註華嚴法界觀門 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Preface to the Commentary on the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu of the Avataṃsaka

1.2

Composed by Pei Xiu, Prefect of Mianzhou under the Tang

The dharmadhātu is the fundamental substance of the body and mind of all sentient beings. From the very beginning, numinously luminous and completely clear, vast, empty, and serene, it is solely the realm of the One True. Devoid of form and appearance, it arrayed the great chiliocosm; having no boundaries, it contains all existents. Clear and distinct between mind and eyes, yet its characteristic cannot be seen; brilliantly shining within rūpa and dusts, yet its principle cannot be divided. Without the wisdom-eye that penetrates phenomena and the luminous intelligence free from thoughts, one cannot see that one's own mind is so spiritually pervasive! Extreme indeed is the delusion of sentient beings! The body, on the contrary, resides within the mind, like a single bubble on the great ocean, yet they do not know it themselves. Possessing vast spiritual potency, they are unable to apply it; trembling with fear, they cast themselves into cages and pens, without pitying themselves. Therefore, when the World-Honoured One first achieved correct awakening, he exclaimed with admiration: "How wondrous! I now universally see that all sentient beings possess the wisdom, virtues, and characteristics of the Tathāgata; it is only because of false conceptualisations and clinging that they do not realise and attain it." Thereupon, according with the dharmadhātu-nature, he preached the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, causing all sentient beings to see within their own bodies the vast wisdom of the Tathāgata and realise the dharmadhātu. Hence, this sūtra exhausts the spiritual and wondrous functioning of wisdom of all buddhas, penetrates the nature, characteristics, principle, and phenomena of all dharmas, and completes the gateways of mental states in cultivation; truly it may be called one that fathoms principle and exhausts the nature. Yet, although this sūtra is circulated in the world, rare are those who can penetrate it. There was the Venerable Dushun, who sighed and said: "Great indeed is the sūtra of the dharmadhātu! Unless one has ascended the stages, how could one open its text and see its dharmas? I shall set up its gates to reveal it." Thereupon he composed the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, which has three tiers of gates: the first is called the gate of true emptiness, which selects against emotional delusions to reveal principle; the second is called the gate of the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena, which harmonises principle and phenomena to reveal functioning; the third is called the gate of all-pervading and mutual containment, which subsumes phenomenon and phenomenon to reveal the mystery. It enables one to harmonise the forms and characteristics of myriad phenomena and make whole the luminous nature of the One True; only then may one enter the dharmadhātu of the Avataṃsaka. Yet, although this contemplation is circulated in the world, rare are those who can enter it. There was Chan Master Guishan, who sighed and said: "Wondrous indeed is the gate of the dharmadhātu! Unless one knows the depth of the pivot and key, and recognises the breadth of the inner chamber, how could one knock at its gate and enter it?" Thereupon he directly annotated the contemplation text with refined meanings below it, enabling people to trace the commentary and see the gate, find the gate and enter contemplation, through contemplation penetrate the sūtra, and by means of the sūtra realise the nature, brightly shining as though holding a torch to illuminate successive barriers. Someone asked: "The true nature of the dharmadhātu transcends emotions and departs from views; stirring a thought creates separation, and forced words run contrary to it. If the World-Honoured One wished to cause sentient beings to awaken to the dharma-substance of their own bodies, why was it necessary to speak extensively to make the Avataṃsaka?" The answer is: I heard Guishan say: "The dharmadhātu is the true substance of the myriad phenomena, the fundamental source of the myriad practices, and the ocean of fruition of the myriad virtues. Therefore, the Tathāgata unfolded the causal flowers of the myriad practices to adorn the original nature, thereby displaying the myriad virtues of all buddhas realised from the dharmatā. Hence, in the sūtra of the nine assemblies, chapter after chapter has immeasurable meanings: sometimes causal-stage practices and vows numerous as kṣetra-dusts, sometimes fruition-stage virtues and functions numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Sequential differentiation and unobstructed perfect interpenetration; thus, a single tip of a hair of the Buddha's body pervades all and contains all. Worlds are so; sentient beings are so; every speck of dust is so; every thought is so; every dharma is so—not a single dharma definitely possesses its own substance and stands independently. Realising this fundamental dharma, one is therefore able to harmoniously subsume ordinary and sagely, completely free and unobstructed, putting Meru into a mustard seed and casting the great chiliocosm beyond spatial bounds; these are all the regular portion of our mind, not relying on other arts." Viewed from this perspective, as we have always clung to definite characteristics of body, mind, self, person, and various dharmas, is this not extremely deluded and inverted? Thus, though the Avataṃsaka accords with the dharmadhātu and speaks to the utmost, it still cannot be considered broad. The question is asked: "The Avataṃsaka is profound in principle and vast in phenomena, extensive in text and mysterious in meaning; none other than great beings of the dharmakāya can realise and enter it. Now, how could a few sheets of contemplation text completely reveal it? If the contemplation gate takes brevity of text and breadth of meaning as its merit, then the great sūtra takes verbosity of text and narrowness of meaning as its defect!" The answer is: I heard Guishan say: "One who wishes to gaze upon the deep beauty of the ancestral temple and behold the grand magnificence of the capital city must open the illustrated maps and ascend the high terrace; only then can one fully take it all in. Ascending the height without opening the maps, one cannot be said to have truly seen; opening the maps without ascending the height, one is dim-sighted and cannot distinguish anything. Therefore, the dharmadhātu possesses the three greatnesses and encompasses all existents; its nature, characteristics, virtues, and functions are fully present in the mind, not in the sūtra. Clarifying cause and effect, arraying the stages of practice, revealing the dharmas and expounding the meanings, and encouraging joy to engender faith are fully present in the sūtra, not in the contemplation. The contemplation is that which penetrates the dharma of the sūtra. The text is the gate to enter contemplation. The commentary is the pivot and key to the gate. Therefore, to realise the nature and virtues of the dharmadhātu, nothing surpasses the sūtra; to penetrate the dharma-meanings of the sūtra, nothing surpasses contemplation; to enter the contemplation's layered mysteries, one must go through the gate; to open the threefold secret gate, one must use the pivot and key." If so, then the sūtra cannot but be broad, and the gate cannot but be concise. Then why is its gate threefold? The answer is: I heard Guishan say: "Ordinary persons see rūpa as real rūpa, and see emptiness as annihilationist emptiness; internally shackled by sinews and bones, externally dazzled by mountains and rivers, they fall exhausted on the path of delusion, confined beneath the carriage shafts, unable to free themselves. Thereupon the Bodhisattva opened the gate of true emptiness to reveal it to them, causing them to see that rūpa is not real rūpa, its entire substance being true emptiness; and to see that emptiness is not annihilationist emptiness, its entire substance being illusory form. Then they can clear away emotional defilements so that emptiness and rūpa are unobstructed, and obliterate intellectual understanding so that mind and object both merge in stillness. The Bodhisattva said: 'Regarding principle, they have seen it; regarding phenomena, not yet.' Thereupon he opened the gate of the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena to reveal it to them, causing them to contemplate that the indivisible principle is entirely and completely subsumed within a single speck of dust, and that phenomena, which originally have demarcations and limits, also universally pervade the dharmadhātu; thereafter, principle and phenomena perfectly interpenetrate without any impediment. The Bodhisattva said: 'Looking at phenomena from principle is permissible; looking at phenomena from phenomena is not yet accomplished.' Thereupon he opened the gate of all-pervading and mutual containment to reveal it to them, causing them to contemplate that the principle that is the totality of phenomena is visible one by one according with phenomena, and that phenomena that are the totality of principle are harmonised one by one according with principle; thereafter, the one and the many are unobstructed, large and small contain each other, and they are able to deploy concealment and manifestation with unfathomable spiritual functioning." The question is asked: "The contemplation text has commentaries by several authors, yet they were not able to reveal its dharma; now, writing brief notes beneath the text, how can this cause students to open their minds and eyes?" The answer is: I heard Guishan say: "Contemplation is the wisdom-eye that sees the dharma; the gate is the portal that opens the wisdom-eye to let it see the dharma. Although a beginner's wisdom that awakens to the nature may be clear, without obtaining its gate one cannot see the dharma. This text is precisely the gate for entering the dharma. One should merely contemplate and illuminate the wondrous realm through the gate with the wisdom-eye; if one were to set up separate conceptual topics and explain them extensively, that would be setting up another gate within the gate. Furthermore, in this gate, the layered dharmadhātus, phenomena, and principles are boundless; even a hundred sheets could not exhaust their meaning. Merely using verbose texts and extensive explanations would smother the true dharma and confuse later generations. Moreover, heading the text with the word 'cultivation' is intended to cause practitioners to merge this realm within their own minds. Once the mind's wisdom is luminous, it will naturally see the inexhaustible meanings, which do not depend on comprehensively mastering the doctrinal texts or minutely classifying sections and outlines. Yet without pointing and indicating it, students would also have no way to reach its gate. Therefore, right under the crucial passages of the original text, notes are added following the original meaning. Having reached its gate, they are then caused to enter it themselves." Therefore, its notes are concise yet complete: if not complete, they could not guide students to its gate; if not concise, they could not cause students to focus on the wondrous contemplation. Now, contemplation means seeking it with the mind and eye; how could it be reached through text and meaning? The question is asked: "Briefly indicating its gate is truly fitting; but I fear that students ultimately will not be able to enter by themselves." The answer is: I heard Guishan say: "One who seeks the Way must rely on the wisdom-eye. The wisdom-eye cannot open by itself; one must seek a teacher to pierce its cataract. If the cataract of emotions is not yet pierced, even though the gate exists, how could one enter it? Even if extensive, what benefit would it have?" The question is asked: "Having already encountered an enlightened teacher, why rely on brief notes?" The answer is: "The dharmadhātu is difficult to behold; one must rely on contemplation to cultivate it. The contemplation text is difficult to penetrate; one must use brief notes as a pivot and key." The doubter bowed his head and praised: "The method for entering the dharmadhātu is completely exhausted in this!"

