起信論疏筆削記 10

English (machine translation) 10

Language: English

10.1

Recorded by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui

Treatise: First, marking and establishing. Commentary: 'Although attaining freedom from thought…' refers to actualized enlightenment that attains awakening to freedom from thought. 'Fundamentally without arising' means that the four marks are originally free from thought. 'What is there to wait for…': because actualized enlightenment exists dependent on non-enlightenment, now that non-enlightenment no longer exists, actualized enlightenment is also eliminated.

10.3

Second, explaining and establishing. Treatise: 'The four marks exist simultaneously' because they are formed by a single thought transforming that tranquil mind. A single thought is originally free from thought, and the four marks have no intrinsic nature; hence it says 'none can establish themselves independently'.

10.4

The commentary has three parts: first, directly explaining. It is like a thousand waves existing on the basis of a single body of water: the waves have no separate substance and are all identical to the one water. 'However, not yet…' distinguishes the difference in contrast with what precedes. The first points to the past, and 'now since…' reveals the present; both can be understood.

10.5

Commentary: 'The question asks…' is the second part: questions and answers resolving objections, which has two parts: first, the direct question and answer. The question includes a counter-objection; all can be understood in detail. 'Having distinguished' is the preceding direct explanation. 'Only one…' is an explanation in re-examination. 'The person in the dream' refers to those prior to the adamantine [path] and all ordinary beings. 'The Great Enlightenment' is the Buddha stage. These are all as explained before; the text is easily understood.

10.6

'The Mahāyānasaṃgraha…' is the second part: adducing proofs, which has two parts: first, citing the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. The first two lines present the metaphor, and the latter two lines match it with the Dharma. Because sleeping for an instant creates a dream of many years—as someone said: 'In the space of a single dream, one passes through three lifetimes, receiving bodies in saṃsāra'—this is what it means. 'Herein…' points out the intent of the cited text, meaning: the events of a dream spanning years do not go beyond an instant; boundless saṃsāra does not go beyond a kṣaṇa. That treatise's 'kṣaṇa' is precisely the present 'freedom from thought'; pointing to that indicates identity with this.

10.7

'The Laṅkāvatāra…' cites the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, in three parts: first, direct citation. This can be understood.

10.8

Second, explaining the text. The meaning is: the arising of a kṣaṇa is itself non-arising, because it lacks intrinsic nature. 'If not…' clarifies by the contrary, meaning that if a kṣaṇa were not non-arising, it would possess intrinsic nature. If it possessed intrinsic nature, it would not wander in transmigration; now since it does wander in transmigration, one knows it lacks intrinsic nature, and is therefore non-arising. 'For this reason…' concludes. Because a kṣaṇa is thus non-arising, one who accords with non-arising sees the kṣaṇa. This is analogous to the preceding four marks: because all thoughts are free from thought. For this reason, only one who attains freedom from thought can awaken to the fact that the four marks are solely the One Mind.

10.9

'The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa…' is the third: re-confirming the proof. 'Unarisen…' means: impermanent dharmas must lack intrinsic nature; because they lack nature, they are neither arising nor ceasing. This differs in wording from the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, but the meaning is identical. 'The seven consciousnesses…' also refers to the meaning that transmigration lacks nature and the four marks are free from thought. Therefore the Yuanjue jing says: 'Knowing they are sky-flowers, there is no transmigration, nor are there body and mind undergoing that saṃsāra.' The original text of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: 'The collection of the five consciousnesses does not transmigrate.' It now says 'seven consciousnesses' merely due to a slip of the commentator's pen. 'The tathāgatagarbha…': because it has a real substance that cannot be obliterated, the locus of arising and ceasing is itself the tathāgatagarbha. The Śūraṅgama-sūtra says: 'Arising, ceasing, departing, and coming are fundamentally the wonderful tathatā-nature of the tathāgatagarbha.'

10.10

Commentary: 'This…' is the third part: summarising the overarching meaning. The purport of the text can be understood. However, the preceding four stages, as well as the passage from the citation of the sūtras down to the subsequent section, precisely correspond to the Yuanjue jing: gradual realization according to stages, and sudden realization through forgetting the mind. Explaining this fully aims to enable sudden awakening and gradual cultivation to naturally form the stages. It is like learning archery: the mind is solely on the bullseye, but the arrows fall near or far. The Śūraṅgama-sūtra also says: 'Principle is suddenly awakened; with that awakening, [delusions] are simultaneously eliminated. Phenomena are not suddenly removed; through causes, they are exhausted in sequence.' For this reason, if one did not explain the gradual stages, how would the gradations be known? If one did not explain the sudden gate, in the end it would be difficult to enter. Thus both are fully explained to provide for practice.

10.11

Regarding original enlightenment that conforms to defilement: the brief explanation earlier concerned essence, as the text stated: 'Because the essence of mind is free from thought.' This passage concerns marks, as the text says: 'Because it gives rise to two kinds of marks.' The subsequent four mirrors treat both essence and marks together, as the text says: 'The essence and marks of enlightenment.'

