請觀音經疏闡義鈔 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Preface to the Elucidating Notes on the Commentary on the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara

Since this commentary was expounded by Zhizhe and recorded by Zhang'an, no master of old has been heard to compose an exposition upon it. Because the transmission of its path lapsed, later students have often been ignorant even of its title, or knew its title but had never opened its scrolls. Alas! That this text has not perished hangs by a mere single thread. Unworthy as I am, I truly grieve over this. If I remained silent, how would it be handed down to posterity? Thereupon, taking advantage of a respite from illness, I have summarily drawn upon the text to unfold its meaning and committed it to the brush as subcommentary notes, in two fascicles in all, hoping to clarify its great purport and enlighten beginners. Once it was completed, I composed this preface to state its origins, and furthermore assigned to it the title 'Elucidating Notes' to name it.

1.3

Prefaced from amidst illness at the upper quarters of the South Pagoda, on the third day of the first month of summer, in the year jiyou, the year following the performance of the Feng sacrifices in the third generation of the August Song.

1.4

Composed by the Śramaṇa Shi Zhiyuan of Qiantang under the Song.

1.5

The four characters 'Qing Guanyin jing' are the specific title of the commentary. 'Commentary' (shu) is the general title. Because 'commentary' is the general title for explaining various sūtras, the four characters are briefly indicated to distinguish it specifically. 'Shu' means to loosen and to decide; it untangles the sūtra text and discerns its purports and significance. Furthermore, when Zhizhe explained a sūtra, explaining the title was called 'profound meaning' (xuanyi), while explaining the text was called 'words and phrases' (wenju). When the profound text and the text are combined into a single work, it is titled a 'commentary' (shu). Now, because they are combined here, it is titled a 'commentary.'

1.6

'Tiantai' is the mountain where he dwelt. 'Zhizhe' is the person who expounded it. Formerly, when Emperor Yang of the Sui was the Prince of Jin, having received the bodhisattva precepts from the Great Master, he established a title for the master on the basis of the Bodhisattvabhūmi Sūtra, titling him 'Zhizhe' (the Wise One). 'Great Master' (dashi): 'great' is a term of praise, and 'master' is the designation for one who instructs people in the Way. In ancient times, when someone's understanding and conduct could serve as a model for others, people invariably addressed them as Great Master. Down to the reign of Emperor Yizong of the Tang, official appointments [of the title] were instituted, and ever since, even if one possessed the reality, none dared to be addressed as such. 'Expounded' means speaking with unrestrained eloquence, not taking up the brush to compose a work. Since this text was recorded by the disciple Zhang'an, his taboo personal name was not written, and his laudatory title was recorded instead.

1.7

As for 'disciple' (dizi): the pupil leaves his father to follow the teacher and reveres the teacher like a father; out of humility, the teacher treats the pupil as a younger brother (di). From this we know that the designation 'disciple' harbors reverence and humility. Thus, when the teacher calls the pupil 'disciple', it lies in humility; when the pupil also calls himself 'disciple', it lies in reverence. Although there are differing views, here we follow the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra. As for 'Dharma Master Ding': his taboo personal name was Guanding, and his courtesy name was Fayun; he was a person of Zhang'an in Linhai. The reason he is called 'Dharma Master Ding' is that this commentary originally lacked the title of the recorder, and later people supplied it. Thus not writing his taboo personal name conforms to propriety. For instance, texts like the Rites of the Lotus Practice and the Gradual Sequence of the Dharmadhātu were personally composed by the Great Master, so he wrote his own taboo name in all of them. As for the various works where disciples recorded his words, they all say merely 'expounded by Great Master Zhizhe.' Furthermore, in works like the Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, since it was revised and finalized by Jingxi, it is likewise written as 'composed by Dharma Master Ding.' This serves as a standard model, which future writers should take as a rule. The Rites state that 'one does not partially taboo a two-character name,' meaning that in a two-character name one does not avoid each character individually; hence here he is called 'Ding' and not 'Guan.' Moreover, just as the Great Master's taboo personal name was Zhiyi, he is now called 'Zhizhe,' avoiding only one character. To partially avoid a taboo name was not ancient practice, but a restriction of later generations. That being so, there are no taboos in the Odes and the Documents, nor does one observe taboos when approaching a text; when lecturers state the full name, there is no fault. The Lotus Sūtra speaks of five kinds of Dharma masters: first, upholding; second, reading; third, reciting; fourth, explaining; and fifth, copying. Here, Zhang'an is a person who explains, so people address him as Dharma Master. 'Recorded' means recording the master's words.

1.8

Next is entering the text. From here onward the sections are divided; since the outline circulates separately, it is not incorporated here again.

1.9

As for 'person and teaching': invoking Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva is the person; the dhāraṇī for eliminating and subduing poisonous afflictions is the teaching. In terms of one's own practice, the teaching should come first and the person after, because what all Buddhas take as their teacher is the so-called teaching, and Avalokiteśvara attained the Way through awakening to the teaching. Here, in terms of transforming others, the person comes first and the teaching after, because the teaching does not operate alone—its propagation depends on persons. Avalokiteśvara expounded the teaching he had realized to cure the poison of the three obstacles in others; hence the title of the sūtra places the person first and the teaching after.

