首楞嚴義疏注經 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Compiled by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui

Second, directly refuting inversion to gradually clarify the true seeing, in two parts: first, temporarily facing King Prasenajit to refute his view of annihilation, in two parts: first, relating what Ānanda harboured, wishing to distinguish the true and the false.

2.3

At that time, Ānanda and the great assembly, hearing the Buddha's instruction and admonition, were at ease in body and mind. They reflected that from beginningless time they had lost their fundamental mind, falsely taking the shadow-phenomena of conceptualization based on conditioned dusts [to be their self]. Having awakened today, they were like a nursing infant suddenly meeting its compassionate mother.

2.4

They awakened to the knowledge that the mind conditioned by dusts is shadow-phenomena, and further recognized that the seeing facing objects is unmoving. Reflecting back on past days, they had mistaken the false and lost the true, drifting far in confusion difficult to understand. Fortunately encountering this fine gathering and meeting this auspicious time, now that the Dharma-milk has nourished them, like a child meeting its mother, is it not delightful?

2.5

They joined their palms and made obeisance to the Buddha, wishing to hear the Tathāgata reveal the true and false, the empty and real, of body and mind, manifesting the two illuminated natures of arising-and-ceasing and non-arising-and-non-ceasing.

2.6

The preceding text's scolding that "this is not your mind" was intended to make him recognize the false, still pointing out that all phenomena are only manifestations of mind. Here he also causes him to understand that the false which is manifested fundamentally has no self-nature, but is originally the one reality. The one reality has never shaken or moved; how have phenomena ever arisen or ceased? The Buddha's intention was for him to see the true right through the false, so he confirmed that the seeing facing objects is originally unmoving, broadly rebuking mistaking things for the self and the nature of the mind losing reality. Ānanda failed to fathom the Buddha's profound intention, assuming that the two substances of true and false are entirely distinct, and that apart from arising and ceasing there is a non-arising and non-ceasing. If it were like this, the statement "only mind" would be established in vain, and the words "false dharmas" would be spoken to no purpose; chasing words and misunderstanding the import, in the end it becomes inversion. Although harbouring doubts, he did not dare express them in words; hence it says: "joined their palms and made obeisance to the Buddha, wishing to hear...", and so forth.

2.7

Second, explaining King Prasenajit citing non-Buddhists to request verification of the unborn, in four parts: first, citing non-Buddhists to relate his doubt.

2.8

At that time, King Prasenajit stood up and said to the Buddha: "Formerly, when I had not yet received the instructions and commands of the Buddhas, I saw Kātyāyana and Vairaṭīputra, who both said: 'After this body dies, it is annihilated; this is called nirvāṇa.'"

2.9

Kātyāyana is a clan name; his personal name was Kakuda; this non-Buddhist clung to all dharmas being both existent and non-existent. Sañjaya is the personal name, and Vairaṭī is his mother's designation; this non-Buddhist gave rise to the view of spontaneity. Although the non-Buddhist doctrines are many, they do not go beyond the two views of annihilationism and eternalism. These two both belong to the category of annihilationist views; hence it says: "both said it is annihilated". These persons held perverse doctrines, not knowing that karmic seeds produce one another, and falsely claimed that after death is precisely nirvāṇa.

2.10

"Although I have encountered the Buddha, I still have fox-like doubts now. How can it be brought to light, so that I may verify and know this mind's stage of non-arising and non-ceasing? Now in this great assembly, all those with outflows wish to hear it."

2.11

The nature of a fox is full of suspicion; wherever it encounters ice, it listens for the absence of the sound of water before it walks. Formerly hearing of annihilation after death, and now hearing of non-ceasing and non-arising, he hesitates and cannot decide which is right and which is wrong, hence it is called "fox-like doubts". King Prasenajit deeply understood what Ānanda harboured, knowing that he sought non-arising and non-ceasing apart from arising and ceasing; although his mind made a secret request, his mouth did not express it in words. Therefore, he cited non-Buddhist doctrines hoping for the Buddha's instruction—closely refuting the non-Buddhists' annihilationist view to let them know of continuous rebirth after death, and deeply leading Ānanda to awaken to reality as not separate from the false consciousness of arising and ceasing; hence he says: "verify and know this mind's stage of non-arising and non-ceasing."

2.12

Second, relating the alteration and change of the body, in four parts: first, questions and answers on whether the body is permanent or impermanent.

2.13

The Buddha told the great king: "Your body is present now; I now ask you further: is this physical body of yours permanently abiding and indestructible like a vajra, or does it change and disintegrate?" "World-Honoured One! This body of mine will in the end undergo change and extinction."

2.14

The Buddha raised this question wishing to reveal that within arising and ceasing there is that which does not arise or cease, just as previously the head moved on its own while the seeing had no movement.

2.15

Second, questions and answers on knowing extinction before having been extinguished.

2.16

The Buddha said: "Great King! You have not yet been extinguished; how do you know of extinction?" "World-Honoured One! Although this impermanent, changing and disintegrating body of mine has not yet been extinguished, I observe that in the present, thought after thought shifts and wanes, afresh and afresh without abiding, gradually dissolving and perishing like fire becoming ashes, perishing and passing away without rest; I certainly know that this body will eventually undergo complete extinction."

2.17

The preceding thought ceases and the succeeding thought arises, changing in an instant; like fire burning firewood, it must eventually return to destruction. The Kośa says: "Because all conditioned dharmas have instantaneous ending."

