大乘起信論義記 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Composed by Śramaṇa Shi Fazang of Xisi Monastery of Weiguo in Jingzhao Prefecture.

Now, the true mind is vast and open, transcending words and images beyond fish trap and rabbit snare; serene, empty, and silent, it obliterates object and cognition beyond the apprehending and the apprehended; neither arising nor ceasing, it is unmoved by the four characteristics; neither coming nor going, it cannot be altered by the three times. Yet, having non-abiding as its nature, it branches along various streams: rising and sinking following delusion and awakening, arising and ceasing depending on causes and conditions. Although it flourishes and surges in myriad ways, it has never moved from the source of the mind; although tranquil, void, and congealed, it has never contradicted karmic fruition. Therefore, it brings about pratītyasamutpāda without changing its nature, so defilement and purity remain constantly distinct; without abandoning conditions, it is immediately true, so ordinary beings and sages are unified. It is like how, because waves are not movements separate from water, one distinguishes waves by means of water; and because water has no moistness separate from movement, one clarifies water by means of waves. Thus movement and tranquility thoroughly interpenetrate, the true and the conventional are both harmonized, and saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are evenly and equally bound together. However, when the Tathāgata was in the world, capacities were mature and easily tamed, and upon receiving the Honored One's words, all tallied with them in advance. After the Great Master passed into extinction, divergent attachments arose in confusion, some turning down evil paths and some racing along the lesser path. Consequently, the treasure trove within the house could not relieve the destitute from poverty, and the bright pearl inside the garment failed to free the hired laborer from want. Furthermore, the profound intent of the Mahāyāna sank onto palm leaves without being investigated, while the blind throngs among sentient beings sped down divergent paths with none returning. Thereupon there was a great being named Aśvaghoṣa, who lamented this decaying order and grieved over these drowning souls. Wishing to disclose the wondrous intent of the profound sūtras and once more illuminate the dark paths, and to refute the inverted vision of wrong views so as to bring beings back to the correct path, he enabled those returning to the source to reach it, and made the return to the origin not far off. At that time, he composed an extensive treatise to broadly benefit all sorts of beings; yet because its text was voluminous and its meaning distant, it was not something of shallow understanding could fathom. Grieving for the deluded masses of the final age, he further composed this treatise, which may be called rich in meaning and concise in phrasing, encompassing both understanding and practice, whereby those of intermediate and lower capacities might awaken and enter! Now, 'Great' has the meaning of encompassing; 'Vehicle' has the function of carrying; 'Awakening' is the stirring of the mind facing objects; and 'Faith' is being decisively settled regarding conditions. Moving back and forth in refutation and analysis, it is therefore called a 'treatise'; hence it is called the *Mahāyānaśraddhotpādaśāstra*. The remaining meanings will be distinguished separately below.

1.3

In explaining this treatise, I will briefly open ten sections: first, distinguishing the reasons for the emergence of the teaching; second, its subsumption under the various piṭakas; third, revealing the scope of the teaching; fourth, the capacities addressed by the teaching; fifth, the essence of the expressive teaching; sixth, the central theme and orientation expressed; seventh, explaining the title of the treatise; eighth, the period of the treatise's composition; ninth, the era of its translation; tenth, explaining in accordance with the text.

1.4

First, regarding the reasons for the emergence of the teaching, there are briefly ten causes: 1. Relying on what cognition? 2. Indicating what Dharma? 3. How does it indicate it? 4. By what is it revealed? 5. Relying on what basis? 6. Depending on what power? 7. For the sake of what purpose? 8. By what conditions? 9. Arising from what? 10. How much benefit is there?

1.5

First, 'relying on what cognition' refers to relying on the treatise master's cognition that deeply tallies with the source of the mind, and his skillful eloquence that accords with capacities. The *Daśabhūmikaśāstra* states: 'There are three kinds of praised eloquence: first, real cognition, which refers to undefiled cognition; second, the accomplishment of its essential nature, which is eloquence in immeasurable meanings; third, the accomplishment of the meaning of the resulting words, which is furthermore the accomplishment of fluent, excellent words and meanings.' The explanation says: here the first takes fundamental cognition as the reliance; the second takes subsequently attained cognition as the cause; and the third takes the spoken teaching as the result. Therefore, the emergence of the teaching relies internally on cognition. Second, 'indicating what Dharma' refers to the dharmas of the One Mind, two gates, three greatnesses, four kinds of faith, five practices, and so forth. These are the dharmas of awakening faith within the Mahāyāna; this is what is indicated. Third, 'how does it indicate it' means that by skillful means, he opens the single-flavor Mahāyāna into two kinds—dharma and meaning; divides the dharma of the One Mind into two gates; and analyzes the single meaning-principle into the three greatnesses. It is through this skillfulness that he is able to reveal them.

