起信論疏筆削記 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

3.1

Recorded by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui

From "In terms of the arising of dharmas..." below, there are two [parts]: first, marking the heading and giving a general presentation. "Relying on expressing defilement": because pure dharmas represent the meaning of gathering the branches back to the root, whereas here it clarifies producing the branches from the root, hence it takes only defilement. "Summarily in five tiers": in broad terms there are fourteen; now within the fourteen they are grouped into five categories, hence it says "summarily." "In contrast to the various tenets": namely, the five teachings mentioned before. Previously, taking that which expresses as the approach, it said "in terms of teaching"; here, taking that which is expressed as the approach, it says "in terms of dharmas."

3.3

Second, distinct explanations following the text, which has two [parts]: first, properly clarifying the five sections. Among the five, the second and third summarily distinguish the true and the false, hence they say "open" and "clarify"; the latter two are discussed solely in terms of the false, fully showing sequential arising, hence it says "arise." "The One Mind is the fundamental source": "is" means "constitutes." This means that this One Mind is the root of all defiled and pure dharmas, just as the water's source is the root of ten thousand streams, and there is no dharma whatsoever that serves as the root of mind; therefore it says "only the One Mind." "Root" is indeed "source." The sūtra says: "All dharmas produced are manifestations only of the mind; all causes, effects, worlds, and atoms take form due to the mind." Both the dharma and the metaphor are shown, hence it says "fundamental source." From "Huayan..." below: correlating with the teachings, as this is what the complete teaching takes as its central purport. The "four realms of dharmas" are as listed before. However, while all four are called "realm of dharmas," the meaning of "realm" differs: when principle-dharmas are called a "realm," "realm" means nature, meaning that it serves as the essential nature for all defiled and pure dharmas; when phenomenal dharmas are called a "realm," "realm" means differentiation, because each and every phenomenal dharma has distinct limits. That the latter two realms of dharmas possess the meanings of both nature and differentiation is understandable. Although the meanings are four, the essence is one; therefore, melding the four into one, outside the one there are no four, hence it says: "integrated solely in the one reality."

3.4

"Quiet and desolate..." below: gathering all existents to reveal the essence. That [teaching] calls it the realm of dharmas, while this [treatise] calls it the One Mind; this means that this One Mind is the nature of dharmas, hence it is called the realm of dharmas. Names are established according to meaning, but their essence is originally without difference; therefore, it takes the One Mind as the essence of the realm of dharmas. The first two lines show the marks of its virtues: "Quiet" means soundless; "desolate" means colorless. "Void" means that within there is no false defilement; "vast" means broadly pervading the ten directions. "Profound" is indeed deep, vertically penetrating the three periods of time. "Containing" is receiving all without remainder; "extensive" is being able to enter all, universally pervading. "Generally encompassing..." below: clarifying that what it encompasses are all existents, which are all dharmas. The myriad existents do not go beyond the One Mind, and for this reason all [dharmas] are entirely the nature of mind. The nature of mind has nothing outside it; there is nothing it does not fully subsume. This is only intended to reveal the essence, not to subsume the myriad dharmas; fearing that views of something outside mind might persist, it says "generally encompassing," etc. However, all teachings speak of the myriad dharmas being the One Mind, yet there are differences of shallowness and depth; now we summarily distinguish them in terms of the five teachings: 1. The teaching of the Śrāvakas who are deluded about dharmas. It nominally speaks of the One Mind, stating that the defiled and pure dharmas of the mundane and supramundane worlds are all brought about by the karmic actions created by the mind. Upon investigation, the meaning of One Mind is not established; hence it is called "nominally speaking." 2. The provisional Mahāyāna teaching. It clarifies the vipāka-ālaya as the One Mind, because the myriad dharmas of the three realms are only transformed by consciousness. 3. The final teaching. It explains the tathāgatagarbha as the One Mind, because dharmas of consciousness and objects are all like dreams. 4. The sudden teaching. It extinguishes defilement and purity to speak of the One Mind, revealing that the essence is free from words and cut off from all marks; to refute numerical concepts, it provisionally names it "one." 5. The complete teaching. It generally encompasses the myriad existents as the One Mind, because phenomena and principle, root and branches, are without difference, as explained above. The former two teachings are shallow, and the latter three teachings are deep. Within the three teachings there are shallowness and depth of meaning, but the essence is solely the true nature; what is currently discerned is the fifth. The note "precisely corresponds to this gate": what is expressed by this treatise reaches its ultimate here, so what was pointed out above is precisely the realm of dharmas of the one reality in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. But that [sūtra] names it the realm of dharmas on the basis of nature and marks being mutually interfused, whereas this [treatise] calls it the One Mind with reference to specifically designating the essence of the dharma; the purports of the complete and the real differ in this respect.

