華嚴經內章門等雜孔目章 2.87

2.87

This sense of 'inverting reliance' is called the 'secret teaching'. Why is this? It is because this teaching was promoted in order to subdue heterodox scholars, generate faith, and realize the path. 'Inverting reliance' means that relying upon the explicit literal sense reveals a disparate textual meaning; this is termed 'inverting reliance', and its essence is simply wisdom. The meaning of 'inverting reliance' properly belongs to the Triyāna, and is identical with the method of debate. In the method of debating propositions, there are broadly seven kinds: determination of meaning, determination of explanation, determination of distinguishing and revealing, determination of debate on equal terms, determination of synopsis, determination of the rules of debate, and determination of secrets. Although the treatises contain these seven rubrics, when contrasted with the holy teaching, in terms of the initial division there are two: First, when contrasting the Triyāna and the Two Vehicles, the Triyāna constitutes an explicit disclosure, not forming a secret. When contrasting the Hīnayāna with the Mahāyāna, it is then termed 'secret'. Why is this? Because the provisional forms of causes and conditions conceal, without revealing the true principle. Since the capacities of śrāvakas are shallow, faith is established through expedient means, allowing them gradually to enter the Buddha-Dharma; therefore it is not spoken suddenly. Because it is given for small capacities that cannot bear [the direct truth], it is called the secret teaching. Second, it is to subdue heterodox scholars and bring them to mature right faith. The Buddha brought forth the method of debate, inverting reliance, and other such meanings; taking the Mahāyāna tenet, he subdued those outsiders to make them enter the Buddha-Dharma in faith, and therefore he promoted this teaching. Question: When promoting the method of debate, in principle it should be definitively unified. Why is it that in the minor hetuvidyā and related works, in establishing their method of debate, they set up only the thesis, reason, and example, without using a conclusion? Why are they not the same? Answer: Whenever debate is promoted, the primary purpose is to reveal the meaning. If the definitive meaning is already understood before the conclusion, then a conclusion is not needed. If it requires reaching the conclusion before the meaning is understood, then a conclusion must be provided. Because there are these two purposes, they are not the same. Furthermore, the promotion of the method of debate has the distinction between initial and final. In the initial teaching, both having debate and not having debate are alike called debate. Why is this? Because both meanings grasp what is essential to reveal the Buddha-Dharma. When reaching the final teaching, non-debate constitutes debate. Why is this? Because pacifying characteristics and returning to the real accomplishes realization and reveals the meaning, whereas anything else does not accord with principle; hence non-debate constitutes debate. In the Hīnayāna, there is only contentious debate, because the Hīnayāna tenet does not grasp the emptiness of phenomena, does not exhaust the source of phenomena, and its teaching is incomplete. When reaching the initial teaching, verbal debate must be taken as correct. In the initial teaching the principle of phenomena is not exhausted, so words are specifically deployed to express it. When reaching the final teaching, non-debate is taken as correct, because through plumbing the principle of phenomena to the utmost, it does not rely on words to be expressed. As for discussing its demarcation: between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, the expedient means of the method of debate itself is precisely its demarcation. Its texts cannot be fully cited; it is as stated in the section on the determination of the method of debate at the end of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya*, and also as stated in the latter portion on the training in concentration in the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*. The Liang translation of the treatise says: The treatise states: 'As the sūtra says: How is it that a bodhisattva does not harm a single thing, nor give to a single person? If a bodhisattva is well able to practice giving in immeasurable and countless ways, cultivating the practice of giving in the worlds of the ten directions in continuous arising.' The commentary says: The bodhisattva renounces self-cherishing and gathers all sentient beings as his own body, because all paths of action and all wealth and goods entirely belong to sentient beings. Since wealth is not one's own possession and the user is not another, when their property is for their use, how does it concern me? If one can thus move one's mind, this is being well able to practice giving. Furthermore, the bodhisattva renounces self-cherishing and gathers all sentient beings as his own body; because the giving practiced by all sentient beings is just the bodhisattva's practice of giving. When the bodhisattva gives rise to a mind of rejoicing in accordance [with others' giving], he obtains immeasurable merit of giving; this also is not harming a single thing and not giving to a single person, which is called being well able to practice giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva delight in practicing giving? If a bodhisattva does not delight in practicing all giving.' The commentary says: If a bodhisattva does not delight in practicing the meaning of the eight kinds of giving, such as giving upon arrival, but only delights in practicing the bodhisattva's giving with a pure mind. Furthermore, if a bodhisattva does not delight in worldly giving that is attached to the three wheels, but delights in practicing giving that is unattached to the three wheels. Furthermore, attachment is called delight; if a bodhisattva is attached to the cause of giving or attached to the fruit of giving, this is called delighting in practicing giving. If a bodhisattva practices giving without attachment, this is called not delighting in practicing giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva practice a faithful mind of giving? If a bodhisattva does not practice relying on the faithful mind of all Buddhas and Tathāgatas.' The commentary says: Because the bodhisattva practices giving through his own realization of giving, he does not practice giving because of relying on faith in another. Since the former faith has a basis, it constitutes faith; because the latter faith lacks a basis, it does not constitute faith. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva activate the practice of giving? If a bodhisattva does not urge on his own body in giving.' The commentary says: The bodhisattva by self-nature is able to practice giving, being free of obstacles such as greed, stinginess, and jealousy; it is not by urging on his own body that he is then able to practice giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva constantly sport in giving? If for the bodhisattva there is no time of giving.' The commentary says: The bodhisattva does not give from time to time, nor does he give according to only a single thing. The treatise states: 'How is a bodhisattva greatly able to practice giving? If the bodhisattva is free of the notion of *sāra* in giving.' The commentary says: The name *sāra* designates two meanings: first, it designates firm reality; second, it designates distraction. 'Firm reality' is the straightforward word; 'distraction' is the esoteric word. If one takes the straightforward word and is free of firm reality, this would contradict great giving. If one takes the esoteric word and is free of distraction, this accords with great giving. When practicing giving after having abandoned desire in the three realms, it is called great giving. Why is this? When a desire-free bodhisattva practices giving, a completely bound ordinary person practicing giving cannot equal it by hundreds of thousands of myriad times. If giving and concentration mutually hinder each other, it is not called great giving; because they do not mutually hinder each other, it receives the designation 'great'. The treatise states: 'How is a bodhisattva pure in giving? If a bodhisattva *utpādayati* greed and stinginess.' The commentary says: The name *utpādayati* designates two meanings: first, it designates giving rise; second, it designates uprooting and abandoning. 'Giving rise' is the straightforward word; 'uprooting and abandoning' is the esoteric word. If one takes the straightforward word of giving rise to greed and stinginess, this contradicts pure giving; if one takes the esoteric word of uprooting and abandoning greed and turning one's back on stinginess, this accords with pure giving. 'Uprooting' is eliminating the view of self, and the view of self is the root of greed and stinginess; 'abandoning and turning one's back' is eliminating the substance of greed and stinginess. Because the bodhisattva can sever the view of self and extinguish greed and stinginess, he is pure in giving. The treatise states: 'How can a bodhisattva abide in giving? If a bodhisattva does not abide in the ultimate limit.' The commentary says: 'The ultimate limit' has two meanings: First, giving has a beginning, middle, and end, with the final part being the ultimate limit. If according to this meaning one does not abide in giving, how could the final part be said to be being able to abide in giving? This would be a contradiction. Second, if nirvāṇa with remainder is called 'ultimate', nirvāṇa without remainder is called 'the ultimate limit'. If a śrāvaka abides in nirvāṇa without remainder, he does not give rise to mind again and has no activities of benefiting sentient beings; thus he cannot abide in giving. Because the bodhisattva relies on great compassion and does not abide in nirvāṇa without remainder like a śrāvaka, he constantly activates the six perfections without exhaustion. If according to this meaning, then it accords with being able to abide in giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva have mastery over giving? If a bodhisattva does not obtain mastery in giving.' The commentary says: If a bodhisattva does not obtain mastery over the obstacles to giving, the bodhisattva then obtains mastery over giving. Formerly, on the stage of an ordinary person, the two afflictions of view and cultivation had no path of antidotes, and arose whenever they wished to arise; thus they had mastery. Now, having entered the holy rank, because they are counteracted by the path, the bodhisattva does not obtain mastery over afflictions, and is able to obtain mastery over giving. The treatise states: 'How is a bodhisattva inexhaustible in giving? If a bodhisattva does not abide in the inexhaustible.' The commentary says: Nirvāṇa without remainder is called 'the inexhaustible'. The bodhisattva does not enter the inexhaustible like a śrāvaka, where there are no activities of benefiting others; therefore the bodhisattva is inexhaustible in giving. The treatise states: 'As with giving, so with morality up to wisdom, as should be understood in accordance with principle.' The commentary says: As with giving, the sūtras state that giving has expressions of non-definitive meaning, and their statements on the other perfections also have expressions of non-definitive meaning; all must be distinguished in accordance with principle. Furthermore, according to the *Sūtra on the Pure Urbon Basin*, there are: 1. giving obtained by the Saṃgha; 2. giving in person; 3. giving for virtue in precepts; 4. giving for the rains retreat; 5. giving with fixed limits; 6. giving by designation; 7. giving through provision; and 8. giving to the permanently abiding Saṃgha of the three periods. These are the proper givings of the Triyāna. Furthermore, according to the *Abhidharma*, there are eight improper givings: 1. giving with expectation; 2. giving out of fear; 3. giving for repayment; 4. giving with an expected reward; 5. giving by family tradition; 6. giving to be born in heaven; 7. giving seeking fame; and 8. giving without seeking the bliss of saṃsāra. Furthermore, there are the ten kinds of giving of the Ekayāna, as broadly explained in the 'Chapter on the Ten Inexhaustible Treasuries'. The remaining meanings are as in the separate chapter.