1.6

Fourth, 'by what is it revealed' refers to wondrous sounds and good phrasing, metaphors, propositions, and reasons, which cause the meaning and principle to appear clearly. Fifth, 'relying on what basis' refers to taking the holy words of the Buddha and correct reasoning, which are valid cognitions, as the basis. Sixth, 'depending on what power' refers to taking refuge in the Three Jewels, receiving their power and beseeching their support, and relying on their superior power to make distinctions, thus being able to compose the treatise. Seventh, 'for the sake of what purpose' refers to assisting the Buddha in propagating the transformation, destroying the wrong and revealing the right, protecting and upholding the bequeathed Dharma to make it abide long in the world, and repaying the Buddha's kindness. Eighth, 'by what conditions' refers to taking sentient beings as the condition, wishing to make them leave all suffering and attain ultimate bliss, and therefore composing this treatise. Ninth, 'arising from what' refers to arising from the bodhisattva's great compassion interpenetrating within, pitying beings who have been long deluded; he thus composed this treatise to give the Dharma to all kinds of beings. Tenth, 'how much benefit is there': briefly, there are six kinds: 1. Causing those who have not yet believed to give rise to faith. 2. Causing those who already believe to attain the wisdom of hearing. 3. Causing those who have heard to attain the wisdom of reflection. 4. Causing those who have reflected and understood to attain the wisdom of cultivation. 5. Causing those who have practiced to realize and enter. 6. Causing those who have realized and entered to attain perfection. It is briefly due to such ten causes and conditions that this teaching arose. There are furthermore six causes, as stated in chapter 64 of the *Yogācārabhūmiśāstra*: 'One who wishes to compose a treatise must possess six causes: 1. Wishing to cause the meaning of the Dharma to be widely disseminated. 2. Wishing to cause sentient beings of various faiths and understandings, through these causes and conditions, to be able to enter the true Dharma according to any one of them. 3. To reopen and reveal various gates of meaning that have been lost and submerged. 4. Wishing to summarize meanings that are broadly scattered. 5. To reveal extremely profound meanings. 6. Wishing to adorn the meaning of the Dharma with various fine words so as to generate pure faith.' The eight causes and conditions below in this treatise, as well as the *Daśabhūmikavibhāṣā* and the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, each have their causes and conditions, which can be understood by consulting them.

1.7

Second, explaining the scope of subsumption under the piṭakas consists of two parts: first, based on the three things expressed, the teachings are threefold; second, based on the two kinds of addressees, the teachings are twofold. In the former, to express the three trainings, three piṭakas are established: First, the Sūtrapiṭaka, also called sūtra (sūtram) or sūtra (sūtraka), etc., which are all phonetic transcriptions of Sanskrit names that are difficult to reproduce exactly. This is translated as 'tallying scriptures' (qijing): 'tallying' means tallying with principle and suiting capacities; 'scripture' (jing) means stringing together and stitching together. The *Buddhabhūmiśāstra* says: 'Stringing together and holding the meanings that should be taught and the capacities addressed, it is therefore called sūtra.' This is the teaching that expresses concentration. 'Tallying scripture' is itself the piṭaka; this is an appositional compound (karmadhāraya). Second, the Vinayapiṭaka, also called vinaya or viṇi, was translated in the old tradition as 'extinction' (mie). That is, the evils of body, speech, and mind burn the practitioner like a blaze of fire, and the precepts can stop and extinguish them, hence it is called 'extinction'. Or it is called 'coolness', because it can quell the blazing characteristics of evil. It is now translated as 'subduing' (tiaofu): tiao means harmonizing and fu means subjugating, that is, harmonizing and controlling the actions of body, speech, and mind, and subjugating and eliminating all evil deeds. Subduing is practice, namely the precept-practice that is expressed; 'the piṭaka of subduing' is a determinative compound (tatpuruṣa), named after what it expresses. Third, the Abhidharmapiṭaka, also called abhidharma, was translated in the old version as 'incomparable dharma' (wubifa): abhi means incomparable and dharma means dharma; that is, the non-conceptual cognition analyzes the marks of phenomena, and there is no other dharma that can compare to this, hence it is called 'incomparable dharma'. It is now translated as 'facing dharma' (duifa): abhi is the confronting cognition, and dharma is the object-dharma confronted. That is, by means of correct cognition, one wondrously exhausts the source of phenomena and discriminates phenomenal marks, pointing to them clearly like seeing face to face, hence it is called 'facing dharma'. Abhidharma is the wisdom expressed; 'the piṭaka of abhidharma' is also a determinative compound (tatpuruṣa), named after what it expresses. It is also called 'subduing dharma', 'discriminating dharma', 'enumerating dharma', 'penetrating dharma', 'great dharma', and so on; all these are names assigned according to meaning, as explained elsewhere.

1.8

Question: If these three piṭakas each express one training among those three trainings, why does the eleventh fascicle of the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* say: 'Furthermore, disclosing the three trainings establishes the sūtras; disclosing precepts and concentration is called vinaya; disclosing the training in wisdom is called abhidharma'? Answer: If based on the gate of strictly essential nature, they each express one as described before; if based on the gate of secondary and primary, it is as stated in the *Samuccaya*: 'Because sūtras are broad, they possess all three; vinaya is next, possessing two; treatises are narrow, having only one. This is also the gate of root and branches: sūtras are the root, and the other two are successively the branches.' Among those three piṭakas, this treatise is subsumed under the Abhidharmapiṭaka.

1.9

Question: In chapter 81 of the *Yogācārabhūmiśāstra*, it is said: 'That which cyclically investigates and examines the various canonical scriptures is called the mātṛkā.' And as all definitive sūtras are called mātṛkā, it refers to those places where the World-Honoured One himself broadly analyzes phenomenal marks. According to this textual evidence, even the Abhidharmapiṭaka was spoken by the Buddha. Since this treatise was composed by a bodhisattva after the Tathāgata's extinction, how can it also be included in the Dharmapiṭaka? Answer: There are two meanings: 1. According to the *Yogācārabhūmiśāstra*, it is of that kind, and therefore is subsumed under it. 2. According to the *Mahāmāyāsūtra*, the Buddha declared that Aśvaghoṣa would skillfully explain the essentials of the Dharma. Since he said 'skillfully explain', this is what the Tathāgata sealed in advance as his teaching; therefore, we know it can also be included in this piṭaka.