3.5

"Its essence is cut off from existence and nonexistence": Master Zhao says, "If one wishes to say it exists, it has neither shape nor name; if one wishes to say it does not exist, through it the sages are spiritually efficacious." Therefore, the text below says "neither existent nor nonexistent," etc. "Its marks are not arising and ceasing": "not" means "do not." "Marks" refers to the mark of marklessness; mark is indeed nature. The treatise says: "It does not arise in the previous limit, nor does it cease in the subsequent limit." The Prajñā[-pāramitā] also says: "Neither arising nor ceasing; none can exhaust its beginning." "None" means "there is no." "Exhaust" means to investigate thoroughly. "Beginning" means the start. Since it is not a conditioned dharma of arising and ceasing, none can investigate to the end its initial limit. However, not only is it without beginning, it is moreover without end; this is merely an elliptical expression, hence it says "without beginning." This, then, re-explains the preceding "its marks are not arising and ceasing": because it does not arise, it is without beginning; because it does not cease, it is without end. "How could one see the middle or the extremes?": "Extremes" refers to the two extremes; "middle" is the middle way. Since the two extremes are obliterated, the middle way does not remain; hence it says "how could one see." "How" means "in what way." This, then, re-explains the preceding "its essence is cut off from existence and nonexistence." Existence and nonexistence are precisely the two extremes; previously it was cited summarily, only saying "existence and nonexistence," but now it is fully shown, hence it says "middle and extremes." The note "gate of tathatā": what is explained in that commentary is precisely the meaning of the gate of tathatā here. However, it was merely pointed out and correlated incidentally, and was not yet the proper opening [of the gate]; it will be clarified immediately below.

3.6

From "Under delusion..." below: this is the meaning in the preface of "ascending or descending following delusion or awakening." "Understanding" is initial awakening; "awakening" is realization and entry. Hence the sūtra says: "The realm from beginningless time / is the equal reliance of all dharmas; / due to this there exist all destinies / as well as the attainment of nirvāṇa." This is precisely that meaning. The commentary text is self-evident.

3.7

"Opening the gates relying on the mind": because the treatise says, "Relying on the dharma of the One Mind, there are two gates." "Gate of tathatā": within it, there are [the aspects] beyond words and according with words; within that according with words, there are again empty and non-empty, as fully explained below. "Part of the sudden teaching": because this gate explains that the nature of mind is neither arising nor ceasing, up to being beyond words and cut off from thoughts, it corresponds to this teaching. "Esoterically explained": as the Heart Sūtra says, "These dharmas' mark of emptiness: neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, neither increasing nor decreasing," etc., which are the marks of tathatā. Although it clarifies its marks, it does not specifically reveal the essential nature of tathatā, hence it says "esoterically explained." In principle there is truly no difference, hence it is correlated now.

3.8

From "Relying on the tathāgatagarbha..." below: fully citing the text of the treatise to reveal the marks of arising and ceasing. "Final teaching": it expresses dharmas to the ultimate extent, unlike the initial teaching, which is the beginning gate of the Mahāyāna; therefore it is named the final teaching. The present Awakening of Faith properly clarifies this meaning. From "Because the initial teaching..." below: distinguishing and clarifying. Because the initial teaching also speaks of the ālaya[-vijñāna], but does not say it is formed by the nature of the garbha; now it speaks of it being formed by the nature, hence it does not belong to that category. The Ghanavyūha-sūtra says: "The Buddha spoke of the tathāgatagarbha / as the ālayavijñāna; / those of evil intellect cannot understand / that the garbha is the ālaya consciousness."

3.9

The "latter gate" refers to the gate of arising and ceasing. The "two meanings": the treatise states, "This consciousness has two meanings, which can subsume all dharmas and produce all dharmas. What are the two? The first is the meaning of enlightenment, and the second is the meaning of non-enlightenment," etc. Thus it is clarified in reliance on this. "Meaning of enlightenment": the treatise states, "That which is called enlightenment means that the essence of mind is free from thought. The mark of being free from thought is equal to the realm of empty space, which is precisely the Tathāgata's dharmakāya," etc. Within it, there are actualized enlightenment and original enlightenment. Original enlightenment further has the differences of according with defilement and essential purity, fully as explained in the treatise. The note "Former tathatā..." resolves difficulties regarding what precedes and follows. Someone might say: "Why do the former gate of tathatā and this meaning of enlightenment not clarify opening the meanings to produce dharmas, but only in the latter gate and latter meaning clarify arising?" Therefore this explains it: being unchanging is not according with conditions; the pure mark is original enlightenment; and going against the flow is actualized enlightenment. In all these three meanings above, one cannot speak of the principle of producing defiled dharmas, because the meanings do not accord with it. Only this arising and ceasing and the meaning of non-enlightenment can be spoken of as the sequence of producing defilement. Therefore the previous heading stated, 'relying on defiled dharmas, producing the branches from the root,' and did not say 'pure dharmas, from the branches toward the root'; for this reason, the former gate and former meaning do not speak of arising. "Meaning of non-enlightenment": the treatise states, "That which is called non-enlightenment means that because one does not truly know the oneness of the dharma of tathatā, an unenlightened mind arises and there are its thoughts," etc. Within it, there are differences of the root and the branches. The branches further have the three subtle and six coarse marks, as sequentially cited, and the commentary text is self-evident.