2.18

Third, questions and answers on what appearances are like in old age and youth.

2.19

The Buddha said: "So it is. Great King! Your current age has already declined into old age; how does your facial appearance compare to when you were a youth?"

2.20

The king related that impermanence shifts and wanes thought after thought; this principle is inevitable, hence he approved it, saying, "So it is." Wishing him to further narrate the aspects of shifting and waning, he asked by comparing youth and old age. Fifteen is called a youth, not yet capped with a turban. "Age" means years.

2.21

"World-Honoured One! In the past when I was an infant and child, my skin and flesh were moist and lustrous; when I grew to adulthood, my blood and qi were abundant and full. But now my declining years press upon old age and senility; my bodily form and complexion are withered and emaciated, my mental spirit is dim and confused, my hair is white and my face wrinkled, and my remaining time will not be long. How could it be compared to the time of fullness and vigor?"

2.22

Newly born is called an infant (hai); just beginning to walk is called a child (ru). Ru means tender and weak. Skin (fu) means spread, spread upon the surface. The fine lustrous pattern of the skin is called cou. These are all characteristics of the time of childhood. Reaching adulthood refers to when one becomes a grown man, from twenty and upward to the prime of strength; hence it says: "blood and qi were abundant and full." Declining years refers to his current age of sixty-two; his years are declining and decaying, nearing seventy, hence it says: "press upon old age and senility." Youth and old age being different, how could the World-Honoured One compare them?

2.23

Fourth, questions and answers on sudden or gradual passing of years.

2.24

The Buddha said: "Great King! Your appearance surely did not decay all at once."

2.25

The preceding section recounted changes in appearance; now it questions changes across years, for it is due to changes across years that appearance changes. The phrase 'should not have decayed all at once' is intended to describe how gradual aging shifts from moment to moment.

2.26

The king said, 'World-Honoured One! Secretly shifting in transformation, I truly did not notice it; as cold and heat alternated and flowed, I gradually reached this point. Why is this? When I was twenty years old, though called young, my face and appearance had already aged compared to when I was at the beginning of ten; at thirty years of age, I had further declined compared to twenty; now at sixty, and two years past that, when I look back on when I was fifty, I seemed quite strong and robust. World-Honoured One! I see this secret shifting: though there is this demise and decline, the transitions in between may be demarcated by intervals of ten years.'

2.27

Taking ten years as the interval is contemplating coarse characteristics. 'Demise' (cu) means going. 'Decline' (luo) is like not abiding. Youth and strength do not abide; they go and do not halt; hence he speaks of 'demise and decline,' flowing, transforming, changing, and altering.

2.28

'If, furthermore, you make me reflect with fine subtlety, how could its transformation be merely after one or two periods of twelve years? It is truly a change year by year.'

2.29

This takes one year as the interval: changing and altering year by year, how could it be limited to ten years? Twelve years is called a period (ji).

2.30

'How could it only be changing year by year? It also involves transforming month by month.'

2.31

This takes one month as the interval: month after month is different; it is not solely in terms of years.

2.32

'Why merely transforming month by month? It also shifts day by day.'

2.33

'Why merely' is like saying not only. This takes one day as the interval: day after day it alters and transforms, not only in terms of months. The above contemplation of the characteristics of impermanence across four intervals, from wide to narrow, is still coarse and superficial, not yet subtle.

2.34

'Contemplating deeply and observing attentively, across kṣaṇa after kṣaṇa and thought-moment after thought-moment, it cannot be halted; therefore I know that my body will ultimately undergo transformation and extinction.'

2.35

This is contemplation down to the ultimate subtlety. If one quietens one's thought and attentively observes, then without stopping for a kṣaṇa, from thought-moment to thought-moment it flows and transforms; this is the subtle four characteristics shifting and flowing without rest. Ordinary beings have coarse minds and are utterly unaware of it. A verse by an ancient master of virtue says: 'As a single eyelash / Placed on the palm is not noticed, / If placed upon the eye / It causes extreme distress and harm; / An ignorant person is like the palm of the hand, / Unaware of the shifting suffering of conditioning; / A wise person is like the eye, / Distressed to the utmost, giving rise to revulsion.' As for the term kṣaṇa, it is the minimal unit of time. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya states: 'The minimal unit of time is named a kṣaṇa; the maximum unit of time is named a kalpa; up to years and months, all are divisions of time.' It also says: 'One hundred and twenty kṣaṇas make one tatkṣaṇa; sixty tatkṣaṇas make one lava; thirty lavas make one muhūrta; thirty muhūrtas make one day and night; thirty days and nights make one month; twelve months make one year; twelve years make one cycle (ji).' The earlier demarcation by ten years was simply taking a round number for a cycle.

2.36

3. Revealing the nature as non-extinguishing, in three parts: 1. The Buddha asks about the non-extinguishing, and the king answers that he does not know.

2.37

The Buddha told the great king, 'You see changes and alterations occurring without rest, and realize and know that you will perish; yet at the time of perishing, do you know whether there is that within your body which does not perish?' King Prasenajit pressed his palms together and addressed the Buddha, 'I truly do not know.'

2.38

The coarse characteristics of arising and ceasing can be known as described above; the nature of non-arising and non-ceasing is also within your body—do you know it or not? King Prasenajit had brought up external [views] to express his doubt, wanting the World-Honoured One to clearly reveal it; now, receiving the Buddha's question, he answers that he does not know.

