervades and appears as one." Explanation: this explains the meaning of joint transformation; similarity is called "common." The treatise also says: "Whose maturation consciousness transforms into these characteristics? One opinion: all of them. Why? As a sūtra says: 'They are jointly produced by the predominant power of the karma of all sentient beings.' Another opinion does not accept this, and goes on to say: 'The sūtra says "all" relying on a portion of them. That all their karmas are identical means that all jointly transform them.'" Explanation: this distinguishes between broad and restricted, which is precisely the present text of the Commentary.
79.15
From the Commentary's "Relying on this meaning, it says: 'because they ought to be born in this realm'" onward: the sūtra says: "each receiving and utilizing it according to what is appropriate." If they were not to be born [here], how could all the sentient beings of the realm of Sukhāvatī transform into the defiled land of this realm?
79.16
Regarding the Commentary's "Therein are four propositions, namely common within common, etc.": this cites the second fascicle of the *Cheng Weishi Lun*, which cites the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* saying that within common and uncommon there are two kinds each. The two within common are: 1. Common within common, such as mountains and rivers, because they cannot be utilized exclusively by a single destiny alone. 2. Uncommon within common, such as one's own fields and houses, or what pretas see as water, fire, etc., which are objects not mutually utilized by them. The two within uncommon are: 1. Uncommon within uncommon, such as the eye and other sense faculties, which are the objective conditions utilized solely as the support of one's own consciousness, and not the support of others. 2. Common within uncommon, such as one's own external physical sense faculties, because others also receive and utilize them.
79.17
Regarding the Commentary's "First, in terms of co-habitation," etc.: bodhisattvas before the bhūmis have not yet generated experiential enjoyment; in co-habitation and transformation, they also through wholesome karma jointly transform this land.
79.18
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Second, in terms of those able to transform, it means following all sentient beings," and so forth: this is the meaning of the Vimalakīrti[-nirdeśa]. Bodhisattvas who are able to transform do not accomplish this through their own karma; out of great compassion they adopt lands to gather in sentient beings and the classes of sentient beings. These are all from the Vimalakīrti-sūtra, and are cited as in the "Chapter on the Formation of Worlds".
79.19
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The receptacle world forms first," and so forth: the Kośa, fascicle twelve, says: "Destruction begins when none are born in the hells, / up until the end when the receptacle is completely exhausted. / The kalpa of formation begins from the arising of wind, / up until the initial birth in the hells." The commentary on the treatise explains: "During the kalpa of formation, in the first kalpa the receptacle world arises, and during the subsequent nineteen kalpas sentient beings arise and gradually dwell. During destruction, in the final kalpa the receptacle world is destroyed, and during the preceding nineteen kalpas sentient beings are gradually abandoned. In the twenty intermediate kalpas, the first kalpa only decreases, and the final kalpa only increases. However, in these two periods, etc., the temporal duration of formation and destruction in the eighteen [kalpas between them is identical]: by the nature of things, that which forms first must be destroyed last."
79.20
From the Commentary's "Within a single chapter" downwards, it comprehensively clarifies the intention of the analogies.
79.21
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Vast, difficult to know, and pervading the ten directions": this is the concluding text below. The Commentary concludes each of the analogies with ten phrases; these texts are all applied implicitly, and can be grasped through their meaning.
79.22
From the Commentary's "Its essence lacks arising and cessation, which also is..." downwards, it concludes the text, concluding the third.
79.23
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "According to the third fascicle of the five-fascicle Mahākāruṇika-sūtra, it states that there are one thousand petals": the concluding part says: "Ānanda! Why is it called the Bhadrakalpa? Ānanda! In this great trichiliocosm, when the kalpa is about to form, it is entirely a single mass of water. The devaputras of the Śuddhāvāsa heaven look with their divine eye and see that this world is only a single great water; they see one thousand wondrous lotuses, each lotus having one thousand petals, extremely delightful. Because those Śuddhāvāsa devas see these flowers, joy leaps up in their minds measurelessly, and they all praise, saying: 'How wonderful, how rare! How wonderful, how rare! In such a kalpa, one thousand Buddhas will arise in the world!' Through these causes and conditions, this kalpa came to be named the Bhadrakalpa. After my nirvāṇa, there will be nine hundred and ninety-six Buddhas."
