楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

4.1

Translated under imperial decree by Guṇabhadra of the Song dynasty

4.2

Annotated under imperial decree by the minister-monk Zongle, Abbot of the Tianjie Shanshi Chan Monastery of the Great Ming, and the minister-monk Ruqi, Abbot of the Yanfu Teaching Monastery

4.3

Chapter 4: The Core of All the Buddhas' Words

At that time, the Bodhisattva Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! We only pray that you will explain the Samyaksaṃbuddha, so that I and the other bodhisattva-mahāsattvas may become skilled in the Tathāgata's svabhāva of self-awakening and awakening others." The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Ask what you wish to ask; I shall explain for you according to your questions." Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! Is the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksaṃbuddha made, or is he unmade? Is he an effect, or is he a cause? Is he a characteristic, or is he that which is characterized? Is he the spoken, or is he that which is spoken of? Is he awakening, or is he that which is awakened? Are such phrases and expressions different or not different?"

4.5

Nirvāṇa is the dharma that is realized, and the Tathāgata is the person who realizes it. Since Mahāmati had already grasped the import of nirvāṇa, he then made an inquiry concerning the Tathāgata. "Samyaksaṃbuddha" is translated here as "rightly all-knowing" and also called "rightly awakened." "Rightly all-knowing" means knowing correctly and knowing completely—knowing correctly in the middle and knowing completely at the extremes. "The Tathāgata's svabhāva" refers to the dharmakāya. Since the Buddha accepted the request, Mahāmati made his inquiry fully using the three epithets. The three epithets are the three virtues: "Tathāgata" is the dharmakāya, the truth of the middle; "Arhat" (One Worthy of Offerings) is liberation, conventional truth; "Samyaksaṃbuddha" (Rightly Awakened One) is prajñā, ultimate truth. While there are ten universal titles, asking specifically about these three highlights what is essential. "Made" refers to practice and deliberate action, its meaning encompassing both cause and effect. "Matters" (vastu) refers to the effect; "characteristic" refers to the bodily form; "spoken" refers to verbal discourse; "awakening" refers to awakening and knowing. The question asks whether the Tathāgata is different or not different from these phrases and expressions.

4.6

The Buddha told Mahāmati: "The Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksaṃbuddha, in relation to such phrases and expressions, is neither effect nor cause. Why is this? Because both entail faults. Mahāmati! If the Tathāgata were an effect, he would be either created or impermanent; because he would be impermanent, all conditioned things would be the Tathāgata—which neither I nor the Buddhas desire. If he were not something created, then because nothing would be attained, skillful means would be empty, identical to a rabbit's horn or the son of a barren woman, because of nonexistence. Mahāmati! If he is neither effect nor cause, then he is neither existent nor nonexistent; if he is neither existent nor nonexistent, then he transcends the catuṣkoṭi. The catuṣkoṭi belongs to worldly verbal discourse. If he transcends the catuṣkoṭi, he does not fall into the catuṣkoṭi; and because he does not fall into the catuṣkoṭi, he is grasped by the wise. The meaning of the phrases concerning all Tathāgatas is also like this; the wise should know it."

4.7

In the answer, the Buddha first addresses what was asked. "Neither effect nor cause" means neither cause nor fruit; taken together it means neither made nor unmade. Saying that "both entail faults" does not merely refer to effect and cause; it precisely means that if the Tathāgata were solely effect and cause, he would fall into the fault of being created; if he were not effect and cause, he would fall into the fault of nonexistence. The passage stating that "If the Tathāgata were an effect..." means that if the Tathāgata were necessarily bound to things like cause and fruit, he would be impermanent; and if he were impermanent, all created dharmas would be the Tathāgata, yet neither I nor the Buddhas wish to be equated with such things. "If he were not something created..." examines the preceding line of "neither effect nor cause," meaning that if he were uncreated then nothing would be attained, and if nothing were attained, wisdom and skillful means would be set up in vain, identical to a rabbit's horn or a barren woman's son. Furthermore, regarding "neither effect nor cause," since the dharmakāya is not created, it is free from the faults of existence and nonexistence; being free from the faults of existence and nonexistence, it transcends the catuṣkoṭi. The catuṣkoṭi refers to the four propositions: identity and difference, both and neither, existence and nonexistence/neither existence nor nonexistence, permanence and impermanence. Not falling into this catuṣkoṭi is the meaning of the phrases concerning the Tathāgata, and is what is grasped by the wise.

4.8

"Just as I have spoken of all dharmas being without self, you should know this meaning: the nature of selflessness is selflessness. All dharmas have their own svabhāva and lack another's svabhāva, like an ox and a horse. Mahāmati! For example, it is not the nature of an ox to be a horse, nor the nature of a horse to be an ox; in reality they are neither existent nor nonexistent, and they are not without svabhāva. Just so, Mahāmati! All dharmas are not without svalakṣaṇa. They have svalakṣaṇa, but this cannot be known by fools who lack selflessness, due to vikalpa. In this way all dharmas are empty, unarisen, and without svabhāva—you should know it thus."