1.4

Commentary by Śramaṇa Zongmi of Guifeng Hermitage

1.5

Cultivating

1.6

The perfuming, practice, and attainment of śamatha and vipaśyanā.

1.7

the Mahāvaipulya Buddha-avataṃsaka

1.8

The sūtra relied upon. "Mahāvaipulya" (great, correct, and broad) is the realised dharma; "Buddha-avataṃsaka" (Buddha adorned with flowers) is the person who can realise it. "Great" is the substance: the mind-substance of all buddhas and sentient beings. "Correct and broad" refers to the characteristics and functioning of the substance. "Buddha" is the fruition. "Flower-adornment" is the cause. "Flowers" metaphorically represent the myriad practices; "adornment" is great wisdom. Great wisdom as the host deploys the myriad practices to adorn the Mahāvaipulya and achieve the fruition of buddhahood. Omitting the word "sūtra" indicates that the intention is not on the text.

1.9

Dharmadhātu

1.10

The New Commentary on the Sūtra by Qingliang states: "It is entirely united as the One True Dharmadhātu, which means that completely encompassing the myriad existents is precisely the One Mind. Yet when the mind interpenetrates the myriad existents, it becomes four kinds of dharmadhātu: first, the dharmadhātu of phenomena—dhātu means 'delimitation', because each differentiated phenomenon has its boundaries; second, the dharmadhātu of principle—dhātu means 'nature', because the inexhaustible phenomenal dharmas share the same single nature; third, the dharmadhātu of the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena, possessing the meanings of both nature and delimitation, because nature and delimitation are unobstructed; fourth, the dharmadhātu of the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena, where all delimited phenomenal dharmas interpenetrate like the nature, infinitely layered and inexhaustible."

1.11

Contemplation

1.12

Emotions are exhausted and views eliminated, merging with the three dharmadhātus.

1.13

Gate

1.14

These eight or nine sheets of text establish contemplation based on this.

1.15

has roughly three tiers.

1.16

Excluding the dharmadhātu of phenomena, because phenomena do not stand independently, and in the Dharmadhātu school there are no isolated dharmas. If one contemplates them in isolation, they are the realm of phenomenal emotional reckonings, not the realm of contemplative wisdom. If analyzing the gates of meaning, there are four; now, in contrast to the wisdom that can contemplate, there are only three tiers. These three are merely a single path vertically exhausted, becoming progressively mysterious and wondrous, not that there are a second and third separate from the initial dharmadhātu. Since they are not laid out horizontally side by side, they are called three tiers, not three sections.

1.17

Compiled by the Śākya Dushun of Mount Zhongnan in the capital

1.18

Surname Du, personal name Fashun. In the early Tang he travelled and transformed beings, with extremely numerous spiritual wonders; there is evidence in his biography that proves he was a manifested body of the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. He is the first patriarch of both the old and new commentaries on the Avataṃsaka; the Venerable Yan is the second patriarch, and National Preceptor Kangzang is the third patriarch. Since this was an original work, in principle it should say "composed"; that it now says "compiled" is because the patriarch, based on his own wisdom, saw that all buddhas, all sentient beings, their bodies and minds, and their lands in the Avataṃsaka are each the substance and functioning of this dharmadhātu. Such realms of meaning being immeasurable and boundless, he thereupon gathered their categories of meaning from within these immeasurable realms, bundled them into three tiers, and wrote them directly on paper to generate people's contemplative wisdom. Because it is not like authoring and composing texts, it merely says "compiled". This is a compilation of meanings, not a compilation of texts.

1.19

The first is true emptiness;

1.20

The dharmadhātu of principle. Tracing its actual substance, it is simply the original mind. Now, to select against false thoughts and deliberations, it is called "true"; to select against rūpa-characteristics with shape and obstruction, it is called "empty".