79.24
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Correspond sequentially to the preceding": first, the pure, taintless radiance corresponds to the wind-wheel of good, pure radiance. This is in terms of that which can effect formation. If spoken in terms of that which is formed, the principle and categories are also the same. First, being able to form the Tathāgata's uncontaminated, inexhaustible wisdom corresponds to forming the form realm. The form realm is free from the faults of desire, hence it is like uncontaminated. The four dhyānas are indestructible, hence it is like inexhaustible. Second, the universally illuminating radiance corresponds to the purely adorned wind-wheel. Third, sustaining the Buddha-gotra corresponds to being firm, dense, and indestructible. Fourth, towering aloft and indestructible corresponds to the supremely high wheel. Fifth, all supernormal powers corresponds to the unmoving wheel. Sixth, producing transformations corresponds to the steadily abiding wheel. Seventh, universally complying corresponds to the adorned wheel. Eighth, unfathomable corresponds to the inexhaustible treasury. Ninth, various adornments corresponds to the universal radiance treasury. Tenth, indestructible corresponds to the firm root. The virtues that are formed can be understood in terms of their meaning.
79.25
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "What is formed consists solely of fruition virtues": this only interprets phenomena; such as uncontaminated, inexhaustible wisdom, the power of imperturbability, and so forth, are all fruition virtues. "What can effect formation encompasses both cause and fruition": such as sustaining the Buddha-gotra and all supernormal powers both encompass cause and fruition.
79.26
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Depriving the cause by means of the condition": here, when sentient beings are transformed, their own power is the cause, and the Buddha's power is the condition. The rest may be inferred accordingly.
79.27
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Mahānagna": here it means naked form.
79.28
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Its measure is innumerably vast, and its thickness is sixteen lakṣas": this corresponds to the first two lines of the verse in the Kośa: "In establishing the receptacle world, / the wind-wheel is situated lowest of all."
79.29
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Therefore the Vimalakīrti[-nirdeśa] says: 'His unimpeded wisdom has no diversity'": this is from the third fascicle, the "Chapter on Bodhisattva Practice"; it has been frequently cited before, and is now briefly indicated again. Because the explanation of the fragrance-rice being Buddha-activity was concluded, it then clarified that the virtues of the Buddhas are equal, saying: "Ānanda! You see that the lands of the Buddha-realms have diversity, yet space has no diversity. You see that the physical bodies of the Buddhas have diversity, yet their unimpeded wisdom has no diversity."
79.30
From the Commentary's "If one applies each one throughout the preceding ten" downwards, it concludes by criticizing earlier explanations.
79.31
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The pure mind is like space, comprehensively manifested through analogy," and so forth: within this there is profound śamatha and vipaśyanā; it should be carefully pondered.
79.32
Second, concerning physical action. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "There are only five realms": this concludes and shows the correct doctrine, and is not an abbreviation. It criticizes an earlier explanation. The ancients said: There should be ten phrases, but the text is simply abbreviated. Therefore it now criticizes them.
79.33
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Clarifying that the appearance of the Tathāgata has ten kinds of bodies": the text of the Commentary has four parts: first, properly dividing the sections of the sūtra text; second, from "This is the eighth bhūmi" downwards, harmonizing and explaining the ten bodies; third, from "The fourth is bodhi" downwards, re-explaining according to difficulties; fourth, from "Within each analogy" downwards, explaining the text. This is also a place where ancient worthies were equally confused, because they did not know that these ten are the ten bodies.
79.34
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The first two correspond to the first phrase, because mundane and supramundane are distinct": it means that the first two phrases both correspond to destroying darkness and creating light. The first phrase, eradicating evil and generating good, is the mundane destroying darkness and creating light, because evil is darkness and good is light. The subsequent phrase, destroying ignorance to become wisdom, is the supramundane destroying darkness and creating light.
