起信論疏筆削記 16

English (machine translation) 16

Language: English

16.1

Recorded by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui

Remedying heterodox attachments: deviating from the real is called 'heterodox'; grasping and adhering is called 'attachment'; confronting them mutually is called 'remedying (dui)'; attacking them is called 'curing (zhi)'. Thus, the previous correct doctrine was that which remedies, and the present heterodox attachments are that which is remedied. Once the correct doctrine is revealed, the heterodox attachments perish on their own. Now he describes and explains their characteristics. The treatise: 'All, etc.' directly establishes the proposition. 'If one departs from, etc.' reveals it by negation. The self is the root, and arisings also stem from it; hence it is said: 'existing dependent on the self, and non-existent apart from the self.'

16.3

2. Raising and listing. The commentary: 'General mark, etc.': being unable to discern the differentiations of the five aggregates, one merely grasps their general mark as a master. However, the mark of self has four kinds: First, the mark of a sentient being, because it is produced by the coming together of many past conditions. Second, the mark of a living being, because it abides through a single period of lifespan in the present without breaking conditions. Third, the mark of a person, because it repeatedly takes birth in other destinies in the future. Fourth, the mark of a self, because it is the overall master of the three times. Thus now he calls the self the overall mastering ruler. 'This is, etc.' eliminates ambiguities. This refers to ordinary beginners studying the Mahāyāna who, hearing the Mahāyāna teaching, do not understand the Buddha's intent; following their own deluded minds, they distort the sacred scriptures, and having formed this as habit, they develop this view. 'Not non-Buddhists': they have three traditions with different theories, as explained earlier; this does not refer to that category. 'Conceiving all, etc.': conceiving that dharmas such as form each have a substantial essence of their own. Thus the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'If one grasps the substance of dharmas as existent, it is called attachment to dharma-self,' and so forth. Because practitioners of the two vehicles practice reliant on the two coarse object-discriminating consciousnesses, they only comprehend that there is no self within dharmas, but do not know that the substance of dharmas is entirely empty. As said earlier: 'Seeing comes from the outside, grasping the boundaries of form,' and so forth. Grasping that defiled and pure objects possess self-nature is called attachment to dharmas. Just as while cataracts remain in the eyes, how could sky-flowers be extinguished?

16.4

The treatise: 'How, etc.' The commentary has two parts: first, a general explanation according to the meaning. 'What is the distinction among these five?' takes up the outside question. 'In terms of the fruit': because attachments arise regarding the Tathāgata's dharmakāya. 'Pertaining to both cause and fruit': because all are attached to reliant on the tathāgatagarbha, for the nature of the tathāgatagarbha extends to both cause and fruit. Furthermore, among the five: the first two are mostly held by those who study the sudden teaching and the emptiness teaching, as well as the Southern School of Chan, but miss their meaning; the middle two are mostly held by those who study Mahāyāna characteristics of dharmas and the Northern School of Chan, but miss their meaning; the last one is held exclusively by non-Buddhists with heterodox views. 'As in the outline': this can be seen below.

16.5

From 'Questioning this' downward: second, question-and-answer explaining the names. The question means: Tathatā is a dharma; generating attachment to it ought to be attachment to dharmas, so why instead is it called attachment to a personal self? This is entirely framed based on the object of attachment to form the objection. 'One says, etc.' resolves it in terms of the subject who grasps: this means that because one who has a personal self forms this attachment, it is not named after the object of attachment. 'The second says, etc.' resolves it in terms of the dharma attached to. 'Original enlightenment is a person': because within the dharma attached to, there is a portion of the meaning of luminous illumination that belongs to wisdom, it is called a person. Grasping this as the self, it is therefore called personal self. 'In actual truth': spoken in terms of the quiescent essence, it corresponds to the object of contemplation and belongs to dharma. 'Grasping phenomenal emptiness as the substance of dharmas': this is the worldly, inert voidness of space, which is transformed by consciousness and manifested by form; it is not the principle and dharma realized by the three vehicles, hence it is called phenomenal emptiness. This is because one grasps this phenomenal emptiness as the true substance of dharmas.

16.6

1. The conditions of attachment. The treatise: 'The dharmakāya is like empty space': the Jin guangming jing says: 'The Buddha's true dharmakāya is just like empty space.' The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: 'Samantabhadra's bodily mark is like empty space.' The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: 'Untainted by the world like a lotus flower, always well entering into the practice of emptiness and quiescence, penetrating all marks of dharmas without obstruction; I bow my head to that which, like space, has nothing on which it relies.' Another sūtra says: 'Empty space has neither middle nor edge; the bodies of all Buddhas are also like this; because they neither arise nor cease, I pay homage to that which has nothing to be contemplated.' Such texts are extremely numerous and cannot all be cited.

16.7

2. Marks of attachment. The commentary: 'Obstructive marks, etc.': this means sentient beings firmly attach to the Buddha having forms such as the thirty-two marks, seeing him coming and going, and grasping marks such as the limits of form and physical obstruction. 'Confusing the intent, etc.': the Buddha's intent was to use the meaning of emptiness having no marks and no obstruction as an analogy corresponding to the essence of the dharmakāya; he did not say that empty space itself is the dharmakāya. This is mistaking the analogy for the dharma; failing to distinguish the dharma from the analogy is the shallowest misunderstanding.