3.10

The "latter meaning" is precisely non-enlightenment. Relying on this non-enlightenment, the mark of karma, etc., arise. These three belong to the stage of the root consciousness; in contrast to the six coarse marks of the subsequent phenomenal consciousness, they are called subtle. Hence the treatise says: "Furthermore, relying on non-enlightenment, three kinds of marks are produced, which are associated with and not separate from that non-enlightenment," etc. "Mark of karma": taking movement as the cause, it acquires its name from two meanings. Hence the treatise says: "First is the mark of karmic avidyā: because relying on non-enlightenment the mind moves, it is called karma. Enlightened, it does not move; moving, there is suffering, because the effect is not separate from the cause." "Mark of turning": the former mark of karma turns to reach this stage, becoming that which can see. Hence the treatise says: "Second is the mark of that which can see: because relying on movement it can see; not moving, there is no seeing." "Mark of manifestation": because relying on the cognizing mind, it brings forth the cognized object. Hence the treatise says: "Third is the mark of objective realms: because relying on that which can see, objective realms falsely manifest; apart from seeing, there are no objective realms." The note "self-substance...": because Consciousness-Only states that when the self-substance of defiled consciousness arises, it transforms to resemble two divisions: resembling that which cognizes is named the vision division; resembling that which is cognized is named the image division. Although the texts differ, the meaning is the same; hence the note correlates them now. The "self-substance" is precisely the self-verifying division.

3.11

The words from 'Namely, Consciousness-Only' onward correlate [this] with the teachings. Reaching only up to the mark of karma means that in that school's explanation of the arising of all phenomena, they take solely the ālayavijñāna as their root; hence they call this consciousness the principal subject of karmic retribution. All seeds, sense faculties, physical bodies, and the receptacle world are transformed from this consciousness, and they furthermore assert that this consciousness alone is the perfumed object. Once perfumed into seeds, which subsequently generate active manifestations, all rely on this consciousness; hence it is called the root of arising. The words from 'Because that' onward give the reason. The reason is that their tradition does not yet state that the One Mind is the source of the two gates of tathatā and arising-and-ceasing, because this was reserved to be explained in the Final Teaching. If all were fully explained, how could the provisional and the real be distinguished? The words 'Thus they state' and so forth mean that because they do not realize that tathatā is precisely mind, they speak of that which is without cognition, without awareness, rigidly immutable. They say this non-cognitive, unaware essence is as hard as jade and stone and cannot receive perfuming, because it is not of a nature that can be perfumed. Since it does not receive perfuming, how could it follow conditions? Therefore, they merely grasp at tathatā being immutable and do not allow it to follow conditions. The words 'Merely stating' and so forth mean that since they do not allow tathatā to follow conditions to form all defilement and purity, they assert that the ālayavijñāna is the root of arising and ceasing; hence their explanation of the arising of phenomena reaches only up to the mark of karma. The words 'Even if transformed' and so forth refer to their statement that the eighth consciousness is transformed into the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, the seventh into the Wisdom of Equality, the sixth into the Wisdom of Wondrous Observation, and the prior five into the Wisdom of Accomplishing Actions. Since the fundamental root is solely arising and ceasing, the wisdom attained is also saṃskṛta. The principle is asaṃskṛta, and they cannot be identical, just as melting gold and molding clay each produce their own vessels—how could they be identical? The words from 'Therefore, that which expresses the Dharma' onward conclude the point, which is readily understood.

3.12

'The last one' is the mark of manifestation. The six coarse marks belong to the stage of the empirical consciousness; interacting with external dust-realms, their marks are conspicuous, so they are collectively named 'coarse'. Thus the treatise states: 'Because there is the condition of objects, six kinds of marks are further produced.' That 'cognition discriminates objects' refers to the mark of cognition: because there are external objects that draw forth the inner mind, causing it to discriminate between what is good, what is bad, and so forth. Thus the treatise states: 'First is the mark of cognition: relying on objects, the mind gives rise to discrimination between the pleasant and the unpleasant.' That 'suffering and joy are therefore produced' means that due to the preceding discrimination, the sensing mind of suffering and joy is subsequently aroused. Thus the treatise states: 'Second is the mark of continuation: relying on cognition, it produces the sensing mind of suffering and joy, giving rise to continuous mental states in association without interruption.' That 'attachment to suffering and joy arises' means grasping at the preceding suffering and joy and seizing them as real. Thus the treatise states: 'Third is the mark of grasping: relying on continuation, it observes and reflects on objects, holding onto suffering and joy so that attachment arises in the mind.' That 'reckoning names and words' means that because one grasps [them] as real, upon hearing a name or general characteristic, anger, delight, and so forth are immediately produced. Thus the treatise states: 'Fourth is the mark of reckoning names and words: relying on false grasping, it discriminates the marks of conventional designations and words.' That 'generating karma' means that because greed and anger are intense, they activate body and speech to generate all kinds of good, bad, and unmoving karma. Thus the treatise states: 'Fifth is the mark of generating karma: relying on names and words, it pursues names, forms attachments, and generates all kinds of karma.' That 'experiencing retribution' means that once the encumbrance of karma is established, it pulls one toward painful fruits, like being bound by a rope without freedom. Thus the treatise states: 'Sixth is the mark of suffering bound by karma: because it experiences fruits relying on karma, it is without freedom.'

