起信論疏筆削記 8

English (machine translation) 8

Language: English

8.1

Recorded by Zixuan, Śramaṇa of Changshui

Regarding 'Sectional explanation of the dharma of the mind of arising and ceasing': this is because the 'Establishing the Meaning' section states, 'It is the marks of causes and conditions of the arising and ceasing of the mind that can reveal the essence, marks, and function of the Mahāyāna itself.' Now, this present text directly explains the marks of causes and conditions of arising and ceasing. 'Defiled and pure arising and ceasing': defiled dharmas and pure dharmas each have arising and ceasing; for the defiled, going along with the stream is arising, and going against the stream is ceasing; for the pure, going against the stream is arising, and going along with the stream is ceasing. Furthermore, when defiled dharmas arise, it is when pure dharmas cease; when pure dharmas arise, it is when defiled dharmas cease. Furthermore, the arising of defiled dharmas is deluded arising, and their ceasing is complete cessation; the arising of pure dharmas is manifest arising, and their ceasing is concealed cessation. Although both are generally called arising and ceasing, there is this difference in their meanings.

8.3

First, indicating the essence. The treatise states: 'Tathāgatagarbha' possesses three meanings: concealing, containing, and producing. Within 'concealing', there are again two meanings: First, because it conceals the Tathāgata, it is called tathāgatagarbha. That is, afflictions are that which conceals, and the Tathāgata is that which is concealed; concealed within the Tathāgata, the treasury of the Tathāgata—this is a tatpuruṣa compound. It is like having gold within a chest and calling it a gold chest; the chest is not gold. Therefore the Liqu bore states: 'All sentient beings are tathāgatagarbha.' The Śrīmālā and the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra both have this explanation. Second, the Tathāgata itself is concealed and does not appear, so it is called tathāgatagarbha. The dharmakāya is markless; it cannot be known by wisdom or cognized by consciousness, let alone seen with the eyes. Here, the Tathāgata is itself the treasury—this is a karmadhāraya compound, as explained in the Treatise on Buddha-nature. Within 'containing', there are again three meanings: 1. The essence contains the function, meaning that within the dharmakāya there are the marks and functions of bodies and lands, and so forth; 2. The noble contains the ordinary, meaning that all sentient beings are within the Tathāgata's wisdom, also as explained in the Treatise on Buddha-nature; 3. The cause contains the fruit, meaning that the causal stage already encompasses the virtues of the fruitional stage; here, the cause is the treasury because it conceals the fruitional Buddha. The first two are karmadhāraya compounds, and the latter is a tatpuruṣa compound. Regarding 'producing', this means that the realization of tathatā across the ten stages is called the treasury, and the ability to accomplish the Buddha fruit is called the Tathāgata; this is also a karmadhāraya compound. Now, in this treatise, among the six meanings, excluding the fourth and the sixth, the remaining all apply.

8.4

The Commentary has two parts: now first, the correct explanation. Regarding 'indicating the essence', there are general and specific explanations. The specific explanation only takes that which is relied upon—namely, the tathāgatagarbha is the essence. The general explanation additionally includes that which relies—namely, both the tathāgatagarbha and the mind of arising and ceasing are the essence, because dharmas of arising and ceasing all rely upon this. Now both explanations are accommodated. 'However, this…' and so forth reveals the meaning of arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, explaining that that which relies and that which is relied upon actually do not have two essences; there is only the principle of mutual reliance, but no [separate] essences of dharmas that rely on each other. 'Like the unmoving…' and so forth reveals this through metaphor. 'One should know…' and so forth applies the metaphor to the dharma; both are as in the text. Saying 'think upon it' is intended to make one carefully coordinate them, causing the dharma to be like the metaphor, both being without two essences. 'The Laṅkāvatāra…' and so forth cites scriptural proof. The sūtra says: 'Mahāmati! The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of the transmigration of suffering and bliss, which cannot be perceived by the confused intellect and wisdom of foolish, ordinary persons.' The Śrīmālā says: 'World-Honoured One! In reliance on the tathāgatagarbha, there is arising and ceasing; in reliance on the tathāgatagarbha, one realizes nirvāṇa. World-Honoured One! If there were no tathāgatagarbha, one could not loathe the suffering of saṃsāra and seek the bliss of nirvāṇa.'

8.5

'This reveals…' and so forth is the second, eliminating confusion. It is like saying that waves exist in reliance on water, the intent being to show that the water that is relied upon entirely arises to become the waves that rely; it is not like a child existing in reliance on a mother, where the mother does not entirely become the child, because subject and object are distinct. Thus, this is a vertical discussion adducing a single dharma, not a horizontal explanation regarding two dharmas. 'Because of this…' and so forth brings forth the reason. Because it is the real that is relied upon that arises to become the deluded that relies, there can be the two meanings of enlightenment and non-enlightenment. Because there are these two meanings, the three greatnesses within the meaning of enlightenment are then revealed by means of the deluded dharma of non-enlightenment. Just as after water has arisen to become waves, motion and wetness are both fully present; because motion and wetness are present, one can then reveal the wetness by means of the motion. If one were to say that a child exists in reliance on a mother, the mother is not within the child; because she is not within, one cannot reveal the mother by means of the child. 'Therefore…' and so forth concludes and establishes that the above meaning of that which is relied upon is precisely the tathāgatagarbha.

