華嚴五十要問答 1.44

1.44

Question: What is the meaning of transforming and extinguishing the four consciousnesses to accomplish the four wisdoms? Answer: According to the Hīnayāna teaching, there are only the five consciousnesses and the mental consciousness; there are neither ālaya nor manas, nor are there four wisdoms to be accomplished. If according to the triyāna teaching, then there are four consciousnesses transformed and extinguished to accomplish the four wisdoms. Yet regarding these four wisdoms in the triyāna final teaching and the teaching for direct advancement bodhisattvas, they are all accomplished from the mental consciousness. Why is this? Because all retribution and the ability of the manas-consciousness to arise in active manifestation are both accomplished through remote conditioning from the stage of the mental consciousness. If the vipāka-ālaya directly issues from seeds, and the seeds of the same category are produced from the dominant mental consciousness, how much less could the issuing of wisdom occur sequentially from the categories of the mūlavijñāna? This meaning is untenable. Buddhas and bodhisattvas merely borrow the names of the four wisdoms to manifest the four consciousnesses, showing that the mūlavijñāna and the manas-consciousness exist; it is definitely not that the four consciousnesses directly generate wisdom from their own categories. Why is this? Because the manas, the mūlavijñāna, and the five consciousnesses do not accomplish general retribution, since volitional karma and selection through hearing and reflection cannot exist [there]. If they generated volitional karma, then distinct [factors] would have to receive birth, and this error would ensue; the teachings also have no textual support for this. If it is the dharmatā-ālaya, the tathāgatagarbha-consciousness, it would be entirely inappropriate for it to give rise to volition on its own. The two teachings in the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra and Asvabhāva's Mahāyānasaṃgraha[-upanibandhana] differ because of distinct meanings. The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra says: 'One should know that there are five dharmas that subsume the stage of great awakening. What are the five? Namely, the pure dharmadhātu, the great round mirror wisdom, the equality wisdom, the wondrously observing wisdom, and the duty-accomplishing wisdom.' Below it explains sequentially down to the duty-accomplishing wisdom pervading and accomplishing the functions of the three karmas; there is no separate text assigning ālaya, manas, mental consciousness, and the five consciousnesses to separately achieve āśrayaparivṛtti to attain the four kinds of wisdom. Moreover, as in Asvabhāva's Mahāyānasaṃgraha[-upanibandhana], through the transformation of the eight factors such as the ālayavijñāna, the aggregate of consciousness attains the four kinds of wondrous wisdom such as the great round mirror wisdom, as numbered in sequence or as appropriate, one should know. Here, transforming the ālayavijñāna results in attaining the great round mirror wisdom: though the cognized object is not present before it, it does not forget; not limited by time or place, it is never deluded with respect to all objects; free of conceptual discrimination, it can give rise to the reflections of the buddha-wisdom of enjoyment. Transforming the defiled manas results in attaining the equality wisdom: already realized earlier at the first direct perception, it becomes increasingly pure in the stage of cultivation of the path; thereby abiding in non-abiding nirvāṇa, it is constantly associated with great loving-kindness and great compassion, and can manifest reflections of the buddha according to what is liked. Transforming the five observing consciousnesses results in attaining the wondrously observing wisdom: fully endowed with all dhāraṇī-gates and samādhi-gates, like a treasure house it can manifest all sovereign functions in the great assembly, can sever all doubts, and can rain the Dharma rain. Transforming the mental consciousness results in attaining the duty-accomplishing wisdom: everywhere in all worlds of the ten directions it can manifest transformations, descending from the Tuṣita heaven palace down to nirvāṇa, able to manifest the maintenance of all sentient beings' benefit and joy. Therefore, since the text above says 'as appropriate,' we know that the separate matching of the transformation of the four consciousnesses' bases to accomplish the four kinds of wisdom is not definitive; rather, the intent of the text is to adopt one meaning according to the context to reveal the Dharma, and it must not be taken as absolute. Just as borrowed defilements manifest stages, one can know it by analogy. One should know that the intent of the teaching is to reveal the Dharma through expedient means, hence it makes this statement. If viewed in terms of the triyāna initial teaching, this can also be so, as in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra. An external question asks: If the manas-consciousness does not generate wisdom from its own category, then there would be something lacking in the stage of a noble person. To answer this doubt, there are four propositions: there are dharmas common to both ordinary people and noble ones; there are dharmas present in ordinary people but absent in noble ones; there are dharmas present in noble ones but absent in ordinary people; and there are dharmas absent in both ordinary people and noble ones. That which is present in both ordinary people and noble ones refers to the five meanings of tathāgatagarbha. That which is absent in both ordinary people and noble ones refers to parikalpita-svabhāva. That which is absent in ordinary people but present in noble ones refers to the permanent body. That which is absent in noble ones but present in ordinary people refers to the impermanent body. Since this proposition exists, what fault is there in manas being present in ordinary people and absent in noble ones? This single meaning is taught only in the triyāna teaching; it does not exist in the unshared teaching of the Ekayāna. If viewed within the gate of the triyāna initial teaching, addressed to Hīnayāna people, this meaning is admissible. Why is this? Because addressed to the Hīnayāna, it does not teach that the tathāgatagarbha, undefiled yet defiled, defiled yet undefiled, constitutes the ālaya.