10.12

First, general indication. Commentary: 'These two…': because it is original enlightenment, it should not be said to arise; but now, conforming to defiled conditions, it is revealed through returning to purity, and thus possesses the sense of arising. In this case, being revealed is termed 'arising'; it is not that it arises newly for the first time. Therefore the text below says: 'Manifesting the dharmakāya…' 'Having arisen, they are not separate': in reality, they are identical; this is only stated analytically here. It is like a bright mirror being in dust or out of dust: its essence is not different.

10.13

Second, querying and listing. Commentary: 'Explaining original…': from following the flow to returning to the source, from defilement to purity, is also from being hidden to being revealed. Where there is enlightenment there is non-enlightenment, long covered by the dust of defilement; now returning to original truth, it is called 'returning to purity'. 'Explaining returning…': formerly, because the marks were hidden, the function was defunct; now, because the marks are revealed, the function flourishes. It is like a mirror emerging from dust: when forms face it, images are produced. 'This…' generally clarifies the reason why the two marks can be called 'conforming to defilement'. The mark of pure wisdom cannot be established apart from defiled conditions such as its own karma-consciousness, because there would be nothing that could reveal it; hence it is said below: 'If apart from the unenlightened mind, there would be no self-mark of true enlightenment that could be spoken of…' The mark of inconceivable karma also cannot be established apart from defiled conditions such as sentient beings, because there would be nothing that could stimulate a response; hence it is said below: 'The Buddha-Tathāgatas are solely the body of the dharmakāya and the mark of wisdom, the ultimate truth; there are no objects of worldly truth apart from purposeful actions, but they are spoken of as function solely in accordance with sentient beings' seeing, hearing, and obtaining benefit.' For this reason, these two are both named 'conforming to defilement'.

10.14

First, the cause. Commentary: Regarding 'tathatā' and so forth: this means that internally it is the Dharma as principle, and externally it is the Dharma as teaching. Although internal and external are different, both are named 'Dharma'; therefore, the treatise speaks generally of 'Dharma'. Regarding 'this in...' and so forth: solely due to the power of vāsanā, one practices in reliance on the teachings, from the stage of initial faith up to the tenth dedication. 'Provisions' means that across the ten faiths and three stages of worthiness, one fully cultivates merit and wisdom as provisions for attaining Buddhahood; thus they are also named 'aids to liberation' (mokṣabhāgīya). 'Wholesome expedients' are the four kinds of expedients: heat, summit, patience, and supreme worldly phenomena. These are situated after the three stages of worthiness and before the ten stages of bodhisattvas, where one intensifies effort and practice to seek the path of seeing; thus they are also named 'wholesome roots conducive to definitive discernment' (nirvedhabhāgīya). These four expedients rely on the four investigations and four knowledge-as-it-is contemplations, contemplating names, referents, the intrinsic nature of names and referents, and the differences between names and referents as conventionally existent but substantially nonexistent. For example, the two stages of heat and summit both cultivate the contemplation of the four investigations; patience and supreme worldly phenomena both cultivate the four knowledge-as-it-is contemplations. At the stage of heat, one cultivates the concentration of obtaining light, giving rise to lower-grade investigation, and contemplates the nonexistence of grasped objects. At the stage of summit, one cultivates the concentration of increasing light, giving rise to higher-grade investigation, and re-contemplates the nonexistence of grasped objects. At the stage of patience, one cultivates the concentration of sealing and conforming; sealing what preceded and conforming to what follows, one gives rise to lower-grade knowledge-as-it-is. This has three grades: the lower grade seals the nonexistence of grasped objects; the middle grade conforms to the nonexistence of grasping subjects; the higher grade seals the nonexistence of grasping subjects. 'Knowledge-as-it-is' means knowing completely and as it is that the four dharmas, such as names, do not exist apart from consciousness; if the grasped object does not exist, the grasping subject also does not exist. At the stage of supreme worldly phenomena, relying on uninterrupted concentration, one gives rise to higher-grade knowledge-as-it-is, doubly sealing the two kinds of emptiness. Furthermore, being free from the grasped object removes parikalpita; being free from the grasping subject removes paratantra. Doubly sealing the two kinds of emptiness, one attains pariniṣpanna, yet still carries the mark of emptiness and is not true vijñaptimātra. Hence that verse says: 'Positing a slight entity before oneself, / Claiming it to be the nature of vijñaptimātra, / Because there is something grasped, / One does not truly abide in vijñaptimātra.' Regarding 'ascending to the bhūmis and above': the first bhūmi is the path of seeing, and the second bhūmi and above are the path of cultivation. Because in these two stages one realizes the true and initiates practice, again tallying with the true, it is not like practicing prior to the bhūmis in reliance on the teachings; hence it is said to be 'as it is'. This is because prior to the bhūmis is the path of teaching, whereas this is named the path of realization. Regarding 'vajra...' and so forth: within the two paths in this definitive stage, this is the path of expedient means; its meaning was seen in the previous text.