2.39

2. Promising to reveal non-arising and extensively discerning non-alteration. Below, the seeing of the river from the king's childhood to his adulthood is taken to clarify the nature of seeing, with the intention of showing that right within arising and ceasing one realizes non-arising and non-ceasing; though the characteristics are coarse and close at hand, the purport is profound and subtle. On the one hand, it causes King Prasenajit to verify the coarse characteristics and awaken to discarding one life to proceed to another; on the other hand, it causes Ānanda to give rise to deep understanding and know that extinction is fundamentally non-extinction. Revealing the nature through characteristics is secretly discussed here. The head moving of itself while the seeing has no movement is this meaning. The Vimalakīrti says: 'As I contemplate the real characteristic of my own body, so too I contemplate the Buddha.' Master Sengzhao took the myriad things as themselves not shifting; how could this apply only to seeing? Below, in the Buddha's reply to Mañjuśrī and at the beginning of the text integrating the three categories, he clearly integrates them, and only then is this meaning manifested. The text has two parts: 1. Promising to reveal non-arising.

2.40

The Buddha said, 'I shall now reveal to you the nature of non-arising and non-ceasing.'

2.41

Promising to reveal the principle of non-arising right at the time of arising and ceasing.

2.42

2. Interrogating and extensively discerning, in three parts: 1. Question and answer on the beginning of seeing the river.

2.43

'Great King! At what age did you see the water of the Ganges?' The king said, 'When I was three years old, my compassionate mother took me to pay respects to the deity Jīva; passing by this stream, I knew at that time that it was the water of the Ganges.'

2.44

Jīva is translated here as 'life.' The custom in Western regions is to worship a deva of longevity; when a child is born and reaches three years of age, they visit that shrine to give thanks for having obtained the child. Inquiring about seeing in terms of years here is intended to clarify that while years change, seeing does not change.

2.45

2. Question and answer on the sameness and difference of seeing the river.

2.46

The Buddha said, 'Great King! As you have said, at twenty you declined compared to ten, and so on up to sixty, with months, days, years, and seasons shifting and changing from moment to moment; then when you were three years old and saw this river, compared to when you were thirteen, how was its water?' The king said, 'It was just as when I was three years old, with no difference at all, and even up to now at sixty-two years of age, there is no difference.'

2.47

The words 'no difference' are very worthy of contemplation: at first glance they seem coarse and superficial, but upon second thought they possess a profound import.

2.48

3. Question and answer on whether seeing has youth and decrepitude.

2.49

The Buddha said, 'Now you lament that your hair is white and your face wrinkled; your face must surely be more wrinkled than in childhood. Then does your seeing when you contemplate this Ganges now, compared with your seeing when contemplating the river in childhood, have youth and decrepitude?' The king said, 'No, World-Honoured One!'

2.50

The coarse characteristics of the physical body's youth and decrepitude are easy to know, but the non-shifting of the nature of seeing is truly difficult to realize. Discerning differences in contrast to this causes him to awaken to non-arising.

2.51

3. Directly pointing to the permanent nature and reproaching his harboured doubt.

2.52

The Buddha said, 'Great King! Although your face is wrinkled, the nature of this essence of seeing has never wrinkled. That which wrinkles undergoes change; that which does not wrinkle is free of change. That which changes undergoes extinction; that which does not change fundamentally has no arising or ceasing—how could it undergo your birth and death within it?'

2.53

This directly points to the permanent nature. Arising and ceasing shift only the conditioned; the unconditioned does not undergo birth and death. If one knows what does not change, one sees non-arising.

2.54

'Yet why do you still cite those such as Maskarī [Gośālīputra], who entirely declare that after this body dies, it is completely extinguished?'

2.55

Reproaching his harboured doubt. Maskarī is his personal name; his mother was named Gośālī. This points to one different from those cited by King Prasenajit, but all are non-Buddhists, so he points to him generally. The transformation of the physical body can be said to be impermanent, but the non-shifting of the nature of seeing is, in principle, not annihilation.

2.56

4. Faith, awakening, and continuation of life.

2.57

Hearing these words, the king believed and knew that after the body [dies] he would discard one life and proceed to another; together with the great assembly, he leaped for joy and attained what had never been before.

2.58

This recounts his shallow awakening, merely stating that he would discard one life and proceed to another; if one probes its profound meaning, he must have known that extinction is fundamentally non-extinction. He understood according to what was appropriate; host and retinue attained the same purport, but he did not express it explicitly at once.

2.59

2. Directly addressing Ānanda to refute his view of permanence, in two parts: 1. Ānanda takes occasion of the contradiction to raise a question.

2.60

Ānanda immediately arose from his seat, paid homage to the Buddha with pressed palms, knelt on both knees, and addressed the Buddha, 'World-Honoured One! If this seeing and hearing are necessarily non-arising and non-ceasing, why did the World-Honoured One say that our sort has lost our true nature and acts in an inverted manner? We pray that you will give rise to compassion and wash away our dust and defilement.'