4.9

The passage above clarifies that the phrasing regarding the Tathāgata does not fall into the catuṣkoṭi; fearing that those who have not understood might think that the Tathāgata's phrased meaning is also not a real nature, an analogy is drawn to reveal it. "Just as I have spoken...": the Buddha states that he constantly speaks of all dharmas being without self. "Without self" means lacking the nature of clinging to a self, not that they lack their own essential nature; hence it is said, "They have their own svabhāva and lack another's svabhāva." "Another" is spoken in contrast to oneself; it means that although the Tathāgata's phrasing is free from all propositions, it is not without the dharmakāya's permanently abiding svabhāva. Hence it is again illustrated through a metaphor: just as an ox has only the nature of an ox and lacks the nature of a horse, and a horse has only the nature of a horse and lacks the nature of an ox, it is said to be "neither existent nor nonexistent." This means that each has its own svabhāva and lacks the other's svabhāva. The *Ru Lengqie* states: "All dharmas are also like this: they have no svalakṣaṇa, yet what is nonexistent is precisely existent." This means they not only have svabhāva, but also have svalakṣaṇa. "Fools who lack selflessness": "lacking selflessness" refers to śrāvakas, meaning that this cannot be known by ordinary beings or followers of the lesser vehicle; their failure to know is due to being obscured by the discrimination of vikalpa. "In this way all dharmas are empty...": just as all dharmas are without self, and by this analogy all dharmas are empty, yet the nature of the Tathāgata is not empty; all dharmas are unarisen, yet the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is arisen; all dharmas lack svabhāva, yet the Tathāgata has a permanently abiding nature; hence it is said, "You should know it thus."

4.10

"The Tathāgata is likewise neither different nor not different from the skandhas. If he were not different from the skandhas, he would be impermanent; if he were different, skillful means would be empty. If they were two, there would be difference. Just as ox horns are not different due to their similarity, yet are different due to differences in length, so too are all dharmas. Mahāmati! Just as the right horn of an ox is different from the left horn, and the left horn is different from the right horn, and their lengths and various colors are each different, Mahāmati! The Tathāgata is neither different nor not different from the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas."

4.11

From "The Tathāgata is likewise..." on, it discusses the dharmakāya in relation to the five skandhas as being neither different nor not different. The skandhas are the path of suffering, and the path of suffering is precisely the dharmakāya, hence they are not different; yet delusion and awakening differ, hence they are not non-different. If one says the dharmakāya is not different from the five skandhas, then it would be an impermanent dharma of arising and ceasing; if one says it is different, then the Tathāgata would lack the aspect of skillful means arising from the entire essence to benefit beings, hence it says "would be empty." Therefore, the dharmakāya and the skandhas are neither different nor not different. If one does not comprehend that the skandhas are precisely the dharmakāya, then the two are seen as different, which is why ox horns are again used as an analogy. Ox horns are not different because of their similarity, yet they are different because of differences in length. "So too are all dharmas" means that the relation of the dharmakāya to all dharmas being neither different nor not different is also like this. Furthermore, using the difference between the left and right horns of an ox as an analogy signifies that while the dharmakāya is fundamentally one, dharmas have differences, just as the left and right horns of an ox are not identical. The concluding text is easy to understand.

4.12

"Likewise, the Tathāgata and liberation are neither different nor not different. The Tathāgata is spoken of in terms of liberation. If the Tathāgata were different from liberation, he would be constituted by material form, and because of being constituted by material form, he would be impermanent; if he were not different, the practitioner's attainment of correspondence would be without discrimination, yet practitioners see discrimination—therefore they are neither different nor not different."

4.13

This discusses the dharmakāya Tathāgata in relation to the virtue of liberation. Saying that "the Tathāgata is spoken of in terms of liberation" means that what the Tathāgata fully reveals is due to realizing that fetters and karma are themselves liberation; thus the Tathāgata and liberation are neither different nor not different. If one says they are different, liberation would be the physical form of the response body and thus impermanent; if one says they are not different, then when a practitioner accords with liberation, there would be no distinction between cause and fruit or person and dharma, yet there is the discrimination of subject and object. Hence the conclusion states: "neither different nor not different."

4.14

"Likewise, jñāna and jñeya are neither different nor not different. Mahāmati! That jñāna and jñeya are neither different nor not different means they are neither permanent nor impermanent, neither created nor uncreated, neither conditioned nor unconditioned, neither awakening nor that which is awakened, neither characteristic nor that which is characterized, neither the skandhas nor different from the skandhas, neither the spoken nor that which is spoken of, neither identical nor different, neither both nor neither. Because they are neither identical nor different, neither both nor neither, they completely transcend all measures."

4.15

This is discussed in terms of prajñā relative to the cognitive obstacle (jñeyāvaraṇa). "Jñāna" is prajñā, and "jñeya" (er yan) refers to the cognitive obstacle. By analogy to what preceded, it should properly say: "If they were different, there would be no wisdom apart from obstacles; if they were not different, how could obstacles be wisdom?" Merely saying "neither different nor not different" is an abbreviation of the text. Because prajñā and the cognitive obstacle are neither different nor not different, they are not two and not distinct from the dharmakāya and liberation; hence it again summarizes and applies it universally. Stating "neither permanent nor impermanent" and so forth does not depart from revealing the middle path by negating the two extremes, revealing the one characteristic by negating subject and object, and revealing the transcendence of words by negating the catuṣkoṭi; therefore it is also said to "transcend all measures." "Measures" refers to reckonings and standards.

