大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 9.28

9.28

As for the commentary's statement, "Fourth, in the sudden teaching, dharma-characteristics are not explained at all, but rather the true nature alone is elucidated," and so forth: this means that wherever sūtras exclusively elucidate the true nature, they belong to the sudden teaching. Regarding the commentary's "Nor are there the differentiated characteristics of the eight consciousnesses," and so forth: if even the mind-kings of the eight consciousnesses have no differentiation, how could what is transformed by the mind possibly exist? When the mind arises, various dharmas arise; when the mind ceases, various dharmas cease. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: "All dharmas are differentiated solely based on false thoughts; if one is free from thoughts of the mind, then there are no characteristics of any external sphere whatsoever. Therefore, from the beginning, all dharmas are free from the characteristics of verbal expression, free from the characteristics of names and terms, free from the characteristics of mental conditioning; they are ultimately equal, without change, and are solely the one mind; thus they are named 'tathatā'. Because all verbal expressions are conventional designations without reality, and merely conform to false thoughts, they cannot be grasped." Hence the commentary says, "Everything that exists is solely false imagination." Regarding the commentary's "All dharmadhātus are entirely beyond speech": this further sweeps away the previous "true nature" and elucidates tathatā that transcends words. Thus the subsequent passage of the Awakening of Faith immediately states: "What is called tathatā also has no characteristics." This means that at the utmost point of verbal expression, speech is used to dismiss speech. In the essence of this tathatā, there is nothing that can be dismissed, because all dharmas are entirely true; nor is there anything that can be established, because all dharmas are equally tathatā. One should know that all dharmas cannot be spoken of and cannot be conceptualised; therefore they are named "tathatā". Hence the commentary says that they are all beyond speech. As for "all dharmadhātus": dhātu means "nature". This is because the nature of all dharmas is free from words; it is also because, universally, all four kinds of dharmadhātu cannot be expressed in words; because names lack the power to reach things and things lack the reality to correspond to names; because the principle is fundamentally wordless; because phenomenon and principle mutually interpenetrate and cannot be described as phenomenon or principle; because phenomena are mutually identical and cannot be spoken of as one or many; because designations are endless and cannot be designated by a single name; because the principle is all-rounded while words are one-sided, so words fall short of it; and because there is no dharma that is not the true mark. Regarding the commentary's "The five dharmas up to… are both dismissed": this is like the Laṅkāvatāra, which, although it explains the five dharmas—name, characteristic, false imagination, correct cognition, and suchness—all five are empty and quiescent. Why? When one is deluded about tathatā, name and characteristic are formed, and false imagination arises. When one awakens to the original suchness of name and characteristic, falsehood is then termed cognition, and there are then no names, characteristics, or false imagination, but solely suchness and cognition. Cognition is established because of suchness, so the essence of cognition is also empty; suchness is clarified by means of cognition, yet is originally ever-quiescent; therefore both are empty. How much more so the eight consciousnesses, which in terms of phenomena are all conditioned arisings and empty by nature! Because there are self and dharmas, the two kinds of selflessness are taught; if the self cannot even be apprehended, how could selflessness remain? Therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of a self, / Or they have spoken of selflessness; / Within the true mark of all dharmas, / There is neither self nor non-self." Hence both are dismissed. "Rebuking the teaching" means transmitting mind with mind, which does not abide in written words. "Urging detachment" has two meanings: first, causing one to become detached from the teaching, fulfilling the above "rebuking the teaching"; second, causing one to become detached from dharmas. Although dharmas are immeasurable, they do not exceed form and mind: detached from mind, mind is suchness; detached from form, form is suchness. Therefore, now becoming detached from all of them tallies with the essence of mind and becomes detached from false thoughts. "Destroying characteristics" is in terms of the objective sphere, because whatever has characteristics is entirely deceptive and false. "Extinguishing mind" is in terms of cognition: understanding that the characteristics of the objective sphere are empty is provisionally called cognition. Since characteristics do not exist, how could cognition be real? When both mind and the objective sphere are lost, both are utterly extinguished; when mind is without characteristics of mind, that is the true mind. Therefore it is said that an arising mind is false, and non-arising is the Buddha. As for "arising mind": not only the arising of other minds, but even generating [thoughts of] bodhi and nirvāṇa, or contemplating the mind and seeing the nature, is also called "arising mind", and all are false imagination. Only when thoughts and conceptualisations are completely quiescent is it called "non-arising". When quiescence and illumination are present before one, how could it not be called Buddha? Therefore the Stele of Bodhidharma says: "If the mind exists, for vast eons one stagnates as an ordinary being; if the mind does not exist, in a single instant one ascends to correct awakening." Saying that "the mind does not exist" means that although one understands that the mind is empty, one does not give rise to [the thought of] understanding. Hence the sūtra below says: "All dharmas do not arise; all dharmas do not cease. If one can understand in this way, the Buddhas will always appear before one." Saying "understand in this way" means understanding according to non-arising while having no characteristic of understanding, not meaning a hollow understanding of non-arising. As for the commentary's "There is also neither Buddha nor non-Buddha, neither arising nor non-arising": this again sweeps away the previous traces. For deluded sentient beings, it is said that "this mind is the Buddha"; since there are no sentient beings, how could there ever be a Buddha? Therefore a sūtra says: "In the equal true dharmadhātu, there is neither Buddha nor sentient beings." Clinging to "Buddha", one speaks of "no Buddha"; this does not mean there is literally no Buddha, hence it is said "neither non-Buddha". Thus it is dismissed and dismissed again; if there is the least thing apprehended, it is entirely false imagination. Therefore the first fascicle of the Fo cang jing says: "Śāriputra, if one apprehends even the least dharma, one contends with the Buddha. Those who contend with the Buddha all enter heterodox paths; they are not my disciples, they are thieves of my Dharma." Moreover, it is simply designating "no Buddha" as the true Buddha, hence it is said "neither non-Buddha". Hence the sūtra below says: "Emptiness of nature is the Buddha; it cannot be conceived." If there is an arising mind, the arising mind is false, so non-arising is taught. If even Buddha does not exist, how could there be non-arising? Forming an understanding of non-arising, one is again bound by non-arising; hence it is said "neither non-arising". Furthermore, when all dharmas do not arise, then prajñā arises, so it is said "neither non-arising". Thus arising and non-arising reciprocally dismiss each other, and also reciprocally establish each other. Only those who forget words can unite with the Way; those of empty minds can penetrate the principle; those of quiescent minds can become one with the true; and those who cast aside cognition can become identical with the sages. Therefore the silent abiding of Vimalakīrti is cited to reveal non-duality. Now, in the second fascicle of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, the chapter "Entering the Dharma-Door of Non-Duality", first thirty-two bodhisattvas each speak of the dharma-door of non-duality; afterward, they ask Mañjuśrī: "What is entering the dharma-door of non-duality?" Mañjuśrī says: "According to my understanding, to have no words and no explanations, no demonstrations and no cognitions regarding all dharmas, and to be free from all questions and answers—this is entering the dharma-door of non-duality." Thereupon Mañjuśrī asks Vimalakīrti: "We have each spoken. Virtuous Sir, you should speak: what is entering the dharma-door of non-duality?" At that time Vimalakīrti remains silent without a word. Mañjuśrī praises him, saying: "Excellent, excellent! Even to the absence of characters, words, and speech—this is truly entering the dharma-door of non-duality." Now, the meaning of this sūtra is that the earlier and later mutually complete each other to jointly reveal the profound purport. If one distinguishes superior and inferior, there are three tiers or four tiers. As for the three tiers: first, the bodhisattvas dismiss duality by means of non-duality; this uses speech to reveal dharmas, seemingly having a non-duality that can be spoken of, which is clarifying non-duality in contrast to duality, and is not absolute. Second, Mañjuśrī uses words to dismiss words, making clear that there is no non-duality that can be spoken of, causing one to forget words and grasp the purport. Third, Vimalakīrti reveals the principle through wordlessness, indicating that it is fundamentally wordless from the outset and does not require further dismissal. Hence there are three tiers. As for the four tiers: Mañjuśrī seals him with words, further making clear that words are themselves wordlessness, and one does not necessarily have to depart from them. If one wishes to combine them, then the latter three sections reciprocally complete each other, constituting only a single meaning: first, Mañjuśrī reveals wordlessness through words; next, Vimalakīrti seals words through wordlessness; afterward, Mañjuśrī seals wordlessness through words—the three sections and two persons jointly revealing the principle that transcends words. Thus, with the previous thirty-two bodhisattvas dismissing duality through non-duality, and the two great beings subsequently dismissing words through wordlessness, there are only two stages. If one combines them further: without the bodhisattvas dismissing duality through words, how could the principle be revealed merely by having the transcendence of words? Therefore, the earlier bodhisattvas provisionally used words to reveal the principle, and the two great beings subsequently used wordlessness to reveal the principle; when both speech and non-speech are forgotten, all is true non-duality. Thus, although there are three stages, they are of one accord without contradiction. Here the last is adopted; hence it is said, "like the silent abiding of Vimalakīrti."