1.10

Regarding general discourses on this basis, the Tathāgata's exposition of the Dharma has three kinds: 1. Spoken by the Buddha himself. 2. Spoken through empowering others. 3. Spoken with advance authorization. This treatise corresponds to what was spoken with advance authorization. Second, regarding the teaching being twofold based on the two kinds of addressees: because capacities are sharp or dull, and teachings are shallow or deep, the three piṭakas are combined and divided into two kinds. Thus chapter 4 of the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra* says: 'This piṭaka, due to the distinction between higher and lower vehicles, is furthermore described as the Śrāvakapiṭaka and the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. Question: Why are those three and two called piṭakas? Answer: Because they comprehend; that is, they comprehend all meanings that should be known.' The explanation says: therefore, for those śrāvakas of dull capacities in the lower vehicle, the three piṭakas are established based on the conceptual distinctions of grasping at phenomena, expressing the principles, practices, fruits, and so forth of the śrāvakas, which is called the Śrāvakapiṭaka. For the bodhisattvas of sharp capacities in the higher vehicle, the three piṭakas are established based on the three non-natures and the cognition of the two kinds of selflessness, expressing the principles, practices, stages, and fruits of the bodhisattvas, which is called the Bodhisattvapiṭaka.

1.11

Question: In the sūtras, the Dharma of causes and conditions is taught for pratyekabuddhas; why is a piṭaka not established for solitary realizers? Answer: According to the *Sarvapunyasamuccayasamādhisūtra* and the *Mahāyānāvatāraśāstra*, three piṭakas are established based on the three vehicles. But here, relying on the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* and the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra*, they are divided into two piṭakas based on the higher and lower vehicles, and therefore it is not established.

1.12

Question: Why is there this difference between setting aside and establishing in the two teachings? Answer: It is simply that solitary realizers have similarities and differences with these śrāvakas: based on slight differences in teachings and practices, the piṭakas of the three vehicles are divided; based on their principle and fruit being entirely indistinguishable, they are combined into a single piṭaka. That is, because they equally sever grasping at a self, equally realize the emptiness of persons, and their fruit is identical with that of an arhat, it is not established separately. Therefore sūtras and treatises differ in their opening and combining. Thus, between the two piṭakas, this treatise is subsumed under the Bodhisattvapiṭaka.

1.13

Third, regarding showing the scope of the teachings, within this there are two parts: first, recounting the various teachings, and second, distinguishing the tenet-systems in accordance with the teachings. Within the first part, the eminent masters of this land have established teachings and founded tenet-systems with manifold perplexities that are difficult to recount in full; ten houses are briefly stated, as in the Avataṃsakasūtra Commentary. Furthermore, concerning the ancient translations of sūtras by the tripiṭaka masters who came from the west, the doctrinal characteristics they established also comprise many approaches; five houses are briefly raised, also as explained there. Now the Tripiṭaka Master Divākara of Central India, translated in Tang as Rizhao, while translating in the monastery, was asked directly by me, and he stated: "In recent times at Nālandā Monastery in India, there were simultaneously two great masters of treatise: one named Śīlabhadra, and the other named Jñānaprabha. Both had spiritual comprehension transcending the peerage, their fame elevated across the Five Indias; the six teachers bowed their foreheads, and the disparate schools pledged devotion. Mahāyāna students looked up to them like the sun and the moon; they were without peer in India, each unique in his own right, yet the tenet-systems they inherited were different, and the teachings they established contradicted one another. That is to say, Śīlabhadra remotely inherited Maitreya and Asaṅga, and recently followed Dharmapāla and Nanda; relying on sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi, he established three types of teachings, taking the Mahāyāna of dharmalakṣaṇa as the truly definitive meaning. That is, the Buddha first in the Deer Park turned the Hīnayāna wheel of Dharma of the four truths, teaching that all conditioned dharmas arise from conditions, in order to refute the innate natures, causes, and so forth of non-Buddhists; moreover, because there is no person-atman owing to arising from conditions, he overturned those non-Buddhists who taught that an atman exists, yet he had not yet taught the principle of the non-self of dharmas—namely, the four Āgamas and so forth. In the second period, although relying on the conceptually constructed [nature] he taught that the inherent nature of all dharmas is empty, overturning that Hīnayāna, nevertheless regarding the other-dependent and the consummate [natures], he had not yet taught their existence—namely, the various Prajñāpāramitā texts and so forth. In the third period, with respect to the correct principle of the Mahāyāna, he fully taught the three natures, the three non-natures, and so forth, only then exhausting the principle—namely, the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and so forth. Therefore, with respect to those dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, initially teaching only existence falls into the extreme of existence, and next teaching only emptiness falls into the extreme of emptiness; since each falls into an extreme, neither is the definitive meaning. In the final period, fully teaching that the conceptually constructed nature is empty while the remaining two are existent accords with the Middle Way, only then being the definitive meaning. This is classified relying on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra. Second, Treatise Master Jñānaprabha remotely inherited Mañjuśrī and Nāgārjuna, and recently received [the transmission of] Āryadeva and Bhāviveka; relying on sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā and treatises such as the Madhyamaka, he also established three teachings, taking the signless Mahāyāna as the truly definitive meaning. That is, the Buddha first in the Deer Park taught the four truths for those of lesser capacity, clarifying that both mind and object exist. Next, in the intermediate period, for those of middling capacity he taught the Mahāyāna of dharmalakṣaṇa, clarifying the principle of consciousness-only that objects are empty and mind exists; because their capacities were still inferior and could not yet be made to enter equal true emptiness, he gave this teaching. In the third period, for those of superior capacity he taught the signless Mahāyāna, distinguishing that both mind and object are empty, equal, and of one flavor, as the truly definitive meaning. Furthermore, initially he gradually refuted the inherent nature and so forth of non-Buddhists, and thus taught that dharmas arising from causes and conditions are definitely existent; next, he gradually refuted the Hīnayāna attachment to what arises from conditions as substantially existent, and thus taught that other-dependent causes and conditions are nominally existent; because they were terrified of this true emptiness, he still guided them while abiding in nominal existence. Only in the final period did he approach the ultimate Mahāyāna, teaching that this arising from conditions is itself empty of nature, equal, and of a single mark; therefore, he classified the Mahāyāna of dharmalakṣaṇa with its apprehensions and so forth as belonging to the second period, not being the truly definitive meaning. The sequence of these three teachings is as Treatise Master Jñānaprabha cited from the *Mahāyānasūksmajñānasūtra* in his commentary on the Prajñāpradīpa."

1.14

Question: Since what these two have taught both [rely on] the sacred teachings yet are mutually contradictory, we do not know whether the two explanations can be harmonised or not? Answer: There are two meanings to this: namely, non-harmonisation and non-disharmonisation. First, regarding non-harmonisation: since both are sacred teachings that benefit beings according to conditions, why wait for a need to harmonise them? This is precisely the individual [benefiting] siddhānta among the four siddhāntas in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*; therefore, although there is contradiction, they cannot be harmonised. It is also the intentionality regarding beings' inclinations among the four intentionalities in the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, wherein within one single dharma there is praise or disparagement; therefore, the two explanations do not require harmonisation. Second, regarding non-disharmonisation: broadly examining the teaching approaches established by these two, the definitive and non-definitive have two approaches: 1. clarifying the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the breadth or narrowness of gathering beings and the completeness or deficiency of spoken teachings; 2. clarifying the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the gradual progression in benefiting beings and the prominence or subtleness in revealing principle. Within the first, there are two: first, in terms of the breadth or narrowness of gathering beings, according to the *Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra*, 'The initial period was spoken solely for those setting forth in the śrāvaka vehicle; in the second period it was spoken solely for those setting forth in the Mahāyāna. These two each gather only one class of capacity and do not gather capacities exhaustively; therefore, each is non-definitive. In the third period it was spoken universally for those setting forth in all vehicles; herein gathering capacities universally encompasses the various vehicles, hence it is said to be spoken universally for all vehicles. Gathering capacities completely is only then the definitive meaning.' Second, in terms of the completeness or deficiency of spoken teachings, taking the teachings according to capacity, then the initial period teaches only the Hīnayāna, the second teaches only the Mahāyāna, and the third fully teaches the three vehicles. The former two each mutually lack teachings and are incomplete, hence they are not the definitive meaning. The latter one is complete with the three vehicles; the teaching is full, so it is the definitive meaning. Due to meanings such as these, the third is only then the definitive meaning. That established by Śīlabhadra is classified relying on this approach. Within the second approach there are also two: first, in terms of the gradual progression in benefiting beings, that taught in the initial period causes beings to obtain only the benefit of the Hīnayāna; the benefit is not yet ultimate, hence it is not the definitive meaning. In the second period, although the benefit extends to both great and small, nevertheless it cannot cause the two vehicles tending toward quiescence to also attain the Mahāyāna; therefore, this explanation also does not exhaust the principle. In the third period, it universally causes all to attain the benefit of the Mahāyāna, because even those who have entered quiescence are caused to direct [themselves] toward great bodhi. Therefore, a sūtra says: 'Only this one matter is real; the other two are not true.' It also says: 'If I were to transform [them] by the Hīnayāna, I would fall into miserliness; this matter is inadmissible.' Therefore, this teaching is only then the definitive meaning. Second, in terms of the prominence or subtleness in revealing principle, initially it taught that arising from conditions is substantially existent; next, it taught that arising from conditions is nominally existent; and finally, it taught that arising from conditions is itself empty of nature. What was taught in the former two did not comprehensively reveal principle and did not exhaustively integrate conditions, hence they are not the definitive meaning; the latter one reveals principle to the utmost and completely integrates the marks of conditions, hence it is the definitive meaning. Due to meanings such as these, the third is only then the ultimate definitive-meaning Mahāyāna. That is also because the first is only the Hīnayāna, the second is complete with the three vehicles, and the third is solely the One Vehicle. That established by Jñānaprabha is classified relying on this approach. Because there are these two kinds of approaches, the sacred teachings each rely on one perspective to clarify the provisional and the real, and they do not contradict one another.

1.15

Question: If, as explained, both tenet-systems hold that initially only the Hīnayāna was taught, why was the *Avataṃsaka* also taught at the very beginning and yet is not the Hīnayāna? Answer: Regarding this difficulty, the eminent masters have three explanations in all. One says: establishing the three wheels of Dharma in terms of capacities of gradual awakening has this gradual sequence; if it is a capacity of sudden awakening, then at the very beginning that *Avataṃsaka* and so forth was also taught. If so, then when the *Guhyakādhipatinirdeśasūtra* fully taught the dharmas of the three vehicles at the initial period, was this gradual or was it sudden? If it was a gradual teaching, it should have taught only the Hīnayāna; if it was a sudden teaching, it should have taught only the Mahāyāna; therefore, it is difficult to understand. Another says: if relying on the manifest approach, then there is this sequence of three dharmas as before; if in terms of the secret approach, then all exist simultaneously. If so, then at the initial period the Hīnayāna was manifest and the Mahāyāna was secret; why was the Mahāyāna not manifest and the Hīnayāna secret? Furthermore, classifying this as manifest or secret: from what sacred teaching does this derive? Since the principle is not consistent and there is no sacred teaching, it is also difficult to rely upon. Another says: it is simply that the Tathāgata's single utterance of the round voice is understood equally by diverse kinds; compiled with respect to the Hīnayāna, hence it teaches only the Hīnayāna; compiled with respect to the Mahāyāna, hence it teaches only the Mahāyāna; compiled with respect to the common, hence it teaches the three vehicles. If so, when the *Avataṃsaka* was taught, why did the śrāvakas not hear what was theirs to hear, but instead were like the deaf and blind, seeing and hearing nothing? This is also difficult to understand. Now, in resolving this difficulty, speaking broadly of the Tathāgata preaching the Dharma with the round voice, there are two general categories: 1. preaching for those whose capacities in this life are fixed; 2. preaching for those whose capacities in this life are unfixed. Within the first, there are naturally three phases: 1. there may be beings whose determinate nature in this life is fixed in the Hīnayāna, who see the Tathāgata from beginning to end preaching only the Hīnayāna, such as those of the various Hīnayāna schools who do not believe in the Mahāyāna. 2. There may be beings whose capacities and natures of the three vehicles in this life are mature, who then see the Tathāgata from beginning to end preaching only the three vehicles. As the *Guhyakādhipatinirdeśasūtra* says: 'When the Buddha first preached the Dharma in the Deer Park, immeasurable beings attained the fruit of arhatship; immeasurable beings attained the path of pratyekabuddhas; immeasurable beings generated the bodhicitta and dwelled on the first ground, and so forth,' as extensively explained there. In the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitāsūtra* it is also taught identically. Therefore, what was taught in later periods all extends to the three vehicles, as taught in the various Mahāyāna sūtras. 3. There may be beings whose capacity and nature of the One Vehicle in this life are mature, who then see the Tathāgata initially beneath the king of trees in the Lotus Store World, relying on the ocean-seal samādhi, teaching the inexhaustible, consummate, and unhindered Dharma gate solely for bodhisattvas, as taught in the *Avataṃsakasūtra* and so forth. Therefore, the various explanations are each based on what corresponds to the given capacity and are not mutually contradictory. Second, regarding those of unfixed capacities, there are two positions: 1. because their Hīnayāna capacities in this life are unfixed, so that they are capable of advancing into the position of the three vehicles, hearing only the Hīnayāna initially is a non-definitive teaching, next preaching only the Mahāyāna is also a non-definitive teaching, and fully teaching the three vehicles at last is only then the definitive meaning; hence there are the three periods of teaching in the *Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra*. 2. Because their Hīnayāna capacities in this life are unfixed, so that they are capable of advancing into the position of the One Vehicle, hearing the Hīnayāna initially is a non-definitive teaching, next extending through the three vehicles is also a non-definitive teaching, and teaching solely the One Vehicle at last is only then the definitive teaching. That established by Jñānaprabha corresponds to this meaning. Therefore, because there is the distinction between the two positions of fixed and unfixed capacities in this life, it causes these teaching approaches to either have temporal succession or have no temporal succession. The above general explanation recounting and harmonising the various teachings is concluded.

1.16

Second, regarding distinguishing the tenet-systems in accordance with the teachings, all sūtras and treatises currently circulating in the east, extending across the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, comprise four tenet-paths: 1. the tenet-system of clinging to dharmas in accordance with marks, which refers to the various Hīnayāna schools; 2. the tenet-system of true emptiness and signlessness, which refers to what is taught in sūtras such as the *Prajñāpāramitā* and treatises such as the *Madhyamaka*; 3. the tenet-system of consciousness-only and dharmalakṣaṇa, which refers to what is taught in sūtras such as the *Saṃdhinirmocana* and treatises such as the *Yogācārabhūmi*; 4. the tenet-system of the pratītyasamutpāda of the tathāgatagarbha, which refers to what is taught in sūtras such as the *Laṅkāvatāra* and the *Ghanavyūha*, and treatises such as the *Awakening of Faith* and the *Ratnagotravibhāga*. Among these four: the first speaks by clinging to marks in accordance with empirical facts; the second speaks by integrating empirical facts to reveal principle; the third speaks of differences by generating empirical facts relying on principle; the fourth speaks of the interfusion and non-obstruction of principle and empirical facts. Because in this tenet-system it is accepted that the tathāgatagarbha accords with conditions to become the ālayavijñāna, this is principle penetrating into empirical facts; it is also accepted that other-dependent pratītyasamutpāda is without nature and identical to tathatā, this is empirical facts penetrating into principle. Furthermore, among these four tenet-systems: the first was established by the various Hīnayāna masters; the second was established by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva; the third was established by Asaṅga and Vasubandhu; the fourth was established by Aśvaghoṣa and Sāramati. However, these four tenet-systems also have no distinctions of temporal sequence, and there are overlapping passages in the various sūtras and treatises, which should be understood accordingly. Now, the tenet meaning of this treatise corresponds to the fourth approach.

