大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 81

English (machine translation) 81

Language: English

81.1

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

On the commentary passage “Third, revealing the varieties,” the commentary text has three parts: first, generally clarifying its depth and breadth; second, from “Now, from narrow…” downwards, properly clarifying the varieties; third, from “With remainder and without remainder…” downwards, examining and determining them against the sūtras. In the second part, regarding “with remainder and without remainder,” there are many explanations. According to the Hīnayāna, there are inherently two views. First, the Sarvāstivāda has two aspects. The Sarvāstivādin School says: The essence of nirvāṇa is one; according to different times, it receives two names. As for the essence being one: in this school, when defilements, karma, and volitions, which ought to arise, do not arise by the power of the Path, cessation through deliberation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), an unconditioned dharma, is the essence of nirvāṇa. This essence is single. In relation to the body and wisdom, it receives two names. When the body and wisdom have not yet ended, that preceding nirvāṇa is spoken of as ‘with remainder’; when the body and wisdom have completely ended, the preceding nirvāṇa shifts its name to ‘without remainder’. It is not that the extinction of the body and wisdom is itself named nirvāṇa, because after the body and wisdom have arisen, their perishing is impermanence. If, by severing the cause, they are prevented from arising in the future, this is cessation without deliberation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), and hence not nirvāṇa. Second, according to the Satyasiddhi-śāstra, the essence of nirvāṇa is twofold: the exhaustion of the causes of saṃsāra is named the first nirvāṇa, and the exhaustion of the fruits of saṃsāra is named the second nirvāṇa. Because in the Sarvāstivāda it must be directly severed by the Path to be called cessation through deliberation, bodily and vocal karma as well as the fruits of saṃsāra are not directly severed by the Path, and are therefore not taken as such. The Satyasiddhi holds that because defilements are severed, the remainder does not arise, and because they are severed through seeing and cultivation, they also attain cessation through deliberation, and are therefore named nirvāṇa. However, when viewed from the Mahāyāna, these are all called ‘with remainder’, because they leave the remainder of transformation [birth-and-death]. If according to the Mahāyāna, Master Huiyuan himself has four distinctions: first, he says that the exhaustion of the causes of the two kinds of death is named ‘with remainder’, and the exhaustion of the fruits of the two kinds of death is named ‘without remainder’; second, he says that the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of delimited [birth-and-death] is named ‘with remainder’, and the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of transformative [birth-and-death] is named ‘without remainder’; third, he says that the causes and fruits of delimited [birth-and-death] as well as the causes of transformative [birth-and-death] being exhausted is named ‘with remainder’, and the extinction of the fruits of transformative [birth-and-death] is named ‘without remainder’; fourth, taking only the causes and fruits of transformative [birth-and-death] as two, because the causes and fruits of delimited [birth-and-death] belong to the Hīnayāna. If according to the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, it is explained in terms of the three bodies. The ‘Chapter on the Three Bodies’ says: ‘Good sons! Relying on these two bodies, all Buddhas speak of nirvāṇa with remainder; relying on the dharmakāya, they speak of nirvāṇa without remainder. Why? Because all remainder has been completely and utterly exhausted. Relying on these three bodies, all Buddhas speak of non-abiding nirvāṇa. Why? For the sake of the two bodies, they do not abide in nirvāṇa; apart from the dharmakāya, there is no other Buddha. Why do they not abide in nirvāṇa? The two bodies are provisional designations and not real; perishing moment by moment, they do not abide; appearing frequently, they are indeterminate. The dharmakāya is not so. Therefore, the two bodies do not abide in nirvāṇa; the dharmakāya, being non-dual, does not abide in saṃsāra. Relying on the three bodies, non-abiding nirvāṇa is spoken of.’ In accordance with the above sūtra text, the dharmakāya is precisely the body of self-enjoyment (svasaṃbhogakāya), eternally in the Ghanavyūha Buddha-land. ‘All remainder being exhausted’ means that defilements and residual latencies, both delimited and transformative [birth-and-death], are all exhausted. Sengzhao said: ‘Arising is named with remainder; ceasing is named without remainder.’ This is also the meaning here, which the commentary below employs. If according to the Vijñaptimātratā, it states: ‘First is nirvāṇa with remainder of support, which means tathatā emerging from the obstruction of defilements; although there is subtle suffering and the support has not yet ceased, the obstructions are eternally quieted, hence it is named nirvāṇa. Second is nirvāṇa without remainder of support, which means tathatā emerging from the suffering of saṃsāra; defilements having been exhausted, the remaining support is also extinguished, and all sufferings are eternally quieted, hence it is named nirvāṇa.’ Explanation: This spans both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna in stating that tathatā is the essence, which differs from the Hīnayāna. The treatise below sifts and differentiates: ‘How can the Sugata have a remainder of support?’ This is a question. ‘Although he has no real support, he manifests as if having one; when the supports of affliction and suffering are exhausted, it is spoken of as without remainder of support, not that because the support of suffering remains it is spoken of as with remainder of support. Therefore, the World-Honoured One can be said to possess all four.’ Explanation: This answer has two parts: the former clarifies that he manifests having [a support] identical to the two vehicles; the latter clarifies that he takes the untainted aggregates as the remainder of support, hence it says ‘not that because the support of suffering remains’. On the commentary passage “Second, naturally pure and pure through upāya,” these are also called the two virtues, also called the two quiescences, and also called identical characteristics and non-identical characteristics, all of which are distinguished as in the delineation of the explanation of the first bhūmi. Because its nature is fundamentally pure, because it is revealed through causal upāya, and because its active functions are skillful, they are also essence and function. The rest is as in the other chapters.

