大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 9.10

9.10

Under the Commentary's "other-dependent nature" is the fourth [contrast]: the meaning of "non-identical" in the distinction between identical and separate regarding the emptiness and existence of the three natures. "Three natures" means: first, the parikalpita-svabhāva (imagined nature); second, the paratantra-svabhāva (other-dependent nature); third, the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva (consummated nature). Thus the eighth fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun states: "Through those various conceptualisations, one conceptualises various objects. This imagined nature of conceptualisation has no own-nature whatsoever. The other-dependent nature is produced by conditions of discrimination. The consummated [nature] in relation to that is eternally far removed from the former nature." Here there are two verses: the first one explains the imagined, the next two lines clarify the other-dependent, and the final two lines explain the consummated. Regarding the first verse, there are the opinions of several masters; here we follow Dharmapāla: the first line is the active conceptualiser, the next line is the conceptualised, and the final two lines explain the grasped. In the correct doctrine, the active conceptualisers are only the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, and because their conceptualisations are manifold, it says "those various." The conceptualised is strictly only the other-dependent; as the immediate object of cognition, it is said through succession to also extend to the consummated, because [the latter] is a mediate condition. This is not the realm of ordinary beings, so it is not an immediate condition. Regarding its grasped nature: for Master Sthiramati, the minds and mental factors of the three realms, due to beginningless false perfuming, although each is single in essence, resemble two natures, namely the vision and form divisions, which are the grasper and grasped; these two divisions exist subjectively but are absent in principle, and this appearance is called the imagined nature; the underlying essence they rely upon is truly born relying on conditions, and this nature is not non-existent, being called other-dependent. For Master Dharmapāla, all minds and mental factors, transformed by the power of perfuming, are born from conditions because of the two divisions; they are also other-dependent conceptualisations, relying upon which one falsely grasps definitive, real existence, non-existence, oneness, difference, both, or neither; these two alone are named the imagined nature. The two lines on the other-dependent nature mean: the essences of the minds and mental factors born of multiple conditions, as well as the form and vision divisions, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, are all other-dependent, because they arise dependent on other conditions. The verse says "produced by conditions of discrimination": one should know that this provisionally speaks of the defiled part of the other-dependent, for the purified part of the other-dependent is also the consummated; or, all defiled and pure minds and mental factors are named discrimination because they can perceive and deliberate, so then all defiled and pure other-dependent [phenomena] are subsumed under the other-dependent nature here. The two lines on the consummated mean: the real nature of all phenomena, perfected and consummated, revealed by the two emptinesses, is called pariniṣpanna. This reveals that it is pervasive and eternal, its essence not false, distinguishing it from specific characteristics, common characteristics, empty space, the self, and so on. The explanation states: "Pervasive" explains perfected; "eternal" explains consummated; "its essence is not false" explains the meaning of real nature. This single phrase "its essence" runs through all three places: pervasive distinguishes it from specific characteristics; eternal distinguishes it from common characteristics; the phrase "not false" distinguishes it from empty space and the self. If so, since the essence of the purified part of the other-dependent is not eternal and pervasive, how can it also be the consummated nature? Thus the treatise next says: "Uncontaminated conditioned [phenomena], free from inversion and ultimate, with superior functions that are all-pervading, also obtain this name. However, in this present verse, it speaks of the former and not the latter." The explanation states: Here, freedom from inversion is called real; being ultimate is consummated; superior functions that are all-pervading explains the meaning of perfected. Thus the consummated has two kinds: first, stated in terms of principle; second, stated in terms of fruitional virtue. Therefore the treatise qualifies: "In this present verse, it speaks of the former and not the latter," because it is stated in terms of the three natures, which pervade everything. The treatise passage above merely explains the term pariniṣpanna. Next, in explaining the remaining text, it says: "This means that upon that other-dependent [nature], it is eternally far removed from the former imagined nature. Taking tathatā revealed by the two emptinesses as its nature, it speaks of 'upon that.'" This reveals that the consummated and the other-dependent are neither identical nor separate. The phrase "eternally far removed" reveals that the nature of the grasper and grasped falsely grasped by delusion is not permanently existent in principle. The word "former" reveals that the other-dependent is not empty; "nature" reveals that the two emptinesses are not the consummated, because tathatā is free from the meanings of existence and non-existence. The explanation given above relies entirely on Vijñaptimātra. The meaning of the Commentary's words here is to distinguish it from the Dharmatā school. In the Dharmatā school, the lack of own-nature in the other-dependent is itself the consummated. That is, the other-dependent has no own-nature; having no own-nature is emptiness, and emptiness is the consummated. Here it says "seeming to exist and not non-existent," which is not identical to emptiness. The phrasing only explains the other-dependent, implicitly evoking the name of the consummated. "Saying that the sūtras' meaning of emptiness is only in terms of the grasped": among the three natures, this single imagined nature is empty, while the two natures are not empty, hence it says "only in terms of the grasped."