1.21

the second is the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena;

1.22

Namely, the dharmadhātu of this name.

1.23

the third is all-pervading and mutual containment.

1.24

The dharmadhātu of the non-obstruction between phenomena and phenomena.

1.25

Contemplation of True Emptiness

1.26

First, the contemplation method of true emptiness, in which four propositions and ten gates are briefly opened: first, the contemplation of resolving rūpa to return to śūnyatā; second, the contemplation of clarifying that śūnyatā is identical to rūpa; third, the contemplation of the non-obstruction of śūnyatā and rūpa; fourth, the contemplation of total annihilation without reliance.

1.27

Within the first gate, there are four [propositions]:

1.28

The first three eliminate attachments of sentiment, and the latter one reveals principle. Among the first three: First, it eliminates annihilationist emptiness. In the text, the concluding explanation says: "Because it is true [emptiness] and not annihilationist [emptiness]." Second, it eliminates substantial rūpa. In the text, the concluding explanation says: "Because the śūnyatā devoid of substance is not blue or yellow." As for the term "substantial rūpa," it refers to how deluded sentiment calculates [rūpa] as definitely having a truly existent self-substance; thus it does not divide form-rūpa and color-rūpa into conventional and substantial, because in terms of sentiment's calculation, both form and color are taken as substantial. Here in this text, however, color-rūpa is used as an exemplar for form-rūpa. Third, it eliminates both. In the text it simply says: "Resolving rūpa to return to śūnyatā." Śūnyatā must certainly be devoid of rūpa. Therefore, in terms of the meaning, every proposition eliminates the calculation of sentiment—both annihilationist emptiness and substantial rūpa; while in terms of the text, the first two propositions implicitly suggest each other, and only the third proposition eliminates both. The Ratnagotravibhāga also eliminates the three kinds of emptiness calculated by bodhisattvas whose minds are confused about emptiness. Fearing it would burden the contemplation wisdom, it is not necessary to harmonize them; moreover, harmonizing them would not result in complete identity either.

1.29

1. Rūpa is not identical to śūnyatā, because it is identical to śūnyatā.

1.30

This is the thesis statement.

1.31

Why?

1.32

This is the interrogation. Next below is the explanation, and at the end is the conclusion. The rest all follow this pattern.

1.33

Rūpa is not identical to annihilationist emptiness; therefore, it is not śūnyatā.

1.34

This explains the first clause. Annihilationist emptiness is empty voidness and extinction; it is not the true mind. Devoid of knowing and devoid of functioning, it cannot manifest the ten thousand dharmas. There are two kinds of this: namely, emptiness [apprehended by] departing from rūpa, and emptiness of extinction. Emptiness [apprehended by] departing from rūpa means emptiness is outside of rūpa, just as where there is a wall is not empty, while outside the wall is empty. Emptiness of extinction means extinguishing rūpa to clarify emptiness, just as digging a well and removing soil produces an empty space, requiring the necessary extinction of rūpa. Here, to distinguish from this, it is said: "it is not annihilationist emptiness." Therefore the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "Existing first and then becoming non-existent: this is annihilation." However, both non-Buddhists and the Hīnayāna have [the view of] annihilation: non-Buddhists' annihilation returns to the great void, while the two vehicles' annihilation returns to nirvāṇa. Hence the Zhaolun says: "Of great afflictions, none is worse than having a body; thus one extinguishes the body to return to non-existence. Of toil and labor, none is worse than having cognition; thus one severs cognition to sink into voidness." It also says: "Form is a shackle; cognition is mixed poison." The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: "If the substance of the mind were extinguished, it would not be different from the frivolous discourse of non-Buddhist annihilation."

1.35

Because the entire substance of rūpa is true emptiness, it says: "because it is identical to śūnyatā."

1.36

This explains the second clause. Because rūpa and so forth are originally the One Mind of tathatā, which blends with arising and ceasing to be named the ālayavijñāna and so forth. Acting as that which can transform, it transforms and gives rise to the sense-faculties with the body and the receptacle world, which are precisely the various dharmas named rūpa and so forth here. Therefore, investigating them now, they completely lack any substance of their own and return to the śūnyatā of the true mind; they should not return to the śūnyatā of annihilation, because originally they were not transformed by annihilationist emptiness. As for the word "return," there is text below.

1.37

It is precisely because it is identical to true emptiness that it is not annihilationist emptiness.

1.38

This concludes what was explained.

1.39

Therefore it is said: Because it is śūnyatā (the true), it is not śūnyatā (annihilation).

1.40

This concludes the initial thesis statement. The upper concludes the lower clause, and the lower concludes the upper clause.