8.6

In the second part, distinguishing the marks, the Commentary has two: first, explaining the meaning of harmonization, in three parts; now first, briefly pointing it out. 'It does not mean…' and so forth conveys the meaning that the arising and ceasing generated by tathatā harmonizes back with the tathatā of arising and ceasing; it does not mean that there is a separate section of arising and ceasing that comes from outside to harmonize with tathatā. 'The mind of arising and ceasing' refers to the real that is entirely deluded; 'the arising and ceasing of the mind' refers to the deluded that is entirely real. This is the root and branches mutually subsuming each other; it does not mean concluding with the six compound analyses. 'Without two marks': the mind is the essence, and arising and ceasing is the mark; whether considered forward or backward, they are both one, and therefore there are not two.

8.7

'Under the mind…' is the second, complete explanation, in two parts: first, the correct explanation. The non-arising and non-ceasing of the mind is the tathatā gate; the mind of arising and ceasing is the arising and ceasing gate. 'Arising from original enlightenment' exhausts the source of delusion. However, it is original enlightenment arising to become arising and ceasing; it does not mean that there is a separate arising and ceasing that arises from enlightenment. It is like water generating waves; this meaning is no different. Original enlightenment is precisely the tathāgatagarbha. 'Without two essences': previously it said 'without two marks', and here it says 'without two essences', the intent being to clarify that there is only one mark and one essence, because the mind is the essence of arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing is the mark of the mind, enlightenment becomes non-enlightenment, and non-enlightenment and enlightenment do not abandon or separate from each other.

8.8

'Therefore, the text below…' is the second, citing scriptural proof, in three parts: first, citing the text. This is the text within the section on original enlightenment in accordance with defilement.

8.9

'Within this…' is the second, explaining the intent. It can be understood.

8.10

'The mind also…' is the third, applying the metaphor to the dharma. 'Spiritual comprehension' means that original enlightenment is unobscured, functioning with luminous clarity. The rest of the text can be understood.

8.11

The Commentary states: 'This is…' and so forth is eliminating confusion. The harmonization of non-arising and non-ceasing with arising and ceasing refers to the real turning in accordance with the deluded, which is the gate of transmigration—namely, the meaning of turning away from enlightenment to merge with the dust of defilement. 'It is not…' and so forth refers to resting delusion to return to the real, which is the gate of return to cessation—namely, the meaning of extinguishing dust to merge with enlightenment. However, in these two, in conforming harmonization the essence is concealed and the marks manifest; in reversing harmonization the marks disappear and the essence is revealed. Therefore the preceding gate states: 'Because all dharmas are completely real, they are all identical to tathatā.' This is reversing harmonization. This present gate states: 'In reliance on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing.' And it further states: 'Delusion relies on enlightenment', and so forth. This is conforming harmonization. For this reason, the former meaning in the Commentary is the arising and ceasing gate, and the latter meaning is the tathatā gate.

8.12

Regarding 'neither one nor different' in the treatise, there are three parts: first, briefly clarifying it with regard to the dharma. The Commentary states: 'Tathatā' is the preceding non-arising and non-ceasing. Because it is not a partial movement, it says 'in its entirety'. Since it moves in its entirety to become the dharmas of arising and ceasing, what difference could there be? Although it becomes arising and ceasing, its nature does not change; it has been so from the origin, not just beginning now, hence it says 'and yet constant'. Arising and ceasing is change, which differs in meaning from unchanging, hence it says 'neither one'.

8.13

'The Laṅkāvatāra…' and so forth is the second, identifying the essence according to the sūtra. The seven consciousnesses are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensing, knowing, and manas. The rest of the text can be understood.