16.8

1. Establishing. The treatise: 'Mark of emptiness': it takes being hollow, open, and unobstructed as its mark. 'Is a delusive dharma': because it is transformed by deluded consciousness, because it stands in opposition to form, and because its arising within great awakening is like a single bubble. When a single person brings forth truth and returns to the source, empty space in the ten directions entirely dissolves; it is truly a delusive dharma. The commentary: 'Existent in subjective sentiment': deluded sentiment sees it as existent, while in principle it is properly a delusion. The treatise: 'Its essence is not non-real': this has two meanings. First, it clarifies that within the true essence there is no such unreal, delusive emptiness. Second, it clarifies that the essence of emptiness is itself non-existent and fundamentally unreal. The commentary's saying 'non-existent in principle' precisely corresponds to the first meaning while encompassing the second meaning.

16.9

2. Explanation. The treatise: 'Exists in opposition to form': because it stands in mutual dependence with material dharmas. Being manifested apart from form, it is therefore called emptiness; if there were no form to manifest it, emptiness could not exist. 'Perceptible marks': because it is empty, an explicit color-form; where there is form, one sees the absence of emptiness, and where there is no form, one sees the presence of emptiness; the same applies to its presence and absence at different times. 'Causes the mind to arise and cease': when it is present, the mind that sees existence arises and the mind that sees non-existence ceases; when it is absent, the mind that sees non-existence arises and the mind that sees existence ceases. Since it can induce the mind to arise and cease, how could it be like the dharmakāya? If it were the dharmakāya, it should not cause the mind to arise and cease. The commentary: 'Mutual dependence' explains the preceding 'exists in opposition to form'. 'Cognized by delusive thought' explains the preceding 'perceptible marks'. 'Not the dharmakāya': the dharmakāya is different from this; it has no place of presence or absence. Having no time of presence or absence, not a single mark can be obtained; it cannot even be known by wisdom, so how could it be an object cognized by delusive thought? Now, since it falls within the reach of delusive thought, it is not the dharmakāya. The treatise: 'If without form, etc.' directly reveals the non-existence of its essence. Since the form that is able to manifest it cannot even be obtained, the emptiness that is manifested should reasonably be unreal. The Śūraṅgama-sūtra also says: 'The nature of emptiness has no form; it is manifested through form.' And again: 'Since the marks of form are non-existent, who can clarify the substance of emptiness?' The text of the commentary is self-evident.

16.10

3. Conclusion. The commentary: 'Concluding with existence in sentiment' also explains the reason why there is no form; that is, the preceding meaning that dependent on the transforming mark there is the manifesting mark, though this is only the direct explanation. The treatise: 'All realms': this subsumes both form and emptiness. The commentary: 'Concluding with non-existence in principle' is also an alternate explanation, or called an explanation by negation; that is, the preceding 'because the mind has no arising, objects accordingly cease,' up to 'attaining nirvāṇa, etc.' From this we know that empty space is merely a delusive mark within the true nature. Thus the Śūraṅgama-sūtra says: 'Emptiness arises within great awakening like the bursting of a single bubble in the sea.' 'Distinguishing the dharma to be identical with the analogy, etc.': this means taking an analogy as a convenience, not the primary intent of the treatise. According to the intent of the treatise, it is used as an analogy merely to ward off the existence grasped by sentiment, not to signify that the essence of tathatā is all-pervading. Thus it was said earlier: 'Quiescent like space.' And next it says: 'Vast nature-wisdom is not like empty space,' and so forth. Let those with wisdom examine this carefully.

16.11

Second, the real is not the false. Commentary: "How could it be the same as…" and so on has two senses: first, because of being ultimate versus non-ultimate; second, because of being cognizant versus non-cognizant. Thus the Commentary on the Sūtra of Complete Enlightenment says: "Compared to the oceanic reflection, it surpasses the great void." The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: "Understand that the Tathāgata's body is not like empty space, because it is perfected by immeasurable merits and marvelous Dharmas." Question: Above it was said that the correct meaning is the antidotal agent and the erroneous attachments are the objects to be remedied. Since the correct meaning has already been explained earlier, should not this text only elucidate the erroneous attachments? Why is there once again text presenting the antidotal agent? Is this not redundant? Answer: Although the correct meaning in the preceding text is the antidotal agent, it had not yet been explicitly contrasted with the attachments. Now, in this text, the marks of attachment are raised individually in successive passages, and the earlier correct meaning is applied to refute them one by one. Thus, on account of these erroneous attachments, the earlier meaning is revealed as correct and true; and likewise, on account of the earlier meaning, these attachments are shown to be false and delusive. Therefore it is necessary to present the antidotal text separately. Just as in this section the text of the antidote corresponds to what was said earlier: "All dharmas are differentiated solely dependent on delusive thoughts"; and again: "neither having marks nor lacking marks"; and again: "Dependent on this dharmakāya it is called original enlightenment"; as well as the mark of purity of cognition, the mirror of emergence from dharmas, and taking the dharmakāya as the body of cognition, and so forth. All of these are the text of this antidotal agent.

