成唯識論演祕 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.2

On the Commentary's statement: "Capacities have differences of three grades."

When persons of indeterminate lineage take refuge in the Buddha-Dharma, the depth or shallowness of their understanding and their awakenings in the three periods differ; these are called the "three capacities." It is not that there are definitely three separate categories; it is only in reference to the indeterminate that the three periods are established.

1.4

On the Commentary's statement: "Due to this, the two sages mutually grasped existence and emptiness."

1.5

Question: If the three periods are established solely in view of the indeterminate, how can there be two sages mutually grasping emptiness and existence?

1.6

Answer: How could it be said that the indeterminate refers to only a single person? Since people are many, their awakenings also occur earlier or later. Those earlier and later each take what they have realized to be correct; what fault is there in their mutual clinging? Moreover, even for a single person, if their grasp changes between earlier and later, their differing clingings facing one another may also be called "mutual."

1.7

On the Commentary's statement: "The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra speaks of vijñapti-mātra."

1.8

Examining the first chapter of that sūtra, it states: "Guanghui, you should know! Among the various sentient beings in the saṃsāra of the six destinies, or when physical forms arise in the four modes of birth, the mind and consciousness endowed with all seeds is initially accomplished therein. Guanghui! This consciousness is named ādāna, is also named ālaya, and is also named citta. Serving as the basis, the collection of the six consciousnesses operates, just as waves arise depending on torrential water, or reflections appear depending on a clean, bright mirror."

1.9

On the Commentary's statement: "In the Avataṃsaka, it speaks of cittamātra."

1.10

Examining the nineteenth chapter of that sūtra, a verse states: "Just as a skilled painter / Cannot know his own mind, / Yet paints because of the mind, / Such is the nature of all phenomena. / If someone knows how the mind acts, / Universally creating all worlds, / This person sees the Buddha / And understands the Buddha's true nature. / If someone wishes to fully know / All the Buddhas of the three periods, / They should contemplate the nature of the dharmadhātu: / Everything arises from the mind alone." Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, fascicle 467, states: "All bodhisattvas reflect thus: All conditioned phenomena are like illusions, arising solely from false conceptualization; everything is transformed by one's own mind." According to this, vijñapti-mātra is also taught in the second period of Prajñā; the Commentary speaks of the second period based on the predominant portion.

1.11

On the Commentary's statement: "He composed the Triṃśikā to depart from the extensive and the brief."

1.12

Some say: The Yogācārabhūmi and others are extensive, and the Viṃśikā is brief; differing from the previous two treatises is called departing from the extensive and the brief.

1.13

Examination: This is not necessarily so. It merely signifies attaining the middle path, which is called departing from the extensive and the brief; why must it specifically refer [to those two]?

1.14

On the Commentary's statement: "There are only anāsrava great concentration, wisdom, and compassion."

1.15

Question: It states that there is only concentration and so forth, proving that there are no words and meanings [in the Buddha]. Since there are only three dharmas, there should be no form-body.

1.16

Answer: There are two explanations. One says: There is also no object seen; it is also merely the transformation of the perceiving consciousness, just like the words and meanings. The second says: Because the Buddha is free from prapañca such as names, he manifests a form-body based on his fundamental vows and great compassion, causing beings to see it and gain benefit; it exists because it is not a form-body of prapañca.

1.17

Examination: Examining the Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa and the tenth fascicle of this treatise, the former explanation is the fundamental one, as will become clear in the text itself.

1.18

On the Commentary's statement: "If relying on one's own consciousness."

1.19

The consciousness of the listener of the Dharma is named "one's own consciousness."

1.20

Question: If the Buddha has no words and meanings, how can the transformation by the sāsrava consciousness be said to be "similar"? For there is nothing to resemble.

1.21

Answer: There are two explanations. One says: Although names and so forth do not exist in the Buddha's consciousness, the listener thinks that the Buddha is actually speaking; thus, there are representations of words and meanings on their own mind. Although there is no mūla-dharmin to serve as the resembled names and so forth, it is similar to one's own internal mind, so there is no fault; it is like speaking of resembling a self, which resembles inwardly. The second says: It resembles the Buddha's anāsrava [dharma], not words and meanings; because there is nothing to resemble, the phrase "words and meanings" is used by association.

1.22

Examination: The latter explanation is difficult to rely upon. The primary intent is to clarify the nature of the teaching, not merely to distinguish sāsrava and anāsrava. Some say: Prior to the seventh stage, in the state of the sāsrava mind, errors are few, so it is called resembling anāsrava; it is not called similar in terms of reflection and mūla-dharmin.

1.23

Examination: The Commentary's intent generally refers to the words and meanings transformed by all sāsrava minds, not merely the seventh stage. Could those before the stages not listen to the Buddha's teaching? If they are admitted to listen, how could what is transformed by their own consciousness not be called resembling anāsrava? Since it can be called resembling, the former explanation is superior.

1.24

Question: If the Buddha has no speech, how can the simile of the leaves in the forest be reconciled?

1.25

Answer: In terms of serving as their condition, causing the consciousness of sentient beings to transform and understand the Dharma, it is said that "I have spoken"; like the leaves in the hand, which have not yet served as a condition, sentient beings' own minds have not yet generated understanding of the Dharma, and it is said that "I have not spoken." Like the leaves in the forest, [speaking and non-speaking] are designated as "spoken" or "unspoken" in terms of acting as the adhipati.