4.16

"Being free from all measures, there is no speech; with no speech, there is no arising; with no arising, there is no cessation; with no cessation, there is quiescence; with quiescence, there is original nirvāṇa; with original nirvāṇa, there is neither thing nor cause; with neither thing nor cause, there is no clinging condition; with no clinging condition, one transcends all falsity; transcending all falsity, that is the Tathāgata; the Tathāgata is the samyaksambuddha. Mahāmati, this is called the samyaksambuddha-buddha. Mahāmati, the samyaksambuddha-buddha is free from all sensory-capacity measures."

4.17

Now, being free from all measures of speech is simply non-arising, quiescence, and original nirvāṇa. Having revealed the fundamental nature, [the sūtra] then returns to the principle, concluding by stating 'there is neither thing nor cause' and so forth. Only the one Dharmakāya stands aloof and independent, not seeing phenomena as clinging conditions; hence it transcends all falsity, and is named the Tathāgata, the Samyaksambuddha. Repeating the word 'Buddha' translates the distinction of knowing and perceiving, conjoining both names. Words reaching this point may be called the ultimate; yet repeating again 'free from all sensory-capacity measures' answers the previous question comprehensively, pointing back to the svabhāva of the Dharmakāya.

4.18

Then the World-Honoured One, wishing to proclaim this meaning once more, spoke a verse:

4.19

"Completely free from sensory-capacity measures, / without thing and without cause, / having transcended the perceiver and the perceived, / and free from characteristics and the characterized. / Aggregates, conditions, and the Sambuddha— / identity and difference cannot be seen. / If there is no seer, / how could there be differentiation? / Neither action nor non-action, / neither thing nor cause, / neither the aggregates nor in the aggregates, / nor having other impurities, / nor having various natures / as seen by that false discrimination; / one should know that it is also not nonexistent: / this dharma's nature is just so."

4.20

The four lines beginning with 'Completely free' comprehensively praise the Buddha as free from lakṣaṇas. 'Aggregates and conditions': 'aggregates' means the five aggregates; 'conditions' means the conditions of clinging, such as the realms (dhātu) and sense bases (āyatana); 'Sambuddha' means the Dharmakāya. 'Identity and difference cannot be seen' means that between the Dharmakāya of the Sambuddha and the painful path of birth and death, no lakṣaṇa of identity or difference can be seen. Since there is no person who can see, how could there be a dharma of identity or difference that could be differentiated? The four lines beginning with 'Neither action' directly reveal the Middle Way of the Dharmakāya. 'Other impurities' means the faults and errors of phenomena. The four lines beginning with 'Nor having' are free from the two views of existence and nonexistence, stating that the Dharma-body of the Tathāgata is seen through the false discrimination of ordinary worldlings; although it is free from all lakṣaṇas, it is also not without the real lakṣaṇa that can be seen. 'This dharma's nature is just so' means that regarding this Dharmakāya, one cannot say it exists, nor can one say it does not exist; it is naturally so by the nature of dharmas.

4.21

"Because of existence there is nonexistence; / because of nonexistence there is existence. / If there is nonexistence, one should not grasp; / if there is existence, one should not conceptualize. / Or, concerning self and nonself, / lingering in the measures of speech, / drowning in the two extremes, / one ruins oneself and ruins the world. / Liberated from all faults, / correctly observing my realization, / this is called correct observation, / which does not disparage the Great Guide."

4.22

'Because of existence there is nonexistence; because of nonexistence there is existence'—these, existence and nonexistence, are established in mutual dependence. Since existence and nonexistence each lack inherent nature, how could one grasp them? Therefore it says: 'one should not grasp; ... one should not conceptualize.' If someone has not yet understood that the two kinds of self are fundamentally empty and gets stuck in speech, this is drowning in the two views of existence and nonexistence; not only does one ruin oneself, but one also ruins others—by what means could one emerge from birth and death? If one can comprehend the Dharmakāya as liberated and sovereign, free from all faults, this is penetrating observation and does not slander the Buddha.

4.23

Then the Bodhisattva Mahāmati again addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honoured One! As the World-Honoured One said, 'The sūtras embrace neither arising nor cessation.' And the World-Honoured One said, 'Neither arising nor cessation is an alternative name for the Tathāgata.' Why does the World-Honoured One speak of neither arising nor cessation because of naturelessness, or is it an alternative name for the Tathāgata?" The Buddha told Mahāmati: "I say that all dharmas neither arise nor cease, and the category of existence and nonexistence does not manifest." Mahāmati addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honoured One! If all dharmas do not arise, then embracing dharmas is unobtainable, because all dharmas do not arise. If there is a dharma within names, I pray you explain it for me." The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Excellent, excellent! Listen attentively! Listen attentively and ponder it well; I shall explain and analyze it for you." Mahāmati addressed the Buddha, saying: "Yes, indeed; I receive your instruction." The Buddha told Mahāmati: "I say that the Tathāgata is not natureless, nor does neither arising nor cessation embrace all dharmas, nor is it dependent on conditions that it neither arises nor ceases, nor is it meaningless."

