English (machine translation)

Language: English
Extent: 122 passages, 21,344 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1883 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…

1 — 64 parts
2 — 58 parts

Text

1.1

Narrated by the śramaṇa Chengguan of Da Huayan Monastery on Qingliang Shan under the Tang.

I have pondered deeply on the Great Sūtra and modestly practiced this contemplation; gathering its essential principles, I have already recorded them in the commentary. Yet fearing that my karmic efforts might fall short regarding the profound sūtra, I had seldom praised and expounded this mysterious essential. Those of sincere devotion have occasionally raised it, and several disciples earnestly besought me, entreating me to elucidate it once, all saying: "Focusing our thoughts, visiting friends and tracing the source, studying or transmitting, we have widely sought all explanations, yet doubts and blockages accumulated over years are only now illuminated. We are vigilant and earnest day and night, wishing you to explain the profound meaning." Considering that I am in the twilight years of life, like a candle in the wind difficult to preserve, and fearing that the wondrous contemplation might sink into oblivion, allowing divergent words to confuse its path, I have complied with their sincere request and briefly analyzed its subtle depths, entitling it The Mysterious Mirror of the Dharmadhātu. I hope that future friends in the Way will see the profound intent of the ancient worthy.

1.3

The Contemplation says: In practicing the contemplation gate of the dharmadhātu of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-mahāvaipulya[-sūtra], there are briefly three levels. By Shi Fashun of Zhongnan Shan, lay surname Du.

1.4

The Commentary says: The six characters from "Great" (da) onwards designate the sūtra on which it relies, with the character "sūtra" (jing) omitted for brevity. From "contemplation of the dharmadhātu" downwards designates the contemplation that relies on it. Now I will first briefly explain the title of the sūtra. "Great, broad, and expansive" (mahāvaipulya) is the Dharma realized by all Tathāgatas. "Buddha-Avataṃsaka" is the person capable of realization who accords with the dharmadhātu. Dharma is divided into essence, characteristic, and function; the person has cause and effect. "Great" means greatness of essence, which is the profound dharmadhātu, the mental essence of all buddhas and sentient beings. Vastly encompassing like space, serene and eternally abiding, it is forcefully designated as "great." Therefore, the sūtra says: "The dharmatā pervades all places, all sentient beings, and lands; across the three times it is entirely present without remainder, yet no form or characteristic can be obtained." This is the meaning of "great." "Broad and expansive" means that characteristics and functions are all-pervading: identical to the characteristic of essence, the dharmas of the virtue of characteristics are boundless; identical to the function of characteristics, its karmic functions are vast and inexhaustible. The three are without obstruction, and adducing one fully gathers all; as the cognitive object of holy wisdom, it is the dharmadhātu that is realized. "Buddha" is the fruit, with myriad virtues completely luminous. "Flower" (avataṃsa/hua) is a metaphor for the cause, with myriad practices blooming radiantly. "Adornment" (alaṃkāra/yan) encompasses both the active and the passive, and has two levels: First, the cause of flowers is capable of adorning, and the fruit of buddhahood is what is adorned; by means of the causes of the ten pāramitās, the fruits of the ten bodies are accomplished, with no practice unprovided and no virtue unfulfilled. Second, the flowers are that which adorns, while the "great, broad, and expansive" is that which is adorned. Adorning the essence, characteristics, and functions accomplishes the three virtues of the Buddha: adorning according to essence reveals the virtue of true eternity; adorning according to characteristics articulates the virtue of accomplishment through cultivation; cultivating adornment relying on function accomplishes the virtue of great function. Universally adorning according with virtue, it is the flower adornment of boundless accomplished virtue. Thus, a single overall title possesses essence, characteristic, and function, and the person possesses cause and effect; person and Dharma are both titled, and Dharma and metaphor are presented together. The three greatnesses of the whole sūtra are all the great, broad, and expansive; the five cycles of cause and effect are all the Buddha-Avataṃsaka.

1.5

The seven characters of the single title each have ten meanings; now they shall be briefly explained:

1.6

Regarding the ten meanings of "great," all seven characters are "great": First, "great" is greatness of essence, because the dharmadhātu is eternal and all-pervading. Second, "broad" (fang) is greatness of characteristics, because the nature-virtue is boundless. Third, "expansive" (guang) is greatness of function, because the function corresponds to the essence and is all-pervading. Fourth, "Buddha" is greatness of fruit, because the ten bodies entirely pervade the dharmadhātu. Fifth, "flower" is greatness of cause, because Samantabhadra's practices and vows are themselves all-pervading in essence. Sixth, "adornment" is greatness of wisdom, because the Buddha's wisdom is like space and capable of serving as adornment. Seventh, "sūtra" is greatness of teaching, because exhausting the oceans as ink cannot write a single phrase. Eighth is greatness of meaning, because what is realized by the above six characters all accords with the nature. Ninth is greatness of sphere, because these seven characters collectively take all sentient beings as their cognitive object. Tenth is greatness of karmic activity, because these pedagogical principles extend horizontally throughout space and vertically exhaust time without cessation. Possessing the ten inexhaustibilities, it is therefore called "great."

