勝鬘寶窟 3.22

3.22

From “Regarding the preaching of the tathāgatagarbha and the tathāgata's dharmakāya, which are inconceivable” downwards, the third [section] generally raises the body and the garbha to encourage faith in the two truths. First, “regarding the preaching of the garbha” raises the tathāgatagarbha. “The tathāgata's dharmakāya” raises the Buddha's dharmakāya. These two clauses restate the garbha and the body together. “Inconceivable realm” explains that the garbha and body are real and ultimate, hence beyond the comprehension of others; thus they are inconceivable, known only to the Buddha, and termed the Buddha's realm. “And the preaching through upāya” clarifies the provisional and real aspects of the garbha and body. Question: What are the provisional and real aspects of the garbha and body? Answer: The real aspect of the garbha refers to the tathatā-buddhadhātu; the provisional aspect of the garbha refers to expounding saṃsāra as a garbha, and so forth. Furthermore, explaining that sentient beings have the buddhadhātu through preaching the tathāgatagarbha is real; preaching that there are natures of the three vehicles and so forth is an upāya. The real aspect of the body is the dharmakāya of all Buddhas; the provisional aspect of the body is the nirmāṇakāya. Moreover, regarding the tathāgatagarbha and the dharmakāya, whether a Buddha exists or not, their nature and characteristics are eternally abiding; it is not that they exist only when preached and cease to exist when not preached. Hence they are the real body and garbha. “And upāya” refers to the former teaching of impermanence. Some say: this elucidates the Buddha's skillful means in being able to preach the tathāgatagarbha for sentient beings as the two noble truths of the created and the uncreated, which is termed preaching through upāya. This master regards the preached body and garbha as the real, and the skillful preaching through upāya as the upāya. Now, I consider this to be incorrect. Rather, by the provisional and real of the body, we analogously show that the truths also possess provisional and real: the created is the provisional truth, and the uncreated is the real truth. “Having gained decisive conviction in one's mind” means having unwavering faith without doubt in the provisional and the real of that garbha and body. Faith means decisive conviction. “This is faithful understanding of the preaching of the two noble truths” uses what precedes to analogously explain what follows. If one can believe in the provisional and real of that garbha and body, one should know that one also believes in the provisional and real of the truths. From “such are difficult to know and difficult to understand” downwards, the third [section] extensively explains the names and meanings of the two truths. The explanation of the two truths consists of four [parts]: first, marking the count of two; from “what are they” downwards, second, listing the two names; from “the meaning of the preaching of the created noble truths” onwards, third, extensively explaining the two noble truths; from “such eight noble truths” onwards, fourth, clarifying the opening of the provisional to reveal the real. From “such are difficult to know” downwards, it marks the two names. From “what are they” onwards, it lists the count of two. The provisional is called “created” and also called “limited”; the real is called “uncreated” and also called “illimitable.” The terms “created” and “uncreated” establish their designations from practice. After mentioning the noble truths of the Hīnayāna, there remains the Mahāyāna contemplation of the truths that can be cultivated and practiced; hence it is called “created.” By means of this created contemplative wisdom, the truth contemplated is designated; thus it is called the “created truth.” After mentioning the noble truths of the Mahāyāna contemplation, there remains no further contemplation to be practiced; hence it is called “uncreated.” By means of this uncreated contemplative wisdom, the truth contemplated is designated; thus it is called the “uncreated truth.” Another interpretation: the four truths with limits are what the two vehicles contemplate; those practitioners are not yet ultimate, and thus still have something to do. The four truths without limits are what the Tathāgata illuminates; the Buddha is ultimate, having nothing further to do. Thus “created” and “uncreated” are distinguished according to the persons. Again, it is said: the conditioned truths are called “created,” because conditioned phenomena carry the meaning of arising and creating; the unconditioned truths are called “uncreated,” because unconditioned phenomena lack arising and creating. Hence the text below says “conditioned saṃsāra and unconditioned saṃsāra.” It is also said that they are “limited” and “illimitable”: the intellectual capacity of the two vehicles has limitations, whereas the Buddha's wisdom is illimitable. “Bounded” and “unbounded” are also like this: the wisdom of the two vehicles has an edge or limit, so it is bounded; the Buddha's wisdom has no edge or limit, so it is unbounded. All these are designated in accordance with the persons. Now, I explain them through four meanings: First, the gate of coarse and subtle. If one explains the cause and effect of portioned [saṃsāra] and the cessation and path that can remedy them, it is called “limited”; if one explains