勝鬘寶窟 2.48

From "What are the two?" downwards, the second [section] enumerates the names of the two kinds of death. / "Samsaric" means illusory sentient beings. / Third, clarifying the distinction with respect to persons: / "Illusory sentient beings" are those who take grasping at marks as cause; a mind with marks is illusory. / Furthermore, not yet having attained the true, uncontaminated understanding, they take rebirth in accordance with defilements, revolving through the five destinies, falling or rising without certainty or reality; hence they are "illusory." / This explanation is made with respect to ordinary beings and does not treat of noble ones, because the three realms are fundamentally the defilements of ordinary beings. / If taking the Hīnayāna Dharma generally, ordinary beings, those in the three fruits and four fruitions, and up to those of the two vehicles who have not yet entered [nirvāṇa] without remainder—the retribution bodies they receive are termed "illusory sentient beings." / Some say: In the Mahāyāna Dharma, external ordinary persons and bodhisattvas of the wholesome destinies all take rebirth through delusive craving within the planes of the three realms; hence it says "illusory." / If according to the old explanations, passing from the stage of ordinary beings through the Mahāyāna, up to prior to receiving the first stage, all undergo samsaric death. / This uses the intent of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa to interpret the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Renwang jing. If it is as the Tripiṭaka master says: In the sixth mind of the ten practices, defilements are severed equally with the two vehicles; / prior to becoming equal with the two vehicles, they all undergo samsaric bodies. / "Inconceivable transformation [death] refers to arhats and pratyekabuddhas": this refers to taking these arhats and pratyekabuddhas after the two vehicles have entered [nirvāṇa] without remainder and prior to their turning from the Small to enter the Great. / There are two kinds of persons among the two vehicles turning from the Small to enter the Great: one turns the small-minded intention within the realm, still subsumed under samsara; / the second turns the mind beyond the realm, subsumed under transformation. / When these two kinds of persons turn their minds to enter the Great, both are bodhisattvas of great power. / There are moreover two kinds of bodhisattvas of great power: first, those of direct progress who possess great power; second, those who turn from the Small to enter the Great and are named as having great power. / Speaking of "great power," because they are not bound by karma and take rebirth with mastery, they are called "of great power." / Question: What is the stage of a bodhisattva of great power? / Answer: Some say they are the so-called "bodhisattvas of the lineage." / Why so? The defilements of the two hindrances have not been severed at all, yet they are not dragged by defilements, and they have mastery in taking rebirth in the three realms; hence they are named "of great power." / Although this master says the lineage undergoes transformation, he has not yet determined which lineage it is. / Some say: Bodhisattvas before the stages can perform the five births, and are called "of great power." / The stages before the [ten] bhūmis are general, and he has not yet demarcated which stage before the bhūmis it is. / Relying on the Tripiṭaka master's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Renwang jing, both say: Bodhisattvas of the ten practices sever defilements equally with the two vehicles. / That is, the person of the ten practices is the bodhisattva of great power. / This general idea is the same as the previous two masters, yet determines the stage to be in the ten practices. / Some say: The sixth stage is still subsumed under samsara; at the final mind of the sixth stage, retribution in the three realms is exhausted, and they then undergo transformation. / They take this sūtra precisely as proof. / Some say: There are four kinds of birth-and-death: first, flowing-stream birth-and-death, which means initially relying on emptiness to produce a single thought of consciousness; / second, samsaric; / third, intermediate birth-and-death, of the non-learners of the two vehicles; / fourth, transformation, undergone by the seventh stage, with residual habit-energies as cause; not being born in the three realms and not yet reaching the existence of dharmas, it is therefore intermediate birth-and-death. / When retribution in the three realms is exhausted for the non-learners of the two vehicles, they are born together in the intermediate [state]. / Hearing sūtras such as the Lotus Sūtra, they transform into bodhisattvas; when their practice is fulfilled at the final mind of the