8.14

Under 'the approach of non-difference', third, extensively explaining on the basis of the meaning, which has three [parts]: first, separate explanations, which has two: first, explaining non-difference, in three [subsections]. However, in these three sections, tathatā is taken as the root and arising-and-ceasing as the branch in all of them. The first is spoken looking from the unarising-and-unceasing toward arising-and-ceasing; the next is spoken looking from arising-and-ceasing toward the unarising-and-unceasing; the last is spoken of both gates at the same time and in the same place. That which is non-different has its meaning within the six characters 'able' (neng), 'form' (cheng), 'identical' (ji), 'only' (wei), 'same' (tong), and 'together' (ju); comprehend them thoroughly according to the text. Question: The treatise says 'neither one nor different'; the commentary ought to conform to the treatise to explain it. Why does it first explain non-difference and afterwards explain non-oneness? Answer: Because the treatise follows the convenience of the meaning of 'depending on the true, the false arises', it first presents non-oneness and afterwards speaks of non-difference. The text says: 'Depending on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing; the unarising-and-unceasing combines with arising-and-ceasing.' This is the meaning of non-oneness. Yet since this arising-and-ceasing depends on the nature of non-separation from the mind-essence, only after this can one speak of non-difference. The commentary's text broadly explains according to the doctrine so as to cause people to give rise to understanding. One must first know that the essence is non-dual; because it is non-dual, only then does it not form oneness. This then fully clarifies [it] in accordance with the doctrine, causing one to awaken to the fact that originally there is no difference between the true and the false. Having awakened to this doctrine, allowing the differentiation of conceptual distinction, one will then not be deluded about the root. Therefore the commentary below says: 'Herein, it is not merely that one clarifies non-oneness without violating non-difference; it is also that due to non-difference, non-oneness is established.' Now first, explaining by bringing the root along with the branches. The sūtra says: That is, the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra*. 'The cause of wholesome and unwholesome': the ten unwholesome deeds such as killing are unwholesome; the ten such as non-killing are wholesome. 'All destinies and births': the six destinies and four forms of birth, among which are contained both wholesome and unwholesome. 'Arising and ceasing' has the meaning of discarding an aggregate and taking up an aggregate. Thus the tathāgatagarbha is tathatā, and the wholesome, unwholesome, and so forth are arising-and-ceasing. Since it says that the tathāgatagarbha is the cause and is able to create [them], that is non-difference. Further, the sūtra is the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*; the text says: 'For example, in the Snow Mountains there is a medicine of a single taste named "Pleasant Taste". Its taste is extremely sweet; being beneath deep thickets, no person can see it. Someone smelled its fragrance and knew that in that ground there must be this medicine. In past ages there was a wheel-turning king who, for the sake of this medicine in the Snow Mountains, constructed wooden pipes everywhere to receive this medicine. When this medicine matured, it flowed out from the ground and gathered in the wooden pipes, its taste being true and correct. After that king passed away, this medicine became vinegar, or salty, sweet, bitter, pungent, or sour—the six tastes forming distinctions. Thus this single taste had various tastes according to the places where it flowed.' This is an analogy for Buddha-nature: because of afflictions it produces various tastes, namely the six paths and so forth. Thus Buddha-nature is tathatā, and the six paths are arising-and-ceasing. Since it says that Buddha-nature forms them according to [conditions], that is the meaning of non-difference.

8.15

Under 'second, subsuming the branches', there are two: first, directly explaining the present meaning. 'Sentient beings are identical with tathatā' is from the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra*, as cited earlier. Yet sentient beings are arising-and-ceasing, and 'tathatā' is tathatā; since it says they are identical, one should know they are not different. 'The *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* and so forth': the text says: 'Good son! In various sūtras I have taught that if someone sees the twelve links of dependent origination, they see the Dharma; one who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha; one who sees the Buddha sees Buddha-nature. Why is this? All Buddhas take this as their nature. Good son! Contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination involves four kinds of cognition and attains four kinds of bodhi.' Down to saying: 'Due to this meaning, the twelve links of dependent origination are called Buddha-nature.' Thus Buddha-nature is tathatā, and the twelve links of dependent origination are arising-and-ceasing. Since it says the twelve links of dependent origination are Buddha-nature, how could they be said to be different? 'The *Daśabhūmika* and so forth': this is the meaning of the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra*. That sūtra's text says: 'Sons of the Buddha! The bodhisattva further thinks: Whatever exists in the triple world is only the One Mind. It is with respect to this that the Tathāgata analytically expounds the twelve limbs of existence, all being established in this way upon the One Mind.' Now what the commentary cites is that treatise quoting the sūtra. 'Ultimate truth' is the treatise's commentary. The mind is the true mark of the middle way, hence it is called the ultimate truth. Thus the triple world is arising-and-ceasing, the One Mind is tathatā, and the single character 'only' (wei) reveals non-difference. Furthermore, 'under this' refers to the text within actualized enlightenment: the four marks are arising-and-ceasing, and the single enlightenment is tathatā. Since it says they are equal and the same, how could one wish to make them different? Yet this meaning of non-difference is profound and hidden, difficult to believe and understand; therefore it broadly cites sūtras and treatises to substantiate it.

8.16

Under 'further, before', second, re-differentiating against the previous. That is, re-evaluating against the previous section to clarify non-difference. 'The root that is identical with the branches' re-explains the previous section. This then gathers the root by means of the branches; there is no root that is not the branches. Just as subsuming water by means of waves, there is no water that is not waves—what other water could be different from waves? Hence it says 'non-different'. 'Afterwards, identical with' and so forth re-differentiates the meaning of subsuming the branches into the root in this section. This then gathers the branches by means of the root; there are no branches that are not the root. Just as subsuming waves by means of water, there are no waves that are not water—what other waves could be different from water? The former is solely the branches, and the latter is solely the root; since there are no two marks, it says 'non-different'.

8.17

In 'third, equality of root and branches', 'the sūtra says' is the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra*. The text says: 'Mahāmati! The tathāgatagarbha-ālaya-consciousness is originally pure in its nature, but being defiled by adventitious defilements, it becomes impure. For Queen Śrīmālā and other bodhisattvas of profound, subtle, and pure cognition, I taught that the tathāgatagarbha is called the ālaya-consciousness, arising together with the seven consciousnesses, so that the śrāvakas may see the selflessness of dharmas. For Śrīmālā I taught the realm of the Buddha, not the realm of non-Buddhists.' This says that the tathāgatagarbha is tathatā; tathatā is the root, and the seven consciousnesses are arising-and-ceasing. Arising-and-ceasing is the branches; since it says they are 'together' (ju), that is the meaning of equality. Further, 'the sūtra' is also that sūtra; it differs slightly from the previous text, but the meaning is largely the same, which can be understood upon examination. Further, 'the treatise' is the *Daśabhūmika-śāstra*. 'Only the true does not arise': because the fruit Buddha has no arising. 'Solitary falsehood is not established': because it has nothing on which to rely. Now, a dharma of solely the true is possible, but a dharma of solitary falsehood is completely non-existent; here they are stated in this way temporarily by way of correlation. 'This then' and below generally concludes, and also comprehensively concludes the three approaches; examine it.