the cause and effect of inconceivable transformation [saṃsāra] and the cessation and path that can remedy them, it is called “illimitable.” Second, the gate of broad and narrow. If one says that suffering and origin are solely the cause and effect of portioned [saṃsāra], and cessation and path are solely remedies against portioned [saṃsāra], it is called “limited”; if one says that suffering and origin encompass both kinds of cause and effect—portioned and transformative—and cessation and path encompass both kinds of remedies—portioned and transformative—it is called “illimitable.” Third, the gate of shallow and deep. What the Hīnayāna aspires to is solely knowing the dharmic characteristics of defiled and pure cause and effect; this is the Abhidharma school. […] Again, when expounding profound depth, it only knows the four truths, and the emptiness of the lack of inherent nature in causal nominal existence; this is the Chengshi (Tattvasiddhi) school. Hence it is called “limited.” What the Mahāyāna contemplates explains emptiness as original tranquility, and discerns existence as fathoming the tathāgatagarbha; hence it is called “illimitable.” Fourth, the gate of general and particular. Although in the Hīnayāna Dharma one contemplates the four truths, it is a general and coarse knowledge, called “limited”; in the Mahāyāna Dharma, one knows them in fine detail according to particulars, called “illimitable.” In knowing a single suffering, one completely knows sufferings equal in number to the dust motes of the dharmadhātu; origin and the others are likewise. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “What is preached of suffering and the rest is known by intermediate wisdom. To distinguish that suffering and the rest have immeasurable varieties is not something known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. In that sūtra I did not preach it after all.” For now, we elucidate “created” and “uncreated” in terms of practice. “The meaning of the preaching of the created noble truths” is the third, the extensive explanation. Explaining the two involves two parts: first explaining the created, next explaining the uncreated. The created has four parts: first, restatement; second, brief explanation; third, from “why is that” downwards, extensive explanation; fourth, from “therefore” downwards, conclusion. “Created noble truths” is the restatement. “This is said to be limited” shifts the name to demonstrate it, which is the second, the brief explanation. “Why is that” is the third, the extensive explanation. Why is the created called limited? The explanation follows below in contrast. It clarifies that because people of the two vehicles know through others, they do not know all; hence it is called limited. The text says “it is not that through others one can know all suffering”; the two vehicles are persons who attain awakening through others. Here it clarifies that it is not that a person [relying] on others can know all suffering; hence it is called limited. Some say: if in contemplative understanding one does not yet know that the ten thousand dharmas are mind-only, believing that there are dharmas outside the mind and that mind arises based on objects, this is called “due to others.” If one knows due to others, it is not all; it is limited. Now, I say: it is not that there is no meaning of Consciousness-Only, but this master has misapplied it; it should be explained as above. From “Therefore, World-Honoured One” downwards is the fourth, the conclusion. Because these persons of the two vehicles do not know all suffering due to [relying on] others, they only know conditioned saṃsāra and do not know that there is separately an unconditioned saṃsāra; because through others they cannot know all cessation, they only know nirvāṇa with remainder and do not know that there is separately a nirvāṇa without remainder. Regarding “conditioned saṃsāra and unconditioned saṃsāra,” these two designations of saṃsāra have generally four kinds: First, portioned and transformative, as explained above. Second, conceivable and inconceivable: portioned is coarse and near, easily measured, so called conceivable; transformative is subtle, difficult to measure, so called inconceivable. Third, limited and illimitable: portioned is confined to the three existences, called limited; transformative transcends the three existences up to the vajra[-like mind], called illimitable. Fourth, conditioned and unconditioned: portioned is called conditioned, transformative is called unconditioned. The cause of portioned is called with outflows; the cause of transformative is called without outflows. The fruit of portioned is called conditioned; the fruit of transformative is called unconditioned. Relative to the internal realm with outflows, what is outside the realm is called without outflows, yet in reality it has outflows; relative to the conditioned inside the realm, what is outside the realm is called unconditioned, yet in reality it is conditioned. Moreover, transcending the shackles, cages, and vexations of portioned [existence] in the three realms is called unconditioned, yet possessing thought-by-thought arising and ceasing is termed saṃsāra. As in the Lotus Sūtra, where the children exit the burning house and reach the open ground, the open ground is precisely the unconditioned. Here, heavy suffering is taken as conditioned, and light suffering as