4.24

In the sūtras, mentions of 'neither arising nor cessation' are not one; the principles they explain are not without similarities and differences, as in saying, 'The sūtras embrace neither arising nor cessation.' 'Embrace' means to contain its principle. And it also says, 'This is an alternative name for the Tathāgata.' Mahāmati took 'neither arising nor cessation' to mean naturelessness, asking why it is called an alternative name—could the Tathāgata also be natureless? The Buddha replied that 'neither arising nor cessation' is being free from existence and nonexistence, hence saying 'the category of existence and nonexistence does not manifest.' With this one answer, he addressed both of his questions. Mahāmati again took 'not manifesting' to mean non-arising: if all dharmas do not arise, how could it be an alternative name for the Tathāgata? If it is an alternative name, could there also be an unarisen dharma-meaning within names? Thus he asked again. In the reply, saying 'not natureless' means that the Tathāgata is not a non-dharma, nor does it grasp neither arising nor cessation, nor does it depend on the conditions of arising and cessation to be neither arising nor cessation. Saying 'nor is it meaningless' introduces the subsequent direct reply.

4.25

"Mahāmati, I say that the names and titles of the Tathāgata of the mind-made Dharmakāya—that non-arising of his—is not the realm of any tīrthikas, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or bodhisattvas of the seventh stage. Mahāmati, that non-arising is an alternative name for the Tathāgata. Mahāmati, just as Indra, Śakra, and Purandara—such entities each have multiple names, yet there are not multiple natures because of multiple names, nor are they without svabhāva."

4.26

Saying 'I say that the mind-made Dharmakāya' and so forth is somewhat elliptical in phrasing; it should say: 'I say that neither arising nor cessation is the meaning of non-arising; arising without arising, all alternative names of the Dharmakāya emerge from this.' Hence it says: 'the names and titles of the Tathāgata of the mind-made Dharmakāya.' Saying 'that non-arising' repeats the preceding meaning of the non-arising of all dharmas. However, this non-arising is the ultimate destination of the Tathāgata, not something attained by tīrthikas and partial vehicles; hence it says 'not their realm.' 'Seventh stage' means the seventh bhūmi, for in the Common Teaching, bodhisattvas only realize the unarisen upon reaching the eighth bhūmi. Taking this non-arising as an alternative name for the Tathāgata means that the name 'neither arising nor cessation' may be partial, but its meaning is complete—this is what is meant. 'Just as Indra' and so forth: this cites alternative names for Śakra to illustrate that the alternative names of the Tathāgata are not one. For the ground where Śakra dwells, space, and even his hands and feet—each entity has its own alternative name. Although its names are many, the person is only one; therefore there are not multiple natures. Revealing meanings according to entities, it is not without svabhāva.

4.27

"So it is, Mahāmati: in this Sahā world I have three asaṃkhyeyas of hundreds of thousands of names and titles. Fools all hear them and each speak my names, yet they do not understand my alternative names as Tathāgata. Mahāmati, there are sentient beings who know me as Tathāgata, some who know me as the All-Knowing One, some who know me as Buddha, some who know me as the World-Saviour, some who know me as the Self-Realized One, some who know me as the Guide, some who know me as the Vast Guide, some who know me as the Universal Guide, some who know me as the Ṛṣi, some who know me as Brahmā, some who know me as Viṣṇu, some who know me as Īśvara, some who know me as the Victor, some who know me as Kapila, some who know me as the Limit of Reality, some who know me as the Moon, some who know me as the Sun, some who know me as the Lord, some who know me as Non-Arising, some who know me as Non-Cessation, some who know me as Emptiness, some who know me as Tathatā, some who know me as Truth, some who know me as the Reality Limit, some who know me as the Dharma Nature, some who know me as Nirvāṇa, some who know me as the Permanent, some who know me as Sameness, some who know me as Non-duality, some who know me as the Signless, some who know me as Liberation, some who know me as the Path, and some who know me as Mind-Made. Mahāmati, such three asaṃkhyeyas of hundreds of thousands of names and titles neither increase nor decrease; in this world and in other worlds, all know me like the moon in the water, neither emerging nor entering."

4.28

'In this Sahā world' and so forth exemplifies thirty-three alternative names. First it states that fools all hear them and each speak my names, meaning that each name has its own significance; but they do not understand my alternative names as Tathāgata, which means they do not know that their substance is one, rooted in neither arising nor cessation. Up to saying, 'such three asaṃkhyeyas of hundreds of thousands of names and titles.' 'Asaṃkhyeya' is translated here as 'countless ages'; these are the traces of the Tathāgata's teaching and transforming after attaining the fruit. Saying 'hundreds of thousands of names and titles neither increase nor decrease' means that whichever single name is brought forth, it embraces all names of dharmas; in multiplicity it does not increase, and in oneness it does not decrease; this realm and other realms all know the Buddha's names. Saying 'like the moon in the water, neither emerging nor entering': the moon is a metaphor for the response body, and the water is a metaphor for the minds of sentient beings. When the minds of sentient beings are pure, the Tathāgata responds, like the moon in the water. Yet the moon remains in space while its reflection appears in water; the moon does not descend, hence it is said 'not entering,' nor does it depart from the water, hence it is said 'not emerging.'

4.29

"Those fools cannot know me because they fall into the two extremes. Although they all revere and make offerings to me, they do not skillfully understand the meaning and import of words and phrases; they do not differentiate names and do not understand personal realization, grasping onto various spoken texts and sentences. Regarding neither arising nor cessation, they form the thought of naturelessness, not knowing the distinctions among the Tathāgata's names and titles, just like Indra, Śakra, and Purandara. Not understanding personal realization, converging on the ultimate, they form attachments to all dharmas according to what is said."