8.18

Under 'not one', explaining non-oneness, the text has four: now first, continuing from the preceding to directly explain, in four [parts]: first, directly explaining. The root that subsumes the branches is the tathatā of arising-and-ceasing; the branches that subsume the root are the arising-and-ceasing of tathatā. Since one is arising-and-ceasing and one is unarising-and-unceasing, how could they have the meaning of oneness? Thus within the non-difference of mind, it clarifies the meaning of non-oneness.

8.19

Under 'relying on this', second, citing proof. It can be understood.

8.20

Under 'the explanation says', third, explaining the intended meaning of the cited text above. 'Not within' means there is no 'within' in which it could reside, unlike two persons being together within one room. It is just like two trees making a forest: once the two trees are distinguished, only then can one say that one tree is not within the forest.

8.21

Under 'this is in terms of', fourth, resolving an objection. Someone might ask: 'Since their meanings are not one, they should not be harmonious and united.' Therefore this explains it. That is, between the two meanings, it speaks by singling out this meaning; it does not mean that destroying their harmony and union establishes non-oneness. Thus one knows that at the very time of speaking of this meaning of non-oneness, that dharma is originally harmonious and united of itself. 'Why is this?': probing the meaning. How can it not destroy harmony and union, and yet be non-one? 'Herein' and below is the explanation. 'The tathāgatagarbha' and so forth means that since the unarising-and-unceasing is the unarising-and-unceasing that is identical with arising-and-ceasing, one should know that this unarising-and-unceasing has never not been harmonious and united with its own arising-and-ceasing of the seven consciousnesses, and it is within their harmony and union that one discusses non-oneness. 'The seven consciousnesses' and so forth means that since arising-and-ceasing is the arising-and-ceasing that is identical with the unarising-and-unceasing, one should know that this arising-and-ceasing has never not been harmonious and united with its own unarising-and-unceasing of the tathāgatagarbha, and it is within this that one discusses non-oneness. What is called 'own' shows that it is not separately external, but originally unseparated. Being unseparated is harmony and union. Thus it only speaks of the meaning of non-oneness at the locus of non-difference; who said this harmony and union is destroyed?

8.22

Under 'herein', second, inversely relying on non-difference, which has two: first, marking, which can be seen.

8.23

Second, explaining. 'Why is this?': probing the meaning, saying that not violating non-difference has already had its meaning clarified, but for what reason can it establish non-oneness? 'If like' and so forth explains the meaning, saying: if when the tathāgatagarbha accords with conditions it were to lose its own unarising-and-unceasing essence, then it would concurrently lack the mark of arising-and-ceasing, because it would have nothing on which to rely. This text temporarily reveals that if the two dharmas were different, such a fault would occur; thus the meaning of non-difference would not be established. Since that meaning would not be established, concurrently this meaning of non-oneness would also not be established, because once the two meanings are lost, in terms of what dharma could one clarify non-oneness? 'Therefore' and below clarifies the meaning of non-difference. Now because of non-difference, when arising-and-ceasing arises, it does not lose the unarising-and-unceasing. Because it does not lose it, arising-and-ceasing can subsist. Since the two meanings already subsist, the meaning of non-oneness can be established. Is it not that due to non-difference, non-oneness comes to be established? Furthermore, it is also due to this meaning of non-oneness that that meaning of non-difference comes to be established: because the true arises to form the false, one can therefore say that the false is not different from the true. If the false did not arise, what non-difference could be spoken of? That which was not stated in the previous section was because this latter meaning had not yet been spoken.

8.24

Under 'further, this', third, presenting the essence to subsume each other, in two: first, directly distinguishing. Under 'the true and the false', each presents its essence, which can be known from the text. Here, taking avidyā as neither arising nor ceasing is because it is not the arising and ceasing of coarse marks. That it is not unarising-and-unceasing is because there is the flowing arising-and-ceasing of subtle marks, just like the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. 'These four' and below directly distinguishes presenting the essence to subsume each other. If one temporarily presents the tathāgatagarbha, it necessarily subsumes all dharmas, because it is the name while within bondage. Further, if one presents the ālaya, it is due to avidyā stirring, the true and the false combining. If one presents the seven consciousnesses, it is also because avidyā and the garbha are both present in the ālaya. If one presents avidyā, avidyā has no essence, existing in reliance on enlightenment, and is also present in the ālaya. The text below says that depending on the ālaya there is avidyā, and also says that when avidyā ceases, the combined consciousness is broken; thus presenting one completely encompasses all. 'Dependent origination' and so forth: only when the many dharmas are harmonious and united do they form the mark of one great dependent origination.