unconditioned—just as heavy suffering is regarded as suffering, and light suffering as pleasure. Extinguishing conditioned saṃsāra is called “with remainder,” because there is still unconditioned saṃsāra; extinguishing unconditioned saṃsāra is called “without remainder,” because there is no further remaining saṃsāra. Some say: “conditioned saṃsāra” is distinguished in name based on the person. Ordinary beings and trainees generate karma with outflows in the three existences, giving rise to portioned birth; hence it is called conditioned. The saṃsāra undergone by conditioned sentient beings is called conditioned saṃsāra. Non-trainees do not create binding karma to give rise to portioned birth; hence they are called unconditioned. The saṃsāra undergone by unconditioned noble ones is called unconditioned saṃsāra. Some say: regarding conditioned saṃsāra, “wei” (conditioned) means “zuo” (created); it is the saṃsāra contemplated by created wisdom. Unconditioned saṃsāra is the saṃsāra contemplated by uncreated wisdom. Nirvāṇa also has with remainder and without remainder: nirvāṇa with remainder is the limited truth of cessation, having a remainder that is not exhausted; nirvāṇa without remainder is the illimitable truth of cessation, having no further remaining fruit. Some say: the two vehicles only now have something to do, and can know the portioned; hence they consider the portioned and call it conditioned saṃsāra. The Tathāgata has nothing further to do and can illuminate the transformative; hence he speaks of the transformative and calls it unconditioned saṃsāra. These both derive their names from persons. Some say: karmic retribution with outflows obtains portioned [birth] and is called conditioned; the non-outflow cause conditioned by fundamental ignorance gives rise to transformative [birth] and is called unconditioned. This receives its name from the cause: what is induced by causes with outflows is called conditioned, and what is induced by non-outflow causes is called unconditioned. According to the Ratnagotravibhāga: “The three kinds of mind-made bodies, being produced due to non-outflow roots of goodness, are called worldly; because they are produced free from karma and afflictions, they are also called nirvāṇa.” Someone explained this treatise: in terms of the meaning of conditioned, it is called conditioned saṃsāra; in terms of the meaning of unconditioned, it is called unconditioned saṃsāra. In terms of the worldly, it is called conditioned and is nirvāṇa with remainder; in terms of unconditioned nirvāṇa, it is nirvāṇa without remainder. Now, regarding the text of this treatise: persons with the three kinds of mind-made bodies no longer have portioned [birth], which is called nirvāṇa; yet they still have transformative [birth], which is called worldly. Therefore, this person is both a person of nirvāṇa and a person of the world. Thus there are four propositions: 1. only saṃsāra and not nirvāṇa, referring to ordinary beings and trainees; 2. only nirvāṇa and not saṃsāra, referring to the Buddha; 3. both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, referring to persons of the two vehicles; 4. neither, which obliterates the above three propositions. Hence the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: “Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, both are unattainable.” The saṃsāra induced by a person who has attained this unconditioned nirvāṇa is called unconditioned saṃsāra. The saṃsāra induced by a person who has not attained unconditioned nirvāṇa is called conditioned saṃsāra; the nirvāṇa attained by one who has attained the unconditioned is called nirvāṇa without remainder; the nirvāṇa attained by one who has not attained the unconditioned is called nirvāṇa with remainder. Viewed in light of the fact that the great nirvāṇa still remains ahead, it is called “with remainder.” This uses what follows to distinguish what precedes, hence it is called “with remainder”; “without remainder” can be understood accordingly. Some say: remainder and without remainder are distinguished by persons. What is realized by a person of the fruit with remainder is called with remainder; what is realized by a person of the fruit without remainder is called without remainder. Generally, in sūtras and treatises, the explanation of nirvāṇa with and without remainder comprises briefly five pairs: First, stated solely in terms of the Hīnayāna: the extinction of cause is called with remainder, and the exhaustion of fruit is called without remainder. Second, stated solely in terms of the Mahāyāna: the exhaustion of cause is called with remainder, and the exhaustion of fruit is called without remainder. As when the cause of transformative [saṃsāra] is exhausted, it is with remainder; when the fruit of transformative [saṃsāra] is exhausted, it is without remainder. Why is this so? The vajra-like mind exhausts the causes of transformative [saṃsāra], yet the fruit of transformative [saṃsāra] still remains; possessing the remaining burden, it is called “with remainder.” When the Buddha fruit arises as the path of liberation, there is no longer any causal burden, and the fruit of transformative saṃsāra also perishes, so there is no longer any burden of the fruit; hence it is called “without remainder.” Question: If so, when the Hīnayāna vajra-like mind exhausts the causes of portioned [saṃsāra], the portioned fruit still remains, and