3.13

The words from 'The two vehicles' onward contrast the teachings in terms of depth. 'The third' is innate self-grasping. In the teachings of the two vehicles, it is stated that severing this is called the emptiness of the self. The words 'Hence humans and gods' and so forth mean that because those teachings only clarify the karmic conditions of good and evil and the favorable or unfavorable experiencing of retribution, they correspond to generating karma without knowing whence karma arises; therefore, the range of what their Dharma expresses does not reach the fourth.

3.14

The words from 'If taking' onward form the second part, which specifically demonstrates [this]. 'Lineage succession' only considers the continuous arising through gradual stages of delusion regarding the fundamental One Mind, without branching off to explain tathatā and original enlightenment; hence it says 'exclusively', and so forth. 'Abridged into eight levels' is because in full there are fourteen: the gate of tathatā and the meaning of enlightenment do not belong to the sequential stages of arising; the meaning of non-enlightenment within the gate of arising and ceasing is in its entirety the mark of karma; the mark of cognition and continuation are both attachment to dharmas; and grasping and reckoning names are both attachment to the self. By grouping these accordingly, they are abridged into eight.

3.15

Section four contains three parts: first, a general explanation of those who are addressed. The words from 'All' onward consider this in terms of ultimate realization, discussing both secondary and primary together, so all are addressed. Thus the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'All who possess mind are destined to become Buddhas.' The *Yuanjue jing* states: 'Those with nature and those without nature equally attain the Buddha Path.' It also states: 'Just as the great ocean does not turn away small streams, down to mosquitoes, gnats, and asuras who drink its water, all are fully satisfied.' The *Vajracchedikā-sūtra* states that those who generate the bodhi-mind are told to liberate the four modes of birth and nine classes of beings, leading them all into nirvāṇa without remainder. If there were definitively those who do not become Buddhas, why labor to generate this mind? Because all sentient beings fundamentally possess Buddha-nature, as long as they hear this, there are none who do not gain benefit: those whose past capacities are deep awaken and enter; those whose capacities are shallow gain faith and understanding; and even those entirely lacking past seeds are perfumed to form complete and sudden seeds. This is like the diamond ingestion simile in the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra*. The words from 'Different from' onward set aside the provisional teachings. They state that the two vehicles of fixed nature are fixed in nature without alteration, and moreover, once they reach the stage without remainder, body and wisdom are both extinguished—who is left to practice? Those without nature lack wholesome seeds; since wholesome seeds are absent, upon what could they rely to cultivate and advance? Judging by this, neither of them is addressed. However, those [teachings] only speak in terms of the immediate present and a long duration, and therefore do not embrace them comprehensively; this too was reserved to be explained in the Real Teaching.

3.16

The words from 'However, all' onward form the second part, distinguishing them in terms of the three groups. There are three explanations: the Hīnayāna considers sentient beings of the five deeds of immediate retribution to be the wrongly determined group, learners and non-learners to be the rightly determined group, and the remaining beings with and without outflows to be the undetermined group. The provisional teaching considers beings lacking spiritual family to be the wrong group, bodhisattvas to be the right group, and beings of indeterminate nature to be the undetermined group. The Final Teaching considers all ordinary beings to be the wrong group, the three stages of the worthy to be the right group, and the ten faiths to be the undetermined group. Here we follow the latter explanation. The words 'This treatise' and so forth, regarding who is primarily addressed, are readily understood. As for secondarily addressing the wrongly determined group: as long as they see and hear it, it naturally becomes a seed; when it manifests at another time, they will certainly reach liberation. Thus there are the tied jewel in the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra*, the poison drum in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*, and the explanation of suddenly transcending the eight difficulties in the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra*. It also states: 'Even if they do not produce faith and delight, it still forms a wholesome root and will not be in vain, culminating ultimately in entering nirvāṇa.' This clarifies that although through slandering they fall into evil destinies, because it was heard and passed through their ears, they will eventually awaken. The treatise below states: 'In order to cause sentient beings to leave all suffering and attain ultimate bliss.' All are of this category. Regarding secondarily addressing the rightly determined group, the treatise states: 'Because it desires to explain the fundamental meaning of the Tathāgata, so that sentient beings may reach understanding without error.' The commentary correlates this with the three stages of the worthy, so it corresponds to the rightly determined group.

