大乘起信論義記 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Fazang of the West Temple of the State of Wei in Jingzhao Prefecture

2.2

In the Section on the Interpretation there are two parts: first, concluding the preceding and introducing the subsequent.

2.3

"The Section on Establishing the Meaning has already been explained; next, the Section on the Interpretation is to be explained."

2.4

Second, properly clarifying the interpretation. In the text of the explanation there are three: 1. indicating the number, 2. listing the names, and 3. discerning the characteristics.

2.5

"The interpretation has three kinds. What are the three? The first is revealing the correct meaning."

2.6

In listing the names, first, "revealing the correct meaning" properly explains the Dharma and meaning of the Mahāyāna that were established.

2.7

"The second is rectifying erroneous attachments."

2.8

Next, once the correct principle has been clarified, emotional delusions are dispelled; hence there is "rectifying erroneous attachments."

2.9

"The third is distinguishing the characteristics of setting out toward the path."

2.10

Erroneous attachments having vanished, it next discerns the stages of advancing toward the correct; hence there is "distinguishing the characteristics of setting out toward the path."

In discerning the characteristics, explaining the three names above constitutes three sections. In the first there are two: first, general, and second, particular. The general explains that the minds of sentient beings subsume all, etc., in the Section on Establishing the Meaning above. The particular explains the distinct meanings of the two gates below "Why is this?" in the Section on Establishing the Meaning above. In the general there are three: 1. opening the gates based on the Dharma, 2. listing the two gates, and 3. the two gates comprehensively subsuming.

2.12

"Revealing the correct meaning: relying on the Dharma of the One Mind, there are two kinds of gates. What are the two? The first is the gate of the mind as tathatā; the second is the gate of the mind as arising and ceasing."

2.13

In the first, "One Mind" means that the one tathāgatagarbha mind contains two meanings: 1. In terms of essence cutting off marks, this is the gate of tathatā. It means non-defiled and non-pure, non-arising and non-ceasing, unmoving and non-evolving, equal and of one taste, with no difference in nature; sentient beings are nirvāṇa itself, not awaiting cessation; ordinary beings and Maitreya are on the identical plane. 2. In terms of arising and ceasing in accordance with conditions, this is the gate of arising and ceasing. It means that moving and transforming in accordance with perfuming, it becomes defiled and pure; although defilement and purity are formed, its nature is constantly unmoving. Precisely because it is unmoving, it can form defilement and purity; therefore, the unmoving is also present within the moving gate. Hence, in the text below, among the two meanings of consciousness, it is innate enlightenment; in the text above, within the gate of arising and ceasing, it is "its own essence." When the Śrīmālā says "without being defiled, it is defiled; being defiled, it is undefiled," and so forth, this is spoken in terms of the gate of arising and ceasing. The Laṅkāvatāra says: "The tathāgatagarbha is called the ālayavijñāna, and together with avidyā and the seven consciousnesses it coexists, like the waves of the great ocean, constantly without interruption," and so forth. It also says: "The tathāgatagarbha is perfumed by beginningless false and evil habits, and is named the repository consciousness." It also says: "The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of good and non-good; experiencing suffering and pleasure together with causes, whether arising or ceasing, it is like an actor performing various musical entertainments," and so forth, as extensively explained in the two versions of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. These are all spoken in terms of the gate of arising and ceasing. However, as for these two gates, the entire essence thoroughly merges, boundaries are not distinguished, essence and marks are not two, and it is difficult to designate them; hence it says "the One Mind has two gates," and so forth.

2.14

Under comprehensive subsumption, first it establishes, and then explains.

2.15

"These two kinds of gates each comprehensively subsume all phenomena."

2.16

Regarding "each comprehensively subsumes all phenomena": in the Section on Establishing the Meaning above, it simply said "subsumes"; now, in the explanation, it says "each subsumes" because the gate of tathatā is the common mark of defilement and purity, and outside the common mark there are no separate defilements and purities; hence it can comprehensively subsume. Just as fine dust is the common mark of earthenware vessels, and outside the common mark there are no separate earthenware vessels, all earthenware vessels are subsumed by fine dust. The gate of tathatā, it should be known, is also like this; by analogy, it can be understood. The gate of arising and ceasing is the particular marks of defilement and purity; phenomena of particular marks are subsumed by arising and ceasing. Furthermore, because this is tathatā combining with conditions and transforming into all phenomena, since all phenomena have no different essence, they in turn subsume the gate of tathatā. Just as earthenware vessels gather fine dust, etc. Because these two gates equally subsume without duality, they can be described as the One Mind.

2.17

Question: Since the two gates equally subsume each other, why is it that in the text above, the gate of tathatā only reveals the essence of the Mahāyāna and does not display the marks and function, whereas the gate of arising and ceasing fully displays the three? Answer: Tathatā is the gate of eliminating marks and revealing the real; without destroying marks it immediately eliminates them, and hence can subsume arising and ceasing; because it eliminates marks so that they do not remain, it only reveals the essence. Arising and ceasing is the gate of gathering the principle to form phenomena; without destroying the principle it forms phenomena, and hence can subsume tathatā; because phenomena are formed without losing the principle, it fully reveals the three greatnesses.