16.12

First, the conditions for the attachment. Śāstra: "Nirvāṇa is empty": The Sūtra of Complete Enlightenment says, "Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are like yesterday's dream." "Tathatā is empty": The Śūraṅgama-sūtra says, "Words of falsehood reveal the various truths; both false and true are alike two falsehoods." It also says: "The unconditioned has no arising or ceasing; being non-real, it is like flowers in the sky," and so forth. Commentary: "The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra..." and so on: The complete passage states: At that time, five hundred devaputras silently reflected: "Why is it said that nirvāṇa and so forth are also like a dream?" Subhūti, knowing that the devaputras had formed such a thought, addressed them, saying: "Even if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, I would still declare it to be like an illusion and like a dream. Why is that? Because from the origin it has fundamentally been empty of itself."

16.13

Second, the mark of attachment. Commentary: "Not knowing..." and so on: It was originally spoken of as empty in order to refute the mind of grasping at existence. "Empty" is intended to elucidate the meaning of being free from names and free from marks; it does not mean there is no pariniṣpanna essence endowed with intrinsic merits. Failing to understand the Buddha's intention, they consider it to be identical to parikalpita dharmas, being completely and entirely empty in its whole essence. This does too great a violence [to the teaching].

16.14

Third, the remedy. Śāstra: "Its own essence is not empty": This corresponds to what was said earlier, "truly not empty," having the meaning of having its own essence, as well as the greatness of essence earlier being without increase or decrease, and so forth. "Endowed with merits": This corresponds to the greatness of attributes shown earlier, having the meaning of the light of great wisdom and so on; this is the antidotal text.

16.15

First, the conditions for the attachment. Śāstra: "The essence is equipped with..." and so on: The Sūtra of Complete Enlightenment says, "The unsurpassed Dharma King has a great dhāraṇī doorway named 'Complete Enlightenment,' from which flow forth all pure tathatā, bodhi, nirvāṇa, the pāramitās, and so forth." Complete Enlightenment is just another name for the tathāgatagarbha. There are still other sūtras, which cannot all be cited.

16.16

Second, the mark of attachment. Śāstra: "Failing to understand": This is an affirmative expression, causing faith and understanding to arise. Unlike the previous two negative expressions that banish attachments, it therefore says "failing to understand" rather than speaking of refuting clinging. The passages below are all like this.

16.17

Third, the remedy. Śāstra: "Spoken in accordance with the meaning of tathatā": This reveals the merits with reference to the true nature. The true essence is fundamentally one, but in terms of meaning it is spoken of as having distinctions. Since the meaning of merits is spoken of upon the one essence, this is distinction without distinction. Commentary: "The non-duality of duality": The śāstra above says, "Although there truly are these meanings of merits, they have no differentiated marks; they are identically of one taste, solely the one tathatā, because they are without conceptual differentiation and free from the marks of conceptual differentiation," and so forth. Śāstra: "Conditioned by arising and ceasing..." and so on: This reveals the merits in contrast to false dharmas. Since they are revealed in contrast to falsehood, this too is distinction being non-distinction. Commentary: "The duality of non-duality": As the preceding text says, "If the mind gives rise to views, there is the mark of not seeing. When the mind-nature is free from views, that is the meaning of universally illuminating the dharmadhātu," and so forth. "As above..." and so on is the text of the antidotal agent.

16.18

First, the conditions for the attachment. Śāstra: "All dharmas are not separate from tathatā": The Sūtra of Complete Enlightenment says, "All the various illusions and transformations of sentient beings are all born from the marvelous mind of the Tathāgata's Complete Enlightenment." The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says, "All that exists in the three realms is solely One Mind." It also says: "Never has there been a single dharma that could be separate from the dharmatā."

16.19

Second, the mark of attachment. Commentary: "Accompanying conditions..." and so on: This clarifies that tathatā, accompanying the conditions of avidyā, forms mundane dharmas. Because they are not discerning, they think that the true essence fundamentally contains this defilement.

16.20

First, stripping away. Commentary: "The wondrous existence of pure virtues": This is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha. It is generally the same as the text of the antidotal agent in the second [refutation] above, and is broadly distinguished as in the greatness of attributes. "The principle-based non-existence of delusive defilement" has two senses: first, in the true principle there is no such delusive defilement, which is the empty tathāgatagarbha; second, according to the intrinsic nature of delusion, it is also non-existent in principle. The text above says, "Because all dharmas arise from the mind and are produced by delusive thoughts." It also says: "All dharmas are like images in a mirror, having no essence that can be grasped," and so forth. "Delusion does not enter the real": That is, they do not correspond. The text above says, "Because from the beginning it has never corresponded with any defiled dharmas." Since the essence of delusion is fundamentally empty, how could it enter the real and correspond with the real?

16.21

Second, concession and refutation. Śāstra: "There is no such possibility": If delusion were truly existent, it would not be eliminated at the time of realization; since one who realizes can eliminate it, one should know that delusion fundamentally does not exist, because the true essence is ultimately not non-existent at the time of realization. Recently, someone heard the doctrine of intrinsic inclusion and, unable to investigate deeply into its principle, immediately claimed that the fundamental nature intrinsically includes the physical and mental dharmas of the ten realms, both defiled and undefiled dharmas. When function arises, each arises upon the self-essence of its own dharma, which they call the functioning of the entire essence. This is just as if the eighth consciousness contained seeds without any difference (this is the same as the attachment in the preceding section that the virtues of the nature are identical to form and mind). They also said that the true nature has the meaning of differentiation when avidyā is removed (which is the same as the attachment in this section that the dharmatā fundamentally possesses defilement). This is frequently set down in letters and writings, misleading later generations, perversely slandering the perfect texts and claiming instead that they are expedient means. The Bodhisattva foresaw this day and handed down this remedy. How marvelous, Great Being! How profound his compassionate rescue! If there is no intention to reform and the deluded sentiment remains obstinate, not only will the gate of wrong views fail to close, but the path to Avīci will become even nearer. How lamentable! A detailed refutation has already appeared in another chapter.