1.10

From 'The person is...' downward: compassion without conditions surpasses that directed toward sentient beings and phenomena, hence it is called 'supreme compassion'; his path surpasses ordinary beings and Hinayāna followers, hence he is called 'mahāsattva'; he is free from the evils of the two extremes, hence it is called 'supremely excellent'; its curing of obstacles is not in vain, hence it is called 'divine dhāraṇī.' The mahāsattva is the person capable of expounding, and the divine dhāraṇī is the teaching that is expounded; 'supreme compassion' reveals the virtue of the mahāsattva, and 'supremely excellent' praises the efficacy of the divine dhāraṇī. The 'multitude of capacities' refers to Candraprabha and the people of Vaiśālī. The active capacity must correspond to the passive recipient. If the multitude of capacities is taken as the capacity to stimulate, then Avalokiteśvara is the object stimulated; if Avalokiteśvara is taken as the capacity to respond, then the multitude of capacities is the corresponding response. Here, the sage omits being the object stimulated and is designated as the capacity to respond, while the ordinary being omits being the corresponding response and is designated as the capacity to stimulate; each is designated by 'capacity' according to its operative power. Therefore we know that ordinary beings, by virtue of the three thousand realms being inherent in principle, are capable of stimulating, while the sage, by virtue of the three thousand realms being partially manifested, is capable of responding.

1.11

As for 'eliminating and subduing' and so on: 'eliminating' means getting rid of, and 'subduing' means bringing under control. The three obstacles are collectively termed 'poisonous afflictions.' The sūtra states: 'Eliminating the three obstacles, having no evil powers'—this is its function. Furthermore, because it produces good it is called power, and because it extinguishes evil it is called function. This dhāraṇī eliminates the three obstacles—this is its function; it reveals the three truths—this is its power.

1.12

'Primary substance' refers to the three virtues.

1.13

As for 'In this land...' and so on: because dhāraṇī is a Sanskrit word, translated into this land it is called 'warding off and maintaining.'

1.14

'Three meanings' refers to maintaining the name, maintaining practice, and maintaining the meaning.

1.15

'Two extremes' refers to saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Therefore we know that the principle of the three virtues is quiescent yet luminous, hence it is capable of maintaining; luminous yet quiescent, hence it is capable of warding off.

1.16

From 'The function is...' downward: this commentary's explanation of the title has three turns in all, each discussing three meanings: first, the person capable of expounding; second, the teaching that is expounded; third, the comprehensive title of the sūtra. The person and the comprehensive title are distinguished below. The three meanings of the teaching are found precisely in this passage; therefore, when it comes to the specific explanation, it explains them straightaway. The comprehensive and specific passages mutually reveal their meaning; this is the skill of the Great Master in expounding the Dharma, and the marvelousness of Zhang'an in applying the brush. However, although this work broadly encompasses the four teachings, the three turns and three meanings are all discussed in terms of the perfect teaching—this is because of the purport of the text, because it corresponds to the gate of practice, because the profound encompasses the shallow, and because it was the Buddha's original intent; those who expound and contemplate it should reflect upon and discern this.

1.17

The three passages from 'Regarding phenomena...' downward all directly point out the poisonous afflictions to reveal their elimination and subduing.

1.18

As for 'tigers and wolves' and so on: this corresponds to where the sūtra states, 'Encountering tigers, wolves, and lions, as well as poisonous drugs, knives, and swords, or facing execution, if one recites the name and chants the dhāraṇī, one attains liberation'—these are all elimination and subduing explained in terms of phenomena.

1.19

'Five entrenchments': views of the three realms constitute one, thoughts of the three realms constitute three, and adding fundamental ignorance makes five. All are defiled and troublesome dharmas that agitate the nature of the mind; therefore they are collectively termed afflictions, and these afflictions are named 'tigers, wolves, and so forth.' The sūtra states, 'Purifying the roots of the three poisons, not being afflicted by the three poisons,' and so on, which is clear proof regarding practice. Hence, when the commentary below explains tigers and wolves, it cites the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra where even on the tenth stage there are perils of tigers and wolves—this was precisely its meaning. Cultivating the threefold contemplation in a single mind to break through the delusions of the five entrenchments is eliminating poison in terms of practice.