2.18

Question: Previously, since marks were eliminated and marks do not remain, it only revealed the essence; might it also be that when principle is gathered and principle does not remain, it should only reveal marks and function? Answer: They are not analogous. Why is this? The arising of arising and ceasing necessarily relies on the true; hence when gathering the principle, the principle is not lost. Tathatā does not necessarily rely on arising and ceasing; hence when marks are eliminated, they do not remain. Because eliminating marks leaves them not remaining, it only reveals the essence; because the principle is not lost, it fully reveals the three. Therefore, while their meaning of subsumption is equal, their meaning of revelation is distinct.

2.19

Below, it raises a question and explains to complete [the point].

2.20

"What does this mean?"

2.21

The query says: If the two gates are distinct, they cannot follow each other; if originally there is only the One Mind, it would not admit reciprocal subsumption.

2.22

"Because these two gates are not separate from each other."

2.23

In the answer, "not separate from each other" means that essence and marks are not separate from each other. Like gold and ornaments: if one gathers the ornaments with the gold, no ornament is omitted; if one subsumes the gold with the ornaments, the gold is entirely included. Truly, because the two gates share a single trajectory, the entire essence is completely gathered. This meaning is also like this; by contemplating it, it can be seen.

2.24

Second, in the particular explanation there are two: first, distinguishing the two gates separately to clarify that activity and stillness are not one; later, from "entering the gate of tathatā from the gate of arising and ceasing" onward, clarifying the convergence of marks into reality to show that activity and stillness are not different. In the former, explaining the two gates constitutes two sections. In the gate of tathatā, first it marks, and then it explains. In the explanation there are two: first, presenting the essence of tathatā as transcending speech to clarify the realm of contemplative cognition, explaining the meaning of tathatā in the Section on Establishing the Meaning above; second, from "Furthermore, tathatā..." onward, distinguishing the virtues based on speech to clarify the realm that generates faith, explaining the marks of tathatā in the establishment above. In the first there are two: 1. generally presenting the Dharma-essence, and 2. questions and answers resolving doubts. In the first text there are two: first, directly revealing the essence of tathatā, and second, from "Because all speech..." onward, reconciling attachments and explaining the name. In the former there are three: first, briefly stating according to reality; next, from "all phenomena" onward, reconciling the false to reveal the true; and third, from "therefore" onward, concluding the true and departing from the false.

2.25

"The mind as tathatā is the essence of the Dharma-gate of the great universal mark of the one dharmadhātu."

2.26

In the first part, "one dharmadhātu" means that the non-dual true mind is the one dharmadhātu. This is not the "one" of counting; because the principle is empty and fused, equal and non-dual, it is called "one." Moreover, in contrast to having two meanings below based on words, here, in terms of essence, it simply says "one." Because noble dharmas are produced in reliance [upon it], it is called "dharmadhātu." The Madhyāntavibhāgaśāstra says: "'Dharmadhātu' means that because the cause of noble dharmas is its meaning, it is therefore called dharmadhātu; noble dharmas are produced relying on this realm, and here the meaning of cause is the meaning of dhātu." Regarding "great universal mark": between the two gates, it does not take the gate of particular marks; within them it takes only the universal mark, yet it also comprehensively gathers all particulars; hence it is called "great." This one dharmadhātu in its entirety acts as the gate of arising and ceasing, and in its entirety acts as the gate of tathatā; to reveal this meaning, it says "essence." That which provides a standard to generate understanding in beings is called "Dharma"; that through which noble cognition freely traverses is called "gate."

2.27

"That is to say, the nature of the mind is unarising and unceasing."

2.28

"The nature of the mind is unarising and unceasing" explains the Dharma-essence above: it means that following the false it does not arise, and in terms of remedy it does not cease; furthermore, cultivated and aroused it does not arise, and dwelling in defilement it does not cease. Hence the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "The worldly is not destroyed, and the supramundane is not exhausted."

2.29

Second, in reconciling the false to reveal the true, there are two sentences.

2.30

"All phenomena have distinctions only based on delusional thoughts; if one is free from thoughts of the mind, there are no marks of any objective realms."

2.31

An adherent of attachment says: "We presently see phenomena differentiating and constantly changing; how then can you say their nature has no arising and ceasing?" In explanation, [the author] says: Differentiating marks are produced by your universally conceptualized deluded sentiment; originally they are without reality. Just as, relying on diseased eyes, one falsely sees flowers in the sky, therefore it is said that all [phenomena] have distinctions based on delusional thoughts.

2.32

The doubter further says: "How is it known that they arise relying on delusional thoughts?" In explanation, [the author] says: Because all the noble ones are free from delusional thoughts. Since they are without these objects, this verifies that these objects definitely arise from delusion. Furthermore, if these objects were not produced by delusion and were definitely real, then the noble ones' not seeing them should be an error of confusion, while ordinary persons' seeing them should be awakening—just as, if someone does not see flowers in the sky, they would have diseased eyes. Reasoning by contraposition, it is therefore said, "if one is free from thoughts, there are no..." and so forth.

2.33

3. Eight lines concluding [the gate of tathatā].

2.34

"Therefore, all phenomena from the beginning have been free from the marks of verbal expression, free from the marks of designations, and free from the marks of mental conditioning; they are ultimately equal, without variation, and indestructible. They are only the One Mind, and are therefore called tathatā."

