起信論疏筆削記 11

English (machine translation) 11

Language: English

11.1

Recorded by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui

11.2

Second, the branch-ends. The commentary has two [parts]: first, listing them.

Second, explaining them. Within the explanation there are two: first, in the commentary's text there are eleven levels of metaphors matching [the doctrines]; the doctrinal aspects are clear and luminous, easy to understand upon following the text. However, this metaphor of the visual cataracts is also not completely similar. If one compares and illustrates from beginning to end, none is more apt than the metaphor of the dream, which has already appeared in the preceding text. 'All due to the power of ignorance': as the text below says, 'One should know that ignorance can produce all defiled dharmas.'

11.4

Regarding 'Ignorance is the cause,' etc., the Laṅkāvatāra says: 'Deluded thought is the cause, sense-objects are the condition, and coming together they arise.' The commentary uses this to section the treatise text; in the sūtra, 'deluded thought' is ignorance. As for 'ignorance produces the three subtle marks,' the text below speaks of their producing one another in turn; here it speaks merely in terms of the root, and therefore says 'ignorance is the cause.'

11.5

First, the general presentation. The commentary states: 'Marks are not separate from essence' means that because the nine marks such as karma are not separate from the essence of non-enlightenment, since marks are identical with essence and essence is identical with marks, they are not separate. 'The branch-ends are not separate from the root' means that the branch-ends of the three subtle marks and six coarse marks are not separate from the root of the ignorance of non-enlightenment; since the branch-ends are identical with the root and the root is identical with the branch-ends, they are not separate. 'Relying on ignorance, the deluded mind arises' refers to non-enlightenment producing the three marks, as the text below says: 'Because relying on ignorance, the ālayavijñāna exists.' 'Relying on the deluded mind, ignorance arises' means that relying on the ālayavijñāna, ignorance is said to exist. It is like waves arising relying on water: once the marks of waves arise, they are not separate from the water. Because of this meaning, it is called 'associated'; this is not speaking of the meaning of 'associated' in terms of mind-king and mental factors, because these three kinds are unassociated defilements.

11.6

In the separate explanations there are three, each having the designation of the name, the basis, and the direct explanation. Lecturers should examine them in detail.

11.7

First, designating the name. The treatise says: 'The mark of ignorance-karma': the intention is to express that these two do not have different essences. How is this known? Previously it was said that where the mark of karma is exhausted, one immediately sees the mind-nature and accomplishes ultimate enlightenment. It is only in terms of their aspects of meaning that they are said to rely on each other; to reveal that their essence has no distinction, they are now presented together. Furthermore, to distinguish it from the mark of karma that follows defilement in original enlightenment, it is called the 'mark of ignorance-karma', revealing that both enlightenment and non-enlightenment have marks of karma, yet true and deluded are different.

11.8

The treatise says: From 'Because relying on' below: second, the basis. The commentary states: 'Fundamental ignorance': because it is the basis, it corresponds to the root, just as dreaming relies on sleep.

11.9

The treatise says: From 'the mind moves' below: third, the direct explanation. The commentary has two: first, separately explaining the treatise text, in which the treatise has two: first, the meaning of movement and activity. The commentary states: 'Movement and activity is the meaning of karma': this is the karmic function of ignorance. The subsequent eight marks are also movement and activity, and are also the karmic function of ignorance. However, establishing their names in terms of distinct meanings, only this initial beginning of the arising of function is called 'karma'. 'Inversely presenting,' etc.: as without sleep there are no dreams. 'Actualized enlightenment' is the time of ultimate [enlightenment].

11.10

The treatise says: From 'movement entails' below: second, the meaning of being the cause. The commentary states: 'Being the cause is the meaning of karma': among the nine, the first eight can all be called 'causes'. Why they are not called 'karma' is also due to distinct meanings. Now, this initial mark can serve as the root of suffering, and is therefore called 'karma'. From 'As attaining' below: inversely revealing; because stillness is the cause of wonderful bliss, one conversely knows that moving thought is the cause of suffering. 'The cause of movement and the result of suffering,' etc.: because a single arising thought immediately possesses the subtle four marks, the suffering results of the four marks are not separate from the moving cause of a single thought. According to this position, it is the suffering of conditioning of the ālayavijñāna; if according to the previous explanation, the four marks exist simultaneously. The four marks subsume the nine marks, and the coarse suffering of samsaric death in portions is also among them. The reason they are explained in sequence is because the text cannot be written simultaneously, and in doctrine there are causes and bases. If spoken in terms of time, then in a single thought of non-enlightenment there is no before and after; hence it is said: 'In a single thought of non-enlightenment, the five aggregates are born together.' This is precisely this meaning.

11.11

From 'Although this' below: second, comprehensively clarifying the active characteristics. This is the origin of the nine marks, the subtlest of the subtle; there are not yet distinctions between the subjective mind and objective conditions of the transforming [consciousness] and manifesting [consciousness]; hence it says 'a single mark, subject and object undivided,' etc. 'Corresponding to' etc.: self-essence is the self-witnessing part. From 'Like the absence of marks' below: citing proof; 'mark' is the self-essence, and 'sense-object' is the cognized object. From 'One should know' below: harmonizing that [source] with this [text].