1.7

Regarding the ten meanings of "broad and expansive," they are characteristics that accord with the essence and functions that correspond to the essence, which are precisely the dharmas of the ten directions and the ten great functions.

1.8

Regarding the ten meanings of "Buddha": First, "great" is the dharmakāya, because the Buddha takes the Dharma as body, and the Buddha's body completely fills the dharmadhātu. Second, "broad" is the wisdom body, because wisdom is like the Dharma. Third, "expansive" possesses two bodies: first, the transformation body, because a single body universally extends as immeasurable; second, the mind-made body, because the one and the many follow the mind and there is nothing not pervaded. "Buddha" contains the fifth and sixth bodies: first, the bodhi body, because the path is accomplished at the tree of awakening; second, the body of formidable power, because when initially accomplishing correct awakening, it outshines the bodhisattvas. "Flower" contains the seventh and eighth bodies: seventh, the body of blessed virtues, because the ocean of cause of the myriad merits practiced across the three times cannot be exhausted; eighth, the vow body, because Vairocana's causal vows pervade the dharmadhātu. "Adornment" is the ninth, the body adorned with marks and signs, because the marks and signs of the ten lotus treasuries adorn it. "Sūtra" is the tenth, the body of sustaining power, because relics and the complete voice of oral teachings are inexhaustible. Thus, the seven characters of the sūtra all constitute the Buddha.

1.9

Regarding the ten meanings of "flower adornment," adorning the ten bodies with the flowers of the ten pāramitās constitutes distinct adornments, which are precisely the ten adornments.

1.10

Since the character "sūtra" is omitted for brevity, its ten meanings are also omitted; that it gathers, threads together, is eternal, and is a model can all be known.

1.11

The inexhaustible ocean of teachings does not go beyond these seven characters; therefore, relying on this teaching, the contemplation gates are accomplished. That "in practicing the contemplation gate of the dharmadhātu, there are briefly three levels" briefly indicates the outline. The single character "practice" runs through the entire title, referring to the perfuming cultivation through śamatha and vipaśyanā, the study and mastery of it. As for the "dharmadhātu," it is the mysterious theme of the entire sūtra, because it overall takes the inconceivable pratītyasamutpāda-dharmadhātu as its central theme. However, the characteristics of the dharmadhātu are essentially only three, though altogether possessing four kinds: first, the dharmadhātu of phenomena; second, the dharmadhātu of principle; third, the dharmadhātu of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena; fourth, the dharmadhātu of the non-obstruction of phenomenon and phenomenon. Here it is the latter three; because the dharmadhātu of phenomena is distinct and difficult to set forth, and each individual phenomenal characteristic can form a contemplation, it is omitted and not clarified, collectively serving as the essential basis relied upon by the three contemplations. Its phenomena briefly have ten pairs: first, teaching and meaning; second, principle and phenomena; third, sphere and wisdom; fourth, practice and stage; fifth, cause and effect; sixth, circumstantial and direct [retribution]; seventh, essence and function; eighth, person and Dharma; ninth, adverse and favorable; tenth, stimulus and response. In accordance with each phenomenon, it is the genuine essence relied upon by the three contemplations. The author's name, virtuous deeds, and circumstances are detailed in the biographies.

1.12

The Contemplation says: The contemplation of true emptiness is the first; the contemplation of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena is the second; the contemplation of all-pervading and total inclusion is the third.

1.13

The Commentary says: This lists the three names. True emptiness is the dharmadhātu of principle; the second is as its original name; the third is the dharmadhātu of the non-obstruction of phenomenon and phenomenon. As for "true emptiness," it is not annihilationist emptiness, nor is it emptiness detached from form; it clarifies emptiness right within existence, and is also without the characteristic of emptiness—hence it is called true emptiness, as fully detailed in the text. Second, regarding "the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena," principle has no physical characteristic, but exists entirely within characteristics; mutually eclipsing yet coexisting, it is therefore called non-obstructed, also as fully detailed in the text. Third, regarding "all-pervading and total inclusion," phenomena originally obstruct one another, differing as large and small; principle originally encompasses and pervades, unobstructed like space. Integrating phenomena by principle, phenomena are entirely like principle, even to the point that a dust particle or hair tip completely encompasses and pervades; these two viewed together constitute the ten gates, also as explained below. Now, phenomenal dharmas are called dhātu (jie): "dhātu" means division, because they are the boundaries of inexhaustible distinctions. Principle dharmas are called dhātu: "dhātu" means nature, because inexhaustible phenomenal dharmas share one identical nature. The unobstructed dharmadhātu possesses both meanings of nature and division, because it does not destroy principle and phenomena yet is unobstructed. The fourth dharmadhātu also possesses both meanings, because nature integrates into phenomena, and each phenomenal dharma does not destroy its characteristic, yet like nature is integrated and thoroughly unobstructed, multi-layered and inexhaustible.

1.14

The Contemplation says: Within the method of the first contemplation of true emptiness, four propositions and ten gates are briefly made.