2.61

Based on this, the seeing of the river does not differ from my seeing and hearing; for the king you say it is non-ceasing and non-arising, while for me you say I have lost my true nature. Between the king and me, who is close and who is distant? If they are indeed different paths, how are they to be distinguished? Yet the intention behind this question has a long history: it began with the hand opening and closing of itself while seeing has no opening and closing, and the head moving of itself while seeing has no movement, every one of which the Buddha sealed as 'thus.' In this, the Tathāgata caused one to discern true seeing right within false seeing, without there being a non-arising and non-ceasing separate from arising and ceasing. Ānanda did not comprehend the Buddha's purport and still thought arising and ceasing were distinct from non-arising and non-ceasing; thereupon, pressing his palms together and paying homage to the Buddha, he wished to hear the Tathāgata reveal before them the true and the false, the unreal and the real of body and mind, illuminating the two natures of arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing. King Prasenajit, knowing what he harboured, yet did not raise a question to extend his sincerity; thereupon he cited the six non-Buddhist teachers holding that after the body dies it is annihilated, hoping that the Buddha would personally explain, discerning the true right within the false, and reproaching and guiding Ānanda not to grasp at the two as distinct. As an ancient Buddha, how could Ānanda not understand this? It was because for the sake of those today whose confusion is heavy and attachments are deep, he had to display bewilderment and firmly present objections; hence this question.

2.62

2. The Tathāgata tests and refutes his clinging disposition, in three parts: 1. Testing to reveal the inverted disposition, in two parts: 1. Lowering the hand to question and elicit ordinary sentiments, in four parts: 1. Question.

2.63

At that moment, the Tathāgata lowered his golden arm, pointing his wheel-[marked] hand downward, and showed it to Ānanda, saying, 'Do you now see my mudrā-hand as upright or inverted?'

2.64

'Pointing downward' means the fingers point down. Mudrā is translated here as 'seal.' The intention here is to clarify that seeing the hand differs in being upright or inverted, in order to illustrate that seeing also has upright and inverted.

2.65

2. Answer.

2.66

Ānanda said, 'Living beings of the world regard this as inverted, but I do not know which is upright and which is inverted.'

2.67

This defers to the worldly people regarding this as inverted, whereas I do not know how it is.

2.68

3. Interrogation.

2.69

The Buddha told Ānanda, 'If worldly people take this as inverted, what do worldly people take to be upright?'

2.70

If lowering the hand is taken as inverted, what then would be taken as upright?

2.71

4. Explanation.

2.72

Ānanda said, 'When the Tathāgata erects his arm, with his cotton-soft hand pointing upward toward space, that is called upright.'

2.73

Erecting the hand is inverted, yet he considers it upright; because it does not follow the natural position of the body, this is inverted. Ānanda does not distinguish the true from the false, clinging to the false and losing the true; hence the Tathāgata reproaches him for acting in an inverted manner. Having realized that the false fundamentally has no essence, one should know that the true is inherently quiescent; hence he acknowledged that the seeing confronting the head's movement and the nature observing the river are themselves the true nature, with no separate true. Ānanda, failing to understand as before, thought there was a true outside the false, and so was unwilling to accept that I am an inverted person while the king has the nature of non-arising. Since Ānanda presented a contentious question, the Tathāgata tested him in terms of concrete facts; failing to distinguish contrary and accordant conditions, it is difficult to escape the inverted disposition. The text below immediately refutes it.

2.74

2. Erecting the arm to demonstrate, drawing a comparison to reveal inverted views.

2.75

The Buddha then erected his arm and told Ānanda, 'If this inversion is a reversal of top and bottom, all worldly people double their gaze.'

2.76

Since he said erecting the arm is upright, the Buddha then erected his arm and immediately reproached him: this is precisely inverted. The fingers fundamentally hang down; now they point upward conversely; hence he speaks of 'a reversal of top and bottom.' Worldly people do not rely on the fundamental state to take upright as upright, but generate aberrant views to take inverted as upright; hence he says they 'double their gaze.'

2.77

'Then know that when your body is compared and illuminated alongside the pure dharmakāya of the tathāgatas, the body of a Tathāgata is named Right and Universal Knowledge, while the bodies of your sort are designated as of an inverted nature.'

2.78

If tested by this, then know that when your body is compared and paralleled with the Tathāgata's body, revealing and demonstrating them, the Buddha's body is upright, and your body must be inverted. Alternatively, it can be read: if the Buddha's body is analogously revealed through the Buddha's seeing the hand, one clearly knows the Buddha's body is named Right and Universal Knowledge; if your body is compared alongside your seeing the hand, one clearly knows your body is designated as of an inverted nature. How are you not acting in an inverted manner? 'Right and Universal Knowledge' (samyak-saṃbuddha): separated from inversion, it is named 'right'; exhaustively fathoming the dharmadhātu, it is named 'universal knowledge.' Ordinary beings and those of the two vehicles do not have this designation because all are inverted.

2.79

2. Interrogating the locus of inversion, in two parts: 1. Interrogating where inversion resides.

2.80

'According to your attentive observation of your body and the Buddha's body, where is the locus named inversion, by virtue of which you are called inverted?'

2.81

"Following" (隨) means to allow or let. Let your mind carefully examine and observe: if the Buddha is inverted, where in what you designate as the Buddha's body is it inverted? If you are inverted, where in what you designate as your own body is it termed inverted? This is to make him recognize where inversion lies. "Designate" (名字, here read in the departing tone) means to name or label. Ancient commentators interpreted this as an annihilation of characteristics (泯相), which caused the subsequent text's direct analysis of inversion to lose its coherence, becoming an isolated passage. Since upright and inverted would both be eliminated, why would the Tathāgata nevertheless speak of inversion? Students should examine this closely and not uncritically extol the ancients.