1.20

'The dharmadhātu is unobstructed': the three truths in a single mind are called the dharmadhātu; sentient beings and Buddhas interpenetrate, each completely pervading, hence it is said to be unobstructed. As for 'defiled without defilement': the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra states, 'The inherently pure mind of the middle way is not defiled by afflictions, being fundamentally neither bound nor liberated; that it is defiled without defilement is difficult to comprehend.' This means that sentient beings, deluded about the liberation of true nature, give rise to the sixty-two views. Examining the meaning of those words, they fully accord with the present text. If we explain the present text, we should say that the dharmatā and ignorance together completely create all dharmas, which is being defiled without defilement. The entirety of the nature of principle becoming poisonous is called poison in the nature of principle. Due to poison in principle, there are poisons in practice and poisons in phenomena. Now, contemplating all dharmas as mind-only, the substance of defilement is entirely pure—this is the divine dhāraṇī curing the poison in the nature of principle. This corresponds to the statement in the sūtra below: 'all enter the limit of reality.' If so, how does it differ from [elimination] in terms of practice? Answer: The previous discussion in terms of practice was in terms of wisdom and severance. Wisdom is that which can sever, and severance is that which is severed; where the five entrenchments are severed is called eliminating poison in practice. Now it is not so: it is exclusively in terms of the principle of truth. Principle is neither active nor passive; merely because it is endowed with delusion, it is defiled without defilement, which is termed poisonous affliction. Delusion is itself dharmatā, which is being defiled yet undefiled, termed eliminating and subduing. Thus delusion and nature are mutually correlative, and this does not concern wisdom and severance. If someone says that inherent evil is poison in principle, although the meaning of poison is established, the meaning of eliminating is completely absent. If there is no meaning of eliminating, how can it be called a function? If one says it exists, one would have to break inherent evil. The Dharma gate of inherent evil cannot be broken.

1.21

The note stating 'and so on' below 'fivefold...' means that distinguishing and explaining them in sequence is not needed. First, listing them.

1.22

From 'As for the name...' downward, it distinguishes and explains the five chapters. In explaining the name, it treats comprehensively the three dharmas—substance, gist, and function; specifically, it discusses the doctrinal characteristics of the three dharmas and distinguishes the three dharmas.

1.23

As for 'taking person and teaching as the name': 'invoking' is the capacity to stimulate and 'Avalokiteśvara' is the capacity to respond, which is the gist of stimulus and response. 'Eliminating and subduing poisonous afflictions' clarifies its power and function, which is the function of rescuing from peril and extracting suffering. 'Dhāraṇī' clarifies its primary substance, which is the substance of the Dharmakāya. The comprehensive discussion in explaining the name resides precisely here.

1.24

As for 'numinous awareness... as the substance': the sūtra encompasses the four teachings, and the principle has the partial and the perfect; if we discuss the primary substance, we take only the perfect principle. Numinous awareness and quiescent illumination are all the meaning of the Dharmakāya being luminous. However, although quiescence and illumination are non-dual, since the bodhisattva derives his name from contemplative wisdom, taking that which accords with the active capacity, illumination is taken as the substance. By analogy, if one took calming and concentration as the name, one should take quiescence as the substance. Numinous awareness is the numinously luminous original enlightenment of the Dharmakāya; quiescent illumination means numinous awareness, which is the Dharmakāya being quiescent yet luminous. It should be understood that the three bodies are all eternal and the three truths are all illuminated; proceeding from the superior and fundamental, it temporarily points to the Dharmakāya. Furthermore, the substance-nature is fundamentally one but has various names; therefore, when various texts clarify the substance, their names differ according to the text and the meaning. The Lotus Sūtra focuses on opening the expedient, and thus takes true reality as its substance. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra, being a demonstration of extinction, takes the naturally pure nirvāṇa as its substance. The Universal Gate Chapter, discussing the two bodies, takes numinous wisdom united with the Dharmakāya as its substance. Numinous wisdom is the Sambhogakāya; uniting the Sambhogakāya with the Dharmakāya, the two bodies clarify the meaning, which is the true body. As for the present sūtra, since the descent of the three sages signifies the three virtues, it takes the Dharmakāya as the substance of the sūtra. Furthermore, the Universal Gate Chapter clarifies manifesting forms in accord with types of beings, whereas this sūtra clarifies the arrival of the holy lords; in terms of bodies it is convenient, so in discerning the substance both establish the names of bodies.

1.25

As for 'taking stimulus and response as the gist': Candraprabha's making the invocation is the stimulus, and the three sages' descending from afar is the response; because the arising of the teaching originates from this, it is taken as the gist. However, various sūtras sometimes take cause and effect as their gist, but in this sūtra it is inconvenient for clarifying the meaning. Why? The phrasing of cause and effect is general, possessed by both ordinary beings and sages. For instance, the people of Vaiśālī making an invocation to seek salvation is the cause, and their future realization of the Way is the effect—this is ordinary beings possessing cause and effect. Avalokiteśvara formerly being on the stage of an ordinary being was the cause, and now residing in partial realization is the effect—this is the sage possessing cause and effect. Now, although ordinary beings possess cause and effect, they are designated only by 'stimulus'; although the sage possesses cause and effect, he is designated only by 'response'; therefore, stimulus and response are taken as the gist.

1.26

"Rescuing from peril and uprooting suffering constitute the function": because the illness and suffering of the people of Vaiśālī were perilous as hanging upside down, [the bodhisattva] rescued and uprooted them with great compassion, causing them to recover their original state. Although [the function] also bestows joy, uprooting suffering is the primary focus.

1.27

"The Mahāyāna constitutes the pedagogical characteristics": containing [all things] is called "great" (mahā); carrying [sentient beings] is called "vehicle" (yāna). "Teaching" refers to the sage's words addressed to those below; "characteristics" refers to discriminating similarities and differences. Although this division of scripture addresses the four teachings, the Mahāyāna of the three teachings is its primary purport.