the arhat fruit arises as the path of liberation. Since the causes of portioned [saṃsāra] are exhausted, should not the portioned fruit also cease to exist? Answer: They are not analogous. When the Buddha's path of liberation arises, this is the arising of eternal wisdom; the arising of eternal wisdom is precisely the arising of the eternal body, and because the eternal body arises, the impermanent body immediately passes away. When the Hīnayāna path of liberation arises, this is non-outflow wisdom, not transformative retribution; one cannot say that when wisdom arises the transformative retribution also arises and the portioned retribution immediately passes away. Why is this? Because non-outflow wisdom is the cause of transformative [saṃsāra]. The text states: non-outflow karma as cause and fundamental ignorance as condition induce transformative retribution. Therefore, when the non-outflow arises, transformative retribution does not arise; hence the portioned retribution does not immediately cease to exist. Question: If one must wait for the eternal body of the Buddha fruit to arise before impermanent retribution ceases, then one should also have to wait for transformative retribution to arise before portioned retribution ceases. Answer: They are not of the same category. When the causes of portioned [saṃsāra] are completely severed, by reducing the body to ashes and annihilating consciousness, portioned retribution naturally ceases to exist, and only then does transformative retribution arise. Just as when human retribution passes away heavenly retribution arises—it is not that because heavenly retribution arises human retribution passes away. The dharmakāya of the Buddha fruit is not of the same category as this. It must arise through liberation, because the path of liberation is the dharmakāya. When the dharmakāya arises, only then does transformative retribution cease. Therefore, they are not analogous. Question: If the severance of transformative causes by the vajra-like mind is called nirvāṇa with remainder, then should the severance of transformative causes by the vajra-like mind also be the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna)? Answer: This is one perspective of interpretation. Only when the Buddha fruit arises is it called the knowledge of exhaustion; only when the Buddha fruit arises is it called nirvāṇa with remainder. It is only from the perspective of the Buddha fruit looking back at the meaning of causal exhaustion that it is called “with remainder,” and looking at the exhaustion of the fruit that it is called “without remainder.” It is not that the moment the vajra-like mind cuts off afflictions it is already called nirvāṇa with remainder. Question: If so, does the vajra-like mind fail to cut off afflictions completely? Answer: Although it cuts them off completely, one must wait for the path of liberation to arise, realizing the place free of afflictions, before they are fully dissociated; therefore, the vajra-like mind does not yet obtain the name “knowledge of exhaustion.” Question: If with the arising of the Buddha fruit transformative causes and fruits cease to exist, would this not mean that the cessation of saṃsāra is the view of annihilation, and the arising of the Buddha fruit is the view of eternalism? As the text below says: “To see conditioned states as impermanent is the view of annihilation; to see nirvāṇa as eternal is the view of eternalism.” Answer: For those with acquisitive attachment who lack this understanding, they fall into annihilation and eternalism. Here it is clarified that awakening to transformative causes and fruits as originally unborn is called cessation. It is not that a previously existing dharma is severed and now becomes non-existent. Third, the place devoid of causes and fruits attained by bodhi is with remainder; the place devoid of causes and fruits attained by the Buddha is without remainder. Fourth, as in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, the nirmāṇakāya and saṃbhogakāya are with remainder, and the dharmakāya is without remainder. Hence the Suvarṇaprabhāsa says: “These two bodies exist merely as nominal designations, perishing thought-by-thought, hence called impermanent.” This takes the non-ultimate meaning as with remainder, and the dharmakāya as ultimate, hence called without remainder. Fifth, the contrast between the Great and the Small: in the Hīnayāna, the exhaustion of causes and fruits is called with remainder; in the Mahāyāna, the exhaustion of causes and fruits is called without remainder. The Buddhadhātuvibhāga states: “The two vehicles have three kinds of remainders: 1. remainder of afflictions, namely the stage of abiding in ignorance; 2. remainder of karma, namely non-outflow karma; 3. remainder of fruit-retribution, namely the aggregates of the mind-made body.” Question: Previously the four truths were fully elucidated; why does it now speak only of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa? Answer: It briefly discusses the two fruits of suffering and cessation, and the two causes of origin and path; origin and path are easy to understand. Moreover, it raises the two saṃsāras to conclude suffering and origin, and raises nirvāṇa to conclude cessation and path. Although raising both pairs in contrast, the intention is to clarify that the two vehicles merely cross over one saṃsāra and merely realize one nirvāṇa.