79.35
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Third, uprooting the four floods," and so forth: this is great loving-kindness rescuing and protecting, and great compassion liberating, corresponding to changing wetness into dryness. The four floods are wetness and the supramundane is dryness; the water of concentration is wetness and bodhi is dryness, because one does not drown in the water of concentration.
79.36
From the Commentary's "The factors of awakening generally grow" downwards, it corresponds to the growth of grasses and trees above. The grasses and trees of the three vehicles are the three grasses and two trees of the "Chapter on the Analogy of the Medicinal Herbs"; the analogy was already cited in the first assembly. "The high plateau symbolizes the śrāvakas, because it does not generate the lotus flowers of the Buddhadharma": this is from the second fascicle of the Vimalakīrti[-nirdeśa]: "Just as a high plateau and dry land do not produce lotus flowers, but the low, wet, muddy swamp produces these flowers; so it is that śrāvakas who have severed all fetters can no longer be of benefit within the Buddhadharma, whereas within the mud of afflictions there are sentient beings who bring forth the Buddhadharma." This also has been cited before. Therefore, within the "Chapter on the Dharma Preacher" of the Lotus Sūtra, digging through a high plateau also symbolizes the śrāvakas.
79.37
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Moreover, since differences are spoken according to capacity, then illuminating the high does not yet encompass the low," and so forth: just as illuminating the high mountain does not yet illuminate the dark mountain, but if it illuminates the dark mountain, it then illuminates the high mountain. This means that preaching the Avataṃsaka is illuminating the high mountain, in which the two vehicles do not participate; preaching the Āgamas and so forth is what bodhisattvas constantly hear, and so on. The rest can be known by analogy. From the Commentary's "Moreover, if renouncing transformation" downwards, it is in terms of converging the provisional to return to the real. However, the sūtra only has the words about first illuminating the high mountain, and has no phrasing about later illuminating the high mountain. Now, seeking it through principle, it must certainly be there. Converging the provisional to return to the real first casts aside humans and devas, because they are not [a path of] departure, like the setting sunlight on level ground. Next it abandons śrāvakas to make them awaken themselves, like the high plateau lacking light. Next it abandons pratyekabuddhas to make them arouse compassion, like the dark mountain masking brilliance. Next it abandons the three vehicles to return to the one vehicle, like the mountain holding the evening sun. Therefore, first the great and later the small is flowing from the root into the branches, provisionally preaching three within the one Buddha-vehicle, and so forth. Abandoning the small to return to the great is gathering the branches back into the root; thus both meanings are complete.
79.38
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "In the abbreviation, all five matters are blind," and so forth: this also resolves an external objection. That is, someone asks: If all five matters are blind, why does it not say they lack the eye of understanding, etc.? The intention of the answer can be understood.
79.39
From the Commentary's "This is the Nirvāṇa..." downwards, it harmonizes with the ninth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra]. First it clarifies that the three transgressions are the heaviest, yet possess the cause of nirvāṇa, and does not mention icchantikas; later, from the "Chapter on Noble Practice" downwards, it includes icchantikas, saying: "Although icchantikas have severed their roots of goodness, they still possess the Buddha-nature." Therefore it embraces them all. These four clarify that even the most evil are not abandoned. As for the three transgressions: first, slandering the vaipulya sūtras; second, committing the four grave offenses; third, committing the five heinous sins. These three do not necessarily repudiate cause and effect; repudiating cause and effect is [the mark of] an icchantika.
79.40
Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Causing them to leave behind suffering and origination": the suffering of the present body is the fruition of suffering. And all afflictions are the causes of future suffering; the meaning encompasses both delusion and karma, and the above two are both origination.
