勝鬘寶窟 2.20

2.20

From "The World-Honoured One, there is no other pāramitā" below, the preceding text having concluded the explanation of the chapter-heading on vastness, now the second chapter-heading on the immeasurable causal practices is explained. Because practice is perfected through principle, practice is explained after principle. Furthermore, the expression "saddharma" is comprehensive: not only is principle saddharma, practice is also saddharma; hence this passage occurs. The text also has two parts: first it explains embracing, and next it explains the saddharma. Above, it first explained the saddharma and afterward explained embracing; here, it first explains embracing and afterward explains the saddharma. The difference from above is because this directly follows upon the preceding "embracing" to explain embracing. Furthermore, between embracing and saddharma there is conceptually no priority or posteriority, so they may be mutually explained back and forth. Again, because it intends to clarify the meaning of indicating, explaining, and concluding, embracing is explained first. Regarding "indicating, explaining, and concluding": the beginning indicates the meaning of identity; from "Why is that?" below, it explains the meaning of identity; and after this, it concludes the meaning of identity. Here, one should clarify the section explaining the name. As for what is called "embracing the saddharma" (parigraha-saddharma): the six pāramitās are themselves the saddharma of causal practice. Gathering the teachings of the six pāramitās in one's mind is called "embracing" (she); directly realizing [them] in accordance with the teachings of the six pāramitās is called "accepting" (shou). At the time of direct realization, one sees neither the grasper nor the grasped, neither the realizer nor the realized; not knowing how to designate it, one provisionally calls it "embracing and accepting" (sheshou). This is the meaning of mutual identity clarified in the present text. Furthermore, embracing has the two aspects of non-duality and duality, and the aspect of duality being non-dual. Being dual while non-dual, there are the grasper and the grasped, the realizer and the realized; being non-dual while dual, grasper and grasped are vividly distinct yet eternally quiescent. Again, explaining it in terms of stages: before the bhūmis, one has not yet attained true realization, so there are still subject and object; from ascending the bhūmis upward, one permanently attains true realization, so both object and contemplation are quiescent. If considered in terms of breaking afflictions: sentient beings think that the grasper and the grasped are different; breaking those two views, it therefore clarifies non-duality. This is breaking the two to clarify non-duality; once the disease of duality is gone, non-duality is also eliminated. As the Avataṃsaka says: "Do not attach to non-dual dharmas, because there is neither one nor two." Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Breaking the two without attaching to the one is called the tolerance of dharmas (dharmakṣānti)." Tolerance of dharmas means that the mind rests serenely in the principle and dharma, seeing neither one nor two. In the text there are [three parts]: first, a general explanation of non-duality; second, a specific explanation of non-duality; third, a general conclusion on non-duality. The first passage has three clauses. "There is no other pāramitā" clarifies that embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās. "There is no other embracing of the saddharma" clarifies that the pāramitās are not different from embracing the saddharma. Question: How does this differ from the embracing above? Answer: There are similarities and differences. If one says that embracing is not different from the pāramitās and the pāramitās are not different from embracing, this is conceptually the same as the above [discussion where] wisdom is not different from principle and principle is not different from wisdom. However, above it clarified that principle is not different from wisdom and wisdom is not different from principle; here it clarifies that wisdom is not different from practice and practice is not different from wisdom. If one says that embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās and the pāramitās are not different from embracing the saddharma, this intends to clarify the vast meaning of embracing the saddharma. Not only is the saddharma of principle the embracing of the saddharma, but the practice-dharma of the pāramitās is also the embracing of the saddharma; therefore, the meaning of embracing the saddharma is vast. "Embracing the saddharma is itself the pāramitās": the preceding two clauses clarified non-difference, and now the third clause concludes and specifies non-difference. The reason they are not different is that because they are identical, they are called non-different; it does not mean they are called non-different because of mere similarity. Question: Why is there one clause missing in the concluding identity? Answer: Since it