seventh stage and they enter the Dharma-stream of the eighth stage, only then is it named transformation. / Therefore, with the sixth stage as samsaric, the seventh stage undergoes intermediate, and the eighth stage undergoes transformation. / Some say: Four kinds of birth-and-death are not established; only two kinds of birth-and-death, samsaric and transformation, are established. / The sixth stage is samsaric, and from the seventh stage onward is transformation. / Now I say that the meaning of the stages is difficult to know; producing faults from subjective speculation, it cannot be definitively determined. / If according to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, several passages are clear. / Furthermore, it explains that before the stages one is an ordinary being who undergoes a samsaric body, and only upon relinquishing the samsaric body does one enter the first stage; thus one knows that from the first stage onward is transformation birth-and-death and the bodhisattva of great power. / Speaking of the "mind-made body," it refers to all bodhisattvas from the first stage and above; their undergoing rebirth is unobstructed and sovereign, according with mind and according with intention; hence it is called "undergoing rebirth through mind." / "Mind" has three meanings: first, reaching everywhere; second, swift; third, unobstructed; hence it is called "mind-made body." / These are all distinctions of transformation birth-and-death. / Some say: From transformation onward, there is no longer physical, spatial samsara; it is simply mind and consciousness undergoing rebirth, hence called "mind-made body." / Master Fu says: "Transformation is a figurative name. / Deep, obscure, and difficult to fathom, like consciousness alternating and changing, it is therefore called 'mind-made body.'" / "Up to ultimate anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi" recounts the delimitation of this birth-and-death: it is exhausted only upon reaching buddhahood. / Furthermore, this adduces the station where it is not undergone, in contrast to showing the distinction of stations where it is undergone. / From "Of the two kinds of death" downwards, because there is no samsaric birth-and-death, it says "my births are exhausted." / This shows that of the two deaths, only samsaric is exhausted, while transformation is not yet exhausted. / This harmonizes and explains the teachings of the present and past. / "Attaining the realization of the fruit with remainder, it therefore says 'the holy life has been established'": according to the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, there are two kinds: first, the holy life practiced has reached completion, hence said to be "established"; / second, furthermore, relinquishing the path of training is provisionally named "established." / In the present text, the holy life being established is the wisdom realizing cessation. / If discussing with respect to with-remainder and without-remainder: where samsara is exhausted is called with-remainder; where transformation is exhausted is said to be without-remainder. / The two vehicles only attain the exhaustion of samsara, named realization with remainder. / The Tathāgata, in reference to this, says their holy life has been established; hence it is an upāya. / "Ordinary beings, humans, and devas": this clarifies that "what had to be done has been done" is an upāya. / The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: "There are two: first, what was originally sought has today been attained, said to be 'done'; / second, cultivating the path and attaining the fruit is provisionally said to be 'done.'" / "What had to be done has been done" is the wisdom of cultivating the path. / The path has two kinds: first, the antidote to samsara; second, the antidote to transformation. / The two vehicles only cultivate the antidote to samsara; the Tathāgata, in reference to this, says that what they had to do has been done; hence it is an upāya. / In the text there are two clauses: the first reveals and explains the upāya in contrast to persons; the second shows and explains the upāya in contrast to hindrances. / That ordinary beings have not accomplished it and the seven [classes of] learners have not done it is in contrast to persons. / Ordinary beings are not yet able to accomplish that noble path of non-learning; the two vehicles, in contrast to them, are therefore said to have "done it," and the learners are also like this. / Question: Merely saying "ordinary beings" would be sufficient; why also say "humans and devas"? / Answer: "Ordinary beings" are internal ordinary beings; / "humans and devas" are external ordinary beings. / The three fruits and four fruitions are the seven classes of learners. / Question: How does "what had to be done has been done" differ?

Answer: Regarding the distinctions in "what was to be done has been accomplished," as the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* states, there are many varieties. Now, to briefly highlight the essential ones: severing the defilements associated with craving is called "what was to be done," while severing the defilements associated with views is called "accomplished." The four states of mind, beginning with heat, are called "what was to be done," while the uncontaminated states such as the forbearance of the cognition of the Dharma of suffering are called "accomplished." Seeing the truths is called "what was to be done," while cultivating [them in] meditation is called "accomplished." Liberation of mind is called "what was to be done," while liberation through wisdom is called "accomplished." Now, regarding these persons of the higher fruit of the two vehicles for whom "what was to be done has been accomplished," it must be that liberation of mind is called "what was to be done" and liberation through wisdom is called "accomplished." According to the semantic sequence of the words, one should say that ordinary persons have "not done" it and learners have "not accomplished" it. Yet here the text does not say this: because it cannot be accomplished by the power of ordinary persons, it is said to be "not accomplished." As for learners "not having done" it, because they have only performed the practices of the stage of learning and have not yet performed the practices of the stage beyond learning, it is said to be "not done." Furthermore, if one were to say that learners have "not accomplished" it, its merit would be confused with what has been done by the higher fruits. Why so? Because, for instance, a person of liberation of mind, when compared to a person of liberation through wisdom, has likewise not yet accomplished it. In contrast to ordinary persons and the seven kinds of learners, it is said that "what was to be done has been accomplished." But in contrast to the buddhas and bodhisattvas, what was to be done has not been accomplished. "Because unreal defilements are severed, it is said that 'what was to be done has been accomplished' ": this second clause clarifies it in contrast to the obstacles. There are no defilements that are not unreal; among them, discriminative false craving leading to rebirth is the utmost in unreality, so it is specifically named "unreal." Because the Tathāgata, by means of the correct path he cultivates, is able to sever such unreal defilements, it is therefore said that "what was to be done has been accomplished." From the perspective of ignorance, it is an expedient. Moreover, it reveals that unreal, coarse defilements are severed, but subtle ones cannot yet be severed. From "Arhats..." downward, this fourth section clarifies that the cognition of having no subsequent existence is taken as an expedient. The cognition of having no subsequent existence is the cognition of severing the origin [of suffering]. Origin is twofold: first, the cause of fragmented [death]; second, the cause of change[ful death]. The two vehicles only sever fragmented [death], leaving other causes unsevered. The Tathāgata specifically refers to the severance of the causes of fragmented [death] when speaking of having no subsequent existence; hence it is an expedient. In the text, the defilement-obstacles severed at first were an expedient in the past. From "not exhausting..." downward, it clarifies the present meaning of there being an incomplete remainder. Within the clarification of the present meaning of an incomplete remainder, it first briefly opens two gates and next explains them at length. Regarding the two gates: "not having exhausted all defilements" is the first gate, meaning not severing the substance of origin, the substance of origin being the substance of defilements. "Nor having exhausted all rebirths" is the second gate, meaning not severing the capacity of origin, which refers to the function of defilements in bringing about birth. Furthermore, not exhausting all defilements refers to the absence of the cognition of exhaustion; not exhausting all rebirths refers to the absence of the cognition of non-arising. These two cognitions constitute the substance of the cognition of having no subsequent existence. From "Why is this so?" downward is the second part, explaining at length. "Why is this so?" is an inquiry: Since the two vehicles have eliminated the defilements of both wheels and exhausted births in the three realms, why is it now said that they have neither exhausted defilements nor exhausted rebirths? From "There are defilements..." downward is the second part, providing the explanation. Explaining the two thematic sections comprises two parts: first, clarifying that they have not exhausted all defilements; from "Moreover, just as with clinging..." downward, explaining at length that they have not exhausted all rebirths. Within the first part clarifying that they have not exhausted all defilements, there are again two: saying "There are defilements that arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not sever" briefly clarifies that they have not exhausted all defilements; from "Defilements are of two kinds..." downward, it explains at length that they have not exhausted all defilements. The opening statement that there are defilements is the thematic section on defilements; from "which arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not sever" downward, revealing their non-exhaustion, is the thematic section on non-exhaustion. Saying "There are defilements that arhats do not exhaust" specifically refers to the entrenchment-ground of ignorance, which the two vehicles cannot exhaust. From "Defilements are of two kinds..." downward is the second part, providing the explanation. However, it ought only to explain ignorance which the two vehicles cannot sever; yet now it explains the four entrenchments because it adduces the coarseness of the four entrenchments in contrast to the subtlety of ignorance. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining the thematic section on defilements; next, explaining the thematic section on non-severance. Here there should be the doctrine of the five entrenchment-grounds; now it is briefly explained through eight gates. The first is the gate of explaining the names. Regarding the "entrenchment-ground of single-station views": that which can produce is called "ground"; that which causes what is produced to be established is called "entrenchment"; the mind's confusion and lack of understanding is called "delusion"; investigating the principle of the truths through the eight forbearances and seven cognitions is called "view." Because it severs defilements all at once in reliance upon a single principle, it is called "single-station." Thus it is called the entrenchment-ground of single-station views. Some say: The first consists of the delusions [to be abandoned through] seeing the truths, which tie one to the three evil destinies. A single station possesses all five views; to indicate their particular gravity, it takes seeing the truths as its label. The remaining three entrenchment-grounds are simply the [delusions to be abandoned through] cultivation in the three realms, where grasping serves as the bondage; hence they are named from grasping. Another explanation: The investigation of the five sharp defilements is called "view"; entering the path of vision severs them together in a single station, so it is called "single-station views." As for "entrenchment-ground": the root serves as the reliance for the branches, and is called "entrenchment"; the root can produce the branches, and is designated as "ground." Now, speaking of the four entrenchment-grounds, there are only two kinds: first, views; second, grasping. Combining the views of the three realms collectively into a single station, it is therefore called the entrenchment-ground of single-station views. Because it is contrasted with separating craving into three stations, it is called "single-station." The "ground of craving": all defilements in the realm of desire, excluding ignorance and views, are described as desire-craving. Because in this ground one clings to the five external desires, it is called desire-craving. Although in the realm of desire one also craves one's own body, because the affective attachment to desire is predominant, it is specifically called such. Furthermore, to differentiate it from the material body craved in the higher realms, it is specifically called desire-craving. "Form-craving": all defilements in the realm of form, excluding ignorance and views, are described as form-craving. Because in this realm one relinquishes the five external desires and clings to one's own material body, it is called form-craving. Although in the realm of form one also craves one's own mind, because affective attachment to form is predominant in this realm, it is specifically called form-craving. Furthermore, to differentiate it from attachment to the mind in the formless realm, it is comprehensively called form-craving. "Craving for existence": all defilements in the formless realm, excluding ignorance and views, are described as craving for existence. If spoken of in order to differentiate it from what is below, it should be called formless-craving; if named according to what is grasped, it should be called mind-craving. But here, in order to dismantle the affliction, it is called craving for existence. Non-Buddhists mostly grasp the formless realm to be nirvāṇa; now, in order to refute this, it is simply called existence. "Existence" refers to the phenomena of the three existences of saṃsāra; hence it is called existence. Furthermore, in general discussion of the five dull drives, with craving as the primary factor, that which can bring about the karmic retribution of the realm of desire is called desire-craving; with craving as the primary factor, that which can bring about the karmic retribution of the realm of form is called form-craving; and with craving as the primary factor, that which can bring about the karmic retribution of the formless realm is called craving for existence.

In moistening karma and moistening rebirth, the fetter of craving is strongest; hence craving is spoken of in particular. There is no luminous comprehension. Because it is defiled in this way, it is termed 'ignorance' (avidyā). Second is the section on deriving the names. If we rely on the first explanation, seeing the single principle is called 'seeing in a single place' (darśana-ekasthāna); this derives its name from that which can remedy [it]. If we rely on the latter meaning, the five sharp defilements are called 'views' (dṛṣṭi); when the path of seeing is entered, they are all severed together, and thus it is called the 'entrenchment of seeing in a single place'. This derives its name from combining the remedy and that which is remedied. If the four entrenchments are divided into two positions, they are views and craving. Separating craving into three and taking views as one, it is called the 'entrenchment of seeing in a single place'; this derives its name intrinsically from its locus. The remaining three entrenchments establish their names intrinsically, while the final one is designated by its fault. Among these three explanations, the latter meaning is considered standard. Why is this so? Now, in explaining the four entrenchments of defilements, the names should be established strictly based on delusion; how could one combine both comprehension and delusion in the explanation? The lower fascicle of the Yingluo jing, in explaining the five entrenchments, says that when sentient beings' consciousness first gives rise to a single notion, it abides in conditions: arising in accord with the ultimate truth is called good, while arising contrary to the ultimate truth is called delusion. Taking these two as entrenchments, they are called 'innate good' and 'innate delusion'. Taking this good and delusion as the root, all good and delusions arise. Good and delusion arising dependent on conditions of all dharmas are called 'enacted' (kṛta); by attaining the enactment of good and by attaining the enactment of delusion, the mind itself is nonetheless neither good nor delusion. Deriving their names from the two conditions, they are thus called the two minds of good and delusion. Arising as delusion of the desire realm, it is called the entrenchment of the desire realm. Arising as delusion of the form realm, it is called the entrenchment of the form realm. Arising as delusion of the mind, it is called the entrenchment of the formless realm. Because