1.28

"Evaluating through the three criteria": this is because the beginning and end of cultivation are completely encompassed by the three criteria. That is, one cultivates according to the teaching, and when practice is perfected, one tallies with principle. Because all three criteria have shared and distinct aspects, there are the designations of "shared" and "distinct." These three are precisely the intended meanings of the two designations "shared" and "distinct." If classified by stages: in terms of teaching, it pertains to persons of the stage of nominal identity, because they give rise to understanding upon receiving the teaching; in terms of practice, it pertains to the stages of contemplative practice and resemblance, because they cultivate relying on understanding; in terms of principle, it lies in the first abiding stage, because they partially realize the fundamental principle. However, regarding practice, one must further be flexible: if speaking of embarking upon cultivation, one still abides in nominal identity; only when practice is definitively perfected is it called contemplative practice. Whenever determining stages, one must understand this purport.

1.29

"Teaching" and what follows explains these three criteria. Both in terms of principle and in terms of practice, shared and distinct are set in contrast to the nature of principle; the practices are distinct, but they converge in a single principle, their names being different. Only the first, in terms of teaching, is explained without being set in contrast to principle.

1.30

"Voice-hearer": "voice" refers to the voice heard, the teaching being the eight sounds and four analytical knowledges; "hearing" refers to the receptive capacity able to hear, apprehending distinctions with auditory consciousness. The Dàzhìdù lùn says: "When the auditory faculty is undamaged and the sound is in a hearable place..." Since receptive capacities and inclinations differ, what is preached is distinct; since what is preached is distinct, the divisions of scriptures are therefore different. Because this sūtra and that sūtra each have their own names, it is said that "names are different." "Other disciples" refers to the worthy and holy ones of the three vehicles. Question: The Zhìlùn says, "Buddhist sūtras are spoken by four kinds of persons: namely disciples, sages, deities, and apparitional beings." Why do you now say otherwise? Answer: Being endorsed by the Buddha, they are equally termed spoken by the Buddha. Just as in the present sūtra Avalokiteśvara speaks the dhāraṇī and Śāriputra speaks of the four great elements equally entering the ultimate reality, because of the Buddha's endorsement, both are named spoken by the Buddha.

1.31

"Entering the path has many avenues": the ultimate principle is empty and unimpeded, which is designated "the path." Various sūtras, matching the capacities of the four siddhāntas, show the paths for entering the principle; they are not of merely one sort, hence it is said "many avenues."

1.32

"Contemplation gates differ": just as in the Lotus Sūtra the four peaceful and joyful practices are the gate for entering the principle, the present sūtra uses counting breaths and so forth as the gate for entering the principle. Furthermore, the four gates of the four teachings are distinct; these all illustrate the meaning of "differ."

1.33

"Tallying with the path" means tallying with and meeting the true path, which is precisely the time when one enters the first abiding stage and partially realizes the three virtues. When reaching this stage, cultivation and nature unite as one without further divergence; hence it is said, "together converging into a single principle."

1.34

"Principle" is precisely the principle tallied with via the aforementioned contemplation gates. "Suchness": its essence is not false or deceptive, hence it is called "true nature"; it is without alteration or difference, hence it is called "suchness." Being not hollow is named real; reaching the utmost limit is called reality-limit. It is neither the characteristic of birth-and-death nor the characteristic of nirvāṇa, hence it is called true characteristic. "Ālaya" is also written ālaya; here it is translated "storehouse consciousness" because it can store its own essence within all phenomena and store all phenomena within its own essence. These are all different names for the threefold truth in a single mind. Question: Why is the ninth pure consciousness not used as the name expressing principle? Answer: The Great Master relied on the Daśabhūmika-śāstra in explaining that the ālaya consciousness is the true, eternal, and pure consciousness, not establishing a ninth; if relying on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, ālaya is the consciousness of non-defined ignorance and dormant afflictions, and only the ninth is named pure. Thus we know the two treatises differ according to the capacities [they address]. If in terms of identity, it reaches only the eighth, as in saying that ignorance is identical to dharmatā; if in terms of separation, a ninth is established, as in saying that severing ignorance is identical to dharmatā. If one understands our school's doctrine, there should be no dispute in principle: neither identical nor separate, their single essence is without difference; being both identical and separate, why hinder establishing both? Illustrated by the metaphor of waves and water, the general purport can be understood.

1.35

"Person and Dharma" and what follows explains the sequence of presentation. The dhāraṇī is the three virtues, which is the Dharma realized. Avalokiteśvara is the person who realizes [it]. Having already realized the three virtues himself, he now speaks this dhāraṇī to cause others to also realize the three virtues. Thus the Dharma relies on the person for propagation, and the person is established on account of the Dharma; complementing each other and mutually identical, they cannot be separated for an instant. Now, conforming to the sūtra's title and considering the meaning of transforming others, the person is placed first and the Dharma second. As for "self-invoking": Sinā questioned Śāriputra about the correspondence of faculties and objects and maintaining mental restraint, which serves as a gate for entering the path for oneself; hence it is self-invoking. Candraprabha [invoked] on account of the severe illness in Vaiśālī; hence it is for the sake of others. The Buddha spoke the verses and entrusted [the text] for circulation in order to protect the right Dharma. These three kinds are all called invoking Avalokiteśvara. In terms of the sūtra text, [invoking] for others comes first. Now, for the sake of doctrinal convenience, self-invoking is listed first, because self-invoking has a narrow scope, for others is moderately broad, and protecting the Dharma is the broadest; they are sequenced from narrow to broad. Question: Sinā inquired, Śāriputra spoke of the six faculties, and the Tathāgata entrusted the eight classes of beings; how can this be called invoking Avalokiteśvara? Answer: Avalokiteśvara came from afar with the intention of preaching the method for curing obstacles. What Sinā requested was also this method. The Tathāgata's entrustment to the eight classes was also only to make this method abide long in the world. Although the persons are distinct, the Dharma-gate is without difference; using the Dharma to manifest the person, all constitute invoking Avalokiteśvara.

1.36

In matching the three invocations to the three collections of precepts: the first should correspond to the precept of restraining discipline, and the third to the precept of embracing wholesome dharmas. The Yingluo jing says: "The precept of discipline refers to the ten pārājikas." The Precept Commentary says: "Restraining discipline can cause the mind to abide." This agrees in meaning with Sinā's self-invoking. The Yingluo says: "Embracing wholesome dharmas refers to the eighty-four thousand Dharma-gates." The Precept Commentary says: "Embracing wholesomeness accomplishes the Buddha-Dharma for oneself." This corresponds to the Tathāgata's invocation for protecting the Dharma. The Yingluo says: "Embracing sentient beings refers to loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, extending transformation to sentient beings to bring them peace and joy." The Precept Commentary says: "Embracing sentient beings brings sentient beings to fulfillment." This corresponds to Candraprabha's invocation for the sake of others. Therefore, the three invocations in this sūtra are precisely the three collections [of precepts]. The names of these three collections derive from the Vaipulya and Bodhisattvabhūmi. As for the text's statement that "self-invoking embraces wholesome dharmas, and protecting the Dharma embraces the right Dharma," this is perhaps a textual error, or relies on another source.

1.37

"If attained" and what follows demonstrates that the three precepts are fundamentally integrated. While the previous passage matched them to the three collections, here it synthesizes only two names. It is also feared that there is a textual error; it should read: one's own precepts being luminous and pure is precisely restraining discipline; concentration and wisdom being luminous and pure is precisely embracing wholesome dharmas. "Luminous and pure" refers to resemblance and partial realization of the true, and its meaning also extends to contemplative practice. As for citing the Avataṃsaka Sūtra: all phenomena are mind-only, and the three of precepts, concentration, and wisdom are inherent in the mind itself. Since my mind is thus, sentient beings and buddhas are all likewise; other and self mutually interpenetrate, and so there is no differentiation. Because there is no differentiation, the Buddha preaches and shows to me what he has realized; when my mind is purified, I can also transform others. The meaning of the three collections is made manifest here; only then do we know that the essence of the three invocations is fundamentally integrated.

1.38

What follows "the other two are secondary" and so on means: self-cultivation is primary, as in Sinā; for the sake of others is primary, as in Candraprabha; protecting the Dharma is primary, as in the Tathāgata. When discussing primary and secondary mutually, each must include the three invocations. Future practitioners should look to this as a model. Zhi means to arrive. Qi means to address/pray. Gan means to seek. "Determined mind": determined refers to an earnest pledge; all are explained in the supporting citations below. Having explained self-invoking first, one should have cited the passage of Sinā's invocation, yet Candraprabha's is cited because the text is prominent and easy to see. When discussing primary and secondary, the three invocations mutually contain and cite each other without fixed boundaries. The bounded intention exclusively invokes Avalokiteśvara, not other holy ones.

1.39

"Invocation through practice": although one does not set a conscious aim, because one's practice is pure, it naturally stimulates the sage; pure practice itself is the invocation, hence it is called invocation through practice. Invocation through realization is also like this. "The buddha-mindfulness samādhi": as in the Pratyutpanna-samādhi Sūtra, when the samādhi is accomplished, one sees the buddhas of the ten directions standing in space, and so forth. This means that although one does not set a conscious aim, upon realizing the principle, one naturally sees Avalokiteśvara. The stage of invocation through practice is at contemplative practice; the stage of invocation through realization is at the [purification of the] six faculties and the first abiding stage. "Setting a conscious aim" applies across both shallow and deep stages.

1.40

"Bodily karma" and what follows shows by analogy that speech and mind each possess the three invocations. Although the preceding text spoke of "the three karmas being flawless," it focused specifically on bodily karma. Question: Throwing down the body applies to verbal karma, but how can one speak of setting a conscious aim and so forth for mental karma? Answer: If relying on the present sūtra, contemplating the mind and its channels and thereupon seeing Avalokiteśvara is setting a conscious aim. If relying on the Lotus and Nirvāṇa sūtras, merely contemplating the real characteristic of mind-nature, entering stages such as contemplative practice and thereupon seeing Avalokiteśvara: since one did not initially set a conscious aim, these are invocation through practice and invocation through realization. However, these discussions of invocation all pertain to seeing that response-body. If setting a conscious aim yields no stimulation, it is due to past and present conditions being shallow, which is not the meaning of invocation here. Stimulating without setting an aim is due to past and present conditions being deep, which is the meaning of invocation here. Setting an aim and furthermore stimulating [a response], its principle is evident. As this is true of this sage, the other sages are analogous. Furthermore, the three karmas of sentient beings have varying strengths; the strong can serve as the receptive capacity, so the three invocations are discussed for each of the three karmas.