1.26

On the Commentary's statement: "Sound produced by attainment."

1.27

Briefly, there are three explanations: The first says: The twelvefold teaching is produced by fully perfected sages, so it is called "produced by attainment." The second says: Fully perfected sages establish teachings for sentient beings and formulate reasoning; being brought about by this, it is called "produced by attainment." The third says: "Attainment" means realization of the real; "the real" refers to sound that produces benefit and joy, so it is called "produced by attainment."

1.28

Examination: The first two meanings are narrow; the third principle is comprehensive. The Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya states: "Sound produced by attainment refers to what is spoken by all sages," because those with further training (śaikṣa) cannot be called "perfected sages." If one says that perfection in one's own portion is also called perfection, including those with further training could also be reconciled following this. However, this also causes confusion, and the principle is not clear. In the present explanation: "Attainment" is accomplishment, which is another name for acquisition (prāpti). For all who have attained sagethood—regardless of whether they have further training or no further training—the spoken teachings brought forth solely to benefit beings and for the sake of the Dharma are called "produced by attainment."

1.29

On the Commentary's statement: "My Dharma is solely wholesome; yours is solely indeterminate."

1.30

Examining Vasubandhu's treatise, it states: "Because all wholesome roots are fulfilled, anuttara-bodhi is attained." There is another doubt: "If all wholesome dharmas are fulfilled to attain anuttara-bodhi, then the Dharma spoken cannot attain great bodhi. Why is this? Because the spoken Dharma is an avyākṛta dharma." This meaning is not correct. Why is this? "Your dharma is avyākṛta, but my Dharma is vyākṛta." In explanation, "your" refers to that Hīnayāna Sarvāstivāda, and "my Dharma" is Vasubandhu referring to his own Mahāyāna. Vyākṛta is precisely the wholesome nature, because it has future fruits and an exalted self-substance that can be definitively predicted.

1.31

On the Commentary's statement: "The two consciousnesses achieve determination."

1.32

There are two explanations for this: One says, the speaker achieves the determination of compassion, and the listener achieves the determination of wisdom. The second says, by associating with the two kinds of companions, wholesome and unwholesome, one who associates is caused to achieve determination in the two consciousnesses: wrong and correct.

1.33

Question: There are speakers of Dharma who arise depending on other minds, listeners of Dharma who do not understand, those who associate with evil and generate good, and those who associate with good and revert to evil; where does the meaning of "determination" reside?

1.34

Answer: It is spoken based on the majority, or in terms of a remote cause.

1.35

On the Commentary's statement: "It refers to another saṃtāna up to a distinct consciousness."

1.36

It means the speaker of the Dharma is "other" with respect to the listener. "Saṃtāna" is the body; the body has two parts, and the distinct conditions of consciousness are able to act as conditions for the listener. Causing other saṃtānas, etc., can be known by reversing the above.

1.37

On the Commentary's statement: "Falling into the eight periods accordingly."

1.38

The meaning of the eight periods is fully detailed in the Fayuan [yilin zhang]. Furthermore, the Preceptor, Tripiṭaka Master of Jianfu [Temple], explained: "Falling into the period of desire accordingly." Why is this?

1.39

The explanation states: In Sanskrit it is *iṣṭa*, which is translated here as "desire." The word *aṣṭa* is translated here as "eight periods." The Sanskrit manuscript of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says *iṣṭa*, showing that it is clearly "desire."

1.40

Question: Both Tripiṭaka Masters personally walked in the Jetavana and together perused the Sanskrit scriptures; how could their interpretation of a single meaning suddenly become as mutually opposed as Chu and Yue?

1.41

Answer: Both are without fault. Why? When looking at India, the name and meaning of a single thing contain multiple senses. For instance, Śakra has a full thousand names. The former explanation is based on the voice progressing through periods, from which words and meanings arise; thus it is called eight inflections or eight periods. The latter explanation relies on one's own longing for the Dharma, from which the nature of the teaching arises; thus it is said to "fall into desire accordingly."

1.42

Question: If the root treatise has the two words *i-* and *a-*, could the earlier and later Tripiṭaka Masters simply take whichever one they thought? The Sanskrit text does not necessarily lack both words; how can it be said that they "simply took one"?

1.43

Answer: Why could it not be? The treatise composed by Asabhāva had differences between earlier and later versions, and what the two virtuous masters saw came from different manuscripts. It is just as in this land, where the earlier and later writings of various authors are mutually transposed, and such instances are truly numerous. Gauging that by this, what fault is there?

1.44

On the Commentary's statement: "As it says, the various syllables up to the nature of the teaching are also accomplished."

1.45

This section of the text is framed by combining the seven minds and the twelve minds; it can be understood through careful reflection, and is clarified extensively in the Fayuan [yilin zhang]'s determination.

1.46

On the Commentary's statement: "If not, True Suchness would also be like this."

1.47

If one does not take the separate mūla-dharmin of nature and function to establish the nature of the teaching, the anāsrava teaching would inversely incur the fault of becoming sāsrava and so forth, in accordance with the listener. The unconditioned of the Three Jewels would also incur the fault of becoming conditioned, sāsrava, and so forth, in accordance with the mind that cognizes it.

1.48

Question: If the Buddha actually spoke the sūtras, why does it further say that he "did not speak a single syllable"?

1.49

Answer: There are three explanations. One says: The Dharma of all Buddhas is identical; apart from the Dharma spoken by all Buddhas, there is no Dharma that can be spoken, which is called "not speaking." The second says: All dharmas have Suchness as their nature, and True Suchness is beyond words, which is called "not speaking the Dharma"; furthermore, because there is no Dharma outside of Suchness that can be spoken, it is collectively called "not speaking." The third says: Phenomena such as the eye have an intrinsically existing nature that does not come to exist only after being spoken; therefore, it is said "not spoken." There are further explanations, as determined in the Fayuan [yilin zhang].

1.50

Question: If True Suchness is divided into three natures according to designation, what fault is there now if it accommodates defilement in accordance with the transforming [consciousness]?

1.51

Answer: In terms of designation, dividing the three natures conceptually is acceptable; but here we discuss the real substance, and defilement is certainly not so. The remaining objections are resolved accordingly.

1.52

On the Commentary's statement: "The root verses of the Triṃśikā were composed by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu."

1.53

Question: Why does the treatise title not indicate the root master?

1.54

Answer: There are two explanations. One says: The root verses are brief in wording, and their meaning remains incomplete; the commentary is extensive and comprehensive, so the title follows what is explicit. The second says: The name "Cheng weishi" belongs exclusively to the commentary; therefore, this only mentions the master of the commentary.

1.55

Examination: It originally intended to indicate the author of the commentary; since Vasubandhu was not, he is not mentioned. What does that have to do with brief wording and incomplete meaning? Furthermore, although the present title belongs to the commentary, the root verses are also entitled Cheng weishi lun; saying that "Cheng weishi" belongs exclusively to the commentary also slightly fails in precise discrimination.

1.56

On the Treatise's statement: "Composed by Bodhisattva Dharmapāla and others."

1.57

Question: The Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra was compiled in detail by a host of sages, so its opening title says "Composed by Arhats and others"; this treatise is the same. Why is the word "others" (deng) not placed below "Bodhisattva"?

1.58

Answer: That treatise was co-authored by Arhats together with the Bodhisattva Vasumitra; in order to include the Bodhisattva, "others" was placed below. "Others" is used because they are of different classes. Here there are only Bodhisattvas, so "others" is placed above. If the word "others" were placed below, one might suspect that it includes those of a different class, the śrāvakas.

1.59

On the Commentary's statement: "Analyzing the root text."

1.60

The structural analysis of sūtras and treatises originated in the Western Regions. It is broadly divided into three parts, and divisions of upper and lower parts also exist. For instance, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also clarifies three divisions, namely the preface, the main body, and the dissemination. In the Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa there are also three divisions: first, the section on the causes and conditions for the arising of the teaching; second, the section on the correct exposition of the holy teaching; third, the section on practicing in accordance with the teaching. The rest are as in the Shuyao. In this land, structural analysis and commentary were initiated by Master Dao'an, and subsequent virtuous masters followed and adopted it. Master Dao'an analyzed various sūtras and treatises according to principle, mostly into three divisions: preface, main body, and dissemination. It is extensively clarified in the Fahua sheshi.

1.61

The Commentary: "The section that broadly establishes [the doctrine] based on the teaching."

1.62

There are three kinds of broad establishment: first, broadly establishing the verses spoken by Vasubandhu; second, broadly establishing the sūtras of the Tathāgata; third, establishing both the Buddha's and Vasubandhu's teachings together. One opinion holds that this treatise has three sections: 1. the section on the causes and conditions for the arising of the ultimate teaching; 2. the section on the correct exposition of the ultimate teaching; 3. the section on explaining the title and expressing aspirations.

1.63

Question: Do all treatises have three sections?

1.64

Answer: It depends on the author's intent; whether they have them is not fixed, as cited in the Shiyao. Some say: The Yogācārabhūmi has only the correct exposition, because the Venerable Maitreya's own power was complete and did not rely on any other power; hence it lacks the initial and final sections.

1.65

Analysis: In principle, this is not necessarily so. While currently abiding in the causal stage, how could his power be complete? Even granting that his own virtues were complete and thus he might lack the initial section, why would he lack the third? Furthermore, Vasubandhu's Triṃśikā-vijñapti also has only the correct exposition; could it be that his power was also complete? Therefore, this is not a good understanding.

1.66

The Commentary: "Division according to differing discriminations."

1.67

Generally, the headings organizing the intent of a text are of four kinds: 1. division according to differing discriminations; 2. division according to grouping similar doctrinal categories; 3. division subordinating text to doctrine; 4. division basing doctrine on text. The present case is the first meaning. In truth, the root author and the commenting masters composed their treatises with one single intent. Here, based on a distinct meaning, we divide the two to differentiate them, saying: the master of the root treatise [composed it] to lead sentient beings to sever obstacles and attain the fruit; the masters of the commentaries [composed them] to cause the Dharma to abide long and to benefit and gladden sentient beings.

1.68

The Commentary: "Generating an earnest and pure mind," etc.

1.69

The first line refers to mental karma; the second to physical and vocal karma; the third and fourth lines apply generally to all three karmas, showing that these are alternative names for paying reverent homage. Alternatively, the first three lines are separately matched to the three karmas.

1.70

The Commentary: "The causes of the three wheels."