11.12

Second, the mark of transformation. The commentary states: From 'Relying on the preceding' etc.: 'transformation' is like 'arising'; the preceding mark of karma arises to become this seeing. However, the other marks also have the meaning of arising; that they are not named 'transformation' is also due to distinct meanings; like relying on a dream there is a dreaming mind. From 'If relying' below: if in terms of the ocean of fruition, its nature is pure and unmoving, then there is no seeing of this and that; one should know that having seeing is only based on movement; just as without a dream there is no dreaming mind. From 'Like this' below: within the stage of this single mark, clarifying the reason why sense-objects are not mentioned; because it is subtle, it only speaks of the subjective seeing as the mark of transformation. However, this sense-object is precisely the manifesting mark below, since the treatise distinguishes subjective seeing and objective seeing each as one mark. Now, this mark of seeing arises from within and is not born by depending on external objects, so it is named 'transformation'. Relying on this mark of transformation, it brings forth the cognized object, and further establishes the manifesting mark; it does not mean that within this subjective seeing there is additionally another subtle object; learners should know this. From 'The Mahāyānasaṃgraha' below: citing proof. 'Mental consciousness' is the mark of cognition of the sixth consciousness. 'Objects of the three periods of time' are saṃskṛta dharmas; 'objects not of the three periods of time' are asaṃskṛta dharmas. These are all the objects cognized by the mental consciousness. 'Knowable': the mental consciousness is coarse and floating, and its cognizing subjects and objects can be apprehended and understood through present differentiation, because having objects of the three periods of time, etc., makes them knowable. 'This consciousness' etc.: that is, the eighth [consciousness]; because it has no knowable objects, since there are no objects to be known, it clarifies this consciousness solely in terms of the seeing-part of the cognizing subject. Just as the beginning of the twelve links of dependent origination is unknowable, this is also like that; the Vijñaptimātratā also says 'unknowable appropriation and place'. From 'Since it says' below: concluding the intention.

11.13

Third, the manifesting mark. The commentary states: From 'Relying on the preceding' etc.: just as relying on a dreaming mind there are dream objects. 'Inverse explanation': it should say: Since noble ones are free from seeing and therefore lack these objects, one should know that these objects definitely arise from seeing; just as without a dreaming mind there are no dream objects. However, the above three marks are all explained and established inversely, because these are objects of cognition for the eighth stage and above, and are not perceived by those in lower ranks. Therefore, by using the fact that noble ones do not see marks, etc., to infer and inversely verify, it causes the doctrine to become distinct, perceptible, and credible.

11.14

The commentary states: From 'namely, the consciousness that differentiates phenomena' below: second, citing sūtras to analyze and differentiate, in which there are two: first, citing a sūtra and assigning correspondences. 'Phenomenon' is the sense-object; the consciousness that differentiates the phenomena of sense-objects is therefore called the consciousness that differentiates phenomena. Regarding 'The Laṅkāvatāra' etc., it fully says: 'The ocean of storehouse consciousness is constantly abiding (the basic consciousness), stirred by the wind of sense-objects (the manifesting consciousness); various waves of consciousness leap and arise in transformation (the consciousness of phenomena).'

11.15

From 'Question' below: second, questions and answers resolving objections, in which there are three: first, the question. 'Manas': fully called kliṣṭa-manas; here translated as 'defiled', meaning that it is associated with the four afflictions, hence called defiled. 'Constantly examining and deliberating' is called manas, which is the seventh [consciousness]. The intention of the question is understandable.

11.16

Second, the answer, in three: first, answering by the mutual subsumption of the sixth and eighth [consciousnesses], with two: first, not speaking [of it] because the grasping subject follows the grasped object. 'Necessarily associated with grasping': this means that the seeds of the seventh are in the eighth, and the seeing-part of the eighth is grasped by the seventh; hence it is said to be associated. How much more so since the two consciousnesses rely on each other and serve mutually as faculties? From 'The Yogācāra' below: citing proof; it is understandable.

11.17

From 'Also because' below: second, not speaking [of it] because the supported basis follows that which relies on it. 'Inner reliance' etc.: because the eighth and seventh mutually rely on each other, the sixth relies on the seventh and eighth, and the first five rely on the sixth, seventh, eighth, and their basis of shared object. There is a verse that says: 'Five have four, six has two; seven and eight each rely on one.' Merely speaking of that which relies on it, one necessarily knows that there is that which is relied upon; hence it is omitted and not mentioned.

11.18

From 'Second, because' below: second, answering through doctrinal inconvenience, with two: first, not speaking [of it] because it lacks the meaning of blending. 'Ignorance' etc.: previously it was said that ignorance blends with the true to form the three marks of the ālayavijñāna. Manas is solely arising and ceasing, without the meaning of blending. If one says it blends, it would itself constitute the ālayavijñāna. If there is no blending, from where does consciousness arise? Since the doctrine is inconvenient, searching for an explanation fails.