1.15

The Commentary says: This indicates the section; the former two each have four, and adding the third and fourth, they constitute the ten gates.

1.16

The Contemplation says: 1. Contemplation of reducing form to emptiness; 2. Contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is identical to form; 3. Contemplation of the non-obstruction of emptiness and form; 4. Contemplation of total annihilation without reliance.

1.17

The Commentary says: This lists the names.

1.18

The Contemplation says: Within the first gate, there are four [propositions]: First, form is not identical to emptiness because it is identical to emptiness. Why is this? Because form is not identical to annihilatory emptiness, it is therefore not emptiness. Because the entirety of form's essence is true emptiness, it is therefore said "because it is identical to emptiness." Precisely because it is identical to true emptiness, it is not annihilatory emptiness. Therefore, it is said that because it is this emptiness, it is not emptiness.

1.19

The Commentary says: All four contemplations have three sections, namely: setting forth, explanation, and conclusion. However, in accordance with the text below, the first three use the Dharma to eliminate emotional clinging, while the fourth directly reveals the principle of the Dharma. For the three propositions that eliminate emotional clinging, their stated names are identical, but their explained meanings are different. Now I will first explain generally what is eliminated by the three propositions; what is eliminated has three aspects: first, eliminating identity and detachment; second, eliminating confused thoughts; third, eliminating shape-form and color-form.

1.20

First, speaking in terms of general characteristics, all three propositions eliminate identity and detachment, speaking from the predominant aspect. The first proposition clarifies that emptiness is not detached from form, in order to eliminate detachment from form. The next proposition clarifies that emptiness is not identical to form, in order to eliminate excessive identity. The third proposition clarifies both non-identity and non-detachment, eliminating possessing both identity and detachment. Due to eliminating these three emotional clingings, the fourth proposition reveals the correct principle.

1.21

Second, regarding eliminating confused thoughts: The Ratnagotravibhāga clarifies that bodhisattvas prior to the stages have three kinds of confused thoughts about emptiness, because they do not understand that the true tathāgatagarbha is equal across the two limits of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and thus cling to three kinds of emptiness: First, considering emptiness to be annihilation, which the first proposition eliminates; second, seizing upon emptiness outside of form, which the third proposition eliminates; third, considering emptiness to be existent, which the second proposition eliminates. Having eliminated the three improper views of emptiness, the fourth proposition explains true emptiness.

1.22

Third, regarding eliminating shape-form and color-form, some say: "The first proposition means that the essence of shape-form is empty and not annihilatory emptiness; the second proposition means that color-form lacks essence and is inherently empty by its own nature; the third proposition means that emptiness lacks shape-form and color-form and is empty as a single essence; the fourth proposition means that form and emptiness are non-dual and both are empty of emptiness." The interpretation says: At first glance, this third meaning seems reasonable, because seeing words like 'blue' and 'yellow' in the second proposition, they took it to mean color-form; and since the first and third propositions lack the words 'blue' and 'yellow', they took them to mean shape-form, and thus made this explanation. Examined closely, there are contradictions. Why? Why do the first and third propositions not mention shape-forms such as long and short? Why does the second proposition comprehensively mention color-form? Why is shape-form eliminated from being annihilatory, while color-form cannot be eliminated from being annihilatory? Why can the second proposition say that the characteristics of blue and yellow are not identical to the principle of true emptiness, while shape-form cannot say that long, short, square, and round are not true emptiness? Therefore, the third explanation is not fitting; merely eliminating the first two is sufficient to reveal true emptiness. That the second text comprehensively states that blue and yellow are not true emptiness is because color-form clearly displays characteristics, and its characteristics are prominent. Furthermore, shape-form is provisional, whereas color-form is real; when real form is identical to emptiness, by analogy provisional shape-form is also identical to emptiness. Thus we know that all three propositions contain both shape-form and color-form, and both are identical to emptiness.

1.23

Next is the proper explanation of the text. Now, the first. The first line has three [parts]: first, the statement; next, from "Why is this?" downward, it explains that this eliminates clarifying emptiness detached from form and annihilationist emptiness. Regarding "detached from form": emptiness lies outside of form. Outside of form also has two [aspects]: first, clarifying emptiness in opposition to form, just as the place where a wall stands is not empty, while outside the wall is empty—this is eliminated by the third line; second, clarifying emptiness by extinguishing form, as in digging a well where earth is removed to reveal empty space, necessarily requiring the extinction of form—this is what is directly eliminated here. Therefore the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: "To exist first and then not exist—this is annihilation." However, both non-Buddhists and the two vehicles hold to annihilation. The annihilation of non-Buddhists returns to empty space; the annihilation of the two vehicles returns to nirvāṇa. Therefore Master Zhao said: "Of great delusions, none surpasses having a body; hence one extinguishes the body to return to nonbeing. Of exhausting toils, none takes precedence over having consciousness; hence one cuts off consciousness to sink into voidness." He also said: "Consciousness is a compounded poison, and the physical form is a shackle; hence they reduce the body to ashes and extinguish consciousness, utterly sweeping away and perishing without remainder." If one claims that entering extinction is identical to empty space, that is completely the same as non-Buddhists; thus the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* states: "If the essence of the mind were extinguished, it would not differ from the non-Buddhists' frivolous discourse of the view of annihilation." Hence the present text says that it is not identical to annihilatory emptiness. Next, from "Because the entire essence of form…" downward, it explains the prior clause on "because it is identical to emptiness." Third, from "This is truly because…" downward concludes and confirms it. Therein, it first concludes in terms of meaning: because it is identical to true emptiness, it is not annihilation. Afterwards, from "Therefore…" downward concludes and confirms the stated designation.