3.17

The words from 'According to this' onward speak based on the five spiritual natures. The doctrine of the five natures appears in both provisional and real teachings. In the previous section on doctrinal tenets, it was judged as not yet definitive because they rigidly grasped that three lacked and two had [the nature], and hence it was called provisional. Now, speaking of those addressed by the teaching, we must consider nature. Although natures are spoken of as five, all are addressed; it is not like the provisional school's rigid grasping of presence and absence. The words from 'Primarily addressed' onward are readily understood. 'Secondarily addressing the remaining natures' refers to the two vehicles and those without spiritual family. Because those of the two vehicles truly have no fixed nature, although they have eliminated samsaric death in portions, they still have the body of inconceivable transformation death; as long as they hear this teaching, they will definitively turn their minds around. The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* states that the four fruits and pratyekabuddhas, taking at the slowest eighty, sixty, forty, or twenty thousand kalpas, turn their minds around in that sequence, just as drunkards awaken with varying speeds; awakening from the wine of samādhi is also like this. Hence the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* states: 'Intoxicated by the wine of samādhi, they do not awaken for kalpas; when the wine dissipates they then awaken, attaining the unsurpassed body of the Buddha.' Those without spiritual family merely lack a wholesome nature; if they hear this teaching, wholesome seeds will naturally form, and when meeting conditions they will arise, so they will certainly become Buddhas. The *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* speaks of two kinds of icchantikas: first, great compassion bodhisattvas; second, those who have severed wholesome roots. The Buddha said that of the two, the one who never enters is only the great compassion bodhisattva; one should know that those who have severed wholesome roots, upon hearing the sūtras and gaining awakening, will certainly enter later. This explanation is fully present in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*. Now this treatise states: 'It indicates the cultivation of calm abiding and insight in order to remedy the mental faults of ordinary beings and the two vehicles.' Within this, the meaning implicitly includes those of fixed nature and those without nature; hence a later passage states: 'Remedying the two vehicles' fault of a narrow and inferior mind that does not give rise to great compassion, and staying far from ordinary beings who do not cultivate wholesome roots.' Now, not giving rise to great compassion—is that not one of fixed nature? Not cultivating wholesome roots—is that not one without nature? One should know that although the Real Teaching speaks of five natures, they are not rigidly five; all are addressed.

3.18

The words from 'Furthermore, because' onward form the third part, specifically indicating the text below. Specifically clarifying those who are addressed: those addressed by a treatise do not exceed the three capacities, which are explained in both a general and a specific way. In the general sense, the text of the treatise is not divided; superior, middling, and inferior capacities simply rely on it to enter altogether. In the specific sense, the two sections on establishing the meaning and explaining the meaning address those of superior capacity for awakening and entering; the section on practicing faith addresses those of middling capacity; and the section on encouraging practice and the benefits addresses those of inferior capacity. However, those of superior capacity need not hear the teachings for middling and inferior, while those of inferior capacity must also hear the teachings for middling and superior; the middling capacity is understood accordingly. This explanation is still the general within the specific. If discussed in greater detail, correlated with the stages: the section on establishing the meaning and, within the section on explaining the meaning, the parts showing the correct meaning and remedying false attachments address bodhisattvas of the three stages of the worthy as superior capacities for awakening and entering; the part discriminating the marks of setting forth toward the path addresses those of fulfilled mind in the ten faiths as middling capacities; and the text from the section on practicing faith onward addresses those of abiding mind and entering mind in the ten faiths as inferior capacities. Furthermore, within the stage of the ten faiths there are themselves distinctions among three capacities: taking the fulfilled mind of the ten faiths as the superior capacity, which is as correlated above; taking the abiding mind of the ten faiths as the middling capacity, which relies on the four kinds of faith and four kinds of practice in the fourth section for awakening and entering; and taking the initial mind of the ten faiths as the inferior capacity. Within this inferior capacity there are again three kinds: taking the passage of text after the four practices and before calm abiding and insight as addressing the inferior capacity for awakening and entering; taking the single gate of calm abiding and insight as addressing the middling capacity; and taking the single gate of encouraging rebirth in the Pure Land as addressing the superior capacity. The single section on encouraging practice and the benefits universally spurs the preceding three, and the single section on causes and conditions merely clarifies the reason for the treatise's origin, so in this section those addressed are not specifically clarified, as correlated in the commentary below.

3.19

Within section five, first is the general statement. 'The essence of the expressing teaching' comprehensively clarifies what serves as the essence for the teachings of the various Buddhas down to this treatise, such that they can express and reveal immeasurable phenomena and principles. Now it is explained briefly through four gates.

3.20

Second, the specific explanation has four parts: first, 'according with marks' means determining the essence in terms of the objective marks of the six sense-dusts. 'Names, sentences, and phonemes' are the inflectional expressions upon sounds; they are provisional and not real, belonging to the category of non-associated formations. Thus the treatise states: 'One name, two names, multiple names—this is called a name-group. One sentence, two sentences, multiple sentences—this is called a sentence-group. One phoneme, two phonemes, multiple phonemes—this is called a phoneme-group.' That which can express the intrinsic nature of phenomena is 'names': names are the expressers, and the intrinsic nature of phenomena is what is expressed. For instance, speaking of form, speaking of mind, speaking of water and fire, and so forth, because each expresses the intrinsic nature of a phenomenon. 'Distinctions' are 'sentences': sentences are the expressers, and the distinctions among phenomena are what is expressed. For instance, speaking of shapes, visible colors, true mind, false mind, and so forth; all phenomena follow this pattern, because within each phenomenon they delineate distinctions. 'That upon which both rely' is 'phonemes': both refers to names and sentences, and phonemes are precisely written letters/syllables, because these universally serve as that upon which the two dharmas of names and sentences rely. Therefore, names are arranged in sequence, sentences are disposed in sequence, and phonemes are joined in sequence. These directly express meanings and principles, and for this reason they are taken as the essence of the teaching.