11.19

From 'Also because' below: second, not speaking [of it] because it lacks the meaning of taking external [objects] as conditions. 'Manas does not take external [objects] as conditions': because the first five solely take external dusts as conditions, the eighth takes the internal sense-faculties, body, seeds, and the container world as conditions, the sixth comprehensively takes all as conditions, and the seventh solely takes the seeing-part of the eighth as condition. Now the six coarse marks all take external objects as conditions; hence it is not spoken of.

11.20

From 'It may also' below: third, answering in terms of imputing internal and external. This is differentiated in terms of self and what belongs to self, and also belongs to the sixth and eighth; hence it does not speak of the seventh. The meaning is: the seventh precisely grasps self and what belongs to self; now that they are divided into two places, there is no distinct essence to speak of.

11.21

From 'The Laṅkāvatāra' below: third, citing proof, with two: first, citing the sūtra; it is understandable.

11.22

From 'In the sūtra' below: second, explaining the meaning. 'Manifesting consciousness' etc.: directly assigning and explaining; it is understandable. From 'Therefore' below: discerning the meaning of the consciousness of phenomena. Since it says 'climbing and taking external objects as conditions', what could it be if not the sixth? Therefore the treatise relies on the sūtra's explanation, and does not discuss the seventh consciousness again. From 'Therefore one knows' below: concluding and harmonizing the two.

11.23

Now, the many explanations above clarifying that this treatise does not speak of the seventh [consciousness] are specifically to differ from Master Wonhyo’s claim that the mark of cognition below is indeed the seventh. Thus his text says: 'As for the mark of cognition, it is the seventh consciousness, the beginning among the coarse. For the first time there is the mental factor of wisdom conceptually differentiating the self and sensory dusts, hence it is named the mark of cognition. The *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* speaks of the six consciousnesses and the wisdom of mental dharmas; this present mark of cognition is indeed the wisdom of mental dharmas. If spoken of fully, grasping the fundamental consciousness it reckons it as self, and grasping the manifested realm it reckons it as belonging to self. Now, speaking in terms of coarse manifestation, it says that depending on the objective realm, the mind gives rise to conceptual differentiation. Moreover, this objective realm is not separate from the manifesting consciousness, just as a reflected image is not separate from the mirror’s surface. This seventh consciousness directly turns inward to reckon self and what belongs to self, without separately reckoning that there are sensory dusts outside the mind; hence elsewhere it is said to turn back and take that consciousness as its object.' Question: 'How is it known that the seventh, manas, not only takes consciousness as an object, but also takes the six dusts as objects?' Answer: 'Here there are two explanations: first, relying on inference (anumāna); second, relying on scriptural testimony (āptāgama). As for inference, the syllogism states: The mental sense faculty is the subject (pakṣa); it must share the same cognitive objects with the mental consciousness—this is the thesis (pratijñā). The reason (hetu) states: Because it is an unshared basis. The positive example (dṛṣṭānta) is like the eye and other faculties; the negative example is like the immediately preceding perished mind. The three members are without fault; hence we know that the mental sense faculty operates ubiquitously over the six dusts. As for scriptural testimony: first, the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra* says: "The eye faculty receives forms, the ear conceptually differentiates sounds, up to the mental faculty conceptually differentiates all dharmas." In the Mahāyāna, the mental faculty is precisely manas; hence we know that it ubiquitously takes all as its object. Furthermore, in the *Abhidharmasamuccaya*, among the ten kinds of conceptual differentiation, when speaking of the first, the conceptual differentiation of marks, it refers to the place where the body resides and the things it enjoys; these, in turn and in order, take the physical faculties and the forms of the receptacle world as their marks. When speaking of the second, the conceptual differentiation of the manifest mark, it refers to the six consciousness bodies and the mind (manas), because they manifest as the apprehended marks as explained before. Here the five consciousnesses only manifest dusts such as forms, while the mental consciousness and manas both manifest realms such as the physical faculties and the forms of the receptacle world. Supposing that manas did not take physical faculties and the receptacle world as its objects, then the conceptual differentiation of what can manifest should only take the six consciousnesses; yet it says "and manas", hence we know it takes them all as objects.' All the above is a summary of his commentary. The intention of the present commentary in stating there is no seventh consciousness is that it is subsumed implicitly without violating the standard model; because the manas does not take external things as objects, there are multiple explanations.

11.24

First, the general indication. Treatise: 'Because of having [objective realms]...' Although these six marks each rely on one another in succession, now it merely takes the root to speak of it; therefore it says 'depending on the objective realm.' This is what the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* means by: 'Stirred by the wind of objective realms, the waves of various consciousnesses leap and surge into arising.'

11.25

In the first [mark], Treatise: 'Depending on the objective realm...' This is merely pulled into arising externally by the condition of the objective realm, and generated internally from the faculties; hence it says 'the mind arises.' Commentary: 'Regarding the preceding...' Not knowing it is generated internally, one takes it to come from outside. The *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* says: 'Externally there is truly no form; it is only the manifestation of one's own mind. Foolish people do not realize this, falsely differentiating conditioned phenomena. Not knowing that various external realms are all one's own mind, the wise fully comprehend that the realms are manifestations of one's own mind.' 'Initially arising...' Following the principal mind, mental factors further arise, selecting and discriminating between defiled and pure, determining them to be thus; therefore it is named cognition. Its essence is the mental factor of wisdom among the mental factors of specific objects; hence it is called 'the factor of wisdom.'