1.71

Body, speech, and mind, respectively, are the causal grounds for those wheels of miraculous transformation, mind-reading, and instructional admonition. To briefly explain the names: the majesty, virtue, and functioning resulting from cultivation that are unfathomable are called "miraculous" (śakra/rddhi); changing and not being fixed is called "transformation." "Transformation" is the object; "miraculous" is the wisdom. "Mind" refers to the minds of others; "reading" (ādeśanā) refers to distinguishing consciousness. Distinguishing and understanding the other's mind is thus called "mind-reading" (ādeśanā-citta); both are genitive tatpuruṣa compounds. "Instruction" means teaching and showing, causing their wholesome states to arise; "admonition" means warning and exhorting, causing their unwholesome states to cease. Instruction and admonition being two different things, their combined name forms a dvandva compound. Alternatively, being both instruction and admonition, it is a karmadhāraya compound; the former is incorrect and the latter is correct, because both "instruction" and "admonition" are the functions of wisdom. Explanation: "the former is incorrect" means the dvandva interpretation is incorrect; we now adopt the karmadhāraya interpretation. Because all three possess the functions of subjugating and revolving, they are collectively named "wheels" (cakra), all being karmadhāraya compounds; other explanations are as in the chapter.

1.72

Question: The three wheels, in sequence, are subsumed under the superknowledges of miraculous powers, reading the minds of others, and destruction of the outflows, which respectively can demonstrate physical, mental, and vocal transformations. Why do the causal grounds of vocal and mental karma not follow that sequence?

1.73

Answer: Because speech is free from faults and words are spoken with truthfulness, causing others to place faith in oneself and recognize one's intentions, one attains as a resultant superknowledge the skillful comprehension of others' minds. When mental karma is clear and pure, extinguishing evil and attending to the good, the result summoned thereby is the attainment of the superknowledge of the destruction of outflows. By means of this, one issues speech to instruct and admonish sentient beings to sever evil and generate good. Cause and effect mutually support each other; hence there is no fault. Furthermore, knowing others' minds does not depend on speech, while instructing and admonishing creatures necessarily relies on words; therefore, the transformations of the three wheels correspond to the three karmas in sequence. It is not that vocal karma's cause must have vocal karma as its result; the same applies to mental karma. Moreover, according to the Xiyu ji, in the Western regions there are nine kinds of reverent etiquette in total: 1. speaking words of condolence; 2. bowing the head to show respect; 3. raising the hands in high salutation; 4. clasping the hands level in greeting; 5. kneeling on one knee; 6. kneeling on both knees; 7. hands and knees placed on the ground; 8. all five wheels bent; 9. throwing the five limbs to the ground. These nine kinds explicitly belong only to the two [physical and vocal] karmas, but in principle they can extend to mental karma.

1.74

The Commentary: "First, the false, which is the parikalpita-svabhāva (imagined nature)."

1.75

Although the essential nature of the parikalpita-svabhāva does not exist, yet because it is grasped by false consciousness, it is also called "vijñapti-mātra."

1.76

The Commentary: "Purity with respect to what was previously severed."

1.77

Although it speaks generally of severing, the intention is severing defilements. Or, uncorrupted dharmas are all called pariniṣpanna; saying that one severs what came before is also without fault.

1.78

The Commentary: "The nature is the self-substance of the consciousness's pariniṣpanna."

1.79

This nature is precisely the self-substance of the pariniṣpanna of consciousness; reading it continuously as a compound is why one can say "the nature of vijñapti-mātra." Were it not so, why would the true be called vijñapti-mātra?

1.80

The Commentary: "Because purity belongs to the person."

1.81

The person is the nominal designation based on the five aggregates of the Tathāgata. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: Abandoning impermanent form, one attains permanent form. The remaining aggregates are also like this; hence the person is called pure.

1.82

The Commentary: "The sound of 'nature of vijñapti-mātra' is subsumed under the seventh case of object/domain."

1.83

The seventh inflected case includes both locus and object/domain; to exclude the locus, it says the seventh case of object/domain.

1.84

The Commentary: "This is the differentiator."

1.85

Because the nature of vijñapti-mātra serves as that which is realized, awakenings have degrees of shallowness and depth, thereby causing the names and positions of the three vehicles to differ. Thus the Prajñā-sūtra says: "All noble and holy ones are differentiated by means of unconditioned dharmas." Vasubandhu explains: Because all noble persons derive their names based on the purity of the dharma of True Suchness.

1.86

The Commentary: "All objects of reverence are in the fourth inflected case."

1.87

Question: What is the reason for this?

1.88

Answer: The fourth is the case of purpose (dative). "For the sake of" means reason and purpose; because they possess virtues and are worthy of being revered, they are placed in the fourth case.

1.89

The Commentary: "Born from the substance of the Sugata."

1.90

Briefly, there are two interpretations: One says: The saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya are called the Sugata, and "substance" applies to two meanings: if the Sugata is identical to the substance, the substance belongs to the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya; if it is the substance of the Sugata, the substance belongs to the dharmakāya. The Venerable Maitreya inherits the precious throne of the Buddha and is a true son of the Buddha, so he is called born of that substance. The second says: Both the Sugata and the substance are the dharmakāya; the wisdom of Maitreya must take Suchness as its object before it can arise, and since wisdom arises on that basis, it is called born of that. Vasubandhu refers to himself and his fellow students as "we," and their master was Bodhisattva Asaṅga.

1.91

Analysis: "Su-" means good; "-gata" means gone. Arriving evilly is saṃsāra; going well is nirvāṇa. The saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya are truly the Sugata; the substance of the Dharma is tranquil and inherently has no coming or going. How could it be called the Sugata? Therefore the first explanation is good. Alternatively, when obscured by the two obstacles it is not yet called "good"; having emerged from obstacles, perfect and luminous, it is only then called good. To distinguish it from the past, the name Sugata is established; it does not mean there is somewhere to go for it to be called "gone." In principle, this is also without fault.

1.92

The Commentary: "That upon which this treatise relies and that which gives rise to it," etc.

1.93

That upon which the treatise relies refers to the Three Jewels. Asaṅga and Buddhasiṃha are called those who gave rise to it, as they respectively composed the root text and commentary of that Abhidharmasamuccaya. The words "from Buddha to following awakened ones" explain the reason why the Buddha and Saṅgha serve as the reliance; it omits mentioning the Dharma because noble disciples learn in accordance with the Dharma and transmit it to later people so the Dharma will not be cut off; thus the Saṅgha jewel also serves as the treatise's reliance. Speaking of "authoring the treatise without error" clarifies that the root author and commenting master were able to encompass the teaching and meaning with the three types of wisdom to compose the treatise. The Commentary briefly cites the intent, which is fully detailed in that treatise.

1.94

The Commentary: "Although Vasubandhu was before the stages..." etc.

1.95

Question: Since that treatise says "holy disciples of the Buddha," and Vasubandhu was not such, how could he be revered and how could he compose the treatise?

1.96

Answer: The disciples of a holy one are called "holy disciples," just like the host of yakṣa gods; in the Abhidharmakośa they are also called gods.

1.97

If so, how can the Yogācārabhūmi be reconciled? That treatise says: Only those who have realized the traces of truth can compose treatises.

1.98

Answer: That is stated generally for the three vehicles. If it is purely Mahāyāna, it is not necessary to have seen the truths, because their faculties are sharp, and because before the stages they have undergone temper and refinement for a long time, unlike the two vehicles.

1.99

The Commentary: "Constant and eternal rule..." etc.

1.100

This resolves a latent objection. The objection says: There are four Dharma jewels; why revere only the principle? The Commentary has three explanations: The first intent is: although the Dharma guides and sustains, what serves as a constant rule is only True Suchness; hence it is spoken of exclusively. Some say: "Constant and eternal rule" explains all four. One asks and answers oneself: How can the three—teaching, practice, and fruit—be called constant?

1.101

The answer says: Sūtras have the meaning of constancy; therefore they are called constant.

1.102

Analysis: Although there is this logic, it contradicts the original intent of the Commentary, so it is not adopted. The remaining explanations are as in the Commentary.

1.103

The Commentary: "Teacher and student depend on each other."

1.104

A traditional commentary says: If explained in terms of the order of cultivation, the Saṅgha comes first, the Dharma in the middle, and the Buddha last; because it is by means of the Saṅgha's cultivation that one attains buddhahood.

1.105

Analysis: Although it has its logic, there is no scriptural teaching for it; it cannot be taken as a guide.

1.106

The Commentary: "Realizing the teaching of the Dharma of fearlessness and outflowless..." etc.

1.107

This clarifies the Dharma jewel, meaning the four fearlessnesses sever the four violent torrents (ogha). The Dharma in total has four kinds: teaching, principle, practice, and fruit. The rest of the text is easy to understand.

1.108

The Commentary: "The rhinoceros horn [solitary realizers] and various traditions differ..." etc.

1.109

For the Sarvāstivāda, the three faculties of the rhinoceros horn [pratyekabuddha] and the two faculties of the bodhisattva are all subsumed under the Dharma jewel. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 103, says: Serene faith verified by the Dharma refers to the three uncorrupted faculties, dharmas of the trainee and of the beyond-training within the person of a solitary realizer; the two uncorrupted faculties and all dharmas of the trainee within the person of a bodhisattva; and uncorrupted faith directed toward the three truths of suffering, origin, and cessation—these are called serene faith verified by the Dharma. Fascicle 25 of the Kośa has the same general import. To explain: the word "saṅgha" means harmony; a harmony of four or more people is called a saṅgha. Rhinoceros-horn [pratyekabuddhas] and bodhisattvas each appear alone in a chiliocosm; hence they are not called a saṅgha; and because they are not yet fully awakened, they are also not called buddhas; therefore they are included in the Dharma.

1.110

Question: Why is it not accepted that bodhisattvas appear together, and furthermore, how do they have two uncorrupted faculties?

1.111

Answer: This is spoken only in terms of the final lifetime seated under the Bodhi tree, attaining bodhi in thirty-four thought-moments. Prior to the thirty-third mind, they are subsumed under the two faculties. This does not obstruct there having been many bodhisattvas before, nor does it say they possess uncorrupted faculties.

1.112

Question: The noble ones in the upper heavens do not form a saṅgha; under which jewel are they subsumed?

1.113

Answer: Ancient masters had two explanations: one says they are subsumed under the Dharma jewel; the other says they are included in the Saṅgha jewel. Although they lack phenomenal harmony, they are subsumed under the Saṅgha through harmony in principle.