1.41

2. Rūpa is not identical to śūnyatā, because it is identical to śūnyatā. Why? Because the characteristics of blue and yellow are not the principle of true emptiness; therefore it is said to be not identical to śūnyatā.

1.42

This explains the first clause. Because upon hearing the sūtras teach that rūpa is śūnyatā, not knowing that the nature of rūpa is empty, one immediately grasps the characteristics of rūpa to be true emptiness; hence this must be eliminated. This eliminates [the errors of] ordinary beings and beginners among bodhisattvas; it does not eliminate [those of] the Hīnayāna, because the Hīnayāna does not calculate rūpa as being identical to śūnyatā.

1.43

However, blue and yellow are devoid of substance, and none of them is not empty (empty and non-existent); therefore it is said to be identical to śūnyatā.

1.44

This is the true [emptiness]. It explains the second clause. Now, previously it was said that the entire substance of rūpa is true emptiness, whereas here it is said that blue and yellow are devoid of substance and none of them is not empty: although blue and yellow are mentioned, they include long and short and so forth, because blue and yellow and the like necessarily depend on physical obstruction. Emptiness has three meanings with which to refute rūpa: First is the meaning of being without boundary. If space had a boundary, then there would be rūpa-dharmas outside the realm of space. Since space has no boundary, it occupies all the measures and edges of the ten directions without any exterior; where else could there be dharmas such as rūpa? Second is the meaning of being indestructible. Deluded people say: Although space has no exterior, what prevents rūpa and so forth from simply existing within the realm of space? Hence it is refuted by the meaning of being indestructible. If an object enters into space, then according to the size and measure of this object, it would pierce and rupture space in order to accommodate that object, just as a stake entering into the ground, or an awl or nail entering into wood, each pierces the ground and so forth according to the size and measure of the stake and the like. If the ground and so forth were not ruptured, they would not allow the stake and so forth to enter. They rescue their position by saying: Water cannot be pierced or ruptured, yet it accommodates objects entering into the water. What prevents space from being likewise? The refutation says: Although water is not ruptured, when an object enters, [the water] is displaced according to the size and measure of the object so as to accommodate that object. Because the nature of water is extremely soft, it does not prevent flowing and shifting. Could space be like this water, displaced and set into motion? Third is the meaning of being without mixture. Deluded people say again: The realm of space has no exterior, and the substance of space is indestructible; what prevents the ten thousand things from all being in space, since space is unobstructed openness and can contain them? The refutation says: If an object is in space, and space is neither destroyed nor shifted, the object and space should be mixed together. Take a solid, dense object measuring exactly one cubic foot: since space of the measure of one cubic foot is neither destroyed nor shifted and originally remains in the very place measuring one cubic foot, how could it not be mixed with this one-cubic-foot object? If you say they are not mixed, then one must depart and one must remain. If you say both remain and yet are not mixed, then each occupies five inches of the one-foot space. In this way, it is increasingly untenable. If you say both remain and both pervade the measure of the one foot, the principle is also not so. Why? Because space and rūpa have two mutual contradictions, so their entire substances cannot simultaneously pervade that very place. What are the two contradictions? First, space is non-existence of objects, whereas rūpa is existence of objects. Second, space is unobstructed openness, whereas rūpa is physical obstruction. Within the space of one square foot, one cannot say it is entirely devoid of objects and also say it is entirely existent with objects; nor can one say it is entirely unobstructed openness and also say it is entirely physical obstruction. How could there be such a principle? Therefore, above it says that the characteristics of blue and yellow are not the principle of true emptiness, and here it says that blue and yellow are none of them not empty. From this it is known that since space is without boundary, indestructible, and unmixed, within space there is certainly no rūpa; hence it is said to be identical to śūnyatā.

1.45

It is precisely because the śūnyatā devoid of substance of blue and yellow is not identical to blue and yellow that it is said to be not identical to śūnyatā.

1.46

Adducing the śūnyatā devoid of substance, it concludes that it is not the characteristics of rūpa, clarifying that śūnyatā is not existence. How could it be made any clearer?

1.47

3. Rūpa is not identical to śūnyatā, because it is identical to śūnyatā. Why? Because in śūnyatā there is no rūpa, it is not identical to śūnyatā; resolving rūpa to be devoid of substance, it is therefore identical to śūnyatā (this is the explanation). It is precisely because resolving rūpa returns to śūnyatā that in śūnyatā there must certainly be no rūpa.

1.48

This is a definitive and decisive judgment. The Heart Sūtra says: "Therefore, in śūnyatā there is no rūpa, no sensation, perception, volition, or consciousness; no twelve sense-bases, eighteen elements, twelve links of dependent origination, four noble truths, and so forth." The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says: "How could this [emptiness] admit any other thing?"