11.26

In the second [mark], Commentary: 'Depending on the preceding...' Toward agreeable and lovely realms, the mind is accompanied by joy, which is called the awareness of pleasant feeling. Toward disagreeable and unlovely realms, the mind is accompanied by anger, which is called the awareness of painful feeling. What is not painful is pleasant; what is not pleasant is painful. Since agreeable and disagreeable realms are continuous, how could the mind of pain and pleasure be interrupted? To distinguish the coarse in brief, it does not discuss equanimity; but it truly exists, lying merely between pain and pleasure. 'Continuous in itself' means that its own mark is uninterrupted. 'Moreover, able to...' Because it is continuous in itself, it can further give rise to afflictions, moistening matured karma to cause the experiencing of retribution, and causing unmatured karma to mature. Thereby leading and sustaining, it causes birth-and-death to continue without severance; this is causing the other subsequent four [marks] to continue without interruption. This is explained extensively below under the five consciousnesses of the conditions for arising and ceasing.

11.27

In the third [mark], Treatise: 'Abiding and holding...' This means remaining firmly upon the realms of pain and pleasure without alteration, clinging to and grasping them without letting go. Commentary: 'All the above...' These are the bases for the mark of grasping and attachment, and therefore are cited in full. 'It is this...' Only this single sentence is the third mark. Because of not knowing that agreeable and disagreeable realms are like sky-flowers, and failing to comprehend that the mind of pain and pleasure is like a phantom illusion, one precisely takes them as real and holds firmly without change; hence it says 'deeply grasps.' 'Therefore below...' This refers to the text below on the mental consciousness among the causes and conditions.

11.28

In the fourth [mark], Commentary: 'Depending on the preceding...' A realm is fundamentally neither good nor bad; because it accords with one's feelings, it is then named good. A realm is also not bad; because it disagrees with one's feelings, it is then named bad. Moreover, the marks of good and bad are already not real in themselves, how much less their names, which arise from inverted feelings—how could they not be provisional? Why is this? Other people regarding this may take good as bad or bad as good, because the two are indeterminate. Master Zhao says: 'Things have no reality corresponding to names; names have no efficacy to grasp things.' Due to these names, without waiting for the eyes to see the marks of agreeable and disagreeable, merely hearing with the ears the names of good and bad immediately gives rise to joy and anger; therefore it is designated as reckoning names. Regarding the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* below, it cites testimony; the meaning is seen in the preceding text. 'From above...' Matching the three obstacles. From this point upward, directly to fundamental ignorance, all are named delusion. If according to the *Foming jing*, which says: 'Solitary ignorance is the seed of afflictions', then ignorance is separately opened as the basis of afflictions; in reality, ignorance is delusion (moha), belonging to the count of the six fundamental afflictions. If discussed together, they are all named afflictions. Although dividing and combining differ, both are the gateway of delusion. 'From below...' That is karma and suffering; thus the three obstacles are precisely the three paths.

11.29

In the fifth [mark], Commentary: 'Grasping marks...' This means that regarding the attachment to self, greed, anger, affection, and views, one activates the seven actions of body and speech, creating countless differentiated karmas—wholesome, unwholesome, and unmoving. Although among them there are wholesome and unmoving [karmas], they are all with outflows and do not transcend the three realms. There is no peace in the three realms, just like a burning house; therefore, all are causes of suffering.

11.30

In the sixth [mark], Commentary: 'Incurring fruition is inevitable' means that it is definitely so. There are two meanings here: first, one cannot but receive it; second, wholesome [karma] does not lead to suffering, and unwholesome [karma] does not lead to pleasure. The *Classic of Documents* states: 'Calamities sent by Heaven may still be avoided; calamities incurred by oneself cannot be escaped.' The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says: 'Neither in the sky nor in the sea, nor entering between mountain rocks—there is no place where one can escape and not receive retribution.' Hence it says 'inevitable.' Cycling in the three realms without a time of cessation is called 'circulating.' Dying here and being born there without being able to escape is called 'long-bound.' Like an ant walking in a circle, like a silkworm spinning a cocoon, ending and beginning again, without autonomy. The *Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra* says: 'Like a bird tied with a string, though it flies far, when pulled it returns. Living beings pulled by karma, know that it is also like this.' If not awakened, there is no time of liberation. Speaking now in this sense, it says 'long-bound.'

11.31

In the first, the correct explanation, Commentary: 'The three subtle...' Although defiled dharmas are many, they do not go beyond the causes, effects, delusions, and karmas of the three realms. Now, subsuming them under the three subtle and six coarse marks, none are left out. Such defiled dharmas all arise from fundamental ignorance deluded about the real; therefore it says 'you should know', etc.

11.32

Second, the further explanation. Commentary: The question's intention is clear; the answer text precisely explains the treatise's meaning. 'Karma-energy' refers to differentiated marks; these marks are all aspects of the karmic function of non-enlightenment. However, this non-enlightenment is the general name for the nine marks, and the nine marks are the particular designations of non-enlightenment. Thus the *Yuanjue jing* says: 'Marks such as body and mind are all ignorance.' This is precisely this meaning.