2.35

"Therefore" means that because what is grasped is originally empty and the true mind is unmoving, for this reason all phenomena are immediately tathatā. "Free from the marks of verbal expression" means they do not exist within spoken sounds. "Free from designations" means they do not exist within the explications of phrases and sentences. These two lines show that the path of speech is cut off, not an object of the wisdom acquired through listening. "Free from mental conditioning" means they are not conceptualizations of mental speech; the working of the mind is extinguished, not an object of the wisdom acquired through reflection. Up to this point, being free from falsehood and delusion is called "true" (tatha-); henceforth, being free from differentiated marks is called "suchness" (-tā). Furthermore, the following three lines explain one another in succession. They are free from the objects of worldly wisdom acquired through cultivation, and only right cognition is conjoined with them. "Ultimately equal" means that although it pervades defilement and purity, its nature is constantly non-dual. The reason it can be non-dual is that when in conditions, from beginning to end it does not change; hence it is said "without variation." The reason it can remain invariant within the conditioned is that unlike the conditioned, it is not destructible; this means it is not destroyed when in defilement, nor broken when in the path of remediation. "They are only the One Mind" concludes by returning to the substance of the Dharma. "Therefore called tathatā" establishes the name based on the meaning.

2.36

Part Two: Resolving attachments and explaining the name has two sections: first an explanation, then a conclusion. The explanation has three parts: first, directly resolving and remedying attachments; second, from "verbal expression's limit" onward, explaining doubts regarding the name; third, from "the substance of this tathatā" onward, explaining and eliminating [attachments] regarding marks.

2.37

"Because all verbal expressions are provisional designations without reality, and merely follow delusional thoughts, they cannot be grasped. That which is called tathatā is also without any mark."

2.38

In the first part, "Because all verbal expressions are provisional designations without reality" clarifies that verbal teachings are not real and cannot be grasped according to the words. "Merely follow delusional thoughts..." and so forth explains the reason why they are without reality. Fearing that ordinary fools, hearing the name "tathatā" above, would claim the treatise master is contradicting his own words—saying, "Since the preceding text says it is free from the marks of designations, why does he again establish this name 'tathatā'?"—he now explains and dispels [this doubt by showing that] provisional designations are unreal, and so there is no contradiction. Saying "also without any mark" eliminates marks, because names are established based on marks and both are cognitive objects of universal conceptualization. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says, "Marks and names constantly accompany each other, giving rise to all delusional conceptualizations." Therefore, both are now eliminated.

2.39

2. Two lines specifically regarding the name: first, establishing the limit of the name; second, the intention behind establishing the name.

2.40

"It is the utmost limit of verbal expression, using words to eliminate words."

2.41

In the first part, the doubter asks: "Since it cuts off names and marks and only provisionally establishes a guest name, why not establish other names instead of only saying 'tathatā'?" In explanation, [the author] says: "Tathatā" is the utmost limit of verbal expression, meaning that after this name there is no further name; it is the final boundary among all names. Among the ten kinds of names in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the name tathatā is the tenth, ultimate name, hence called the "limit." "Using words to eliminate words" means establishing this ultimate name in order to eliminate names. Without this name, there would be no way to eliminate names; but if one holds on to this name, names are likewise not eliminated. Like striking a sounding-block to call for silence: without this sound, other sounds would not be stopped; but if, in order to preserve this sound, one repeatedly strikes for silence, it becomes noisy itself and thus fails to stop sounds. One should know that the intent here is also like this; it must be carefully discerned.

2.42

3. Two lines specifically regarding marks.

2.43

"In the substance of this tathatā there is nothing that can be eliminated, because all phenomena are entirely true; nor is there anything that can be established, because all phenomena are identically such."

2.44

Regarding "In the substance of this tathatā there is nothing that can be eliminated..." and so forth, there are two explanations. First, explaining in terms of contemplation: outsiders see that the preceding text eliminates both the name and mark of tathatā, and think that the fundamental substance of tathatā is also a phenomenon that can be eliminated, thereby generating an annihilationist view. Therefore it is now explained that one only eliminates false names and marks, not the real phenomenon of tathatā, because it is the contemplative object of wonderful wisdom. Why is it not eliminated? The subsequent line explains: because all phenomena are entirely true, there is no phenomenon that can be eliminated. Once outsiders hear that the true principle is not eliminated, they think there is a phenomenon that can be established, grasping it in mental attachment; hence it is said, "nor is there anything that can be established," because it is free from deluded sentiment. Why can nothing be established? The subsequent line explains and clarifies, as can be known. Second, explaining in terms of phenomena: "nothing that can be eliminated" means that one does not eliminate the phenomena of arising and ceasing by means of the true substance. Why is nothing eliminated? In explanation: because all phenomena are entirely true. Since all defiled and pure phenomena within the gate of arising and ceasing are devoid of intrinsic nature and not different from tathatā, they do not wait to be eliminated. "Nor is there anything that can be established": since the various phenomena of arising and ceasing have never not been true, this tathatā does not wait to be established. Why does it not wait to be established? The subsequent line explains: "because all phenomena are identically such." Because all phenomena of arising and ceasing are originally identical with suchness, this tathatā has never not been manifest; what further could be established? Furthermore, drawing upon the earlier statement that the two gates each completely subsume all phenomena, here four propositions should be formed: 1. In terms of the ultimate, there is nothing to eliminate, because the conventional is identical to the ultimate. 2. In terms of the ultimate, it does not wait to be established, because the ultimate that is identical to the conventional is fundamentally manifest. 3. In terms of the conventional, there is no contradiction, because the ultimate is identical to the conventional. 4. In terms of the conventional, it does not wait to be established, because the conventional that is identical to the ultimate is differentiated. For this reason, without destroying the gate of arising and ceasing, the gate of tathatā is taught; without destroying the gate of tathatā, the gate of arising and ceasing is taught. Truly, because the two gates are only the One Mind, the ultimate and the conventional are mutually harmonized without obstruction. Among these four propositions, the first two pertain to the gate of tathatā, and the latter two pertain to the gate of arising and ceasing; because this context concerns the gate of tathatā, there are only two propositions here.