4.30

'Those fools' and so forth re-explains that they do not know the source of the response body in the Middle Way of neither arising nor cessation and fall into the two extremes of existence and nonexistence. Although they can all reverently serve, they cannot skillfully understand names, sentences, and meanings; hence it says 'they do not differentiate names and do not understand personal realization.' Due to clinging to verbal teachings and being blinded to the real principle, they say that neither arising nor cessation is devoid of substantial nature; thus they are ignorant of the distinctions among the Tathāgata's alternative names, just like not knowing that Indra and so on are all alternative names of Śakra. Since they do not understand the destination of personal realization converging on the ultimate, they generate views regarding all dharmas according to words; hence it says 'they form attachments ... according to what is said.'

4.31

"Mahāmati, those deluded people speak like this: 'The meaning is like the speech; meaning and speech are not different.' Why is this? Because meaning has no body, outside of speech there is no further meaning, and it rests solely in speech. Mahāmati, their wisdom is miserably burnt; they do not know the svabhāva of speech, and they do not know that speech arises and ceases, whereas meaning neither arises nor ceases. Mahāmati, all speech falls into letters, while meaning does not fall [into them], because it is free from nature and non-nature, has no taking of birth, and has no body. Mahāmati, the Tathāgata does not teach dharmas that fall into letters, because the existence or nonexistence of letters is unobtainable—except for that which does not fall into letters."

4.32

This section once again shows how being deluded about names leads to losing the essential point. Regarding 'The meaning is like speech,' and so forth: now, 'meaning' has the meaning of expressive words and the meaning of expressed principle. Deluded people are confused about principle, asserting that the meaning of words is identical to what is spoken, claiming that there is no difference in what the meaning expresses. [The sūtra] then proceeds to query and explain, stating that 'the meaning has no body.' 'Body' is substance; this means that the meaning of expressive words has no separate substance, for they do not understand that the meaning of expressed principle transcends speech, thinking it is solely limited to speech. Because their pernicious views burn away right knowledge, they fail to understand the Tathāgata's verbal teachings, which state that speech is subject to arising and cessation while meaning is free from arising and cessation. However, all speech falls into letters, while meaning does not. The phrase 'free from existence and nonexistence' refers to being free from the errors of existence and nonexistence; having become free from these errors, it has no reception of birth and no substantial marks. This is the intention beyond words. 'The Tathāgata does not teach dharmas that fall into letters' means that the nature of letters is detached, which is precisely liberation; one cannot seek it in existence or nonexistence. Thus it is not that the Tathāgata does not preach the Dharma; if there are those who understand by leaving letters behind, he preaches it for them.

4.33

"Mahāmati! If anyone says that the Tathāgata teaches dharmas that fall into letters, this is false speech, because the Dharma is free from letters. For this reason, Mahāmati, we Buddhas and bodhisattvas have not spoken a single word, nor answered with a single word. Why is this? Because the Dharma is free from letters, though it is not without expounding meaning to benefit [beings]. Speech is due to the vikalpa of sentient beings. Mahāmati, if all dharmas were not spoken of, the doctrine of the teachings would be destroyed. If the doctrine of the teachings were destroyed, there would be no Buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, or śrāvakas. If there were none, who would speak, and for whom?"

4.34

If anyone fails to comprehend that the Tathāgata's speaking is itself non-speaking, and claims that he teaches dharmas that fall into letters, they are slandering the Buddha and slandering the Dharma; hence it says, 'this is false speech.' [The Buddha] then tells Mahāmati: 'I, as well as the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, have never spoken a single word nor answered with a single word.' This is because it is free from the nature of letters. 'Not without expounding meaning to benefit [beings]' means that he does not fail to expound in accordance with appropriateness to benefit sentient beings. Yet speaking is itself non-speaking; if one says that there is speaking, it is merely the vikalpa and discrimination of ordinary fools. Basing on principle, words are cut off; adapting to conditions, it can be spoken, and speaking becomes the teaching. If there are conditions and one does not speak, the doctrine of the teachings will not be established. If the teachings are not established, then practitioners of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna will have no share in cultivation and realization; in such a case, who would be the deliverer, and who would be the delivered, so that capacity and teaching could be established?!

4.35

"Therefore, Mahāmati, a bodhisattva-mahāsattva should not be attached to speech, but should widely expound the sūtras and dharmas through appropriate expedient means. Because the hopes and afflictions of sentient beings are not uniform, I and all the Buddhas preach the various dharmas for those sentient beings of diverse understandings in order to cause them to be free from mind, intellect, and mental consciousness, not to reach the place of pratyātmāryajñāna."

4.36

The Dharma indeed cannot be left unspoken; yet if one attaches to speech, it becomes another illness. Hence he cautions: 'should not be attached to speech.' However, expounding through appropriate expedient means is because sentient beings have different capacities and inclinations, and their afflictions are not uniform; I and all the Buddhas teach like this. Yet the capacities addressed here are indeed not yet those who wish to attain the realm of pratyātmāryajñāna; whenever they can be freed from the vikalpa of the mind and consciousnesses, he preaches for them.

