大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 80

English (machine translation) 80

Language: English

80.1

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

Regarding the commentary's words, "Initial and fundamental are non-dual, eliminating the two hindrances": this has two meanings. First, sentient beings fundamentally possess the buddha-wisdom; in that case, fundamental awakening does not obstruct initial awakening, and realizing it in this way is called unobstructed wisdom. Second, when the obstacles are severed and it is manifested, then the two hindrances—affliction and the knowable—do not exist.

80.3

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “Joining the manifestation of the sūtra to benefiting beings,” and so forth: the text of the commentary has two parts. First, it directly explains the text. Second, from “However, in the *Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra*, etc.” onward, it cites examples to explain. As for “the nine similes”: the *Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra* completely possesses nine similes; one or two differ from other sūtras, or [other sūtras] have one, two, three, or four—an indefinite number—and thus it adds the word “etc.” As for the *Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra*: the Tathāgata, residing on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain in Rājagṛha, only expounded it ten years after attaining Buddhahood, together with a hundred thousand great bhikṣus and bodhisattvas [as numerous as] the sands of sixty Gaṅgā rivers, and so forth. At that time, the World-Honoured One sat upright in samādhi upon a tiered sandalwood pavilion and manifested divine transformations: there were thousand-petaled lotus flowers as large as cartwheels, boundless in number, fully endowed with colour and fragrance yet not yet bloomed. Inside all the flowers were transformation Buddhas, which ascended into the sky and completely covered the world like a jewelled canopy. Each and every lotus flower radiated immeasurable light, and all the lotus flowers simultaneously opened in splendour through the Buddha’s divine power. In an instant, they all withered and changed, and all the transformation Buddhas within those flowers sat cross-legged, each radiating countless hundreds of thousands of rays of light. At that time, this land was extraordinarily adorned, and the entire great assembly leaped for joy, and so forth. Bodhisattva Vajramati questioned [the Buddha], and the Buddha answered below, saying: “With my Buddha-eye I observe that within the defilements of greed, anger, and delusion of all sentient beings, there are the Tathāgata’s wisdom, the Tathāgata’s eye, and the Tathāgata’s body, sitting cross-legged, majestic and unmoving. Good sons! Although all sentient beings are in the various destinies, within their bodies of defilements there is the tathāgatagarbha, eternally undefiled and fully endowed with the marks of virtue, no different from myself. Furthermore, good sons! First, it is like a person with the divine eye observing unbloomed flowers: he sees that within the flowers there are Tathāgata bodies sitting cross-legged, and by removing their withered petals, they are made manifest. In this way, good sons, after the Buddha sees the tathāgatagarbha of sentient beings, wishing to make it bloom, he preaches the sūtra teachings for them to eradicate defilements and manifest the Buddha-nature. Good sons! The dharmatā of the Buddhas is such that whether Buddhas appear in the world or do not appear in the world, the tathāgatagarbha of all sentient beings is permanently abiding and unchanging. Yet because those sentient beings are obscured by defilements, the Tathāgata appears in the world and broadly expounds the Dharma for them to eradicate afflictions and accomplish omniscience,” and so forth. After each simile there are verses. Second: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like pure honey in a rock tree, surrounded and guarded by countless swarms of bees. At that time, there is a person with skillful wisdom and upāya who first drives away those bees, and then takes their honey to consume as he pleases, conferring its benefit near and far.” Below, it draws the meaning to make the application: “The honey is a simile for the tathāgatagarbha; the bees are a simile for defilements; the person is a simile for the Tathāgata; and driving away the bees is a simile for preaching the Dharma to eliminate defilements.” Third: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like non-glutinous grain that has not yet been separated from its husk and chaff. The poor and foolish disesteem and regard it as something to be discarded, but once thoroughly cleaned and purified, it serves for royal consumption.” The application states: “The chaff is a simile for defilements; the rice is a simile for the Tathāgata’s vision and knowledge. Preaching the Dharma eliminates defilements, purifies omniscience, and makes one the most truly awakened in all worlds.” Fourth: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like genuine gold that has fallen into an impure place, submerged and unseen. Passing through years and months, the genuine gold does not decay, yet no one can know it. One with the divine eye tells the people: ‘In this impurity there is a genuine gold treasure; you should extract it and use it as you please.’” The application to the Dharma can be known by this model. Fifth: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like a poor household having a hidden treasure of precious jewels, but the jewel treasure cannot speak and say, ‘I am here.’ Since they do not know it themselves and no one speaks of it, they are unable to uncover this jewel treasure. All sentient beings are also like this: the great Dharma treasure of the Tathāgata’s vision and knowledge, powers, and fearlessnesses is within their bodies, yet not hearing and not knowing it, they are indulged and deluded in the five desires, transmigrating through saṃsāra and suffering immeasurably. Therefore, the Buddhas appear in the world to open the Tathāgata’s Dharma treasure within their bodies, acting as great donors of unhindered eloquence.” Sixth: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like the kernel inside a mango fruit that does not decay: planted in the ground, it becomes a great king of trees. Good sons! With my Buddha-eye I observe sentient beings: the Tathāgata’s jewel treasure is within the husk of avidyā, just as the fruit seed is within the kernel. Good sons! That tathāgatagarbha is utterly pure, a mass of great wisdom, wonderfully quiescent nirvāṇa, named the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksaṃbuddha.” Seventh: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like a person carrying a genuine gold statue who travels to another country: passing through a dangerous road and fearing robbery, he wraps it in tattered rags so that no one recognises it. This person suddenly dies on the way, whereupon the gold statue is abandoned in the wilderness, and travelers treading past all think it is foul. One who has attained the divine eye sees that within the tattered rags there is a genuine gold statue, and immediately extracts it, whereupon all pay homage.” The application is that they possess the Tathāgata’s wondrous jewel treasure. Eighth: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like an impoverished and ugly woman, despised by everyone, who is pregnant with a noble son destined to be a holy king ruling the four continents. This person does not know it, and as time passes, she constantly harbours lowly thoughts, thinking she will give birth to a base child.” The application is that they possess the Tathāgata’s jewel treasure. Ninth: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like a foundry master casting a genuine gold statue: having finished casting it, he places it upside down on the ground; the exterior appears scorched and black, but the inner statue is unchanged; opening the mould and bringing out the statue, its golden colour shines brilliantly.” The application states that they possess the Tathāgata’s body fully endowed with all the marks. Below, it evaluates the merit of upholding this sūtra: “Making offerings to past, present, and future Buddhas [as numerous as] the sands of the Gaṅgā, building seven-jewel towers ten yojanas high [as numerous as] the sands of the Gaṅgā, day after day like this, up to fifty Gaṅgā sands of seven-jewel towers offered to Gaṅgā sands of Tathāgatas, does not compare to a person who delights in bodhi and upholds this sūtra—even up to what reckoning and similes cannot reach.” Among the nine similes above: the first simile of the Buddha in the lotus flower is largely the same as the simile of the blue lotus in the mud, with minor differences; the gold falling into an impure place is largely the same as the mani jewel falling into a deep privy. That [text] lacks this one’s [similes of] being like gold in ore and like honey in the mountains; the others are mostly the same. That they are not in sequential order is because this takes their rounded meaning, merely citing ten. The honey in the mountains is also slightly different from the Buddha-nature in a speck of dust, and so it was omitted. Furthermore, citing this here accords with perfect fusion, fully containing all meanings from the ordinary person to the sage; hence they are cited without strict order. If one follows the *Buddhanature-śāstra* to fully explain the nine similes, although it does not cite the *Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra*, its sequence of similes is completely identical to this sūtra’s, each with a distinct purport, explained extensively as in the *Buddhanature-śāstra*, which has already been cited in a separate subcommentary. As for the statement “other sūtras may have one, two, or three,” and so forth: sūtras such as the *Nirvāṇa* and *Śrīmālā* all speak of this and cannot be cited in full. Regarding the simile of the gold ore, the tenth fascicle of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* has a passage saying: “Furthermore, good sons! It is like panning and smelting gold ore to remove dross and impurities, after which it is melted down to become gold, whose value is immeasurable. Good sons! The śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas are also like this: they all achieve the identical Buddha-nature. Why? Because they eliminate defilements, just as that gold ore has its dross and impurities eliminated. By this meaning, all sentient beings have the identical Buddha-nature without any distinction. Because they previously heard of the Tathāgata’s secret treasury, later, when they achieve Buddhahood, they naturally come to know it, just as that elder knows that milk is of a single characteristic. Why? Because of having severed immeasurable defilements.” Exegesis: This is because the simile of the elder with many cows yielding milk of a single colour is further turned to reveal [it]. In the fifth fascicle of that sūtra there is the simile of the sweet herb on the snowy mountains, which is completely identical to the simile of pure honey in a rock. There are many other similes that cannot be cited in full. As for the priceless maṇi wrapped in soiled garments, that is from the second fascicle of the *Laṅkāvatāra*, corresponding to the fifth in the commentary. The sūtra states: “At that time, Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva Mahāmati addressed the Buddha, saying: ‘World-Honoured One! The sūtra of the World-Honoured One states: “The tathāgatagarbha is pure by self-nature, transformed into the thirty-two marks, entering into the bodies of all sentient beings, like a priceless jewel wrapped in soiled garments. The tathāgatagarbha’s permanently abiding and unchanging nature is also like this; yet wrapped in the soiled garments of the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, and defiled by the dust and toil of greed, anger, delusion, and false discriminations, it is expounded by all Buddhas.”’” Exegesis: Here, Mahāmati cites past teachings, and below raises an objection: that it is identical to the non-Buddhists’ teaching of a self. The Buddha answers below: it is not the same as the non-Buddhists because it is merely empty and false, devoid of true reality. When the Tathāgata speaks of the tathāgatagarbha, he sometimes speaks of emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, tathatā, bhūtakoṭi, dharmatā, dharmakāya, nirvāṇa, self-nature neither arising nor ceasing, and fundamentally quiescent self-nature nirvāṇa. Such phrases speak of the tathāgatagarbha, etc.; what is contained in other sūtras may be stated briefly.