1.17

Fourth, regarding the faculties addressed by the teaching, there are two levels of explanation: First, in terms of the provisional teaching, it addresses the bodhisattva gotra and the indeterminate gotra among the five gotras; the other three [gotras] are not addressed by this, because they lack the capacity, as taught in the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra and elsewhere. Second, in terms of the definitive teaching, it addresses all sentient beings without exception, because there are none who will not ultimately attain bodhi.

1.18

Question: If those of no gotra will also become Buddhas, why is it taught that there are sentient beings of no gotra? Answer: Śāstras offer two explanations; hence both the Buddhadhātuśāstra and the Ratnagotravibhāga explain that this was stated in reference to people who slander the Mahāyāna, on account of an immeasurable period of time, and does not mean that they ultimately lack the pure nature. In the second fascicle of the Buddhadhātuśāstra, it determines that teaching the absence of buddha-nature is an incomplete teaching (neyārtha). Based on this, one should know that an eternal absence of gotra is not the ultimate explanation of the principle. This can be known from the text of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra.

1.19

Question: Suppose an objection is raised: If all sentient beings equally possess the buddha-nature and will definitely attain Buddhahood, then although sentient beings are numerous, they must eventually be exhausted, which would be a great fault. Furthermore, if all possess the nature, it would cause the final bodhisattva to lack the practice of benefiting others, because there would be no sentient beings to convert; and lacking practice while attaining Buddhahood is not reasonable. Furthermore, it would cause the other-benefiting merits of all Buddhas to be severed, because there would be no receptive faculties of those to be converted. How can these three objections be resolved? Answer: The objections raised here all arise from deludedly viewing the realm of sentient beings; it is through this delusion that these objections are raised. Therefore, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśasūtra states: 'Those of great false views see the realm of sentient beings increasing or see the realm of sentient beings decreasing; because they do not know the one dharmadhātu as it truly is, they give rise to views of increase and decrease regarding the realm of sentient beings.'

1.20

Question: The meaning I stated accords with this sūtra text. How so? If all sentient beings possess the nature and are all to attain liberation, then sentient beings would decrease. Now we posit that there are these sentient beings of no gotra who remain forever in the world; therefore, there is neither increase nor decrease. Answer: If so, since you give rise to a view of decrease regarding those with the nature, you must then give rise to a view of increase regarding the realm of the Buddha; these views of increase and decrease do not depart from your attachment. You should know that the sūtra's intention explains that all sentient beings attain Buddhahood at the same time, yet the Buddha-realm does not increase and the realm of sentient beings does not decrease. Therefore that sūtra states: 'Sentient beings are precisely the dharmakāya; the dharmakāya is precisely sentient beings. Sentient beings and the dharmakāya are one in meaning and different only in name.' Explanation: To illustrate, the realm of sentient beings is like the realm of empty space. Suppose a bird flies in empty space from west to east for hundreds or thousands of years; one can never say that the east is near and the west is far. Why is this? Because empty space has no boundaries. Nor can one say that it has not flown at all, because the effort is not in vain. One should know that the principle here is also like this: it is not that there being extinction causes an ultimate exhaustion, nor is it that there being no ultimate exhaustion means there are those who are not extinguished. Therefore, the realm of sentient beings is profound and vast; it is an object known only by the Tathāgata's knowledge, and one cannot rashly measure and deliberate with a deranged mind to give rise to views of increase and decrease. Since it is inexhaustible, none of the three objections cannot be dispelled.