11.33

Discerning both identity and difference: Previously it was said that enlightenment and non-enlightenment are clearly distinct as defilement and purity. It was also said that delusion depends on enlightenment and is not separate from original enlightenment. If one says they are different, how could delusion depend on enlightenment? If one says they are identical, how could defilement and purity be unequal? Furthermore, if they were definitively identical or definitively different, in both cases there would be no path of practice and cultivation. Why? If identical, then sage and ordinary worldling would be equal, and admiration and revulsion would both cease; if different, then defilement and purity would stand in opposition, and delusion and awakening would be eternally separated. Because of being blind to the import of these two gates being neither identical nor separate, there is this confusion. Those who miss the point regarding the schools of characteristics (Lakṣaṇa) and characteristiclessness each fall to one extreme; therefore it is now analyzed and explained to dispel delusion and error.

11.34

First, the simile. Commentary: 'Defilement and purity...' Defilement is the three subtle and six coarse marks of non-enlightenment; purity is the two marks and four mirrors of the meaning of enlightenment. 'To take' means to use. Because tathatā is the gate of universal characteristics, it can generally serve as the nature for both dharmas. Furthermore, tathatā is without characteristics, so it takes these two dharmas as its characteristics. Thus, the two characteristics equally rely on the one nature, and the one nature equally generates the two characteristics; therefore, the word 'same' applies to both nature and characteristics. In comparing to defilement and purity: because vessels are fine and coarse. The rest of the text is clear.

11.35

In the application, Commentary: 'These two' refers to the meanings of the unpolluted and ignorance above, as explained below. 'And not truly existent' means arising from conceptual differentiation; hence the sūtra says: 'Falsely calling them marks of illusion.' The single simile of illusion is frequently cited by various teachings to illustrate that the essence of defilement and purity is not real. This is truly because in the five regions of India this craft was quite prevalent; when seen and heard distinctly, the principle of dharma is easily understood. Now, relying on past masters to explain this meaning, dharma and simile are briefly divided into five kinds. The five of the simile: like knotting a cloth to conjure a horse—first, the relying cloth; second, the illusionist's craft; third, the conjured horse; fourth, the horse's existence being precisely empty; fifth, the foolish grasping it as real. The five of dharma: first, the true nature; second, the consciousness mind; third, paratantra; fourth, self and dharmas being precisely empty; fifth, the deluded grasping of self and dharmas. 'Having no separate essence' refers to the sūtra saying: 'Its nature is truly the subtle enlightened luminous essence.'

11.36

The pure marks are the purity of wisdom, inconceivable karma, and the latter two mirrors, as seen in the previous text; the text below is in the section on vāsanā. However, although the preceding three subtle and six coarse marks are defiled marks, because they are spoken of in terms of the meaning of non-enlightenment, they are not cited here. Now separately citing the text below is intended to verify that this defilement is the mark of tathatā; therefore the text says: 'The dharma of tathatā is truly without defilement, but only through the perfuming of ignorance is there the mark of defilement.' As for the preceding nine marks, their initial designation and final conclusion are both stated in terms of non-enlightenment, not saying that all are marks of tathatā; for this reason, the commentary's citation is completely fitting.

11.37

In the section containing the direct citations: The Commentary states: Regarding "Relying on this...", sentient beings are non-enlightenment; non-enlightenment has no intrinsic nature, so it is just tathatā. The principle of tathatā is the nature of nirvāṇa; its nature is intrinsically quiescent and extinct, so how could it wait for further extinction? "Extinction" (miedu) and "nirvāṇa" are terms in the respective regional languages [of China and India]. Regarding "In the Vimalakīrti[-nirdeśa]...", this is the passage from the Chapter on Maitreya cited earlier. The Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra also says: "Severing all fetters and entering nirvāṇa is conventional truth, not the ultimate truth. Why? In emptiness there is no extinction, nor is there anything to be extinguished; all dharmas are ultimately empty, which is itself nirvāṇa." Regarding "Relying on this...", bodhi is the Sanskrit word, which in the language of Qin is rendered as enlightenment (jue). Enlightenment comprises both actualized and original enlightenment; since both enlightenments are tathatā-bodhi, how could it be obtained through cultivation? Therefore the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "On account of what meaning is it called bodhi? Because of the meaning of emptiness it is bodhi; the meaning of thusness, the meaning of dharmatā, the meaning of the true limit, and so forth, are bodhi." The above, with respect to sentient beings, clarifies that non-enlightenment is tathatā, and therefore is fundamentally nirvāṇa. The enlightenment of all buddhas is also tathatā, and therefore bodhi cannot be cultivated or produced. Since "cultivated and produced" is said, one should know this refers to what is attained at the level of fruition; hence the Commentary says "all buddhas." Since it is fundamentally possessed, why would it require cultivation and production to be obtained thereafter? Hence it says: "It cannot be..." and so forth.