2.45

"One should know that because all phenomena cannot be spoken of and cannot be thought of, it is named tathatā."

2.46

From "One should know..." onward is the second part, concluding that it is free from speech and beyond thought.

2.47

Concerning the second part, explaining doubts through questions and answers: first, a question suspecting that the true [nature] cuts off cultivation; later, an answer citing the true [nature] to encourage cultivation.

2.48

"Question: If such is the meaning, how do sentient beings accord with it and gain entry?"

2.49

In the question, "how do they accord with it" asks about the contemplation of skillful means; "and gain entry" asks about direct contemplation.

2.50

The answer also has two parts.

2.51

"Answer: If one knows that although all phenomena are spoken of, there is neither speaker nor spoken; although they are thought of, there is neither thinker nor thought—this is called according with it. If one is free from thought, it is called gaining entry."

2.52

In the first part, "although spoken of and although thought of, both lack subject and object" clarifies that thought is immediately non-thought, not that thought is annihilated. Because it is not the annihilation of thought, it is called "although thought of," which is free from the annihilationist view; because it is immediately non-thought, both lack subject and object, which is free from the eternalist view. In a single thought-moment being free from these two views and seeing this non-dual phenomenon, one can thus conform to the Middle Way and accord with the dharmatā. Alternatively, it can also mean that although one is amidst those words and thoughts, one contemplates these thoughts and words as constantly lacking subject and object; although not yet able to be free from thought, one accords with non-thought, hence called "according with it." This explains the contemplation of skillful means. Contemplating for a long time without ceasing, one can then become free from these delusional thoughts and tally with that true principle of non-thought, hence called "direct contemplation." Saying "gain entry" means contemplative wisdom tallies and enters. As the Daśabhūmikaśāstra says: "The sphere of practice of the wise"; and further says: "This realm is difficult to see; visible when one's own mind is pure, this realm cannot be spoken of." Also, the Avataṃsakasūtra says: "The profound true dharmatā / wonderful wisdom accords with and enters." Therefore, one should know that although it is not an object of delusional thoughts, one must not generate the thought of having no capacity for it.

2.53

Henceforth, the second section, on tathatā explained according to words, has three parts in the text: first, stating the number and giving an overarching identification; second, opening the headings and briefly analyzing them; third, extensively explaining them according to the headings.

2.54

"Furthermore, tathatā has two meanings when distinguished according to verbal expression."

2.55

In the first part, having two meanings according to verbal expression shows that if these two meanings are separated from words, they are of only a single flavor; now, because they are spoken of relying on words, they are said to be two, and one must not grasp them merely following the words. This text is taught solely to generate faith and understanding in living beings. Hence the Daśabhūmikaśāstra says: "Why not only teach the wordless? To demonstrate seeking understanding relying on words."

2.56

"What are the two? The first is empty in accordance with reality, because it can ultimately reveal the real."

2.57

Regarding "empty in accordance with reality" (tathā-śūnya): this means that within reality, it is empty of delusional defilements, hence called "empty in accordance with reality"; it does not mean that reality is itself empty. This is "emptiness of reality," a tatpuruṣa compound. Because delusion is empty, it can thereby reveal the true principle; hence it is said to "reveal the real." Therefore the Madhyāntavibhāga says: "The existence of the non-existence of grasper and grasped, and the non-existence of the grasper and grasped, is called the mark of emptiness."

2.58

"The second is non-empty in accordance with reality, because it possesses intrinsic substance and is fully endowed with undefiled virtues of its nature."

2.59

"Non-empty" has two senses: 1. Different from delusion which lacks substance, hence called "possessing intrinsic substance." 2. Different from the defilements as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, hence called "fully endowed with undefiled virtues of its nature." Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "The four virtues are fundamentally present." A verse in the Buddhagotrasūtra says: "Because adventitious defilements are empty, they are separate from the dharmadhātu; the unsurpassable Dharma is not empty, and accompanies the dharmadhātu." The extensive explanation in its prose commentary can be known from that.

2.60

In the extensive explanation, emptiness comes first, which has three parts internally: first, briefly clarifying freedom from defilement, which cannot be exhausted by brevity; next, an extensive explanation, which cannot be comprehensive through extensiveness; finally, a general conclusion.

2.61

"That which is called 'empty' is from the beginning unconjoined with all defiled phenomena, meaning it is free from the marks of distinction of all phenomena, because it is devoid of false thoughts of the mind."