8.25

Under 'herein', second, resolving doubts. Someone might ask: 'If that is so, why did the sūtra cited earlier say that the tathāgatagarbha is not within the ālaya?' Therefore this resolves and penetrates it: it is spoken in this way in terms of meaning, not that the actual phenomena are different. 'The remaining meanings are to be measured by this': now the text presents an analogy, speaking temporarily in terms of the nature of wetness versus waves, using it to analogize that the garbha-nature is solely unarising-and-unceasing, and discussing identity and separation in contrast to the single meaning that the seven consciousnesses are solely arising-and-ceasing; regarding the remaining two meanings, the principle can also be known by analogy, hence it says 'reflect upon it'. Therefore the previous text says: 'As each meaning is presented, it melts and subsumes its own essence.'

8.26

Under 'question: since', fourth, questions and answers resolving objections, with two questions and answers. In the first question, one wonders at the sūtra text cited earlier saying that the tathāgatagarbha is not within the ālaya. The meaning of the answer says: only when the true and the false combine is it called the ālaya, but the ālaya has no essence of its own whatsoever. Spoken temporarily in terms of meaning, both the true and false dharmas are entirely within it. Due to this, the ālaya is the general, while the true and the false are the specific; one should only say that they are within the general, not that they are within the specific. Now, since stillness and motion have been distinguished, this causes the general meaning of the ālaya not to be established, and there is no 'within' in which it could reside; hence it says it is 'not within the ālaya'.

8.27

The second question's purport means: since the ālaya[-vijñāna] now pervades both stillness and motion, it should properly also belong to the gate of tathatā; why is it exclusively in the gate of arising and ceasing? In the answer, by provisionally explaining the rationale for its being solely in the gate of arising and ceasing, it follows by analogy that it is not in the gate of tathatā. Because the ālaya consists in rousing stillness to produce motion and their essences are not separate, stillness follows motion into this gate. "Not only...", etc., means: if what is unmoved is even so present in the gate of motion, how much more so that which combines both motion and stillness? "Why is this?", etc., is a question followed by an explanation, which is clear. "One should reflect and analogize this" is intended to lead one to understand by analogy that it is not in the gate of tathatā. For although the ālaya has the aspect of stillness, the reason it is not in the gate of tathatā is that this stillness is a stillness that follows motion, unlike the gate of tathatā, which is an unaroused stillness. Although the essence of stillness is the same, the meanings of stillness differ. Since the ālaya carries both motion and stillness together, it is not in the gate of tathatā, because this gate is purely still. The commentary omits explaining this meaning and merely says, "One should reflect and analogize this."

8.28

"Moreover, if...", etc., secondly, combines and explains the two meanings; it has two parts: first, precluding identity and difference. Yet, among students of the characteristics and characteristicless traditions, those who fail to grasp the intent each incur one of the two errors. "Apart from this...", etc.; hence it was stated earlier: "Relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing." Later it says: "Because ignorance ceases, the cognitive nature is not destroyed."

8.29

"Moreover, if...", etc., secondly, reveals integration; it has three parts: first, the main explanation. "There is no integration...", etc., is like the verse in the Madhyamakaśāstra: "If the defiled dharma and the defiled person were identical, how could one dharma integrate? If the defiled dharma and the defiled person were different, how could different dharmas integrate?" This means that through the meaning of non-identity and non-difference, the meaning of integration is established.

8.30

"As the sūtra...", etc., secondly, cites proof; it has three parts: first, doubly stating the two metaphors. This is the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, as in the text.

8.31

Second, "if mud...", etc., solely explains the dust and the mud. "Not produced by that" means not produced as a lump of mud by those minute particles of dust. "There should be no distinction" means: before the dust is blended with water, it should be called a lump of mud; once it has become a lump of mud, it should be called minute dust particles.

8.32

"In this way...", etc., thirdly, collectively applies the metaphor to the dharmas. "The storehouse consciousness is not the cause": "not" means non-existent; "cause" is the true mark. If they were to be different, then the storehouse consciousness would not be formed on the basis of the true mark, just as the aforementioned lump of mud would not be based on minute dust particles; and how then could it be said that "relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing"? "The storehouse consciousness should also cease" because there would be no meaning of integration. Hence it is said below: "demolishing the mark of the consciousness of integration." Now saying "cease" means merely the absence of the one part of arising and ceasing. "Therefore, it is not that the true mark ceases": the later text states, "The deluded mind then ceases, and the dharmakāya manifests." It also says: "The marks of the mind cease accordingly, but the cognitive mind does not cease." "The karma-mark ceases" adduces the subtle to encompass the coarse.

8.33

"The interpretation says...", etc., thirdly, explains what was cited. The text is straightforward and clear.

8.34

"Now this...", etc., thirdly, concludes and establishes the point. It is clear.

8.35

Under "Assigning the Name," the commentary has two parts: first, directly explaining the treatise's intent. "This arising...", etc., re-cites the meaning of the previous text. "Designating this...", etc., integrates those two meanings to conclude this name.