1.24

The Contemplation states: "Second: Form is not identical to emptiness, because it is identical to emptiness. Why is this? Because the characteristics of blue and yellow are not the principle of true emptiness; therefore it is said that it is not identical to emptiness. Yet, blue and yellow have no essence; there are none that are not empty; therefore it is said that it is identical to emptiness. Truly because the emptiness of blue and yellow being without essence is not identical to blue and yellow, it is said that it is not identical to emptiness."

1.25

The Commentary states: This also has statement, explanation, and conclusion. Within the explanation, two false attachments are eliminated: First, it eliminates excessive identity. Because hearing that form is empty, one does not understand emptiness of nature and immediately grasps the characteristics of form to be true emptiness; hence it must be eliminated. Therefore it says that the characteristics of blue and yellow are not the principle of true emptiness. This eliminates ordinary worldlings only, for the Hīnayāna does not reckon form to be identical to emptiness. Next, from "Yet, blue and yellow…" downward, it clarifies that neither is there an essence detached from characteristics; necessarily, blue and yellow having no essence is itself true emptiness. Due to this meaning, it seems to be a dual elimination, also eliminating the Hīnayāna. However, it adduces the Dharma to dually eliminate attachments; afterwards, clarifying that it is not detached is simply adducing the Dharma. Second, it also uses the above text to eliminate the attachment to emptiness as existence among the three types of confused thoughts on emptiness. They claim that there is a distinct entity that is the essence of emptiness; hence it is eliminated here. Thus the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra* states: "There is non-duality and non-exhaustion." This single line of scripture eliminates the three kinds of confused thoughts on emptiness: by "there is," it eliminates annihilationist emptiness; by "non-duality," it eliminates clarifying emptiness as different from form; by "non-exhaustion," it eliminates taking emptiness as existence, not meaning that there is an essence that is exhausted and extinguished. Here it corresponds to non-exhaustion: if emptiness were an entity, then it would have exhaustion and extinction; if it had exhaustion and extinction, then it would have arising. Now, the empty characteristic of dharmas neither arises nor ceases—how could it have existence? Hence the *Prajñā[pāramitā-sūtra]* states: "The empty characteristic of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases," and so forth. Furthermore, the characteristics of blue and yellow are not yet true emptiness—it must be without nature; how could emptiness be taken as existence? Third, from "Truly because…" downward concludes and confirms it. Adducing emptiness without essence, it concludes that it is not the characteristics of form, clarifying that emptiness is not existence—how could form be attained?

1.26

The Contemplation states: "Third: Form is not identical to emptiness, because it is identical to emptiness. Why is this? Because within emptiness there is no form; therefore it is not identical to emptiness. Reducing form to having no essence; therefore it is identical to emptiness. Truly because reducing form returns it to emptiness, within emptiness there must not be any form. Therefore, because form is empty, form is not emptiness. The above three lines conclude the elimination of attachments by means of the Dharma."

1.27

The Commentary states: Within this text there are two [parts]: first, it explains the line itself; afterwards, it concludes the preceding three. The former also has three [parts]: first, the statement; next, the explanation. Within the explanation, it first dually eliminates identity and detachment: because within emptiness there is no form, form is not identical to emptiness; because detached from form there is no principle, emptiness is not detached from form. Neither identical nor detached is precisely true emptiness. Second, it eliminates the confused thought of clarifying emptiness as different from form. They grasp that outside of form there is emptiness, which is different from form. Like the aforementioned clarifying of emptiness in opposition to form, it now clarifies that within emptiness there is not even form; how could there be an emptiness standing in opposition to form? Furthermore, reducing form to having no essence, it is therefore said to be identical to emptiness; how could there be an emptiness outside of form opposed to form? An ancient said: "When form is gone, it leaves behind no emptiness; emptiness does not dwell on the side of existence." Third, from "Truly because…" downward concludes and confirms the above meaning. By means of the lower "identical to emptiness," it concludes the upper "not identical to emptiness." Precisely because reducing form makes it emptiness, how could there be form within emptiness? The second part, from "The above three…" downward, generally concludes the three gates.

1.28

The Contemplation states: "Fourth: Form is emptiness itself. Why is this? Any dharma that is form must not be different from true emptiness, because all form dharmas are necessarily devoid of nature; therefore form is emptiness itself. Since it is so for form and emptiness, all dharmas are likewise; reflect upon this."

1.29

The Commentary states: Herein there are two [parts]: first, it directly reveals the meaning of true emptiness; afterwards, it concludes by applying this analogously to all dharmas. The former also has three [parts]: first, the statement; next, the explanation—"because form arising from conditions is necessarily devoid of nature" means that other-dependent lack of nature is itself the perfectly accomplished true emptiness; third, from "Therefore…" downward is the conclusion. Since it is neither the extinction of form nor different from form, neither identical nor detached, it is therefore true emptiness. Emptiness is not the characteristic of form, so there is no imagined [nature]. Arising from conditions without nature is the other-dependent lack of nature. The true principle devoid of nature is precisely the perfectly accomplished. Therefore this true emptiness penetrates nature and characteristics throughout. Second, from "Since it is so for form and emptiness…" downward concludes by applying this analogously to all dharmas. The above four gates merely clarified form and emptiness. Form is the foremost of dharma-characteristics and the first of the five aggregates; therefore whenever various sūtras and treatises explain a principle, they always do so first with respect to form. Hence the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra* and others, from form on up through the knowledge of all aspects on down, across more than eighty rubrics, take form as the analogy for all of them. The present case is also like this, analogizing all dharmas. If one briefly gathers all dharmas, they do not go beyond the above ten pairs; the underlying essence and phenomena are all without exception identical to emptiness, and in all cases one must use the Dharma to eliminate attachments, revealing that phenomena are reduced to principle.

1.30

The Contemplation states: "Second: The contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is identical to form, within which four gates are also constructed."

1.31

The Commentary states: This is the general statement. However, the general characteristics of these four gates merely invert the above four; likewise, the first three lines eliminate attachments by means of the Dharma, and the fourth line directly reveals the principle of the Dharma. In terms of eliminating attachments, by inverting the previous form and emptiness, the meaning is largely the same, with slight differences in the phrasing drawn upon. The phrasing of the statements is the same, but the explained meanings have distinctions. Now, first, in generally eliminating, there are also three meanings: first, eliminating identity and detachment; second, eliminating confused thoughts; third, eliminating shape and colour. Now, first: the first line clarifies that true emptiness is not detached from the preceding form; the second line clarifies that true emptiness is not identical to the characteristics of form; the third line clarifies that true emptiness is dually neither identical to form nor detached from form. Second, regarding the elimination of the three confused thoughts: the first line clarifies that annihilatory emptiness is not actual form; the second line clarifies that the existence of characteristics is not true emptiness, which eliminates the existence of characteristics; the third line clarifies that the supported is not the supporting, which eliminates the supporting. As for the third meaning, eliminating shape and colour, some say: the first line clarifies that non-annihilatory emptiness does not obstruct shape-form; the second line clarifies that emptiness of self-nature does not obstruct colour-form; the third line clarifies that single-essence emptiness does not obstruct either shape or colour; the fourth line clarifies that emptiness of both emptinesses does not obstruct the two empty forms. The explanation says: Since the third meaning of elimination in the previous contemplation of reducing form to emptiness violated the correct principle, although it is listed here to correspond with the preceding text, it is also not accepted. Next is the proper explanation of the text: the four lines also each have three [parts], and the latter two additionally have two.

1.32

The Contemplation states: "1. Emptiness is not identical to form, because emptiness is identical to form. Why is this? Annihilatory emptiness is not identical to form; therefore it is said to not be form. True emptiness must not be different from form; therefore it is said to be identical to form. It is precisely because true emptiness is identical to form that annihilatory emptiness is made to not be identical to form."

1.33

The Commentary states: This gate also has three [parts]: first, the statement; second, the explanation. It explains the above two clauses: the first clause clarifies that annihilatory emptiness is not true form, which corresponds to the previous "actual form is not annihilatory emptiness" in "form is identical to emptiness." The lower clause clarifies that true emptiness is not different from form, which corresponds to the previous "clarifying emptiness without detaching from form." Although it contains identity and detachment, the lower clause puts forward the correct, while the upper clause is the attachment to be eliminated—the attachment which claims detachment from form. Second, regarding eliminating confused thoughts: it eliminates annihilatory emptiness not being actual form, which corresponds to the actual form not being annihilatory emptiness in the previous contemplation of reducing form to emptiness. Third, from "It is precisely because true emptiness…" downward concludes and confirms it. By adducing the correct in the lower clause, it concludes that the upper clause is the attachment to be eliminated.

1.34

The Contemplation states: "2. Emptiness is not identical to form, because emptiness is identical to form. Why is this? Because the principle of emptiness is not blue and yellow; therefore it is said that emptiness is not identical to form. Yet, true emptiness that is not blue and yellow must not be different from blue and yellow; therefore it is said that emptiness is identical to form. It is precisely because it is not different from blue and yellow that it is not identical to blue and yellow; therefore it is said that emptiness being identical to form is not identical to form."

1.35

The Commentary states: This also has three [parts]: first, the statement. In the explanation, it first eliminates identity and detachment, clarifying that true emptiness is not identical to the characteristics of form: saying "emptiness is not identical to form" directly eliminates excessive identity, which corresponds to "the characteristics of form are not true emptiness" in the previous contemplation of reducing form to emptiness. Afterwards, "yet the principle that is not blue and yellow must not be different from blue and yellow" clarifies that emptiness that is not identical to form is also not entirely outside of form, which corresponds to the previous "nor is there an essence detached from characteristics." Second, regarding eliminating confused thoughts: it eliminates taking emptiness as existence; since the principle of emptiness is not blue and yellow, how could it be existence? This corresponds to the previous "true emptiness is not the existence of characteristics." Third, from "It is precisely because…" downward is the conclusion. Adducing the correctness of non-difference, it concludes the previous attachment of excessive identity.

1.36

The Contemplation states: "3. Emptiness is not identical to form, because emptiness is identical to form. Why is this? Because emptiness is the supported and not the supporting; therefore it is not identical to form. Because it must serve as the supported for the supporting; therefore it is identical to form. Truly because it is the supported, it is not identical to form; because it is the supported, it is identical to form; therefore it is said that by being not identical to form, it is identical to form. The above three lines also conclude the elimination of attachments by means of the Dharma."

1.37

The Commentary states: Regarding the text, there are also two [parts]: first, it explains this line; afterwards, it concludes the above three lines. The former also has three [parts]: first, the statement. In the explanation, the dual elimination of identity and detachment can be understood. However, previously it was eliminated in terms of there being no form within emptiness, whereas here it is eliminated in terms of the supporting not being the supported. It should be understood below. But if strictly inverting the previous, one ought to say that there is no emptiness within form; the reason it is not stated this way now is that there being no form within emptiness possesses both principle and textual basis, whereas there being no emptiness within form is utterly devoid of both text and principle. Because there is no form within emptiness, since phenomena are identical to principle and principle transcends characteristics, form must have emptiness. Since form devoid of emptiness is not real, it does not invert the above, but separately explains its meaning in terms of the supporting and the supported. Second, regarding eliminating confused thoughts: taking only the lower clause—that it must serve as the supported for the supporting—it eliminates form as different from emptiness, corresponding to the previous clarifying of emptiness as different from form. Third, from "Truly because…" downward is the conclusion: by means of the single supported, it dually concludes non-identity and non-detachment. The meaning is: since it is the emptiness that is the supported, it must not be the form that is the supporting, hence it says "not identical to form." Second, since it is the supported of form and not the supported of anything else, it is not detached from form. Concluding the elimination of confused thoughts: since it must serve as the supported for the form that is the supporting, it clarifies that form is not outside of emptiness, corresponding to the previous "emptiness is not outside of form." The second part, from "The above three lines…" downward, generally concludes the three gates, whose meaning is as previously explained.

1.38

The Contemplation states: "4. Emptiness is form itself. Why is this? Any true emptiness must not be different from form, because it is the principle of the selflessness of dharmas and not annihilation; therefore emptiness is form itself. Since it is so for emptiness and form, all dharmas are likewise; reflect upon this."

1.39

Commentary: This gate also has two parts: first, explaining the fourth [phrase]; second, concluding by analogizing to all phenomena. The first part also has three: first, stating [the proposition]; second, explaining it. The words "Because it is the principle of dharmas being without self," and so forth, state the reason. Selflessness is emptiness; because this emptiness of dharmas is the selflessness of dharmas, emptiness is form. Third, "Therefore emptiness is form" concludes this gate. Second, from "Just as emptiness and form are thus" downward, it concludes by raising the four gates above as an analogy. If emptiness is form, then analogizing from this, emptiness is all phenomena; how much more so is it not that which is relied upon in the ten pairs?

1.40

Contemplation: Third, the contemplation of the non-obstruction of form and emptiness. This means that form in its entire essence is not different from emptiness, being entirely emptiness that exhausts form; therefore, precisely while form is not exhausted, emptiness is manifest. Emptiness in its entire essence is not different from form, being entirely form that exhausts emptiness; therefore, precisely while being emptiness, it is form, and emptiness is not concealed. Therefore, when the bodhisattva contemplates form, there is nothing that is not seeing emptiness, and when contemplating emptiness, there is nothing that is not seeing form; unhindered and unimpeded, they are a single flavor of dharma. Ponder this, and it can be seen.