1.114

Analysis: Although the first explanation is viable, the treatise makes no such restriction; we now follow the latter explanation.

1.115

Question: If celestial noble ones are accepted as being included in the Saṅgha based on principle, why are rhinoceros-horn [pratyekabuddhas] and bodhisattvas not likewise?

1.116

Answer: In heaven there are multiple noble ones, so in principle it is fitting to call them a saṅgha. Since that is not the case for the others, how can they be compared?

1.117

The Commentary: "Because the Tathāgata's nature is well-subdued and good."

1.118

The latencies of the two obstacles are destroyed, just like skillfully refined gold that is extremely pliable and fine. Because he knows the capacities and dispositions [of beings], he has skillful means regarding those to be subdued; administering medicine according to the disease, he also has skillful means regarding the ability to subdue. Benefiting creatures without fatigue is called being endowed with great compassion.

1.119

The Commentary: "In order to generate great wisdom and great compassion."

1.120

This has two meanings: first, Sthiramati and others generate their own compassion and wisdom; second, they generate compassion and wisdom in those to be transformed. Because of the treatise, others are able to arouse compassion and wisdom; generating them in oneself can be readily understood.

1.121

The Commentary states: "The three [groups], beginning with the wrongly determined."

1.122

According to the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle 100 and elsewhere: [those guilty of] the five inexpiable acts (ānantarya-karma) and those who have severed their roots of wholesomeness are called the group of the wrongly determined; the phenomena of those in training (śaikṣa) and beyond training (aśaikṣa) are called the group of the rightly determined; those that are neither in training nor beyond training are called the group of the undetermined. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra's explanation differs from this, as harmonized in the Fahua sheshi. Some say: the sixth of the ten faiths is called the group of the rightly determined; committing the five inexpiable acts is called the group of the wrongly determined. Those who have not yet reached the mind of the sixth of the ten faiths and do not commit the inexpiable acts are called the group of the undetermined. Furthermore, looking toward the Mahāyāna, the seventh of the ten faiths is called the group of the rightly determined; if one commits the Mahāyāna five inexpiable acts, one is called the group of the wrongly determined; the undetermined may be understood accordingly.

1.123

Detailed remark: This conflicts with the Yogācārabhūmi, and having no textual support either, the reasoning is somewhat difficult to rely on.

1.124

The Commentary states: "As stated in the Buddhabhūmi[-upadeśa] and elsewhere."

1.125

According to the Prakaraṇāryavācā, reverently listening to the Dharma brings present benefit as well as bliss. It also forms four alternatives: 1. benefit but not bliss, meaning practicing the path in present times with diligence and hardship in accordance with reason; 2. bliss but not benefit, meaning enjoying the pleasures of the five desires in the present in contravention of the Dharma; 3. both benefit and bliss, meaning experiencing bliss through the path in the present; 4. neither benefit nor bliss, meaning excluding the previous characteristics. Furthermore, according to the Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa, there are also four alternatives: present assistance is called 'advantage' (artha), and future assistance is called 'benefit' (hita); the worldly is called 'advantage', and the supramundane is called 'benefit'; leaving evil is called 'advantage', and gathering good is called 'benefit'; merit is called 'advantage', and wisdom is called 'benefit'.

1.126

Detailed remark: The Commentary points to treatises such as the Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa and the Prakaraṇāryavācā intending to clarify where various teachings speak of benefit and bliss, not merely to prove that benefit and bliss share a single substance.

1.127

The Commentary states: "'Benefit' refers to the ten benefits."

1.128

These are fully set forth in the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicles 35 and 36; they cannot be cited in full, but their general meaning is stated briefly. The ten kinds, in order, are combined into five pairs: 1. the pair of differences in those benefited; 2. the pair of distinctions in the substance of benefit; 3. the pair of present and future times of benefit; 4. the pair of this world and other worlds; 5. the pair of discerning the real and the false. In the treatise, the two meanings of the first pair are explained together, making it difficult for students to understand, so I now distinguish them separately, while the rest follow the order of the treatise. First, pure self-benefit and benefiting others: this refers to acting exclusively for oneself or merely benefiting others without combining the two matters; hence it is called 'pure'. Within pure self-[benefit] there is abandonment and cultivation: if it transgresses and does not conform to the bodhisattva's code—namely, seeking wealth and enjoyment for one's own pleasure, or observing precepts, striving diligently, and cultivating concentration and wisdom in order to be reborn in heaven, or making offerings to the buddhas for the sake of material gain and respect—such self-benefit the bodhisattva should abandon. If it does not transgress and conforms to the bodhisattva's code, all self-benefit contrary to the above the bodhisattva should cultivate. Pure benefiting of others also has two [aspects]: abandonment and cultivation. Namely, practicing giving and so forth with wrong view, lacking the view of cause and effect, violating śīla, departing from correct practice, and expounding the Dharma for others—these should be abandoned. If bodhisattvas have already transcended the lower stages, and by the power of compassionate vows relinquish the dhyānas to be reborn back in the desire realm according to their wish, and furthermore, having accomplished their own task, are able to perform immeasurable great beneficial activities for immeasurable sentient beings throughout the ten directions—such pure benefiting of others the bodhisattva should cultivate. Second, shared self-benefit and benefiting others: seeking for oneself and reaching others, or seeking for others and reaching oneself, the practices are capable of combining both equally; hence it is called 'shared'. Within this there are also two: 1. self-benefit sharing with others: if bodhisattvas take compassion as foremost, or for the sake of dedicating [merit] to unexcelled bodhi, cultivate giving, patience, and so forth at all times, one should know this is called self-benefit sharing with others. Explanation: wisdom is able to attain buddhahood through giving and so forth, and compassion concurrently aids beings; hence it is called self-benefit that shares with others. 2. Benefiting others sharing with oneself: furthermore, excluding the characteristics stated above, all other kinds of benefiting others. Explanation: excluding those of pure benefiting others that should be abandoned, because through wrong view they lack both benefits; or excluding those among pure benefiting others that should be cultivated, because they lack self-benefit. Third, benefiting of the category of benefit for self and others: this refers to practicing a single dharma oneself and causing others to practice it as well. Because self and other identically practice a single dharma, the practices of self and other are the same, which is called 'category'. Or because this benefit has five categories, it is called 'category'; the word 'category' indicates they are non-singular yet similar. The five categories are: 1. the characteristic of blamelessness: if bodhisattvas are themselves able to gather wholesome qualities to a greater or lesser degree and increase wholesome dharmas, and cause others to do likewise. Explanation: by gathering and increasing wholesomeness, one is free from faults; hence it is called 'blameless'. Blamelessness is itself the characteristic; 'characteristic' refers to aspect or substantial characteristic; the rest below are to be understood in the same way. 2. The characteristic of gathering in: if bodhisattvas are able to induce undefiled bliss, or the bliss of requisites, or the bliss of abiding in concentration, for oneself and others. 3. The characteristic of this world; 4. the characteristic of other worlds: if the self-benefit and benefiting others of bodhisattvas is able to be beneficial in this world but not in another world; or able to be beneficial in another world but not in this world; or beneficial in both this and other worlds; or beneficial in neither this nor other worlds. 5. The characteristic of pacification: any bodhi of bodhisattvas and the mundane and supramundane dharmas that are factors of bodhi (bodhipakṣika-dharma) by which they attain bodhi—these are called the bodhisattva's category of benefit in self-benefit and benefiting others. Fourth, the category of bliss in self-benefit and benefiting others: this is similar in name to the third above. While the two names 'benefit' and 'bliss' differ, the intent and meaning of the word 'category' are identical. This has five kinds, which are precisely the five blisses explained in the Commentary, and therefore are not cited here. Fifth, self-benefit and benefiting others subsumed under cause and sixth, subsumed under fruit: cause and fruit correspond to each other and are explained in one place in the treatise; within both cause and fruit there are practices of self-benefit and benefiting others. There are three causes and fruits: 1. karmic maturation cause and fruit; 2. merit cause and fruit; 3. wisdom cause and fruit. The karmic maturation fruits briefly comprise eight: 1. endowed with lifespan, meaning living long and abiding for a long time; 2. endowed with bodily appearance, meaning having a well-formed and majestic appearance; 3. endowed with noble birth, meaning being born into an exalted family; 4. endowed with sovereignty, meaning great wealth, status, renown, and retinue; 5. endowed with trustworthy speech, meaning speech without falsehood; 6. endowed with great influence, meaning great renown exceeding others; 7. endowed with male gender, possessing the attributes of a man and completing the male organ; 8. endowed with great strength, meaning few illnesses and having full capacity. As for the causes of karmic maturation: not harming beings is the cause of long life; giving light and fresh, clean clothing is the cause of majestic appearance; abandoning arrogance is the cause of noble birth; giving according to what is begged is the cause of sovereignty; true and sincere speech is the cause of trustworthy speech; making offerings to the Three Jewels and so forth is the cause of great influence; delighting in the male and being averse to the female is the cause of being endowed with male gender; aiding the righteous undertakings of sentient beings and giving others food and drink is the cause of great strength. Merit and wisdom causes and fruits are explained in one place in the treatise; they are clustered and mixed together, making them difficult to understand, so they are now explained separately. What is called 'merit' refers to the first three pāramitās, a portion of diligence and concentration, the four immeasurables, and so forth. What are called 'causes of merit' are of three kinds in total: first, the desire to attain, abide in, and increase merit. Explanation: 1. the desire to attain what has not yet been attained; 2. the desire to abide in what has already been attained; 3. the desire to constantly increase what has already abided. Second, conditions that skillfully conform to and do not run counter to merit; third, having previously cultivated familiarity with merit. What is called 'fruit of merit' means that because bodhisattvas rely on merit, even though they cycle through birth and death for a long time, they are not harmed or distressed by extreme suffering. Furthermore, they are able to initiate and perform various immeasurable skillful activities, up to ultimately realizing unexcelled, complete, and perfect bodhi. What is called 'wisdom' refers to the entirety of the wisdom pāramitā, a portion of diligence and concentration, the ten powers, and so forth. The causes and fruits of wisdom are the same as those of merit above. In that passage, merely remove the word 'merit' and replace it with the word 'wisdom', and that is the cause and fruit of wisdom. Seventh, self-benefit and benefiting others in this world: the text has two kinds: 1. present self-benefit, meaning bodhisattvas accumulate wealth through proper reasoning, arts, and crafts, and then consume that wealth knowing moderation, and furthermore, consume in the present life the fruit of the karmic maturation of previously performed lovely actions. 2. Present benefiting of others: just as the bodhisattva benefits oneself in the present life, in the same way, other sentient beings of the bodhisattva thereby obtain benefit in the present life. Eighth, self-benefit and benefiting others in other worlds: if in the desire realm one is able to obtain an endowment of wealth and treasures and an endowment of one's physical body in another world; obtaining them in another world in the form and formless realms is also like this. Ninth, ultimate self-benefit and benefiting others: the noble eightfold path in which all afflictions are eternally severed, and if one relies on this, one obtains all worldly wholesome dharmas. One should know it is ultimate through three causes: 1. because by nature it is ultimate bodhi; 2. because the noble eightfold path is non-retrogressing, having no retrogression; 3. because the experienced fruit is inexhaustible; hence it is called 'ultimate'. Tenth, non-ultimate self-benefit and benefiting others: meaning within the desire realm being endowed with wealth and treasures and endowed with one's physical body, whether cause or fruit, being worldly purification. Whether cause or fruit, one knows it is non-ultimate through three causes: 1. because by nature all [these phenomena] are conditioned; 2. because one retrogresses from wholesome sāsrava dharmas, due to there being retrogression; 3. because the experienced fruit has an end; hence it is called 'non-ultimate'.

1.129

The Commentary states: "First, causal bliss," and so forth.

1.130

The meaning of the five blisses is fully detailed in the root treatise; now I briefly distinguish their names and substances one by one. Being the cause that gives rise to bliss, it is called 'causal bliss'; its substance consists of four dharmas, as listed in the Commentary. 'Associated with bliss' refers to mental dharmas such as contact that conform to pleasant feeling. 'Generated action' means karma initiated with respect to a pleasurable fruit, called 'generated by bliss'; because through this wholesome karma one obtains a desirable fruit, it is called causal bliss. Alternatively, volition (cetanā) associated with bliss is called 'generated action'; generated action can induce future pleasurable fruit, so it is called causal bliss.

1.131

Detailed remark: The former is correct and the latter is not, for not all volition associated with bliss can bring about pleasurable fruit. Thus the Yogācārabhūmi states: all karma that yields desirable fruit in the present life or in the future is called causal bliss. The intent is: whatever karma obtains desirable fruit in the present or future is called causal bliss. The Commentary adopts this intent when it says 'generated action'.

1.132

The Commentary states: "Second, feeling-bliss," and so forth.

1.133

Feeling itself is bliss; joy (prīti), pleasure (sukha), and equanimity (upekṣā) serve as its substance. Because all three have the meaning of harmony and ease, they are collectively termed 'bliss'. If not so, how could it be said to 'pervade the three realms'? When it says 'not merely pleasure among feelings', it means that it is not only the single pleasant feeling among the five feelings that is named feeling-bliss. When it says 'it is the intrinsic nature of bliss', its substance is the mental factor of feeling, which distinguishes it from causal bliss and the like before and after.

1.134

The Commentary states: "The bliss of counteracting suffering," and so forth.

1.135

When all suffering ceases, an awareness of bliss arises; the bliss of counteraction is called the bliss of counteracting. There are four explanations of its essential nature: one says that peaceful ease (praśrabdhi) is its substance; the second says that things such as clothing and food serve as its nature because they can pacify suffering; the third says that feelings of joy and pleasure serve as its intrinsic nature, splitting the meaning with the previous feeling-bliss into two: if generated by sense organs and objects conforming to pleasant feeling, it is called feeling-bliss; if bodily and mental ease when suffering ceases, it is called the bliss of counteraction; the fourth says that when suffering ceases there is wisdom capable of becoming aware, and precisely this wisdom capable of awareness is its substance.

1.136

I examine [these] as follows: the first three are difficult to establish. If its essence is delight, could the scattered mind and scattered stages be devoid of this pleasure? If clothing and the like are its essence, how does it differ from the pleasure of causes? If it is pleasant and joy feelings, is it that whenever suffering ceases, pleasant and joy feelings are invariably produced and there is never neutral feeling? If neutral feeling exists, why is it not its essence and why is it not accepted? Furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* states: 'Herein, the pleasure of feeling is called pleasure because its intrinsic nature is pleasure. The pleasure of counteracting suffering is called pleasure because it puts an end to various sufferings, not because its intrinsic nature [is pleasure].' If its essence is pleasant feeling, why does the treatise say that its intrinsic nature is not [pleasure]? The fourth meaning is logically coherent.

1.137

On the passage in the *Commentary*: 'the pleasure of the cessation of feeling', and so forth.

1.138

When feeling and so on do not function, it is called the pleasure of the cessation of feeling; that is, the attainment of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti). The pleasure of the cessation of feeling takes its name from the determinative compound (tatpuruṣa); its essence is just the attainment of cessation.

1.139

Question: The *Yogācārabhūmi* says that when dwelling in the attainment of cessation, this suffering of the ultimate truth is temporarily pacified, and therefore it is called pleasure. When one enters this concentration, only uncontaminated minds and mental factors are ceased; how could uncontaminated phenomena be called the suffering of the ultimate truth?

1.140

Answer: Phenomena such as the neutral feeling of the stage of neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation are called the suffering of the ultimate truth. Because one can cease them at the time of the distant preparatory application for entering the attainment of cessation, this is said in terms of the suffering ceased by the distant preparatory application.

First 140 of 886 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

成唯識論演祕 — Classical Chinese