79.41
Third, concerning verbal action. From the Commentary's "The meaning of the round voice" downwards, it is divided into three: first, general clarification; second, explaining the text; third, criticizing earlier views. In the first, regarding the Commentary's statement, "First, recounting the past," and so forth: previously there were three meanings. The first says: The Buddhas are solely the body of the ultimate truth, eternally severed from the ten thousand forms, lacking shape and sound; they simply manifest measureless form and sound in accordance with capacities, just as an echo arises following a call though a valley has no sound. However, speaking with respect to the Buddha, having no voice is one; discussing with respect to capacities, the myriad sounds are not one. As for calling it 'one voice' and 'round voice', it is truly because at a single time and in a single assembly, those of different kinds equally understand, each obtaining a single voice according to their faculties and natures, not hearing other sounds, without confusion and without overlapping. To show that this is extraordinary, it is called 'one voice'. The sound pervades the ten directions, and wherever capacities are mature, none fail to hear it; therefore it is called 'round voice'. It does not mean that it is all-pervading like empty space without distinct tunes and melodies. The sūtra says: 'Universally proclaiming to sentient beings in their respective kinds of voices'—this is what it means. The second says: Speaking with respect to the Buddha, there are truly forms and sounds, and his voice is all-pervading, with nowhere it does not reach; but it lacks the differences of the five notes and four tones; lacking different melodies, it is called 'one voice'. Because it is all-pervading, it is called 'round voice'. However, the round voice serves as the sovereign condition, manifesting many sounds in accordance with the differences in faculties, just as the full moon is only a single round form, yet manifests many reflections according to the differences in vessels. It is also like the long wind having many kinds of sounds according to its various apertures. The sūtra says: 'The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their kind.' The third says: The Tathāgata, within a single verbal action, produces the speech and sounds of all sentient beings; therefore, he causes those sentient beings each to hear their own speech, and it is not that the Tathāgata emits only one sound; it is called 'one voice' merely because his verbal action is uniform, and called 'round voice' because that which is emitted is manifold. Just as the sound of the Śaci drum can still emit many sounds simultaneously, how much more so the Tathāgata? Regarding "Second, discerning discrepancies": the above three interpretations all err by grasping one side. First, the ultimate truth lacks shape and sound, which is not the meaning of one voice; and it only accords with the sounds of others, not being his own voice. Second, it is solely a single utterance, lacking manifold sounds. If the one is not identical with the manifold, how could it be a round voice? If existent, the manifold should also exist; if non-existent, the one must also be non-existent; how could the one exist while the manifold does not? Third, although it is solely manifold, it also lacks the one. If verbal action is uniform, how could all sentient beings be a single voice? Therefore, none of them are correct. Regarding "Third, harmonizing and synthesizing": the above merely censured one-sidedness, not meaning total error. Only by combining the above three meanings is it the single meaning of the round voice. That is, the manifold is identical to the one; if the manifold is not identical to the one, it is not one voice. The one is also identical to the manifold; if the one is not identical to the manifold, it is not a round voice. Duality is identical to emptiness, and emptiness is identical to duality; if duality is not identical to emptiness, because it is an attachment and not devoid of intrinsic nature, it is neither round nor one; if emptiness is not identical to duality, it is neither voice nor round. Therefore, being fused and unimpeded is precisely the round voice. Among these three meanings: the first is the meaning of non-arising and non-cessation; the next is the meaning of non-crookedness; the last is the meaning of universal reaching. One knows that if one grasps its correct meaning, then it comprehensively gathers all without omission; if one does not grasp the correct intention, they all become contrary to principle.
79.42
Regarding the Commentary's statement "The text has ten voices" and so forth: this is the second [section], which directly explains the text of the sūtra, and it can be seen in the text. However, the first one is the voice that accords with kinds; this also agrees with the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: "The Buddha preaches the Dharma with a single voice, / Sentient beings each attain understanding according to their kind; / All say that the World-Honoured One speaks in their own tongue: / This is the extraordinary quality of spiritual power." Exegesis: this uses the unimpeded analytical knowledge of language to explain the single voice. The third and fourth both cite Ratnakūṭa, which is also the verse praising the single voice by the elder's son Ratnakūṭa in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. The second verse quoted just above says: "The Buddha preaches the Dharma with a single voice, / Sentient beings each follow what they understand, / Everywhere receiving and practicing it to obtain its benefit: / This is the extraordinary quality of spiritual power." Exegesis: this uses the unimpeded analytical knowledge of dharmas to speak of the single voice. The third verse says: "The Buddha preaches the Dharma with a single voice: / Some are terrified and some rejoice, / Some produce revulsion and some sever doubts: / This is the extraordinary quality of spiritual power." Exegesis: this uses the unimpeded analytical knowledge of meaning to speak of the single voice. Regarding the Commentary's statement "These ten are harmoniously fused" and so forth: this concludes and establishes the above meaning.