80.4

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “Concluding the above ten similes,” and so forth: the text of the commentary has two parts. First, it concludes the above ten approaches to show that they are not exhaustive.

80.5

From “Therefore one should further use…” onward in the commentary, it directly explains the sūtra text. Because the sūtra states, “knowing by such boundless marks,” “such” points to what precedes, and “boundless” [represented by “etc.”] equals what follows, further clarifying distinct meanings. This conclusion has four aspects: first, immeasurable; second, unhindered; third, inconceivable; fourth, vast. All of them pervade the above ten [similes] as well as what has not been spoken.

80.6

Fifth, the cognitive sphere of appearance. From the commentary’s “Directly revealing the delimitation” onward, the text of the commentary has three parts: first, it presents the essence; second, from “Relying on the first meaning” onward, it determines the purpose of its occurrence relative to the preceding two meanings; third, from “Due to the object of cognition…” onward, it integrates the above two meanings. From the commentary’s “Next, directly revealing the object of cognition” onward, it is divided into two: first, explaining according to the text; second, from “If examined in terms of the two truths” onward, categorising and analyzing the theoretical approaches.

80.7

Sixth, the practice of appearance. From “The preceding clarified the delimitation” onward, the text has two parts: first, revealing the purpose of its occurrence; second, from “Although the ocean of wisdom…” onward, resolving an objection. That is to say, an objection asks: practice belongs to the causal stage, so now that the fruit is perfected, how can it exist? It explains: although practices are immeasurable, in sum they do not go beyond two: namely, wisdom and compassion. The practice of wisdom is already perfected because self-benefit is fulfilled; yet one mobilises the compassion that is identical with wisdom, benefiting others unceasingly. If so, why does the text below speak of the practice of tathatā? Answer: this is precisely the practice of the fruit. As it is about to speak of the unhindered practice of compassion and wisdom, it therefore speaks of tathatā as the root of practice.