4.37

"Mahāmati, regarding the nonexistence of all dharmas, awakening to cittadṛśyamātra, and being free from the two kinds of vikalpa, bodhisattva-mahāsattvas rely on the meaning and do not rely on the letters. If a good man or good woman relies on letters, they destroy the paramārtha for themselves and are also unable to awaken others; falling into the continuum of pernicious views, they preach to the assembly, not skillfully understanding all dharmas, all stages, and all marks, nor understanding sections and phrases. If one is skilled in all dharmas, all stages, and all marks, thoroughly penetrates sections and phrases, and is complete in nature and meaning, then one can delight oneself with the joy of right signlessness, and establish sentient beings in the equal Mahāyāna."

4.38

Regarding 'the nonexistence of all dharmas,' and so forth, the Ru Lengqie says: 'Causing them to know that all dharmas are the appearances of their own minds, without external realms, free from the two kinds of vikalpa of preaching and that which is preached.' Then he admonishes learners, saying: 'One should rely on the meaning and not rely on the letters.' If one relies on letters, it damages the meaning; how could one enable others to gain benefit? Regarding 'falling into the continuum of pernicious views,' and so forth: this means that one continually clings to speech and preaches to others, which is failing to skillfully understand all the teachings, stages, abidings, and marks of cause and effect, as well as sections, passages, and the meaning of sentences. If one skillfully understands these various meanings, one will be able to delight in signlessness and cause all sentient beings to abide peacefully in the equal Mahāyāna.

4.39

"Mahāmati, one who embraces the Mahāyāna embraces the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and śrāvakas. One who embraces the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and śrāvakas embraces all sentient beings. One who embraces all sentient beings embraces the true Dharma. One who embraces the true Dharma ensures that the lineage of the Buddha is not severed. When the lineage of the Buddha is not severed, one can understand and attain the supreme entering-place. Knowing and attaining the supreme entering-place, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is constantly able to manifest apparitional births, establish the Mahāyāna, manifest various forms and bodily images through the ten powers of mastery, thoroughly comprehend the species, hopes, and afflictions of sentient beings, and preach the Dharma in accordance with reality. 'In accordance with reality' means without difference; 'in accordance with reality' means the mark of neither coming nor going, the cessation of all falsity—this is called 'in accordance with reality.' Mahāmati, a good man or good woman should not embrace adherence according to the literal word, because the real is free from letters."

4.40

This follows upon the preceding text: if one embraces the teaching of the Mahāyāna, then none among ordinary beings and sages are not embraced. Thus it becomes the true Dharma, becomes the lineage of the Buddha, becomes supreme, and enters the sacred place of one's own realization. Having attained entry, one can activate function to transform others, establish the Mahāyāna, manifest forms according to their types through the ten powers and fearlessnesses, console their longings, extinguish their afflictions, and expound the Dharma that is in accordance with reality. This Dharma that is in accordance with reality has no distinct appellations and transcends the marks of coming and going; all proliferation of conceptual elaboration is extinguished. However, although this Dharma that is in accordance with reality is the Mahāyāna, one should not adhere to it according to the literal word, for being free from letters is called the real.

4.41

"Mahāmati, it is like pointing at an object with a finger for a fool: the fool looks at the finger and fails to grasp the real meaning. In this way, fools follow the finger of speech, grasping and clinging to it to the very end without letting go, and ultimately are unable to attain the primary real meaning that is free from the finger of speech. Mahāmati, it is like an infant who should eat cooked food and should not eat raw food; if it eats raw food, it will be driven mad, because it does not know the gradual expedient means of cooking. Mahāmati, in this way, unarisen and unceasing, if one does not cultivate expedient means, it will be unwholesome. Therefore, you should skillfully cultivate expedient means and not follow speech, like the tip of this finger."

4.42

Here, two similes are used to show the marks of gain and loss. The first is the simile of pointing at an object with a finger, which illustrates speech and real meaning. The second is the simile of an infant eating cooked food, which illustrates the practice of expedient means. Both have gain and loss, and their principle is clear. Stagnating in speech loses the primary real meaning, just like merely looking at the finger without looking at the object. Failing to skillfully cultivate expedient means fails to accord with the principle of non-arising and non-ceasing, just like an infant eating raw food instead of cooked food; in such a case, how rare it would be not to be driven mad! Therefore, he cautions again: 'Skillfully cultivate expedient means and do not follow speech.'

4.43

"Therefore, Mahāmati, one should cultivate expedient means regarding the real meaning. The real meaning is subtle and quiescent, and is the cause of nirvāṇa. Speech unites with vikalpa; vikalpa gathers saṃsāra. Mahāmati, the real meaning is obtained from one of wide learning. Mahāmati, 'one of wide learning' means one who is skilled in the meaning, not one who is skilled in speech. One who is skilled in the meaning does not follow the sūtras and treatises of any tīrthika; they themselves do not follow them, nor do they cause others to follow them. This is called a venerable one of wide learning. Therefore, one who seeks the meaning should draw near to one of wide learning, that is, one who is skilled in the meaning. One should stay far away from what is contrary to this, clinging to speech."

4.44

The meaning of the real meaning is free from the mark of speech; hence it is said to be 'subtle and quiescent.' When this principle is manifested, it is the fruition of nirvāṇa; before it is manifested, it is called the cause. If one clings to speech and does not comprehend the real meaning, then it conjoins with vikalpa to become the cause of saṃsāra. Yet this real meaning must be attained through the wisdom gained from hearing. Furthermore, 'skilled in the meaning' means not merely wide learning, but essentially forgetting words to grasp the meaning. If one forms views by following words, how is that different from tīrthikas? Because one who is skilled in the meaning is not misled by external doctrines oneself nor leads others astray, such a person is a venerable one of wide learning. Therefore, those who study the Mahāyāna must draw near to venerable ones; otherwise, not being skilled in the meaning, they will fall into speech. Hence he admonishes and encourages once again.