says that embracing is itself the pāramitās, one should know that the pāramitās are themselves embracing, so a second clause is not needed. In the conclusion there are also two meanings: first, concluding that wisdom is not different from the pāramitās; second, concluding that embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās. Question: Embracing is the wisdom that can embrace, and saddharma is the practice of the six pāramitās; since wisdom and practice are non-dual, how can the single essence of wisdom possess all practices? Answer: Just as with a single correct contemplation, in terms of stopping evil it is called discipline; in terms of realizing tranquility it is called concentration; in terms of illuminating it is called wisdom; and in terms of arriving at the other shore it is the pāramitās; therefore, a single wisdom subsumes all practices. Question: The six pāramitās are not different from correct contemplation—this is understanding being non-different from practice; may one also say that the saddharma of true reality (dharmatā) is not different from the six pāramitās? Answer: Above it clarified that wisdom is not different from principle; looking toward principle, wisdom is practice. Since wisdom is not different from principle, practice is also not different from principle. Question: How are they not different? Answer: The bodhisattva practices the six pāramitās with a mind of true reality; therefore, the six pāramitās are themselves true reality. Now let us provisionally explain this in terms of giving (dāna): although the four extremes are severed, the three factors [of giving] remain distinctly apparent. This true reality is itself giving; although the three factors are distinctly apparent, they are constantly severed of the four extremes; therefore giving is itself true reality. As it is with the pāramitā of giving, the other practices follow suit by analogy. Question: Above it clarified that the causes and fruits of the four vehicles arise from true reality, and the bodhisattva benefits people with the causal and fruitional practices of the four vehicles; how does this differ from the present passage clarifying the embracing of the saddharma? Answer: Above it clarified benefiting people through the teachings of the four vehicles; here it clarifies benefiting beings through the practices of the six pāramitās. If so, the above is the four vehicles, while benefiting beings through the six pāramitās is the ekayāna. The former is benefiting beings by bringing forth, while the present is benefiting people by gathering in. Furthermore, above it clarified the arising of practice from principle; here it clarifies that practice is perfected, and thus practice is used to benefit beings; thus the above clarifies the root, and the present distinguishes the branches. From "Why is that?" below, the preceding was the first part clarifying embracing, and now the second part clarifies the saddharma. Also, the above was the indication of identity, and the present is the explanation of identity. "Why is that?": this is a questioning phrase. The meaning of the question is: Why is embracing the saddharma identical to the six pāramitās? From "Embracing the saddharma" onward, this is the answer. The meaning of the answer is: The six pāramitās are themselves the saddharma. The bodhisattva embraces the saddharma of the six pāramitās to transform people; therefore, embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās. Here, clarifying the six pāramitās constitutes six stages; in each and every pāramitā there are three clauses: first, indicating the receptive capacities; second, clarifying the bodhisattva's practice of giving; third, concluding that the practice is perfected as a pāramitā. At the beginning, "should be matured through giving": this clarifies the receptive capacity to be transformed. Question: What kind of person is this? Answer: Some say this is a stingy and greedy sentient being who should be taught to practice giving, and is therefore called "matured." Now I say that the phrasing of the text is not like that. When the sūtra says "should be matured through giving," this clarifies that when a person's root-capacity is such that they should see the bodhisattva practice giving to attain maturation, the bodhisattva practices giving for their sake. What does this have to do with teaching the other person to practice giving? The six pāramitās all have this text, so it must be determined beforehand. Question: What kind of person is this? Answer: This person is not fixed. There are stingy and greedy sentient beings who refuse to give; the bodhisattva first practices giving himself to cause them to learn it. Second, there are destitute sentient beings to whom the bodhisattva gives material goods to make them rejoice and become the bodhisattva's followers, afterward transforming them to enter the path; hence it says "maturing them through giving." There are sentient beings who should see the bodhisattva practice giving to attain awakening to the path; therefore the bodhisattva practices giving for their sake.