2.62

In the former part, "unconjoined with all defiled phenomena" generally indicates that both subjective and objective conceptualizations are unconjoined. "Free from the marks of distinction" means being free from the marks of what is grasped. "Because it is devoid of false thoughts" means being free from the view of the grasper. Furthermore, because delusional objects arise from delusional thoughts, this explains and clarifies emptiness and non-existence. Truly, confused minds and delusional objects exist in sentiment but are absent in principle; the virtues of tathatā exist in principle but are absent in sentiment; therefore they are unconjoined.

2.63

In the extensive explanation, although grasping and attachment are manifold, they do not exceed these two sets of four propositions. Thus the Śataśāstravipula says: "Furthermore, to reveal that all phenomena grasped by the world are unreal, and to reveal the differences among what is grasped by non-Buddhists, the verse says: 'Existence, non-existence, both, and neither; / unity, non-unity, both eliminated; / matched accordingly in order, / the wise understand they are unreal.'" That treatise extensively refutes the positions of the four schools of non-Buddhists in sequence, fully as explained there; in the present treatise, these propositions are formulated based on the shifting assumptions of outsiders, and thus differ from that text.

2.64

"One should know that the self-nature of tathatā is neither the mark of existence, nor the mark of non-existence, nor the mark of neither existence nor non-existence, nor the mark of both existence and non-existence;"

2.65

Regarding the statement that it is 'not the mark of existence', this clarifies that the real is free from delusional existence. A confused person says: 'Since it is not existence, it should therefore be nonexistence.' The explanation states: 'I negate your delusional existence, hence I say it is not existence; I do not say it is nonexistence—how could you grasp at nonexistence?' Therefore it is said: 'It is not nonexistence.' Hearing the above 'not existence' and hearing 'not nonexistence', the confused person separately takes the double negation to be the phenomenon of tathatā. The explanation states: 'I say it is not existence to negate your asserting existence, not to mean that the essence of phenomena is non-existence; I say it is not nonexistence to negate your asserting nonexistence, not to mean that the essence of phenomena is non-nonexistence. How can you once again grasp at neither existence nor nonexistence?' Therefore it is said: 'It is not the mark of neither existence nor nonexistence.' The confused person further says: 'Above, I established existence and established nonexistence, and you doubly negated both. If the double negation stands, then existence and nonexistence perish accordingly; now that the double negation is itself negated, my existence and nonexistence are established again.' The explanation states: 'I say "neither-neither" to negate your double negation, not to admit that both are so—how can you once again grasp [at them]?' Therefore it is said: 'It is not the mark of both existence and nonexistence.'

2.66

It is not the mark of unity, not the mark of difference, not the mark of neither unity nor difference, and not the mark of both unity and difference.

2.67

Unity, difference, and the rest can be understood by standard of the preceding.

2.68

Up to, in summary: because all sentient beings have delusional minds that differentiate from moment to moment, all of which are unconjoined [with reality], it is therefore spoken of as empty.

2.69

In the summary conclusion, because delusional attachments are as numerous as dust and sand and hard to traverse completely, now it brings them together in summary to explain unconjoinedness. This is a direct conclusion.

2.70

If free from the delusional mind, there is truly nothing to be emptied.

2.71

From 'if free from' onwards is the reverse conclusion: because it is in antithesis to the absence of defilements that the real is spoken of as empty, not that the absence of the essence of tathatā is taken to be empty. Alternatively, this passage resolves doubt: upon hearing of true emptiness above, a doubter would suppose that the true essence and the virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges are negated. Now it is explained, as can be understood from the text, which clarifies that emptiness is not different from non-emptiness.

2.72

In the text on non-emptiness there are four parts: first, taking up the antecedent; second, explaining; third, concluding; fourth, resolving doubts.

2.73

What is spoken of as non-empty is that because the essence of phenomena has already been revealed to be empty and devoid of delusion,

2.74

First, taking up the antecedent reveals what follows.

2.75

it is the true mind, permanent, enduring, unchanging, fulfilled with pure phenomena; therefore it is named 'non-empty'.

2.76

Second, directly revealing non-emptiness. The virtues of non-emptiness, in reverse antithesis to delusional emptiness, are discussed briefly under four kinds. Therefore the Ratnagotravibhāga says: 'First, because of permanence, it is unborn, being free from the mind-made body. Second, because of endurance, it does not die, being free from inconceivable retrograde fall. Third, because of unchangingness, it does not age, being devoid of undefiled karma. Fourth, because of cooling freshness, it does not fall ill, being devoid of the latencies of defilement.' Here, 'pure phenomena' corresponds to 'cooling freshness' in that treatise, because it is free from defilements and taints. Furthermore, 'true mind' adduces the essence; 'permanent' is the virtue of permanence; 'enduring' is the virtue of bliss, because it is free from the suffering of parīṇāmikī; 'unchanging' is the virtue of self, because it is sovereign, not bound by karma; 'pure phenomena' is the virtue of purity.

2.77

Neither is there any mark that can be grasped.

2.78

In resolving doubt: when a confused person hears that pure phenomena are non-empty, they then take it to be identical to the existence of conceptual attachment. Therefore the explanation says: 'neither is there any mark that can be grasped'; thus non-emptiness is not different from emptiness.

2.79

Because it is a realm free from conceptual thought, conjoined only with realization.