4.45

At that time, Mahāmati Bodhisattva, again relying on the Buddha's spiritual power, said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! The World-Honoured One's revelation of non-arising and non-ceasing has nothing extraordinary about it. Why is this? The causes of all tīrthikas are also non-arising and non-ceasing; the World-Honoured One also speaks of space, cessation not through deliberation, and the realm of nirvāṇa as non-arising and non-ceasing. World-Honoured One, the tīrthikas speak of a cause that produces all worlds; the World-Honoured One also speaks of ignorance, craving, karma, and vikalpa as conditions that produce all worlds. Their 'cause' and this 'condition' differ in name only. It is also like this with the causes and conditions of external objects; the World-Honoured One's doctrine has no distinction from the treatises of tīrthikas. Atoms, Pradhāna, Īśvara, Prajāpati, and so forth—these nine entities are non-arising and non-ceasing; the World-Honoured One also speaks of all natures being non-arising and non-ceasing, and existence and nonexistence being unobtainable. The tīrthikas also say that the four great elements are indestructible, that their svabhāva is non-arising and non-ceasing, that the four great elements are permanent, and that these four great elements even circulate through the realms of existence without forsaking their svabhāva; what the World-Honoured One teaches is also like this. For this reason, I say there is nothing extraordinary. I only pray that the World-Honoured One will explain the difference, the reason why it is extraordinary and excels all tīrthikas. If there is no difference, then all tīrthikas are also Buddhas, because of non-arising and non-ceasing. Yet the World-Honoured One says that there cannot possibly be multiple Buddhas appearing in one world; but according to what was just said, there should be multiple Buddhas in one world, because there is no difference."

4.46

The above discussion of non-arising and non-ceasing spoke directly in terms of the correct teaching, but did not yet distinguish how it differs from tīrthikas; therefore, Mahāmati again poses questions about similarity and difference. In total there are four challenges: First, challenging by comparing the causes of producing dharmas taught by tīrthikas with the three unconditioned dharmas taught by the Buddha. 'Space' is unconditioned space; 'cessation not through deliberation' is apratisaṃkhyānirodha; 'unconditioned nirvāṇa' is pratisaṃkhyānirodha. Second, challenging by comparing their productive causes with the twelvefold dependent origination taught by the Buddha. Third, challenging by comparing their production through atoms and the like with the Buddha's teaching that all natures are non-arising and non-ceasing. The 'nine entities' are: first, time; second, direction; third, space; fourth, atoms; fifth, the four great elements; sixth, Mahābrahmā; seventh, the Heaven of Excellence; eighth, Maheśvara; ninth, Prajāpati, which is the puruṣa. Fourth, challenging by comparing their assertion of the four great elements with the four great elements spoken of by the World-Honoured One. All of these equate the tīrthika teachings with the Buddha's teachings, as can be seen from the text.

4.47

The Buddha told Mahāmati: "My speaking of non-arising and non-cessation is not the same as the tīrthikas' non-arising and non-cessation. Why is this? Those tīrthikas have svabhāva as existing, obtaining the characteristics of non-arising and non-changing; I do not fall into the categories of existence and nonexistence in this way. Mahāmati, I am free from the categories of existence and nonexistence, free from arising and cessation, neither having svabhāva nor lacking svabhāva—just as various illusions and dreams appear, therefore it is not non-existence. How is it without svabhāva? It refers to form lacking the apprehension of characteristics with svabhāva, because of appearing and not appearing, because of apprehending and not apprehending. For this reason, all svabhāvas lack svabhāva and are not non-existent; merely awakening to cittadṛśyamātra, vikalpa does not arise, one is secure and joyful, and worldly affairs are forever stilled."

4.48

In the answer, he first rebukes what is wrong and then reveals what is right. Saying that the tīrthikas have svabhāva as existing and so forth means that they say svabhāva has self-existence, just as saying the four great elements are permanent because the natures of solidity, moisture, warmth, and motion are neither destroyed nor disordered, taking this to obtain the characteristics of non-arising and non-changing; yet they also cling with the mind and falsely conceptualize, and although they speak of non-arising and non-cessation, in truth there are arising and cessation, falling into existence and nonexistence. The Buddha means: I am not like this; the non-arising and non-cessation spoken of by me is free from existence and nonexistence, arising and cessation, as well as neither existence nor nonexistence. Like illusory and dream forms appearing, it is not non-existent; because the svabhāva of form cannot be apprehended, it is not existent. Saying that form lacks the apprehension of characteristics with svabhāva means that the forms and characteristics of dreams and illusions are fundamentally not truly existent; through the vikalpa of foolish people they appear, but in truth they do not appear, and though the false mind grasps them, in truth they cannot be grasped; thus one knows that all phenomena are also neither existent nor nonexistent. If one can only awaken and comprehend that all dharmas are mind-only, and that outside the mind there are no realms, then vikalpa spontaneously ceases, one rests in the joy of nirvāṇa, and the matters of saṃsāra are forever stilled.