1.41

"Complementing the previous twelve" means that self, other, and protecting the Dharma each possess the three of welcoming, praying, and vowing, making twelve. Question: Since protecting the Dharma is the Tathāgata's entrustment, why are invocations such as setting a conscious aim also discussed in terms of the three karmas? Answer: Although the sūtra gives an entrustment, could practitioners not also invoke Avalokiteśvara for the sake of protecting the right Dharma?

1.42

"Discussing invocation across the nine realms": even bodhisattvas of the three teachings, in order to eliminate the three obstacles beyond the realms, must invoke the Avalokiteśvara of the perfect teaching.

1.43

"The buddha realm requires discrimination": one should ask, "The nine realms may be so, but how can the buddha realm invoke?" One should answer: buddhas of nominal and contemplative identity, to eliminate the three obstacles of fragmentary [samsāra], must invoke Avalokiteśvara of partial realization; buddhas of resemblance identity, to eliminate the three obstacles of change-transformation [samsāra], are also like this. Within partial realization, stages mutually perform this, up to equal enlightenment, where they invoke the ultimate Avalokiteśvara to eliminate the three obstacles. This is in terms of all five identities within the perfect teaching being named the buddha realm. If strictly taking the ultimate stage as the one able to invoke, it is because sentient beings' capacity to sever evil relies on Avalokiteśvara, hence [the Buddha] must invoke him; as the sūtra says: "At that time the World-Honoured One, pitying sentient beings and sheltering all, repeatedly invoked Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva..."

1.44

"Bodhisattvas all possess manifold virtues": because they perfectly realize the real principle, they possess manifold virtues. Mañjuśrī, fully named Mañjuśrī, is translated here as Wondrous Virtue; because he perceives that the Buddha-nature of the three virtues is neither vertical nor horizontal, he is called Wondrous Virtue. The Great Sūtra says: "Clearly perceiving Buddha-nature is like Wondrous Virtue..." Maitreya is translated here as The Compassionate One; the three compassions of a single essence leave nothing unencompassed, hence it serves as his name.

1.45

"When speaking ultimately" and what follows explains that their nature is fundamentally integrated, explicating the meaning that all possess manifold virtues. Therefore, virtue, compassion, and wisdom are different names for a single essence, mutually encompassing one another. Because the three virtues, three compassions, and three wisdoms have no different essence, unconditioned [compassion] and the knowledge of all aspects are both spoken of according to pre-eminence; the essence of the middle way shines upon both, and compassion and wisdom both comprise three.

1.46

"Merely accommodating..." and what follows explains the establishment of designations according to receptive capacities. Those suited to hear receive the benefits of the four siddhāntas according to what they hear; this is why distinct designations are established for each.

1.47

"Equally on the causal ground" means they share the identical true cause.

1.48

"Each explained the cause of the body": Chapter 32 of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states: "Five hundred monks asked Śāriputra: 'The Buddha spoke of the cause of the body; what is it?' Śāriputra replied: 'Each of you has also attained right liberation and should naturally know this yourselves. For what reason do you further ask this question?' A monk said: 'When we had not yet attained right liberation, our mind considered ignorance to be the cause of the body. When practicing this contemplation, we attained the fruit of arhatship.' Some spoke of craving, some spoke of action, up to food and drink and the five desires. Thus the five hundred went together to the Buddha's place, each having explained their own understanding. Śāriputra addressed the Buddha: 'Who has spoken correctly?' The Buddha said: 'None is not a correct explanation.'"

1.49

"Thirty-two": in the Vimalakīrti [Sūtra], first, the bodhisattva Dharmavyūha said: "Arising and ceasing are dual; non-arising and non-ceasing are non-dual." Up to Mañjuśrī's saying: "Neither speaking nor indicating is entering the non-dual." There were thirty-two people in total. If one includes the lay householder's silence, there are thirty-three.

1.50

"Together enter" below: the five hundred monks and the four-times-eight mahāsattvas—though that which enters differs, that which is entered is without distinction. In terms of leap-frogging, the five hundred converge on reality. For instance, the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra states: "Four times four is sixteen; together they converge on the permanent and bliss."

1.51

"A single principle": although the myriad phenomena differ, the nature of the mind is ever one; hence it is called a single principle.

1.52

"Therefore also differ": the significance and purports differ. Here, although the substance of principle is identical, its significance differs and its names differ. Just as principle has the sense of universal illumination, hence establishing the name of contemplating wisdom; and principle has the sense of universal inclusion, hence establishing the title of Maitreya (the Benevolent One). Though name and meaning differ, it is only a single principle; hence it is said, "they are not apart from the principle."

1.53

In explaining the specific names, one should first divide into two sections: first, explaining the response in terms of object and wisdom; next, explaining the capacity in terms of realms and karma. Explaining generally and specifically: the general explanation is analyzing object and wisdom together; the specific explanation is explicating object and wisdom separately. Regarding refutation and establishment: because the name of contemplating the world is fundamentally the inconceivable object and wisdom beyond the realm, in accord with faculties and conditions it also becomes conceivable object and wisdom, yet both transcend the four [propositions] and are free from the hundred thoughts. People produce attachments to the four natures regarding this, so one must first refute the four attachments. Once the four are refuted and completely benefit beings, then the object and wisdom of the Tripiṭaka teaching are established, up to the object and wisdom of the perfect teaching being established; therefore they must be established afterward.

1.54

"Those that are refuted" below: first, provisionally positing the names of object and wisdom as that which is refuted. "World" means the three kinds of worlds.

1.55

"Now we ask" below: object and wisdom facing each other each have four propositions, which can be understood from the text.

1.56

"An object because of its own object" and so forth means that the object is of itself an object and wisdom is of itself wisdom, not depending on each other.

1.57

"This is self-arising": if one says that the object is of itself an object, the object is not due to the illumination of wisdom; this is the self-arising of the object. If one says that wisdom is of itself wisdom, wisdom is not generated due to an object; this is the self-arising of wisdom. Here it merely challenges the first proposition, the remaining three being analogous to it; hence it says "and so forth." If one wishes to formulate the full challenge: the next proposition should say, if wisdom is due to an object, this is the other-arising of wisdom; if an object is due to wisdom, this is the other-arising of the object. Why? An object because of its own object—since one calls the object "self," looking from object to wisdom, wisdom is "other." Now if the object arises from wisdom, is it not an other-object? Wisdom is also like this. If an object is due to combination, or wisdom is due to combination, then the object is not an object due to wisdom, nor is it an object due to the object; wisdom and object arise due to the combination of causes and conditions, and so too for wisdom. This is arising from both. Arising from both has two faults, falling into the natures of self and other. If it is an object or wisdom due to being neither wisdom nor object, then apart from object and apart from wisdom, without causes and conditions, one distinguishes object and wisdom. Arising from causes and conditions is already ungraspable, how much more so without causes and conditions? These four are all false conceptualizations and reckonings, so they must be refuted. Question: The Buddha-Dharma everywhere says that causes and conditions combine; why refute arising from both? Answer: Because of fixed attachment, it must also be refuted. Once the four attachments are refuted, the four expositions are without fault.

1.58

"That which is refuted in the Madhyamakaśāstra": the treatise states, "Dharmas do not arise from themselves, nor do they arise from another, neither from both nor without a cause; therefore they are said to be unarisen." Since Nāgārjuna has already refuted them, how could one hold to one of the four kinds of attachments as before? Would it be other false speech? The sixty-two views mean: the self is great and form is small; form is great and the self is small; form is the self; the self is apart from form. The four aggregates are also like this; across the five aggregates in the three time periods, they total sixty. Not departing from existence and non-existence, hence there are sixty-two, all subsumed under extreme views. Now, generating the four views regarding object and wisdom actually means the full arising of the eighty-eight entangling proclivities; they are stated briefly as extreme views and the three feelings. If fully discussed: whenever one clings to any proposition, claiming "I know and understand this dharma," reckoning a self within dharmas is the view of a self; clinging to the first and third propositions falls into the extreme of existence; clinging to the second and fourth propositions falls into the extreme of non-existence; they are subsumed under the sixty-two views, which are extreme views. Clinging falsely like this without conforming to correct principle is wrong view. Clinging to this as real and reckoning it to be nirvāṇa is clinging to views. Grasping at the result, claiming this to be the path and practicing according to it, is clinging to rules and vows. Grasping at the cause has three sufferings: pleasant feeling has the suffering of decay; painful feeling has the suffering of suffering itself; neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling has the suffering of conditioning. "Pleasant feeling then brings craving" and so forth means that when clinging to one kind of object and wisdom as correct, if another praises it, the mind becomes attached, generating joy and delight; this is the proclivity of greed. Painful feeling: if another opposes it, one becomes indignant and generates anger, so the mind suffers; this is the proclivity of anger. Neither painful nor pleasant: that is, when neither criticized nor praised, it is in the proclivity of delusion and the equal portions, which are also included within the three proclivities. Furthermore, "I understand this object and wisdom, others do not understand it"—feeling arrogant toward others based on what one clings to is the proclivity of conceit. Having clung to this as correct, though one does not doubt now, one will have great doubt later; this is the proclivity of doubt. Thus the ten proclivities are distinctly present, all arising from the clung-to object and wisdom. Applying these across the three realms and four noble truths yields the eighty-eight proclivities. In terms of contemplation applied across the three realms, there are ninety-eight proclivities. Now, among the five sharp ones, briefly citing extreme views, and among the five dull ones, briefly elucidating the four divisions, is speaking from the essentials: because the object and wisdom of the four propositions all fall to one extreme, and based on this clinging all three feelings arise, their marks are easy to perceive, so they are provisionally elucidated. If examined in detail as above, they are fully ninety-eight; hence the text below states: "Knowing the ninety-eight proclivities in each and every proposition is called recognizing the sickness."