8.36

"Or it is said...", etc., secondly, extensively distinguishes name and characteristics; it has two parts: first, distinguishing the names in reference to two masters. "Chu and Xia" refers to the dialectal distortions in speech and pronunciation between Wu, Chu, and Huaxia in this region; the five regions of India in the Western Regions are also like this, so the reference there is the same as here. It also says: "Ālaya, ādāna, etc., differ only in lightness and heaviness." "Non-disappearance" directly corresponds to the Sanskrit text. "Storehouse consciousness" takes the underlying meaning of the name in translation. "Storehouse is...", etc., reconciles the two names. Because it is appropriated and stored by that view of self, it is continuously perpetuated without beginning; hence it is called "not lost." Therefore, although the names applied to the meaning are slightly different, the meaning underlying the names is not different at all. It is like the Buddha-nature being called awakening, being called knowing, clearly understood, and so on.

8.37

"Appropriated...", etc., secondly, explains the meaning in terms of the three storehouses. Among them are the meanings of "appropriated storehouse," "what is stored," and "that which stores," which are distinguished and explained in turn. "It means all...", etc., indicates the topic. "The reason why...", etc., explains it. "Appears to be one": when the karma-mark first arises, it has not yet distinguished the mind-king, mental factors, and external objects; in reality it is not one, but appears to be one. "Appears to be permanent": arising and ceasing are minute and subtle; it appears to be permanent, but is not permanent. The Śūraṅgama says: "Furthermore, when your essential clarity is serene and unmoving, that which is called permanent does not go beyond seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing within the body." If it were truly pure and real, it would not admit habitual delusion; hence it is said to "appear to be permanent." "All the foolish": all ordinary beings who lack the wisdom of the twofold emptiness take what is apparent as real; this is attachment to dharmas. The mark of cognition grasps it firmly without altering; that is, the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are the cognizing minds. "Inner self" is attachment to self, arising from grasping within one's own body. Since grasping other bodies and all dharmas as each possessing own-nature is also called a self, it is specially distinguished here as "one's own inner [self]." "View of self...", etc., concludes with the meaning of storehouse. Appropriating means grasping. Since it is grasped by the view of self, it is called a storehouse; grasping is itself storing. "Because of this...", etc., shows the reason. The two kinds of view of self are the self of persons and of dharmas. The "stage where it never arises" is the eighth ground. According to the Vijñaptimātra, this consciousness has three states: First, the state of being stored and grasped with love for the self, which applies to all ordinary beings, trainees of the two vehicles, and bodhisattvas before the eighth ground; they all give rise to attachment to self, grasping the perceiving aspect of the eighth consciousness as self, hence the eighth consciousness is called ālaya, translated here as "appropriated storehouse." Second, the state of the fruition of wholesome and unwholesome karma, which applies to all ordinary beings up to the fulfillment of the tenth ground, the non-trainees of the two vehicles, and so forth; because wholesome and unwholesome causes induce neutral fruitions, and fruition differs from cause, it is called the vipāka consciousness. Third, the state of continuous holding, which applies to all states of cause and fruition, because the eighth consciousness holds the seeds of all dharmas and so forth so that they are not scattered and lost; hence it is called ādāna. Ādāna is translated according to its meaning as "holding." What is here called the "stage where it does not arise" is the eighth ground and above; because it is free from what is grasped by the view of self, it is not called ālaya, and thus loses this name. It also excludes the lower stages where it temporarily does not arise when entering contemplation; hence it says "permanently"; yet it does not eliminate the essence of the consciousness, which is why it says "loses the name."

8.38

"Furthermore, that which can store...", etc., is the meaning of "what is stored," meaning that the essence of this consciousness is stored within the sense-organs, body, seeds, and receptacle world, because the sense-organs, body, and so on are the object aspect of this consciousness. It is like a jewel within an image, unlike a body within a room. If you search for the ālaya-consciousness, it is only within physical and mental dharmas; if you wish to find a cintāmaṇi jewel, it is only within blue and yellow. "Furthermore, can store all dharmas...", etc., is the meaning of "that which stores," meaning that dharmas such as the sense-organs and body are all stored within the essence of the consciousness, like images within a jewel. If you wish to find all dharmas, they are entirely within the ālaya; if you wish to find all images, they are entirely within the cintāmaṇi. However, they are merely subject and object mutually in terms of the earlier meanings. "The treatise says...", etc., cites the Vijñaptimātra to substantiate it. It is clear.

8.39

The heading says "explaining the mind of arising and ceasing above" because in the section establishing the meaning it says: "It is the mind of arising and ceasing, its causes, conditions, and marks." Now it only explains the mind of arising and ceasing.

8.40

Treatise: "Two kinds of meanings...", etc. The commentary has two parts: first, explaining the unfolding of the number; it has two parts: first, stating and adducing the explanatory intent. "Slightly difficult" is because within the two meanings of this single consciousness, many dharmas are contained: externally it encompasses the myriad forms, and internally it constitutes both subject and object; preserving it, saṃsāra is boundless, while destroying it, nirvāṇa is attained. If not conceptually differentiated, how could it be comprehended? Its operational characteristics are profound and hidden, hence called difficult; yet deep wisdom can comprehend it here, so it is further called "slightly." "Slightly" means a little. "Synthesizing" means examining. It means comprehensively examining the treatise from beginning to end to explain this intent, yet it is also limited to the single gate of arising and ceasing.