80.8

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “The designation ‘tathāgatatā’ (tathatā) contains both doctrine and simile in its phrasing”: the sūtra says, “Just as tathatā is unarisen in the past limit,” and so forth; that is taking tathatā as a simile for the Buddha’s practice. If the Buddha’s practice tallies with tathatā, the practice is itself tathatā, and therefore it is the doctrine.

80.9

Regarding the commentary’s statement, “Past and future are not conditions”: past conditions have already ceased, and future conditions have not yet met; therefore they are called non-conditions. Because they are non-conditions, the past has nothing that can arise, and the future has nothing that can be stirred; although the present is amid conditions, it does not unite with conditions; hence it is called free from conditions. Therefore, the “Pariṇāmanā” [Chapter] clarifies: “It pervades the three times yet is not identical with the three times; it pervades everything yet is not everything.” Therefore, although conditions arise, it is serenely unarisen.

80.10

Regarding the commentary's statement, 'If it is said that the measureless is itself a measure': because away from measure there is the measureless. Therefore the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: 'A mental measure that is free from mental measure, I call a mental measure.' This means that taking being free from mental measure as correct is still just a mental measure. Therefore, below 'the mind becomes ever more empty,' the upper phrase explains that the measureless does not obstruct measure, and the phrase 'acting the entire day' explains that measure is itself the measureless. Below 'Yet the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says,' it cites proof, namely from the eleventh fascicle of that sūtra. Master Huiyuan has two explanations: one says it discusses that upon which practice relies, meaning the virtues previously achieved by the Tathāgata, which one cultivates to enter. Alternatively, it is permissible that the five practices are its doctrinal practice, while manifesting the nature to complete practice is the Tathāgata's practice, because it manifests the Tathāgata's nature in order to complete practice. The meaning is: this one is precisely the practice of realization and the nature of realization completing practice.

80.11

Seventh, the manifestation of bodhi. Below the commentary's phrase 'the fruit of consummate practice,' it explains the reason for its occurrence, which has two parts: the former explains the reason for its occurrence in terms of true bodhi; below 'responding to conditions in cultivation,' it explains the reason for its occurrence in terms of response bodhi.

80.12

Regarding the commentary's statement 'Second, explaining the essence' and so forth: this cites two treatises that mutually support each other—the ninth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the third fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The two cognitions are fundamental [cognition] and subsequently attained [cognition]; the two abandonments are the abandonment of afflictions and [the abandonment of the cognitive] knowable [obscurations]. Because this sūtra is the perfect teaching, it 'pervades everything.' Below it says: 'Attaining the measure of all dharmas as equal to the three wheels, self and other being equal, and cause and effect mutually interpenetrating'—with such meanings as these, it therefore pervades everything.

80.13

The commentary's 'Third, distinguishing the varieties' has two parts within it: first, directly distinguishing them, and later, analyzing them. Now regarding the first: the statement 'Indeed, suchness is neither dual nor different' refers to the chapter on Maitreya; its meaning will be explained below. What the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says—'contemplation with inferior cognition' and so forth—has already been cited under the Sixth Ground.

80.14

Regarding the commentary's statement 'Or divided into five as in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā' and so forth: the fifty-eighth fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'First, the bodhi of generating the mind: within immeasurable births and deaths, generating the mind of anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi. Therefore it is called bodhi; the fruit is spoken of within the cause. Second, the bodhi of subduing the mind: cutting off all afflictions, subduing one's mind, and practicing the pāramitās. Third, the bodhi of clarifying the mind: contemplating the root and branch, general and specific characteristics of the dharmas of all buddhas across the three times, and through differentiation attaining the true characteristic of all dharmas, which is the prajñāpāramitā. Fourth, the bodhi of emergence and arrival: within nirvāṇa, obtaining the power of upāya and so not clinging; if one extinguishes all afflictions, sees all buddhas, and attains anutpattikadharmakṣānti, one emerges from the three realms and arrives at sarvajñatā. Fifth, anuttarabodhi: sitting at the site of awakening, cutting off habitual tendencies, and attaining anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi.'

80.15

Regarding the commentary's statement 'Or possessing ten, as in the chapter "Transcending the World"': that is the fifty-ninth fascicle of the sūtra, where the ten kinds of powers that accomplish the Tathāgata constitute ten bodhis. The sūtra says: 'Sons of the Buddha! Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas have ten kinds of powers that accomplish the Tathāgata. What are the ten? Namely: first, because they transcend all māras, afflictions, and karmas, they accomplish the Tathāgata's power; second, because they are replete with all bodhisattva practices and sport in all doors of bodhisattva samādhi, they accomplish the Tathāgata's power; third, because they are replete with all vast bodhisattva dhyāna-concentrations; fourth, because they consummate all pure, white auxiliary dharmas to the path; fifth, because they attain the wisdom-light of all dharmas and reflect and discern well; sixth, because their bodies pervade all worlds; seventh, because the sounds of their speech are all equal to the minds of all sentient beings; eighth, because they are able to sustain all through supernatural power; ninth, because their actions of body, speech, and mind are equal and without difference from those of the buddhas of the three times, and in a single thought-moment they comprehend the dharmas of the three times; tenth, because they attain the samādhi of well-awakened cognition and are replete with the Tathāgata's ten powers, namely the intellectual power of knowing what is possible and impossible, up to the intellectual power of the exhaustion of outflows. These are the ten accomplishments of the Tathāgata's power. If bodhisattvas possess these ten powers, they are called Tathāgatas, Arhats, and Samyaksaṃbuddhas.' Every single sentence contains the words 'accomplish the Tathāgata's power.' These ten bodhis largely accord with the present sūtra.