11.38

Regarding "Furthermore, earlier...", it reinterprets these two passages by means of the two characters "true" (zhen) and "suchness" (ru) [of tathatā]. Regarding "entering long ago", the Yuanjue jing therefore says: "One begins to know that sentient beings have fundamentally attained buddhahood"; hence it says "long ago." Furthermore, all sentient beings are ultimate enlightenment; hence it says "no newly attained." Yet "entering long ago" and "no newly attained" are identical in meaning though different in phrasing, distinguished merely by taking "suchness" (ru) as nirvāṇa and "true" (zhen) as bodhi. Moreover, people of the time often considered nirvāṇa to be burdened by marks; hence it is stated that non-enlightenment is suchness (ru), fundamentally nirvāṇa. They surmised that bodhi is born from causes cultivated; hence it is stated that the nature of enlightenment is true (zhen), and likewise not newly attained. On this basis, marks are identical to marklessness; hence nirvāṇa is spoken of with respect to non-enlightenment. It is not produced through cultivation, but is original and fundamentally possessed; hence bodhi is spoken of with respect to the true nature. Regarding "With respect to nirvāṇa...", nirvāṇa ought properly to be revealed through the cultivation of discerning wisdom (liaoyin); but since non-enlightenment is suchness, and suchness is nirvāṇa, how could it wait for a discerning cause to discern it before being revealed? This means it has never not been revealed; why wait for it to be revealed further? Therefore the text above says: "entered nirvāṇa long ago." Regarding "With respect to bodhi...", bodhi ought properly to be produced by a generative cause (shengyin); but because bodhi is enlightenment, and the nature of enlightenment is true, it does not wait to be produced before coming into being. This means it has never not existed; what more is there to produce? Therefore the text above says: "Bodhi is not newly attained." Yet according to the earlier Commentary stating, "The bodhi of all buddhas is not cultivated...", these two lines were applied exclusively to bodhi. Now, dividing this "cultivation and production" to apply to the two places discussed appears to be an alternative interpretation. Scholars should know this. Regarding "This...", since it is a fundamentally possessed dharma, it is not fitting to speak of attaining it; because its essence is truly real and eternally unchanging, unlike delusive dharmas which have nothing real to be attained, this dharma of non-attainment is fundamentally true and real.

11.39

The Commentary states: Regarding "One may doubt...", second: First, recounting the doubt. The text is clear and easy to understand. However, if this segment of text were annotated under the outline division, its phrasing would be more convenient. Here it is placed too close above; lecturers should be aware of this.

11.40

Second, the sequential explanation, in two parts in the treatise: First, directly resolving the doubt. The Commentary states: Regarding "The dharmatā...", the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: "In reality there is no thing; how could conceptual differentiation arise?" Another sūtra also states: "The Buddha's true dharmakāya is like empty space." These are all stated with respect to the absence of form. Regarding "Furthermore, doubting...", this poses a challenge to the true by means of the responsive [body].

11.41

The Treatise states: Regarding "Yet there are...", second: resolving the further challenge. The Commentary states: Regarding "Their seeing...", it means that in the ocean of buddhahood's fruition there is only great concentration, wisdom, and compassion, without physical marks. Sentient beings' seeing of physical marks is manifested by their karmic consciousness and belongs to the differentiated marks of avidyā. Therefore the lower text says: "It is only according to the seeing and hearing of sentient beings that benefits are obtained; hence it is described as function." Regarding "Not this...", it is explained in terms of transcending marks. Therefore the lower text states that all buddha tathāgatas are solely bodies of dharmakāya and marks of wisdom, the ultimate truth, and have no conventional truth that can be seen. Since they are called dharmakāya, marks of wisdom, and the ultimate truth, how could there be a non-empty nature such as form within this? Regarding "Furthermore, also...", it is explained in terms of the virtues of nature. That is the truly good and subtle form, which is the mark of nature itself. Although named "form", it is also not a visible mark; hence the treatise calls it "wisdom-form." Regarding "Because fundamentally...", earlier it was said: "Because the sphere transcending conceptual thought is only conjoined with through realization." Later it says: "The dharmakāyas of all buddhas have no other or self, and physical marks mutually see one another."

11.42

The Treatise states: Regarding "The marks of difference...", second: First, the analogy. The earlier mark of identity was spoken of by contrasting arising and ceasing with tathatā, clarifying their identity by viewing marks in relation to nature. Now, the mark of difference constitutes difference merely within the single gate of arising and ceasing, by viewing the defiled and pure in their own mutual marks.

11.43

Second, the application. The Commentary states: Regarding "Clarifying separately...", because the essence of anāsrava pure dharmas is the nature of enlightenment, and the nature of enlightenment is without differentiation, it is only in accordance with avidyā that differentiation is manifested. Regarding "Because that...", it clarifies that the fundamental nature of avidyā is inherently differentiated; if it were not differentiated, it could not obscure the principle of equality. The lower text refers to the text on the perfuming of the essence and attributes of tathatā. "All anāsrava dharmas" refers generally to the virtues of cultivation and nature of both original and actualized enlightenment. Regarding "Speaking directly of the nature", it refers precisely to the true essence, because it is the essence of tathatā revealed in the previous gate. Regarding "Only according to...", it explains pure differentiation in contrast to defiled differentiation; that is, the marks of original enlightenment revealed in the subsequent gate. For example, the single moon reflects its image across ten thousand waters: the moon is fundamentally without differentiation, but its images differ according to the waters. The lower text refers to the text on the greatness of attributes.