2.80

The words 'because it is a realm free from conceptual thought' and so forth explain the reason why it is without marks. If it were the cognitive object of delusional thoughts, then it would possess marks; since it is solely the realm of true wisdom, one clearly knows that it is devoid of marks of delusional attachment. The explanation of the gate of tathatā is completed.

2.81

Second, in explaining the gate of arising and ceasing, there are two parts: first, explaining the mental phenomena of arising and ceasing; later, from 'Furthermore, the self-nature and marks of tathatā' onwards, distinguishing the meaning of what is revealed, which clarifies that this phenomenon has the function of revealing the meaning.

2.82

Question: Why is the greatness of the meaning revealed not distinguished within the gate of tathatā, whereas the great meanings revealed are fully distinguished within the gate of arising and ceasing? Answer: Because the gate of tathatā directly shows the essence of the Mahāyāna, wherein revealing and revealed are not divided and expresser and expressed are not differentiated; therefore it is not distinguished. In the gate of arising and ceasing, defilement and purity are not unified, and phenomena and meanings are distinct; therefore they are fully expounded. Above, in the section on Establishing the Meaning, where it says 'directly shows' within the gate of tathatā and 'capable of showing' within the gate of arising and ceasing, the explanation of the meaning lies in this. Within the phenomena of arising and ceasing there are two parts: first, clarifying the arising and ceasing of defilement and purity; later, from 'four perfumings' onwards, distinguishing the mutual assistance of defilement and purity. In the former there are also two parts: first, indicating in summary with regard to the essence; later, explaining separately according to the meaning. In the summary there are three parts: first, indicating the essence; next, distinguishing the marks; finally, establishing the name.

2.83

As for the mind as arising and ceasing: based on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind that arises and ceases.

2.84

In the former, stating that based on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind that arises and ceases refers to the mind that does not arise or cease. Because it is stirred into arising and ceasing by the wind of avidyā, the mind that arises and ceases is said to be based on the mind that does not arise or cease. Yet these two minds ultimately do not have two essences; it is only with regard to two aspects that mutual dependence is spoken of. Just as motionless water, blown by the wind, becomes moving water—though motion and stillness are distinct, the essence of the water is one—one may also say that based on the still water, there is its moving water. One should know that the principle here is also like this; you may reflect on it according to this standard. That is to say, the inherently pure mind is named the tathāgatagarbha; because it is stirred into arising and ceasing by the wind of avidyā, it is said that 'based on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind that arises and ceases.' Both the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra are identical to this explanation. This reveals that the true mind follows motion and thus undergoes arising and ceasing, not that one adduces the basis to take what is based. Because this gate contains two aspects, it can reveal the three greatnesses; therefore, it also inclusively gathers the basis into this gate.

2.85

Second, distinguishing the marks.

2.86

What is called neither arising nor ceasing is combined with arising and ceasing, neither identical nor different.