2.82

2. Recounting their bewildered ignorance.

2.83

"At that time, Ānanda and the great assembly stared blankly and gazed at the Buddha without blinking, not knowing where the inversion of body and mind lay."

2.84

"Stared blankly" (瞪): the appearance of looking straight ahead. "Bewildered" (瞢): dim, muddled, and failing to understand. Hearing the interrogation regarding where inversion lies, they were bewildered and failed to understand; unable to utter a single word, they only knew to stare straight at the Buddha.

2.85

3. Broadly revealing the characteristics of inversion, in two parts: 1. Giving rise to compassion, speaking to them, and recounting his habitual teaching.

2.86

"The Buddha gave rise to kindness and compassion, pitying Ānanda and the great assembly. Emitting the sound of an ocean tide, he addressed the entire assembly: 'Good sons! I have constantly taught that form, mind, and all conditions, as well as the mental factors and all conditioned dharmas, are only manifestations of mind.'"

2.87

The heavenly drum has no thought, yet sounds in accordance with persons; the ocean tide has no intention, yet unfailingly keeps its time. This represents compassion without conditions (anālambana-karuṇā), which responds to capacity and speaks without waiting to be requested. "Form" refers to the eleven kinds of form. "Mind" refers to the eight consciousness mind-kings. "All conditions" refers generally to form and mind, or specifically to the dharmas non-concomitant with mind. "Mental factors" refers to the fifty-one mental factors. "All conditioned dharmas" refers to the six unconditioned dharmas. These five categories comprising the one hundred dharmas encompass all dharmas completely; all are manifested from the true mind, just as a mirror manifests images—never separate from the mirror and devoid of any graspable substance.

2.88

Question: The first five unconditioned dharmas are conventional in both name and substance; like the previous dharmas, they are devoid of substance, like shadows. The unconditioned dharma of tathatā is conventional in name but real in substance, serving as the nature of all dharmas; why say it is devoid of substance like an image? Answer: The tathatā spoken of in this school is still established in opposition to delusion. Since it is due to mutual opposition, it still constitutes a delusive dharma. As the sūtra below says: 'Speaking of delusion reveals all truths; delusion and truth are equally two delusions.' It also says: 'The unconditioned has no arising or ceasing; unreal, like flowers in space.' The Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment says: 'From perfect enlightenment flow forth all pure tathatā, bodhi, nirvāṇa, and so forth.' Therefore, the dharmas of the five categories are only manifestations of the mind, and all are identical to images.

2.89

2. Revealing the real and showing the false, rebuking their inverted sentiments, in two parts: 1. Explaining and resolving deluded sentiments based on dharmas, in five parts: 1. Indicating and pointing out.

2.90

"'Your body and your mind are all things manifested within the wondrously bright, truly pure, wondrous mind.'"

2.91

The mind manifests body and mind just as a mirror manifests objects: the object is not the mirror, because the substance of the object is insubstantial; the mirror is not the object, because the substance of the mirror is real. Once the insubstantial and the real have been distinguished, inversion can from this be recognized.

2.92

2. Reproaching their loss.

2.93

"'Why do you lose your fundamentally wondrous, completely wondrous bright mind and precious bright wondrous nature, taking delusion within enlightenment [to be real]?'"

2.94

Mind is indeed nature. Its substance is all-pervasive, hence "complete" (圓); it is without obscurity, hence "bright" (明); it possesses dharmas worthy of veneration, hence it is named "precious" (寶); it is originally so from the start and not just newly arisen now, hence it is called "fundamental" (本). The path of words is cut off and the locus of mental activity is extinguished, hence it is called "wondrous" (妙). He praises and extols it repeatedly, hence he reiterates the words. "Enlightenment" (悟) is indeed awakening (覺), the completely bright nature. "Delusion" (迷) is indeed non-awakening, the false body and mind. Non-awakening residing in awakening is like an image residing in a mirror; the insubstantial and the real can be distinguished. Now abandoning the mirror-like fundamental nature and clinging to the image-like body and mind, failing to distinguish between the insubstantial and the real—this is a great loss. Thus it says: "taking delusion within enlightenment [to be real]." What was previously called "where is it named inverted?" now precisely points out the locus of this inversion.

2.95

3. Recounting the delusion.

2.96

"'Dimness and obscurity become space; within space's dimness and darkness, dark forms solidify into matter; matter mixes with false thinking, and the forms of thought become the body. Gathering conditions and churning within, it races outward in headlong flight.'"

2.97

The substance of avidyā is dark, hence it says "dimness and obscurity." Within there is avidyā, and outwardly it manifests the characteristic of space; hence it says "become space." This is the initial kalpa turbidity. A later passage says: "From delusion and falsity there is empty space." It also says: "You see empty space pervading the realms of the ten directions; space and seeing are not distinguished, having space without substance, having seeing without awareness; their intertwining falsely forms it, which is the first layer, named kalpa turbidity." These are the aspects of karma and transformation among the three subtle marks, also termed sameness and difference, or movement and stillness. Because this movement and stillness are mutually dependent, within the darkness of these two aspects they solidify into physical form—that is, the bodily faculties and the vessel world. Once physical form has appeared, thinking abides within it; form and thinking mix together: where there is perception, it forms the bodily faculties; where thinking settles and congeals, that is the vessel world. This is the third, the mark of manifestation. Because there are the conditions of objective realms, they stimulate coarse consciousness, which discriminates thought after thought in unbroken continuity; hence it says "gathering conditions and churning within," which refers to the first two coarse marks. Due to the unbroken permeation of continuous thoughts, separation ensues, seizing the characteristics of the six sense dusts and flowing ceaselessly; hence it says "races outward in headlong flight," which refers to the latter two coarse marks, the consciousness of separation. From subtle to manifest, the three subtle marks and four coarse marks constitute the path of defilements, culminating here.