all defilements arise from these four entrenchments, they are the four entrenchments of initial arising. Prior to these four entrenchments, there are no dharmas that arise; thus it is the entrenchment of beginningless ignorance. Diamond-like wisdom knows that this initially arising single notion has an end, yet does not know whether prior to its beginning there were dharmas or no dharmas; innate constitutes one entrenchment, and enacted constitutes three entrenchments. Only the Buddha knows the beginning and knows the end. The text of this sūtra is difficult to understand; I shall now explain it briefly. When consciousness in all sentient beings gives rise to a single notion, this is the entrenchment of ignorance. Abiding in conditions and giving rise to a single thought of good or evil, this is the entrenchment of seeing in a single place. Because it is the initial stage, a single thought of innate good or evil is therefore called the entrenchment of seeing in a single place. Because, by contravening the truth, evil arises, it should be severed upon seeing the truth; hence it is called 'seeing'. Produced from a single thought, it can give rise to the delusions of the three realms; the delusions of the three realms are termed the three entrenchments. Because the delusions of the three realms arise from the preceding innate delusion, they are called 'enacted'. Producing the defilements of the four entrenchments again from the four entrenchments is also called 'arising' (samutthāna). This means that the four entrenchments of a preceding thought produce the four entrenchments of a subsequent thought; it can also mean that the four entrenchments formed as nature give rise to the active four entrenchments. The diamond mind only sees that the initially arising single thought of consciousness has the meaning of final cessation, but does not know whether prior to that single thought of consciousness there was something or nothing; the Buddha completely knows both beginning and end. This is identical to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Bodhisattvas of the tenth stage only see its end and do not see its beginning; the Buddhas, Tathāgatas, completely see both beginning and end. Third is the section clarifying the essence (svabhāva). The eighty-eight proclivities constitute the essence of the entrenchment of seeing in a single place. The four proclivities of greed, anger, pride, and ignorance constitute the essence of the entrenchment of desire-craving. The three proclivities of craving, pride, and ignorance constitute the essence of the two entrenchments of form and existence. If the two dharmas of craving and views are taken as the essence, the views of the three realms constitute the essence of the entrenchment of seeing in a single place, and the craving of the three realms constitutes the essence of the three entrenchments. The reason why views are combined and craving is separated is precisely to highlight the fault of craving. Both moistening karma and moistening rebirth are due to craving; therefore, since this sūtra now directly clarifies the meaning of taking rebirth, it extensively highlights craving. Furthermore, sentient beings mostly give rise to craving and rarely give rise to views; for this reason, views are combined and craving is separated. Although craving and views are cited as the headings, any defilements belonging to craving or belonging to views are all subsumed within craving and views. As for the essence of the entrenchment of ignorance, failure to comprehend the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas, as well as the tathāgatagarbha, constitutes the essence of the entrenchment of ignorance. Fourth is the section on entrenchment and arising. There are two kinds: first, distinction by same category: the seeds of the five entrenchments, being able to produce, are the 'entrenchment' (bhūmi), and what is produced by active thoughts is the 'arising' (samutthāna); second, distinction by different categories: among the four entrenchments, seeing in a single place is the entrenchment, and the three entrenchments, arising from the entrenchment of seeing in a single place, are called the 'arising'. Thus the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya states: 'What is severed by seeing the truth is the cause of all defiled dharmas.' Furthermore, the entrenchment of ignorance, being able to produce from the beginningless [past], is the entrenchment; the defilements numerous as the sands of the Ganges, arising from ignorance, are the arising. Next, distinguishing entrenchment and arising according to coarse and subtle: ignorance is the entrenchment, and the defilements of the four entrenchments are the arising. Again, some say there are four kinds of arising: First is distinction between nature and phenomenal objects. Within that phenomenal consciousness, defilement grasping at nature is called 'delusion of nature' and spoken of as the entrenchment; the remaining views, cravings, and so forth, arising separately based on objects, are spoken of as 'delusion of phenomenal objects' and generally named 'arising'. That grasping at nature is named 'the mark of grasping and attachment' in Aśvaghoṣa's treatise, and also named 'affliction associated with grasping'. The remaining views, cravings, and so forth are named 'the mark of calculating names' in Aśvaghoṣa's treatise; pursuing names to calculate a self and produce various fetters is called calculating names. The masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra broadly share this explanation, taking the general grasping of marks as the root, named the entrenchment, and the defilements of specific marks as the branches, hence named the arising. Second is distinction between root and branches. Within the preceding phenomenal objects, the ten proclivities are the entrenchment, and the remaining entanglements, defilements, and so forth are taken as the arising. Third is distinction between formation and arising. All defilements formed by innate habituation through past conditioning are together named entrenchments. Arising actively when encountering conditions is named arising. Fourth, preceding ones being able to produce subsequent ones are generally named entrenchments; subsequent arisings relying on the preceding are together named arisings.