80.16

Below the commentary's phrase 'Only ten is consummate,' this is the second part, the analysis. First it reveals the distinct teaching; later, below 'the third excludes the prior two,' it analyzes and integrates them in accordance with the gate of the shared teaching.

80.17

Regarding the commentary's statement 'Fourth, explaining activity and function' and so forth: because the section headings of the sūtra below contain ten gates, encompassing essence, characteristics, and function; here it only distinguishes function, which has ten items, not going beyond the text below.

80.18

Regarding the commentary's phrase 'free from all conditions': where there is contemplation there are conditions, and where there are no conditions contemplation is cut off. Below 'like the ocean,' it explains the text to establish the above meaning. Below 'not that there is nothing comprehended,' it establishes the meaning above that contemplation reaches its culmination in non-contemplation. That is to say, the culmination of contemplative cognition is called non-contemplation; it is devoid of that contemplation which discriminates and grasps characteristics, yet it is not devoid of profound non-discriminative contemplation. Hence it cites the Jin translation's 'understanding all meanings' to explain both sūtras together. It should say: 'understanding all meanings, there is nothing observed.' If it is changed to 'understand,' the meaning is completely fulfilled. The translator of the sūtra saw that the text below has 'knowing the minds of sentient beings,' and so here only explained the meaning of non-contemplation.

80.19

Below the commentary's phrase 'since contemplative thought is thus quiescent': above it explained the completion of cognition, which is non-discriminative cognition; now it explains the cutting off of hindrances, which is cutting off afflictions.

80.20

Below the commentary's phrase 'non-contemplation is the essence,' it concludes by completing the possession of the three. 'Non-contemplation is the essence' refers to the essence of thoughtlessness. Illuminating cognition is the non-discriminative cognition mentioned above; cutting off refers to the aforementioned seeds of afflictive habits being absent. Joining them to form the characteristic means that the non-duality of quiescence and illumination is the characteristic of bodhi. It is just as a clear mirror has mindlessness as its essence and reflecting illumination as its function, which combine to form its characteristic. It is also like the Chan school's function being identical to essence, where self-knowing is identical to the function's essence being eternally quiescent, and knowing and quiescence being non-dual is the characteristic of the mind.

80.21

The commentary's 'Second, being equal to all dharmas' explains the sūtra's 'being equal with respect to dharmas and without doubt,' which is the equality of the three wheels in the text below.

80.22

Regarding the commentary's statement 'The above two already subsume the essence of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha': the first is real cognition, which severs the affliction hindrance; the second is provisional cognition, which severs the knowable hindrance. Therefore within the two phrases, the essences of the two cognitions and two severances are already complete.

80.23

The commentary's 'Third, when one accomplishes, all accomplish' explains the sūtra's 'non-dual,' which is the mutual interpenetration of cause and effect in the text below. Within this there are two points: first, it explains the non-duality of sentient beings and buddhas, which is 'when one accomplishes, all accomplish'; hence the explanation below says: when the Tathāgata attains right awakening, within his body he universally sees all sentient beings attaining right awakening, and so forth, implicitly citing the Vimalakīrti-sūtra's 'all sentient beings are themselves the characteristics of bodhi.' Since they are themselves the characteristics of bodhi, wherein are they not accomplished? Second, it explains the non-duality of subject and object, which in the explanation below is that all share the same nature. It also cites the Vimalakīrti-sūtra: 'Non-duality is bodhi, because it is free from mind and dharmas.' Dharmas are the object; mind is the subject. Truly because mind and objects share the same nature, sentient beings and buddhas are also thus. These citations of the Vimalakīrti-sūtra are all from the chapter on Maitreya.

80.24

The commentary's 'Fourth, universally pointing to the prior three whose essence and characteristics are quiescent and extinguished' explains the sūtra's 'unconditioned characteristics,' which is 'the essence being free from deficiency and fullness' in the text below. The explanation below says: accomplishment and non-accomplishment are always without increase or decrease, because bodhi is neither characteristic nor non-characteristic. By virtue of being quiescent and extinguished, there is neither deficiency nor fullness; quiescence and extinction are precisely the meaning of having no characteristics. Therefore it cites the Vimalakīrti-sūtra saying 'because of extinguishing all characteristics' to explain quiescence and extinction.

80.25

The commentary's 'Fifth, that is, where the path of the mind's activity is extinguished' explains the sūtra's 'actionless,' which is 'the characteristics being without increase or decrease' in the text below, hence it says 'quiescent and immutable.' The explanation says: if there are no characteristics, then there is no increase or decrease.

80.26

The commentary's 'Sixth, although awakened, always concentrated' explains the sūtra's 'without resting,' because of not abiding in concentration. This is 'function covering movement and quiescence' in the text below. The explanation below says: abiding in the samādhi of well-awakened cognition, he manifests many bodies; because he does not abide in resting, he is able to engage in dynamic function.

80.27

Regarding the commentary's statement 'Seventh, there are two meanings' and so forth: this explains the sūtra's 'measureless,' which is 'pervading the dharmadhātu' in the text below. Within this there are two points, and the explanation below also has two: first, it explains that a single pore contains many buddhas, universally pervading the dharmadhātu, which is the first meaning here; second, it says, 'because the Tathāgata's body of attaining right awakening is ultimately free from arising and ceasing,' which is the second meaning.