16.22

First, the conditions for the attachment. Commentary: "Each has two dharmas": This means that the texts of the conditions for attachment, the marks of attachment, and the antidotes all jointly reveal the two dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, as can be seen in the text. Śāstra: "Having saṃsāra and nirvāṇa": This is a passage from the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra, already cited above. Moreover, a sūtra says: "The nature from beginningless time is the support of all dharmas; on account of this there are all destinies, and the realization of the fruit of nirvāṇa."

16.23

Second, the mark of attachment. Śāstra: "Failing to understand..." and so on: The Buddha's intention means: The tathāgatagarbha is the fundamental basis upon which delusion and awakening depend; in delusion there is saṃsāra, and in awakening there is nirvāṇa. However, saṃsāra has no beginning, and nirvāṇa has no end. Failing to penetrate this principle, they consequently form views of beginning and end, as fully revealed in the text below. This is also the same as the third question among the three questions of Vajragarbha in the Sūtra of Complete Enlightenment, where the text says: "If all sentient beings originally achieved buddhahood, and later gave rise to avidyā, when will all Tathāgatas once again produce all afflictions?" It is also like what is clarified in the fourth fascicle of the Śūraṅgama-sūtra. Thus, [to them,] saṃsāra and nirvāṇa both have beginnings and ends.

16.24

Commentary: "Non-Buddhists..." and so on: This refers to the Sāṃkhya masters who, relying on the concentration of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, develop worldly supernormal powers. In accordance with their erroneous path, they know the events of eighty thousand kalpas in the past, but beyond this they do not know; through the supernormal power of knowing birth and death, they know the matters of dying here and being born there over eighty thousand kalpas in the future, but later they also do not know. What they posit is that the unmanifest nature is permanent, and from this are produced all the dharmas of the world. Because it is dark and difficult to know, it is called the unmanifest nature. How are they produced? From the unmanifest, intellect first arises; from intellect, the sense of 'I' arises; from the sense of 'I', the five subtle elements arise, namely form, sound, smell, taste, and touch; from the five subtle elements, the five great elements arise, namely earth, water, fire, wind, and space; from the five great elements, the eleven indriyas arise, namely the five sensory faculties—eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body; the five action faculties—hands, feet, mouth, and the organs of excretion and reproduction; and the manas faculty. At that time, saṃsāra is said to be accomplished, and they grasp a puruṣa as the master of enjoyment. When the self contemplates superior objects, the unmanifest nature transforms and produces them for the self to enjoy. Because the self enjoys them, it is bound by objects and cannot attain liberation. If the self does not contemplate them, the unmanifest nature does not transform, and the puruṣa attains liberation, which is called nirvāṇa. These are the twenty-five tattvas, with the unmanifest nature being the first, because it can transform and give rise [to the rest].

16.25

First, saṃsāra has no beginning. Śāstra: "Avidyā is beginningless": This corresponds to what was said earlier: dependent on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing, and so forth. It also said: "All sentient beings are not called enlightened, because from the origin they have never been free from thoughts; therefore it is said that avidyā is beginningless." These are all the text of the antidotal agent. Commentary: "The Renwang..." and so on: The first fascicle of that sūtra states: "Good sons! The afflictions of all sentient beings do not go beyond the three realms; the response, transformation, and Dharma bodies of all Buddhas also do not go beyond the three realms. If there were no sentient beings in the three realms, what would the Buddhas transform? Therefore I say that if there were a realm of sentient beings apart from the three realms, that is spoken of in the non-Buddhist Mahāsattā-śāstra, not what is spoken of by the seven Buddhas." As for the Mahāsattā-śāstra, those Vaiśeṣika masters posit six padārthas: first, substance; second, quality; third, action; fourth, universal existence; fifth, particularity; sixth, inherence. Among these six padārthas, they hold a great nature that can possess all dharmas, having a distinct essence apart from all dharmas.

16.26

In the second part, Śāstra: "Nirvāṇa has no subsequent limit": This corresponds to what was said earlier: "what is called the mind-nature is unarisen and unceasing." It also said: "not arisen at the previous limit, nor ceasing at the subsequent limit." It also said: "the dharmakāya manifests, giving rise to functions without interruption," and so forth. All of these are the text of the antidotal agent.

16.27

First, the conditions for the attachment. Śāstra: "Selflessness of persons": What is spoken of in the Hīnayāna piṭaka, because their faculties are not sharp, merely differentiates that there is no person within the aggregates, causing them to realize the emptiness of persons.