81.3

On the commentary passage “Second, namely the svabhāva-, true-, and responsive-[kāyas],” the above clarifies the true, responsive, and svabhāva[-kāyas], combining the two Buddhas in terms of purity; now it unpacks the svabhāvakāya to encompass both defilement and purity. The commentary alternatively divides it into four, namely following the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra. The treatise says: ‘First, fundamentally and naturally pure nirvāṇa, which refers to the tathatā of all dharmas; although according to principle there are adventitious defilements, its original nature is pure, fully endowed with countless subtle virtues, free of arising and cessation, serene as empty space, equally shared by all sentient beings, neither one nor different from all dharmas, free of all characteristics and all conceptual distinctions, with the paths of searching thought cut off and the ways of verbal expression severed, realized only by true noble ones within themselves. Its nature is fundamentally quiescent, hence it is named nirvāṇa. Second, nirvāṇa with remainder of support; third, nirvāṇa without remainder of support, both fully as spoken above. Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa, which means tathatā emerging from the obstruction to the knowable, constantly assisted and accompanied by great compassion and prajñā; by this means, one abides neither in saṃsāra nor in nirvāṇa, benefiting and gladdening sentient beings to the exhaustless limits of the future; functioning yet eternally quiescent, hence it is named nirvāṇa. All sentient beings possess the first one; those of the two vehicles beyond training may possess the first three; only our World-Honoured One alone is said to possess all four.’ The concluding text of the commentary below uses these four.

81.4

On the commentary passage from “With remainder and without remainder” downwards, third, it examines and differentiates their general characteristics. “Not solely the extinction of the responsive [body]” distinguishes it from diverging interpretations.

81.5

On the commentary passage “Fourth, manifesting karmic function,” first, it directly clarifies it, which is also the statement in the exposition of chapter ten, ‘Profound Attainment’, of the Treatise on the Nameless (Wuming lun). It says: ‘Therefore, it is able to encompass antiquity and guide all quarters, fostering all beings, comprehensive yet allowing nothing to slip through—vast indeed, oceanic indeed, what does not proceed from it! Hence the brahmacārin said: “I have heard that the Buddha's Path has a principle profoundly deep, oceanic and boundless, with nothing it does not accomplish, nothing among sentient beings it does not deliver.” Thus the path of the three vehicles is opened, the ways of the true and the false are distinguished, the path of the sages and noble ones is preserved, and the purport of the nameless is manifested.’ Explanation: The latter part of that text praises the nameless, which is now omitted and not brought up. Second, from “The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says” downwards, it cites proofs, which the preceding commentary has already cited. Third, from “Then the manifestation…” downwards, it concludes and establishes its depth and breadth. Now, taking manifestation as the general gateway, nirvāṇa corresponds to one virtue within it. If nirvāṇa were taken as the gateway, the nine gateways of manifestation would all issue from nirvāṇa. Fourth, from “However, the various gateways…” downwards, it indicates that the broad explanation is in the rest. Having already subsumed all subtleties, it therefore says ‘briefly fully present in the text’.

81.6

On the commentary passage “Now, first, the fundamental svabhāva,” these three lines of the commentary have already completely provided the one, two, three, and four kinds of nirvāṇa listed above; reflecting upon it, this can be seen.

81.7

On the commentary’s "Second, pointing out that principle is identical to phenomena": "phenomena" refers to the true and responsive nirvāṇas. Within this there are three parts: first, briefly explaining the sūtra text; second, from "The true and responsive [nirvāṇas] have no root" onward, generally displaying the meaning of the text; third, from "The reason ten are listed" onward, explaining the rationale for the ten. In the second part, it first demonstrates by contrast: if the true and responsive nirvāṇas lacked the nirvāṇa of self-nature as their root, neither would be unborn. While the true nirvāṇa is commonly acknowledged to be unborn because it is revealed by the purity of nature, the responsive nirvāṇa is universally deemed subject to arising and ceasing; therefore, it is specifically stated now that if the responsive lacked the purity of nature, how could it be unborn? Next, from "Hence, taking the root..." onward, it demonstrates directly: because the root of the purity of nature encompasses the branches of the true and responsive, the true and responsive are called branches in contrast to the purity of nature. The true and the purity of nature both serve as essence, encompassing responsive transformation and function, and all constitute the non-abiding nirvāṇa of the three virtues. In the third part, explaining the rationale for the ten: "the ultimate, marvelous Dao" is a passage from the chapter "Difficult to Distinguish" (Nancha) in the Treatise on the Nameless (Wuming lun). That text states: "The Named says: 'Since nirvāṇa is utterly beyond the domain of measurement, it transcends the six sense objects; it does not emerge nor does it abide, yet the mysterious Dao alone endures. This is the ultimate Dao that exhausts principle and fulfills nature, marvelously unified without differentiation.'" Here, it is cited according to its meaning.

81.8

On the commentary’s "Hence we know that the mysterious Dao..." onward: this concludes and establishes the correct doctrine. The phrase "marvelous awakening" refers to that which is capable of tallying [with reality]. It is because that which is capable of tallying is identical to the real that that with which it tallies can be established as identical to the real, which is precisely the purity of nature. The deluded being identical to the real, arising is non-arising—how could they not be viewed as equal? Viewing them as equal and of one taste, both subject and object become imperceptible, so that one takes the complete true nature as one's own essence. Since the real is ever serene, we know that the responsive extinction between the twin trees was not extinction, because it is eternally abiding. The phrase "without extinction" is used because it is fundamentally quiescent extinction. However, this is also a passage from the chapter "Marvelous Preserving" (Miaocun); half of it was used above under mental karma, where it was already cited in full. Here it obliquely uses two sentences, referring to that text’s "Heaven and earth share the same root with me; the ten thousand things are of one essence with me"; here, in accordance with the sūtra text, it takes tathatā and so forth as the root of nirvāṇa.

81.9

On the commentary’s "That nirvāṇa is not empty means there is wholesome form": Master Yuan cited this to prove that form is the essence; here it is also one meaning. The eternal body and dharmakāya, the sandalwood throne and stūpa, which are doctrines of the Laṅkāvatāra, have all been cited previously. On the commentary’s "Marvelous form is serene": in the six-fascicle Niḥsāṇa-sūtra, Cunda praises the Buddha, saying: "The marvelous form is serene and ever tranquil, / Not shifted by seasons or kalpas; / The Great Sage practiced compassion throughout vast kalpas, / Attaining the adamantine, indestructible body." The rest can be understood.

81.10

On the commentary’s "Third, up to ‘appearing and disappearing while ever serene’": because the sūtra text here has two parts: first it clarifies the traces of appearing and disappearing, and next, from "Yet in truth the Tathāgata..." onward, it clarifies the root that is ever serene. Within the commentary there are five parts: 1. establishing the principle; 2. from "There is nothing it does not do" onward, directly expounding the text; 3. from "Without impeding appearing and disappearing" onward, reviewing and elucidating to reveal the meaning; 4. from "Hence we know that quiescence without moving..." onward, concluding with their mutual integration—the former phrase showing that essence does not impede function, and the latter phrase showing that function does not impede essence; 5. from "How could one follow..." onward, concluding with a critique of deluded sentiments. These five sections largely draw upon the third chapter of the Nameless, "Position and Essence" (Weiti). That treatise states: "Its designation is made in response [to things]; manifesting traces is called arising, and withdrawing traces is called ceasing; arising is named with remainder, and ceasing is named without remainder. Thus designations of existence and non-existence are rooted in the nameless; how could the Dao of the nameless not be named as anything? Therefore, the utmost person is square when dwelling in squareness, round when abiding in roundness, celestial among devas, and human among humans. As for what enables one to be celestial or human, how could that be the ability of devas or humans? It is indeed because one is neither celestial nor human that one can be celestial or human. As for his governance, he responds without acting, and adapts without bestowing. Adapting without bestowing, his bestowal is therefore none greater; responding without acting, his action is therefore none greater. Because his action is none greater, he returns to minor accomplishment; because his bestowal is none greater, he reverts to the nameless." Further below it states: "The intended meaning is that the utmost person is tranquil without omens, concealing and revealing sharing the same origin; being present does not constitute existence, and perishing does not constitute non-existence. Why so? The Buddha said: 'There is no arising that I do not undergo, yet though I arise, I do not arise; there is no form that I do not take, yet though I take form, I do not take form.' By this we know that being present does not constitute existence. A sūtra states: 'The bodhisattva enters the inexhaustible samādhi, seeing all past Buddhas who have passed into extinction.' It also states: 'Entering nirvāṇa yet not entering nirvāṇa.' By this we know that perishing does not constitute non-existence. Perishing not constituting non-existence, though non-existent, it exists; being present not constituting existence, though existent, it is non-existent. Though existent, it is non-existent, hence it is termed 'not existent'; though non-existent, it exists, hence it is termed 'not non-existent'. Thus the Dao of nirvāṇa indeed transcends the realm of existence and non-existence, and the paths of speech and imagery are severed. Yet you say: 'The sage loathed having a body, so he extinguished the body to revert to non-existence; no toil exceeds having knowledge, so he severed knowledge to sink into emptiness.' Does this not run contrary to the ultimate spirit and harm the mysterious import?" The reasoning in this section of the treatise is linked like a chain; merely by looking at what is cited, the intention of the commentary is self-evident. The text of the critique also comes from the end of that chapter, which says: "Yet the deluded reside in the realm of sight and hearing, pursuing the traces of distinct responses; grasping the compass and square to measure the Great Square, they wish to toil the utmost person with knowledge and burden the Great Sage with form, claiming that he renounced existence to enter non-existence, thereby naming him. How could they be said to pluck subtle words beyond hearing, or uproot the mysterious root in the soil of emptiness?"

81.11

On the commentary’s "Later synthesis: 'Yet the dharmakāya has no image...'" and so forth: the commentary text has three parts: first, directly explaining; second, citing proof; third, distinguishing and determining. In the first part, it also carries the intention from the end of the previous chapter. Next, that treatise states: "A sūtra states: 'The dharmakāya has no image, but shapes itself in response to things. Prajñā has no knowledge, but shines in confrontation with conditions.' Though ten thousand impulses arrive at once, they do not disturb his spirit; though a thousand distinct difficulties confront him, they do not trouble his thoughts. Moving like floating clouds, resting like the valley spirit—how could he harbor a mind toward this or that, or cling with sentiment to movement or quiescence? Since he has no mind toward movement and quiescence, he likewise has no image of coming and going. Because coming and going are not by means of images, there is no vessel in which he does not take shape; because movement and quiescence are not by means of mind, there is no resonance to which he does not respond. Thus, mind is born from having a mind, and images emerge from having an image. Because images do not emerge from me, gold and stone may melt without burning [me]; because mind is not born from me, it may be used daily without tiring. Turmoil belongs to them—what does it have to do with me? Therefore, knowledge pervades the ten thousand things without toil, and form fills the eight extremities without harm; increase cannot fill it, and decrease cannot diminish it. How could there ever again be an epidemic along the thoroughfare, life ending at the twin trees, spiritual exhaustion within a heavenly coffin, or a body consumed by cremation?"

81.12

On the commentary’s "Hence the Mahāyānasaṃgraha..." onward: second, citing proof and explaining. First it adduces the treatise, and next, from "Therefore the sūtra states" onward, it reconciles and explains the sūtra text. The treatise says: "This verse shows that manifestation is extremely profound; it can be understood through the analogies." Synthesizing them, the commentary on the treatise states: "In the minds of sentient beings there is no clear and deep water of śamatha samādhi, so the Buddha's reflection does not appear; this is not the fault of the Tathāgata. As it is said, the Tathāgata is the true and marvelous Dao, which is the undefiled reflection; when there is resonance, it appears, but the born-blind do not see it." Explaining the second half of the verse, it says: "The sun of the Dharma of all Buddhas radiates light such as the sūtras, universally illuminating the world of sentient beings; where there are conditions, the light of teaching appears. Just as the sun radiates light, the blind do not see it."

81.13

On the commentary’s "However, this..." onward: third, distinguishing and determining, which also resolves objections step by step. Within this there are three parts: First, directly distinguishing and determining. Fearing someone might ask: "Now you speak of the dharmakāya; why call it nirvāṇa?" The explanatory meaning says: nirvāṇa must possess the three virtues, and this is precisely the dharmakāya; the other two virtues flow from the dharmakāya, and hence it is the dharmakāya. Second, from "If so..." onward, distinguishing it from the previous body. First it asks, and next, from "The body of manifestation..." onward, it answers. Third, from "This contains prajñā..." onward, distinguishing it from bodhi. Because liberation admits no confusion, it is not distinguished. Within this, it first asks, and next, from "If distinguishing characteristics..." onward, it explains. Within that, it first clarifies the distinguishing of characteristics, which reflects the intention of Vijñaptimātratā and so forth. The tenth fascicle of Vijñaptimātratā, explaining the fruit of the transformation of the basis, states: "Four are attained through transformation. These again are of two kinds: 1. That attained through revelation, namely great nirvāṇa. Although this is fundamentally pure in self-nature, adventitious hindrances cover it so that it is not revealed. When the true noble path arises, it severs those hindrances, causing its characteristics to become apparent; this is called attaining nirvāṇa. This is posited based on tathatā free from hindrances, so its essence is precisely the pure dharmadhātu. 2. That attained through generation, namely great bodhi. Although this fundamentally possesses the seeds capable of generating it, the cognitive hindrances impede it so that it does not arise. By the power of the true noble path, those hindrances are severed, causing it to arise from seeds; this is called attaining bodhi. Having arisen, it continues in succession, exhausting the bounds of the future." This refers to the mental factors associated with the four cognitions; hence the Mahāyāna master said: "Principle is congealed and fundamentally existent; freed from entanglements, it is called nirvāṇa. Cognition illuminates and is newly born; with the fruit perfected, it is called right awakening. These are the vast source of the four virtues, the marvelous foundation of the three insights."

81.14

On the commentary’s "If spoken in terms of subsuming characteristics..." onward: next, it clarifies the subsuming of characteristics. Within the text there are four distinctions: 1. In terms of principle and cognition mutually subsuming. Because apart from principle there is no cognition, and apart from cognition there is no principle, like the brightness of a pearl and the pearl of brightness, the Prajñā[-pāramitā] states: "Awakening to the self-nature of phenomena as free from all conceptual discrimination is bodhi." Thus principle is present, because the virtue of prajñā is contained within nirvāṇa. 2. From "The nature of cognition is fundamentally existent" onward, the mutual subsumption of fundamentally existent and produced through cultivation. Then the purity of nature is called solely nirvāṇa, while the purity through upāya is solely bodhi. Now it clarifies that both purities apply to both above. The present commentary merely reveals what is absent in the distinct explanations, hence it speaks of the purity of nature with respect to bodhi; this is because it was said above that bodhi is like empty space, and has neither increase nor decrease with the formation and disintegration of worlds. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "If one cultivates the two characters 'eternal' and 'abiding' as the characteristic of extinction, I will realize parinirvāṇa for that person." In that text it is proclaimed that fundamentally concealed, it is now revealed; what is eternally of the Dharma is named 'eternal', and what is produced through cultivation by upāya as reward-eternity is named 'abiding'. Cultivating these two characters as the characteristic of the quiescent extinction of great nirvāṇa, great parinirvāṇa still reveals its mind; hence the Buddha verified it as parinirvāṇa. Therefore we know that each possesses upāya and the purity of nature. 3. From "According to either as an approach..." onward, concluding both of the former two together. 4. From "Now taking nirvāṇa..." onward, concluding with a return to nirvāṇa.

81.15

On the commentary’s "Fifth, manifesting extinction yet marvelously preserved": since extinction is manifested extinction, there is no extinction, hence it is marvelously preserved. The two characters "marvelously preserved" are entirely the title of the fourth chapter of the Nameless. That treatise states: "The sage is in existence without existing, and dwells in non-existence without not-existing; dwelling in non-existence without not-existing, he does not lack non-existence; being in existence without existing, he does not have existence. Therefore, he can neither emerge from existence and non-existence nor abide in existence and non-existence; tranquil and without sign, this is marvelous preservation." However, "appearing and disappearing while ever serene" also explains appearing, whereas here it is only without extinction, so they are not the same.

81.16

On the commentary’s "Sixth, up to ‘arising and ceasing according to conditions’": in the synthesis there are four parts: first, directly explaining the text. The Lotus Sūtra is cited because various masters hold differing interpretations of the Lotus Sūtra, and this text is now used to definitively establish its meaning; second, from "However, manifesting extinction and manifesting arising" onward, showing its overarching meaning, clarifying that both arising and ceasing are nirvāṇa; third, from "Hence the Mahāyānasaṃgraha..." onward, citing proof; fourth, from "Since arising and ceasing depend on conditions..." onward, concluding that it is eternally abiding. This is also the doctrine in "Position and Essence" of the Nameless, which was already cited in the fourth section.

81.17

On the commentary’s "Seventh, presence and perishing mutually manifested": this means they appear according to the capacities [of beings].

81.18

On the commentary's: "The eighth, up to: its great function is boundless": the text of the commentary has two [parts]: first, it explains the text, and later, it discriminates differences. Now, as for the first: this is chapter 15, "Movement and Quiescence," of the Wuming lun. It says there: "The sage is non-active, yet there is nothing he does not do. Because he is non-active, though in motion he is quiescent. Because there is nothing he does not do, though quiescent he is in motion. Because though quiescent he is in motion, things cannot make him one; because though in motion he is quiescent, things cannot make him two. Because things cannot make him two, the more he is in motion, the more he is quiescent; because things cannot make him one, the more he is quiescent, the more he is in motion. Therefore action is non-action, and non-action is action. Although motion and quiescence are distinct, they cannot be differentiated." As for the commentary's "where in the [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra] Cunda's offering is accepted," and so forth: this adduces similarity and discriminates difference. In the tenth fascicle of that sūtra, the "Chapter on the Great Multitude's Questions," it says: "At that time all the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, gods, humans, and various beings uttered a great sound, proclaiming these words: 'How wonderful, Cunda! You have achieved great merit and virtue, being able to cause the Tathāgata to accept his final, unsurpassed offering! Yet we and our sort, through our lack of merit, have set out offering implements in vain.' At that time, wishing to fulfill the expectations of all beings, the World-Honoured One manifested boundless buddhas from every single hair-pore on his own body, with each buddha having boundlessly many bhikṣu-saṅghas. These World-Honoured Ones and the boundless assembly all manifested their bodies to accept their offerings, while Śākyamuni Tathāgata himself accepted the offering prepared and presented by Cunda. At that time, the cooked non-glutinous rice meal held by Cunda amounted to eight hu in the measure of the country of Magadha; through the Buddha's spiritual power, it completely satisfied the entire great assembly. At that time, having seen this matter, Cunda's mind gave rise to joy and bounded with boundless jubilation, and all the great assembly did likewise." In explanation: although that sūtra speaks of boundlessly transforming beings, it only says that they received the offerings of the great assembly; it does not have this manifold repetition equal to the number of sentient beings, exhausting the limits of the future. This merely addresses the text to clarify relative superiority, not that the transformations at that time were incapable of being all-pervading; it is also to prove thereby that endless transformations and manifestations are all functions of nirvāṇa.

81.19

On the commentary's: "The ninth, up to: its essence transcends the two extremes": this is also the meaning in chapter [5], "Transcending the Spheres" of that [treatise]. In that [text], one who has a name first raises a question, saying: "I ask to scrutinize the root of the wondrous Way: is it existent or non-existent? If indeed it is existent, though wondrous, it is not non-existent; and because though wondrous it is not non-existent, it enters the sphere of existence. If indeed it is non-existent, being non-existent it is without difference; and being non-existent and without difference, it enters the sphere of non-existence. Grasping them comprehensively and investigating them directly, it is clear that there is no being different from being that is not non-being, and there is no non-being different from non-being that is not being. Yet it is said: outside of being and non-being there is a separate wondrous Way, and neither being nor non-being is called nirvāṇa. I have heard these words, but they have not registered in my mind." The fifth chapter, "Transcending the Spheres," answers, saying: "However, although being and non-being are distinct, neither escapes from being. These are that by which words and images are formed, and that by which right and wrong arise; how could they be sufficient to encompass the profound ultimate and model the spiritual Way? Therefore, that the treatise speaks of transcending being and non-being is truly because the categories of being and non-being stop within the six cognitive spheres, and within the six cognitive spheres is not the abode of nirvāṇa; thus it borrows 'transcending' to dispel them, in the hope that those who aspire to the profound might dimly glimpse the mysterious path, entrust their sentiments to the transcendent realm, attain the meaning and forget the words, and realize that it is neither being nor non-being. How could it be said that outside of being and non-being there is a separate, distinct being that can be designated?" Now it merely says that the essence transcends the two extremes; this is not only transcending being and transcending non-being—whether real or empty, whether appropriate locus or non-locus, all are two extremes. Within this, it first explains in reverse: because the body is the essence, it clarifies this first. Thereafter, from "Because it is not real" downwards, it explains in forward sequence.

81.20

On the commentary's: "The tenth, up to: concluding by resolving into non-abiding": this concludes the nine gates above by resolving them all into non-abiding nirvāṇa. In this there are two: first, it explains the sūtra text; second, it concludes by resolving into non-abiding. As for the first: this is the meaning of concluding what came before. The statement "Who alone is not nirvāṇa, that one would desire to abandon it?" uses obliquely the text in "Profound Attainment." That text, in its ninth [chapter], "Examining Attainment," objects: "The sūtra says: 'The nature of sentient beings is bounded within the five aggregates.' It also says: 'One who attains nirvāṇa has the five aggregates entirely extinguished, just like a lamp going out,' and so forth." Below, it concludes the meaning: "If there is someone who can attain nirvāṇa, the five aggregates are not entirely extinguished; if the aggregates are entirely extinguished, who attains nirvāṇa?" Therefore, "Profound Attainment" answers, saying: "Now, in engaging in discussion, one must first establish the root. Since we are discussing nirvāṇa, one cannot speak of nirvāṇa apart from nirvāṇa. If one raises words on the basis of nirvāṇa itself, who alone is not nirvāṇa, that one would desire to attain it?" The meaning is: because sentient beings are themselves nirvāṇa. Downwards from "cannot be attained again," it cites the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: "Sentient beings are themselves the mark of nirvāṇa." This clarifies a single essence, and therefore there is nothing to be attained. Now it says single essence, and therefore there is nothing to be abandoned. Sentient beings are themselves nirvāṇa; if one abandons sentient beings, one abandons nirvāṇa.

81.21

On the commentary's: "Thus, at first, abiding in the bhūtakoṭi" downwards: second, concluding by resolving into non-abiding. In this there are four: first, directly resolving into non-abiding; non-abiding nirvāṇa has already been cited in full before. Second, from "Because of dually abiding" downwards, it brings forth the reason for non-abiding. The sūtra speaks of abiding, yet here it concludes by resolving into non-abiding, because if one did not abide in the bhūtakoṭi, how could one not abide in saṃsāra? If one did not securely abide in great compassion, how could one not abide in nirvāṇa? However, it is also because of not abiding in either that one can abide in both. Here, following the text, since the sūtra has abiding in both and concludes by resolving into non-abiding, it merely uses abiding to effect non-abiding. Third, from "The former is great wisdom" downwards, it separately adduces the causes that effect non-abiding, which is the text of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Fourth, from "Because the svabhāva-nirvāṇa is equally possessed by sentient beings" downwards, it explains the meaning of resolving into non-abiding. There are four kinds of nirvāṇa; why resolve only into non-abiding? Because non-abiding nirvāṇa is attained only by buddhas. These are all treatise texts, fully as cited above. From "That is, securely abiding" downwards, it is the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra.

81.22

As for the commentary's: "The first line is the arising of non-arising": as in non-arising, its nature is unarisen; the Buddha's arising and appearing is its arising. The lines below are understood by analogy. The final line accomplishes all meanings, and therefore is the great function. The upper three lines are the essence, and the fourth line is the function. Therefore it says: "Those remaining that are not eulogized are contained within this," because they do not go beyond essence and function.

81.23

Tenth, seeing and hearing the Tathāgata's manifestation. On the commentary's: "Does not go beyond [the virtues of] wisdom, abandonment, and grace": the first three lines mark the fruits of the three virtues. The first line is the virtue of wisdom, because prajñā is fulfilled. The next line is the virtue of abandonment, because liberation is fulfilled. The next line is the virtue of grace, because the dharmakāya is consummate. The next two lines comprehensively accomplish the three above; all three vows are fulfilled, none being in vain. The latter six lines again explain the three above. The first three lines explain the inexhaustible awakening and insight above: not exhausting the conditioned is the wisdom that accomplishes matters, while according with the unconditioned is the wisdom of the nature of things. When these two causes are complete, they generate the wisdom of all buddhas, which is the fulfillment of the fruit. The next two lines explain the consummation above: the grace of great compassion exhausts the limits of the future, and because the practice of omniscient wisdom is achieved, the dharmakāya is attained. The last line explains the virtue of abandonment above: attaining to the buddha ground, there are no hindrances to be abandoned, which is the efficacy of liberation. Therefore, above, in the mental karma of the manifestation, it says: "Attaining the Tathāgata ground, all functions cease."

81.24

On the commentary's: "The Ratnagotravibhāga also explains that the Tathāgata serves as the cognitive sphere of the six sense faculties for bodhisattvas": the treatise has four fascicles, and this corresponds to the first; it is the accomplishment of self-benefit and benefiting others. The verse says: / "The bodies of all Buddha-Tathāgatas / Are markless like empty space; / For those possessing superior cognition, / They serve as the cognitive sphere of the six sense faculties. / Manifesting subtle, wondrous forms, / Emitting wondrous voices, / Causing them to smell the Buddha's fragrance of precepts, / Granting them the subtle flavor of the Buddha's Dharma, / Causing them to perceive the tactile sensations of samādhi, / And causing them to know the profound and wondrous Dharma."

81.25

The commentary's: "Also the same as the Lotus Sūtra's 'even raising one hand'": this is from the first fascicle, which has already been cited previously.

81.26

On the commentary's: "The Tathāgataguhyakośa-sūtra clarifies cursing medicine," and so forth: in full it is called the Buddhāvataṃsaka-tathāgataguhyakośa-sūtra, and this is the lower fascicle. "Mahākāśyapa asked: 'I pray only that you speak this Tathāgataguhyakośa Dharma.' The Buddha said: 'Kāśyapa! What do you think? Do you suppose that when I practiced the bodhisattva path, when I relinquished hands, feet, head, eyes, ears, nose, skin, flesh, bones, marrow, blood, wife and children, and briefly up to all wealth, those sentient beings who harassed and vexed the bodhisattva in every way did not fall into hells, animals, hungry ghosts, and the various evil destinies? Why is this? Because when originally practicing the bodhisattva practice, the resolve was pure; because of the gathering of pure precepts of great vows; because great compassion towards all sentient beings was unadulterated and steadfast patience was firm; because of great benevolence; because of the dharmas of great merit; because of firm and stalwart vigor directed toward the Mahāyāna; because the tranquil mind was pure; because the great vows were to benefit; and because I took no pleasure in my own joy. If there were sentient beings who provoked the bodhisattva and reviled or cursed him, by virtue of the bodhisattva's power they did not fall into evil destinies. Kāśyapa! I now adduce a simile to clarify this meaning. Kāśyapa! Just like a sick person to whom a good physician gives medicine, and this sick person intentionally curses this medicine and the good physician; having first cursed them, he then takes this medicine. Kāśyapa! What do you think? Because of being cursed, is the medicine not medicine? Is the disease not eliminated?' 'No, World-Honoured One! Although cursed, the medicine does not lose its efficacy and can eliminate the disease.' 'Just so, Kāśyapa! The bodhisattva is like the medicine and that good physician: even if they do not give rise to reverence and cause various vexations, this bodhisattva's pure resolve has no diminution.'" It also adduces that a great jewel has great power, and someone reviling it does not cause it to lose its jewel power; and cursing a bright lamp, even if it burns, it can also dispel darkness. As for "cursing agarwood": this is a paraphrase; that [sūtra] says: "If one curses red sandalwood, beats it with the hands, burns it and casts it away, what fragrance does it make? Kāśyapa answered, saying: 'It makes the fragrance of sandalwood.' It also says: 'If a person holds excrement and casts it away, and makes offerings of flowers and incense, what kind of odor does this person have?' He answered: 'He has a foul odor.' The Buddha said: 'Making offerings to non-Buddhists brings only fears of wrong views, hells, animals, hungry ghosts, and so forth.'"

81.27

On the commentary's: "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra compares it to a drum smeared with poison": this is from the ninth fascicle, the "Chapter on the Tathāgata-Nature"—in the Southern edition it is also the ninth, the "Bodhisattva Chapter." The text says: "It is like a person who smears a great drum with blended poison and beats it among the multitude to make a sound. Although they have no intention to hear it, upon hearing it all die, except for one person who does not die an untimely death; the one who does not die an untimely death is an icchantika person." In explanation: that sūtra still excludes the icchantika. The intent here takes 'having no intention to hear' to illustrate attaining benefit without believing. The "Never Disparaging" of the Lotus Sūtra can be known. As for "The name of 'bodhisattva' arises from the day of hearing and slandering": this is also from this fascicle: "The answer says: 'Why is one who has not yet generated the mind called a bodhisattva? Like the light of the sun, which is the greatest among lights, the light of the Mahānirvāṇa can enter all hair-pores of sentient beings; therefore, although sentient beings have no bodhicitta, it can serve as a cause and condition for bodhi.'" Kāśyapa asked, saying: "How does not having generated the mind serve as a cause and condition for bodhi?" Next, the Tathāgata adduces the simile of seeing a rākṣasa in a dream. At first upon hearing he did not believe, but in a dream a rākṣasa makes him generate the mind, saying: "If you do not generate bodhicitta, I shall cut off your life!" Upon awakening he generates the mind; or in the three destinies he successively remembers and generates bodhicitta—this is a great bodhisattva. Master [Dao]sheng said: "The name of 'bodhisattva' arises from the day of hearing and slandering."

81.28

The commentary's statement, "How could words and images reach it?" takes its meaning from the Zhouyi lüeli (General Outline of the Book of Changes): "Words are that whereby images are preserved; once the images are grasped, the words are forgotten. Images are that whereby meaning is retained; once the meaning is grasped, the images are forgotten." This was already cited in the second assembly. As for the commentary's statement, "Then one may approximate (shuji) the intent of the Manifestation," "approximate" comes from the Xici of the Zhouyi: "The son of the Yan clan—was he not nearly there (shuji)? If he did anything that was not good, he never failed to know it; once he knew it, he never repeated it." The commentary there explains: "Dai means near. Shu means multitude. Ji means the subtle stirrings of affairs. It means that the sage perceives the subtle stirrings, while the worthy approximates them." Here, it bids us to emulate the sages and worthies, taking Yan Hui as second [only to the sage].

81.29

As for the commentary's statement, "The Fajijing says...", the sūtra has six fascicles, and at the end of the sixth fascicle it states: "Good son! This Dharma teaching circulates largely in the realm of the nāga king Sāgara; it circulates largely in the dwelling place of Śakra; it circulates largely in the abode of the nāga king Anavatapta; and thereafter it circulates within Jambudvīpa. It always circulates among sentient beings protected by all Buddhas, among sentient beings whose minds are straightforward and free of deceit, and it is always in the minds and hands of such sentient beings who are able to believe in the profound Dharma."

81.30

As for the commentary's statement, "The Prajñā treatise says: 'When the Dharma is about to perish...'", this is from the first fascicle of Asaṅga's commentary on the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā, explaining the sūtra text: "Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: 'World-Honoured One! Could there be sentient beings who, upon hearing such spoken phrases and sentences, would give rise to true faith?' The Buddha told Subhūti: 'Do not speak thus. Five hundred years after the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa, there will be those who uphold the precepts and cultivate merit, who will be able to give rise to faithful minds regarding these sentences and take them as true. You should know that these persons will not have planted roots of goodness with just one Buddha, two Buddhas, three, four, or five Buddhas, but will have already planted various roots of goodness with immeasurable thousands and tens of thousands of Buddhas.'" The treatise says: "This is because of the desire to attain the dwelling place of the verbal dharmakāya. When the sūtra says 'when the true Dharma is about to perish', one should know it refers to the time when practice gradually diminishes."

81.31

As for the commentary's statement, "If evaluated according to the pedagogical path, even after three [innumerable] aeons one has not yet entered the profound," this reflects the ancient idea of the Ten Mysteries. However, if one passes through three [innumerable] aeons, even granting that one has not reached finality, one has nevertheless already entered the stages. How can it be said that one has not yet entered the profound? Therefore, it was said above: "If evaluated according to the pedagogical path where three [innumerable] aeons are provisionally established, since the teaching is not yet real, the meaning of attaining Buddhahood is also not real, because the teaching is not ultimate. If evaluated according to the true path, the practice of three [innumerable] aeons must already have attained realization; when the cultivation of the provisional is profound, one enters the real."

81.32

As for the commentary's statement, "Asabhāva's Mahāyānasaṃgraha[-vyākhyā]...", this is the sixth fascicle. In Vasubandhu's commentary, it says: "Because by this, the lineage of the Buddhas is caused not to be severed."

81.33

As for the commentary's statement, "The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā...", this is the second fascicle of it, explaining the text on the first ground where one is constantly born into the house of the Tathāgata. It says: "When the mind of the first ground arises, because it is necessarily able to constantly gather all roots of goodness without resting, it is called constantly being born into the house of the Tathāgata. The house of the Tathāgata is indeed the house of the Buddha." Below, it extensively explains the meaning of "Tathāgata": the intent is that nirvāṇa, the true mark, the four truths, and the three emptinesses are all called 'tathā' (suchness), and because wisdom arrives there, it is called 'āgata' (arrived). It concludes: "As for 'Tathāgata', it refers to all Buddhas of the ten directions and the three periods of time; these Buddhas' house is called the house of the Tathāgata. Now this bodhisattva practices the Tathāgata's path continuously without interruption; hence it is called being born into the house of the Tathāgata." Explanation: To be endowed with the Tathāgata's path is indeed Buddha-practice.

81.34

Chapter Thirty-Eight: Detachment from the World

81.35

Regarding the commentary's statement, "In terms of location, it is called the third assembly in the Hall of Universal Light...", the text of the commentary has two parts: first it directly explains, and second it resolves an objection. Within the first part there are also two: first it identifies [the assembly], and second, from "In the seventh [assembly], it had already reconvened..." onwards, it explains the intent. It clarifies that in the seventh [assembly], it had already reconvened there once before; therefore it is now called the third assembly, thereby explaining that although the seventh and eighth both assemble in [the Hall of] Universal Light, there is a distinction between them.

81.36

Regarding the commentary's passage from "Yet earlier, the distinctions of generating understanding..." onwards, it resolves objections. The text has two objections: first, a hidden objection; second, an explicit objection. In the first, there is a hidden objection, namely the objection concerning the differences in reconvening. That is, someone asks: "Both are a type of reconvening; why did it previously pass through many assemblies, while this is only one assembly?" The answer has two meanings: First, earlier it was in terms of understanding, and therefore had to be many; now it is in terms of practice, and therefore must be one, because it arises頓 suddenly. Second, earlier it was in terms of gradual progression, and so the stages traversed were distinct; now it is in terms of perfect interfusion, and therefore it arises頓 suddenly in a single assembly. This can be discerned in the text.

First 36 of 85 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 — Classical Chinese