80.28

Regarding the commentary's statement 'Eighth, also with two meanings' and so forth: this explains the sūtra's 'limitless,' which is 'pervading all minds' in the text below. The explanation below also has two: first, it says that a bodhisattva should know that in one's own mind, from thought-moment to thought-moment, there is always a buddha attaining right awakening, which is vertically without boundaries; second, the explanation below says: why is this? Because all buddha-tathāgatas do not depart from this mind in attaining right awakening. That is the second meaning: thought-moment by thought-moment response is the transformation body; once attained, eternally enduring is the reward body. Below 'the mind is without initial characteristics,' it tallies with the dharmadhātu body. However, this single phrase comes from the Awakening of Faith. The treatise says: 'When the bodhisattva grounds are exhausted, one awakens to the mind's initial arising; the mind has no initial characteristics, because by virtue of leaving behind subtle thoughts, one is able to see the nature of the mind. The mind is then eternally abiding, which is called ultimate awakening.' Below, saying 'not departing from this mind' secretly accords with the meaning of principle. However, for 'awakening to the mind's initial arising, the mind has no initial characteristics,' there are naturally two meanings: first, awakening is the subject of awakening, and mind is the object of awakening. The mind is the initial characteristic, namely the karmic characteristic, which is the subtle thought: initially deluded about the real, unenlightened, the mind moves. Now it is devoid of this characteristic. Second, awakening and mind are explained together: when the mind of right awakening arises, it is devoid of the characteristic of a subject that arises, and hence it accords secretly with principle. If there were a characteristic of arising, it would not accord with principle. Here it precisely adopts this meaning, hence saying 'the mind is without initial characteristics, secretly according with principle,' the meaning encompassing the former, because devoid of subtle thoughts, it is therefore devoid of the characteristic of awakening. In accordance with dharma characteristics, the transformation body has a beginning and an end, the reward body has a beginning but no end, and the dharmakāya has neither beginning nor end. Now according with principle, the reward [body] is also without beginning; hence it says 'initial awakening is identical to original awakening; there is no longer any difference between initial and original, which is called ultimate awakening.' Hence it says 'because of having no prior limit,' which means without beginning. Having no end is the same as the upper phrase's having no subsequent limit. Since the dharmakāya and reward body are interfused, the response identical to the essence is without interruption from thought-moment to thought-moment; the three bodies are interfused.

80.29

Regarding the commentary's "Ninth, leaving behind the extremes and according with the middle" and so forth: this explains the sūtra's phrase "leaving far behind the two extremes and abiding in the Middle Way," which corresponds to the subsequent text's "pervading all minds." The subsequent explanation states: "vast, all-pervading, nowhere absent, never separated, uninterrupted, without rest, entering the inconceivable gate of upāya teaching." The commentary has two parts: first, explaining leaving the extremes; second, explaining abiding in the middle. Now, as for the first: the sūtra says "leaving behind the extremes," yet it is not yet known what these are; therefore it adduces the Jin translation of the sūtra and draws upon the subsequent explanation, briefly citing four pairs to represent all [extremes]. Defilement and purity are stated in terms of afflictions; bondage and liberation encompass afflictions and karma; existence and non-existence encompass phenomena and principle; oneness and difference are stated in terms of mind and object. Why are there these [pairs]? That is to say, when bodhi is attained, fine thoughts have already been left behind, delusional afflictions are exhausted, and the dharmakāya manifests with wisdom purely clean. If one holds this view, one still cannot escape being at an extreme. Thus the preceding sūtra says: "If one sees the Rightly Awakened One / as liberated, free from all outflows, / unattached to any world, / his is not the eye that realizes the Path." Now, understanding that the essential nature of delusion is fundamentally empty and that subsequently there is nothing to be purified, one leaves behind the two extremes. Moreover, defilement and purity interpenetrate, and therefore there is no abiding attachment; this is called leaving behind the extremes. As for bondage and liberation: this refers to having formerly been bound by afflictions and karma, transmigrating endlessly, and now attaining bodhi, utterly liberated. If one holds this view, this is abiding in an extreme. The wisdom of bodhi understands that fundamentally there is no bondage; from what could there be release? Where there is neither bondage nor release, there is neither delight nor revulsion; hence one can leave [the extremes] behind. As for existence and non-existence, mentioned above as encompassing phenomena and principle: if formerly one considered afflictions to exist and now understands afflictions to be empty; or formerly considered the mind to be empty and now knows wondrous existence; or again, true bliss fundamentally exists yet was lost without one knowing, while delusional suffering is fundamentally empty yet was grasped without one being aware—if one now only begins to know that what is empty is delusional suffering and what exists is nirvāṇa, knowing in such a way still does not leave behind the extremes. Furthermore, that defilement, karma, and suffering fundamentally existed and now are not, while bodhi and the Buddha's body fundamentally did not exist and now exist, are all dharmas of the three times. The nature of bodhi does not belong to the three times; therefore, existence and non-existence in the three times are all subsumed under the extremes. True cognition accords with principle and transcends the three times; hence it leaves behind the two extremes of existence and non-existence, and so forth. Oneness and difference have two aspects: first, if mind and object are not understood, they are two; if they accord and unite, they are one—this too constitutes an extreme. Second, sentient beings and the Buddha are different, yet now one understands them to have a single nature—this is also called an extreme. Now, the Rightly Awakened One understands that herein there is neither duality nor non-duality, nor is there any possessor of great wisdom who sees well, because he skillfully abides in accordance with principle. In stating "and so forth" after leaving behind these extremes, it means that annihilation and permanence, coming and going, arising and ceasing, the dependent and the primary—leaving behind these dual dharmas are all called extremes. Furthermore, duality and non-duality are also called extremes. Now, once there is accord with bodhi, everything is completely tranquil; hence it says "leaving far behind."