2.87

As for 'neither arising nor ceasing', this is the aforementioned pure mind of the tathāgatagarbha; it moves as arising and ceasing without being separated, hence it is said to be 'combined'—it does not mean that there is a separate arising and ceasing that comes to combine with the real. That is to say, the mind of arising and ceasing and the arising and ceasing of the mind have no two marks. The arising and ceasing of the mind is formed due to avidyā; the mind of arising and ceasing arises from innate enlightenment; yet they have no two essences and do not abandon or part from each other, hence it is said to be 'combined'. Therefore it says below: 'Just as the water of the great ocean is stirred into waves due to the wind, and the marks of water and marks of wind do not abandon or part from each other', up to the detailed explanation. Here, the motion of the water is the mark of wind, and the wetness of the motion is the mark of water; because the entire essence of the water moves, water is not separate from the mark of wind; since there is no motion that is not wet, motion is not separate from the mark of water. The mind is also like this: because the mind that neither arises nor ceases moves in its entire essence, the mind is not separate from the mark of arising and ceasing; because every mark of arising and ceasing is nothing other than the real, arising and ceasing is not separate from the mark of mind; such non-separation is called 'combination'. This is the mind that neither arises nor ceases combining with arising and ceasing, because it is the gate of according with conditions; it is not arising and ceasing combining with what neither arises nor ceases, because this is not the gate that faces original tathatā. As for 'neither identical nor different': because the entire essence of the true mind moves, the mind is not different from arising and ceasing; yet because its true nature is constantly unchanging, it is not identical with arising and ceasing. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra takes the defiled phenomena of the seven consciousnesses to be arising and ceasing, and takes the pure phenomenon of the tathāgatagarbha to be neither arising nor ceasing; these two combine to become the ālayavijñāna; because of combination, they are neither identical nor different. As for the gate of non-difference, there are three kinds: First, clarifying non-difference by subordinating the branch to the root. The sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of the wholesome and unwholesome; it is able to universally generate all destinies and births', up to where it says below: 'whether arising or ceasing' and so forth. In the Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha it is also said that because this consciousness has falsehood as its nature, it is spoken of as subsumed by false conceptual differentiation. Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'The Buddha-nature accords with conditions to become distinct flavors', and so forth. Second, clarifying non-difference by subsuming the branch into identity with the root: because a sūtra says 'Sentient beings are precisely tathatā.' Furthermore, because the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says 'The twelve links of pratītyasamutpāda are precisely the Buddha-nature.' Furthermore, regarding what the Daśabhūmika says: 'The three realms are only one mind', that treatise explains this as 'the ultimate truth.' Furthermore, the text below in this treatise says: 'The four marks are fundamentally equal, identical to the one enlightenment', and so on. The former is the root of the branch; since the root has no separate root, there is only arising and ceasing, and there is no other distinct phenomenon from which it could differ. The latter is the branch of the root; since the branch has no separate branch, there is only non-arising and non-ceasing, and there is also no other distinct phenomenon from which it could differ. Third, clarifying non-difference by the equality of root and branch: a sūtra says, 'The profound tathāgatagarbha is accompanied by the seven consciousnesses.' A sūtra also says, 'The ālayavijñāna is named the tathāgatagarbha, and it is accompanied together with avidyā and the seven consciousnesses, just as ocean waves continuously never cease.' A treatise also says, 'The real alone does not arise, the merely delusional does not form; only when the real and delusional combine is there activity.' This is the fusion of root and branch without demarcation; therefore it is said to be 'not different'. Second, regarding the meaning of 'not identical': by the preceding subsumption of the branch into the root being solely neither arising nor ceasing, it is not identical with that subsumption of the root into the branch being solely phenomena of arising and ceasing. Relying on this meaning, a sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is not within the ālaya; therefore the seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing, while the tathāgatagarbha neither arises nor ceases.' It is explained: here, solely arising and ceasing is the seven consciousnesses, and solely non-arising and non-ceasing is the tathāgatagarbha; once the two meanings are distinguished, the ālaya is consequently rendered devoid of a separate self-essence; therefore it is said to be 'not within'. This is stated in terms of the meaning of non-identity, not to mean that they are not combined. Why? Here, the non-arising and non-ceasing of the tathāgatagarbha is precisely the non-arising and non-ceasing of the arising and ceasing of the seven consciousnesses; therefore it is not identical with its own arising and ceasing. The arising and ceasing of the seven consciousnesses is precisely the arising and ceasing of the non-arising and non-ceasing of the tathāgatagarbha; therefore it is also not identical with its own non-arising and non-ceasing. Here, it is not merely that non-identity is clarified without contradicting non-difference; it is also that non-identity is established because of non-difference. Why? If the tathāgatagarbha, when according with conditions to undergo arising and ceasing, lost its own non-arising and non-ceasing, then there could not be arising and ceasing; therefore, due to non-arising and non-ceasing, arising and ceasing can exist; thus, because of non-difference, they are not identical. Furthermore, here the pratītyasamutpāda of the various consciousnesses through the combination of the real and delusional is distinguished by four propositions: First, the tathāgatagarbha is solely neither arising nor ceasing, like the wet nature of water. Second, the seven consciousnesses are solely arising and ceasing, like the waves of water. Third, the ālayavijñāna is both arising and ceasing and neither arising nor ceasing, like the ocean containing both motion and stillness. Fourth, the inverted grasping of avidyā is neither arising and ceasing nor neither arising and ceasing, like the fierce wind that raises waves being neither water nor wave. Among these four meanings, whichever single meaning is adduced, it fuses the essence and totally subsumes [the others], because the principles of pratītyasamutpāda have no two marks. Here, provisionally speaking from the aspect of the wet nature not being lost, motion and stillness are not identical; therefore it is said that water is not within the waves—how could these waves have a separate essence outside of the water? The remaining meanings should be considered according to this standard.

2.88

Question: Since you say motion and stillness are not identical, you should say that the tathāgatagarbha is not within the seven consciousnesses; why do you say that it is not within the ālaya? Answer: The ālaya fuses motion and stillness; motion and stillness being non-dual is the entirety of the ālaya. Once motion and stillness are divided, the ālaya has no separate essence; therefore it is said to be 'not within'.

2.89

Question: Since the ālayavijñāna pervades both motion and stillness, it should not reside solely in the gate of arising and ceasing. Answer: Because it stirs stillness to constitute motion, and there is no separate entity of motion, the nature of stillness accords with motion and is therefore also within arising and ceasing. Not only does the ālayavijñāna, possessing both motion and stillness, reside within this [gate of] arising and ceasing, but even the tathāgatagarbha, which is purely unmoving, also resides within this gate. Why is this? Because that arising and ceasing has no separate dharmas. You should contemplate and reflect on this. Furthermore, if they were one, when the marks of the arising-and-ceasing consciousness are extinguished, the true mind should also be extinguished, thus falling into the error of annihilationism. If they were different, when it is perfumed and stirred by the wind of avidyā, the substance of the quiet mind should not accord with conditions, thus falling into the error of eternalism. Being free from these two extremes, they are therefore neither one nor different. Furthermore, if they were one, there would be no union; if they were different, there would also be no union. Because they are neither one nor different, union is obtained. As the sūtra says: "Just as a lump of clay and its fine particles of dust are neither different nor not different, and gold ornaments are also like this: if the lump of clay were different, it would not be formed of them, yet in fact it is formed of them, and is therefore not different; if it were not different, the lump of clay and the fine particles of dust should have no distinction. In this way, if the evolving consciousness, the storehouse consciousness, and the true mark were different, the storehouse consciousness would not be the cause; if they were not different, when the evolving consciousness ceases, the storehouse consciousness should also cease, yet its own true mark is in fact not extinguished. Therefore, it is not that its own true-mark consciousness ceases, but only that the karmic mark ceases." In explanation: here, the "true mark" is the tathāgatagarbha; the "evolving consciousness" refers to the seven consciousnesses; and the "storehouse consciousness" is the ālayavijñāna. Now, the author of this treatise summarises the context and meaning of that Laṅkāvatārasūtra to establish this; therefore he says they are neither one nor different.