2.98

4. Revealing their clinging.

2.99

"'Taking the turbidly agitated appearance to be the nature of mind, once deluded into taking it as the mind, they decisively mistake it to be inside the physical body.'"

2.100

Worldly people do not know that it is fundamentally the progressive coarse movement of avidyā; taking this turbid and agitated appearance to be the true nature of mind, once they adhere to this delusion, they decisively never change it. They say, "My mind is within the physical body," thereby giving rise to the distinction between sentient and insentient, and the difference between possessing nature and lacking nature, taking the false mind to be the Buddha-mind—what a base view!

2.101

5. Concluding the delusion.

2.102

"'Not knowing that the physical body, outward to the mountains, rivers, empty space, and the great earth, are all things within the wondrously bright true mind.'"

2.103

The bodily faculties and seeds belong to the internal: being conditioned, they are grasped and sustained. The mountains, rivers, and great earth belong to the external: they are merely conditioned, not grasped and sustained. These three spheres are all the objective division (nimitta-bhāga) of the ālayavijñāna. Furthermore, this sphere of space arises from delusion and falsity, being transformed by consciousness; the consciousness that transforms is entirely avidyā, arising through delusion regarding reality, and likewise has no self-substance. The transforming [consciousness] and the transformed [realms] are both images manifested by the mirror-mind. Therefore, the earlier text says: "Your body and your mind are all things manifested within the true mind." Not knowing this principle, they instead cling to the idea that "my mind is within the physical body." Hence this concludes and demonstrates it.

2.104

2. Concluding and pointing out the characteristics of inversion based on an analogy.

2.105

"'It is like abandoning hundreds of thousands of clear and still great seas, and only recognizing a single floating bubble, designating it as the entire tide and exhausting the vast oceans.'"

2.106

The tathāgatagarbha has four meanings, hence it is compared to the sea: forever transcending the hundred negations, like the sea is extremely deep; containing the myriad existents, like the sea is vast; devoid of any virtue it does not possess, like the sea has precious gems; devoid of any dharma it does not manifest, like the sea manifests images. Its substance is serene and still, not associated with defiled falsity; hence it says "clear and still," which is the former meaning of extreme depth. "Hundreds of thousands" is the former meaning of vastness. Not recognizing that it is the originally pure substance, it therefore says "abandoning it." Only taking the turbidly agitated appearance to be the nature of mind, it therefore says "only recognizing," and so forth. "Entire tide," "great ocean," and "seas" are all different names for the sea.

2.107

"'You are precisely the doubled among the deluded, no different from my lowering my hand. The Tathāgata calls you pitiable.'"

2.108

This draws a parallel with what preceded and points it out. Abandoning the great sea is one delusion; recognizing the bubble as the sea is a doubled delusion. Lowering the hand is upright, yet clinging to it as inverted is one delusion; raising the hand is inverted, yet recognizing it as upright is a doubled delusion. Earlier he adduced an event to test [them]; later he cited an analogy to illustrate it; in between he used dharmas to compare back and forth, directly pointing out the characteristics of inversion, brilliantly clear. How could one claim that this is the annihilation of characteristics? Let the wise examine this carefully.

2.109

3. Broadly relying on conditioning dusts to directly reveal true seeing. In the previous text, by referring to the hand and observing the river, it showed that seeing is unborn; while its appearance was shallow, its intent was deep, yet it remained hidden and not fully explicit, and was not called directly revealing—hence the outline called it "gradually clarifying through coarse discussion." From here onward, it broadly confronts the conditioning dusts, demolishes names and characteristics, and reveals that this nature of seeing does not fall into conceptual proliferations (prapañca). Thereafter, passage by passage, it harmonizes and unifies them, enabling one to know that all dharmas are false and originally non-existent, being solely the wondrous, pure, bright substance of bodhi. Clearly and distinctly revealed, it is therefore called "directly revealing true seeing." The text has four parts: 1. Revealing that the conditioning mind is not the nature, in two parts: 1. Ānanda recounts his awakening and expresses his doubt, in two parts: 1. Recounting his awakening.

2.110

Ānanda, receiving the Buddha's compassionate salvation and profound instruction, wept tears, clasped his hands, and addressed the Buddha: "Although I have received such wondrous sounds from the Buddha, and have awakened to the wondrously bright mind as originally complete, the permanently abiding ground of mind—"

2.111

Because the Buddha broadly revealed inversion and brought forth the true mind, from the sounds of speech that express, he awakened to the ground of mind that is expressed.

2.112

2. Expressing his doubt.

2.113

"—yet my awakening to the sound of the Dharma the Buddha now speaks is presently through the conditioning mind that respectfully looks up in admiration. Having merely obtained this mind, I do not yet dare to recognize it as the original ground of mind. May the Buddha take pity, proclaim the complete sound, pull out the root of my doubts, and return me to the unsurpassed path."

2.114

The Buddha expresses this true nature through the sounds of words, and now my comprehension is again the conditioning mind. What is the difference between the true nature that is awakened to and the conditioning mind that awakens, and the Tathāgata's earlier reproach: 'Just as you now listen to my Dharma, this is having discrimination because of sound'? Therefore, he does not dare recognize it as the ground of mind. The mind has the capacity to produce and can be relied upon, which is compared to the ground. "Complete sound" refers to how every word of the Buddha completely reaches all realms of sentient beings, while its sounds and tones are never confused, as explained in the Commentary on the Awakening of Faith.

2.115

2. The Tathāgata reveals and explains by drawing on an analogy, in two parts: 1. Decisively pointing out his error.

2.116

The Buddha told Ānanda: "You still listen to the Dharma with a conditioning mind; this Dharma is also conditioned, not an attainment of the nature of dharmas."

2.117

There is discrimination because of sound, and this discriminative nature is subject to arising and ceasing. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: 'Do not speak the Dharma of true reality with a mind that arises and ceases.' If speaking is impermissible, how could listening be permissible? A conditioning mind merely conditions words and letters, hence it says "not an attainment of the nature of dharmas." If one can forget conceptualizations and accord with the Dao, leave behind the marks of subject and object, not give rise to a single thought, and cut through past and future limits, this can be called truly attaining the nature of dharmas.

2.118

2. Analogy revealing the error, in two parts: 1. Clinging to the finger and losing the moon, rebuking recognition of that which expresses, in two parts: 1. Analogy, in two parts: 1. Delusion regarding both finger and moon.

2.119

"'Just as a person uses a finger to point at the moon to show someone, that person should look at the moon by means of the finger. If he instead looks at the finger and takes it to be the substance of the moon, this person not only loses the disc of the moon, but also loses his finger. Why? Because he takes the pointing finger to be the bright moon.'"

2.120

The finger is an analogy for the verbal teaching that expresses (vācaka); the moon is an analogy for the true principle that is expressed (vācya). If one wishes to see the moon, one must forget the finger in order to view it. If one wishes to see the nature, one must forget words in order to embody it. If one cannot forget words, how can one see the nature? If one cannot leave behind the finger, how can one recognize the moon's disc? The Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment says: 'The sūtra teachings are like a finger pointing at the moon; if one sees the moon, one completely knows that what points is ultimately not the moon. All the various spoken teachings of the Tathāgatas to instruct the bodhisattvas are also like this.' Being deluded regarding both finger and moon, and losing both the expression and the intent, is clearly visible in the text.

2.121

2. Losing both light and darkness.

2.122

"'Not only does he lose the finger, he also does not recognize light and darkness. Why? Because he takes the substance of the finger to be the light of the moon, having no understanding of the two natures of light and darkness.'"

2.123

The verbal teachings belong to the conditioned; being morally neutral (avyākṛta), they are dark. The true principle belongs to the unconditioned; being good by nature, it is bright. The analogy is easily understood.

2.124

2. Application.

2.125

"'You are also like this.'"

2.126

Fitting the doctrine to the metaphor is as distinguished above. [This is] the first [subdivision]: 'The guest departs while the host remains, reproving stagnation in conditions and thought,' which has two [parts]: first, deducing in accordance [with reason] the possession of an essence by reference to doctrine and metaphor, which has three [subdivisions]: first, the doctrine.

2.127

"If your mind were [merely] that which discriminates the sound of my teaching the Dharma, then this mind, even apart from the discriminated sound, should naturally possess a discriminating nature."

2.128

If the discriminating mind arises because the Buddha expounds the Dharma, this discriminating mind originally lacks self-nature; therefore it belongs to conditioned dust. Following the presence or absence of the dust, it is not permanently abiding; it is merely like the guest.

2.129

Second, the metaphor.

2.130

"It is like a guest lodging temporarily at an inn, who stops for a while and then leaves, never remaining permanently. But the keeper of the inn goes nowhere at all; he is called the host of the inn."

2.131

This clarifies that the conditioned mind comes and goes along with sensory objects, whereas the true mind is clear and permanently abiding. The guest is used as a metaphor for the false, and the host is used as a metaphor for the true.

2.132

Third, fitting [the metaphor to the doctrine].

2.133

"This is also like that: if it were truly your mind, then it would go nowhere."

2.134

As a later passage in the sūtra states: 'Since when sound is absent there is no cessation, / And when sound is present there is no arising, / When arising and ceasing are both completely transcended, / That is the permanently real.'

2.135

Second, inversely reproving its lack of nature by reference to conditioned dust, which has three [subdivisions]: first, exemplifying its lack of nature.

2.136

"How could there be no discriminating nature apart from sound? And so, how could this apply only to the mind discriminating sound? When discriminating my appearance, apart from all physical forms there is likewise no discriminating nature."

2.137

If the conditioned mind were the true nature, it ought to be like the host; how could it come and go with sound? Because when apart from sound, it lacks discrimination. How could it be identical to the true mind, which pervades the dharmadhātu and is clear and permanently abiding? Since the mind that follows sound is like this, the mind that follows form is also like this; hence [the text] says 'how could this apply only', etc.

2.138

Second, pointing out that it is identical to heterodox schools.