80.30

Regarding the commentary's "not one-sidedly abiding with attachment" and so forth: this explains abiding in the Middle Way. It resolves an objection and introduces the subsequent accord with the middle. That is, an objection might be raised: "If one leaves behind the extremes, one still does not escape an extreme, because there is grasping and rejecting." Therefore it explains: "Not one-sidedly abiding with attachment is called leaving behind the extremes; it is not that one sees there to be an extreme that can be left behind." This means not one-sidedly abiding in defilement, because the nature of defilement is empty; and because its nature is purity, not one-sidedly abiding in purity. If there is no defilement, there is no purity; because the characteristic of purity is departed from, and because it is identical with the nature of defilement, defilement and purity interpenetrate—how could one abide? Cognition accords with this principle; hence it is called leaving behind the extremes. Thus it says: "It is not that one sees an extreme, for the extreme is itself the middle." Again, an objection is raised: "Where there is an extreme, there is a middle. Since the extreme is itself the middle, then there is no extreme. Since there is no extreme, relative to what is 'middle' spoken of?" Therefore it next replies: "Only when there is neither extreme nor middle does one abide in the Middle Way." This has two meanings: First, agreeing with the above objection: it is indeed as you say; being without extreme and without middle is called the Middle Way, for if there were middle and extreme, it would not be the true middle. Second, reversing the above objection: the Middle Way has two aspects: (1) relative, wherein one leaves behind the extremes and abides in the middle; (2) absolute, wherein the extreme itself is the middle. When empty through relativity, there are extremes and middle; having neither extreme nor middle is the true middle. Therefore, relative and absolute are still relative; when one grasps the meaning and forgets words, words cannot exhaust it. Applied through the above defilement, purity, and so forth, every single one is like this.

80.31

Regarding the commentary's "Tenth, generally revealing transcendence of words": this explains the sūtra's "surpassing all letters and spoken words," which corresponds to the subsequent text's "its essence and characteristics are extremely profound." Thus, the preceding nine relied on words to reveal profundity, while now bodhi transcends words to reveal profundity.

80.32

Regarding the commentary's "'nothing manifested' has three meanings": 1. No mind manifesting is in terms of śamatha; 2. That which is manifested being empty is in terms of vipaśyanā; 3. Having no separate essence is in terms of the accord and union of śamatha and vipaśyanā. Again, 1 is in terms of mind; 2 is in terms of object; 3 is the mutual obscuration of both mind and object. Again, 1 is in terms of cognition; 2 is in terms of principle; 3 is the obscure accord of principle and cognition. Within the third meaning, the commentary first gives the direct explanation, and subsequently, with "its own essence manifesting, hence it is called awakening," resolves an objection. That is, an objection might be raised: "If there is no separate essence, how can it universally manifest the mental activities of sentient beings?" Therefore it replies: "Its own essence manifests, just as a jewel has light that illuminates the jewel's essence itself." The jewel's essence is an analogy for the mind; the light is an analogy for cognition. The essential nature of the mind is the nature of all dharmas; when it illuminates all dharmas, it is self-illumination. Hence it cites the Awakening of Faith, whose text is very clear. Now, that treatise says: "Question: Space is boundless, therefore worlds are boundless; worlds are boundless, therefore sentient beings are boundless; sentient beings are boundless, therefore the distinctions among mental activities are also boundless. Such a realm cannot be demarcated; it is difficult to know and difficult to comprehend. If avidyā is severed and there are no mental conceptions, how can it comprehend and be named the wisdom of all modes (sarvākārajñatā)? Answer: All realms are fundamentally the one mind, free from conceptual thoughts. Because sentient beings falsely perceive realms, their minds have boundaries. Because they falsely give rise to conceptual thoughts, which do not conform to the dharmatā, they cannot decisively comprehend. All Buddha-Tathāgatas are free from views and thoughts, and there is nowhere they do not pervade. Because their mind is real, it is the nature of all dharmas; its own essence illuminates all delusional dharmas, possessing great cognitive function and immeasurable upāya; in accordance with what sentient beings ought to comprehend, they are able to reveal the various doctrinal meanings; therefore it is named the wisdom of all modes." Commentary: The commentary merely cites the middle portion to verify self-essence illumination; what precedes and follows can be known, and so is not cited at length.

80.33

Regarding the commentary's "The mental wheel being equal, what doubt could there be?": this is because the preceding heading stated, "Equal with respect to dharmas, free from doubt and perplexity."

80.34

Regarding the commentary's "Now first, there are thirteen bodies" and so forth: the commentary text has three parts: first, briefly explaining the text; second, from "all say 'measure'" downward, specifically explaining the word "measure"; third, from "therefore the sage" downward, concluding with the profound purport. This is text from Master Zhao's "Treatise on the Namelessness of Nirvāṇa: Harmonizing Antiquity," which came out of the preceding section "Exhausting the Source," where it says: "Without sentient beings, there would be nothing with which to steer the triyāna; without the triyāna, there would be nothing with which to accomplish nirvāṇa. Yet there must first be sentient beings, and subsequently nirvāṇa. If so, nirvāṇa has a beginning; having a beginning, it must have an end. Yet the sūtras say: 'Nirvāṇa has neither beginning nor end, serene like empty space.' Then nirvāṇa exists prior, and is no longer something accomplished through study." Commentary: This passage uses cultivation-and-attainment to challenge the idea that nirvāṇa has a beginning and an end; and uses nirvāṇa's lack of beginning and end to challenge its attainment through cultivation. Therefore, "Harmonizing Antiquity" answers: "The unconditioned is called nirvāṇa. The supreme person is cavernously empty and formless, yet nothing is other than myself. Bringing together the myriad things to complete oneself—who could do this but the sage? Why so? Without principle, one is not a sage; without a sage, there is no principle. Being a sage by means of principle, the sage is not different from principle. Therefore the Heavenly Lord asked: 'Where should prajñā be sought?' Śubhūti said: 'Prajñā must not be sought in form, nor must it be sought apart from form.' It is also said: 'Seeing dependent origination is seeing the Dharma; seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha.' This is the efficacy of things and self being not different. Therefore the supreme person restrains the profound mechanism before it portends, and conceals the dark operation within transformation itself; he encompasses the six directions to mirror his mind, and unifies past and future to constitute his essence. Past and present connect, beginning and end are identical; exhausting the root and reaching the branch, nothing is dual with it; vast and grandly equal, it is called nirvāṇa." Commentary: Although that [treatise] explains nirvāṇa, it also takes the unity of subject and object through the accord of what can realize and what is realized. Here, although stated in terms of bodhi, it also adopts the unity of subject and object; hence it can employ its text.