10.15

Second, the result. Commentary: Regarding 'due to the preceding...' and so forth: the expedient practice is that which refutes, and the marks of arising and ceasing are that which is refuted. Furthermore, the path of expedients is that which reveals, and the nature of non-arising and non-ceasing is that which is revealed. Regarding 'this fundamental...' and so forth: before reaching this stage, fundamental ignorance and the truly pure mind are constantly combined, forming these marks of consciousness. Now, having reached this stage, ignorance is exhausted, and only the One Mind remains, its illuminating essence standing alone—with what could it combine? Hence the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'How could a single dharma combine?' Regarding 'that is, revealing...' and so forth: the commentary's intention here is to explain that the treatise text reveals and discloses across alternating phrases. That is, refuting the marks of arising and ceasing of fundamental ignorance within the composite consciousness immediately reveals the unborn and unceasing dharmakāya of original enlightenment; extinguishing the continuing marks of karma and so forth within the defiled mind accomplishes the actualized enlightenment of the pure, perfect, and all-encompassing cognitive sambhogakāya. Here, this first explains the meaning of revealing the dharmakāya in the first section. The dharmakāya is simply original enlightenment, receiving its name according to concealment or manifestation. Bringing up both now is precisely to contrast it with the subsequent actualized enlightenment. Regarding 'at the...' and so forth: the six defiled minds all rely on ignorance combining with the true to achieve continuation. Now, since ignorance is exhausted and combination does not occur, on what could the defiled mind rely to achieve continuation? Therefore, they all cease along with it. However, all defiled minds are false in their marks but true in their essence; thus, their marks cease but their essence does not cease. Hence it is said: 'without extinguishing the mental essence.'

10.16

Regarding 'thereby causing...' and so forth: previously, due to combination with ignorance, the defiled mind continued, causing original enlightenment to flow along with the stream for vast kalpas. Now, since ignorance has been broken and the defiled mind extinguished, without any restraint or encumbrance, this mind is able to return to its original purity, like the poor son returning home, or the maṇi jewel cleansed of dirt. Regarding 'accomplishing the pure, perfect, and all-encompassing cognition': it is pure because it is unmixed; it is cleansed because it is free from defilement; it is perfect because it lacks nothing; it is cognition because consciousness has been extinguished. Regarding 'accomplishing the actualized enlightenment of the response body': the character 'response' (ying) is pronounced in the level tone, meaning that the cognition of actualized enlightenment corresponds (ying) with original enlightenment; this is the sambhogakāya. The Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha also called the sambhogakāya the 'response body'. However, this actualized enlightenment and the preceding original enlightenment are both that which accomplishes; this response body and the preceding dharmakāya are both that which is accomplished. The meaning is that the marks of consciousness are broken while the nature remains; the nature is original enlightenment, and original enlightenment can accomplish the dharmakāya; the marks of mind are extinguished while cognition is purified; cognition is actualized enlightenment, and actualized enlightenment can accomplish the sambhogakāya. These are all nominal explanations of that which accomplishes and that which is accomplished. This passage represents the interpretation of the Haedong Commentary, which Guishan consulted and adopted. Shibi failed to examine this carefully, taking it as the response-transformation body, which is profoundly mistaken, because the subsequent marks of inconceivable karma are precisely the response-transformation body. If explained as above, the meaning of the three bodies is complete. Otherwise, the text would result in deficiency and excess—an excess of one nirmāṇakāya, and a deficiency of one sambhogakāya. Let the wise examine this.

10.17

Regarding 'however, this...' below: actualized and original [enlightenment] are identical. Because actualized enlightenment is the function of original [enlightenment], due to the presence of defilement, the function of original enlightenment arises to serve as an antidote. Now, since the conditions of defilement have ceased, the function returns to the essence; hence its name is changed to the perfectly pure cognition. Regarding the 'virtue of abandonment': apart from the pure cognition, all the remaining text refers to the virtue of abandonment. Consciousness and the marks of mind are the dharmas to be abandoned, and the dharmakāya is revealed by that abandonment. The final mark is the virtue of grace; thus the three virtues are complete. If explained according to this, the preceding response body properly belongs to the sambhogakāya, and the textual logic is very harmonious.

10.18

First, the question. Commentary: Regarding 'the intent of the question...' and so forth: previously it was said: 'Relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing,' and it was also stated that they are combined and not separated from one another. Now that arising and ceasing have ceased, the true should also cease; why, then, does it conversely say that extinguishing the continuing mind reveals the pure dharmakāya and cognition? This is a challenge to the nature based on the marks, framed from the standpoint of identicalness.

10.19

First, the dharma, which has three parts. First, explaining the direct challenge. Commentary: Regarding 'the meaning is...' and so forth: previously it was said that the mind becomes consciousness, which means merely that the marks of the mind become consciousness. Now when it says that consciousness ceases, this also means that the marks of the mind cease. Thus, arising and ceasing are both discussed in terms of the marks of mind, not the essence of the mind; therefore, it can be said that extinguishing the continuing mind reveals the dharmakāya and so forth. This answers from the standpoint of non-identity, where nature and marks are not identical.