1.41

Commentary: This contemplation has three parts: stating, explaining, and concluding. Second, from "This means that form" downward is the explanation. In explaining the characteristic, it says, "being entirely emptiness that exhausts form." Some editions lack the three characters "that exhausts form" (jin se zhi), reading only "because it is entirely emptiness." This explanation also makes sense, because it is not contrasted with the text below, where the principle would not be fully manifest. Here we explain based on the edition that has them. However, "form" is a specific name among "existence"; comprehensively, there are only the two gates of emptiness and existence. Emptiness and existence each have two meanings: the two meanings of emptiness are empty and non-empty; the two meanings of existence are existent and non-existent. In emptiness, speaking of "empty" is because emptiness necessarily exhausts existence. Speaking of "non-empty" is because it also lacks the characteristic of emptiness, and furthermore it does not obstruct existence. In existence, speaking of "existent" is because existence necessarily exhausts emptiness. Speaking of "non-existent" is because the characteristic of existence is detached, and furthermore it does not obstruct emptiness. Now, in clarifying the non-obstruction of form and emptiness, it first clarifies that form does not obstruct emptiness, taking the meaning of exhausting form on the side of emptiness. Next, it clarifies that emptiness does not obstruct form, taking the meaning of exhausting emptiness on the side of form. Their mutual non-obstruction is precisely the meaning that the entire essence is wholly it. The meaning of being detached from the characteristics of emptiness and existence belongs to the fourth gate of total annihilation. Now, in the text, form and emptiness each have three phrases: the first phrase in each states non-obstruction, and the lower phrase brings out the characteristic of non-obstruction. In bringing out the characteristic in form, saying "while form is not exhausted, emptiness is manifest" is because form does not obstruct emptiness, and so form is not exhausted; this is precisely the emptiness that exhausts form, and therefore emptiness is manifest. In bringing out the characteristic in emptiness, saying "precisely while being emptiness, it is form, and emptiness is not concealed" is because emptiness does not obstruct form, and so emptiness is form; yet it is the emptiness that exhausts form, and therefore emptiness is not concealed. In terms of the general characteristic, it is merely that form in its entire essence is emptiness, so that form is not exhausted, and because it is emptiness, emptiness immediately appears. The same applies to emptiness: because emptiness in its entire essence is form, emptiness is form; since it is emptiness, emptiness is not concealed. If explained according to this, the meaning without the three characters would also make sense, but then the later phrase should omit the three characters "that exhausts emptiness"; here we follow the edition that has them. Third, from "Therefore" downward, it concludes by establishing non-obstruction; this also means that the preceding clarified that which is contemplated, while this directly clarifies the contemplator, hence it says "the bodhisattva sees form," and so forth.

1.42

Contemplation: Fourth, the contemplation of total annihilation without reliance. This means that this true emptiness that is contemplated cannot be called identical to form or not identical to form, nor can it be called identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness. All dharmas are inadmissible; even this inadmissibility is inadmissible, and this statement is also not accepted. Utterly detached and without reliance, it is beyond the reach of speech and beyond the arrival of understanding; this is called the realm of practice. Why is this? Because generating mind and stirring thought immediately runs contrary to the essence of dharma and loses right mindfulness.

1.43

Commentary: This fourth contemplation is broadly divided into two: first, directly explaining the fourth; second, reconciling and explaining it in conjunction with the preceding three contemplations to complete the whole. The present section is the first, containing three parts in the text: first, stating the name; second, from "This means that this" downward, explaining the characteristics; third, from "Why is this?" downward, inquiring and concluding. The general intention here is merely to brush away traces and reveal perfection. If explained in detail, form and emptiness in relation to each other entail many meanings: First is the meaning of harmonizing the two truths: the first [gate], reducing form to emptiness, clarifies that the conventional is identical to the ultimate; the second, clarifying that emptiness is form, reveals that the ultimate is identical to the conventional; the third, the non-obstruction of form and emptiness, clarifies that both truths are simultaneously manifest; the fourth, total annihilation without reliance, clarifies that both truths are entirely annihilated. In terms of the three truths, the first is the ultimate truth, the second is the conventional truth, and the latter one is the middle-way primary truth. In terms of the three contemplations, the first is the contemplation of emptiness, the second is the contemplation of provisionality, and the third and fourth are the contemplation of the middle way—the third clarifies the middle by illuminating both, and the fourth clarifies the middle by negating both. Although there are three contemplations, their intention is to clarify that the three contemplations fuse into true emptiness. Second, form and emptiness in relation to each other have four propositions in total, with slight variations in the texts used: In the first contemplation of reducing form to emptiness, among its four propositions, the first three propositions clarify that form is not different from emptiness, and the fourth proposition clarifies that form is emptiness. In the second contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is form, among its four propositions, the first three propositions clarify that emptiness is not different from form, and the fourth proposition clarifies that emptiness is form. The third contemplation merely unites the preceding two. Now the fourth proposition brushes away the characteristics of the four propositions, revealing the characteristic of true emptiness: neither arising nor ceasing, up to no wisdom and no attainment; thus the contemplation of true emptiness is complete. If considered in terms of the three contemplations according to the meaning of the Heart Sūtra: "form is not different from emptiness" clarifies that the conventional is not different from the ultimate; "emptiness is not different from form" clarifies that the ultimate is not different from the conventional; and the mutual identity of form and emptiness clarifies the middle way. Thus the above four propositions constitute the three contemplations of emptiness, provisionality, and the middle. This is identical to the present meaning, with only slight differences in the texts used. Third, form and emptiness in relation to each other have three meanings in total: first, the meaning of mutual establishment; second, the meaning of non-obstruction; third, the meaning of mutual negation, as detailed in the second contemplation of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena. The present text contains these three: the first two of mutual identity are also the meaning of mutual establishment; the third contemplation of the non-obstruction of form and emptiness directly clarifies the meaning of non-obstruction; the present fourth contemplation is precisely the meaning of mutual negation, for by mutually negating, both are entirely annihilated. Although there are these three meanings, they all reveal the meaning of true emptiness. If explaining the text separately: "cannot be called identical to form or not identical to form" brushes away the preceding second contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is form. "Cannot be called identical to form" directly brushes away the fourth proposition; "cannot be called not identical to form" also brushes away the first three propositions. Because emptiness is non-empty, there is nothing that can be called identical to form or not identical to form. Moreover, because principle fundamentally transcends speech, and in terms of contemplation the mind merges with the ultimate reality, only then is the marvelous contemplation of form achieved. Next, "nor can it be called identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness" brushes away the first contemplation of reducing form to emptiness. "Cannot be called identical to emptiness" directly brushes away the fourth proposition; "cannot be called not identical to emptiness" also brushes away the first three propositions. Because form is also non-form, there is nothing that can be called identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness; because phenomena are identical to principle, because principle fundamentally transcends speech, and because the mind merges with the ultimate reality without any mind that identifies, only then is the contemplation of identity with emptiness achieved. Furthermore, the above reducing form to emptiness is free from the calumny of reification; clarifying that it is identical to form is free from the calumny of denigration; the non-obstruction of form and emptiness is free from the calumny of non-duality and conceptual proliferation; now, there being nothing to mutually identify is free from the calumny of mutual contradiction. Since the four calumnies are absent, the hundred negations are completely severed; hence it is utterly detached and without reliance. Moreover, "All dharmas are inadmissible" concludes by analogizing and generally brushing away. "Analogizing" means that it is not only form-dharmas that constitute their three contemplations, but they are all brushed away; the myriad transforming dharmas of feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are all identical to the preceding form. "Generally brushing away" means generally brushing away the preceding three—reducing form to emptiness and so forth—as all being inadmissible; nor are there four propositions that can be severed, or three contemplations that can be brushed away; therefore, even this inadmissibility is inadmissible. Saying "this statement is also not accepted" means that if one accepts that it is inexpressible, asserting this would mean there is an acceptance; if there is an acceptance, there is thought; and whatever has thought is a trace of mind and speech; therefore it is utterly detached and without reliance. Since the two extremes are left behind, the middle way does not remain; mind and object are both forgotten; forgotten and severed without reliance, prajñā is manifest. If one generates mind and stirs thought, one fails in every case to tally with principle; because the path of language is cut off, speech cannot reach it; because the place of mental activity is extinguished, understanding cannot arrive at it. Saying "this is called the realm of practice" concludes by establishing the practice above. This has two meanings: First, what precedes is the realm of the practitioner; now, mind and object merge, wisdom and spirit unite, speech is forgotten and the bosom is hollowed, the mind is submerged and wisdom is discarded, and only then does one reach this realm, making clear that only practice can arrive, as it is not the realm of understanding. Second, precisely the above tallying of mind and wisdom is true practice; practice is itself the boundary of the realm and practice. Third, from "Why is this?" downward, it explains by negation to establish practice.

1.44

Contemplation: Furthermore, among the preceding four phrases, the eight gates of the first two phrases all eliminate delusion to reveal understanding; the single gate of the third phrase is where understanding ends and one proceeds toward practice; this single gate of the fourth phrase directly accomplishes the essence of practice. If one does not clearly penetrate the preceding understanding, there is no way to tread upon it and accomplish this practice. If one does not understand this dharma of practice, which cuts off the preceding understanding, there is no way to accomplish one's correct understanding. If one clings to understanding and does not let go, there is no way to enter this correct practice. Therefore, practice is accomplished by way of understanding, and when practice arises, understanding is severed.

1.45

Commentary: This is the second [section], which generally concludes the four gates. While the fourth gate above concluded only its own gate as accomplishing practice, here it generally concludes the four gates. However, in saying "the eight gates of the upper two phrases," the phrase is broad and the gates are narrow. In the general statement above, it also said that the four phrases and ten gates all have broad phrases and narrow gates. In the conclusion above it said: "The upper three phrases use the dharma to eliminate delusion, while this single gate of the fourth phrase..." Thus gate and phrase are mutually interchangeable; they should match as broad gates and narrow phrases. Since the meaning is mutually interchangeable, here it is explained following the text. Within it are three sentences: First, directly distinguishing practice and understanding. Second, from "If one does not clearly penetrate" downward, showing by negation their mutual assistance, like the mutual assistance of eyes and feet. Within this, first, practice is accomplished through understanding; next, from "If one does not understand" downward, severing understanding accomplishes understanding; later, from "If one clings" downward, relinquishing understanding accomplishes practice. Third, from "Therefore" downward, it concludes by establishing the two characteristics, comprehensively accomplishing the contemplation of true emptiness that severs characteristics. Then internal and external are both merged, and conditions and contemplation are both tranquil.

First 45 of 124 passages. Read on

English (machine translation)

Contents

Text