1.49

Therefore, because rūpa is empty (non-existent), rūpa is not śūnyatā (the true).

1.50

The above all correspond to the clauses.

1.51

The above three gates, which use Dharma to eliminate sentiment, are concluded.

1.52

This summarizes and concludes the three gates.

1.53

4. Rūpa is identical to śūnyatā. Why? All rūpa-dharmas are necessarily not different from true emptiness, because all rūpa-dharmas are necessarily devoid of svabhāva.

1.54

Because they exist through conditions, dependent nature lacks svabhāva, which is precisely the consummate [nature].

1.55

Therefore rūpa is identical to śūnyatā.

1.56

Since it is neither extinguishing rūpa nor preserving rūpa, being neither identical nor separate, it is therefore true emptiness. Emptiness is not the characteristics of rūpa, so there is no imagined [nature]. Dependent origination lacks svabhāva, and the true principle devoid of svabhāva is precisely the consummate [nature]. The ancients said: "When rūpa departs, it leaves behind no emptiness; emptiness does not abide on the side of existence."

1.57

Just as it is so for rūpa and śūnyatā, all dharmas are also like this. Contemplate this.

1.58

Rūpa is the foremost of the dharmalakṣaṇas and the first of the five aggregates; therefore, whenever the sūtras wish to explain the meaning of emptiness, they always explain it in terms of rūpa. For instance, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra lists more than eighty categories of terms and numbers, all of which use rūpa as an exemplar. To point out the essentials, they are the sentient beings of the six destinies, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions, the persons of the two vehicles, and so forth, as well as the five aggregates, twelve sense-bases, and eighteen elements. Because in this school defilement and purity have no dual characteristics, one should say: "Sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness are not identical to annihilationist emptiness," and so forth. For the passages on blue, yellow, and so forth, one should say: "The characteristics of receiving and so forth are not the principle of true emptiness," and so forth. Even up to all Buddhas, one should say: "The characteristics of supernatural powers, radiant light, and so forth are not the principle of true emptiness," and so forth; that is, one cannot see the Tathāgata by means of bodily characteristics.

1.59

As for the second, the contemplation of clarifying that śūnyatā is identical to rūpa, there are also four gates within it:

1.60

Eliminating sentiment and revealing understanding, the thesis, interrogation, explanation, conclusion, and so forth, are each as before. The four gates simply invert the flow of the text to establish the subsequent texts on the non-obstruction of śūnyatā and rūpa and total annihilation without reliance, corresponding to passages such as "śūnyatā is identical to rūpa" in the Heart Sūtra. Only the third proposition is not an exact antithetical inversion, yet its meaning is not different; it reverses each of the above to establish the Middle Way, with no separate meaning.

1.61

1. Śūnyatā is not identical to rūpa, because śūnyatā is identical to rūpa. Why? Annihilationist emptiness is not identical to rūpa; therefore it is said to be not rūpa.

1.62

This explains the first clause.

1.63

True emptiness is necessarily not different from rūpa; therefore it is said that śūnyatā is identical to rūpa.

1.64

This explains the second clause.

1.65

It is precisely because true emptiness is identical to rūpa

1.66

This concludes the second clause.

1.67

that it causes annihilationist emptiness not to be identical to rūpa.

1.68

This concludes the first clause.

1.69

2. Śūnyatā is not identical to rūpa, because śūnyatā is identical to rūpa. Why? Because the principle of śūnyatā is not blue or yellow; therefore it is said to be not identical to rūpa.

1.70

This explains the first clause.

1.71

Yet it is not different from blue and yellow; therefore it is said that śūnyatā is identical to rūpa.

1.72

This explains the second clause.

1.73

It is precisely because it is not different from blue and yellow that it is not identical to blue and yellow.

1.74

This is the concluding explanation.

1.75

Therefore it is said: identical to rūpa, [yet] not identical to rūpa.

1.76

This concludes the initial thesis.

1.77

3. Śūnyatā is not identical to rūpa, because śūnyatā is identical to rūpa. Why? Śūnyatā is that upon which things depend (the locus), not that which depends; therefore it is not identical to rūpa.

1.78

This explains the first clause. Matching the earlier [statement] that in śūnyatā there is no rūpa: only because there is no rūpa can it be that upon which rūpa depends, just as the clarity in a mirror has no images.

1.79

It must certainly act as the locus for that which depends; therefore it is identical to rūpa.

1.80

This explains the second clause. Because it is devoid of rūpa, it can act as the support for rūpa, just as the clarity in a mirror, because it is devoid of reflections and images, can only then act as the locus for reflections and images; therefore it is not identical to the reflection. The reason this is not an exact antithetical reversal of the earlier text is that the statement "in śūnyatā there is no rūpa" has both principle and textual authority, whereas "in rūpa there is no śūnyatā" is devoid of both text and principle. Therefore it is eliminated only in terms of that which depends and that upon which it depends. As for having principle: within a maṇi jewel there is certainly no black or other color. As for having textual authority: as quoted above, the sūtra says, "Therefore in śūnyatā there is no rūpa, no sensation, perception," and so forth. As for being devoid of principle: wherever the jewel manifests color, in the place of the color there must be the clear jewel. As for being devoid of textual authority: in all the sacred teachings, no passage stating "in rūpa there is no śūnyatā" is ever seen.

1.81

It is precisely because it is the locus of dependence that it is not identical to rūpa; it is because it is the locus of dependence that it is identical to rūpa (concluding explanation); therefore, because it is not identical to rūpa, it is identical to rūpa.

1.82

This concludes the initial thesis in terms of meaning.

1.83

The above three gates also finish eliminating sentiment by means of Dharma.

1.84

4. Śūnyatā is identical to rūpa. Why? All true emptiness is necessarily not different from rūpa, because it is the principle of the selflessness of dharmas.

1.85

This is precisely the substance of true emptiness—namely, the tathatā revealed by the two emptinesses.

1.86

[This is] because it is not an annihilation.

1.87

Tathatā does not abide by its svabhāva. All the explanations above are concluded.

1.88

Therefore, śūnyatā is precisely rūpa.

1.89

This is the conclusion.

1.90

Just as it is with śūnyatā and rūpa, so it is with all phenomena; contemplate this.

1.91

Since true emptiness is not different from rūpa, it is also not different from all phenomena. This is patterned after what preceded.

1.92

Third, the contemplation of the non-obstruction of śūnyatā and rūpa.

1.93

Although the two words 'śūnyatā' and 'rūpa' are used, the original intention is solely to return to emptiness. Because rūpa is an empty name and empty characteristic, lacking the slightest substance, those who cultivate this contemplation direct their intention here. In the text, when rūpa is placed first it says 'emptiness manifests'; when emptiness is placed first it does not say 'rūpa manifests', but again says 'emptiness is not concealed'. Therefore, it is only called the contemplation of true emptiness, and is not called the contemplation of true emptiness and illusory rūpa.

1.94

That is to say, rūpa in its entire substance is not different from emptiness, being completely the emptiness that exhausts rūpa; therefore, when rūpa is exhausted, emptiness manifests. Emptiness in its entire substance is not different from rūpa, being completely the rūpa that exhausts emptiness; therefore, emptiness is precisely rūpa, and emptiness is not concealed.

1.95

The texts on rūpa and emptiness each have two lines; both first present the reason for non-obstruction, and then bring forth the characteristics of non-obstruction. That is, if rūpa were real rūpa, it would obstruct emptiness; if emptiness were an annihilationist emptiness, it would obstruct rūpa. Now, since rūpa is illusory form, it does not obstruct emptiness; since emptiness is true emptiness, it does not obstruct rūpa. Some editions read 'without rūpa being exhausted, emptiness manifests', which also makes sense, but is not as good as lacking [the character 'not'].

1.96

Therefore, when bodhisattvas look at rūpa there is nothing in which they do not see emptiness, and when contemplating emptiness there is nothing in which they do not see rūpa. Unhindered and unobstructed, they are a single-taste Dharma; by contemplating this, it can be seen.

1.97

Fourth, the contemplation of total cessation without resting on anything.

1.98

The text has two parts: first, explaining this contemplation; second, generally distinguishing the four gates. In the first part there are two: first, the actual total cessation; second, inquiring and explaining the reasons. In the first, where the text says 'cannot be said', since the root text explains itself, it would be acceptable now not to annotate it. Later, as the momentum of the text shifts repeatedly, here we also briefly allocate explanations individually beneath the text.

1.99

That is to say, this true emptiness that is contemplated cannot be said to be identical with rūpa.

1.100

If emptiness were identical with rūpa, sages should be like ordinary beings seeing illusory form, and ordinary beings should be like sages seeing true emptiness. Furthermore, there would be no two truths.

1.101

Nor is it not identical with rūpa;

1.102

If it were not identical, seeing emptiness apart from rūpa would provide no basis for accomplishing noble wisdom. Furthermore, ordinary beings and sages would be forever separated, because a sage would not be attained from an ordinary being. The above two lines wipe away the second contemplation above.