2.90

Part 3: Establishing the name.

2.91

It is named the ālayavijñāna.

2.92

However, with respect to this arising-and-ceasing and non-arising-and-ceasing, when approached according to meaning they are not one, but when examined as mind they are not different. Denominating this non-dual mind of these two meanings, it is named the ālayavijñāna. Furthermore, āliya and ālaya are merely variations in Sanskrit pronunciation. Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha of the Liang dynasty glossed the name and translated it as the "consciousness without loss" (wumoshi); Master Xuanzang nowadays translates it according to its meaning as the "storehouse consciousness" (zangshi). But "storehouse" (zang) has the meaning of containing and storing, while "without loss" (wumo) has the meaning of not being lost; the meaning is one, while the names differ. What is contained is called "storehouse" because sentient beings grasp it as a self. Why is this so? Truly, because the true mind does not preserve its own nature, but accords with perfuming and unites, seeming to be one and seeming to be permanent; therefore, foolish people take what is seeming to be true and grasp it as an internal self; being contained by the view of self, it is therefore named the "storehouse". Because of this meaning, when the two kinds of view of self are permanently prevented from arising, the name ālaya is lost. Furthermore, it can store its own essence within all dharmas, and can also store all dharmas within its own essence; thus the treatise says: "[It is named the ālaya because of its meanings of] capable of storing, what is stored, and being grasped as the object of self-love." This is what it refers to. This is establishing the name based on meaning.

2.93

Section 2, the specific explanation, has three parts: first, explaining the above mind as arising and ceasing; second, from "Next, as for the conditions of arising and ceasing..." onward, explaining the above conditions of arising and ceasing; third, from "Next, as for the marks of arising and ceasing..." onward, explaining the above marks of arising and ceasing. The first part also has three: first, opening the categories and discerning the qualities; second, presenting questions and enumerating the names; third, relying on the names to discern and explain.

2.94

This consciousness has two kinds of meanings.

2.95

In the first part, as for saying that this consciousness has two meanings and so forth: this meaning is somewhat difficult. Now, summarising the context, I will briefly relate its purport; the rest can be known when we reach the text. What are they? Tathatā has two meanings: first, the meaning of not changing; second, the meaning of according with conditions. Avidyā also has two meanings: first, the meaning of having no substance and thus being empty; second, the meaning of having function and accomplishing affairs. Within these true and deluded [aspects], through each of their first meanings, the above gate of tathatā is constituted; through each of their second meanings, this gate of arising and ceasing is constituted. This tathatā that accords with conditions and this avidyā that accomplishes affairs also each have two meanings: first, the meaning of contradicting oneself and conforming to the other; second, the meaning of contradicting the other and conforming to oneself. In avidyā, the first meaning—contradicting oneself and conforming to the other—also has two meanings: first, being able, through antithetical contrast, to express and reveal the nature-merits; second, being able to know names and meanings, accomplishing pure functions. Contradicting the other and conforming to oneself also has two meanings: first, obscuring the true principle; second, constituting the deluded mind. In tathatā, contradicting the other and conforming to oneself also has two meanings: first, overturning and contrasting with deluded defilement to manifest its own merits; second, internally perfuming avidyā to arouse pure functions. Contradicting oneself and conforming to the other also has two meanings: first, the meaning of concealing its own true substance; second, the meaning of manifesting deluded dharmas. Among these four meanings each of the true and the deluded above: from the meaning of expressing through antithetical contrast in avidyā and the meaning of overturning delusion to manifest merits in tathatā, through these two meanings innate enlightenment is obtained. Furthermore, from the meaning of being able to know names and meanings in avidyā and the meaning of internal perfuming in tathatā, through these two meanings incipient enlightenment is obtained. Furthermore, from the meaning of obscuring the truth in avidyā and the meaning of concealing the substance in tathatā, through these two meanings fundamental non-enlightenment is obtained. Furthermore, from the meaning of constituting delusion in avidyā and the meaning of manifesting delusion in tathatā, through these two meanings branch non-enlightenment is obtained. In this gate of arising and ceasing, the true and the deluded, when briefly opened, have four meanings; when expanded, there are eight gates. If we pair them opposite each other to unite and form pratītyasamutpāda, there are four gates, namely the two enlightenments and the two non-enlightenments. If taken according to the root and branch being inseparable, there are only two gates, namely enlightenment and non-enlightenment. If fused together and comprehensively subsumed, there is only one gate, namely the One Mind gate of arising and ceasing. Furthermore, if taken according to the gate of distinguishing the marks of the consciousnesses, innate enlightenment and fundamental non-enlightenment reside in the fundamental consciousness, while the other two reside in the arising consciousnesses. If taken according to the gate of the non-duality of root and branch, they are all together in the one fundamental consciousness; therefore it says: "This consciousness has two kinds of meanings."

First 95 of 291 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大乘起信論義記 — Classical Chinese