3.21

In "Or only..." below, the second is sound alone. Because sound is the speech of the master of teaching, "sound" means the enunciated words of the Buddha. Through review, speech sounds, pathways of speech, karma of speech, and manifestation through speech, it is therefore called "sound." In "Apart from sound..." below, it explains this. Although names, sentences, and phonemes can directly express meanings and principles, they are merely inflectional marks upon sound, established conventionally and lacking intrinsic substance. Sound is a material dharma, and material dharmas are substantial, whereas names and the rest are conditioning forces not associated [with the mind], neither material nor mental, established conventionally only in relation to the states of matter and mind. For this reason, outside the substantial there is no conventional, and therefore, subsuming the conventional to follow the substantial, one takes only sound as the substance of the teaching; hence it says that apart from sound there are no separate names and the like. The Vibhāṣā-śāstra states: "The Buddha's teaching takes speech karma as its substance."

3.22

In "Conventional and substantial..." below, the third is encompassing the four dharmas. Since the two explanations above each take principle and teaching as their standard, one must not take either exclusively. Here both are comprehensively included, because sound alone cannot express meaning, while names, sentences, and phonemes alone have no distinct substance; only when all four dharmas are accepted does the substance of the teaching come into being. Just as water together with motion can only then move a boat, between these two one cannot choose only one. If a person simply emits a sound without uttering words and sentences, what could it express? And if there were no sound, what would names and the like rely on? Hence, both are taken together here. Thus the Kośa states: "The Munindra's spoken store of teachings / numbered eighty thousand; / its substance (the substance of the teaching) was speech (sound) or name (name and sentence), / subsumed under this material (sound) and compositional (name and sentence) aggregate."

3.23

In "Furthermore, pervading..." below, the fourth is pervading all things. Though all things are many, they do not exceed the boundaries of the six dusts; so long as they can generate understanding in sentient beings, they are the substance of the teaching—how could it reside solely in sound, names, sentences, and phonemes? Hence the Vimalakīrti-sūtra states: "There are those who perform Buddha-work by means of light; there are those who do so by means of the bodhi tree, clothing, and bedding, even up to the eighty-four thousand gates of affliction. Sentient beings consider them toil and distress, but the Buddhas use these very dharmas to perform Buddha-work." The Laṅkāvatāra states: "Mahāmati, it is not in all Buddha-lands that the Dharma is taught through speech; there are Buddha-realms where gazing directly without blinking, with no spoken words from the mouth, or even where moving the body is called teaching the Dharma, and so forth." Furthermore, in the Xiangji world, eating fragrant rice manifests samādhi; in the Land of Ultimate Bliss, listening to the wind in the branches brings right mindfulness to fulfillment. Silk strings and bamboo flutes can convey the mind; meeting eyes can preserve the Way. Since both speech and silence, looking and blinking, are all teachings, then seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing are entirely listening. If one can indeed grasp the Dharma and accord with the spirit, why must it rely on spoken words? As in the Śūraṅgama-sūtra, where the twenty-five sages attained perfect penetration, each through one gate among the eighteen realms and the seven great elements. Here, the six dusts are still discussed in terms of cognitive objects; the rest should be understood accordingly. Tiantai stated: "Hands not holding a scroll, one is constantly reading the sūtras; mouth with no sound of words, one chants all the scriptures everywhere; the Buddha does not preach the Dharma, yet one constantly hears the pure sound; mind not deliberating, it illuminates the entire dharmadhātu everywhere." These all convey this meaning.

3.24

Regarding the approach of mind-only, the substance is brought forth with respect to the deluded mind. Now, first considering the reciprocal relation between archetype and reflection, four propositions are formed across all the teachings: First, archetype only and no reflection, which is the Hīnayāna teaching, because it does not know that all dharmas are manifested by vijñaptimātra and are entirely reflected images. Second, reflection only and no archetype, which is the final teaching, because in the fruit of Buddhahood there are no separate material and audible virtues, but only suchness and suchness-wisdom existing solely, using great compassion and great wisdom merely as an empowering condition to cause the Buddha's physical form, voice, and teaching of the Dharma to appear within the minds of beings whose faculties have matured; therefore, the Buddha's teaching is merely a reflected image in the minds of beings. Thus the Avataṃsaka states: "The Buddhas have no Dharma; / regarding what could the Buddha preach? / Only in accordance with their own minds / does he teach such a Dharma for them." Third, both archetype and reflection, which is the provisional teaching of the Mahāyāna, meaning that what the Buddha himself preaches, both text and meaning, are manifested by pure consciousness associated with the marvelous observing wisdom, and this is called the archetypal teaching; while the text and meaning transformed upon the consciousness of the hearer are the reflected-image teaching. Only when Buddhas and sentient beings serve mutually as empowering conditions does the teaching arise; hence the Vijñaptimātra text says: "Through reciprocal empowering strength, / the two consciousnesses become determined." Fourth, neither archetype nor reflection, which is the sudden teaching. Not only is there no Buddha's physical form and voice outside the mind, but the reflected images within the minds of sentient beings are also empty, because their nature is originally apart [from marks] and their marks are originally cut off; this is simply the teaching of no-teaching. Thus the Vimalakīrti-sūtra states: "One who teaches the Dharma has nothing to preach and nothing to indicate; one who hears the Dharma has nothing to hear and nothing to attain." What is clarified here is the second proposition: reflection only, not archetype. In "The speaker's pure consciousness..." and so forth, the momentum of the phrasing here seems to suggest the proposition possessing both archetype and reflection, yet the intent clarifies reflection only and not archetype. Although it says "manifested by pure consciousness," the intent is to show that great compassion and great wisdom serve as the empowering condition. Moreover, it mentions only the Buddha serving as the empowering condition for sentient beings, without mentioning sentient beings serving as the empowering condition for the Buddha, because its intent lies in reflection only. Furthermore, the Buddha's pure consciousness is the true mind of sentient beings; the Buddha's manifestation is the sentient beings' manifestation, and both are reflections. Citing the scriptural passage makes this clear; how could one see the phrase "manifested by pure consciousness as an empowering condition" and immediately take both archetype and reflection together, identifying it with the provisional teaching? One must penetrate it through the intent and not be constrained by the phrasing; let the learner reflect upon this. Thus the text below says in full: "All dharmas have distinctions only based on deluded thoughts; if one is apart from mental thoughts, then there are no marks of any objective realms." In "Therefore..." below, it concludes the meaning. When it speaks of "one's own mind," this is precisely the deluded consciousness, not the true mind. The text below says: "The three realms are deceptive, made by mind alone; apart from mind, there are no objective realms of the six dusts."

3.25

Regarding the approach of returning to nature, the substance is brought forth with respect to the true mind. In "This consciousness..." and so forth, the previous approach already subsumed differentiated objects, leaving only the transforming conscious mind. Now it further subsumes that prior conscious mind to be merely the One Mind, and the One Mind is the nature of tathatā, which is called "returning to nature"; hence it says that this consciousness has no substance. It is like a person who falls asleep and dreams of seeing various things: the things do not depart from the dream, and the dream does not depart from the person. Tracing and seeking the true substance of the teaching step by step reaches its culmination here. The ancients said that "mind is the sūtra," which is precisely this meaning. When it says "all," this refers to material and mental dharmas; it is not merely so at present, hence it says "from the beginningless past." It exceeds and departs from the mark of names and words, and departs from the mark of mental cognition, hence it says "and so forth." Now, being apart from speech, it is not the former sound; being apart from names, it is not the former names, sentences, and phonemes; being apart from mental cognition, it is not the former vijñaptimātra; the One Mind of tathatā constitutes this approach of returning to nature. This also accords with the Commentary on the Yuanjue jing, which states: "Sentient beings and dharmas are fundamentally nonexistent; everything is vijñaptimātra. Consciousness is like an illusion or dream, being merely the One Mind." The Śūraṅgama states: "The seeing and the conditions of seeing, seemingly manifesting as the objective realm before us, are originally my enlightened clarity."

3.26

Regarding the approach of non-obstruction, the substance is brought forth with respect to the non-obstruction of the three approaches. In "Meaning..." below, it gives the proper explanation. Mind is the approach of vijñaptimātra; object is the approach of according with marks; principle is the approach of returning to nature; phenomenon is the first two approaches; because it forms a proposition in contrast to principle, it is reiterated here. In "identical single dependent origination," the three approaches above together constitute the single great dependent origination of the dharmadhātu: object is not an object of itself, but is an object due to mind; mind is not a mind of itself, but is a mind due to object. There has never been delusion dependent on the true that did not arise from the true; there has never been the true according with delusion that was not revealed based on delusion. Such being the case, object is the object of mind, and mind is the mind of object; the true is the true of delusion, and delusion is the delusion of the true. Leaning upon one another and mutually assisting each other, if either is lacking, neither can be established; hence it says "identical single dependent origination." "Blending and harmonizing..." and so forth refers to the unimpeded dharmadhātu. That is, whether mind or object, principle or phenomenon, the one and the many are immediately identical and interpenetrate, both without obstruction; thus, all movements, stillnesses, verticalities, and horizontalities are nothing other than the substance of the teaching. In "Because..." below, it sets forth the reason. The reason why the mind and object, principle and phenomenon above can attain non-obstruction is that all dharmas do not depart from the two gates, and the two gates are only the One Mind. For returning to nature corresponds to the tathatā gate, and the former two correspond to the arising-and-ceasing gate. The two gates are non-dual, being precisely the One Mind. Fused through this One Mind, they therefore achieve the identical single dependent origination, unimpeded and sovereign.

3.27

In the sixth, there are two parts: first, marking the section and explaining the terms. The preceding distinguished the substance of the expressing text; this clarifies the purport of the expressed meaning. That which is venerable, weighty, and lofty within the meaning is called the "tenet" (zong). That to which one turns and aims toward is called the "purport" (qu). In "This text..." and so forth, as the Lotus Sutra takes the One Vehicle as its tenet, the Nirvāṇa Sutra takes Buddha-nature as its tenet, the Avataṃsaka takes the dharmadhātu as its tenet, and the Vimalakīrti takes inconceivable liberation as its tenet, and so forth. However, tenets are of many kinds. If clarified in terms of the confrontation between proponent and opponent, then that which words indicate is called the tenet; this takes only the meaning under discussion on a single occasion, as in saying "sound is the subject, being definitely impermanent is the tenet," and so forth. If clarified in terms of practicing persons, then that which the mind esteems is called the tenet, as in following respectively the sūtras, vinaya, śāstras, etc. that they practice. Here, what is clarified is that which an entire work esteems, serving as sovereign and primary, designated as the tenet. If one takes this as the tenet, to what meaning does it ultimately return? It means causing one to have faith in, understand, and practice this Dharma, so that one will necessarily arrive at realization and entry; hence it is called "that to which the tenet returns."

3.28

The laying out of the sections is as in the text.

3.29

In the proper distinction, first, "according with marks and attachment to dharmas" is marking the name. Taking phenomenal dharmas as the tenet, it is called "according with marks." Conceptualizing dharmas as definitely real, the phrasing calls it "attachment to dharmas." "The masters of the Hīnayāna" are the masters of the tenet. The fundamental branches were the Sthavira and the Mahāsāṃghika, which gradually divided into the twenty schools. "Āgamas, etc." are the sūtras relied upon, "etc." including such sūtras as the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra and the Abhiniṣkramaṇa-sūtra. In "By composing..." below, these are the śāstras composed, namely such treatises as the Vibhāṣā and the Kośa. In the approaches below, all four of these apply analogously. "True emptiness and marklessness": form is emptiness itself, and the illness of emptiness is also empty, hence called "true emptiness." Being apart from all marks, it is called "marklessness." "Prajñā, etc." includes the eight sections and various emptiness sūtras. "Madhyamaka, etc." includes works like the Śata-śāstra and the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra. "Mind-only and dharma-marks": "only" excludes the existence of external objects, and "consciousness" selects against the non-existence of mind. All dharmas are transformed by consciousness alone, and because it takes phenomenal dharmas as its tenet, it is called the Faxiang school. "Vijñaptimātra, etc." includes such treatises as the Abhidharmasamuccaya and the Śatadharma. "Tathāgatagarbha dependent origination" is the tathāgatagarbha mind according with defiled and pure conditions to originate all dharmas. "Laṅkāvatāra, etc." includes sūtras like the Śrīmālā and the Ghanavyūha. "Awakening of Faith, etc." includes treatises like the Foxing lun and the Ratnagotravibhāga. "Consummate integration and possession of virtues": "consummate" means complete, with nature and marks being all-pervading; "integration" means blended harmony, with principle and phenomenon without obstruction. "Possession of virtues" means layer upon layer without end, where not a single dust speck or single hair fails to accord with nature or fails to encompass and pervade everything, as clarified above under the consummate teaching.

3.30

In "Now this..." below, the second points to this treatise. The fourth is the tenet of tathāgatagarbha dependent origination. Because what this treatise expresses clarifies that the neither-arising-nor-ceasing tathāgatagarbha combines with arising and ceasing, named the ālaya[vijñāna] and so forth, extensively distinguishing the dependent origination of all defiled and pure dharmas.

3.31

In "However, this..." below, third, he reconciles the five teachings. Yet, simply put, what the Buddha preached constitutes the teachings (jiào), while what persons esteem is called the tenor (zōng). Teachings and tenor are not distinct; hence the root commentary analyzed them according to the teachings. Here, however, sorting them through sūtras yields differences in scope (broad and narrow). As for "a single sūtra accommodating multiple teachings": for example, the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra* fully expounds the ten unwholesome actions and ten wholesome actions, which is the human-and-heaven teaching; it expounds the four truths and twelve links of dependent origination, which is the Hīnayāna teaching; it fully enumerates stages and ranks, which is the differentiated teaching. The verse by the three devas says: "The dharmatā is originally empty and quiescent, neither grasping nor relinquishing; emptiness of nature is itself the Buddha, which cannot be conceived"—this is the initial teaching. "As the mind is, so is the Buddha; as the Buddha is, so are sentient beings; the mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without distinction"—this is the final teaching. "At the very moment of initial aspiration, one immediately achieves correct enlightenment"—this is the sudden teaching. "All things are unobstructed"—this is the perfect teaching. Other sūtras may contain five, four, three, or two teachings, varying in number. As for "a tenor encompassing many sūtras": this treatise takes as its tenor more than one hundred Mahāyāna sūtras. As for "whatever [sūtras]": whatever contains the definitive meaning (nītārtha) among the sūtras is taken as the tenor here. Furthermore, just as the meaning of emptiness in all sūtras constitutes the tenor of the Three Treatises, all others are modeled on this. What has been elucidated above is stated merely in terms of the broad sense where both teaching and tenor are expansive. In the narrow sense, just as each of the aforementioned five teachings expresses only one doctrine and they do not mutually penetrate, so if one sūtra expresses only one doctrine, this is called "narrow teaching." The tenor articulated following the teaching is also like this; this is called "narrow tenor."

First 31 of 43 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

起信論疏筆削記 — Classical Chinese