瑜伽論記 10

English (machine translation) 10

Language: English

This is the fifth chapter among the five chapters on the stations of learning, and the seventh phenomenon among the seven phenomena. 'Bodhi' means awakening; because this chapter broadly clarifies the meaning of bodhi as fruition-virtue, it is named 'Bodhi'. Third, it clarifies the mind; fourth, it lists them; fifth, unexcelled. The unexcelled bodhi differentiated here, having realized tathatā and manifested great spiritual powers to mature oneself and others, requires fruition and realization; therefore, this chapter follows the Chapter on Maturation.

10.5

In the text, there are three [sections]: first, presenting the essence of bodhi in terms of five approaches; second, concluding the explanation and admonishing [the reader] to know it; third, praising bodhi with the three lines at the end of the chapter.

10.6

The text of the first [section on] the five approaches is divided into five: first, presenting the essence of bodhi in terms of wisdom and abandonment below, which is called 'nature'; second, differentiating bodhi in terms of supreme excellence; third, differentiating bodhi in terms of the recollection of the virtues of the ten epithets; fifth, differentiating bodhi in terms of distinctions and other virtues. [Regarding the first approach,] before and after there are three [explanations]: first, in terms of the two wisdoms and two abandonments; next, in terms of the three wisdoms and two abandonments; third, in terms of shared and unshared virtues.

10.7

Regarding 'the two abandonments and two wisdoms are called bodhi', Tai says: Just as the nine abandonments are called 'wisdom' because they are the fruition of wisdom, the two abandonments are also the fruition of bodhi and are therefore called 'bodhi'.

10.8

Ce says: Question: 'Bodhi' means awakening; the essence of the two kinds of unconditioned is not awakening, so how can they be called bodhi? The explanation is: Just as the tenth excellence in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha is the excellence of wisdom endowed with the three bodies, here likewise both wisdom and abandonment are named 'wisdom'. Why is this? Because in tathatā all virtues like the sands of the Ganges are fully present in their nature, and in accordance [with it] it can give rise to the doors of all virtues such as wisdom produced through cultivation; therefore it is called awakening, not because it illuminates an object.

10.9

Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha says: There is original awakening wisdom that can take as its object the principle of equality; this is what the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra refers to when saying that only suchness and only suchness-wisdom constitute the Dharma body.

10.10

The present Tripiṭaka Master [Xuanzang] says: This explanation is incorrect. The tathatā revealed by the two emptinesses of person and phenomena is not of the essence of consciousness; how could it illuminate? When it says that illuminating suchness and suchness-wisdom are called the Dharma body, it is adducing wisdom to reveal tathatā as the Dharma body, not that wisdom itself is tathatā as the Dharma body.

10.11

Regarding 'the two wisdoms', they are the wisdom of personal emptiness and the wisdom of phenomenal emptiness.

10.12

In the [section on] the three wisdoms and two abandonments, it first lists the names of the three wisdoms and two abandonments. 'The perpetual destruction of all afflictions together with all latencies' is the abandonment of the affliction obstacle. 'The complete and perpetual abandonment without remainder of non-defiled ignorance in all aspects' is the abandonment of the cognitive obstacle.

10.13

Second, in the sequential explanation, it only explains the three wisdoms and does not explain the two abandonments. Ce says: Abandoning the affliction obstacle together with latencies is called 'purified wisdom', which is the fundamental wisdom; abandoning undefiled ignorance regarding all phenomena is called 'all-knowledge', which is the subsequent wisdom.

10.14

Regarding 'unobstructed wisdom', there are two explanations. One says: It is called unobstructed wisdom because the operation of the preceding two wisdoms is sharp and keen. Another says: Unobstructed is spoken solely with reference to the sharp and keen operation of subsequent wisdom; it has no separate essence.

10.15

Regarding 'all afflictions', they are the one hundred and twenty-eight afflictions and the twenty secondary afflictions. Regarding 'together with all latencies', former teachers said that because the coarse-grade seeds of the primary bond are severed, residual latencies remain as fine-grade seeds. This explanation is not correct. What is now called 'latency' is that, due to the seeds of affliction, the lack of workability in the body is also called 'potency'; it is neither identical to nor different from the body of the five aggregates. Because it has no separate essence, it cannot be called different; because the five aggregates are not destroyed after coarse and heavy latencies are severed, it cannot be called identical. This is called 'latency'.

10.16

Regarding 'all-knowledge', according to the various sūtras and treatises, the knowledge of all aspects is conventional wisdom, and all-knowledge is ultimate wisdom. If according to the sūtras and treatises translated by Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha, wisdom conforming to principle is called knowledge of all aspects; because the realm of phenomena of tathatā is the seed, cause, and condition of all dharmas, [wisdom that takes] the seed and cause [as object] is called knowledge of all aspects, deriving its name from the object. As the Abhidharmakośa says: 'The knowledge of all aspects destroys all darkness'; here conventional wisdom is called all[-knowledge]. Now, relying on this text, wisdom taking the real as its object is called purified wisdom, and wisdom taking the conventional as its object is called all-knowledge.

10.17

Regarding the shared and unshared virtues, there are generally two approaches: First, based on bodily maturation, virtues perfected exclusively in the Buddha's body that cannot be attained by the two vehicles are called 'unshared', such as the thirty-two marks and eighty minor characteristics mentioned herein. If they are shared and accomplished in common with the two vehicles, they are described as 'shared', such as non-contention, knowledge born of aspiration, and unimpeded understanding mentioned herein. Second, based on teachings, if the teachings of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna jointly describe the Buddha's virtues, they are called shared virtues, meaning the thirty-two marks, eighty minor characteristics, and so forth. If the virtues of the Buddhas are spoken of only in the Mahāyāna and not in the Hīnayāna, they are called unshared, such as the twenty virtues, purest wisdom, and so on in the Saṃgraha and other texts. Furthermore, according to the Chapter on Virtues in the Anuttarāśraya-sūtra, the Tathāgata's one hundred and eighty unshared dharmas are clarified, as explained in detail there.

10.18

Second, in differentiating bodhi in terms of the seven supreme excellences, it was previously called 'unexcelled' and is now called 'supreme excellence'. 'Supreme excellence' and 'unexcelled' can be mutually explained by one another: because it is unexcelled, it is therefore supremely excellent; because it is supremely excellent, it is therefore unexcelled. However, according to the Sanskrit text, the meaning corresponds to 'supreme excellence'.

10.19

Within this, there are four [parts]: first, adducing the number to praise the excellence; second, listing the seven names; third, explaining them according to the names; fourth, altering the names for different explanations.

10.20

Regarding 'excellence of basis', formerly called 'bodily unexcelledness': in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the bodhi of various śrāvakas is attained even relying on an incomplete [body], and the bodhi of pratyekabuddhas may be attained relying on any body, up to a body with thirty-one marks, but is never attained relying on a body complete with the thirty-two marks. The bodhi of a Buddha alone is attained relying fully on a body adorned with the thirty-two marks; hence it is called 'excellence of basis'.

10.21

Regarding the fourth, 'perfection': the three clusters of moral disciplines are called perfection of morality; being free from wrong views is called perfection of view; deportment such as walking and standing is called perfection of conduct; being free from wrong livelihood in begging for food, preaching the Dharma, and so forth is called perfection of pure livelihood.

10.22

In [the section on] the supreme excellence of abidings, it first establishes two statements: 'Because the Tathāgatas mostly abide' is the first statement; 'the unexcelled, unequaled three abidings' is the second statement. In the explanation below 'the various...', it first lists the names of the three abidings. In the explanation of the statement below 'it should be known...', it first explains the second statement; below 'in these three abidings...', it turns back to explain the first statement. The three gateways to liberation and the concentration of cessation are called 'noble abidings' because only noble ones abide in them to attain the name 'noble abiding'; hence it clarifies that the Tathāgata abides in the practice of the three emptinesses and in the concentration of cessation. The four dhyānas and four formless [attainments] are the species of gods and the causes of gods; because the Buddha abides in the cause of gods, they are called 'divine abidings'. Although humans attain concentration, they do not receive the retribution of concentration, so they are not called 'human abidings'. The four immeasurables open the path to the Brahmā heaven and attain the retribution of the Brahmā heaven, mostly serving as 'Brahmā abidings'. Regarding why among noble abidings he mostly abides in emptiness and the concentration of cessation: if one abides in wishlessness, one is revulsed by the dependent; if one abides in signlessness, one rejoices in the real; now, abiding in emptiness eliminates both revulsion and rejoicing. If one enters the concentration of cessation, all conceptual proliferation ceases. In the lower three concentrations wisdom is abundant and concentration is deficient; in the four formless [attainments] concentration is abundant and wisdom is deficient; only in the fourth dhyāna are concentration and wisdom equal, so the Tathāgata mostly abides in it. Among the four Brahmā abidings, because the Tathāgata's intention mostly gathers the suffering, he abides in great compassion. Below 'during the six periods of day and night...', it explains the intention of abiding in great compassion. As Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states, adding a 'Buddha abiding' to the previous three abidings makes four Buddha abidings: namely, the Śūraṅgama and immeasurable samādhis, as well as the Buddha's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, unshared dharmas, and so forth, are all Buddha abidings. Or they are divided into sixteen: divine abidings have eight, namely four in the form realm and four in the formless realm; Brahmā abidings have four, namely the four immeasurables; the noble stages have four, namely wishlessness, etc., and the concentration of cessation; thus there are sixteen, and when expanded they are immeasurable, as explained in that treatise.

10.23

Third, in distinguishing the ten titles, Ji says: With regard to the ten titles being named 'merits [borne of] recollecting': because merit is attained in accordance with sentient beings' recollection, they are called 'merits of recollection.' Regarding the World-Honoured One, his essence is solely one, yet possesses ten titles. Now, as the Tripiṭaka Master determines among the ten, the final one is a general title, while the preceding nine are specific titles. Concerning the specific titles: the first three encompass both benefits [self and other]; the middle three are solely for self-benefit; and the final three are solely for benefiting others. If so, as the first and third merely state that his speech lacks falsehood and that he awakens to the ultimate truth of phenomena, where is benefiting others explained? It is because the lack of falsehood in speech does not stand in isolation without principle; there must be one who receives it. Therefore, one knows that in 'Thus-Come' (Tathāgata) there is also benefiting others, and so on, which should be understood by analogy. Below, by analogy, that within purely benefiting others there is also self-benefit may similarly be understood. If following Master Huiyuan of the old [tradition]: among the nine specific titles, the first five are names of self-virtue, and the subsequent four are titles of benefiting others. Since [the Arhat title] ought to benefit others, why call it self-virtue? Furthermore, within the first five, each constitutes two pairs: the first displays the perfection of the path, while the later contemplates the culmination of cessation; the third explains that the initial two causes of tranquility and insight are perfected, followed by the one fruition-virtue. Now, explaining according to meaning: 'worthy' (arhat) merely possesses the sense of 'worthy of being benefited,' not benefiting others, hence it is also self-benefit. Ce says: These ten titles derive their names in seven [ways]: Tathāgata, Arhat, and Sugata derive their names from causes; Samyaksaṃbuddha derives its name from function and essence; Vidyācaraṇasaṃpanna derives its name from virtue and ultimate truth; Lokavid and Śāstā Devamanuṣyāṇām derive their names from object and function; Anuttarapuruṣadamyasārathi derives its name from provisional person and function; Buddha derives its name from its actual essence; Bhagavat establishes its name from multiple meanings—namely, the six meanings of sovereignty and so forth, as explained in the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra. Regarding 'speech without falsehood' being called Tathāgata: the old commentary says, 'Because it is not otherwise than spoken, it is named Tathāgata.' According to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa and the Harivarman's Satyasiddhi: 'Because he comes along the path of reality to accomplish right awakening, he is called Tathāgata.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Because he comes by riding the six pāramitās and the eleven empties, he is called Tathāgata.' The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: 'Because he comes riding all-knowledge (sarvākārajñatā) to transform sentient beings, he is named Tathāgata.' The Diamond Prajñāpāramitā says: 'Because he has nowhere from which he comes and nowhere to which he goes, he is named Tathāgata.' Question: If 'speech without falsehood' is named Tathāgata, the Buddha originally made a vow in his causal conditions: 'If sentient beings do not enter nirvāṇa, I also will not enter; if sentient beings do not attain bodhi, I also will not realize it.' Although he made this vow, sentient beings have not entered nirvāṇa themselves nor attained bodhi, yet the Buddha abandoned sentient beings to take nirvāṇa for himself and realize bodhi. How can he be named 'speech without falsehood'? Master Jing answers: The reasoning is indeed difficult. One explanation: Although this vow existed in his fundamental aspiration, he subsequently contemplated that although a bodhisattva benefits others, it is not equal to a Buddha; if he does not become a Buddha, his benefiting of others will not be extensive; therefore he had to achieve the Buddha path. However, so long as sentient beings have not entered without remainder, he ultimately will not enter nirvāṇa without remainder; thus there is no falsehood. Another explanation says: He fundamentally aspired and vowed to deliver sentient beings, saying 'If they do not attain bodhi, I vow not to realize it.' Now, although various bodhisattvas have completed the practices of the ten stages, they do not realize it—such as Mañjuśrī and others. This is just as the Laṅkāvatāra says: 'There are two kinds of icchantika: one who has severed the roots of goodness, and the bodhisattva-icchantika who ultimately does not take unexcelled bodhi.' Regarding Samyaksaṃbuddha, Ce says: This takes fundamental non-conceptual wisdom as its essence; furthermore, he states that Lokavid takes subsequent wisdom as its essence. Now it is explained: it is also permissible that right wisdom is named right awakening, and subsequent wisdom is named universal awakening. Regarding 'according with its ultimate truth': the paratantra and the true nature (pariniṣpanna) are together named ultimate truth; because it is contrasted with the phenomena that exist conceptually as parikalpita, paratantra is also called ultimate truth. 'Knowledge' means the three knowledges (vidyā); 'conduct' is as explained in the sūtra. Regarding 'the two categories of tranquility and insight' and so forth: as the old commentary says, 'The three knowledges are as explained in the sūtra; conduct comprises the two categories of phenomena: tranquility and insight.' The present śāstra translates that. Because they counter ignorance concerning the three periods of time, they are called the three knowledges. Question: Ordinary beings, learners, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and all Buddhas all know the past; why are there [distinctions between] knowledge and non-knowledge, possessing power and lacking power? Answer: Ordinary beings and learners only generally know the results; their knowing has an end, so it cannot be named knowledge. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas, as well as the fully accomplished ones, all Buddhas, know both cause and effect, completely illuminating phenomena without remainder, which is named knowledge. Prior to eighty thousand kalpas, the superknowledges cannot reach, and there is still ignorance; being overcome by ignorance, it cannot be called a power. Question: The knowledge of past lives knows the past; ordinary beings and the two vehicles equally know eighty thousand [kalpas]. Why is it that when the divine eye sees the present, it is said that ordinary beings see the four continents, the Brahmā King sees a small-thousand [world], the śrāvaka sees two thousand, and the pratyekabuddha sees three thousand? Jing says: The divine eye and ear faculties are wisdom within the five consciousnesses, whose operation is inferior; thus, in accordance with the person's strength and capacity, they see far or near, and as present objects are partitioned and enclosed, they see far or near according to their power. The knowledge of past lives and so on is the mental consciousness, which is strong and thus able to know eighty thousand [kalpas]. Another explanation says: Only those of the bodhisattva gotra who possess birthlessness are able to know eighty thousand kalpas, as in the Sāṃkhya and other texts; it is not other ordinary beings. The hundredth fascicle of the Vibhāṣā, in distinguishing the differences of kalpas seen by those holding eternalist views, states that those of the śrāvaka gotra recollect twenty thousand kalpas, those of the pratyekabuddha gotra recollect forty thousand kalpas, and those of the bodhisattva gotra recollect eighty thousand kalpas. In explaining 'Teacher of Gods and Humans,' it first lists the main points and then explains them according to meaning: 'Because he opens the way for the explicit meaning' explains 'because he is the true eye'; 'because he is the support for all meanings' explains 'because he is the true wisdom'—meaning relies on wisdom to be revealed, hence he is the support for meaning. The four clauses beginning with 'because he is able to elucidate implicit meanings' explain 'because he is the true meaning': first, the Tathāgata can resolve implicit meanings for sentient beings; second, because he is able to sever the concepts generated by sentient beings; third, because he is able to reveal the profound aspects of ultimate truth; fourth, because he further purifies those who have newly realized the profound. Endowed with these four meanings, it is therefore said 'because he is the true meaning.' The three clauses beginning with 'because he is the fundamental root for all phenomena' explain 'because he is the true Dharma': 'Dharma' refers to the Dharma of the teachings; because the Tathāgata is the root of all scriptural teachings, because he is the guide of the scriptural teachings, and because he acts as the support for the scriptural teachings, the Tathāgata is the true Dharma. The above clarifies the virtues of a teacher; below explains the meaning of a teacher: the Tathāgata can properly admonish and instruct gods, humans, and others. Ce says: Saying 'because he is the true eye' refers to wisdom directed toward meaning; 'because he is the true wisdom' refers to wisdom directed toward Dharma; 'because he is the true meaning' re-mentions wisdom directed toward meaning; 'because he is the true Dharma' re-mentions wisdom directed toward Dharma, and so forth. Regarding the three [phrases] such as 'in the collection of dharmas that can lead to benefit and advantage': the old commentary says, 'beneficial meaning, unbeneficial meaning, and neither beneficial nor unbeneficial meaning'; these are the three natures, wholesome and so forth. One who can overcome Māra and possesses manifold merits is called Bhagavat: according to custom in the Western regions, this title is supreme; whether non-Buddhists or Buddhists, all praise their fundamental teacher as Bhagavat. Because there is no term here [in China] by which to translate it, the Sanskrit term is retained. If according to Sanskrit manuscripts, the beginning of all sūtras says 'Bhagavat' without adding the word 'Buddha,' and at the end there is also no title of 'World-Honoured One.' The Satyasiddhiśāstra says: 'Because he possesses the above nine virtues, he is named World-Honoured One'; this is also not in accord with principle.

10.24

Fourth, in distinguishing manifestation, the text is divided into three: first, it explains that within one world-realm there may be many kalpas without a Buddha, or within one kalpa there may be many Buddhas appearing; second, from 'in those respective [directions]' onward, it explains that in the world-realms of the ten directions there are immeasurable Buddhas; third, from 'it is definitive that in no single Buddha-land' onward, it explains the intent behind there not being two Buddhas appearing in one world-realm.

10.25

Regarding the earlier [section's statement] that within one kalpa there may be many Buddhas appearing: this refers to the appearance of a thousand Buddhas within the Fortunate Kalpa (Bhadrakalpa). Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: When the world was first formed, there was a thousand-petalled lotus in the great ocean; when [the devas] up to the Akaniṣṭha heaven saw the thousand lotuses in the collection of waters, they said: 'In this kalpa a thousand Buddhas will appear, so it is virtuous and good (bhadra).' Question: If those thousand Buddhas appear together in a single kalpa of formation and destruction, why did Paramārtha state that no Buddhas appear in the kalpas of formation, destruction, and emptiness, but only in the kalpa of abiding (sthitikalpa) do Buddhas appear in the world? Among the twenty kalpas, Buddhas appear in the world during the first ten kalpas, but none in the latter ten; among the first ten kalpas, during the first five kalpas no Buddhas appear either; in the sixth kalpa Krakucchanda Buddha appears in the world; in the seventh kalpa Kanakamuni Buddha appears in the world; in the eighth kalpa Kāśyapa Buddha appears; in the ninth kalpa Śākyamuni appears; in the tenth kalpa Maitreya Buddha appears; and after Maitreya, through immeasurable kalpas, it is empty and without any Buddha appearing. Therefore we know that a thousand Buddhas cannot appear in unbroken succession in a single kalpa of formation and destruction. If the Fortunate Kalpa has a thousand Buddhas, and it is said that they are together in a single kalpa of formation and destruction, then there were also a thousand Buddhas in the past Glorious Kalpa (Vyūhakalpa), who should also have been together in a single kalpa of formation and destruction. If it is said that they are together, that is incorrect. As the Sūtra on the Contemplation of the Bodhisattvas Bhaiṣajyarāja and Bhaiṣajyasamudgata says: The Buddha told the great assembly: 'In the past, I met Supraphāsa Buddha. When I first aroused the aspiration, hearing the names of the fifty-three Buddhas proclaimed, my heart was filled with joy, and I spoke them for others. A thousand people aroused the aspiration. Those in turn spoke them again, and another thousand people aroused the bodhi-mind. Being thus taught and shown in turn, yet another thousand people aroused the bodhi-mind. Good sons, the first thousand people are the thousand Buddhas in the past Glorious Kalpa; the middle thousand people are the thousand Buddhas in the Fortunate Kalpa; the latter thousand people are those who will appear in the world in the future Constellation Kalpa (Nakṣatrakalpa).' As in that past Glorious Kalpa, the final three Buddhas—namely, Vipaśyin Buddha, who appeared in the first of ninety kalpas; Śikhin Buddha and Viśvabhū Buddha, who appeared in thirty-two kalpas; thereafter there were no Buddhas until the ninety-first kalpa, which is the beginning of the Fortunate Kalpa, when Krakucchanda Buddha first appeared in the world. Since it says that the final three Buddhas of the thousand Buddhas in the Glorious Kalpa appeared successively over the course of ninety kalpas, the thousand Buddhas at the beginning of the Fortunate Kalpa likewise were not together in a single kalpa of formation and destruction. Answer: The determination by Paramārtha that you cite is insufficient as proof. Why is this? Current determinations in the Western regions hold that the present time corresponds precisely to the twenty small kalpas of the abiding kalpa. Prior to the small kalpas, four Buddhas appeared in the world. Maitreya corresponds to this first abiding kalpa; he will appear in the world only when [the human lifespan goes] from decreasing to increasing up to eighty thousand years. This is because according to the Mahāyāna determination, in each of the twenty abiding kalpas there is one increase and one decrease before forming a small kalpa. If sentient beings' capacities and roots are mature and have the conditions to see a Buddha, there is no fault in a thousand Buddhas appearing in every single small kalpa. How could one say there are further nineteen small kalpas [without Buddhas]? Your relying on Paramārtha to arbitrarily determine that no Buddhas appear in the latter ten kalpas and that none appear in the former five kalpas is unreasonable. Furthermore, citing the Kośa which says that the latter three Buddhas of the Glorious Kalpa appeared successively during those ninety-one kalpas in which Śākyamuni cultivated the karma of the marks and characteristics, thereby knowing that a thousand Buddhas were not in the same single class of kalpa: this is not so. The Mahāyāna does not teach that after three asaṃkhyeya kalpas one separately cultivates the karma of the marks and characteristics for a hundred kalpas; stating that Śākyamuni completed the three asaṃkhyeya kalpas and further encountered those three Buddhas to cultivate the marks during ninety-one kalpas is an implicit teaching in accord with the Hīnayāna, and cannot be cited as proof. Therefore, it is now determined: what the Sūtra on the Contemplation of Bhaiṣajyarāja and Bhaiṣajyasamudgata says—that the first thousand people appeared together in a single Glorious Kalpa—means it is also a single water-and-fire kalpa; the middle thousand people appear together in a single Fortunate Kalpa; and the latter thousand people appear in the world together in a single Constellation Kalpa. Moreover, this accords delightfully with what is stated in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: 'In this kalpa a thousand Buddhas will appear,' as the meaning was already explained previously in the second fascicle of this Record.

10.26

In the second passage, there are three parts: first, briefly establishing the thesis that across multiple worlds there are moreover multiple Buddhas; second, from 'For what reason' onward, extensive discrimination through question and answer; third, after explaining, the general conclusion. As for 'For what reason', it means: for what reason can there be multiple Buddhas in the worlds of the ten directions? In this too there are three parts: first, the question; next, the explanation; finally, the conclusion. Within the explanation there are three parts: first, explaining that because there are many who cultivate the cause to become Buddhas, this also manifoldly proves that there are multiple Buddhas; second, from 'Furthermore, currently existing in the ten directions' onward, explaining that two Buddhas do not appear simultaneously in one realm, which proves that there are multiple Buddhas; third, from 'Furthermore, it should not be said' onward, refuting the clinging to cultivating the cause at the same time and becoming Buddhas sequentially or not becoming Buddhas. Within the former, regarding the phrase 'at such a portion': the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'Such deportment: this is named a portion.' This likewise refers to the times of those four deportments, which are named portions; it could also be those portions of the six periods of the day. Next, regarding 'Furthermore, in the ten directions [...] up to [...] becoming Buddhas at one and the same time': the meaning here is to explain that there are many bodhisattvas whose provisions for bodhi have been perfected at one and the same time; if they did not become Buddhas simultaneously in other worlds but did so in a single world, that would not be correct—this refutes the Hinayāna clinging which claims there are no Buddhas of the ten directions. The intent of the subsequent text is that if they were to dwell together in Tuṣita heaven and become Buddhas sequentially or not become Buddhas, that would not be correct. Here there is an objection: 'If they make vows at one and the same time and reach perfection at one and the same time, with sentient beings in one world, and the faculties of the sentient beings of one Buddha mature at one and the same time, how is this resolved?' The interpretation says: there is no such case. If so, even with the sentient beings of Maitreya and Śākyamuni there is precedence and subsequence, and the maturation of their faculties is not identical; how could one say that sentient beings whose faculties mature at one and the same time are in the same single realm? 'Therefore, it should be known' is the third, the conclusion. 'Due to this reasoning' onward, within the second major section, is the third text, which concludes the text on there being multiple Buddhas.

10.27

In the third [section], explaining the intent that there are not two Buddhas in one realm: first, briefly stating that there are not two Buddhas in one realm; second, extensive discrimination through question and answer. In the answer there are three parts: first, adducing that in accordance with past vows, two Buddhas do not appear together; next, explaining that the appearance of a second Buddha would be of no benefit; finally, explaining that the appearance of one Buddha brings benefit, while the appearance of multiple Buddhas brings detriment.

10.28

From here below, the fifth [section] discriminates bodhi in terms of differentiated and other qualities: first, discriminating the real qualities, which are identical; next, explaining that the manifested aspects have differences; finally, explaining that through transformation of the basis (āśrayaparavṛtti) a female body can realize bodhi. Question: 'If it is said that a female body does not realize bodhi, why does the Lotus Sūtra speak of the dragon girl becoming a Buddha and so forth? How is this resolved?' The interpretation says: nevertheless, that dragon girl also transformed into a male and only then became a Buddha; it was not with a female body that she became a Buddha. The above five sections altogether constitute the first [topic], presenting the essence of bodhi.

10.29

From here below, the second is the concluding statement, which can be understood.

10.30

In the third, the praise in three phrases: first, listing the three kinds of excellence: first, excellence of essence, because it surpasses the path of investigation; second, excellence of qualities, because it is gathered and formed by a multitude of qualities; third, excellence of function, because it can give birth to the bodhi of the three vehicles; furthermore, concluding the praise with four names.

10.31

Chapter on the Gotra of Powers

10.32

Former masters said: 'The previous five chapters explained the teachings to be learned (dharma); the following eleven chapters explain the practice of learning them. Although the later practice chapters are dharma, the former are the essence of the dharma, and the latter are the procedures for the preparation and cultivation of skillful means; hence they are collectively designated as the station of skillful means.'

10.33

Herein there are three parts: the first single chapter explains the fundamental skillful means for gathering learning; next, there are nine chapters on engaging conditions to properly learn; the final single chapter is on attaining qualities through learning. Now, however, it is not so: the third, the 'Holder of Learning', has sixteen chapters; the first five chapters discriminate the stations of learning, primarily explaining what is to be learned while concurrently including the person capable of learning, without yet explaining how one should learn. The sixth single chapter properly discriminates practicing how one should learn in this way, and the remaining ten chapters properly explain the one capable of learning, primarily explaining the practice of the one capable of learning while concurrently including the teachings to be learned. Therefore, the beginning of the 'Holder of Learning' says: 'If with respect to the stations of learning one explains learning in this way, one is capable of cultivating learning.' Thus there are three topics. If based on the first chapter below, there is immediately the introductory text: 'If with respect to the stations of learning'; after explaining the five chapters, coming to this Chapter on the Gotra of Powers, there is again the introductory text: 'If learning in this way', explaining the conclusion of the previous six chapters.

10.34

When explaining 'if capable of cultivating learning' in the Chapter on Giving, at the beginning there is no introductory text on 'capable of cultivating learning'; based on this reasoning, the former five chapters primarily explain the stations of learning while concurrently including the person capable of learning, and the following eleven chapters explain the practice of what is to be learned while concurrently explaining the teachings to be learned and the person capable of learning. That is, the three initial phrases of the 'Holder of Learning'—'if with respect to the stations of learning', 'if learning in this way'—determine the number of chapters. The first phrase explains the initial teachings to be learned; although it explains the teachings to be learned, it has not yet clarified that one should learn in this way, and therefore the subsequent second phrase explains that one should learn in this way. As for 'if capable of cultivating learning', it is concurrently explained within the stations of learning and learning in this way; the meaning of this division is not yet divided into three excellences as in the previous explanation. If 'with respect to the stations of learning' and 'if learning in this way' have introductory remarks at the start of the former six chapters, although in the Chapter on Giving regarding 'capable of cultivating learning' there is no introductory text, there is also a concluding text explaining the future merits; hence we know that the ten chapters are verified learning. As for 'gotra of powers': 'power' refers to the ten powers; the seeds of the ten powers are named the 'gotra of powers'. The previous first Chapter on Gotra generally explained the gotra of all natures without yet explaining the gotra of the ten powers accomplished through habituation; now, wishing specifically to explain the habituated gotra, [this chapter is set forth].

10.35

Regarding the Chapter on the Gotra of Powers: in the text, first it concludes the preceding and introduces the following; next, it lays out the headings; finally, it discriminates them extensively according to the headings. Within laying them out: first, adducing the verses; second, the prose correlates them.

10.36

A bodhisattva wishing to diligently cultivate and learn with respect to the stations of what should be learned in the seven dharmas of the previously explained five chapters must first give rise to vows. Vows are resolute faith (adhimukti); having resolute faith, one seeks the Dharma; having sought the Dharma oneself, one should expound it for others; having expounded it, one should practice it oneself; having practiced it oneself, one further instructs others to cause them to cultivate goodness, and further admonishes them to cause them to sever evil; when others abide in instruction and admonition, they are then able to gather and give rise to wholesome bodily, vocal, and mental [karma].

10.37

In discriminating according to the headings, there are ten sections.

10.38

In the first, explaining resolute faith, it first explains the eight kinds of resolute faith, and subsequently explains in general the causes and conditions for cultivating the eight to completion. Within the former, regarding the phrase 'towards the eight kinds [...] up to [...] decisive joy and delight': Jing says: 'Resolute faith, faith, and desire here—desire being joy and delight—all constitute the essence of vows; with respect to these eight objects they are named the bases of vows.' Ce relates two explanations. One says: resolute faith is a mental factor; joy and delight are the mental factor of desire (chanda); upon initially entering the stage of Buddhahood, one must necessarily first give rise to pure faith to conformably seek the Three Jewels, and only then can one enter; hence [this phrasing]. Another says: resolute faith is the mental factor of liberation; it is decisive resolute faith with respect to the Three Jewels as object.

10.39

Question: 'If so, why does the treatise state: "preceded by pure faith, decisive joy and delight"?'

10.40

The explanation says: these two dharmas of faith and desire are simultaneous companions to the mental factor of liberation; due to these two dharmas, it can produce the aspect of decisiveness with respect to the object of the Three Jewels.

10.41

Although there are two explanations, the former explanation is superior. Below, explaining why the old treatise did not enumerate the counts of one, two, and so forth: therefore Dharma Master Yuan and others mistakenly enumerated the eight kinds of resolute faith, counting the Three Jewels as three, towards bodhisattvas and so forth as the fourth, true meaning as the fifth, causes and effects as the sixth, towards the meaning to be attained as the seventh, towards the means of attainment as the eighth, and towards well-spoken words and so forth as generally stating the preceding eight dharmas.

10.42

Now this new treatise clearly enumerates one, two, and so forth, which was not known [previously]. In each of them there are uniformly two sections: first, citing the sūtra's explanation to establish resolute faith; second, from 'all with respect to' onward, Bodhisattva Maitreya explains the meaning of the sūtra. First, towards the Three Jewels, the vow to make offerings; second, the vow to attain spiritual superknowledges; third, towards the two truths, the vow to realize them; fourth and fifth, the vow to thoroughly penetrate the principle of cause and effect; sixth, the vow to attain bodhi.

10.43

Tai says: as for 'the meaning to be attained', bodhi has great benefit, which is named 'meaning'; because it is towards the great bodhi that ought to be attained, it is called 'the meaning to be attained'; seventh, the cultivation of the skillful means of bodhi; eighth, the vow to understand the twelve divisions of teachings.

10.44

Regarding 'well-stated, well-spoken, and well-expounded': Jing tentatively supplements, saying: 'Because the twelve divisions of scriptures differ according to the baskets, there are distinctions between stated, spoken, and expounded.'

10.45

In the second, explaining the seeking of Dharma, there is first a question and then an answer. In the question there are three parts: 'What should be sought?' asks about the Dharma to be sought; 'How is it sought?' asks about the method of seeking; 'For what purpose is it sought?' asks about the intent of seeking. In accordance with these three questions, the answer also has three parts. Within the answer to the first question there are two parts: first, combining and dividing the five sciences to clarify the seeking of four dharmas; second, from 'All such' onward, separating and combining the four dharmas to discriminate the seeking of the five sciences.

10.46

Within the former, regarding the statement 'one should seek the bodhisattva basket and the śrāvaka basket': this divides inner science into two dharmas. 'All non-Buddhist treatises': this combines reasoning science, grammatical science, and medical science into external dharmas; because treatises of non-Buddhist traditions first expounded reasoning science, grammatical science, and so forth, while the Buddhadharma also occasionally spoke of reasoning science without widely practicing or using it, and only when it reached Master Manoratha did scholars begin to compile, study, and guard against the objections of non-Buddhist treatises, gradually putting it into practice without yet being able to crush opponents, and only when it reached Dignāga did it begin to flourish, with all non-Buddhists coming to listen and study; therefore, fundamentally those three sciences are combined as non-Buddhist treatises. 'All worldly treatises on stations of crafts and arts': the activities conducted in the station of the science of arts and crafts are numerous, so it is independently established as one, making the fourth. Regarding the statement 'It should be known that among the twelve divisions of teachings, the single vaipulya division is solely the bodhisattva basket, and the remaining divisions are the śrāvaka basket': the old Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'The remaining eleven divisions are solely the śrāvaka basket'; that would mean the Mahāyāna lacks the twelve divisions. Now it states: 'The remaining divisions contain the śrāvaka basket'; that means the Mahāyāna completely possesses the twelve, while the śrāvaka [canon] has only eleven, excluding the vaipulya division. A discrepancy of a single word makes the doctrinal intent as distant as Hu and Yue. What is its meaning? The single vaipulya division explains the Mahāyāna principle, hence it is solely the bodhisattva basket; the remaining eleven are the śrāvaka basket, yet there are also those that are not the śrāvaka basket. If, as the Abhidharma states, 'The five such as sūtra are subsumed under the sūtra basket within the śrāvaka basket', the Mahāyāna also possesses the meaning of these five divisions; because they all clarify vaipulya matters, they are not separately established outside of vaipulya, whereas the Hīnayāna lacks vaipulya and so separately establishes these five. Because these five do not correspond to two separate baskets, they are simply subsumed under the sūtra basket. Later that treatise states: 'Nidāna, avadāna, itivṛttaka, and jātaka—these four, within the two baskets, are subsumed under the vinaya basket and the retinue of the bodhisattva; vaipulya and adbhutadharma—these two, within the bodhisattva basket, are subsumed under the sūtra basket.' Where other sūtras, treatises, and the subsequent text of this treatise's Piṭaka differ, it is comprehensively explained as in the notes to the previous fourth and fifth fascicles.

10.47

In the second, explaining the separation and combination of the four dharmas to discriminate the seeking of the five sciences: in the first, listing the five sciences; second, distinguishing them through question and answer. Herein, first, question and answer discriminating the quantity of dharmas expressed by the five sciences; second, extensively discriminating the meaning expressed by reasoning science (hetuvidyā).

10.48

In the former, questioning how the teaching-names of the five sciences express meaning-dharmas is called the transformation of the characteristics of meaning.

10.49

In the answer: although the meanings expressed by the treatises on reasoning science are immeasurable, their core explains cause and effect; reasoning science primarily states inference (anumāna), thus revealing the principle of refuting others and establishing one's own [thesis]. In grammatical science: first, revealing the characteristics of establishing roots reveals the essence of words, while the characteristics of capable establishment explains the conditions of words; second, revealing the characteristics of skill in speech and its advantages discriminates the function of grammatical science—what are called male, female, higher, lower, and other vocal sounds are named skill in speech and its advantages. The characteristics of the latter two sciences can be understood.

10.50

From here below, extensively discriminating through question and answer the meanings expressed by reasoning science. Herein, first, explaining the characteristics of correct causes and effects; later, discriminating the characteristics of gain and loss regarding what has been done and what has not been done.

10.51

In the former there are three parts: first, explaining the characteristics of causes, which are the ten causes; next, explaining the characteristics of effects, which are the five effects; finally, concluding in general that when a bodhisattva understands the characteristics of cause and effect, it causes the gotra of the power of knowing what is possible and impossible gradually to increase.

10.52

In the former: first, generally adducing the number; second, listing the three headings; third, the explanation; fourth, after explaining, concluding in general that there is neither excess nor addition.

10.53

Concerning the third, the explanation: first, explaining the adduced number; later, explaining the three headings.

10.54

In the former, first the question and then the answer; within, first listing the ten names, next explaining the ten causes, and finally discussing their mutual subsumption and scope with respect to the two causes and four conditions.

10.55

The text explaining the ten causes generally explains the meaning of the ten causes across the three natures. Among them, the three factors—name, conception, and verbal expression—constitute the conventional cause (anuvyavahāra-hetu). Because one conceives of the name of a dharma, verbal expression arises; and because the meaning is revealed through expression, this dharma is revealed in accordance with expression—hence it is called the conventional cause. Kuiji says: For example, because the name 'form' existed first, upon hearing this name later one subsequently gives rise to conception and grasps the image as good or bad; because of this grasping of an image, one subsequently gives rise to verbal expression, taking it as the cause for uttering words such as 'form'. Furthermore, as the fourth fascicle of the Samuccaya states: 'The conventional cause refers to name, conception, view, and verbal expression, jointly using them with the former [three] as its nature.' What is the intention behind this treatise not mentioning 'view' while that treatise does? Because by grasping the image of form through conception one subsequently gives rise to clinging, and clinging to what is good is called 'view'; and because of clinging, one gives rise to verbal expression. One asks: If it is a cause of purity, how can it be called clinging? The view that is a cause of purity is right view; knowing in accord with that dharma, although not clinging, is also called 'view'. That treatise mentions it because its function is distinct while shared with conception; that this and other treatises do not mention it is because, when clinging arises upon grasping an image, view is subsumed within the similar conception of a single thing, which is why it is not discussed. Furthermore, generally whenever there is something expressed, there is only conception, and it does not necessarily give rise to view; that treatise speaks according to the combined functioning where clinging arises concurrently, whereas this treatise speaks solely based on non-clinging, so there is no contradiction. Next, because one regards this dharma as a cause and therefore seeks and grasps that [result], it is called the cause of dependency (apekṣā-hetu). As for 'all seeds, in relation to their own subsequent fruits, are called the propelling cause (ākṣepa-hetu)': according to the text here, it comprehensively includes the habit energy of the factors of existence propelling subsequent retribution fruits, and it also includes the habit energy of conventional designations leading to subsequent fruits of the same kind—both are called the propelling cause. The remaining three conditions, excluding the cause-condition seeds, are called the receiving cause (parigraha-hetu). This comprehensively subsumes both types of seeds—those of the factors of existence and those of conventional designations. The own fruit of the very first moment is called the generating cause (abhinivṛtti-hetu), which means simultaneous generation. Tai says: As the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī says, 'The propelling cause is designated based on the support-basis of the habit energy of pure and impure actions among all formations; the generating cause is designated based on the causal support-basis of moisturized seeds.' Why is this? Because dharmas bound to the form and formless realms each arise from their own seeds, craving is called 'that which can moisturize'; through these moisturized seeds, the respective individual substances previously propelled will be generated in the future. As a sūtra says: 'Karma is the cause of thriving rebirth; craving is the cause of arising.' The commentary explains: Because craving seeds moisturize karma, the retribution can then arise; when it first arises, it requires craving to moisturize its arising, so craving seeds are called the generating cause in relation to the first-arisen fruit. At later times, continuation no longer relies on craving—just as an arhat has no craving yet their retribution can still continue—the retribution that arises later simply continues due to the power of karma. Therefore it says that all seeds, in relation to their own subsequent fruits, are called propelling. These two causes are precisely the meaning of the generating and propelling causes in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Master Yuān of the Western Region has three explanations. The first explanation states: All seeds, in relation to the arising of the first moment of retribution, are called the generating cause; in relation to the arising of retribution from the subsequent moments onward, they are called the propelling cause. The second explanation states: In relation to the body born of a single retribution at the beginning, they are called the generating cause; in relation to the subsequent corpse, they are called the propelling cause. Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'Death still continues.' The third explanation states: Ignorance and formations, in relation to future birth, aging, and death, are called the propelling cause; craving, grasping, and existence, in relation to birth, aging, and death, are called the generating cause. Therefore, among the twelve links of dependent origination, ignorance and formations are the propelling limbs, while craving, grasping, and existence are the generating limbs. Next, comprehensively taking all actualities generated by prior seeds in relation to actualities generated by subsequent seeds is called the inducing cause (udbhāvana-hetu). Comprehensively taking the individual cause-conditions of internal and external dharmas of the three natures is called the distinct cause (pratiniyama-hetu). Whatever dharma arises, it must rely on these causes such as the cause of dependency before it can be generated—this is called the co-functioning cause (sahakāri-hetu). All conditioned things that obstruct the arising of dharmas are the contradictory cause (virodha-hetu); the non-contradictory cause (avirodha-hetu) can be known [by implication]. According to the explanation in the old Bodhisattvabhūmi, the first two causes and the last two causes are shared, matching the explanation here, while the middle six causes are explained solely with reference to external indeterminate causes. Below, six kinds of contradiction are cited; taking specifically the contradiction of arising is called the contradictory cause. In 'hostile contradiction,' where it says 'poisonous snakes, weasels, cats, mice, and harvest mice': here they are mutually hostile enemies, up to harvest mice in turn fearing poisonous snakes; in this sequence they are mutually hostile, having no kindness when meeting one another.

First 55 of 611 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

瑜伽論記 — Classical Chinese