4.49

"Foolish ordinary people engage in affairs through vikalpa, but the noble ones do not; unreal vikalpa is like a gandharvanagara and illusory people. Mahāmati, just as in a gandharvanagara and with illusory people, various beings and merchants go out and enter, and foolish people in their vikalpa claim they truly go out and enter, yet in truth there are no goers-out or enterers, only on account of their vikalpa. In this way, Mahāmati, foolish ordinary people give rise to the delusion of non-arising and non-cessation, but they also have neither the conditioned nor the unconditioned; like the birth of an illusory person, in truth there is neither arising nor cessation, because svabhāva and lack of svabhāva are both nonexistent. All dharmas are also like this, being free from arising and cessation; foolish ordinary people fall into what is not as it truly is, giving rise to the vikalpa of arising and cessation, unlike the noble ones."

4.50

The conditioned arising and ceasing affairs of the world arise from the false mind; this is what ordinary people are deluded by, hence it is said, 'not the noble ones.' The gandharvanagara is an analogy for false realms being unreal, as is evident from the text. Saying that foolish people give rise to the delusion of non-arising and non-cessation means that their vikalpa is originally arising and ceasing, yet they falsely claim it is non-arising and non-ceasing, which is delusion. That they also have neither the conditioned nor the unconditioned means that their failure to abandon the conditioned shows they do not know the reality of arising and cessation; and having no unconditioned shows they do not know the reality of the absence of arising and cessation. Just as seeing the birth of an illusory person, where in truth there is neither arising nor cessation, all dharmas are also like this. The reason foolish people give rise to vikalpa is that they do not see the principle of things as they truly are and fall into falsehood, whereas the noble ones are not like this.

4.51

"What is not as it truly is is not like this: as with the svabhāva of things, vikalpa is also not different. If it were different from vikalpa, one would conceptualize and cling to the svabhāva of all things, not seeing quiescence. If one does not see quiescence, one will never be free from vikalpa. Therefore, Mahāmati, seeing signlessness is superior, not seeing signs. Seeing signs is not superior because it is the cause of receiving birth. Mahāmati, in signlessness, vikalpa does not arise, neither occurring nor ceasing; this I call nirvāṇa. Mahāmati, nirvāṇa is seeing in accordance with the true meaning, being free from the previous vikalpa of mind and mental factors, and attaining the Tathāgata's pratyātmāryajñāna; this I call nirvāṇa."

4.52

Regarding 'what is not as it truly is,' the *Ru Lengqie* says: 'Speaking of falsehood is not being in accord with the Dharma-nature.' 'Not like this' means not being like the noble ones. The reason the noble ones are noble ones is that they understand vikalpa is itself reality, not something distinct. Just as with those ordinary people, the vikalpa regarding the svabhāva of things and the principle of things as they truly are are fundamentally not different. If one says that the principle of things as they truly are is different from vikalpa, then one clings to the svabhāva of all dharmas and does not see the originally quiescent essence. If one does not see this essence, the emotional clingings of vikalpa can never be abandoned. Saying that seeing signlessness is superior means: since clinging to signs prevents one from seeing quiescence, wishing to see quiescence takes signlessness as superior, not seeing signs. Clinging to seeing signs is the cause of saṃsāra, hence it is not superior. Thus signlessness is freedom from vikalpa, tallying with non-arising and non-cessation, which is the ultimate nirvāṇa spoken of by the Buddha. Furthermore, saying 'nirvāṇa is seeing in accordance with the true meaning' means that before seeing nirvāṇa, the mind and mental factors of vikalpa are all left far behind, reaching the Buddha stage.

4.53

At that time, the World-Honoured One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke verses:

4.54

"Extinguishing their doctrine of arising, / I establish the meaning of non-arising. / Such Dharma as I teach / Foolish people cannot know. / All dharmas do not arise, / They lack svabhāva and are nonexistent; / Like a gandharva[nagara], an illusion, a dream, / What has svabhāva lacks a cause. / Non-arising lacks svabhāva: / Why and on what basis should emptiness be taught? / Because it is free from combination, / The nature of awareness does not appear. / Therefore, emptiness is non-arising, / And I teach the lack of svabhāva. / While each and every combination / Manifests a nature, it is not existent; / When analysed, there is no combination, / Unlike the tīrthikas' view."

4.55

'Extinguishing their doctrine of arising' means refuting the falsely conceptualized doctrines of those tīrthikas. Although the tīrthikas use words of non-arising and non-cessation, they are conceptual distinctions of vikalpa and the cause of saṃsāra; hence they are called the 'doctrine of arising.' The Buddha's teaching of non-arising and non-cessation is the true principle of the Middle Way, set in contrast to their arising; hence it is called the 'meaning of non-arising.' From 'All dharmas...' onward, he versifies neither existence nor nonexistence: just as a gandharvanagara, an illusion, and a dream, though they appear, lack a cause. 'Non-arising lacks svabhāva...' and so forth investigates this further from the above, meaning: non-arising is the lack of svabhāva, and the lack of svabhāva is emptiness; why then is it taught by me? From 'Because it is free from combination...' onward is the explanation, meaning: when free from the characteristics of combination in sense-faculties and sense-objects, the nature of awareness naturally does not appear. Non-appearance is emptiness, and emptiness is non-arising; therefore the Buddha teaches the lack of svabhāva. 'While each and every...' again explains the above meaning, as is evident from the text.

First 55 of 289 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 — Classical Chinese