79.43
Regarding the Commentary's statement "From this we know that some say there is no voice" and so forth: this is the third [section], which concludes by criticizing the ancient explanations. It only concludes against the first two, because the third can enter into the correct [interpretation]. As for "they are all a single speck of dust on the great earth": in terms of subsuming them to conclude, this single speck of dust is not separate from the realm of earth; by accumulating many small specks of dust, the great earth can be formed, and by accumulating many meanings, the complete voice is constituted. But if we consider the triviality of criticizing deviant explanations, how could they compare to the vast ground of wisdom of the correct understanding?
79.44
Regarding the Commentary's statement "Now first subsuming the above ten sounds" and so forth: the text of the Commentary has three parts: first, explaining the text of the sūtra; second, from "further, through the four propositions" downward, harmonizing and subsuming by principle—the four propositions may be contemplated; and last, from "is called the complete voice of the Tathāgata" downward, concluding with praise.
79.45
Regarding the Commentary's statement "If the Buddha's voice is an existent phenomenon and not a non-phenomenon": Exegesis: this phrase "non-phenomenon" is simply true reality taken as a non-phenomenon.
79.46
Regarding the Commentary's statement "First, when about to accomplish right awakening, the characteristics of thought are nearly exhausted" and so forth: this is the intent of the Awakening of Faith; several passages of the treatise are combined and applied. The treatise says: "When the bodhisattva stages are exhausted, in one thought of corresponding awareness, one awakens to the initial arising of the mind, and the mind is free from the initial characteristic. Because one is far removed from subtle thoughts, one attains sight of the nature of the mind. The mind is then permanently abiding, which is called ultimate awakening." Now, adopting its meaning to explain, [the Commentary] says "when about to accomplish right awakening." As for "the characteristics of thought are nearly exhausted": this refers to subtle thoughts. This thought is also called the characteristic of arising, which is one of the three subtle [characteristics] in the treatise. The treatise says: "First, the karmic characteristic of avidyā: because of relying on non-enlightenment, the mind moves, which is called karma. When there is movement, there is suffering, because the fruit is not separate from the cause." Exegesis: this thought is the subtlest of the subtle. Now that this characteristic is absent, it is said that subtle thoughts are entirely gone. As for "attaining sight of the nature of the mind": this is the text of the treatise above. As for "equal to the realm of empty space, with the single characteristic of the dharmadhātu": this is the text of the treatise explaining original awakening. The treatise says: "As for what is meant by 'awakening': it means that the essence of the mind is free from thought. That which is free from the characteristics of thought is equal to the realm of empty space, all-pervading, with the single characteristic of the dharmadhātu, which is the equal dharmakāya of the Tathāgata. Relying on this dharmakāya, it is named original awakening." Exegesis: here, two phrases are briefly selected to reveal the disclosed original awakening. As for "the initial and the original are non-dual": this refers to the initial awakening that is accomplished. After that treatise finishes explaining what was previously called original awakening, it subsequently states: "Why is this? The meaning of original awakening is stated in contrast to the meaning of initial awakening. Because initial awakening is itself identical to original awakening. As for the meaning of initial awakening: relying on original awakening, there is non-enlightenment; relying on non-enlightenment, initial awakening is said to exist. Furthermore, because one awakens to the source of the mind, it is called ultimate awakening. Without awakening to the source of the mind, it is not ultimate awakening." Exegesis: now the Commentary takes its meaning, and therefore says "the initial and the original are non-dual." As for "concurring with the equal dharmakāya of all buddhas" and so on: this concludes and establishes the aforementioned non-dual meaning. The equal dharmakāya is the aforementioned original awakening. As for "hence it is said to preach the dharmadhātu" and so on: it establishes this by matching it to the sūtra.
79.47
Regarding the Commentary's statement "the nirvāṇa of the three virtues": this is clarified in the chapter on nirvāṇa. Regarding the Commentary's statement "In the Lotus Sūtra, following function from essence, it is called the vision and knowledge of the Tathāgata": nirvāṇa concerns principle; vision and knowledge concern wisdom. Vision and knowledge possess nature, so they are not without principle. Nirvāṇa also possesses the virtue of prajñā, so it is not without wisdom. Nirvāṇa subsumes function into essence, and is simply named nirvāṇa as what is realized. The Lotus Sūtra clarifies that following function from essence, it is simply named vision and knowledge. Therefore, the Lotus Sūtra Treatise explains the meaning of "opening" by stating: "'Opening' means the unexcelled meaning, which is to jointly open bodhi and nirvāṇa." Indicating that the dharmakāya is identical concerns only principle; awakening concerns bodhi, which is wisdom, clarifying both principle and wisdom. Furthermore, knowing that dharmas lack nature—how could that not be principle? Therefore, the Commentary now says "following function from essence" and so forth.
79.48
Regarding the Commentary's statement "deep, firm, and profound": this is the text of the "Dharma Teacher" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra. The text says: "This treasury of the Lotus Sūtra is deep, firm, and profound, and no one can reach it. Now the Buddha, teaching and transforming to bring bodhisattvas to completion, opens and reveals it for them." Exegesis: being profound, deep, and firm is called "secret." Regarding the Commentary's statement "Those of initial aspiration receive it alike" and so forth: this resolves an objection. Resolving the objection, it says: The Lotus Sūtra excludes those among the bodhisattva assemblies whose power of faith is firm; furthermore, the śrāvakas of the three faculties, upon first generating the great mind, all receive the Tathāgata's vision and knowledge of the Lotus. Why is it only preached for this stage? Therefore, this explanation is made: in terms of the ultimate, it is preached for equal awakening; in reality, this Dharma universally reaches from beginning to end.
79.49
Regarding the Commentary's statement "having one more lifetime": this was already distinguished in detail at the beginning of the Second Assembly.
79.50
Regarding the Commentary's statement "Some say it is attained on the first stage": this was already cited under the sixth stage, namely the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] says: "If one attains the mind of faith, one will definitely not regress, entering the path of the first stage of the unarisen."
79.51
Regarding the Commentary's statement "preaching faith and so forth for them": these are the practices for purifying the stage on the first stage: faith, compassion, loving-kindness, equanimity without weariness, knowing the sūtras and treatises, understanding worldly phenomena, firm power, shame, remorse, adornment, and making offerings to the buddhas.
79.52
Regarding the Commentary's statement "becoming completely pure in subsequent [stages]": this explains the word "jewel" in the sūtra. Because one purifies the hindrances of the stages with these ten dharmas, stage by stage becoming gradually purer, it says "in subsequent [stages]."
79.53
Regarding the Commentary's statement "the wisdom of each of the ten stages unfolds one by one": this explains the blossoming of the flowers of wisdom. "Not severing the two benefits": this refers to not severing the practices of great compassion and so forth, because within each stage there are the two benefits. Regarding the Commentary's statement "The middle way is called buddha-nature": this was already distinguished in detail in the first and second assemblies. As for "contemplated by superior wisdom": this is also from the text of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], already cited under the sixth stage. As for "One should sever all delusions with the wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas": this has two meanings: first, using the emptiness of dharmas to distinguish it from the emptiness of persons, illuminating that delusions are without origin and that non-severance is itself severance; second, the word "all" includes severing the cognitive [obscurations] as well, because they too are afflictions.
79.54
Fourth: the mental karma of appearance. Regarding the Commentary's statement "Apophatic expression with regard to essence" and so forth: this explains this section of the sūtra. The text of the Commentary has three parts: first, a general explanation of the intent of the text; second, a separate account of divergent explanations; third, reconciling them to return to the fundamental school. Now for the first: Mind is the king, and essence is discerned in terms of the king. Wisdom is the associate, and function is clarified in terms of the associate. As for essence, cataphatic expression does not reach it, so there is only apophatic expression; as for function, its characteristics can be illuminated, so one temporarily relies on cataphatic expression. Yet function also has apophatic expression, because it is identical with essence and without measure. If one were exclusively apophatic, there would be no means to reveal the wondrous; hence one temporarily relies on cataphatic expression to discern the profound ultimate. As for saying "temporarily relies": it means relying on the associate to reveal the king, and relying on function to reveal essence. Furthermore, both function and mental associates have an apophatic sense; here, one merely temporarily relies on the cataphatic to reveal the profound.
79.55
Regarding the Commentary's statement "However, in this single text" and so forth: this is the second [section], separately recounting divergent explanations. Within it are two parts: first, stating the premise; then, from "one says" downward, separately explaining. There are briefly three explanations, which do not depart from a single school, so they are divided into three: the first two masters belong to the Dharma-characteristic school; second, concluding the preceding to introduce the succeeding; third, recounting the Dharma-nature school. Within the first master's [view] there are five: first, directly clarifying; second, resolving an objection; third, establishing through the counter-argument; fourth, citing proof; fifth, resolving the objection again. Now for the first: As for "without those contaminated, defiled minds and mental factors, yet having the pure portion": there are only the eight consciousness-kings and twenty-one mental factors—namely, the five omnipresent, the five object-determining, and the eleven wholesome. Regarding the Commentary's statement "In the stage of fruition": this resolves an objection. Someone raises a question: If so, then both king and factors exist; why is it said regarding the king that it 'cannot be apprehended'? Therefore, this explanation says: In the stage of fruition, consciousness is inferior, hence it is said to be 'unapprehendable'; wisdom is strong, hence it says 'wisdom is immeasurable.' As for consciousness being inferior: because between the two portions it has only the pure, differing from the strong conceptual discrimination of sentient beings. As for wisdom being strong: because it lacks evil understanding and its decisive determination is supreme.
79.56
Regarding the Commentary's statement "If there were definitely no king" and so forth: this is the third [part], establishing it inversely. Wisdom is a mental factor; if there were no consciousness-king, on what would wisdom rely?
79.57
Regarding the Commentary's statement "Therefore the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi" and so forth: this is the fourth [part], citing proof. As for "is the pure, uncontaminated realm": 'contamination' means defilement. Since it says "immaculate consciousness," consciousness indeed exists. Furthermore, it says "corresponding with the great mirror wisdom," clarifying that there is a consciousness-king corresponding with the factors and not factors standing alone; therefore it concludes: "that there is a king is clear."
79.58
Regarding the Commentary's statement "As for transforming consciousness" and so forth: this is the fifth [part], resolving the objection again. That is, there is an objection saying: Since it says 'transforming the eight consciousnesses to accomplish the four wisdoms,' this clarifies that there is only wisdom and no consciousness. Therefore it is now explained: 'Wisdom is transformed relying on consciousness' and so forth. As for 'transformed relying on consciousness': because consciousness is primary, while wisdom is not primary. Yet regarding transformation in Mere-Consciousness, there are the positions of three masters, all of which are now utilized. This is one master. The above position of wisdom being strong and consciousness inferior is also one master. Regarding the Commentary's statement "One says: because it lacks the meanings of accumulation, cogitation, and so forth": this meaning has three parts: first, directly clarifying; second, citing proof; third, preventing a flawed defense. Now for the first: accumulation and arising is called 'mind' (citta); cogitation is called 'mentality' (manas); discrimination is called 'consciousness' (vijñāna). Now in the stage of fruition, the eighth does not accumulate seeds to give rise to active manifestations; the seventh does not cogitate the eighth as a self. As for 'and so forth': it includes the first six. Furthermore, they do not discriminate objects. The reason why this is so is that all correspond with the four wisdoms; hence it is said they are absent. It does not mean that there is no non-accumulating eighth, non-cogitating seventh, and non-discriminating six; therefore it concludes: "it is not that there is no mental essence."
79.59
Regarding the Commentary's statement "Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha" and so forth: second, citing proof. As for "because of the meaning of non-mind and non-cogitation": this clarifies that the eighth is not accumulation, the seventh is not cogitation, and so forth.