1.21

Regarding the turning of the mind by those of the two vehicles: If they are of indeterminate gotra, they turn their minds before entering the remainderless [nirvāṇa], which goes without saying. If they are of determinate gotra, they definitely do not turn their minds before entering the remainderless; they must enter the remainderless and only then do they turn their minds, because those of the two vehicles originally never attained the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder of conditioning. The third fascicle of the Buddhadhātuśāstra states: 'Those of the two vehicles have three kinds of remainder: first, the remainder of defilement, which refers to the entrenchment of avidyā; second, the remainder of karma, which refers to uncontaminated karma; third, the remainder of retribution, which refers to the mind-made body and the body of transformation.' Furthermore, the Anuttarāśrayasūtra, the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra, the Ratnagotravibhāga, and other texts extensively explain that within the uncontaminated realm there are three kinds of inconceivable transformational saṃsāra, namely those of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas of great power. If one were to say that the two vehicles here refer to the indeterminate gotra, that principle is definitely not so. Because before turning their minds they still possess fragmented [saṃsāra]; after turning their minds they are gradually awakening bodhisattvas, not the two vehicles. The śāstra states that the two vehicles have three kinds of remainder, not bodhisattvas; therefore one should know that this definitely refers to the two vehicles in their own stage of remainderless conditioning, of which the Mahāyāna explains that they have three kinds. However, since those of the two vehicles cannot know these three remainders, they burn their fragmented bodies with transformational fire and enter the remainderless. By the nature of things, they all still possess a remnant of transformational retribution, but they do not know this and think it to be nirvāṇa; yet in reality it is only the meditative absorption of cessation attained by anticipating the cessation of consciousness before burning the body. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkaśāstra states: 'They enter the city of nirvāṇa through expedients. As for the city of nirvāṇa, it is the city of various dhyāna-samādhis; having passed beyond that city, they are caused to enter the city of mahāparinirvāṇa.' Explanation: Based on this, one should know that although the essence of the remainderless state of the two vehicles is the meditative absorption of cessation, it also extends to expedients; hence it is called 'various dhyānas.' Because the faculties of those of the two vehicles have sharp and dull aspects, and the seeds of the mind-guarding meditative absorption of cessation have strong and weak degrees, therefore their stay in meditative absorption lasts as long as eighty thousand [eons]; down to a single thought-moment, through the power of the Buddha's knowledge of faculties, desires, and natures acting as the predominant condition, and also through the innate power of the buddha-nature, their minds are caused to be born again in the pure lands, where through the power of meeting Buddhas and bodhisattvas as good spiritual friends, they cultivate the Mahāyāna path. However, regarding these differences of sharpness, dullness, slowness, and swiftness, the sacred teachings briefly state seven stages: namely, eighty thousand, sixty thousand, forty thousand, twenty thousand, and ten thousand eons, respectively assigned to the four fruits and pratyekabuddhas. These five are as taught in that Nirvāṇasūtra. In the sixth stage, as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'Drunk on the wine of samādhi, they are unaware for eons; / when the wine wears off, they then awaken / and attain the supreme body of a Buddha.' This is also sharper than the preceding ones, not lasting ten thousand eons. The seventh stage, as the third fascicle of the Lotus Sūtra states: 'After my parinirvāṇa, there will further be disciples who do not hear this sūtra, who are unaware of the bodhisattva practice, and who, giving rise to the thought of extinction regarding the merits they have attained, will enter nirvāṇa. When I become a Buddha in another land under a different name, although these people have given rise to the thought of extinction and entered nirvāṇa, they will seek the Buddha's wisdom in that land, hear this sūtra, and attain extinction solely through the Buddha vehicle, without any other vehicle, except for the Tathāgatas' expedient teachings.' Explanation: These are of the sharpest faculties: having also discarded the fragmented body and entered nirvāṇa, they immediately receive a transformational body in a Buddha-land, receive the Buddha's teaching, and enter the Mahāyāna. Some people also explain that this sūtra text refers to emanation śrāvakas. That principle is definitely not so. If they were emanations, they must be meant to guide real sentient beings; if those sentient beings received this guidance, they would also learn to first enter remainderless nirvāṇa and only later turn their minds. But if what you hold is the remainderless extinction of ashes, that would mislead those guided sentient beings, and the Buddhas and bodhisattvas would thereby cause great enmity for those sentient beings; how could that be called guidance through great compassion and expedients? Since there is no such principle, we know that those who enter cessation and turn their minds are definitely not emanations. The above seven stages all refer to those of determinate two vehicles who must enter cessation before turning their minds, unlike those of indeterminate nature who turn their minds before entering cessation.

1.22

Question: Do all those of determinate two vehicles who enter cessation turn their minds, or are there some who do not turn? Answer: All of them turn. How is this known? The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkaśāstra states: 'There are two kinds [of persons] who bestow prophecies upon śrāvakas: first, the Tathāgata; second, the Bodhisattva Sadāparibhūta. There are four kinds of śrāvakas upon whom prophecies are bestowed: first, determinate śrāvakas; second, excessively proud śrāvakas; third, śrāvakas who have retreated from the bodhicitta; fourth, emanation śrāvakas. For the latter two śrāvakas, because their faculties have matured, the Buddha bestows prophecies upon them, meaning that emanation śrāvakas, after retreating, give rise to the bodhicitta again; for determinate śrāvakas and excessively proud persons, because their faculties have not yet matured, bodhisattvas bestow prophecies upon them, using expedients to cause them to give rise to the bodhicitta.' Explanation: Since determinate śrāvakas are among those prophesied, we therefore know that they definitely give rise to the bodhicitta. Moreover, since it only says that their faculties have not yet matured, and does not say that they will never mature, we therefore know that they definitely possess the nature. Furthermore, that śāstra states: '"I do not disparage you, for you will all become Buddhas" indicates that all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature.' Explanation: This is a bodhisattva bestowing a prophecy, clearly showing that determinate śrāvakas possess the buddha-nature.

1.23

Question: Why do newly translated sūtras and śāstras say that there are those of the determinate two vehicles who enter cessation and do not turn their minds? Answer: In the new sūtras and śāstras, this is stated based on their definitely not turning their minds before entering cessation; they do not speak of what occurs after entering cessation, so there is no contradiction. Furthermore, teachings are distinguished into definitive and non-definitive, as distinguished in the Buddhadhātuśāstra; thus it is not surprising. Moreover, in the Nirvāṇasūtra, the statement 'those who speak of the existence or non-existence of buddha-nature do not understand my intention' clarifies that the dharma of buddha-nature is free from existence and free from non-existence; grasping onto it according to words is failing to understand the intention, and it does not mean teaching that a portion [of beings] lacks the nature. The Buddhadhātuśāstra states: 'Therefore, the buddha-nature is definitely existent, being free from existence and free from non-existence.' This is what it means. Therefore, all sentient beings are addressed by this [teaching], and other sūtras and śāstras should all be explained in accordance with this.

1.24

Fifth, regarding the essence of the teaching that expresses [meaning], it is briefly divided into four gates: first, the gate of conforming to phenomenal marks; second, the gate of consciousness-only; third, the gate of returning to the nature; fourth, the gate of unhinderedness. In the first, there are four propositions: First, taking solely names, sentences, and phonemes as its nature, because sound is the support and not the primary essence itself. The Cheng weishi lun states: 'If names, sentences, and so forth were not different from sound, there would be no distinction between the spheres of unhindered dharma and unhindered speech.' Second, taking solely vocal sound as its nature, because names, sentences, phonemes, and so forth are conventionally established upon the modulations of sound and have no separate essence. The Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā states: 'Accomplished induced sound refers to the explanations of the āryas.' Third, possessing both of the preceding two factors to constitute its nature. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra states: 'There are those who use vocal sound, language, and writing to perform the Buddha's work.' Furthermore, the Daśabhūmikaśāstra states: 'The speaker speaks through two things, and the listener hears through two things, namely sound, names, and so forth.'

1.25

Question: In the Mahāyāna, sound expresses good and evil, yet sound is indeterminate, and names, sentences, and phonemes are also indeterminate. How can the indeterminate be the essence of the sacred teaching? Answer: Because they are spoken through the subsequently attained cognition of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, they are both good. As the Daśabhūmikaśāstra says: 'Good names, words, and so forth are this.'

1.26

Fourth, or that neither of the two things constitutes its nature, because preaching is identical to non-preaching, and because the nature of written words is detached. As a sūtra says: 'One who expounds the Dharma has nothing to expound and nothing to indicate; one who listens to the Dharma has nothing to hear and nothing to attain.' This is what it means. Among these four propositions, taking the first three separately applies to the Hīnayāna, while possessing all four explanations constitutes the Mahāyāna. Moreover, combining these four propositions into a single teaching, mutually unobstructed, is the Mahāyāna teaching. Second, regarding the gate of consciousness-only: the speaker's consciousness manifests as a predominant condition, causing the listener's consciousness to manifest the marks of words and meanings. As the treatise below says: 'If one is free from the thoughts of the mind, then there are no marks of any objects.' Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'It is named the consciousness of verbal expression.' Moreover, it appears as an accumulation upon the listener's consciousness, and therefore all sounds, names, sentences, and the like are all manifestations of one's own mind. As the treatise below says: 'They manifest solely reliant on the mind, and are not separated from tathatā.' Third, regarding the gate of returning to the nature: this consciousness has no intrinsic substance; it is solely tathatā. As the treatise below says: 'Therefore, all phenomena from the beginning are free from the marks of verbal expression, free from the marks of names, and free from the marks of mental conditioning; they are ultimately equal, without change, and indestructible. They are solely the One Mind; hence they are called tathatā. Because all verbal expressions are provisional designations without reality, and merely follow deluded thoughts, they are ungraspable.' One may understand in accordance with this. Fourth, regarding the gate of non-obstruction: concerning the previous three gates, mind and objects, principle and phenomena, share the same dependent arising; they are fused without obstruction, mutually interpenetrating and embracing, perfectly luminous and unimpeded, not obstructing one another, and this is taken as the essence of the teaching. Because the phenomenon of the One Mind has two gates, each universally subsuming all phenomena. One should reflect on this in accordance with this. Fifth, regarding the gate of the teaching pervading all phenomena: it pervades all knowable objects across the six dusts, universally possessing the meaning of generating understanding, all constituting the essence of the teaching. Understand it in accordance with this.

1.27

Sixth, regarding the doctrinal tenet and objective of what is explained, first in general and then in detail: In general, it takes the doctrine and meaning of the One Mind as its tenet, and taking faith and practice to attain the fruit as its objective; thus it encompasses the three: object, practice, and fruit. Here, the object is of two kinds: first, the doctrine; second, the meaning, as analyzed in the text below. Practice is also of two kinds: first, the substance of practice, namely the four kinds of faithful mind; second, the function of practice, namely the five gates of cultivation, which are also shown below. The fruit is also of two kinds: first, the partial fruit, meaning causing one to enter the ranks; second, the complete fruit, meaning becoming a Tathāgata. Both will be analyzed below. What is the difference between tenet and objective? That which is venerated by the treatise itself is called the tenet; that to which the tenet returns is called the objective. Second, distinctively showing the tenet and objective, there are roughly five pairs: First, the contrast between teaching and meaning: taking the teaching's exposition as the tenet, and using the intention of the meaning as the objective, as in the text below that instructs relinquishing words and grasping the intent, and so forth. Second, the contrast between principle and phenomena: bringing up phenomena as the tenet, and revealing the principle as the objective, as in the text below that says 'from the gate of arising and ceasing entering the gate of tathatā', and so forth. Third, the contrast between object and practice: taking the conventional and ultimate objects as the tenet, and taking the practice of observing the mind as the objective. Fourth, the contrast between realization and faith: taking accomplishing non-retrogression of faith as the tenet, and ascending the grounds to enter realization as the objective. Fifth, the contrast between cause and fruit: taking the cause as the tenet, and realizing the fruit as the objective. These five also arise sequentially from the preceding to the succeeding, depending on one another in order. One may understand this according to the explanation.

First 27 of 140 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大乘起信論義記 — Classical Chinese