大乘玄論 5
English (machine translation) 5
- Language
- English
Contents
5.1
Compiled by the foreigner Jizang
5.2
Part 3: The Meaning of the Trace of Teaching.
5.3
1. Section Explaining Differences in the Teachings / 2. Section on Resonance and Response / 3. Section on the Pure Land
5.4.1
First is the explanation of the teachings. The ultimate principle is beyond words; the reason there are words is that words arise from the minds of the multitude. Yet, because the capacities of the multitude have a hundred differences, this causes the sacred teachings to have ten thousand variations. Regarding these ten thousand variations of the spoken teachings, the interpretations differ. The Tattvasiddhi masters speak either of four periods or of five periods, citing the Nirvāṇasūtra: "From a cow one extracts milk; from milk one extracts curd; from curd one extracts fresh butter; from fresh butter one extracts clarified butter; from clarified butter one extracts the finest ghee." And further: from the Buddha issue the twelve divisions of scripture; from the twelve divisions of scripture issues the sūtra; from the sūtra issue the vaipulya sūtras; from the vaipulya sūtras issues the Prajñāpāramitā; and from the Prajñāpāramitā issues the Mahānirvāṇa. The Tattvasiddhi masters correlate the reciprocal arising of the five flavors with the teachings of the five periods: because the teaching of the four truths has differentiated marks, it issues the twelve divisions of scripture. "Sūtra" means the root of phenomena, and prajñā is the fundamental root of all phenomena; hence prajñā is called "sūtra". The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa extensively illuminates the bodhisattva's inconceivable dharma-gate; hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is called a "vaipulya sūtra". Within the Ekayāna, prajñā is the most supreme; hence the Lotus Sūtra is called "Prajñāpāramitā". The Nirvāṇasūtra period illuminates the eternally abiding fruit of buddhahood; hence it says that it "issues the Mahānirvāṇa". We say now that this is not so. The twelve divisions of scripture are sūtras of specific characteristics; that which "issues from the twelve divisions of scripture as the sūtra" is the sūtra of general characteristics. From these two teachings—general and specific—the myriad practices of the Mahāyāna arise; hence it says that "from the sūtra issue the vaipulya [sūtras]". Among the myriad practices, prajñā is primary; hence it says that "from the vaipulya [sūtras] issues the Prajñāpāramitā". From these two causes one attains the fruit of Mahānirvāṇa; hence it says that "from the Prajñāpāramitā issues the Mahānirvāṇa". This is merely the reciprocal production of teaching, practice, cause, and fruit; it is not a classification of the teachings into five periods. Now, at the end of the chapter on "Non-action" in this Mahāyāna treatise, it says: "When the wheel of the Dharma was first turned, not only did eighty thousand devas [and one human] attain the fruit of srotāpanna, but also immeasurable people generated the mind of unexcelled bodhi, up to immeasurable people attaining [the stage of] being bound to one more birth. Furthermore, five years after attaining enlightenment, he preached the Prajñā of one hundred thousand verses, fully illuminating the two kinds of emptiness. After seven years, for the sake of the great bodhisattvas, he preached the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra, illuminating that both form and mind are empty. After ten years, he preached the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, revealing the originally existent buddha-nature." One should know that within the twelve years he did not preach only the Hīnayāna. If he illuminated both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, and yet one claims he only preached the Hīnayāna, one might as well say that although he preached both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna after the twelve years, it should be called Hīnayāna. If preaching both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna makes it called Mahāyāna, then I likewise say that although he discussed both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna before the twelve years, it was called the Mahāyāna teaching. Furthermore, the treatise states: "Subhūti had previously heard in the Lotus assembly that bodhisattvas are definitively determined; later, he heard the 'Chapter on the Irreversible' in the Large Prajñāpāramitā, and therefore now asks whether they are determined or undetermined." Hence the Lotus need not belong to the fourth period. Moreover, since his enlightenment, he constantly preached prajñā; thus it is not restricted to the second period. The Daśabhūmika masters say: There are three tenets and four tenets. The three tenets are: first, the teaching establishing marks; second, the teaching relinquishing marks; third, the teaching revealing the real. For persons of the two vehicles, he preached the teaching of having marks. Because sūtras such as the Large Prajñāpāramitā extensively illuminate signlessness, they are called "relinquishing marks". Sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka are called the gate of the teaching that "reveals the real". As for the four tenets: Abhidharma is the tenet of dependent co-arising; the Tattvasiddhi is called the tenet of conventional designation; the Sanlun is called the tenet of the non-true; and the Daśabhūmivyākhyāna is the tenet of the true. We say now that this is not so. The transgression of this person is extremely grave; do not slander prajñā and fall into Avīci! Now, relying on this treatise, the three buddhas are fully clarified, and furthermore Maitreya and Vasubandhu in explaining the text of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra also clarify the three buddhas; therefore we know that sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā fully illuminate the eternally abiding fruit of buddhahood, the direct cause which is buddha-nature, and the revealing cause of the ten stages. If so, why should it not be called the teaching revealing the real? One should rely on the four reliances of the great sages, and not rely on the deluded attachments of ordinary people. Question: If you say it is eternal, why does this sūtra say that the buddhas of the three times all enter nirvāṇa without remainder? Answer: This is not the nirvāṇa without remainder of the Hīnayāna. If we rely on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Mahāyāna nirvāṇa without remainder is of two kinds: first, the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of fragmented [birth and death] is called 'with remainder', and the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of changeful [birth and death] is called 'nirvāṇa without remainder'; second, the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya buddhas are called 'nirvāṇa with remainder', and the dharmakāya is called 'nirvāṇa without remainder'. Furthermore, that which is stated in the Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra—"I shall cause them all to enter nirvāṇa without remainder"—is explained by Maitreya as "the supreme nirvāṇa without remainder of the Mahāyāna". Question: If so, why does this sūtra explain that the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the eighteen exclusive [attributes], and so forth are all conditioned? Answer: Because they are contrasted with the side of emptiness of the dharmakāya's tathatā, the saṃbhoga buddha's ten powers, eighteen exclusive [attributes], and so forth are existent phenomena; hence they are said to be conditioned, not that they are conditioned in terms of arising and ceasing. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "Impermanence is of two kinds: first, impermanence in the cause that was originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence; second, impermanence in the fruit of buddhahood that was originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed is not non-existent." Thus it is not the same as the impermanence of arising and ceasing in the cause; it is merely named impermanence with respect to the initial arising of the recompense-ālayavijñāna, the five sense faculties, and so forth in the fruit of buddhahood. Question: If this sūtra does not merely illuminate emptiness, does it also speak of originally existent non-empty phenomena? Answer: In explaining the 'dharma-nature' in the first chapter, the author of the treatise says: "'Dharma' is called nirvāṇa; 'nature' is called original share. Just as there is the nature of silver in white stone, the nature of gold in yellow stone, so it is with the nature of nirvāṇa within all phenomena." We say now that this is the originally existent nirvāṇa of natural purity; therefore, this sūtra illuminates both kinds of nirvāṇa: natural purity and expedient means. Question: Is there further clear evidence to prove that this sūtra has already illuminated the eternally abiding and already revealed the real? Answer: Although clear evidence is abundant, one should not be tedious. Now we merely take the chapter on "Dharmodgata", which fully illuminates the three buddhas by means of three parables. It also says: "The form body of the buddhas has coming and going; the dharmakāya of the buddhas has no coming and going." Having coming and going is the nirmāṇa buddha; having no coming and going are the dharma buddha and saṃbhoga buddha. Furthermore, the treatise says: "Buddhas are of two kinds: first, the buddha of the body born of parents; second, the buddha of the body born of dharma-nature." The body born of parents is the nirmāṇa buddha; the body born of dharma-nature is the saṃbhoga buddha; if one merely says the dharma-nature body, it is the dharmakāya buddha. The treatise also says: "The bhikṣuṇī Utpalavarṇā did not see the dharmakāya buddha; Subhūti was able to see the dharmakāya." Furthermore, this sūtra states in every place that when the practices of the ten stages are completed, one attains unexcelled bodhi; how could one, upon completing the practices of the ten stages, conversely attain an impermanent body? Therefore, the Nirvāṇa[sūtra] states: "Self and non-self have no two marks; I have extensively explained this in the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra."
5.4.2
"[…]" The Nirvāṇasūtra explains the true self of the buddha-fruit, which is precisely the unsurpassed bodhi explained in this sūtra; the Nirvāṇasūtra explains the non-self of saṃsāra, which is precisely the bodhisattva's non-self on the causal stage explained in this sūtra. One should know that the true self of the buddha-fruit and the non-self of saṃsāra in this sūtra are both empty in their characteristics and non-dual, fully clarifying the eight inversions; this should be faithfully accepted. Question: Some say that this sūtra does not yet converge the three [vehicles], and passionately recite the Lotus [Sūtra] to pose a formidable challenge. What is the meaning of this? Answer: The Lotus [Sūtra] converges the three to return to the one; thus the three are dismissed while the one remains. Because the remaining one still does not escape clinging to characteristics, it takes the myriad goods as the vehicle's essence. Prajñā is identical to the three yet not three; thus the three are dismissed and the one is eliminated, and there is no dharma whatsoever to be attained. Therefore, it takes the unborn Middle Way as the vehicle's essence. The unborn is severed from conceptual proliferation; ultimately what three could there be to converge? This is what is meant by "a hundred flowers of different colours together form a single shade; the myriad dharmas of diverse characteristics together enter prajñā," without anything to distinguish. Furthermore, in revealing the reality of the Ekayāna, there are generally two gates: if it is the Lotus [Sūtra], it reveals the real aspect of the Ekayāna in contrast to the expedients of the three vehicles; if it is Prajñā or the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, they reveal the reality of the Ekayāna by denouncing the Hīnayāna as inferior and praising the Mahāyāna as superior. Therefore, one must not speak of superiority or inferiority between the two sūtras. If one cites the Nirvāṇa[sūtra] to clarify permanence in order to challenge this sūtra, this has already been clarified previously and need not be belaboured further. Question: If you proclaim the errors of the two schools of Tattvasiddhi and Dilun, how do you now classify the Buddha's teachings? Answer: They are gathered through the gates of the Bodhisattvapiṭaka and Śrāvakapiṭaka, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, with remainder and without remainder, active and inactive, definitive and non-definitive, bounded and boundless, sudden and gradual, half-letter and full-letter, permanent and impermanent, measurable and immeasurable. They are not gathered only when all ten gates are fully present; rather, each single gate subsumes the immeasurable storehouse