79.60
Regarding the Commentary's statement "It is also not that a non-mind serves as the support": this is the third [part], preventing a flawed defense. Fearing there might be an objection saying: If it is not the meaning of mind, non-discriminating wisdom should rely on form. Therefore, it is now shown: the king that is relied upon is not entirely without essence. The above generally marks its existence. Next, from "because it is of the category of mind" downward: this explains and establishes the meaning of its existence. That is, since it is of the category of mind, how could it be a non-mind? Next, it says: "taking mind as the cause" downward, again explaining the above text about mind being the category. As for "this stage": this is the stage of fruition. That is, taking the mind of accumulation and arising and so forth as the cause, it brings about the pure eight consciousnesses of the stage of fruition; therefore it cannot be called a non-mind. Just as non-informative form arises relying on informative form and is thus called form, based on this, it can also be called a mind without accumulation and arising, and so forth.
79.61
Regarding the commentary's statement, "The above two explanations both clarify the existence of mind, thought, and consciousness": this is the second [section], concluding what precedes to introduce what follows, showing that the preceding two [explanations] belong to the Dharma-characteristic school (Dharmalakṣaṇa), whereas the one explanation that follows belongs to the Dharma-nature school (Dharmatā). Question: Both assert existence; what difference is there between them? Answer: The former explains that there is the pure and not the defiled, whereas the latter explains that there is the essence and not the function; hence their meanings differ. However, the two meanings complement each other: because there is no deliberation and the like, it is said to lack defilement; because it lacks defilement, it is said to lack the meanings of accumulation, deliberation, and so forth. Regarding the commentary's statement, "One says that in the Buddha-fruit there is no real mind or thought," and so on: this is the third master, representing both the Markless school and the Dharma-nature school. First, the direct explanation is clear. From "Hence the Suvarṇaprabhāsa..." downward, it is the second part, citing proof. The treatise corresponds to the third [chapter]. The treatise says, "Here, the svabhāvakāya"—this is the dharmakāya. The commentary on the treatise says, "Only tathatā and the cognition of tathatā remain alone, which is called the dharmakāya."
79.62
Regarding the commentary's statement from "One-sidedly adhering to either of the above two schools brings about flaws" downward: this is the third part, harmonizing explanations to return to the core doctrine, divided into two: first, showing that one must not adhere one-sidedly; second, showing the reconciliation that establishes the correct meaning. In the first part there are also two: the first two lines state the premise, and from "If one relies on the former meaning" downward, it explains it. Within this there are again two: first, refuting them separately; second, refuting them together. In the former, it first shows the flaws of the Dharma-characteristic school. The commentary text is divided into three: first, a direct refutation; next, a concessionary refutation; finally, blocking counter-defenses. In the first part there are two: first, showing the contradiction in meaning, because failing to realize that being is identical to emptiness results in the error of reification (samāropa); second, from "Nor can it account for the words 'cannot be apprehended'" downward, showing its contradiction with the text, because the text merely says that "mind, thought, and consciousness are all unapprehensible," and does not say that the defiled is unapprehensible.
79.63
Regarding the commentary's statement, "Furthermore, why does this [sūtra] not speak of this pure aspect?" downward: this is the second, the concessionary refutation. Even conceding that the pure exists and the defiled is absent, why does the sūtra not speak of there being a pure aspect?
79.64
Regarding the commentary's statement, "Could that untainted consciousness be spoken of?" downward: this is the third, blocking counter-defenses. The two sentences of the commentary block two counter-defenses. The first sentence addresses the fear that they might defend themselves by saying: "The marks of the pure are difficult to express, and therefore it is not mentioned." Hence it now blocks this by saying: "In that Alaṃkārasūtra, how could it speak of the existence of untainted consciousness? Is that not pure?" The second sentence addresses the fear that they might defend themselves by saying: "When the sūtra says 'unapprehensible,' its intent lies in the defiled." Hence it also blocks this by saying: "Why does the sūtra not say that the defiled is unapprehensible?"
First 64 of 113 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese