華嚴五十要問答 2.18

2.18

Fifth, distinguishing the stages and grounds, and removing doubts through questions and answers. The stage of thorough investigation lies in the two stages of heat and summit; or according to the Chapter on Cultivation Periods, it lies in the ten faiths and the ten understandings. The stage of true cognition lies in patience and supreme worldly dharmas; or according to the Chapter on Cultivation Periods, it lies in the stages of the ten practices and the ten dedications. Thus the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "The bodhisattva cultivates the two expedient paths of heat and summit in the four thorough investigations." How does one cultivate the path within the four true cognitions? Up to where the commentary on the treatise says: "Taking consciousness as the cognitive object, one discerns that there is no dust [i.e., external object]," and so on. Since the cognitive object is non-existent, the cognition that takes it as object definitely cannot arise. Because of this discernment, one can subdue and eradicate the conceptual thought of mere-consciousness. Once mere-consciousness is eradicated, proceeding from the final instant to the second instant, one immediately enters the first ground. Moreover, the Chapter on Cultivation Periods states: "Just as prior to the path of the śrāvaka there are four expedient means—namely heat, summit, patience, and supreme worldly dharmas—the four stages prior to the grounds of the bodhisattva are also like this, namely the ten faiths, the ten understandings, the ten practices, and the ten dedications." Hence it is known. Question: The bodhisattva sees that the marks of name and referent are distinct, and sees that their concordance is concordance reliant on referents. Since the bodhisattva sees that verbal discourse on self-nature and verbal discourse on distinction both belong to referents, names and referents are concordant. How does one come to know that names and referents are mutual guests? This is the text of the treatise; what is the sense of its meaning? For instance, non-Buddhists conceptualize that names and referents each have their own self-nature and distinction, and each is concordant between the two dharmas of name and referent. Their self-nature and distinction are thus each level, equal, and without partiality. How does one come to know that names and referents are mutual guests? The treatise gives three answers: First, because cognition does not arise regarding the name beforehand, this proves that names and referents are not of identical substance and are not concordant; when they are not of identical substance, then there is no dharma. Names and referents in worldly enumeration are all like this. If name and referent were of identical substance and were concordant, before hearing the name, when knowing within that referent, cognition of the name should already be established. Yet one currently observes that cognition knowing the referent arises while cognition knowing the name does not arise; hence one knows that names and referents are fundamentally not concordant. The second meaning: citing the contradiction between one and many proves that names and referents are not identical and also not concordant. For instance, for the single referent of a vase, the names established in different countries are all distinct. If name and referent were concordant so as to be established as existent, then since names are many and not one, the referent should also be many. Why is this? Because a single referent concordant with multiple names would be established as existent. The third meaning: because of the difference between definite and indefinite, the two marks of name and referent cannot be concordant, since names are indefinite. If name and referent were concordant, since the name is indefinite, the referent should also be so. In the Western land [i.e., India] there is a linguistic usage where a single name 'go' designates nine referents. The nine are: cardinal direction, earth, ray of light, cow, vajra, eye, heaven, and water; the single name 'go' designates these nine referents. If name and referent were definitely concordant, when designating heaven, earth should follow the name and be concordant with heaven, and the others would be likewise. Since this is not the case, one knows that the two natures of name and referent are distinct. Unity is also not concordant. Why is this? Because it contradicts the above three meanings. If difference were concordant, this also would not be established. Why is this? Because it also contradicts the above three meanings. Question: Concordance through unity and concordance through difference are two distinct meanings; how can they both contradict the same three meanings? Answer: Although the names are the same, the faults of contradicting the three meanings are both distinct; this is how it is known. If name and referent were one and concordant, the cognition seeing the referent would necessarily be the cognition knowing the name. Furthermore, if they were one, since the referent is one, the names would not be many. Furthermore, if they were one, since the name is indefinite, the referent should also be so. If name and referent were different and concordant, when the cognition knowing the referent arises, the cognition knowing the name should also immediately arise. Why is this? Because name and referent are distinct and yet concordant. Furthermore, if they were different, since the names are many, the referents should also be many, because the two marks would be distinct and yet concordant. Furthermore, if they were different, since the nine referents are distinct, the single name 'go' should also become nine. Why is this? Because they would be established as existent through the concordance of the distinct marks of that name and referent. Principles such as these are all spoken specifically in terms of the four thorough investigations; the six thorough investigations and the three thorough investigations can be known by analogy with this. Why is this? Because they do not transcend being established as existent through concordance as one or different; the rest can be investigated by analogy. This teaching is in the triyāna, yet it can also be utilized in the Ekayāna. Why is this? Because this method of contemplation is utilized everywhere, corresponding to the dharmadhātu.