of dharmas. Because the subsuming gates are not one, there are ten gates. Question: Previously you said that one should rely on the four reliances and not rely on ordinary delusions; what are the four reliances? Answer: As for the four reliances, there are two kinds. The four reliances on dharmas are: rely on the Dharma, not on the person; rely on the meaning, not on the words; rely on gnosis, not on consciousness; rely on definitive sūtras, not on non-definitive sūtras. As for the four reliances on persons: according to the Hīnayāna, the five expedient practices are the first reliance, the srotāpanna and sakṛdāgāmin are the second reliance, the anāgāmin is the third reliance, and the arhat is the fourth reliance. If according to the Mahāyāna, the forty minds before the bhūmis that still possess afflictive nature are the first reliance; from the first bhūmi to the sixth bhūmi is the second reliance; the seventh, eighth, and ninth bhūmis are the third reliance; and the tenth bhūmi is the fourth reliance. Here, it refers to the latter four reliances. Question: Previously you mentioned the twelve divisions of scriptures; why are only twelve spoken of, neither greater nor fewer? Answer: There is a catuskoṭi. First, both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna clarify twelve, because twelve is the completion of a single number, and also because it cures the twelve links of disease in sentient beings. Second, both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna equally clarify nine divisions; this is also the completion of a single number, and because they are taught for sentient beings of the nine destinies, there are nine divisions. In the Hīnayāna, because its doctrine is shallow, there is no vaipulya scripture; the Buddha's vyākaraṇa is not the central tenet of the Hīnayāna. Furthermore, because Hīnayāna persons do not succeed to the buddha-position, vyākaraṇa scriptures are excluded. Because the Hīnayāna doctrine is shallow, someone is always able to question, so udāna scriptures are excluded. Furthermore, the great beings can act as uninvited friends to sentient beings, so there are udānas; Hīnayāna persons are incapable of this and must await an invitation before speaking, so there are no udānas. Because Mahāyāna persons have sharp faculties, three are excluded: because the faculties of the Mahāyāna are sharp, they understand as soon as it is directly stated, without needing nidāna, avadāna, or upadeśa; therefore, these three divisions are omitted. In the third proposition, the Hīnayāna is broad while the Mahāyāna is brief: as the Bodhisattvabhūmi says, "The Bodhisattvapiṭaka is called vaipulya scriptures; the Śrāvakapiṭaka refers to eleven divisions." The meaning here is to clarify that the twelve [divisions] of the Mahāyāna are for clarifying the principle of vaipulya; taking their name from the principle expressed, all twelve divisions are named vaipulya. The twelve divisions of the Hīnayāna are not for clarifying the principle of vaipulya; therefore, their eleven divisions' names are retained, and the designation of vaipulya is omitted. In the fourth proposition, the Mahāyāna is broad while the Hīnayāna is brief: to reveal the full-letter [teaching] of the Mahāyāna, it fully possesses the twelve divisions; the Hīnayāna is the half-letter [teaching], so it has only nine divisions. Furthermore, they can be opened into three: sūtra, geya, and gāthā. These three are distinct names in terms of the teaching, taking the teaching as the essence of these three divisions; the remaining nine divisions receive their names from specific matters, yet they are not apart from these three. The three establish their names from the written words; the nine receive their designations from their functions. As for sūtras, there are two kinds: direct verbal exposition is the specific sūtra; from "Thus [have I heard]" to "faithfully carried it out" is the general sūtra. Sūtra among the Tripiṭaka is vertically long and horizontally narrow: vertically long because it subsumes the twelve [divisions]; horizontally narrow because it is merely one basket. Sūtra among the twelve divisions is horizontally broad and vertically short: vertically short because it does not subsume the eleven [divisions]; horizontally broad because it subsumes the Tripiṭaka. Gāthā is the second division, meaning verses not repeating [prose]. The third is geya, meaning verses repeating [prose]. Furthermore, the nine receive their names from their functions: namely, vyākaraṇa, itivṛttaka, jātaka, adbhutadharma, nidāna, avadāna, udāna, vaipulya, and upadeśa scriptures, together making twelve divisions. Now the nine divisions of the Hīnayāna are combined into five pairs: first is the pair of prose and verse. For the sake of sentient beings, the buddhas either speak sūtras directly, or from the very beginning speak verses, hence called gāthā; thus one knows that sūtras are not necessarily in front, and gāthās are not necessarily behind. Itivṛttaka and jātaka form the second pair, of self and other: itivṛttaka speaks of the past events of others, like the "Former Affairs of the Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyarāja" chapter; speaking of one's own past events is a jātaka scripture. Adbhutadharma and nidāna scriptures clarify the pair of good and bad matters: adbhutadharma scriptures concern good matters, such as a blue ox carrying an almsbowl, a white dog listening to the sūtra, or the great earth shaking; nidāna refers to the origin and development of offenses, and being taught in accordance with their origin and development, they are called nidāna scriptures. Avadāna and geya form the pair of doctrine and metaphor. Upadeśa scriptures are that which can debate; the preceding eight divisions and four pairs are called that which is debated, meaning the pair of that which can debate and that which is debated. When the Buddha was in the world, he personally spoke the twelve divisions of scriptures; after the Buddha's extinction and crossing over, he entrusted them to Kāśyapa. Among the ten disciples, the greatest were the four great śrāvakas, namely Kāśyapa, Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti, and Śāriputra. Why did he entrust them solely to Kāśyapa and not to the others? Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana had already entered extinction and crossing over long before; as for Subhūti, his nature was gentle, whereas Kāśyapa's nature was firm and decisive; therefore, he entrusted them to Kāśyapa.
5.4.3
After Kāśyapa's parinirvāṇa, he transmitted [the Dharma] to Ānanda; Ānanda transmitted it to Madhyāntika; Madhyāntika transmitted it to Śāṇavāsa; Śāṇavāsa transmitted it to Upagupta—thus there were five masters across successive generations. After a little more than a hundred years, [the saṃgha] split into two sects: the first was the Mahāsāṃghika sect, translated here as the School of the Great Assembly; the second was the *Thera sect (Sthaviravāda), translated here as the School of the Elders. From the Mahāsāṃghika sect, it split into nine sects: the first was called the Mahāsāṃghika sect, the second was called the Ekavyāvahārika sect, the third was called the Lokottaravāda sect, the fourth was called the Kaukkutika sect, the fifth was called the Bahuśrutīya sect, the sixth was called the Prajñaptivāda sect, the seventh was called the Caityavāda sect, the eighth was called the Aparasaila sect, and the ninth was called the Uttarasaila sect. During the three hundred years, the Sthavira sect, due to disputes, split into eleven sects: the first was called the Sarvāstivāda sect, the second was called the Haimavata sect, the third was called the Vātsīputrīya sect, the fourth was called the Dharmottarīya sect, the fifth was called the Bhadrayānīya sect, the sixth was called the Saṃmitīya sect, the seventh was called the Channagarika sect, the eighth was called the Mahīśāsaka sect, the ninth was called the Dharmaguptaka sect, the tenth was called the Kāśyapīya sect, and the eleventh was called the Sautrāntika sect. Question: The sūtras say that the root two and the eighteen all emerged from the Mahāyāna; what are the root two and the eighteen? Answer: The two sects of the Sthaviras and the Mahāsāṃghikas are the root two; their later disciples split into eighteen sects. Furthermore, where the sūtras mention the five sects, this name frequently appears within the Vinaya Piṭaka among the Buddha's three piṭakas. Moreover, among the eighteen sects, five sects flourished widely: the five sects were, first, the Sarvāstivāda sect; second, the Dharmaguptaka sect; third, the Mahāsāṃghika sect; fourth, the Mahīśāsaka sect; and fifth, the Kāśyapīya sect. Among the five sects, the Sarvāstivāda sect flourished most widely; thus, within two hundred years after the Buddha's nirvana, the Sarvāstivāda sect emerged from the Sthavira sect, specifically propagating the *Abhidharma*. More than three hundred years after the Buddha's nirvana, Kātyāyanīputra composed the *Abhidharma-aṣṭagrantha*. At six hundred years, five hundred arhats composed the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra* in one hundred fascicles. At seven hundred years, because the *Vibhāṣā* was too extensive, Dharmaśreṣṭhin composed the *Abhidharmahṛdaya-śāstra*. Because Dharmaśreṣṭhin's work was too brief, around the thousandth year, Dharmatrāta composed the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya-śāstra* in eleven fascicles; thus the Abhidharma flourished. The author of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* emerged from the Dharmaguptaka sect; he appeared around seven hundred years [after the Buddha] and was named Harivarman. The Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna appeared at five hundred years, refuted the various divergent sects, composed a hundred treatises on the Mahāyāna, and turned the second wheel of the Dharma in Jambudvīpa. Question: Some say that Prajñā is a shared teaching for the three vehicles, citing numerous passages: 'If one wishes to attain the stage of a śrāvaka, one should train in Prajñā; up to, if one wishes to attain the stage of a bodhisattva, one should train in Prajñā.' They also say: 'Within this Prajñā, the teachings of the three vehicles are broadly explained.' Therefore, they say it is a shared teaching for the three vehicles. What is the meaning of this? Answer: The treatise states: 'Within the three piṭakas, the Buddha merely explained the teaching of the four noble truths for the sake of the śrāvakas, and did not yet explain the bodhisattva practices. Now, wishing to explain the bodhisattva practices extensively for Maitreya and others, he therefore taught Prajñā.' From this we know that Prajñā is not a shared teaching for the three vehicles. Furthermore, the treatise states: 'Prajñā does not belong to the two vehicles; it belongs only to bodhisattvas.' Furthermore, the treatise states: 'In the minds of bodhisattvas it is named Prajñā; in the minds of śrāvakas it is named the factors of awakening.' If it were a shared teaching for the three vehicles, it would be universally called Prajñā in the minds of the three vehicles and ought not to have different names. Furthermore, one may object: if the three vehicles all equally train in Prajñā, and Prajñā is a shared teaching for the three vehicles, then since the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states, 'Persons of the three vehicles together contemplate the Middle Way; because of contemplating with inferior gnosis one attains śrāvaka bodhi, up to, because of contemplating with the supreme gnosis one attains buddha bodhi,' should it then also be a shared teaching for the three vehicles? The *Great Treatise* (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*) states: 'Among the ten kinds of great sūtras, the Prajñāpāramitā is the deepest and greatest.' The *Lesser Prajñā Sūtra* states: 'This sūtra is taught for those who set out upon the Great Vehicle, for those who set out upon the Supreme Vehicle.' Therefore, we know that Prajñā is not a shared teaching for the three vehicles. Furthermore, that it is taught that 'those of the three vehicles together train in Prajñā' is a secret convergence into the One Vehicle. If the causes are the same, the fruits must also be the same. It is also taught: 'Whether it is the gnosis or the abandonment of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, all are the bodhisattva's forbearance of the unborn dharmas.' It is also taught: 'When seeking for a person in all places none can be found; how could one differentiate the three vehicles?' One should know that this is precisely the covert teaching of the One Vehicle. Furthermore, according to an ancient interpretation: Prajñā has already converged dharmas, but has not yet converged persons. 'Converging dharmas' means that all dharmas enter into dharma-nature and all enter into the Mahāyāna. Next, it was said: 'The *Vimalakīrti* is a turning of the Dharma wheel that demotes and promotes, praising the ordinary person as possessing [the potential] while repeatedly disparaging the śrāvakas as rotten roots.' This is also not so. The chapter 'Māra's Deeds' states: 'It is like a foolish dog who does not seek food from the master of the house, but asks it of a servant.' The dog represents the person of the śrāvaka vehicle; the master of the house represents the Mahāyāna teaching; the servant represents the sūtras of the Hīnayāna. Should the *Large Sūtra* (*Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā*) then be a teaching of demoting and promoting? Question: Why do other sūtras not adapt to dispositions to teach this Dharma? Answer: The *Large Sūtra* and the *Lotus Sūtra* are integrated explanations of the principle, whereas the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* is a bifurcated explanation of the principle. Why are they integrated explanations? The *Large Sūtra* directly clarifies the cause of non-attainment and the fruit of non-attainment, shattering the sentient beings' minds of attainment, whereupon they immediately comprehend and awaken without the need to separately bifurcate the auxiliary and direct causes and fruits. The *Lotus Sūtra* directly shatters disparate causes and disparate fruits and clarifies the one cause and one fruit, so that sentient beings immediately attain comprehension and awakening, also without bifurcating the auxiliary and direct causes and fruits. The *Great Sūtra* (*Nirvāṇa Sūtra*), for the sake of dull-rooted sentient beings who did not awaken upon hearing the aforementioned integrated explanation, extensively bifurcates the two causes and two fruits—the auxiliary and the direct—whereupon they first manage to comprehend. Because dispositions and capacities were suited to hear the integrated [teaching] to attain awakening, he integrated it for them; because they needed to hear the bifurcated [teaching] to receive the path, he bifurcated it for them. Question: Looking closely at the *Large Sūtra*, the *Lotus Sūtra*, and the *Avataṃsaka*, do they genuinely have passages on the auxiliary and the direct or not? Answer: Secondary passages contain this meaning. The *Treatise's Commentary* (*Dazhidulun*), explaining the 'Expedient Means' chapter, states: 'Prajñā serves as the seed, which is the direct cause; the five perfections and the rest serve as water, which is the auxiliary cause; they are able to produce the tree of the fruit of bodhi.' Furthermore, the *Large Sūtra* already contains the meaning of clarifying buddha-nature, and also has the meaning of auxiliary and direct causes. In the *Lotus Sūtra*, clarifying that sentient beings possess buddha-nature is precisely the direct cause; the myriad practices and so forth are the auxiliary causes. In the *Avataṃsaka*, in the manifestation of the true dharma-nature, the text states: 'Within a single atom of dust there is a sūtra scroll; within that single sūtra scroll, all events are extensively recorded.' This is precisely that within the bodies of sentient beings there is buddha-nature. Breaking open the atom of dust to bring forth the sūtra scroll is precisely removing the defilements to see buddha-nature. Since buddha-nature is the direct cause, the cultivation by all the bodhisattvas of the forty stages of mind, the ten grounds, and so forth is precisely the auxiliary cause.
5.4.4
Question: If they all possess both auxiliary and direct causes, why are there four kinds of distinctions? Answer: It is simply that all the sūtras have both secondary and primary meanings. *Prajñā* extensively shatters attainment, clarifying non-reliance and non-attainment as its primary theme, while buddha-nature and the One Vehicle are its secondary meanings. The *Lotus Sūtra* extensively clarifies the one cause and one fruit as its primary theme, while non-attainment and buddha-nature are its secondary meanings. The *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* extensively clarifies that buddha-nature is eternally abiding in order to rebuke the malady of impermanence as its primary theme, while the One Vehicle and non-attainment are its secondary meanings. Furthermore, as the various sūtras adapt to different dispositions, they make way for one another. Since *Prajñā* has already extensively clarified the true mark of non-attainment, the *Lotus Sūtra* does not clarify it; because [*Prajñā*] had not yet extensively explained the cause and fruit of the One Vehicle, [the *Lotus Sūtra*] therefore extensively clarifies it. Since the *Lotus Sūtra* had already clarified the cause and fruit of the One Vehicle, the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* does not extensively clarify it; because [*the Lotus Sūtra*] had not yet extensively clarified that buddha-nature is eternally abiding, [the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*] therefore extensively explains it. Moreover, it is merely a single Path explained via three meanings: because of the meaning of illuminating all cognitive objects without exception, it is called Prajñā; because of the meaning of ultimate truth without duality, it is called the Wondrous Dharma; because of the meaning of being constant, eternal, and unchanging, it is designated Nirvāṇa. Furthermore, because it is in the mind of the bodhisattva, it is called prajñā; because it is in the mind of the Buddha, it is called sarvajñā; because it is fully present in the minds of both buddhas and bodhisattvas, it is called the One Vehicle. Furthermore, one must comprehend that the various sūtras reveal the Path without divergence, yet explain it under divergent names. For example, the *Large Sūtra* uses the name Prajñā and does not use the titles of One Vehicle and buddha-nature; the *Lotus Sūtra* uses the name One Vehicle and does not use the designations of Prajñā and buddha-nature; and so on, with the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* likewise.
5.5
Second, stimulus and response [has] three aspects. Stimulus and response are indeed the cardinal tenet of the Buddha-Dharma and the essential guide of all sūtras. “Stimulus” means the sense of drawing forth and summoning; “response” means the sense of approaching and receiving. When sentient beings have good [roots], they bring about [the Buddha's appearance] before them; [the Buddha] lowers his form to approach and receive them, in an accord with principle that is never violated: this is called stimulus and response. Ordinary beings stimulate but do not respond; the Buddhas respond but do not stimulate; bodhisattvas both respond and stimulate. Stimulations are not identical; briefly, there are four kinds: First, stimulating form but not sound: they only see the Buddha and do not hear the Dharma. Second, stimulating sound but not form: they directly hear the teaching and do not see the Buddha. Third, stimulating both form and sound: they see the Buddha and hear the Dharma. Fourth, neither seeing the Buddha nor hearing the Dharma: they directly stimulate his spiritual power and receive hidden benefit.
Second, the essence of stimulus and response. Question: Among the good [actions] of the three periods of time, which good stimulates [the Buddha]? Answer: Some say that future good stimulates. If so, then the future Buddha would respond, not the present Buddha. Others say that present good stimulates. Still others say that past good stimulates. Others say that evil stimulates. Some say good stimulates, while others say good and evil together stimulate. If one says evil can stimulate, why do all sentient beings who give rise to evil not see the Buddha? If one says good can stimulate the Buddha, since sentient beings already have good roots and are all able to attain the Way, what need have they of the Buddha? As when one is not sick, what need is there for a physician? If both good and evil stimulate, since all sentient beings possess both good and evil, why would they not stimulate the Buddha while suffering in the six destinies? We now clarify that the good of the three periods of time stimulates: past and present are the primary stimuli, while future is the auxiliary stimulus. Hence a sūtra says: “Having long cultivated good roots in the past, and now being mindful of the Buddha, one is able to see the Tathāgata.” Now clarifying stimulus by good and evil: one is about to extinguish evil, and good can be born.
Question: How does this differ from others' [theories of] stimulus and response? Answer: We now clarify that stimulus is the meaning of response, and response takes stimulus as its meaning; stimulus and response depend on each other, which is dependent co-arising.
Question: Does the Buddha have a responsive dharma that arises, the cessation of which is called extinction? Or is there no responsive dharma that arises, and yet it is called extinction? Answer: From antiquity down to the present there are altogether three explanations. Master Kaishan [Zhizang] used the doctrine of Master [Seng]bi: sentient beings see birth and extinction upon the dharmakāya, whereas the Buddha in reality has no birth and extinction. Hence a sūtra says: “By the power of the roots of benevolence, he causes them to see it”—referring to [an illusion of a lion where] there is in reality no lion. Dharma Master Min of Zhuangyan said: There is distinctly a responsive dharma that arises; hence, displaying the trace from the root is birth, and resting the trace to return to the root is called extinction. As a sūtra says: “The king of garuḍas ascends into empty space, looks down upon the nature of the water, and sees its own reflection”—this is the proof of it. Yan of Zhaoti said: It possesses both meanings. We now clarify correctly that due to conflicting diverse theories—some saying there is real extinction, some saying there is no real extinction, some saying a responsive dharma arises, some saying there is no arising—all are contentious disputes. Therefore Nāgārjuna appeared in the world to refute them. When all views cease, only then does one recognize the boundless great functioning of the conventional designation of dependent co-arising: neither arising nor non-arising, both arising and non-arising, neither non-arising nor non-non-arising, functioning in adaptation to conditions and mastering all skillful means. Although it encompasses all these meanings, it is also not identical to the old explanations. It is merely that arising where there is nowhere to arise is called non-arising, and non-arising yet arising is called arising. One must not hear of arising and fixate on an understanding of arising, nor hear of non-arising and fixate on an understanding of non-arising.
Question: Because the Buddha crosses over into extinction, sentient beings give rise to delusion; if he did not become extinct, they would not give rise to delusion. Is the fault then with the Buddha? Answer: The *Dazhidu lun* says: “The Buddha benefits sentient beings at three times: first, when he is a bodhisattva; second, when he attains buddhahood; third, when he crosses over into extinction.” The *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* says: “Wishing to cause sentient beings to give rise to joy, he manifests birth in the royal palace; wishing to cause sentient beings to give rise to longing and good [roots], he manifests extinction in the twin śāla trees.” Since it says that he benefits beings at three times, we know that the delusion arises of itself due to conditions; the Buddha is without fault.
Question: Is it the good of the habitual cause that stimulates, or the good of the retributive cause that stimulates? The answer says: The habitual cause is the primary stimulus, and the retributive cause is the auxiliary stimulus, because seeing the Buddha gives rise to pleasant sensations.
Question: When good and evil stimulate the Buddha, is good the primary stimulus, or is evil the primary stimulus? Answer: Good is the primary stimulus; evil is the auxiliary stimulus.
Question: Someone says there is no distinct response that arises, but one merely sees the sixteen-foot [body] upon the dharmakāya. What about this? Answer: It contradicts the sūtra text. The *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* says: “The king of garuḍas flies and ascends into empty space, looks down upon the nature of the water, and sees its own reflection.” Empty space is the dharmakāya Buddha; the king of garuḍas is the saṃbhogakāya Buddha; and seeing its own reflection is the nirmāṇakāya Buddha.
Third, the category of symbolic response. After the Buddha's extinction and crossing over, there are physical images and written sūtras; these are called symbolic responses, not primary responses. Why is this? Because the sixteen-foot [body] and the verbal teachings are manifested by observing beings' capacities; since they respond to capacities, they should be called primary responses. After sentient beings have seen and heard them, they make images to symbolize what they have seen, and copy them down to transmit what they have heard. Since these originate from sentient beings and do not originate primarily from the Buddha, they are symbolic responses and not primary responses. If we speak now according to inclusion, they also enter into the response. How is this known? Since images are included within the Buddha Jewel, why should they not be included within response? Although written sūtras are the true Dharma, since they are copied down by sentient beings, they are likewise included in response.
Question: The essence of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is non-dual; as for that which is able to respond, it is not yet clear what kind of dharma this non-duality is. Answer: The Tattvasiddhi masters say that ultimate truth is the gate of non-duality; the *Dazhidu lun* masters say it is the prajñā of the true mark; the Dilun masters employ the ālayavijñāna; and Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha of the Shelun school takes it to be the amalavijñāna. Among these four traditions, the first two rely on the cognitive object, while the latter two are based on mind. Although the meanings of consciousness and object differ, they equally transcend the catuskoṭi. Therefore Śākyamuni remained secluded in Magadha, and Vimalakīrti held his tongue in Vaiśālī. These are both regarded as spiritual governance, and thus the mouth was silent on account of it. How could one say they lacked eloquence? It is that which eloquence cannot express. We now clarify that it is principle of the Middle Way buddha-nature, which cannot be called cognitive object or mind, nor can it be called non-cognitive-object or non-mind.
Question: At what stage is a bodhisattva able to contemplate both the ultimate and conventional simultaneously, manifesting form in response to beings like the moon in water, and ferrying people across to liberation? Answer: Master Lingwei said: Upon the first stage, attaining the unborn, one is able to contemplate both the ultimate and conventional simultaneously. Masters Kumārajīva and Sengzhao said: On the seventh stage they are contemplated simultaneously. The Tattvasiddhi masters say: On the eighth stage they are contemplated simultaneously. We now say that from the initial aspiration of the mind, one trains in the unborn and practices simultaneous contemplation. Therefore the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: “Between the initial aspiration and the ultimate, the two are not distinct.” There are four graduated levels: First, in contrast to the ordinary stages prior to the bhūmis, only the patience of compliance is explained; there is not yet the unborn, nor can the ultimate and conventional be contemplated simultaneously. The first stage is called noble; only here does one begin to attain the unborn, and the two contemplations first run simultaneously. Both the *Humane Kings Sūtra* and the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* have this statement. Second, from the first stage up through the sixth stage, the unborn is still shallow, so it is given the name of the patience of compliance. Arriving at the seventh stage, which is called the stage of equal samādhi and wisdom, only then is it the unborn, named simultaneous contemplation. The *Dazhidu lun* says: “The first three stages have much wisdom and little samādhi; the latter three stages have much samādhi and little wisdom”; hence samādhi and wisdom are unequal. Arriving at the seventh stage, samādhi and wisdom are balanced and equal, so it is called the stage of equal samādhi and wisdom. This explains that the quiet contemplation of prajñā is samādhi, and the active illumination of skillful means is wisdom. The sixth stage is wonderful in quiet contemplation but clumsy in engaging activity, so samādhi and wisdom are not yet equal. Arriving at the seventh stage, both functions are skillful, so it is called the stage of equal samādhi and wisdom. Third, although the seventh stage has attained the unborn and is already able to contemplate simultaneously, there is still effort. On the eighth stage, the mind of effort never arises again, which is named the unborn. Fourth, although the eighth stage is without effort, it is not yet ultimate; the ultimate unborn lies in the Buddha stage. The “Expedient Means” chapter says: “Having long been in the Buddha-Way, their minds are already fully ripened.” One should know that this is the unborn of the Buddha stage. The Golden Grain Tathāgata [Vimalakīrti], based on this text, has already shown that the unborn is fully present in all four places. The various masters each cling partially to one, in vain losing its true intent.
5.6
Third, the Pure Land. There are two aspects: general and specific. The Pure Land is the domain inhabited by the buddhas and bodhisattvas, the refuge of all sentient beings. In discussing buddha-lands, there are five kinds in all: first, pure; second, impure; third, impure-[becoming]-pure; fourth, pure-[becoming]-impure; fifth, mixed lands. What is termed "pure" means that a bodhisattva transforms sentient beings by means of wholesome dharmas; sentient beings fully accept the wholesome dharmas and together construct wholesome conditions, obtaining a purely pure land. What is termed "impure" means that if sentient beings create unwholesome conditions, they bring about an impure land. What is termed "pure-[becoming]-impure" means that it is initially a pure land, but when these sentient beings' conditions are exhausted and later unwholesome sentient beings arrive, the land turns into an impure one. What is termed "impure-[becoming]-pure" means that when impure conditions are exhausted and later pure sentient beings arrive, the land turns into a pure one, as in the cases of Maitreya and Śākyamuni. What is termed "mixed lands" means that sentient beings fully give rise to both wholesome and unwholesome karmas, thereby bringing about a land mixed with purity and defilement. These five are all arisen from sentient beings' own karma and should be named "lands of sentient beings"; but because the Buddha has the merit of royal transformation, they are called "buddha-lands." However, since retribution lands are fivefold, response lands are also the same: retribution is based on what sentient beings' karma brings about, while response is based on what the Tathāgata manifests; hence together there are ten lands. Within the pure lands, four stations are further distinguished: First, the land where ordinary beings and noble ones dwell together, as when Maitreya appears in the world, ordinary beings and noble ones dwell together within the pure land. It is also like the Western [Pure Land], where those born of the nine grades are ordinary beings, yet there are also worthy ones and noble ones of the three vehicles. Second, the land where the great and small dwell together, which refers to arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas of great power who have abandoned the body of fragmented [cycle of birth and death] within the three realms and are born in a pure land outside the realms. Third, the land where bodhisattvas dwell exclusively, which refers to bodhisattvas whose path surpasses the two vehicles and who dwell in a different land, just as in the world of Sarvagandhasugandhā there is no name of the two vehicles, and also like the world of seven jewels which is purely composed of bodhisattvas. Fourth, the land where buddhas dwell exclusively, as the Renwang [jing] says: "The three [grades of] worthy ones and ten [stages of] noble ones dwell in fruit-retribution; only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land." The stations of the various pure lands do not go beyond these four, which proceed in order from inferior to superior. Question: What is taken as the essence of the land? Answer: There are three [explanations of] the essence of the land. First, in terms of phenomenal characteristics, its essence is fivefold: the purity of the place of transformation, the purity of the master of transformation, the purity of the doctrinal gates, the purity of the assembly of disciples, and the purity of the season, being free from weapons and warfare, and so forth. Second, if explained in terms of the world of the land within the three worlds, then the seven precious gems are taken as its essence. Third, vertically discussing the principle: viewed in relation to the Way, the land takes non-land as its essence; it is necessary that by relying on non-land there can be a land. That is, "because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas are able to be established." The Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters say: What consciousness transforms into is the pure land, taking the mind as its essence. Now I explain that there are three kinds: if it is the pure land of the dharmakāya, it takes the Middle Way as its essence; if it is the pure land of the retribution buddha, it takes the seven precious gems as its essence; and if it is the pure land of the transformation body, it takes the responsive form as its essence. Universally speaking, they all take the Middle Way as their essence, while the two [forms of existence] are functions. Some say: Buddhas have no pure land; it merely responds to sentient beings; retribution is spoken of in terms of the master of transformation, hence it is merely called a "buddha-land." This is the view of the Tattvasiddhi masters, not what the sūtras and treatises explain. When sūtras and treatises say that buddhas have no pure land, it means they have no pure land of fragmented or transformational [birth and death]. When they say there is a pure land, it is the truly eternal pure land obtained through the myriad practices. Therefore a sūtra says: "The pure land of the dharmakāya is the truly established pure land." As for the pure land of the retribution buddha, sūtras and treatises everywhere explain the pure land. Question: Some say that the pure land has two locations and two substances, like the Western Pure Land and this defiled land. A second [view] says they are two substances in one location. A third [view] says they are one substance in two locations, as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "severing and taking the pure land of Abhirati, and placing it within this defiled land." For the time being it is one land, existing there and again coming here; therefore it is one substance in two locations. In this manner, four masters each form contentious disputes. Now I explain that each has its own meaning; do not grasp one side and harm the flavor of its meaning. Śāriputra saw an impure land, while the Brahmā King saw the truly established pure land. The pure land explained above in the seventeen verses is a retribution land, while the pure land manifested when pressing the earth with a toe, and so forth, is a response land; the rest of the text can be known accordingly. Question: The sūtra says: "When sentient beings see [the world] burned up completely, my pure land is not burned." What pure land is this? Answer: Kumārajīva says: "This is the meaning of different substances in the same location. The pure and the defiled, the coarse and the subtle, are different, and therefore they do not obstruct each other." It is like the body of the deva-son Śuddhāvāsa not obstructing the earth; it is also like the Avīci Hell, where although hundreds of thousands dwell together, they do not interfere with or obstruct each other; it is also like clarified butter not obstructing a coarse vessel. How much less would the two substances of pure and defiled obstruct each other? Therefore, the defiled is burned while the pure land is not burned. The Buddha established three bodies; by analogy of the bodies with the lands, there are also three lands. Furthermore, the Renwang [jing] says: "Only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land"; the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Thusness is the dwelling place of the Buddha"; and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa also explains that eternally abiding thusness is the land. Question: The sūtra says that one substance is seen differently. What kind of thing is this one substance? Answer: One substance has many kinds. If one real mark is taken as the one substance, because the real mark is lost, there are the different perceptions of the six destinies. The Great Sūtra says: "It is a single-flavored medicine; following the places where it flows, there are six kinds of differences." Just as when humans see water there are three objects: hungry ghosts see it as fire, which is brought about by an inverted mind, thus constituting the two perceptions of water and fire. As humans see the Ganges as water, hungry ghosts see it as fire, devas see it as lapis lazuli ground, and fish see it as their cavernous home. The pure and the defiled are also like this: because their karmas are different, they see purity and defilement, while in reality there are no such purity and defilement. This is the substance of the Middle Way land; according to the two conditions of purity and defilement, the two lands are seen. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters explain that all take consciousness-only as the essence of the pure land, discussing it in terms of traces. As for one substance and two perceptions: Śāriputra seeing the buddha-land as defiled was merely seeing a human land; the Brahmā King was seeing a deva land; yet the buddha-land is neither a human nor a deva land, as the sūtra speaks of "the land adorned with jewels"—and how much more so the true land of Śākyamuni! Question: That there is one substance and two perceptions may be granted. But if one sees defilement in a pure substance, and the defiled is burned, is the pure burned or not? Answer: Because of unwholesome karma, one sees the impure being burned, but the pure is truly not burned. Question: If the pure substance is destroyed, is the defiled also destroyed or not? Answer: The defiled is destroyed along with it, for defilement is merely perceived based upon the pure. Because the pure is destroyed, the condition for defilement has nothing to perceive. Just as hungry ghosts originally see fire based upon water, when the water dries up, they do not see fire. Seeing the pure based on a defiled substance is also like this. Second, specifically discussing the Western Pure Land, there are five distinctions: First, eternal and impermanent: Some say that this sūtra is still impermanent, provisionally preaching permanence through concealed characteristics, similar to the Lotus Sūtra. Now I explain that it is eternally abiding, for the text states: "Ultimate single vehicle, reaching the other shore." Therefore we know it is eternal. In reliance upon treatises, it is in various ways explained as eternal. Second, explaining whether it is of the three realms or not of the three realms: As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains, "Being upon the ground, it is not called the form realm; being free from sensual desire and defilement, it is not called the desire realm; having bodily forms, it is not called the formless realm." The sūtra says: "There are no Mount Sumerus, oceans, rivers, or streams." Therefore we know there are no three realms. But the text also states: "The Buddha asked Maitreya and Ānanda: 'Do you see in that land, from the ground up to the Śuddhāvāsa heavens, all the subtle, wonderfully adorned, pure, and spontaneous things within it?' Ānanda replied: 'Yes indeed, I have seen them.'" Since it says "have seen them," there cannot be an absence of the three realms. The capacities of beings are free and flexible, and cannot be definitively determined; thus there are no coarse three realms, but there are subtle three realms. Third, having śrāvakas and having no śrāvakas: The sūtra says: "There are those who attain the fruit of arhatship." The interpretations are different. One says: Those of the lowest grade are born in lotus flowers; when they regress from the mind of bodhi, after emerging they receive the fruit of the two vehicles; so there are truly śrāvakas. A second says: The bhikṣu Dharmākara made a vow, wishing that within his land there would be no name of śrāvakas or the two vehicles; now when it speaks of śrāvakas, it is still using the name according to their original status; in reality there are no śrāvakas. Now I say: Just as in the buddha-land of Sarvagandhasugandhā there is no name of śrāvakas, now since this sūtra says there are, there should indeed be śrāvakas. Fourth, having devas and humans, and having no devas and humans: The sūtra says: "Neither devas nor humans." If we rely on this text, then it is of a single mark; how could one distinguish between humans and devas? Yet the text says: "In accordance with other regions, there are the names of humans and devas." This means that at times the superior are devas and the inferior are humans; wishing to guide the humans and devas of the defiled land to be born in the pure land, there is in reality no distinction of humans and devas. Fifth, having womb-birth and having no womb-birth: All should be born by transformation, and there should be no womb-birth. Yet when the sūtra says that "the lowest grade receives womb-birth," this is not a maternal womb; because they remain inside the lotus calyx for a long time without emerging, it is called womb-birth, not real womb-birth. Birds and beasts are also like this: in reality there are no birds or beasts, but there are response-birds and beasts, which is why the sūtra says: "In the ponds there are wild ducks, geese, and the like."
First 9 of 29 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大乘玄論 — Classical Chinese