11.44

Regarding "Furthermore, due to...", it is explained in terms of actualized enlightenment: because it remedies defiled dharmas such as stinginess and greed, it accomplishes anāsrava pure practices such as the pāramitā of giving, and the meaning of the myriad virtues at the fruition stage such as the ten powers and four fearlessnesses. The former forms differences in dependence on differentiated defilements; the latter forms differences by remedying differentiated defilements. It can also be said that the former is attributes and the latter is function. Furthermore, it forms differences by following differentiated sentient beings. This was already addressed in questions and answers, so it is omitted here. Possessing these three meanings, it is therefore said: "differing in accordance with defilements." Regarding "Thus...", it explains that both defiled and pure dharmas have the meaning of being like an illusion. Because dharmas based on relativity are fundamentally not established; as the sūtra says: "If there were a dharma superior to nirvāṇa, I would also say it is like a dream or an illusion." The Diamond Sūtra also says: "Whatever has marks is illusory and false." Now, the meaning of identity and difference explained above is precisely the meaning of the non-separation of the two gates of tathatā and arising-and-ceasing. With respect to the gate of arising and ceasing, identity is difference; with respect to the gate of tathatā, difference is identity. If one grasps the essential import of the One Mind and the two gates, one will have no confusion about this.

11.45

General indication. The Treatise states: Regarding "the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing", because the section on establishing the meaning states: "the marks of the causes and conditions of the arising and ceasing of this mind." Among these, the arising and ceasing of the mind has already been explained above; now the two words "causes and conditions" are explained. Yet since these are the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing itself, it speaks again of "arising and ceasing."

11.46

The Commentary has two parts: First, explaining the reiteration of the text. Reiteration of the preceding to indicate the subsequent means that it reiterates what was central in the preceding section on establishing the meaning, and marks it as what is to be explained in the treatise text below. The layer below the ālaya[-vijñāna] is the cause and condition capable of generating the three subtle marks. The essence of the mind is tathatā; within this, only the single meaning of following conditions is taken, because it does not maintain its own nature. Regarding "fundamental...", because it directly obscures true enlightenment, the secondary branches are not taken. Furthermore, this pertains solely to the meaning of accomplishing actual phenomena, not taking the emptiness of essence. Moreover, the layer below avidyā is the cause and condition capable of generating the six coarse marks. The conditioning of these two layers of causes and conditions is precisely what the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra explains as the inconceivable perfuming and transforming, grasping various dusts, perfuming by beginningless delusive conceptual thought, and so forth. It is elaborated in detail below. Furthermore, these two layers contain only three dharmas: tathatā is solely the cause, the objective realm is restricted to being the condition, and avidyā is the condition with respect to the true, while being the cause with respect to the realm. The concluding text can be understood.

11.47

Regarding "The various consciousnesses...", second: explaining the indicated text. Now this pertains solely to the mind; hence it says "the various consciousnesses." If it were said to be generated from the harmony of the five aggregates, this would encompass both form and mind. Regarding "And having no...", just as waves have no separate essence and rely solely on water, the upper text states: "Relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing," and so forth. The mind of its own mark is the aforementioned cause of arising and ceasing that does not maintain its own nature. Regarding "The relying...", it is only that names are posited differently according to dharma and person; manas and the mental consciousness (manovijñāna) are precisely sentient beings, having no separate essence, and are generated by the gathering of the marks of arising and ceasing of the aforementioned various consciousnesses. Furthermore, sentient beings are the general, while manas and so forth are the specific; although general and specific differ, their essence is one: all arise from the mind and take the mind as their support. However, herein the relying and the supported arise, differentiated by comparing mind (citta), manas, and mental consciousness (manovijñāna); there are universal and restricted applications, which can be seen upon reflection. The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra also says: "The storehouse consciousness is called mind (citta) (the eighth); the thinking nature is called manas (the seventh); and that which discerns all objective marks is called consciousness (vijñāna) (the first six)." Here, "mind" is the tathāgatagarbha, "manas" refers to the five [consciousnesses], and "mental consciousness" is solely the sixth; hence it differs from that.

11.48

In the question, the Commentary states: Regarding "This mind...", since it is said that sentient beings, relying on the essence of the mind, have manas and so forth arising, what are its marks?

11.49

The Treatise states: Regarding "Because relying on...", the Commentary has two parts: First, explaining the text. Regarding "It is the above...", because the ālaya is the general, while enlightenment and avidyā are specific meanings within the general. Now since it says that avidyā exists relying on the ālaya, one should know that only the meaning of enlightenment is taken as that which is relied upon. The treatise text takes the specific from the general, so it says "ālaya." The Commentary brings out the specific meaning, so it says that it is the mind explained above—namely, tathatā not maintaining its own nature. The rest of the text can be understood. Regarding "Wishing to clarify...", this merely points to the first layer of causes and conditions mentioned earlier. Regarding "The above general...", someone might ask: "Earlier it was said that relying on the mind, manas and so forth evolve; why does it concurrently mention avidyā?" Hence it is explained now.