2.139

"In this way, it extends even to having no discrimination at all,"

2.140

Earlier, form and sound were adduced to reveal that the mind lacks an essence, and this should also be applied across scents, tastes, tangible objects, and dharmas. Here it passes beyond them; hence [the sūtra] says 'it extends even to having no discrimination at all.'

2.141

"which, being neither form nor emptiness, Gośālīka and others dimly took to be the primal nature."

2.142

Because it cannot be seen, it is not form; because it exists when conditions assemble, it is not emptiness. As for the term 'primal nature' (míngdì), it is also called 'dark nature' (míngxìng) or 'self-nature' (prakṛti). In Sanskrit it is Sāṃkhya-śāstra, translated here as the Enumerators (Sāṃkhya), who posit twenty-five principles (tattvas). The very first principle is named the primal nature (prakṛti), which they conceive of as permanent. The twenty-fifth is named the spirit-self (puruṣa), which they also conceive of as permanent. When the self contemplates supreme objects, the primal nature transforms into the twenty-three principles for the self's enjoyment. Once the self enjoys them, it is bound by objects and cannot attain liberation; if the self does not contemplate them, the primal nature does not transform, and since there is no bondage, the self is liberated, which is called nirvāṇa, as explained elsewhere. Gośālīka is not actually a Sāṃkhya, but belongs to that category; he is merely mentioned in passing.

2.143

Third, concluding by reproving that it is not the host.

2.144

"Apart from the conditions of all dharmas, there is no discriminating nature; thus the natures of your mind each have that to which they return—how could [any of them] be the host?"

2.145

The true mind is like the host, while false thoughts are like guests; guests come and go, but the host does not move. If apart from the conditions of dharmas there is no discriminating nature, this shows that the natures of your mind each return along with the dust; these, then, are guests—how could they be named the host?

2.146

Second, revealing that the seeing-nature has nothing to which it returns, which has two [subdivisions]: first, Ānanda states his difficulty based on what preceded.

2.147

Ānanda said: "If the natures of my mind each have that to which they return, then why is the wondrous, bright, original mind spoken of by the Tathāgata without return? I only pray that you will deign to take pity and expound this for me."

2.148

The words 'nature of the mind' apply to both the true and the false. What Ānanda grasps is the false; what the Tathāgata points out is the true. Now, using the arising and ceasing he grasps to doubt the wondrous brightness that was pointed out, he therefore says: 'then why is that spoken of by the Tathāgata without return?' 'Return' is equivalent to 'cessation.'

2.149

Second, the Tathāgata discriminates by means of correlatives, which has three [parts]: first, provisionally pointing it out to grant his request for an explanation.

2.150

The Buddha told Ānanda: "For now, as you look at me, [consider] the bright origin of the essence of seeing."

2.151

'For now' (qiě) is an expression of expedient accommodation, provisionally designating Ānanda's mind that is capable of seeing as the 'bright origin.'

2.152

"Although this seeing is not the wondrous, quintessential, bright mind, like a second moon it is not a reflection of the moon. You should listen attentively; I will now show you the ground of having nowhere to return."

2.153

This 'bright origin' is not the original true nature; it is like the moon seen by pressing the eye, which originally has no existence. That it 'is not a reflection of the moon' means it is not a reflection in water. A reflection of the moon in water descends from the true moon, which can serve as a metaphor for the wondrous response that penetrates wherever stimulated. What is viewed by pressing the eye is entirely false, arising from a diseased eye, and can serve as a metaphor for the false seeing that originally cannot be found. It is solely with respect to this seeing that he provisionally demonstrates that there is nowhere to return.

2.154

Second, clearly distinguishing by showing that sensory objects can return, which has two [subdivisions]: first, clarifying that sensory objects have a return, which has two [parts]: first, listing the eight sensory objects.

2.155

"Ānanda! This great lecture hall opens wide to the east: when the solar disc rises into the sky, there is bright radiance; at midnight during the dark moon, when clouds and mist bring gloom and obscurity, it is again dark; through the crevices of doors and windows, one again sees passage; between walls and eaves, one again observes obstruction; at places where discrimination occurs, one again sees conditions; in impenetrable space, emptiness is omnipresent; where there are hazy and turbid forms, one is entwined by turbid dust; and when clear weather collects the vapors, one again observes purity."

2.156

Adducing these eight kinds of forms—brightness and darkness, passage and obstruction, emptiness and existence, defilement and purity—all of them establish their appearances by relying on causes and depending on conditions.

2.157

Second, clarifying their respective returns.

2.158

"Ānanda! Look at all these changing appearances; I will now return each of them to their original causes. What are their original causes? Ānanda! Among these changing appearances, brightness returns to the solar disc. Why? Because without the sun there is no brightness; the cause of brightness belongs to the sun, and therefore it returns to the sun. Darkness returns to the dark moon, passage returns to the doors and windows, obstruction returns to the walls and eaves, conditions return to discrimination, impenetrable voidness returns to emptiness, hazy turbidity returns to dust, and clear brightness returns to fair weather. Thus, everything that exists in all the worlds does not exceed these kinds."

2.159

Since these eight sensory objects exist from conditions, they likewise become non-existent from conditions; having coming and going, they are not identical to true seeing.

2.160

Second, demonstrating that seeing has no return, which has three [parts]: first, the heading.

First 160 of 671 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

首楞嚴義疏注經 — Classical Chinese