80.35

Regarding the commentary's "Now first, among the eight aspects" and so forth: the commentary text has four parts: first, briefly explaining the sūtra text; second, harmonizing with the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa; third, distinguishing differences from what precedes; fourth, broadly inquiring and explaining. In the commentary, from "This text directly accords with" downward is the second, harmonizing with the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. Within this there are three parts: first, directly showing identity; second, presenting that sūtra's intent; third, directly harmonizing and explaining. Now, as for the first: this is the "Bodhisattva Chapter." Maitreya was preaching the practice of the stage of non-retrogression to the gods of Tuṣita heaven, and Vimalakīrti challenged him, saying: "Did you receive the prophecy from the arising of tathatā, or did you receive the prophecy from the cessation of tathatā? If you received the prophecy from the arising of tathatā, tathatā has no arising; if you received the prophecy from the cessation of tathatā, tathatā has no cessation. All sentient beings are tathatā; all dharmas are also tathatā; all holy ones and sages are also tathatā; right up to Maitreya, he is also tathatā. If Maitreya received the prophecy, all sentient beings should also receive the prophecy. Why is this? Tathatā is neither dual nor different. If Maitreya attains anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi, all sentient beings should also attain it. Why is this? All sentient beings are themselves the mark of bodhi. If Maitreya attains extinction, all sentient beings should also attain extinction. Why is this? The Buddhas know that all sentient beings are ultimately quiescent and extinguished—that is the mark of nirvāṇa, not extinguishing again." Commentary: Here it directly explains the meaning of attaining right awakening; hence it only cites bodhi. If based on the sūtra text, it says "even unto entering nirvāṇa," and thus also contains the meaning that [sentient beings] should also attain extinction; hence it is now cited in full.

80.36

Regarding the commentary's "Maitreya manifested delusion regarding this purport" and so forth: this is the second part, presenting that sūtra's intent. Since he is one destined for Buddhahood in the next lifetime, what principle could he not have exhausted? He merely submitted to humiliation to awaken the listeners of that time. The statement "merely taking it as words of interrogating principle" is the mark of delusion. However, delusion has two meanings: First, in terms of Maitreya accepting the challenge: saying that all are identical with tathatā, yet I alone received the prophecy, truly goes against principle—hence it is called words of interrogating principle. Second, Maitreya did not accept the challenge: saying that although the principle is one tathatā, prophecy is received when practice is fulfilled—how can one challenge phenomena by means of principle? Hence it is called interrogating principle.

80.37

Regarding the commentary's "not knowing that truly attaining bodhi is indeed as interrogated": this is the third part, directly harmonizing and explaining Vimalakīrti. It was not a false interrogation; when true bodhi is attained, once it is attained, all attain it. Thus, whether accepting the challenge or not accepting the challenge, both are deluded about this principle. If manifesting non-delusion, he should have replied to Vimalakīrti: "It is indeed as you say; I have already seen myself receive the prophecy, become a Buddha, and enter nirvāṇa."

80.38

Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, the preceding section" downward: this is the third part, distinguishing differences from what precedes. The preceding section concerned universal pervasion, whereas this section concerns broad containment. The phrase "the single nature being equal, mutually accomplishing each other in reverse": the preceding section explained equality, while this section explains the single nature. Therefore, in the subsequent explanation, all share the identical single nature; because of equality, it is exclusively a single nature; because of the single nature, how could it not be equal? Hence it says they mutually accomplish each other.

80.39

On the Commentary's passage from "The realization herein" downward: fourth, a comprehensive interrogation and explanation. First it interrogates, and then from "This is the grand turning point of the Avataṃsaka" downward it explains. Within this there are two parts: first, a preliminary demonstration; then, from "However, all sentient beings" downward, a distinct explanation. This presents the purport of the five teachings, plus that of humans and gods, making six: first, the vehicle of humans and gods; second, from "the Hīnayāna" downward, the two vehicles; third, from "the Mahāyāna" downward, the initial teaching; fourth, from "or teaching only the tathāgatagarbha" downward, the final teaching; fifth, from "furthermore there are" downward, the sudden teaching; and sixth, from "if relying on this school" downward, the perfect teaching. Within this [sixth] there are four sections: 1. the correct explanation, 2. resolving objections, 3. concluding by analogy, and 4. reiterating the explanation.

80.40

On the Commentary's passage from "If that is so" downward: second, resolving objections. Within this there are five parts: 1. stating the objection; 2. from "if in terms of sentient beings" downward, explaining it—the intended meaning here is that through the interfusion of principle, one cannot understand principle and phenomena as separate; 3. from "if that is so" downward, using the agent to challenge the object: since the Buddha has already completely realized this, what need is there to transform them?; 4. from "not knowing it thus" downward, explaining the reason for transformation; 5. from "transforming them thus" downward, concluding that this is true transformation. The phrase "there is no time when he does not transform" means constant transformation; hence he cites unbroken continuity precisely to establish its permanence.