8.41

"What does this mean?...", etc., secondly, fully explains according to the meanings; in this there are three parts: first, explaining the meanings in terms of the unfolding and combining of the true and the deluded; the text has seven points: 1. Unfolding the true and the deluded to form four meanings. Now, both the true and the deluded are spoken of based on the mind of the single dharmadhātu. For this mind originally possesses essence and function: the essence that is identical with function is utterly empty and serene, while the function that is identical with essence is distinctly cognizant. Due to beginningless delusion, in the place of emptiness and serenity there are concretely the sense-organs, body, and dust-objects; in the place of cognizance, there is tumultuous conceptual differentiation and mental deliberation. Thus Master Zhao said: "The dharmakāya is hidden within the physical shell; true wisdom is hidden within mental deliberation." Yet the physical shell and mental deliberation are originally empty in essence, and the empty, serene cognizance is fundamentally unchanging; the unchanging truth naturally accords with conditions, and the deluded whose essence is empty fundamentally effects phenomena; this is not due to deliberate contrivance, but is naturally thus. The present body and mind of sentient beings are like this; it is in reference to this meaning that the principle of the dependent origination of defilement and purity is clarified. Here, One Mind is not separately indicated because it is contained within the word "true," as there are not two essences. "Unchanging" means it has never failed to be empty and serene, and has never failed to be cognizant. Hence the treatise says: "What is called the nature of the mind is unarising and unceasing." It also says: "Because it is not associated with any defiled dharmas." It also says: "That which is called awakening means that the essence of the mind is free from thought, equal to the realm of empty space." "According with conditions" means according with defilement and following the flow to form the nine marks. Hence the text says: "Relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing," and so on. According with purity and turning back from the branches to the root forms the four stages, hence the later text says: "Perceiving that a preceding thought has given rise to evil, one is able to stop the subsequent thought from arising," and so on. "Empty in essence" means that the parikalpita dharmas exist in conceptual grasping but are absent in reality; hence the treatise says: "All dharmas exist in their differences solely based on deluded thoughts," and so on. Furthermore, paratantra dharmas have characteristics but lack nature; hence the treatise says: "Therefore all dharmas are like images in a mirror, without an essence that can be grasped." "Effecting phenomena": effecting defiled phenomena means the containers and residents of the three realms; effecting pure phenomena means the causes and fruitions of the three vehicles; this refers to the nine marks and the two bodies spoken of below. Thus, according with conditions is like dreaming, and effecting phenomena is like the objects in the dream. Being empty in essence is like the dream objects being fundamentally void, and being unchanging is like the inner body remaining intact.

8.42

"This truth...", etc., secondly, bundles the four meanings to form two gates. The first meanings are the unchanging within the true and the emptiness of essence within the deluded; through these two meanings the gate of tathatā is established. When this gate encompasses the deluded, the deluded is empty in essence; when it encompasses the true, the true is unchanging; defilement and purity are equal, of a single characteristic and characteristicless; hence this gate exists. The second meanings are according with conditions within the true and effecting phenomena within the deluded; through these two meanings the gate of arising and ceasing is established. When this gate encompasses the true, the true accords with conditions; when it encompasses the deluded, the deluded effects phenomena; that is, it constitutes the differentiated marks of all defiled and pure dharmas; hence this gate exists.

8.43

"This according...", etc., thirdly, unfolds arising and ceasing to form four meanings. This is stated in terms of the opposition between the true and the deluded within the gate of arising and ceasing; mutually considering self and other, it forms four meanings. However, the true going against the other and according with the self is precisely the deluded going against the self and according with the other. The true going against the self and according with the other is precisely the deluded going against the other and according with the self. It is only because the gates differ, while the principle is one. The operational characteristics of going against and according will be seen in the following text.

8.44

"Avidyā...", fourth, opening the four meanings into eight meanings, has three [parts]: first, directly presenting the eight meanings. Under "Avidyā...", it first clarifies the four meanings within delusion. Regarding "demonstrating the nature...", it refers to turning back the flow against defilement, expressing and demonstrating the virtues of the true nature. As it says below: "Because of the rising of unenlightened thoughts, one sees objects; therefore it is called avidyā. The non-arising of the mind-nature is the meaning of the great light of wisdom. ... And if there is movement in the mind, it possesses defiled meanings that surpass the sands of the Ganges. If the mind-nature does not move, then the meanings of marks of all buddhas' virtues surpassing the sands of the Ganges are demonstrated." It also says that the nature is originally without stinginess, conforming to the cultivation of the dāna-pāramitā, and so on. Regarding "knowing names and meanings...", it refers to how when the differentiating deluded mind conforms to arising and ceasing, it pertains to avidyā and is termed "defiled function"; if it conforms to tathatā, it is therefore termed "pure function". Hence the text below says: "Because there is the unenlightened deluded thinking mind, one is able to know names and meanings and speak of true enlightenment. If one is free from the unenlightened mind, there is no self-mark of true enlightenment to be spoken of." It also says: "Defiled dharmas of avidyā truly have no pure function; yet because they are perfumed by tathatā, they have a pure function." Regarding "concealing the real": the principle of truth is equal, while the deluded mind differentiates; when the differentiating delusion appears, the equal truth is concealed. Hence it says below: "The meaning of the defiled mind is called the affliction obstacle, because it can obstruct the fundamental wisdom of tathatā. The meaning of avidyā is called the cognitive obstacle, because it can obstruct the natural karmic wisdom of the worldly realm." Regarding "producing the deluded mind": because it arises from the perfuming of avidyā. Hence the treatise says: "Because there is the cause of the defiled dharma of avidyā, it perfumes tathatā. Because of this perfuming, there is the deluded mind," and so on. It also says: "The meaning of avidyā perfuming has two kinds: first, fundamental perfuming, because it can accomplish the meaning of karmic consciousness; second, the perfuming of views and attachments that are produced, because it can accomplish the meaning of differentiating factual consciousness."

8.45

"Tathatā..." clarifies the four meanings within the true. Regarding "manifesting true virtue": turning back the flow to overturn defilement, set in contrast to deluded dharmas, manifests this true virtue. This is the mark of purity of wisdom within the original enlightenment that conforms to defilement below. The text says: "It means that, relying on the perfuming of the power of the Dharma, one cultivates the expedient means in accordance with reality to completion; breaking the mark of composite consciousness and extinguishing the mark of the continuing mind, the dharmakāya is manifested, because wisdom is pure." Regarding "giving rise to pure function": avidyā is delusion and constantly gives rise to defiled function. Because true perfuming is potent, it causes that to turn back the flow and conform to the nature of tathatā; therefore it is termed "pure function". Below it says: "Perfuming of the intrinsic essence and attributes: from beginingless time it possesses anāsrava dharmas, is fully endowed with inconceivable action, and acts as the nature of objects. Relying on these two meanings, it constantly perfumes, enabling sentient beings to weary of the suffering of saṃsāra and aspire to seek nirvāṇa." It also says: "Because the dharma of tathatā exists, it is able to perfume avidyā... up to attaining nirvāṇa and accomplishing natural karma," and so on. Regarding "concealing the real": this is what was explained before, that tathatā accords with conditions to become the ālaya-consciousness. Once it has become this consciousness, it is concealed within the consciousness; because it is concealed, it is named tathāgatagarbha, as has already been seen above. Regarding "manifesting the deluded": once the true essence is concealed, deluded marks immediately appear—namely, the mark of objects. Below it says: "Not comprehending the dharma of tathatā, unenlightened thoughts arise, manifesting deluded objects."

8.46

"These above...", second, combining them in correspondence with the four enlightenments. Now, these: enlightenment and non-enlightenment, are only set in contrast as true and deluded; forming different approaches, each has four meanings, and thus they are opened to become eight. Now, distinguishing essence and function within each of the true and the deluded, they follow one another in pairs, so there are only four. As in the four sections of the commentary: the first two sections distinguish essence and function with respect to purity. The first section combines two in accord with essence to form original enlightenment. Next, under "Again, because of...", it combines two in accord with function to form actualized enlightenment. The latter two sections under "Again, because of..." distinguish essence and function with respect to defilement. The first section combines two in accord with essence to form fundamental non-enlightenment. Next, under "Again, because of...", it combines two in accord with function to form branch-and-twig non-enlightenment. Therefore, by combining them in pairs, they become defiled and pure, each distinguished into essence and function; thus the previous eight are combined to form four meanings.

8.47

"This arising...", third, concluding by indicating the extensive and the concise. Now, while the extensiveness of the eight approaches is ultimate, the conciseness of the four approaches is not yet ultimate, because next there are further reductions to two and to one. The statement "the four meanings" refers to the four of conforming, opposing, and so forth above; it does not take the present four enlightenments as the four, because this concludes and points back to the preceding text.

8.48

"If in terms of...", fifth, bundling the eight meanings into four approaches. Regarding "divided marks", this refers to the delimited marks of dharmas. Because all delimited marks of dharmas of pure conditions pertain to the two enlightenments; all delimited marks of dharmas of defiled conditions pertain to the two non-enlightenments. Furthermore, among these, the essence of pure dharmas pertains to original enlightenment, and the function of pure dharmas pertains to actualized enlightenment. The essence of defiled dharmas pertains to fundamental non-enlightenment, and the marks of defiled dharmas pertain to branch-and-twig non-enlightenment. Therefore, the preceding eight are combined to form four.

8.49

"If fundamental...", sixth, bundling the four approaches into two meanings. That is to say, actualized enlightenment is the branch and is not separate from the root of original enlightenment; hence the text below says: "Because that which is actualized enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment." It also says: "Yet in reality there is no difference of actualized enlightenment... up to being equally identical to the one enlightenment." Branch-and-twig non-enlightenment is not separate from fundamental non-enlightenment; hence the text below says: "One should know that avidyā can produce all defiled dharmas, because all defiled dharmas are marks of non-enlightenment." However, the two enlightenments—original and actualized—differ only as essence and function; the two non-enlightenments—fundamental and branch-and-twig—differ only as coarse and subtle. How could there be function separate from essence, or coarse separate from subtle? Therefore there are only two.

First 49 of 64 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

起信論疏筆削記 — Classical Chinese