16.28

Second, the mark of attachment. Śāstra: "Spoken of as non-ultimate": Not having taught the emptiness of dharmas is called the "half-word" teaching. However, it is called non-ultimate in many senses: First, in practice, they only practice self-benefit and cannot benefit others. Second, in cognition, they only attain the cognition of the emptiness of sentient beings and do not attain the cognition of the emptiness of dharmas. Third, in abandonment, they only abandon afflictions and do not abandon what is to be known. Fourth, in realization, they only realize the principle of the emptiness of sentient beings and do not realize the principle of the emptiness of dharmas. Fifth, in attainment, they only attain nirvāṇa with remainder and without remainder, and do not attain non-abiding nirvāṇa. "Seeing the five aggregates": Although they do not see the mark of a person within the aggregates, they see the aggregates and so forth as real dharmas. Since they cling to the dharmas of the aggregates as truly existent, they see the three realms as insecure, like a burning house, seeking to escape as if saving their heads from burning, hoping to reach a place of quietude, cessation, peace, and joy.

16.29

Third, the remedy. Śāstra: "The intrinsic nature of the five aggregates is unarisen..." and so on: This corresponds to what was said earlier in the tathatā doorway: "All dharmas from the beginning are free from the marks of words, names, mental cognition, and so forth, and are ultimately equal." It also said: "All dharmas are identical to the true nature," and so forth. It also said in the passage on the common mark: "All sentient beings are fundamentally eternally abiding, having entered nirvāṇa." The text below also says: "Because of having faith that all dharmas from the beginning are naturally nirvāṇa, marks are integrated into the real." Throughout the text, these are the antidotal agents.

16.30

Second, concerning "ultimate detachment": previously, it was simply based on the symptoms of the illness, prescribing medicine according to the illness; thus against [attachment to] emptiness, existence was spoken of, and against [attachment to] existence, emptiness was spoken of, which could not yet be ultimate. Now, fully based on the true principle, everything is discarded: the path of speech is cut off, the place of mental activity is extinguished, and equal in one single taste, it is only then called ultimate. Thus, the antidotal corresponds to tathatā dependent on words; the ultimate corresponds to tathatā detached from words.

16.31

First, the general explanation. The treatise says: "Defilement and purity have no self-characteristics." That which attains the name "defilement" is established in reliance on purity; one should know that the mark of defilement is not a self-characteristic. The mark of purity is also like this. The remaining [pairs]—root and branch, existence and emptiness, sentient beings and buddhas, up to mundane and supramundane—are to be understood by analogy with this. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "If one sees the true nature of defilement, there is then no mark of purity; according with the mark of cessation, this is entering the non-dual dharma-gate." The commentary says: "Conditioned reliance": if defiled dharmas are accomplished through conditioned reliance on purity, then pure dharmas in turn depend on defilement; proceeding in circles like this, one falls into the fault of infinite regress. "Without conditioned reliance, etc.": if there is originally no defilement to serve as cause or condition of reliance, then how could there be purity as the dharma accomplished? Under "Mutual reliance and non-mutual reliance," someone might ask: "Might it be that all these defilements and purities, while in delusion, have not yet been able to be detached from mutual reliance, and only after awakening does mutual reliance become non-mutual reliance?" Therefore this explains: the dharma-essence is originally so; it is not that it only comes to be like this through awakening. Because defiled and pure dharmas are originally detached from verbal explanation and conceptual differentiation, being completely equal, why would one need to await awakening for them to only then be non-existent? As explained below by itself.

16.32

Second, seeking by category. The commentary says: "Manifesting that the above is not mind": this clarifies the phrase "is not cognition, etc." Above, it generally marked "neither matter nor mind"; now this "is not cognition, etc." reiterates the meaning of "not mind." "Manifesting that the above is not matter": as can be seen above. It may also be that this phrase reiterates the preceding meaning of "not matter, etc.," meaning that being neither matter, mind, cognition, consciousness, etc., it thereby comprehensively subsumes all mutually reliant dharmas, mundane and supramundane, as non-existent. Now, fearing that hearing this non-existence people will immediately form an understanding of nothingness and fall into the view of annihilationism, it now re-examines and clarifies that both existence and non-existence are completely terminated. Furthermore, it is a re-examination of the previous antidotal detachment, wherein the dharmas of emptiness and existence—both antidote and what is remedied—are both unestablished. Previously, medicine was used to treat the illness; here, both medicine and illness are discarded, and the meaning of ultimate detachment is thereby revealed. The treatise says: "The mark that is ultimately ineffable": this is the conclusion. This has two meanings: first, in terms of time, meaning it clarifies that marks such as matter and mind are not merely ineffable temporarily, but to the end of the future are also ultimately ineffable. Second, in terms of dharmas, it does not mean that the dharma-essence cannot be made into marks such as matter and mind, but because all marks whatsoever—the rest [such as] unity and difference, ordinary and noble, cause and effect, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—are ultimately ineffable. The preceding Tathatā Gate said: "All dharmas from the beginningless past are detached from the mark of verbal explanation, detached from the mark of names," and so on. Now, marks are exhausted and return to suchness, uniting with the fundamental essence, entering the Tathatā Gate.

16.33

First, the direct reconciliation of hidden doubts: harmonizing with the Buddha's intention in order to resolve doubts and difficulties. This doubt is not explicitly stated; there is only the explanatory text, hidden and unmanifest, hence it is called a "hidden doubt." The commentary says: "Detached from nature": because there is no fundamental nature. Since the fundamental nature is non-existent, what mark could there be? Like the previous text on what is detached from, therefore a sūtra says: "All marks whatsoever are empty and deceptive." "Various verbal explanations": this refers to the previous text manifesting the correct meaning. "Provisional words, etc.": like using a raft to cross a river, the intention is not on the raft. Because the sentient beings of this land all enter samādhi through hearing, contemplation, and cultivation, it is necessary to use sounds to perform the Buddha's work. Therefore a sūtra says: "The true doctrinal essence of this realm / lies purely in the hearing of sounds; / wishing to attain samādhi, / one truly enters through hearing." Another sūtra also says: "The dhāraṇī has no letters; the Buddha expresses it with letters."