10.20

Regarding 'turning the challenge...' and so forth: the meaning is: if arising and ceasing have nothing to do with the essence of the mind, then the true and the false are completely distinct; how could it have been said previously that turning that still mind results in arising and ceasing? This poses a subsequent challenge based on the meaning of nature and marks being separate from each other.

10.21

Treatise: 'Ignorance...' Second, explaining the shifted challenge. Commentary: Regarding 'such as...' and so forth: the meaning is: although it was previously said that marks cease, it is merely that marks merge and return to the nature, which is nominally spoken of as ceasing; because these marks of consciousness are not separate from the nature of enlightenment, the true and the false originally have no distinct essences. Why then challenge by claiming that there is falsehood separate from the true? This answers from the standpoint of the nature and marks being inseparable.

10.22

Treatise: 'Cannot be destroyed...' Third, concluding both together, establishing the previous two meanings. The preceding clause concludes the latter meaning: marks are not separate from the nature, establishing that turning that still mind produces arising and ceasing, and so forth. The latter clause concludes the former meaning: the marks of the mind are ignorance, establishing that extinguishing the continuing mind reveals the dharmakāya, and so forth. Commentary: Regarding 'neither one nor different...' and so forth: the later translation says: 'The marks and original enlightenment are neither one nor different, neither destructible nor indestructible,' and so forth. At the beginning of the Gate of Arising and Ceasing this was already extensively explained; now, drawing upon that meaning of neither one nor different, it establishes the meaning of neither destructible nor indestructible in this text. This is a general indication based on the principle. Regarding 'if according to...' below: citing scriptures to explain separately. Ignorance is immediately luminosity; hence it cannot be destroyed, for destroying it would destroy the essence of luminosity. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states fully: 'Luminosity and ignorance are taken by ordinary persons as two; the wise comprehend that their nature is not two; the nature of non-duality is precisely the true nature.'

10.23

Regarding 'if from the standpoint of...' and so forth: because the marks of consciousness are not the essence of the mind, by extinguishing ignorance one attains bodhi. Regarding 'when ignorance ceases...' below: concluding the meaning of destructibility. This directly demonstrates the preceding text: extinguishing the continuing mind reveals the dharmakāya. As the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra says: 'Water and milk are together in one place; the king of geese drinks it, and the milk is exhausted while the water remains.' As for equating the extinction of afflictions with wisdom: people of the world all say that one completely cuts off the bonds of affliction and only then realizes the true. They do not realize at all that the essence of affliction is originally the true—the non-enlightenment of total enlightenment. It is like mistaking east for west; whose fault is it? To wish to extinguish the mark of west and only then see the east is the height of foolishness.

10.24

Second, the metaphor. Commentary: 'The true turning along with the false' refers to the statement below that the pure mind is moved by the wind of ignorance. Treatise: Regarding 'the mark of water and the mark of wind are not separated from one another': wetness is the mark of water, and motion is the mark of wind; where there is motion, it is entirely wet, and where there is wetness, it is entirely in motion—this is being not separated from one another. Alternatively, the mark of water is the wave's motion, and the mark of wind is also the wave's motion; because both water and wind take that as their mark, it is said that they are not separated from one another. This illustrates that all defiled dharmas arise in reliance on the true and are initiated by delusion; when defiled dharmas are viewed in relation to the true, they are marks of the true; when viewed in relation to delusion, they are marks of delusion. As it is said below: 'Because all defiled dharmas are marks of non-enlightenment.' It also says: 'All share the nature and marks of tathatā.' Hence this metaphor is used. Commentary: 'The true and the false rely on each other' refers to the statement below that the mind and ignorance are not separated from each other. 'The essence of the true does not change' refers to the statement below that the mind does not have the nature of motion, because the mind-nature is quiescent and fundamentally not in motion. Because it does not preserve its own nature and follows the other, ignorance, it forms arising and ceasing. It is like the wet nature of water fundamentally not shaking, but moving due to the wind. 'Extinguishing the false reveals the true' refers to the statement below that when ignorance ceases, continuation ceases, and the cognitive nature is not destroyed. Regarding 'this clarifies...' and so forth: the meaning is that if the true's intrinsic nature were an active dharma, when the marks of consciousness cease, the true nature should also cease; now that it does not cease, one should know that it does not move by its intrinsic nature. Just as with the nature of that water, if it moved by its intrinsic nature, when the marks of waves cease, the wet nature should cease; now that it does not cease, one should know that it does not move by its intrinsic nature.

10.25

Third, the application. Commentary: 'Water moves according to wind' refers to the great ocean moving in waves due to the wind mentioned earlier. Regarding 'because water...' below: the metaphor's text can be understood. As for what is illustrated, one should say that because the mind cannot arise by itself, it must rely on ignorance to form consciousness and so forth. Ignorance cannot manifest false marks by itself; it must rely on the mind to manifest false marks. Therefore, the mark of motion in ignorance is precisely the mark of motion in the mind, having no distinct essence. Hence it was said earlier: 'When defiled dharmas are viewed in relation to the true, they are marks of the true; when viewed in relation to ignorance, they are marks of ignorance.'

10.26

Regarding 'wind and water rely on each other': this refers to the previous statement that the mark of water and the mark of wind are not separated from one another. However, the meaning that neither has a visible shape is not stated in the metaphor, so the commentary now explains the metaphor in terms of the dharma. Regarding 'because wetness...' below: the metaphor is explained. Regarding 'the mental dharma...' below: the dharma is explained. Both can be seen. If judged by the commentary's intention, it refers to the meaning of complete mutual deprivation and both vanishing.

10.27

Now, outside the commentary, I offer an additional explanation: when it is said that the mind and ignorance both lack visible shape, this is spoken in terms of when the true and the false each abide in their own positions. Bringing up this meaning is precisely to reveal that the marks of the true and the false are not separated from each other, because the true fundamentally lacks visible shape, and its marks are spoken of in relation to the defiled mind. Ignorance also lacks visible shape, and points back to the defiled mind as its mark. Thus, when abiding in their own positions, although they lack visible shape, the true and the false combine to jointly manifest defiled marks. Because this defiled dharma is both a mark of tathatā and a mark of ignorance, it is said that they are not separated from one another. It is like a father and mother jointly giving birth to a single child; this child is both the father's child and the mother's child.

10.28

Question: Why is it that in the earlier simile it is only said that the mark of the wind and the mark of the water do not abandon and separate from one another, and it does not say that both are without physical form? Answer: Because the earlier text only used a simile for the meaning of not abandoning and separating, not for the meaning of being without physical form. Since even when water does not give rise to waves it still has a form, and the wind is also like this, it merely adopted a partial simile; therefore, it did not state "without physical form."

10.29

Question: In the simile it speaks of the mark of wind and the mark of water, but in the dharma it speaks of both being without physical form; how could the dharma and simile match? Answer: In the simile it is explained in terms of the common mark that is produced, so both are called "marks"; in the dharma it is explained in terms of the individual mark that can produce, so it says "both are without [marks]." Although there is no mark of the individual mark, there is the mark of the common mark, so the dharma and the simile match precisely. Moreover, in the simile it is discussed in terms of what has already arisen, hence it is called "mark"; in the dharma it is discussed in terms of what has not yet arisen, hence it is called "both are without." Furthermore, in the simile it is discussed in terms of the unified dharma, hence it is called "mark"; in the dharma it is discussed in terms of the differentiated explanation, hence it is called "both are without." However, the primary intent of the present dharma and simile is only to clarify the meaning that the mark of ignorance and the nature of enlightenment do not abandon and separate from each other, not to reveal the meaning of being without physical form; therefore, the earlier simile did not illustrate this. Although in the synthesis there are the words "without physical form," the primary intent is also to reveal non-separation. May those of wisdom examine this carefully, and not regard it as overstepping.

10.30

"The nature of water being motionless" refers to the earlier statement that water is not of a moving nature. "The wind ceasing reveals the water" refers to the earlier statement: "If the wind ceases, the moving mark then ceases, while the wet nature is not destroyed." The rest can be known by matching them one by one.

10.31

First, a general heading. The Śāstra states: "Relying on pure wisdom, etc." This is giving rise to the response [body] based on the true, like forms and images appearing relying on the clarity of a mirror. That is to say, the earlier mind of original enlightenment that conforms to defilement first attains pure clarity; relying on the power of this wisdom, it manifests the response and transformation bodies in order to benefit those sentient beings. Therefore the Ratnagotravibhāga says: "What constitutes the accomplishment of benefit for oneself? It means attaining liberation, being far removed from the affliction obstacle and the cognitive obstacle, because one attains the unobjectionable pure dharmakāya. What constitutes benefit for other bodies? Having already accomplished benefit for oneself, from beginningless kalpas, naturally relying on those two kinds of Buddha-bodies, one manifests the sovereign power and practice in the world; this is named accomplishing benefit for other bodies." "Other bodies" means the response body. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā says: "The Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom can manifest and produce the reflections of bodies, lands, and wisdom, etc." The Commentary states: "'Meaning imparting, etc.' Although all are many, they do not go beyond the six sensory objects; hence it headings this." Below "Ratnagotra..." cites the treatise to explain the meaning. "Empty space being without marks" refers to the earlier true body upon which [all] relies, which is solely tathatā and the wisdom of tathatā, pervading everywhere without differentiation; hence it is like empty space. "For those of superior wisdom" refers to the capacities capable of evoking the response and transformation [bodies], who deeply loathe saṃsāra and joyfully seek nirvāṇa; hence they are called "those of superior wisdom." These are of two kinds: first, those on the [bodhisattva] grounds who evoke the superior response body; second, those prior to the grounds, etc., who evoke the inferior response body, serving as the objects of the six sense faculties, as is fully manifested in the six.

10.32

Second, the specific analysis, which in the Commentary has two parts: first, a general explanation of the text above. "Revealing the virtues of activity": as it says below, "The body has immeasurable forms, the forms have immeasurable marks, and the marks have immeasurable excellence. The dependent fruits in which they abide also have immeasurable various adornments, etc." "The root of activity": as it says below, "In accordance with what is appropriate, it is constantly able to sustain, without destruction and without loss." Thus, horizontally and vertically, all rely on true enlightenment; hence it attains immeasurability and continuity. "Superior capability": as the Lotus Sūtra says, "To those who should be saved by a Buddha-body, it immediately manifests a Buddha-body and preaches the Dharma for them, etc." When there is an evocation, it responds accordingly without the need for additional effort. Just as a hundred waters do not ascend and the single moon does not descend, the power of the wholesome roots of compassion is naturally so by the nature of dharmas; hence it is called "spontaneous." The Commentary states: "'The fourth reveals the lower superior benefit': either seeing the form to produce the [bodhi-]mind, or hearing the Dharma to initiate practice, up to knowing and perceiving, the effort is not spent in vain; hence it says 'not futile.'" These preceding two lines still point specifically to this passage. "Such as..." below generally explains the above meaning. "Reward and transformation, etc.": the reward is what is seen on the grounds, also named the superior response. The transformation is what is seen prior to the grounds, also named the inferior response. These two kinds of bodies are both the functions of tathatā manifested by pure wisdom. "Beginningless, etc." refers to the earlier "constantly without interruption." The text below will show it by itself.

10.33

"Question: On the grounds one attains..." is the second part, questions and answers to resolve objections, which has two parts: first, the question. The meaning is: only having first attained the mark of wisdom purity to benefit oneself does one then give rise to inconceivable activity to benefit others; hence it said above: "Because relying on wisdom purity one produces superior spheres of experience." If so, then benefiting others has a beginning; why say "beginningless"?

10.34

Second, the answer, which has three parts: first, explaining in terms of a single Buddha. "Because ignorance..." is as in the text. Saying that original enlightenment constantly gives rise to function has two meanings: first, explaining in terms of internal permeation, which is the meaning of the permeation of its own essence and attributes; hence it says below: "From beginningless time it possesses pure dharmas and is fully equipped with the nature of inconceivable activity as spheres of experience; relying on these two meanings, it constantly permeates, etc." Second, explaining in terms of response and transformation: that the response and transformation do not arise is only because delusional defilement covers them; it does not mean that original enlightenment lacks this functioning of response, nor does it mean that an obstinate mind suppresses it and makes it not arise. In this case, the fault lies in delusion; why blame enlightenment? Indeed, just as the bamboo of Mount Kun possesses the sounds of dragons and phoenixes, and a dusty mirror possesses the function of illumination, if one cuts the former or polishes away the dust with a sharp tool, why worry that the elegant rhythm and brilliant clarity will not be revealed?

10.35

"Because of the one..." is the second part, explaining by equating all Buddhas. Speaking comprehensively of the Buddhas of the ten directions and the three periods of time, all have their actualized enlightenment equal to original [enlightenment]; therefore, their functioning has neither beginning nor end.

10.36

"This original enlightenment..." is the third part, explaining by equating with sentient beings. Because the true mind of sentient beings is not distinct from the true knowing of the Buddhas, the Buddha's functioning is itself the functioning of sentient beings. Function arises from essence; hence it is said to be non-dual. If spoken of from the perspective of the Buddha, the function belongs to the Buddha; if spoken of from the perspective of sentient beings, it belongs to sentient beings. It is roughly like the bright moon appearing in a clear pool: this manifested moon is both the reflection of the moon and the reflection of the pool. The text below will explain this extensively.

10.37

First, the general heading. The Commentary states: "Because of space..." is the second part: first, presenting both similes of space and the mirror. If based on the meaning of the Śāstra, it merely clarifies that the marks of enlightenment have four meanings; because each and every meaning pervades the dharmadhātu, it therefore presents two similes, using empty space to illustrate pervasiveness and the pure mirror to illustrate the four kinds. Presenting both similes completely: if it only cited the simile of space, it would not reveal the four meanings; if it only cited the simile of the mirror, it would not reveal pervasiveness. Therefore, it presents both similes so that they mutually illuminate and reveal each other. It is not necessarily that empty space also possesses the four meanings; now it is spoken following the mirror, hence it is said that it possesses all of them.

10.38

"First, empty..." is the second part, specifically explaining the four meanings in the mirror, with two parts in the text: first, a brief correlation. "Empty": this is explained in terms of the true essence being fundamentally free from delusional defilement; as the text says: "Because from the beginningless past, all defiled dharmas have not been associated [with it]," just as a mirror has only its luminous nature, hence it is called "empty." What appears in the mirror is merely a reflected image, whose mark is originally non-existent; this also constitutes the meaning of "empty." "Not empty, etc.": although it is free from delusional defilement, it nevertheless possesses its own essence and the virtues of its nature. If it lacked its essence, with what could it manifest things? The remaining two can be known. These four are correlated in order with the four meanings. Here, presenting both first and then explaining individually is because space is revealed in accordance with the mirror. Merely explaining the meaning of the mirror inherently encompasses empty space, because each and every meaning has the pervasiveness like empty space; therefore, it is explained individually.

10.39

"Among the four..." is the second part, the critical analysis. The correlation has five pairs: first, the pair of nature-purity and freedom from defilement; second, the pair of cause hidden and fruit manifested; third, the pair of emptiness and existence as essence and function; fourth, the pair of essence and marks; fifth, the pair of space and mirror. That the first and third have the meaning of emptiness: although the word "empty" is the same, the meanings of emptiness are different. For the first is in terms of the cause, where the absence of the essence of delusion is empty; the third is based on the fruit, where freedom from the marks of delusion is empty. That the second and fourth have the meaning of the mirror: the meanings are also different; the second uses the fundamental and the derivative manifesting things as the mirror, while the fourth uses illuminating things according to the occasion as the mirror. However, it is not that the first and third lack the meaning of the mirror, nor that the second and fourth lack the meaning of emptiness; here it merely takes the predominant sense to correlate them, and the rest is as in the main text.

10.40

Later, the specific explanation, which has four parts: first, the empty mirror, having three parts: first, indicating the name. The Commentary states: "Fundamentally without, etc.": because from the beginningless past it has not been associated, it is not identical to the explanation that conforms to marks. Being existent when not yet severed, and only non-existent after being severed—this is called "fundamentally without." Nor is it made non-existent by deduction; hence it is called "fundamentally without."

10.41

The Śāstra states: "Far removed from..." is the second part, distinguishing the marks. The first two lines directly reveal the meaning of emptiness. The line below "no dharma..." repeatedly distinguishes what is emptied. The commentary text displays the dharma and simile in contrast, as can be clearly seen.

10.42

The Śāstra states: "Not being illumination of enlightenment..." is the third part, concluding the name, which in the Commentary has two parts: first, the direct explanation, which has two parts: first, in terms of delusion lacking the efficacy of true illumination. First, the explanation in terms of dharma: running contrary to principle; principle possesses the illumination of enlightenment. Since delusion runs contrary to principle, it lacks the illumination of enlightenment. Since it lacks the function of illumination, how could principle accommodate that delusion? For this reason, the earlier text said "far removed." "Like a mirror..." below illustrates this by simile. Just as a mirror fundamentally possesses the function of illumination, and external objects run contrary to the mirror, so they lack the function of illumination. Since they lack the function of illumination, how could the mirror accommodate those objects? Because illumination and non-illumination do not combine. It is also like the household of a benevolent person: how could it accommodate non-benevolent people living together with them? Because their natures run contrary to each other.

10.43

Next, in terms of the true lacking the function of delusional awareness. First the dharma, then the simile, both of which can be known. The Yuanjue jing says: "Awareness and clarity without knowing," which is this very meaning. However, between these two meanings, although one is in terms of delusion and the other in terms of the true, both are explained in terms of the absence of a cognizing illumination. Question: Delusion belongs to ignorance, so it may allow for the absence of a cognizing illumination. The true nature is clear and distinct, established by both teaching and principle; why say it lacks illumination? Answer: Now saying that the true lacks illumination merely means it lacks the illumination of subject and object; it does not lack the illumination of the luminous nature. As the Śūraṅgama-sūtra says: "The nature of enlightenment is necessarily luminous; delusion takes this as luminous awareness." Here it merely lacks the illumination of delusionally taking it as luminous awareness. In the Commentary, the subject is revealed in terms of the object; it does not mean there is merely no cognized illumination. Let the wise examine this.

10.44

"This is in terms of..." is the second part, resolving objections. Someone might ask: "Next it says that all spheres of experience are manifested within it; why does it say here that there is nothing that can be manifested?" Therefore this explanation resolves it. The parikalpita exists in sentiment but is non-existent in principle; the paratantra exists in marks but is non-existent in nature. Therefore, know that the statement here that "there is nothing that can be manifested" is because of the absence of the essence of delusion; that it says below "manifests" is because of the presence of illusory marks. Below that it says "permanently abiding One Mind, etc.," which clarifies that the paratantra has no essence and is solely the pariniṣpanna; thus the meaning of the three natures is complete.

10.45

The Śāstra states: In the second mirror, there are two parts: first, indicating the name and presenting the essence. The Commentary states: "The cause of manifesting dharmas": because next it says "manifesting the spheres of experience." "The cause of internal permeation": because next it says "permeating sentient beings." "It can also..." below repeatedly distinguishes: here the meaning of cause is comprehensive, while the meaning of permeation is specific. Because manifesting dharmas and permeation are both called "cause," yet manifesting dharmas is not the meaning of permeation. "Possessing its own essence": to distinguish it from delusion having no essence of its own. "And virtues": to distinguish it from the afflictions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Delusion not only lacks virtues, but also lacks its own essence; the true not only possesses its own essence, but also possesses virtues. As the earlier text says: "Because it possesses its own essence, fully equipped with immeasurable virtues of its nature."

10.46

Second, individually explaining the two causes has two [parts]: first, the cause of manifesting dharmas; second [the cause of perfuming]. The first has two: first, directly distinguishing [it]. The Commentary says: "Outside the mind..." and so forth. Later in the treatise it says: "The triple realm is unreal and false, manifested solely by mind; apart from mind, there are no sense-sphere objects of the six sense-dusts." "Clarifying that the mind..." and so forth means that it awaits the perfuming of ignorance, and only then does it transform into all dharmas. If they emerged from themselves, then after ignorance is severed, dharmas would endlessly continue to emerge, so what benefit would there be in cultivation and severance? Thus we know that without awaiting ignorance, dharmas do not emerge. "Apart from the mind..." and so forth means that although it says they emerge only upon awaiting perfuming, this does not mean that there is a separate dharma that enters from the outside to serve as that which perfumes. Because this non-enlightenment that is identical with mind is that which perfumes, since that which perfumes is not outside the mind, how could what is manifested be apart from the real? Therefore it does not enter from outside. Furthermore, these dharmas are formed entirely of the mind; it does not mean that dharmas emerge from within the mind and manifest on the outside—this is not like a person coming out from inside a room being called "manifesting." Nor is it that there are separate dharmas that come from the outside and enter into this mind to manifest their reflections—this is not like a physical form facing a mirror and manifesting its image, because the mind has neither inside nor outside. These two sentences eliminate confusions, and the subsequent two sentences directly reveal [the truth], as clarified in the Commentary. Truly, because it is unlost and uncorrupted, permanently abiding in the One Mind, it is named "manifesting." "Although..." and so forth means that mind and objects are distinct, and defilement and purity are clearly apparent. "All dharmas are a collection of conditions..." and below: the dharma and the simile can be seen. Thus, nature arising [as marks] constitutes the marks, hence they are not lost; the marks are identical with the nature, hence they are not corrupted.

10.47

The Treatise says: "Permanently abiding in the One Mind" has two meanings: first, because all dharmas permanently abide relying on the [One] Mind, they are neither emerging nor entering, neither lost nor corrupted. Second, the very essence of all dharmas permanently abides as solely the One Mind; outside of the One Mind there is not a single dharma that could emerge, enter, be lost, or be corrupted. Therefore the sūtra says: "The marks of the world permanently abide." Between these two meanings, the former meaning is primary, because below the Treatise itself explains and completes it, as can be known from the text of the Commentary.

10.48

Second, explaining and completing [it]. The Commentary says: "Explaining and completing the identical essence..." and so forth means: why do all dharmas permanently abide relying on the One Mind? Therefore this explanation says: because dharmas are precisely the real nature. Thus, these two sentences in turn explain the preceding meaning. In light of the Commentary's designation and allocation, it should be explained this way. Now the Commentary recounts the previous text to explain and establish the meaning of this passage, implying that mutual explanation between before and after is permissible, and therefore clarifies it in reverse.

10.49

Second, the cause of perfuming has two [parts]: first, revealing the essence as free from defilement. The Commentary: "Because the nature..." and below straightforwardly explains the text. "Not only..." and below separately reveals the meaning: first the dharma, next the simile. "If not..." and below conversely concludes and establishes [it]. All can be known.

10.50

The Treatise: "Through wisdom..." and below explains and establishes the meaning of the cause. The Commentary: "Through original..." and below clarifies unmovingness in terms of original purity and present purity. "Also although..." and below clarifies unmovingness in terms of presently defiled and undefiled. These also present first the dharma and then the simile, and both are easy to understand. "This original..." and below explains the first sentence of the Treatise, namely the meaning of the great wisdom radiance and so forth spoken of below. It later concludes: "up to having no meaning of lacking anything." "Also with..." and below explains the latter sentence of the Treatise, namely the meaning of the perfuming of its own essence and attributes, as cited above. "The Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra]..." and below cites sūtras and treatises as proof, as can be known. The truth of the path is the supramundane cause; the cause is precisely the meaning of perfuming.

10.51

The Treatise: In [the mirror of] the third, there are two: first, indicating the name and presenting the essence. The Commentary says: "Meaning that tathatā..." and below explains this present passage. "Previously when in..." and below distinguishes the preceding and following. Purity of nature is the first meaning; being non-empty is the second meaning. Tathāgatagarbha: because those two are within the defilements, they are generally named the tathāgatagarbha, differing only in being empty and non-empty. Now clarifying "non-empty" and so forth is identical in meaning with the preceding non-empty. Dharmakāya: identical in essence with the preceding tathāgatagarbha, but differing in meaning; that one was concealed while this one is revealed. Therefore it previously said: "Relying on the dharmakāya, original enlightenment is spoken of." Later it says: "It is named the tathāgatagarbha, and it is also named the Tathāgata's dharmakāya." However, the dharmakāya belongs only to the third mirror; the subsequent one mirror is precisely the reward and transformation bodies. The Ratnagotravibhāga and below cites proof. "Shared mark": because it is common to ordinary beings and āryas. "Superior mark": because it is superior to the cause. However, the initial purity is the previous two meanings, and the subsequent purity is the latter two meanings. "Presenting the essence of the dharma": this is precisely the dharma that was previously the two causes. Therefore it previously said: "Meaning truly non-empty" and so forth. Now, clarifying liberation from hindrances, it refers back to it.

First 51 of 63 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

起信論疏筆削記 — Classical Chinese