大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 7.8.5

7.8.5

Regarding 'the syllable RA gateway, because all dharmas are free from all dust and defilement': in Sanskrit rajas means dust and defilement. Dust is the realm in which deluded sentiments operate; hence it is said that the six sense-faculties, such as the eye, operate upon the six dusts, such as form. If one sees the syllable RA gateway, one knows that all dharmas that can be seen, heard, touched, or cognized are marks of dust, just as a clean garment is stained by dust and dirt, or as drifting dust flutters about, making the great sky murky and the sun and moon dim. This is the mark of the syllable. In the Madhyamakaśāstra, through various gateways one closely examines the dharma of seeing, and finds no seer. If there is no seer, who can use the dharma of seeing to distinguish external forms and see what is to be seen? Because the dharma of seeing does not exist, the four dharmas of consciousness, contact, feeling, and craving do not exist either. Because there is no craving, the twelve links of dependent origination also do not exist. Therefore, when the eye sees form, that itself is the mark of nirvāṇa; the other dusts are likewise by analogy. Furthermore, examining the various dusts successively through the syllable A gateway: because they are originally unborn, because there is no making, up to because there is no dharma to be mounted and no mounter, one should know that all dharmas that can be seen, heard, touched, or cognized are the pure dharmadhātu. How could the pure dharmadhātu defile the Tathāgata's six sense-faculties? The Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra states that the Buddha's eternal eye is fully complete and unceasing, clearly seeing eternal form, and so on up to the mental faculty and dharmas being likewise. This is the true meaning of the syllable RA gateway. Regarding 'the syllable LA gateway, because all marks of all dharmas are unattainable': in Sanskrit lakṣaṇa is translated here as 'mark'. Some say that nature and mark have no distinction, just as saying 'the nature of fire' is itself the mark of heat. Others say there is a slight distinction: 'nature' speaks of its essence, and 'mark' speaks of what can be recognized; for example, a disciple of the Śākya clan receiving and observing the prohibitive precepts is their nature, while shaving the head and cutting and dying the robes are their mark. If one sees the syllable LA gateway, one knows that all dharmas possess marks. Marks are again of two kinds: the first is general marks, namely the marks of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self; specific marks means that although dharmas are impermanent and non-self, they have their respective individual marks, such as hardness for earth, wetness for water, heat for fire, and movement for wind; relinquishment is the mark of giving, lack of regret and distress is the mark of keeping precepts, an unchanging mind is the mark of patience, bringing forth diligence is the mark of vigor, gathering the mind is the mark of dhyāna, non-attachment is the mark of wisdom, being able to accomplish tasks is the mark of upāya, weaving saṃsāra is the mark of the mundane, and lack of weaving is the mark of nirvāṇa. Now, when one contemplates that the essence of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas is completely empty, to what do these marks belong as marks? This is explained in detail in the 'Chapter on the Three Marks' and the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra of the Madhyamakaśāstra. Furthermore, in the pure dharmadhātu, the various marks such as the hundred and sixty minds are originally unborn and thus have no making; because there is no making, up to being ultimately free from dust; because they are free from dust, they are free from all marks. Because they are free from all marks, this is called the saṃbodhi directly realized by all buddhas. Regarding 'the syllable VA gateway, because the path of speech is cut off for all dharmas': the Sanskrit sound vākya means speech. When one sees the syllable VA, one knows that all dharmas do not depart from the plane of speech, because there are none among these dharmas that lack causes and conditions. If a dharma is originally unborn, it is free from all causes and conditions; therefore, the path of speech is cut off. Furthermore, if a dharma has the mark of being made, it can be proclaimed; if it is unmade, the path of speech is cut off. If the mark of space were an existing mark, it could be proclaimed; because dharmas are like the mark of space and likewise have no mark, the path of speech is cut off. If a dharma has movement, alteration, or reflection, it can be proclaimed; if it has no movement, alteration, or reflection, the path of speech is cut off. Up to: if dharmas had marks, they could be proclaimed; now, because all dharmas are free from all marks, they cannot be indicated and cannot be conferred upon others; therefore, the path of speech is cut off. Furthermore, having no mark also has no fixed mark; one should know that all dharmas are markless precisely in their marks, and are neither marks nor markless, like those three eyes that are inconceivable; therefore, the path of speech is cut off. The remaining dharma-gateways can be known by analogy with this. Regarding 'the syllable ŚA gateway, because the original nature of all dharmas is quiescent': in Sanskrit śānti is translated here as 'quiescent'. For example, when ordinary mundane persons obtain a slight degree of tranquil mind and cease turbulence, this is also called quiescent; up to followers of the two vehicles eternally cutting off the cycle of conditioned actions and attaining the realization of nirvāṇa, this is also called quiescent. Yet it is not the eternally quiescent original nature. Why is this? Dharmas from the origin are eternally of themselves the mark of quiescence and extinction; which of the three realms and six destinies is not nirvāṇa? When untainted wisdom arises, how is it different from that of an ordinary person? Yet now to form a concept of extinction within it alone—how could this not be an inversion? Furthermore, if the original nature of dharmas is quiescent, among the forty-two stages, which is not the stage of the Tathāgata, and which is not the stage of an ordinary person? If Bodhisattva Maitreya, because of this quiescent original nature, received the prediction of becoming a Buddha in one lifetime, then all sentient beings should also receive the prediction. If all sentient beings, within this quiescent original nature, are not obstructed from practicing the affairs of an ordinary person, Bodhisattva Maitreya should also practice the affairs of an ordinary person. Yet now to form thoughts of distinction—how could this not be prapañca? When one enters the syllable ŚA gateway, one knows that this dharma is equal, without high or low, constantly unmoving yet with nothing it does not do; therefore it is said that within liberation much is accommodated, and great parinirvāṇa can establish great purposes—all on account of this. Regarding 'the syllable ṢA gateway, because the nature of all dharmas is blunt': if the Sanskrit text preserved the literal sense, it should say that the nature is like being insensible. 'Insensible' means being like wood or stone, without cognition, without the meaning of contact and feeling. Saying 'like' is an expression of analogy; it does not mean strictly identical to that. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra states: 'Prajñā has no knowing, because its self-nature is blunt,' which accords with the meaning of this syllable gateway. Therefore, the stylizer preserved the wording of the older translation. Now, having a blunt self-nature is precisely the mind of utter non-discrimination: neither foolish nor wise nor sagacious, without consciousness, without knowledge, without delusion, and without awareness, up to: all dharmas cannot shake it; it is simply a pure, solid vajra ground. Why is this? Because mundane people do not err in accepting and rejecting, they value wisdom and cast aside foolishness, venerate nirvāṇa and disparage saṃsāra. But now, if all alike are originally unborn, up to all alike being quiescent in their original nature, then who is sharp and who is blunt? Like that sharp vajra blade, because it confronts soft objects and because it is applied partially to one side, it is called sharp. If the place it faces were entirely vajra, its whole body being completely round and impossible to apply partially, then the mark of sharpness would return to bluntness. Regarding 'the syllable SA gateway, because all truths of all dharmas are unattainable': in Sanskrit satya is translated here as 'truth'.