1.59

"Eighty-four thousand defilements of dust": Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha, basing himself on the Sūtra on the Ten Proclivities, takes the ten, such as greed, as fundamental: meaning that greed up to clinging to rules each has nine, plus one dormant disposition, thus making ten. Ten then makes one hundred; the prior, subsequent, and equal portions are each one hundred, making three hundred. Setting aside the original one hundred, among the two hundred prior and subsequent ones, taking each of the ten proclivities as an expedient means, the two hundred then becomes two thousand one hundred. In terms of the five types of sentient beings—namely, those with excessive greed, excessive anger, excessive delusion, attachment to self, and discursive thought—the five classes each with two thousand one hundred then makes ten thousand five hundred. Matching arisen and not yet arisen makes twenty-one thousand. Further matching greed, anger, delusion, and equal portions, these four each have twenty-one thousand, making eighty-four thousand. Now, saying "developed through the four divisions" means that although the number of afflictions is great, they are fully subsumed under the four divisions.

1.60

"Ultimately empty and tranquil": because there are no four attachments.

1.61

"Without reliance": because of emptiness and tranquility. The meaning of the question is: since principle is empty and tranquil, why are there the causes and effects of the path and cessation? The meaning of the answer is: merely recognizing suffering and origination, not being obstructed by the four attachments, is called the truth of the path. The empty and tranquil object of cognition is the truth of cessation. "Knowing the four" below demonstrates the marks of the truth of the path.

1.62

"Defiled five aggregates": Great Calming and Contemplation elucidates nine kinds of five aggregates: the physical and mental of a single lifespan are called retribution; ordinary perception and feeling are called indeterminate; the arising of views and the arising of craving are called the two defilements; physical, verbal, and mental karma are divided into two as wholesome and unwholesome; transformative manifestations are called skillful; persons of the three wholesome roots are called expedient means; the four fruits are called uncontaminated. Now, producing views and craving toward object and wisdom, they are therefore called defiled. Not receiving means contemplating feeling as suffering. The other two are omitted. "Factors of the path and so forth": "and so forth" includes the three, the four, the two fives, the seven factors of awakening, and the eightfold noble path. "Furthermore, right" below demonstrates the marks of the truth of cessation: taking the contemplating subject as Buddha, the contemplated object as Dharma, and the non-duality of object and contemplation as Saṅgha; these three meanings in a single mind are the Three Jewels of identical essence. "Awakened understanding" is the contemplating threefold contemplation; "four attachments" are the refuted delusive afflictions; "dharmatā" is the contemplated three truths. Object and contemplation are non-dual, hence called harmony. And demonstrating the truth of cessation within the mind of right exertion is because, when factors of the path are correlated with stages, right exertion is the inner ordinary stage of the Hīnayāna. Gauging the great by the small, it is the stage of similarity in the six sense faculties of the perfect teaching realizing cessation.

1.63

"The mind that abides nowhere" and so forth: this means that the Great Sage inwardly has no four attachments and outwardly accords with faculties and conditions, causing them to attain the four benefits, explaining differences in object and wisdom. This means that if someone delights in hearing of self-arising object and wisdom, he then explains that the object is its own object and wisdom is its own wisdom, to meet the mind of aspiration. Or they may be suitable to hear it to produce the wholesome, or he explains it necessarily to destroy afflictions, or upon hearing it they awaken to the path; other, both, and causeless are also like this. Therefore, what the sūtras and treatises explain, whether object or wisdom, does not go beyond self and so forth. In listing the names, the object and wisdom of the four teachings all accord with the four Siddhāntas. The distinct teaching alone receives the name because its stage of emerging from emptiness specifically transforms others through the four Siddhāntas. The perfect teaching being named inconceivable shows that the previous three teachings are all conceivable. However, the four objects and wisdoms all generally explain the two characters "observing the world"; one should know their distinctions in advance, then upon reaching the text it will be easily understood. The former two take the mind producing the three worlds of the six realms as the object, while their wisdoms differ in analytical division and bodily realization. The distinct teaching takes the mind producing the three worlds of the ten realms as the object and uses sequential wisdom. The perfect teaching takes the mind inherently possessing the three worlds of the ten realms as the object and uses the threefold wisdom in a single mind.

1.64

"All dharmas arise from conditions": this proves that the conditions of object and wisdom are all real existents, which become empty only through breaking down and dissecting.

1.65

"Merely having names": meaning that once a jar is broken or a head is severed, there are merely the names of jar and head, but actually no substance. This metaphor comes from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. "This character does not abide" is emptiness of nature. "Nor does it not abide" is emptiness of characteristics.

1.66

"Dharma eye" and so forth: this is the tenth practice stage emerging from emptiness, expounding the object and wisdom of the four teachings and four Siddhāntas.

1.67

"Although there is neither object nor wisdom" and so forth: dharmas are created from the mind; the entirety of dharmas is the mind. The mind originally of itself is non-existent; how could the myriad dharmas stand? Not existing yet existing, the three thousand realms are clearly present. Beginningless unawakening: inherently possessing the principle, yet emotionally deluded. Now, having awakened, one knows that the mind is not apart from the contemplating subject to have something else illuminated; yet within a single mind, one forcefully distinguishes object and wisdom, hence it is said "and yet discuss."

First 67 of 110 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

請觀音經疏闡義鈔 — Classical Chinese