11.50

Regarding "Asking: The above said...", second: question and answer, in two parts: First, the question. Adducing what was said before, such as saying that relying on enlightenment, there is delusion. It also says: relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing, and so forth. Now this conversely says it exists relying on the ālaya; how could it be the same as what was said earlier?

11.51

Second, in the answer, there are two parts: First, the direct answer, in three points: First, explaining in terms of obscuring the true and grasping the semblance. Regarding "Serving as the support for avidyā...", just as wind moving water forms waves, and the wind in turn relies within these waves, earlier it was said: the mark of wind and the mark of water are not separate from each other. It also says: relying on non-enlightenment, three kinds of marks are generated, which correspond to and are not separated from that non-enlightenment. Regarding "Why?", it re-explains the previous meaning. Relying on delusion means that, relying on avidyā's obscuration of the true, the ālaya exists, because the true and the false together resemble a unity and resemble permanence; this is the meaning of obscuring the true. The sūtra says: "Deluded about fundamental perfect illumination, falsity is thereby born." Regarding "deluded about the semblance...", relying on the ālaya, avidyā exists; it is deluded about what resembles a unity, taking it to be a real unity, and is deluded about what resembles permanence, taking it to be real permanence. The sūtra says: "The objective having been falsely established, your false capability is born." This is the meaning of grasping the false. These two meanings are discussed regarding a single consciousness, appearing reciprocally as preceding and succeeding, and therefore do not contradict each other.

11.52

Regarding "The second says...", second: explaining through the difference in meaning between general and specific. Regarding "With respect to the fundamental...", this speaks vertically and strictly with respect to the true essence. Enlightenment is the fundamental; because relying on the fundamental, the secondary branches arise. Regarding "Now with respect to...", the comprehensive status refers to speaking horizontally and comprehensively with respect to both true and false. Just as wind moving water forms waves, both wind and water are present within the waves.

11.53

Regarding "The third says...", third: explaining in terms of the unarisen and the already arisen. Regarding "The unarisen...", it speaks from the time when the ālaya does not yet exist. Regarding "Accomplished...", it speaks of where the ālaya already exists.

11.54

"However, this..." below: second, concluding answer. The idea is: if one accepts only the former meaning, there would be the fault of seemingly placing the real before and delusion after, and also the error of being deluded again after awakening, which would likewise be the same as the Sāṃkhya notion of the primordial darkness giving rise to intellect (buddhi). If one accepts only the latter meaning, it would seem that all phenomena do not arise through delusion regarding the real, but are established solely from the root consciousness, in which case there would be the fault of the real and delusion having separate substances, and how would this differ from the Faxiang school? Now, by means of the latter meaning one avoids the former fault, and by means of the former meaning one avoids the latter fault; hence both are stated reciprocally. Because the two meanings are employed alternately, their implicit and explicit aspects complement each other like the patterns of fine brocade; therefore it is said to be "interwoven."

11.55

In [the section] '1. Brief Explanation', the Commentary says: "Arising of delusion based on resemblance" means that based on the deluded mind, branch and twig ignorance arises. "Arising of resemblance based on delusion" means that based on fundamental non-enlightenment, the deluded mind arises. The word "resemblance" here means that with the initial delusion regarding the true nature, this deluded mind is formed; its subtle streaming flow resembles being unmoved and resembles being undifferentiated, hence it is said to resemble unity and resemble permanence. The Śūraṅgama-sūtra refers to this as "the shadow-manifestation of deluded awareness," which is what this means. "These two..." below: they have precedence in meaning, but no precedence in time. Just as the earlier three meanings answered the question, it is spoken of only with respect to a single consciousness at a single time, and therefore one cannot make a distinction of before and after. The remaining text is understandable. "Based on this..." etc. means that based on the mind, the karma-consciousness arises, and so forth up to based on the cognition-consciousness, continuity arises, generating the mental consciousness. Thus the later relies on the earlier, and the earlier is able to generate the later: sequential reliance and generation. In this, the relying and being relied upon, the generating and being generated, viewed reciprocally between earlier and later, have both general and specific aspects. This can be understood from the text. "The Mahāyānasaṃgraha..." below cites proof, which is understandable.

11.56

In [the explanation of] the first [mark], the Commentary says: "The mind does not arise of itself..." etc., because the mind is not of a moving nature. Although its nature is unmoved, it nevertheless moves in accordance with conditions, because it does not keep to its own nature; this is precisely the meaning of "not emerging" among the four mirrors. Just as water does not billow of itself but is due to the power of the wind, one thereby avoids the fault of infinite regress. "Directly clarifying the marks of arising": because when enlightened, it is unmoved, and when unmoved there are no marks; when unenlightened, it moves, and when moving, marks arise. "The arising of motion is karma": among the two meanings, [the author] does not cite "being the cause"; that is also contained within it, because when there is motion, there is the result of suffering.

First 56 of 75 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

起信論疏筆削記 — Classical Chinese