80.41

On the Commentary's passage from "According to different approaches there are various distinctions" downward: third, concluding by analogy, which brings other approaches under the same principle. Although the approaches are many, they are briefly divided into four: 1. in terms of nature, namely the one true dharmadhātu; 2. in terms of characteristics, namely inexhaustible phenomenal dharmas; 3. in terms of the interpenetration of nature and characteristics, showing that these two approaches are neither identical nor separate; 4. using nature to interpenetrate characteristics, so that virtuous functions are layered and multiply unfolded. Regarding the first approach, in terms of nature: Question: Is the essence the Buddha or not? Answer: It is. If unobstructed, it should form a tetralemma: (1) It is the Buddha, for the dharmatā-body reaches nowhere it does not pervade; hence the sūtra says, "Because the emptiness of nature is precisely the Buddha." (2) It is not the Buddha, as it cuts off the subject and object of awakening; because its nature is the equitable one true dharmadhātu, it is neither Buddha nor sentient being. (3) It is both Buddha and not Buddha, because the dharmatā-body lacks intrinsic nature. (4) It is neither, because both nature and absence of nature are mutually eradicated; the sūtra says, "Within nothingness there is no duality, / nor is there non-duality. / All across the three times is empty: / such is the vision of the Buddhas." Second, regarding the approach in terms of characteristics, there are two aspects: sentient and non-sentient. The true mind accords with conditions, transforming into subject and object. However, each of these two approaches is divided into defiled and pure: avidyā perfuming tathatā constitutes defiled dependent origination, and tathatā perfuming avidyā constitutes pure dependent origination. Defilement forms the myriad kinds; purity culminates in Buddhahood. Only by cultivating pure conditions and cutting off those defiled conditions does one attain Buddhahood. According to these two aspects, sentient beings and Buddhas are distinct. Within pure conditions there are further cause and effect: the cause has pure and mixed, and the effect has the circumstantial and the primary. In terms of the pure approach, any single bodhisattva exhausts the limits of the future cultivating only one practice, and every single one is likewise; in terms of the mixed approach, the myriad practices are cultivated together, exhausting the limits of the future. In terms of the causal approach, one is constantly a bodhisattva exhausting the limits of the future; in terms of the fruitional approach, one is constantly a Tathāgata exhausting the limits of the future. The sūtra says, "For the sake of sentient beings, in thought after thought, newly and afresh he attains equal and perfect enlightenment." If one treats both approaches together, exhausting the limits of the future one cultivates the cause and attains the fruit; if in terms of the negation of both, exhausting the limits of the future there is neither cause nor fruit, which then accords with the true nature. The preceding two approaches both fully possess compassion and wisdom, and both interpenetrate mind and object. In the third approach, the interpenetration of nature and characteristics, there are four intricate sub-approaches: 1. using nature to follow characteristics, identical to the second approach; 2. converging characteristics back into nature, identical to the first approach; 3. preserving both without obstruction, possessing the two approaches above—relying on this, compassion and wisdom are operated together, nature and characteristics proceed side by side, and quiescence and illumination flow in tandem, accomplishing great sovereignty; 4. mutual negating and mutual vanishing, whereby nature and characteristics are both cut off, submerged together into the ocean of fruition, with neither realization nor non-realization. In the fourth approach, using nature to interpenetrate characteristics: although characteristics have myriad differences, none is not identical to nature, and the virtues of the nature contain and fully abide within characteristics. Using nature to interpenetrate characteristics, characteristics are like nature, rendering all the above approaches free from obstruction: cause and effect interpenetrate, the pure and the mixed blend together, and phenomenon by phenomenon they mutually interweave, layered and inexhaustible. Now, within the tetralemma of the approach of nature, it is precisely the approach of being the Buddha, not taking the other three. In the approach of characteristics, in terms of sentient beings, it is pure and not defiled, fruitional and not causal, which is a partial meaning not employed here. In the approach of interpenetration, for the Buddha nature and characteristics are both interpenetrated, while for sentient beings characteristics are converged back into nature. Now the sūtra specifically relies on the fourth, using nature to interpenetrate characteristics, where when one realizes, all realize. That is to say, using the Buddha's pure nature to interpenetrate the defilement of sentient beings, and using the Buddha's single nature to interpenetrate the multiplicity of sentient beings, causes the multiple defiled sentient beings, following the one true nature, to all be like the Buddha, having already attained Buddhahood. Not only sentient beings: converging the characteristics of the myriad kinds and interpenetrating them into the Buddha's essence, there are none that are not all realized. Hence Master Zhao says: "He who converges the myriad things to make them himself—is he not none other than the sage?" He also says: "Therefore the ultimate person is empty, hollow, and formless, yet among things there is nothing that is not himself." Using the Buddha's nature to interpenetrate the nature of things, they are all realized identical to the Buddha; using the nature of things to interpenetrate the Buddha's characteristics, his three karmas are made equal to the myriad kinds. This is precisely the purport of the present sūtra, and not other approaches; hence it says that according to different approaches there are variations, and here it is the approach of realizing Buddhahood. The sudden teaching mostly accords with the four approaches in terms of nature; the final teaching accords with the interpenetration of nature and characteristics; the initial teaching has two aspects: first, illusory existence is immediately empty, identical to converging characteristics back into nature; but because it is only the manifestation of mind, it mostly accords with the second. The Hīnayāna, humans, and gods all accord with the approach of characteristics. For this reason, some say that the non-sentient attain Buddhahood: this is in terms of the mutual interpenetration of nature and characteristics, using the nature of the sentient to interpenetrate the characteristics of the non-sentient, and using the characteristics of the non-sentient following nature to interpenetrate and become identical to the nature of the sentient; therefore it is said that the non-sentient have the meaning of attaining Buddhahood. If one uses the meaning of the non-sentient not attaining Buddhahood to interpenetrate the characteristics of the sentient, one may also say that sentient beings do not attain Buddhahood. Because attaining and not attaining, sentient and non-sentient, have no dual nature; because the dharmadhātu is boundless; because the Buddha's essence is universally pervasive; because form and emptiness are non-dual; because dharmas have no fixed nature; because the ten bodies are completely interfused; because dependent origination is mutually conditioned; because the realm of sentient beings is inexhaustible; because cause and effect are omnipresent; because it is far removed from annihilation and permanence; and because the myriad dharmas are insubstantial and interpenetrated—for these reasons it is said that when one realizes, all realize. It does not mean that the non-sentient also possess an awakening nature that attains Buddhahood identically with the sentient. If one allowed them to attain Buddhahood, this attainment would then be able to cultivate the cause, the non-sentient turning into the sentient, and the sentient turning into the non-sentient, which would then be identical to heterodox views. The remaining meanings are fully explained before and after as stated above.

First 41 of 73 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese