瑜伽師地論略纂 11

English (machine translation) 11

Language: English

Next, to clarify the "Chapter on Power": Previously, the real was clarified as the object realized by wisdom; having attained what is realized, it cannot be in vain, which means ripening sentient beings and displaying great spiritual transformations to give rise to faith and cause them to attain the noble fruits. For bodhisattvas, benefiting oneself and benefiting others, displaying great spiritual penetrations, cultivating proper practice, and seeking the fruit to be realized in the future; and for the Munis, realizing their own Buddha activities, giving rise to great compassion, rescuing sentient beings, and manifesting this power—therefore it is called the "Chapter on Power." Hence it is clarified after the "Chapter on the Real Meaning." Master Yuan also says: Why is it clarified next? Because relying on the real meaning, wonderful function is autonomous; therefore it is clarified next. Among the five chapters and seven phenomena, the first three are already completed, and next the fourth is distinguished; hence it is called the "Chapter on Power." The Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra merely calls it the "Chapter on Powers."

11.3

The treatise says, "Third, innate power." The Buddhas only ripen expedient goodness and do not ripen innate goodness, for innate goodness is exclusively contaminated; bodhisattvas possess both kinds. Now, speaking of innate power: it is expedient goodness. Having been practiced in previous lifetimes, it is now born together with the body; hence it is called innate power. It is not that innate goodness is designated as innate power.

11.4

Regarding the treatise's opening of the five kinds of distinctions in the varieties of power, the older treatise says: That is, the previous three powers and eight kinds of discrimination have five kinds. This is incorrect. These are the previous varieties; why would they be called eight kinds of discrimination? The meaning of the six spiritual penetrations is discriminated as usual.

11.5

The treatise says: "What is the spiritual-penetration knowledge of base of supernatural power capable of transformation?" This spiritual-penetration knowledge of base of supernatural power is the object that is transformed; why does it speak here of the spiritual-penetration knowledge of base of supernatural power being capable of transformation? Because it is capable of transforming and creating this object, the object is spoken of from the perspective of the view, being called capable of transformation. Furthermore, although it mentions what is transformed, the intention is to reveal the spiritual penetration, and hence it is called capable of transformation. Being capable of transformation pertains to wisdom; mentioning what is transformed intends the function of that which is capable of transformation.

11.6

Regarding the explanation in the treatise of the fifth of the eighteen transformations, 'transformation' [where it states]: 'If one gives rise to the superior resolution of water with respect to that earth, one immediately causes it to become water, truly and not otherwise,' and so forth: although the Buddhas possess supernatural powers, they cannot transform the five dusts, faculties, and so forth so as to make them into real faculties capable of seeing forms and so on; they resemble those five faculties, but are not real five faculties. Although earth, water, and so on are external sense fields, their substances are each distinct; how could one transform water into fire? It is only that the substance of water ceases and the substance of fire separately arises, wherein it can serve the function of transformation. Due to the Buddha's mighty power, he causes fire to also possess the nature of moisture, and takes this nature of moisture to be the very substance of fire. If changing one nature into another were to mean transforming insentient things into sentient natures, then there would be an increase or loss in the realm of sentient beings; therefore, essential natures cannot be transformed. Here, furthermore, the five dusts can be transformed.

11.7

The treatise states: 'One should know that form, fragrance, taste, and touch are also likewise.' Hence we know that supernormally transforming the five dusts constitutes their actual function; this will be separately explained below up to the *Viniścaya*.

11.8

The treatise states: 'The Brahma-purohita Heaven.' Because they precede the Great Brahma Heaven, they are called the 'Preceding Brahma Heaven'. Why are they called 'benefit' [puro-hita]?

11.9

Regarding the treatise's explanation of suppressing the supernatural powers of others, where it states: 'The supernatural powers possessed by the ultimate Bodhisattva bound to one more life, or one in their final existence': this refers to residing in Tuṣita Heaven, having only this [life left], taking birth here and there, and exhausting this one life; this is called 'one bound to one more life'. 'Or one in their final body' refers to having already been born into the desire realm, and attaining the Way with this very body. Because this body is the final existence of bodies in saṃsāra, it is called the 'final body'. Furthermore, it immediately explains the Bodhisattva seated at the site of awakening, referring to sitting under the Bodhi tree; the time before having attained the Way is called 'seated at the site of awakening'. Thus the previous three.

11.10

The treatise states: 'Able to manifest as a body, or manifest an object,' and so forth. This explains solely that which is capable of transforming.

11.11

The treatise states: 'Furthermore, the manifested body, whether of oneself or another, whether similar or dissimilar, can only be manifested to resemble the faculties and the bases of the faculties, but is not the real faculties.' This is because the functioning of the faculties cannot be manifested, and because there would be the fault of an increase in the realm of sentient beings; hence their function cannot be simulated. The bases of those faculties are simply the internal and external realms of the four or five dusts; therefore they can be manifested to resemble them.

11.12

The treatise states: 'If the manifested body is extremely similar to the Bodhisattva's own body, it is called a manifested body similar to oneself; if it is not so, it is called a manifested body not similar to oneself.' Because the Bodhisattva himself initiates the manifestation, when a Buddha manifests as extremely similar to a Bodhisattva, it is called 'similar to oneself'; otherwise, it is 'not similar'. 'Or there are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who, even after parinirvāṇa, cause [the Dharma] to continue to turn in accordance [with the world] due to the power of their sustenance': for example, although Śākyamuni Buddha has entered parinirvāṇa, due to the power of his sustenance he causes the Dharma to continue to turn down to the present day. 'Or there are those who, having temporarily brought about benefit, have their transformative activities cease': for example, Śuśānta entered parinirvāṇa on the seventh day after attaining the Way, and his Dharma also ceased accordingly; without the power of sustenance, it was not subsequently disseminated, and so his transformative activities ceased.

11.13

Regarding the treatise's explanation of transformed speech: 'like the kalaviṅka's sound, up to being unattached and inexhaustible.' The treatise states: 'Furthermore, because they can recollectedly follow uninterrupted moments, what they do successively is without interruption.' The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can recollect the phenomena of the previous moment and the moment before that, exhausting [all] from beginningless time, completely capable of understanding, and can know in this way within a single moment. The Hīnayāna says: A Buddha, with his initial-abiding cognition, cannot know the two previous moments; when taking moments as an object, because moments are immeasurable, he has not yet grasped them. After fifty or sixty days, one already reaches old age and death; there is no sense of taking moments as an object. Now, in the Mahāyāna, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas all attain this.

11.14

Regarding the treatise's explanation of hearing sounds with the supernatural power of the divine ear: 'There is with manaskāra and without manaskāra.' This is according to Bodhisattvas up to the eighth bhūmi; for Buddhas and the state of non-manaskāra from the eighth bhūmi above, they take the events of immeasurable worlds as object.

11.15

The treatise states: 'Dramiḍa spell.' This refers to the country of Siṃhala, which is Sri Lanka; there is a spell named Dramiḍa, which is a great spell among spells, known to have supernatural efficacy, and is here cited first. Regarding 'among the forms seen by the divine eye, there are also with manaskāra and without manaskāra': this is explained as with sound.

11.16

Regarding the treatise's explanation of the supernatural power of the cognition of the exhaustion of outflows: knowing the attainment of the exhaustion of outflows is the attainment of the uncontaminated—the attainment of the exhaustion of outflows. Knowing the expedient means for the exhaustion of outflows is the truth of the path.

11.17

Regarding the treatise's explanation of the four characteristics of the six perfections, the fourth characteristic of the perfection of patience states: 'Without many enemies refers to the meeting with what is hateful; without much separation refers to separation from what is loved; without much sorrow and suffering refers to the sorrow and suffering arising from meeting with enemies and separation from loved ones. The old treatise states:

11.18

In the explanation of the four characteristics of concentration, the first characteristic states, 'it can sever the afflictions, speech, vitarka and vicāra, joy, bliss, and perceptions of form.' That is, the first dhyāna severs the afflictions of desire; the second is free from vitarka, vicāra, and speech; the third, fourth, and four formless [attainments], in their proper order, are free from joy, bliss, and so forth.

11.19

In the treatise's explanation of the characteristics of the six perfections, regarding the first, giving, it states, 'one can gather and benefit sentient beings through the means of gathering of giving'; under the sixth, which comprehensively exercises the four means of gathering, across the [remaining] four perfections one equally benefits sentient beings through sharing the same goals (samānārthatā), which means the six perfections subsume the four means of gathering. Why does it not mention under giving that one encourages sentient beings to practice giving? By joining in it oneself, it is called 'sharing the same goals', and also called 'beneficial action' (arthacaryā). For now, it speaks of this only in terms of what is predominant; it is not based on the actual reality. As for its actual reality, what is there to prevent each and every one from having beneficial action and so forth?

11.20

In the treatise's explanation of innate power, it clarifies the eight phases of attaining awakening. The older [listing of the] eight phases was: 1. abiding in Tuṣita Heaven; 2. descending and entering the mother's womb; 3. abiding in the mother's womb; 4. emerging from the mother's womb; 5. renouncing household life; 6. attaining awakening; 7. turning the wheel of the Dharma; 8. entering parinirvāṇa. If one follows the older Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra, there is no phase of renouncing household life or entering nirvāṇa. Now, this treatise follows the older explanation: it lacks the single phase of renouncing household life, having the remaining seven phases, which can be taken from the text itself. Moreover, if explained [differently]: taking spiritual transformation as one [phase], then there is no renouncing household life, and the eight phases are also complete herein. If one speaks of the eight phases according to another [system], abiding in heaven is not considered the main descent and birth, and is not taken. [They are:] 1. abiding in the intermediate existence (antarābhava), which is descending and taking birth; 2. entering the womb; 3. abiding in the womb; 4. emerging from the womb; 5. renouncing household life; 6. attaining awakening; 7. turning the wheel of the Dharma; 8. entering nirvāṇa. Here, this [treatise] lacks the phase of renouncing household life, because it does not take dwelling among desires as being among the eight phases.

11.21

In the treatise's explanation of the first [aspect], the bodhisattva abiding in heaven, there are three things that outshine those devas. First, 'the lifespan of the devas': that is, the lifespan of those devas does not abide by a fixed measure, because there are premature deaths. Now it clarifies that the bodhisattva completes the full lifespan of the devas, living for four thousand years; thus, the treatise immediately above states that he abides having completed the lifespan of Tuṣita Heaven. Some say: all devas born there exhaust their lifespan of four thousand years. This is not so, [due to] first, contradiction with the text, and second, contradiction with reasoning. As for contradiction with the text: the treatise states that three things outshine those devas, the first being 'the lifespan of the devas'; if those devas all exhausted their lifespan, the bodhisattva would not outshine or surpass the lifespan of those devas. This contradicts the text, and hence is a contradiction with the text. As for contradiction with reasoning: the sūtra states that when the bodhisattva descends to be born, those devas all follow him down to take birth in Jambudvīpa. There are beings who have only just been born there; when the bodhisattva descends, not having reached four thousand years, they should not follow him in being born. If they do not follow him in being born, it contradicts that Buddha's sūtra; if one says they follow him, their descent to birth is then a premature death. This is the second contradiction with reasoning. Therefore, the [opposing] claim does not stand. Furthermore, by what reason would those devas not die prematurely? Second, 'heavenly form': that is, the bodhisattva is superior in the size of the heavenly body as well as the radiance and colour. Third, 'reputation': the bodhisattva's fame permeates the worlds of the ten directions; therefore, his reputation is superior.

11.22

In the treatise's explanation of turning the wheel of the Dharma, it clarifies that 'having realized awakening, for six years Māra sought an advantage over him, but in the end could not find one. Mindfulness accompanied by constant practice was ever present before him, up to being free from any failure to understand.' This means that the World-Honoured One constantly contemplated his own body, sensations, perceptions, and thoughts; now being free from divergent thoughts, he constantly contemplated impermanence, arising, abiding, changing, and so forth in connection with this mindfulness, and therefore Māra could not find an advantage. As the older Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra says, one contemplates the arising, abiding, changing, and so forth of all sentient beings; now it says one contemplates one's own body. Because one contemplates one's own body, Māra cannot find an advantage; how could it be that by contemplating others Māra cannot find an advantage? Or, alternatively, here it could also mean that because he contemplates all sentient beings and gives rise to compassionate mindfulness, and because he applies his mind extensively, Māra cannot find an advantage.

11.23

The treatise says, 'First lifting the right foot, only then moving the left foot.' What is the meaning of this?

11.24

The treatise says, 'When eating what is eaten, all grains are crushed, and nothing in the mouth is left unexhausted.' It means that when the Buddha eats, all grains of rice are crushed, and in his mouth nothing is not finished. 'Dan' (殫) means 'exhausted'. Moreover, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: when the Buddha eats, devas are able to request [his presence] elsewhere to benefit sentient beings. Now, here, saying 'crushed' is based on the sense that there is crushing, but in reality, as a manifestation of the transformation body, its primary purpose is the Buddha's work.

11.25

Moreover, the treatise speaks of three kinds of spiritual transformations: first, the spiritual transformation of psychic power, and so forth. These are the six supernormal knowledges (abhijñā). Saying that this also subsumes the other three supernormal knowledges is fully explained in the Commentary on the Abhidharma-samuccaya. Furthermore, taking illumination and other spiritual transformations as a fourfold proposition is also as explained in the commentary on that treatise.

11.26

Chapter on Maturation

11.27

This is the fourth of the five chapters, and the fifth and sixth of the seven dharmas, namely, the dharmas of maturing sentient beings and maturing one's own buddha-dharmas. Why is it clarified next? Because having directly realized reality, one directly possesses power. What is power? It refers to the six supernormal knowledges and so forth. Having manifested the six supernormal knowledges, what does one wish to do? It does not exceed two intentions: first, maturing sentient beings, which is the intention to benefit others; and maturing buddha-dharmas, which is the intention of self-benefit. Although the Buddha is complete in the virtues of benefiting both self and others, because he contemplates the realm of sentient beings as inexhaustible, these two intentions are necessary. Therefore, following the 'Chapter on Power', the 'Chapter on Maturation' is clarified.

11.28

In the treatise's explanation of the intrinsic nature of maturation, it states, 'Abiding in this, whether one encounters the Great Master or does not encounter the Great Master, one is capable, possesses great strength, and can uninterruptedly realize the severing of the affliction hindrance and the severing of the knowledge hindrance.' This refers to a bodhisattva in the stage of the aids to penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya). How is this known?

11.29

The treatise states, 'one can uninterruptedly realize the severing of the two hindrances'; hence, one knows it is this stage. If it were before this, one could not be like this. Furthermore, in the simile, just as a boil that is fully ripe can be burst without interruption, one knows that those before the bhūmis who have already reached the state of ripening are in the stage of the aids to penetration. If it is explained as having already entered the bhūmis: why does it say immediately before that one obtains the pure, superior body and mind that accord with the severing of the two hindrances, up to the fulfillment of proper application (prayoga)? Since there are the words 'accord with the severing of the two hindrances' and 'application', one knows it is before the bhūmis and not on the bhūmis. Furthermore, if on the bhūmis one also attains proper application, that would be the preparatory knowledge (prayogika-jñāna) on the bhūmis; 'according with the two hindrances' would mean, for instance, how the first bhūmi can accord with the pure, superior body and mind that sever the hindrances of the second bhūmi. Why could that not be? Therefore, one knows it could also be on the bhūmis. Adopting the former explanation presents no problem.

11.30

In the treatise's explanation of the third [topic], the distinctions of maturation, 'the maturation of faculties' means being complete in lifespan, complete in shape and colour, up to being complete in human nature, as explained in the preceding fascicle.

11.31

In the treatise's explanation of the fourth [topic], the means of maturation, 'the place of initial aspiration' means a person who has initially generated the thought [of awakening]; maturing them in the place of that person who has generated the thought is called the means of maturation.

11.32

The treatise says: "Subduing means thoroughly guarding one's own body to stay free from defilement ... up to guarding oneself so that no transgression arises." The meaning here is that only when one thoroughly guards against one's own faults can one, upon seeing another commit a minor, intermediate, or major breach of the precepts, give rise to admonition, reproof and punishment, or expulsion, respectively. One should know that when, seeing minor or intermediate grades of precept-breaking, one gives rise to admonition or reproof, those who are admonished and the other fellow practitioners of their cohort obtain benefit and peace-and-happiness. Because it puts an end to their faults, it is a benefit; because they are received and retained, it is peace-and-happiness. As for the single method of expulsion, if, having expelled them for the present, one receives them back again, it causes both them and others to obtain benefit and peace-and-happiness, because it puts an end to evil and receives them back. If, having expelled them, one does not receive them back again, it only causes others, upon seeing that they committed faults and were expelled, to guard themselves again so that breaches of the precepts do not arise, thereby obtaining benefit and peace-and-happiness. In that case, the one who was expelled does not obtain benefit or peace-and-happiness. This is the meaning here. Among the major breaches, there are those who may be received back; this meaning does not imply that all major transgressions may be received back, for those such as committing the five heinous sins cannot be received back. Furthermore, this is why the bodhisattva takes the former approach and receives everyone back.

11.33

The treatise says: "Persons capable of maturing: briefly, there are six kinds of bodhisattvas who abide in the six bodhisattva grounds and are capable of maturing sentient beings: first, bodhisattvas of resolute practice who abide in the ground of resolute practice, and so on, up to the sixth, bodhisattvas who have reached the culmination who abide in the ground of reaching the culmination." Here, "resolute practice" is as in the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, namely, the bodhisattva of the first incalculable aeon (asaṃkhyeya), because they give rise to definitive, resolute faith in the principle of the four noble truths. This text proves that the roots of goodness of the stage of penetration (viniścayabhāgīya) belong to the first incalculable aeon, because it is the stage of resolute practice. Second, "purified, superior aspiration" is what the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* calls the ground of superior aspiration (adhyāśaya). Here, it refers to the first ground, where uncontaminated aspiration is first attained and therefore called "purified"; it is not the same as the preceding ground of resolute practice. Third, "the ground of the bodhisattva practicing right practice": the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says the second ground is called "superior discipline", the third ground is called "superior mind", and the fourth ground and below are called "superior wisdom". Here, it refers to those prior to the seventh ground and from the second ground onwards; it is not the initial attainment of the uncontaminated, so it is not the same as the first ground; nor have they attained non-retrogression of what has not yet been attained, so it is not the same as from the eighth ground onwards. Having already attained the aspiration for the uncontaminated six perfections, it is called the ground of practicing right practice. Fourth, "the ground of the bodhisattva falling into certainty": because the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* refers to the fourth ground and above as the ground of superior wisdom, and the eighth ground and above as the stage of non-retrogression. Here, because the bodhisattva of the eighth ground first attains non-retrogression, which is different from the preceding and succeeding stages, it is called "falling into certainty"—that is, definitively non-retrogressing. Fifth, "definitively practicing right practice": this refers to the ninth ground, because it is not the initial non-retrogression, nor has it yet attained the culmination. Having already attained non-retrogression in the preceding ground, one now engages in this practice, with the uncontaminated contemplation continuing uninterruptedly and abiding in non-retrogressing practice; thus it is called the ground of falling into definitively practicing right practice. That is what the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* and the *Daśabhūmika* collectively call the non-retrogressing bodhisattva, also named the division of superior wisdom. Sixth, "the ground of the bodhisattva who has reached the culmination": this refers to the tenth ground, because it borders on the Tathāgata. These six kinds are each designated and given names according to an initial attainment of one particular predominance; it does not mean that the later lacks the former, or that the former lacks the later. This is different from the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, which distinguishes them generally with respect to the three trainings and retrogression versus non-retrogression. Other treatises are partly the same, as with the first two kinds, or different, as when the remaining intermediate kinds are not spoken of, briefly clarifying the cause. Furthermore, according to the later correlation with the lower and intermediate grades, purified superior aspiration refers to the second incalculable aeon and is not necessarily only in the first ground; that is, just like the superior aspiration of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, it runs through all the grounds and includes non-retrogression. In this treatise, from "falling into certainty" to "reaching the culmination" constitutes the third incalculable aeon, and the remaining stages are consequently differentiated within them like superior discipline and the rest.

11.34

The treatise explains the three grades of śrāvakas: "When one abides in lower-grade maturation, at that time one has lower-grade desire and aspiration, lower-grade [application], and so on, up to the third: attaining parinirvāṇa in this very life." Here, regarding the lower grade, it is inferred that one may still fall into the bad destinies, meaning those prior to intermediate and lower patience (kṣānti). The intermediate grade refers to those who attain realization of the fruit in the present body and do not follow the bad destinies, meaning persons from superior patience onwards; if there are persons of the former stage who have no karma of the bad destinies and do not fall into the bad destinies, and who attain the fruit in the presently visible body, they are also subsumed here. Here, the discussion is provisional in terms of persons of seven births, and therefore it is said that they do not attain parinirvāṇa in this very life. If one discusses those who cultivate for superior four births up to sixty aeons, they enter nirvāṇa in the present body as well; this discussion does not treat that. Otherwise, the third person would all be persons with residue; this should be understood accordingly. If this first person were evaluated according to the lower-grade bodhisattva, it would include everyone prior to the path of seeing. Now, according to the meaning of the text, this is not the case, and so it is stated separately. Among pratyekabuddhas, they necessarily attain the fruit of anāgāmin; or having completed cultivation for a hundred aeons, they give rise to the thirty-six minds and proceed to the fruit of pratyekabuddha, and so forth, as in the *Duifa chao* (*Notes on the Abhidharmasamuccaya*).

11.35

The treatise explains regarding the lower grade of bodhisattvas: "When a bodhisattva abides in lower maturation, at that time they have lower-grade desire and aspiration and lower-grade preparation, and still go to the bad destinies." This bodhisattva has actually already abandoned the karma of the bad destinies and does not take rebirth in the bad destinies; however, when benefiting sentient beings, they deliberately go to be born there, and in connection with that they give rise to defilement and experience that retributive destiny; thus during the first aeon, they may be born in the bad destinies. Just as when a garuḍa enters the ocean to eat dragons, having finished eating the dragons, it flies up and soars into the sky; because of seizing the dragons, there is mud on its feet; in truth it had no intention [of taking mud], its original purpose being to seize the dragons, but in seizing the dragons, it became stained by the mud. The bodhisattva is also like this: on account of benefiting sentient beings, they are subsequently bound by defilement, and therefore during the first aeon, they are also born in the bad destinies. If so, how does one reconcile the verse of the cited sūtra: "If one has accomplished worldly / highest-grade right view..."? The explanation says: That speaks with respect to not being born in bad destinies with right view as a condition; what prevents one who has not yet reached the bhūmis from giving rise to karma of the bad destinies and being born in the bad destinies?

11.36

Fascicle Thirty-Eight
Chapter Seven: Bodhi

11.37

The chapter title "Bodhi" is the fifth chapter among the five chapters on the stations of training, and the seventh phenomenon among the seven phenomena. "Bodhi" refers to the bodhi of the three bodies. Bodhi means awakening. Having realized reality, manifested great supernormal powers, and matured oneself and others, there must be the realization of the fruit; therefore, following the "Chapter on Maturation", the "Chapter on Bodhi" is explained.

11.38

The treatise says: "One hundred and forty unshared Buddha-dharmas." This refers to the thirty-two marks, eighty secondary characteristics, the four purities of all kinds such as the path of transcending suffering, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the three smṛtyupasthānas, and the three kinds of unguardeds—calculating the above yields one hundred and thirty-six unshared Buddha-dharmas; adding the four kinds: great compassion, non-forgetfulness of dharmas, perpetual elimination of latencies, and all-aspect-prajñā (sarvākārajñatā), this constitutes the one hundred and forty unshared Buddha-dharmas, as the text itself lists.

11.39

The treatise says: "Among these three states, the Tathāgata frequently abides in the four supreme abidings: among the noble abidings, frequently abiding in the abiding in emptiness and the abiding in the cessation concentration; among the divine abidings, frequently abiding in the unshakeable fourth dhyāna." Because the fourth dhyāna is unshakeable, devoid of suffering and pleasure, and devoid of the three disasters, it is called unshakeable; the lower three are not like this, so the Tathāgata frequently abides in it. Sentient beings suffer greatly and have many conditioned sufferings (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā), so he abides in the abiding in suffering; he frequently abides in a mind of compassion to uproot the suffering of living beings. As Nāgārjuna's *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says, one Buddha-abiding is added to the previous three abidings to make four. The Buddha-abiding refers to the Śūraṅgama and immeasurable samādhis, as well as the Buddha's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, unshared dharmas, and so forth, all of which are Buddha-abidings. Alternatively, they are divided into sixteen: there are eight divine abidings, namely the four of form and the four of formlessness; there are four brahma-abidings, namely the four immeasurables; there are four noble abidings, namely wishlessness and the rest, and the concentration of cessation. Thus there are sixteen. Broadly speaking, they are immeasurable, as explained in that treatise.

11.40

The ten titles are called recollection virtues, meaning that through sentient beings' recollection they obtain virtues; hence they are called recollection virtues. The body of the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, is solely one, but has ten titles. As Master [Hui]yuan determined: among the ten, the last one is a general title, and the preceding nine are specific titles. Within the specific titles, the first three pertain to both benefits, the middle three pertain solely to self-benefit, and the latter three pertain solely to benefiting others. If so, since the first and the third merely explain that his speech is without falsehood and that he is awakened to the supreme meaning of dharmas, where do they explain the aspect of benefiting others? The response is: When it is said that his speech is without falsehood, principle is not spoken in isolation; there must be a recipient. Therefore, within Tathāgata there is also benefiting others, and so on, which should be understood by inference. As for what follows, that within what is purely benefiting others there is also self-benefit, it can be understood through parallel interpretation. If we follow the ancient Master [Hui]yuan, among the nine specific titles, the first five are names of self-virtue, and the next four are designations of benefiting others: since "Worthy" (arhat) means benefiting others, how can it be called self-virtue? Furthermore, within the first five, they are divided into two pairs: the first reveals the perfection of the path, and the latter shows the culmination of cessation; among the first three, the first two show the perfection of the causes of calm abiding (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā), and the latter one shows the culmination of the fruit. Now, stating it in accordance with the meaning, "Worthy" only has the meaning of being worthy of offering/benefit, not that of benefiting others; hence it is also self-benefit. As Master Jing says: "Tathāgata" means that his speech is without falsehood, hence he is called Tathāgata. As the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* and the *Satyasiddhi* say: Having mounted the path of suchness (tathā), he came (āgata) to accomplish complete awakening; therefore he is called Tathāgata. The *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* says: "I have come by means of the six pāramitās and the eleven emptinesses, hence I am called Tathāgata." Here it says speech without falsehood.

11.41

In explaining "perfection in knowledge and conduct", it says: "'Knowledge' refers to the three knowledges; 'conduct' is as the sūtras explain: the two categories of calm abiding and insight, and the six perfections with their myriad practices", and so on. As the old treatise says: The three knowledges are as explained in the sūtras; conduct refers to the two categories of calm abiding and insight. The present treatise reverses that.

11.42

Regarding the treatise's statement, "Or there may be many kalpas in which not a single Buddha appears in the world; or there may be a single kalpa in which numerous Buddhas appear in the world": this is like what is said in the *Abhidharmakośa-śāstra*, where after cultivating for three asaṃkhyeyas, a Buddha further cultivates the karma for the marks and signs over a hundred kalpas. Having spoken verses for seven days and seven nights, he surpassed other Buddhas by nine kalpas, cultivating the karma for the marks and signs over ninety-one kalpas, and thereupon attained buddhahood. In the past, he encountered the Tathāgata Dīpaṃkara and the Buddha Suśānta; this was during the thirty-second kalpa. From then on, no further Buddha appeared in the world. Later, in the present kalpa, five Buddhas appear in the world, namely Krakucchanda Buddha up to Śākyamuni Buddha, and later Maitreya; these are called the five Buddhas. Thus, throughout this great kalpa, no [other] Buddhas appeared; hence we know that in the Bhadrakalpa, multiple kalpas are taken as a single kalpa, which is just what that treatise states. In the past, when encountering the Buddha Suśānta, three thousand people made vows, generating the mind [for awakening] in assemblies of one thousand each; thus, the thousand Buddhas of the preceding kalpa who have already appeared were the first thousand people; the thousand Buddhas appearing in the second, the Bhadrakalpa, are the second thousand people; and the thousand Buddhas of the later Nakṣatrakalpa are called the third thousand. Furthermore, as stated in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, when the kalpa is about to form, there is in the great ocean a thousand-petaled lotus flower, exceedingly pure, signifying that a thousand Buddhas will appear in this kalpa. Could the number of petals vary depending on the number of Buddhas? According to earlier tradition: we are presently in the ninth kalpa of the kalpas of abiding. Among the twenty kalpas of abiding, the first five have no Buddhas and the last ten have no Buddhas; because Buddhas only begin to appear from the sixth kalpa onward, four Buddhas have already appeared, with Śākyamuni falling in the ninth kalpa. The present exposition says this is not so. The Bhadrakalpa refers to the twenty kalpas of abiding combined into the Bhadrakalpa; it is not called the Bhadrakalpa because it spans long periods of formation and disintegration. That is, within the kalpas of abiding, we are currently in the first kalpa of abiding, four Buddhas have already appeared, and the remaining Buddhas will appear in the remaining kalpas. This is the tradition and explanation from the Western regions.

11.43

Regarding the treatise's statement, "in such a division (pakṣa)": the Dharma master says: *Division* means a place, the present assembly place. The present exposition says this is not so; rather, the first half and second half [of a month], the bright fortnight (śuklapakṣa) and the dark fortnight (kṛṣṇapakṣa), are the divisions. Therefore, it later speaks of a division, and after a division, it speaks of a month.

11.44

Regarding the treatise's statement, "Furthermore, there currently exist in the ten directions immeasurable and innumerable great trichiliocosms of buddha-fields. There are no two bodhisattvas who simultaneously cultivate and amass the provisions for awakening, fulfill them at the same time, simultaneously appear in the world in a single buddha-field, and become Buddhas at one and the same time; how much less could there be immeasurable and innumerable bodhisattvas becoming Buddhas at one and the same time in a single world": the intention here is to clarify that there are numerous bodhisattvas who cultivate the provisions for awakening and fulfill them at the same time; if they do not become Buddhas at the same time in other worlds, yet multiple bodhisattvas were to become Buddhas at the same time in a single world, this cannot be, because it refutes the narrow adherence claiming that there are no Buddhas of the ten directions. The subsequent passage below says, "If they were to reside side by side in Tuṣita Heaven and attain buddhahood in succession," which is not correct. An objection is raised here: If they generate the vow at the same time and fulfill it at the same time, and sentient beings are together in a single world, and the faculties of the sentient beings of a single Buddha ripen at the same time, how is this resolved? The doctrinal explanation is: This never happens. If it were so, even the sentient beings of Maitreya and Śākyamuni have faculties ripening earlier and later rather than identically, how much less could sentient beings whose faculties ripen at the same time be together in a single realm.

11.45

Regarding the treatise's statement, "Furthermore, a single Tathāgata is universally capable of performing Buddha-activities in a single great trichiliocosm; therefore, the appearance of a second Tathāgata in the world would be of no benefit": this explains the intention behind there not being two Buddhas in a single world. Question: If a single Buddha's supernatural power is boundless, capable of reaching throughout the ten directions and benefiting all, could it be that by this supernatural power the Buddhas of the ten directions do not appear in the world? Why then say that two Buddhas do not appear in a single trichiliocosm? The doctrinal explanation is: It is not so. Although a Buddha's supernatural power is boundless, provisionally speaking from the perspective of external marks, he performs Buddha-activities in a single trichiliocosm; therefore, in a single buddha-world there are no two Tathāgatas. There is a measure for appearance; hence it is only a trichiliocosm, not the rest of the ten directions.

11.46

Regarding the treatise's statement, "Furthermore, it is not possible for a female body to realize unexcelled awakening": Why then does the *Lotus Sūtra* speak of the dragon girl attaining buddhahood and so forth? How is this resolved? The doctrinal explanation is: That dragon girl also transformed into a male and only then attained buddhahood; she did not attain buddhahood with a female body.

11.47

Chapter on the Gotra of the Powers:

11.48

Regarding what the older treatise calls the "Chapter on the Nature of the Powers": the older masters said: The preceding five chapters clarify the dharmas to be studied; the following eleven chapters clarify the practice of studying them. Although the subsequent practice is also a dharma, the former is the essence of the dharmas, while the latter refers to the meaning of provisional cultivation, and therefore they are collectively called the basis of skillful means. Within this, there are three: the first chapter clarifies its fundamental skillful means that subsume the study; the next nine chapters concern undertaking conditions and proper study; the last chapter concerns accomplishing virtues through study. The present [view] is not so. The third, the Practice of Study (śikṣā-caryā), comprises sixteen chapters: the first five chapters distinguish what is to be studied; their principal thesis clarifies what is to be studied, distinct from there being a person capable of studying, and has not yet clarified how one ought to study; the sixth chapter properly distinguishes the practice of how one ought to study in this way; the remaining ten chapters properly clarify the one capable of studying, their principal thesis being the practice of the one capable of studying. Because there are dharmas to be studied, the beginning of the Practice of Study says, "If it is the basis of what is to be studied, explains studying in this way, and being able to cultivate the study"; hence there are three headings. If we go by what follows below: the first chapter already contains the introductory text for "the basis of what is to be studied"; having explained the five chapters, arriving at this "Chapter on the Gotra of the Powers", there is subsequently the introductory text for "studying in this way". Having finished explaining the preceding six chapters, in the Chapter on Giving which explains "being able to cultivate the study", there is initially no introductory text for "being able to cultivate the study". Based on this principle, the preceding five chapters have as their principal thesis the basis of what is to be studied, while additionally encompassing the person capable of studying; the following eleven chapters clarify the practice of what is to be studied, while additionally clarifying the dharmas to be studied and the person capable of studying. Thus the initial three phrases of the Practice of Study—"the basis of what is to be studied", "studying in this way"—delimit the number of chapters. The first phrase clarifies the dharmas to be studied; the second phrase, although clarifying the dharmas to be studied, has not yet revealed how one ought to study, and therefore next clarifies that one ought to study in this way. "Being able to cultivate the study" is the basis of what is to be studied; the meaning of also clarifying it within "studying in this way" is also clear here. It is not as the previous explanation had it, divided into three superior sections. "The basis of what is to be studied" and "studying in this way" have introductory remarks at the start of the first six chapters. Although in the Chapter on Giving "being able to cultivate the study" lacks an introductory remark, in clarifying subsequent functions there is also a concluding passage. Thus we know that the ten chapters are the realization of study. Now, as for "Chapter on the Gotra of the Powers": *powers* refers to the ten powers; *gotra* is the gotra of the ten powers. The previous first chapter, the "Chapter on Gotra", generally clarified the innate gotra of all, without yet clarifying the gotra that cultivates and accomplishes the ten powers; now, wishing specifically to clarify the acquired gotra (samudānīta-gotra), it says "Chapter on the Gotra of the Powers". The former was the innate gotra (prakṛtistha-gotra), whereas the present is the acquired gotra.

11.49

Regarding the treatise's statement, "It should be known that of those twelve divisions of teaching, the extensive (vaipulya) division alone belongs exclusively to the Bodhisattva-piṭaka, while the remaining divisions include the Śrāvaka-piṭaka": other passages contradict this; here, based on the fact that the eleven divisions in fact genuinely apply to both the Bodhisattva-piṭaka and the Śrāvaka-piṭaka, it says that the remaining divisions include the Śrāvaka-piṭaka; because the extensive division has superior meaning, it belongs exclusively to the Bodhisattva-piṭaka. Speaking of that Hīnayāna, it says that within it there are eleven; in fact, the Hīnayāna itself also states that it has twelve, having the extensive division. That the one class of marvellous phenomena (adbhutadharma) applies to both piṭakas is reconciled as previously in fascicle thirty-six.

11.50

The treatise explains the ten causes in detail, as in the separate notes and the explanation in the previous fifth fascicle. Here it states: "The conventional-expression cause (anuvyavahāra-hetu) means that for all phenomena, names precede ideation, and ideation precedes the arising of speech." This means that because there is first a name for form (rūpa), upon subsequently hearing this name, one gives rise to ideation and grasps the image, whether good or bad; because of this grasping of an image, one thereupon gives rise to speech, taking it as the cause for speaking of form and so forth. Furthermore, as the fourth fascicle of the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: "The conventional-expression cause refers to names, ideation, and views." Speech is its function, while also taking views as its essence. Why does this treatise not mention it, whereas that treatise mentions views? Because ideation grasps the image of form, one thereupon gives rise to clinging; clinging is called views, and due to clinging, one gives rise to speech. Question: In the case of pure causes, how can it be called clinging? In a pure cause, view is right view; because it conforms to that dharma, although it is not clinging, it is also called view. That treatise mentions it because it is distinct from ideation and function; treatises such as this one do not mention it because, regarding the arising of clinging upon grasping an image, being a single entity similar to ideation, view is subsumed within ideation, which is why it is not discussed. Furthermore, just as in general expression there is only ideation and not necessarily the arising of clinging, that treatise speaks on the basis of conditioned phenomena arising along with clinging, whereas this treatise speaks solely with reference to non-clinging; there is no contradiction.

11.51

The treatise explains the lead-in cause (ākarṣaṇa-hetu): "All seeds, in relation to their own subsequent fruit, are lead-in causes." For example, the seed of consciousness in relation to the fruit of aging-and-death is a lead-in cause, whereas in relation to name-and-form it is an originating cause (abhinirvṛtti-hetu)—this is the meaning here. Therefore, among the two causes below, such as the productive cause, there is a distinction, as explained below.

11.52

Regarding the treatise's explanation of mutual opposition through enmity, saying, "namely, venomous serpents, weasels, cats, and mice": here, these are enemies to one another, extending to mice conversely frightening venomous serpents; thus in this sequence they are mutually enemies, and when they see each other, they have no goodwill.

11.53

Regarding the treatise's explanation that the two causes of producing cause and auxiliary cause subsume the ten causes, saying, "It should be known that herein, the drawing-forth seed and the generating seed are named the producing cause; all remaining causes are named auxiliary causes": As the text of Fascicle 5, "Bhūmi with Examination and Investigation," states, the producing cause refers to the generating cause; the auxiliary causes refer to all remaining causes. As its preceding text itself explains the drawing-forth cause: Conditioning karmic actions in the three realms by pure and impure karma, drawing forth pleasing and displeasing self-existences within the three realms—this is the drawing-forth cause. Discussed solely with respect to the saṃskāra-aṅga as a maturation cause, it is therefore subsumed under auxiliary causes in the "Bhūmi with Examination and Investigation," being an empowering condition (adhipati-pratyaya). Now, what is called the drawing-forth cause here is that all seeds are drawing-forth causes with respect to their own subsequent fruits. That is, just as wholesome and unwholesome seeds of the saṃskāra-aṅga in turn generate their own wholesome and unwholesome saṃskāras, and the vijñāna-aṅga remotely generates aging-and-death, all have their own seeds as the direct cause condition (hetu-pratyaya); hence, here it is subsumed under the producing cause. In reality, combining the two texts together, the drawing-forth producing cause is a producing cause and is also an auxiliary cause, because it is seeds of the saṃskāra-aṅga and vijñāna-aṅga with respect to birth, aging-and-death, and so on; thus there is no contradiction. This is because the two texts each capture one aspect of the meaning. / Among the bases (āśraya), it is the habit-energy basis; because it has not yet been moistened, each generates through its own seed. If the generating cause is subsumed under producing causes, herein the initial seed with respect to its initial own-fruit is the generating cause, just as the vijñāna-seed with respect to nāmarūpa is also a producing cause; in these two places there is a contradiction. / If so, what is the difference between the drawing-forth and generating causes? The commentary states: There are two differences. First, the difference of breadth and narrowness: because the drawing-forth cause encompasses both empowering condition and direct cause condition, it is subsumed under both producing cause and auxiliary cause; the generating cause is narrow, being subsumed only under direct cause condition. Second, the difference of being moistened or not moistened: thus, among the bases, the drawing-forth cause is the base of the habit-energy cause, where the seeds of the saṃskāra- and vijñāna-aṅgas have not yet been moistened; the generating cause is the base of the cause with moistened seeds, which have already been moistened. Therefore, there is a distinction. Although moistened [seeds] encompass seeds of karma and retribution, because each is a generating [factor] with respect to its own fruit, it is strictly a direct cause condition. This resolves a latent objection: if the neutral generating cause ought to be an empowering condition, it would be subsumed under auxiliary causes. Among these, the method of formulation is applied solely with respect to defilements and so forth. If applied to the fifteen bases, there would be a contradiction with the five fruits, as should be verified and reconciled with Fascicle 5 and the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā, Fascicle 4. / Question: The co-operating cause subsumes the generating cause and others; why is it not subsumed under direct cause condition and producing cause? Answer: It is discussed with respect to auxiliary conditions, so it does not subsume them; in reality, it does subsume them. Objections like this should be understood by analogy.

First 53 of 176 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

瑜伽師地論略纂 — Classical Chinese