16.34

Second, discerning the intention. The treatise says: "Detaching from thoughts to return to suchness, etc.": the intention is to cause one to detach from the preceding thoughts of mistaken attachments to existence, non-existence, and the like, returning to tathatā. Therefore the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Thoughts, concepts, and contemplations have been eliminated, / the dharmas of language are all extinguished; / such an exalted and wondrous person / is then able to see prajñā."

16.35

Third, the explanatory conclusion. The treatise says: "Causing the mind to arise and cease": "mind" applies to both the true and the false, but with the distinction between tatpuruṣa and karmadhāraya [compounds]; examine this. Real wisdom is original enlightenment; that which can enter is actualized enlightenment. That those below the ten stages cannot enter is because they have thoughts. Therefore the preceding text says: "All sentient beings are not called enlightened, because from the beginningless past thought after thought arises and ceases, never having been detached from thought."

16.36

Concerning "differentiating the marks of setting forth on the path": although previously the correct meaning has been revealed and mistaken attachments have also been eliminated, and speaking directly of view and understanding there is indeed no bias or deviation; nonetheless, with regard to giving rise to the mind to advance and seek, and the gradations of cultivation and realization, one is not yet thoroughly acquainted. If one halts and does not advance, what purpose does the previous understanding serve? Having understanding without practice is like a lamp in the wind, unable to illuminate objects clearly. It is also like having eyes but no feet: how could one arrive at the destination? If one were to advance, where would one know to go? Therefore, differentiating this causes them to know, and having known, causes them to advance, thereby avoiding both usurping the higher ranks and disparaging oneself to retreat and falter. From this point downward, it explains the meaning of the "vehicle" established in the Section on Establishing the Meaning.

16.37

First, the marking of intention and explaining of names: in the text there is only the marking of the section and the explaining of the name, but no words marking the intention; I fear the character "section" (zhang) was mistakenly written as "intention" (yi); the wise should examine this.

16.38

The commentary says: "The path of enlightenment": this is the fruit of bodhi that is realized. The Buddha-fruit is perfectly unimpeded, hence it is called the "path." The treatise says: "giving rise to the mind": that is, giving rise to the three kinds of mind. "Cultivating practice": that is, beginning from the stage of faith and ending before the adamantine [stage], the various pāramitās of dual benefit that are practiced, because each and every one can advance toward the higher stages. The commentary says: "Wishing to clarify, etc.": generally relating its intention; "clarify" is "differentiate." "Different varieties": this explains the single character "marks" (lakṣaṇa); that is, giving rise to the mind and practice each have differences, hence they are called marks. Just as horizontally giving rise to the mind has true (giving rise to the mind with faith accomplished, etc.) and counterfeit (giving rise to the mind imitating others, etc.), and vertically has shallow (giving rise to the mind with faith accomplished) and deep (giving rise to the mind through realization; giving rise to the mind through understanding and practice applies to both shallow and deep), practice can likewise be known.

16.39

First, the designation. The treatise says: "Three kinds of giving rise to the mind": the meaning has general and specific [aspects]. Generally, it is collectively named "giving rise and setting forth," hence the heading says: "Because of the meaning of giving rise to the mind, cultivating practice, and setting forth." Specifically, the first two are giving rise, and the latter one is developing. Furthermore, the mind is what is given rise to, while the person and bodhi are that which give rise: that is, the person is able to arouse and give rise to it, and bodhi is able to induce and give rise to it. That is to say, this person has internal perfuming as the primary cause, good roots as the dominant condition, and bodhi as the cognitive object; based on these various conditions, they give rise to their mind. Thus, viewing the object from the standpoint of the subject, it is called "giving rise to the mind." Furthermore, according to the stages, there are specific meanings of the subject and object of giving rise and setting forth, which will be differentiated when reaching the text.

16.40

Second, the inquiry and enumeration. The commentary says: "The ten faiths, etc.": here, a person whose ten faiths are fulfilled is that which gives rise, and the three minds such as the straightforward [mind] are what is given rise to. Furthermore, the fulfillment of the ten faiths is that which sets forth, and the stage of the ten abodes is where one sets forth to; the mind exiting and entering the two stages is simultaneous, the meaning of which is as explained previously. "Understanding the emptiness of dharmas": that is, as stated below: "Because of knowing that the dharmatā is without stinginess and greed," up to "without ignorance, etc." Knowing is understanding. "According with and cultivating the ten perfections": as stated below, cultivating the dāna-pāramitā in accord with the nature, up to the prajñā-pāramitā, etc.; the subject and object of giving rise and setting forth can be known by analogy with the above. "First stage, etc.": this distinguishes the meaning of the subject and object of giving rise and setting forth by means of the second stage up to the Buddha-fruit. Below "The first two": evaluating superiority and inferiority. "Resemblance": because there is a conceptually differentiating mind, it is called resemblance enlightenment. "True": because non-conceptual wisdom is attained, it is enlightenment according to one's share. Generically based on realizing the principle, it is called "true." However, among these three, the first covers faith and abodes, the second covers practices and dedications, and the third covers stages and fruit; these three kinds of minds, from cause to fruit, leave no stage of practice incomplete.

