大乘起信論裂網疏 1.2

1.2

The path of the Buddhas and Patriarchs is to transmit mind with mind. The bodhisattvas composing treatises and expounding sūtras also did so solely for this one great matter. Therefore it is said: "Searching across the ten directions, there is no other vehicle." Even if they bent [the teachings] for the sake of myriad capacities, skillfully and gradually guiding them, employing expedient means derived from the real, and speaking of various paths—it is, for example, just as the three herbs and two trees receive moisture differently, while the rain that can moisten is originally of only one taste. Therefore it is said: "Like eating rock sugar, middle and edge are both sweet." It is also said: "Coarse words and subtle speech both revert to the ultimate truth." How could one cling to the text and lose the underlying intent, obstinately adhere to names and marks, and carve up empty space? Moreover, take the World-Honoured Maitreya: while his traces abide in the stage of succession, his fundamental nature is surely inconceivable. Since Asaṅga and Vasubandhu are his assistants at the Dragon Flower Tree, how do they differ from Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra? As for Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, both received predictions from the Buddha's golden mouth and transmitted the Buddha's mind school; their writings certainly ought not to conflict with one another. Yet lecturers of later generations rashly and erroneously judged, saying: "Vasubandhu's Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi is the initial teaching establishing characteristics; Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is the initial teaching refuting characteristics; Aśvaghoṣa's Awakening of Faith is the final teaching combined with the sudden, and neither is the complete [teaching]." Alas! How exceedingly unreflective they are! Vasubandhu took Yogācāra as his source and established vijñaptimātra, first refuting the two attachments to self and dharmas through vijñaptimātra, and next clarifying that consciousness is also like an illusion and not truly existent; thus it is also named the "Treatise Refuting Form and Mind." Can one now classify it as the "teaching establishing characteristics"? Nāgārjuna relied on profound Prajñāpāramitā, universally clearing away emotional attachments to the four natures in order to reveal the dharmatā. Thus he said: "Those who wish to be fully endowed with all Buddha-dharmas should learn Prajñāpāramitā"; and he also said: "If one maintains that there is no such emptiness, nothing at all could be accomplished; because the meaning of emptiness exists, all things can be accomplished." Can one now classify it as the "teaching that refutes characteristics"? Aśvaghoṣa used the one mind aspect of tathatā to reveal profound Prajñāpāramitā spoken in accordance with wisdom; he used the one mind aspect of arising and ceasing to reveal the Yogācāra eight consciousnesses spoken in accordance with sentiment. Tathatā is just the one true dharmadhātu, which subsumes phenomena and principle while eradicating phenomena and principle; arising and ceasing is just phenomena constituted entirely of principle, and principle whose complete phenomena are devoid of self-nature. The two aspects do not depart from the one mind, so there is no single arising and ceasing that is not the complete essence of tathatā, and no single tathatā that does not completely possess arising and ceasing—this is precisely the dharmadhātu of unimpeded phenomena and phenomena. Can one now claim that it differs from the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, and is still not the ultimate, complete One Vehicle? Furthermore, both sūtras and treatises state that tathatā and all dharmas are like water and waves, neither identical nor different; authentic proof is fully present, so how can one tolerate one-sided attachment? For if one asserts that they are definitely identical, then because tathatā neither arises nor ceases, all dharmas should also neither arise nor cease; or because all dharmas arise and cease, tathatā should also arise and cease—this is inherently inadmissible. If one asserts that they are definitely different, then tathatā would not be the real nature of all dharmas, and should exist outside all dharmas with a separate location, being neither permanent nor omnipresent—which is even more inadmissible. Thus, when the Awakening of Faith says that tathatā receives perfuming, it is like touching water at the very moment one touches a wave, which serves to refute the attachment to definite difference; it never said that tathatā transforms in accordance with perfuming. When the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says that tathatā does not receive perfuming, it is like the nature of wetness not moving when the wave moves, which serves to refute the attachment to definite identity; it never said that there is a separate immutable tathatā (The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Unlike other schools, [we do not hold that] apart from form, mind, and so forth, there is a real, permanent dharma named tathatā." It also says: "Tathatā is precisely the real nature of vijñaptimātra." The clear text is manifest like this; how grave is the fault of later people who falsely slander Vijñaptimātra with immutable tathatā!). Therefore, what the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi calls "because of the real, marks have no difference" is the one mind aspect of tathatā in the Awakening of Faith. What the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi calls "because of the conventional, marks have differences" is the one mind aspect of arising and ceasing in the Awakening of Faith. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: "The consciousnesses have three kinds of marks: transforming marks, karmic marks, and true marks." The Zongjing [lu] explains: "The arising of mind is called 'transforming'; because the eight arise together, all have arising and ceasing, hence they are called 'transforming marks'. Movement is karma; the eight consciousnesses all move, and all are named 'karmic marks'. The true nature of the eight is entirely named 'true marks'." Viewed from this, it is clear that both the Awakening of Faith and the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi take the Laṅkāvatāra as their source. Since their fundamental source is identical, their terms and meanings naturally do not conflict. Yet commentators could not define names according to meaning, and haphazardly defined meaning according to names, causing the two treatises to clash like water and fire—how lamentable! In the canon, there are two versions of this Mahāyānaśraddhotpādaśāstra: one translated by Paramārtha of the Liang, and one translated by Śikṣānanda of the Tang. Comparing the two translations, the Tang text is clearer in expression and smoother in meaning. But since the Liang version had long circulated, I did not dare act on private authority, so I reverently cast lots before the Buddha to decide, and drew the result indicating that I should comment on the Tang text. Thereupon, exhausting this tiny chink of light, I have dissected away the deluded attachments of both schools, naming it the "Net-Rending Commentary." Written on the eighteenth day of the tenth month in the year guisi (1653); hence this preface.