華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.5

4.5

In the former, each of the three natures has two meanings. The two meanings in the real [nature] are: first, the meaning of unchanging; second, the meaning of according with conditions. The two meanings in the other-dependent [nature] are: first, the meaning of appearing to exist; second, the meaning of being without self-nature. The two meanings in the imagined [nature] are: first, the meaning of existing in sentiment; second, the meaning of nonexistence in principle. Because the real is unchanging, the other-dependent is without self-nature, and the imagined is nonexistent in principle—due to these three meanings, the three natures are of one single limit, identical and without difference; this is not destroying the branches while being eternally the root. A sūtra states: "Sentient beings are themselves nirvāṇa, and do not extinguish again." Furthermore, in terms of suchness according with conditions, the other-dependent appearing to exist, and the imagined existing in sentiment—due to these three meanings they are also without difference; this is not moving the root while being eternally the branches. A sūtra states: "The dharma body transmigrates through the five paths, and is named sentient beings." That is, due to these three meanings and the previous three meanings, this is the gate of non-oneness; therefore, the real embraces the false branches, and the false penetrates to the real source; nature and characteristics thoroughly fuse, without hindrance or obstruction. Question: "How could the other-dependent's appearing to exist and so forth be identical to the imagined's existing in sentiment?" Answer: "Due to two meanings, there is no difference: (1) Because that imagined [nature] grasps what appears as real, there is no different dharma. (2) If separated from what is imagined, the appearance does not arise. One should know that according with conditions in the real is also thus, because without what is imagined, there is no according with conditions." Question: "How can each of the three natures have two meanings without mutually contradicting?" Answer: "Because these two meanings do not have different natures. What is this non-difference? Take, for example, the consummate [nature]: although it accords with conditions to form the defiled and pure, it never loses its own pure nature; precisely because it does not lose its own pure nature, it can accord with conditions to form the defiled and pure. It is like a bright mirror reflecting the defiled and pure: although it reflects the defiled and pure, it never loses the brightness and purity of the mirror; precisely because it does not lose the brightness and purity of the mirror, it is able to reflect the forms of defiled and pure. From the reflection of defiled and pure one knows the brightness and purity of the mirror; from the brightness and purity of the mirror one knows the reflection of defiled and pure. Therefore, the two meanings are only one single nature: although it reflects pure dharmas, it does not increase the brightness of the mirror; although it reflects defiled dharmas, it does not stain the purity of the mirror. Not only does it not stain it, but precisely because of this, it conversely reveals the brightness and purity of the mirror. One should know that the principle of suchness is also thus: not only does it form the defiled and pure without moving its pure nature, but also precisely by forming the defiled and pure does it reveal its pure nature; not only does it clarify the pure nature without destroying the defiled and pure, but also precisely because of its pure nature does it form the defiled and pure. Therefore, the two meanings completely embrace each other, one nature without duality; how could they contradict each other? In the other-dependent, although it is manifested as appearing to exist through causes and conditions, yet this apparent existence necessarily lacks self-nature, because all things born from conditions lack self-nature. If it were not without self-nature, it would not rely on conditions. Because it would not rely on conditions, it would not be an apparent existence. If apparent existence is established, it must proceed from multiple conditions; because it proceeds from multiple conditions, it necessarily lacks self-nature. Therefore, due to lacking self-nature, apparent existence is accomplished; because apparent existence is accomplished, it lacks self-nature. Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Contemplate all dharmas as arising from causes and conditions; arising from causes and conditions, they are without self-nature; because they are without self-nature, they are ultimately empty. That which is ultimately empty is named the prajñāpāramitā.' This shows that due to condition-arising, lack of self-nature is revealed. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas are able to be accomplished'; this shows that due to lack of self-nature, condition-arising is clarified. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'Because of causes and conditions there is existence; because of lack of self-nature there is emptiness.' This means that lack of self-nature is causes and conditions, and causes and conditions are lack of self-nature; it is the non-dual Dharma gate. Not only do the two meanings not contradict each other in nature, but they also completely embrace each other, being ultimately non-dual. In the imagined nature, although it is presented as existing in sentiment in accordance with grasping, yet in principle it is ultimately nonexistent, because it falsely calculates existence where there is none. Just like falsely calculating a ghost on a tree stump, yet the ghost is ultimately nonexistent on the wood; if the ghost were not nonexistent on that wood, it could not be named falsely calculating a ghost, because existing on the wood would not be due to calculation. Now since it is falsely calculated, we clearly know it is nonexistent in principle; because it is nonexistent in principle, false calculation is accomplished; because false calculation is accomplished, only then do we know it is nonexistent in principle. Therefore there is no duality, but only one single nature; one should know that the principle of the imagined is also thus." The above direct clarification is concluded.