16.41

First, the question. The treatise says: "Relying on what kind of person": based on a person of what stage does it speak of the meaning of giving rise to the mind? "Cultivating what kind of practice": through practicing what practice is one able to give rise to the mind? According to the meaning of the answer below, it relies on a person in the stage of the ten faiths who cultivates the ten kinds of wholesome practices such as faith, vigor, and mindfulness; when ten thousand kalpas are completed and they reach the fulfillment of the tenth faith, they are then able to give rise to it.

16.42

The commentary says: "The previous faith, etc.": this clarifies the intention of the preceding and subsequent headings in this answer.

16.43

First, the person capable of cultivation. The commentary says: "Multiple gates": meaning the differences between the Hīnayāna, the provisional, and the real teachings, as already seen in the previous text. Among these three, it now adopts the real teaching to clarify the meaning of the three categories [of beings], as differentiated in the commentary.

16.44

Second, what is cultivated. The treatise says: "Believing in karma and its fruition and recompense": karma applies to both good and evil; fruition applies to both pleasure and suffering. The fruit can repay the cause, hence it is called recompense; this is spoken of generally, not in terms of general and specific. "The ten wholesome [actions]": that is, the ten such as not killing, not meaning the ten kinds of faithful mind. If it were the ten such as faith, they are correlated only in the text below. The commentary says: "Meaning there is, etc.": perfuming through hearing applies to the teacher's instruction; internal perfuming encompasses both essence and attributes. "Good roots": if evaluated from the past, they are still accomplished through the power of perfuming; now looking from the present, they are provisionally called past good deeds, and discussed in terms of the cause, hence they are called "roots." Below "Capable of believing": that is, the meaning of the mark of stopping and extinction. In the past, although there was good, because it was an initial perfuming, the good roots were slight and weak, just forming their seeds, unable to give rise to faith and diligently seek the various practices. Now, through repeated practice and repeated perfuming, as well as the combined power of the three matters, they are therefore able to arise. Thus, good roots were what was accomplished in the past, and are what can give rise in the present, exactly matching the Lotus Sūtra's parable of sewing the jewel and discovering the jewel. "Merit portion": "portion" (fen) has the meaning of cause; because these ten wholesome practices initially accomplish mundane defiled merit and ultimately accomplish supramundane undefiled merit, they are also one portion within merit. Because merit is immeasurable, it is also the delimitation of merit, showing that it is not wisdom. The treatise says: "Repulsed by saṃsāra, etc.": because faith and understanding gradually increase, one is able to know that the three realms are unpeaceful, just like a burning house, and so one is repulsed by them; knowing that the bodhi Buddha-fruit is supremely cool, one therefore seeks it. The commentary says: "The portion of bodhi, etc.": also as explained previously. These two portions together with the merit portion above, when accomplished at the fruit, correspond respectively to the three virtues of wisdom, severance, and benevolence. "The cause of practice": the matters of seeking and repulsion. When feeling is stirred within, practice is aroused on this basis, hence it is called the cause of practice.

16.45

Question: Cultivating the causes of the ten wholesome actions is already practice itself; why is it designated as "the cause of practice"? Answer: Looking toward the subsequent supramundane practice, mundane goodness is therefore taken as the cause. Thus, mundane defiled practice serves as the cause for supramundane undefiled practice. Question: Being repulsed by saṃsāra and seeking bodhi—is this not supramundane practice? Answer: Although there is this mind, the actual fact has not yet occurred. The words "repulsed by desire" can be seen upon reflection. Furthermore, this repulsion and seeking are merely phenomenal goodness; not yet corresponding with contemplation of principle, they are not called correct practice. However, according to this text, one is still prior to faith, not having entered the ten faiths, merely serving as an expedient for the ten faiths. Like ordinary people who give rise to a mind of repulsion and seeking wishing to practice goodness—how could they already be persons of the ten faiths? Therefore the commentary says: "The above all differentiate the causes of practice." This is the meaning. When it next says "cultivating the mind of faith," only then is it the stage of the true ten faiths.

16.46

On the treatise's "being able to encounter [Buddhas]", etc.: A Buddha, in terms of his station, must be a response body (nirmāṇakāya), within which he manifests transformations according to capacity, not limited to one kind—meaning he acts as parents, kin, and so forth, as explained previously. Here it mentions only "Buddha" from the perspective of the origin; it may also be that it singles out those who are delivered through a Buddha's form to speak of drawing near, serving, providing for, and making offerings to. It may also be that "drawing near and receiving" means personally receiving the Buddha's teachings. Having had a body manifested for them, they must hear the essentials of the Dharma; that is, upon hearing the Dharma, they generate understanding and cultivate the faithful mind. On the commentary's "conditions of practice": This refers to the differentiated conditions within the perfuming of function. Regarding "in terms of", etc.: As stated before, only when causes and conditions are complete can [the practice] be accomplished, and thus they cannot be lacking. The "ten faithful minds" are faith, vigor, mindfulness, samādhi, wisdom, giving, morality, protection, renunciation, and vows. In this stage, one fully gives rise to the four kinds of faithful mind, practices the five kinds of wonderful cultivation, and cultivates the samādhi of tathatā, gradually entering more deeply until maturity, when one is capable of entering the first aboding.

16.47

3. Completion of Practice. On the treatise's "ten thousand kalpas": In terms of sharp and dull faculties, there are four alternatives when distinguishing them: (1) sharp faculties but not vigorous; (2) sharp faculties and vigorous (the number of kalpas for these two cannot be fixed); (3) dull faculties and vigorous, taking at the slowest ten thousand kalpas; (4) dull faculties and not vigorous—these are exhausted without studying, so how could their number of kalpas even be discussed? Here in this treatise, the third is taken, and therefore it says "ten thousand kalpas." Thus the Benye jing says: "This Bodhisattva of Faithful Marks practices the tenfold precepts for ten thousand kalpas; then he should emerge from the ten faithful minds and enter the stage of the first aboding." That sūtra also says: "If for one kalpa, two kalpas, or three kalpas one cultivates the ten wholesome dharmas, one both regresses and advances. If one encounters good spiritual friends and is able to believe in the Buddha-Dharma, in one kalpa or two kalpas one then enters the stage of aboding." On the commentary's "completion of practice": The root commentary says, "The time is fulfilled and the practice is completed." "Time" refers to the ten thousand kalpas; "practice" refers to the completion of the ten faithful minds leading to the emergence of the [bodhi] mind.

16.48

On the treatise's "Buddhas and bodhisattvas": These are the Buddhas and bodhisattvas encountered previously. Here, since they instruct them to generate the mind while still in the stage of faith, the Buddhas encountered are either transformation or reward [bodies]. On the commentary's "in terms of supreme conditions": Buddhas, bodhisattvas, the suffering of sentient beings, and the extinction of the true Dharma are all supreme conditions. Since Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and others have condescended to instruct and encourage, how could one not generate the mind? Whenever we meet persons of meager wisdom and slight merit who offer exhortation, we still generate the mind—how much more so when Buddhas and bodhisattvas personally impart instructions? Or one contemplates all sentient beings as no different from oneself, yet because they are deluded about the real and cling to the false, they vainly suffer saṃsāra; therefore one generates the mind of great compassion, wishing to deliver them all. Ashamed of one's own slight power and that deeds fall short of vows, one generates the mind to aspire to the fruit of Buddhahood, to fully attain spiritual functions so that one can truly bring rescue. Thus the Daśabhūmika-sūtra says: "Seeing all sentient beings solitary and without companions, one generates a mind of pity." This is like someone who sees the people utterly exhausted by heavy taxes and onerous labor, with righteous orders not implemented and no place to appeal; reflecting on his lack of power to govern it, he therefore advances in virtue and cultivates his vocation, seeking recommendation to hold office, striving to remove the people's ailments and leave neither superiors nor inferiors resentful, thereby bringing about good governance. Or seeing that the Buddha-Dharma is about to be extinguished and sentient beings have nothing to rely upon, wishing to protect it, yet lacking spiritual power, one generates the mind to cultivate practice in hopes of attaining realization, so that through one's power and function one can revitalize it.

16.49

However, as for "Dharma", it fully comprises teaching, principle, practice, and fruit. Its extinction at present is only in terms of the extinction of teaching and practice among the four; principle and fruit do not become extinct. Regarding the extinction of the teaching: when the Buddha condescends to teach, the intention is widespread propagation; if it falls into disuse and is not practiced, that is the meaning of extinction. It need not be like the First Emperor's burning to ashes or Puṣyamitra's incineration; it is just like the meaning of palm leaves sinking in the preface. Regarding the extinction of practice: because there is no one cultivating it. Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Extinction of the Dharma means extinction of cultivation." What is protected and preserved here is also only teaching and practice; that is, copying, reciting, explaining according to one's capacity, and encouraging later students so that the lamps continue one after another, shining limitlessly—this is protecting the teaching. Subduing oneself to cultivate and advance, encouraging those with karmic affinity so that the Buddha-seed is not severed—this is protecting practice. If examined in further detail, the two dharmas of principle and fruit also have a sense of extinction, but they become extinct in causal dependence on teaching and practice above: because there is no teaching, there is no practice; because there is no practice, there is no realization; because there is no realization, there is no fruit. Although all four are called extinction, their meanings of extinction differ: teaching and practice are only severed extinction; the dharma of principle is only concealed extinction; and the fruit, in terms of essence and marks, combines both meanings. Therefore the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says there are two kinds of causes and conditions that make the true Dharma abide long: first, internally having monks who uphold the precepts; second, externally having dānapatis with firm faith. It also says that when the bequeathed Dharma of Śākya is finally extinguished, the monks do not cause the Buddha-Dharma to become extinct through lack of offerings; rather, because the four requisites are abundant, arrogance and indulgence arise in their minds, Mara gains the advantage, and Śākya's bequeathed Dharma is forever extinguished from that. If one generates the mind to seek the fruit of Buddhahood, would it only be upholding the precepts? Therefore the Buddha-Dharma will have no way of facing extinction. Now, the treatise's word "or" indicates an unfixed meaning: encountering any one of the previous three allows one to generate the mind.

First 49 of 64 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

起信論疏筆削記 — Classical Chinese