1.103

nor can it be said to be identical with emptiness,

1.104

If rūpa were identical with emptiness, then the deluded ordinary beings seeing rūpa should be like noble wisdom seeing emptiness. Furthermore, the two truths would also be lost.

1.105

nor not identical with emptiness;

1.106

If it were not identical with emptiness, then ordinary beings seeing rūpa should not be deluded. Furthermore, the rūpa seen by ordinary beings would be permanently separated from true emptiness, and they would never become sages. The above two lines wipe away the first contemplation above.

1.107

none of all phenomena are admissible,

1.108

This wipes away the concluding illustration above. It refers to what was said above: 'Just as it is with śūnyatā and rūpa, so it is also with all phenomena.'

1.109

and inadmissibility is also inadmissible;

1.110

Seeing all those as inadmissible is likewise the same as conceptual differentiation.

1.111

even these words are not accepted.

1.112

Accepting is precisely thought.

1.113

Remotely severed, without resting on anything,

1.114

Prajñā manifests before one.

1.115

it is beyond the reach of words,

1.116

The path of language is cut off.

1.117

and beyond the attainment of understanding;

1.118

Because the locus of mental activity is extinguished, and because it cannot be known by conceptual intellect.

1.119

this is called the sphere of practice.

1.120

There are two spheres: the first is the sphere of practice. Now, when mind and object coalesce, with mind merged and intellect abandoned, one only then reaches this sphere. This clarifies that only practice can reach it, and it is not a sphere of intellectual understanding. Second, such merging is precisely true practice; practice is precisely the sphere, because it is the measure of practice.

1.121

Why is this? Because giving rise to mind and stirring thoughts contradicts the substance of the Dharma and loses right mindfulness.

1.122

Second, inquiring and explaining. The principle of true emptiness is fundamentally as such of itself; but because of deludedly stirring thoughts and grasping at characteristics, it is necessary to refute and eliminate emotional attachments to manifest the principle. Now that feelings are forgotten and intellect is extinguished, there is only the fundamental true nature; how could any newly generated category of understanding remain? If there is any category of understanding, it is stirring thoughts. Stirring thoughts gives rise to mind, and therefore loses right mindfulness. Right mindfulness is knowing without thought. If there were no knowing at all, how could it be called right mindfulness? Below this, the four gates are generally distinguished.

1.123

Furthermore, among the preceding four phrases, the eight gates of the first two phrases all eliminate emotional attachments and

1.124

Each refers to the first three lines.

1.125

manifest understanding.

1.126

Each corresponds to the final line.

1.127

The single gate of the third phrase concludes understanding and turns toward practice; the single gate of the fourth phrase correctly accomplishes the substance of practice.

1.128

The above properly differentiates practice and understanding. Below, their mutual necessity is shown by contrast, just as eyes and feet mutually assist each other. Furthermore, the first phrase gathers rūpa into emptiness, being free from the slander of superimposition; the second clarifies that emptiness is rūpa, being free from the slander of deprecation; the third is the non-obstruction of emptiness and rūpa, not being a double negation, and is free from the slander of frivolous proliferation; the fourth is total cessation without resting on anything, not being both empty and rūpa, and is free from the slander of contradiction. With the four slanders eliminated, the hundred negations are completely extinguished, which already corresponds to the ultimate reach of the signless Mahāyāna in the eight Prajñā sections; how much more so with the subsequent two contemplations, which progressively deepen and become more profound. Furthermore, the first phrase corresponds to 'rūpa is precisely emptiness', the next phrase to 'emptiness is precisely rūpa', the third to 'rūpa is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from rūpa', and the fourth corresponds to 'neither arising nor ceasing' up to 'no wisdom and no attainment'. Moreover, viewing the text superficially, it might seem that the first phrase corresponds to the contemplation of emptiness contemplating the ultimate truth, the next phrase to the contemplation of provisionality contemplating the conventional truth, and the third and fourth phrases to the contemplation of the Middle Way contemplating the supreme truth—the third being illuminating both to clarify the Middle, and the fourth being negating both to clarify the Middle. But examining closely the thesis of the contemplative text, this is not so. Although there are words like 'emptiness' and 'rūpa', they are only to accomplish the contemplation of true emptiness; the title is clearly as such, and if the three contemplations and three truths of emptiness, provisionality, ultimate, and conventional were already complete, what contemplation would the subsequent non-obstruction of principle and phenomena be? Thus we know this is not so. Next, the mutual support of practice and understanding is shown by contrast:

1.129

If one does not clearly illuminate the preceding understanding, there is no way to tread upon it to accomplish this practice.

1.130

Through the preceding, this is accomplished.

1.131

If one does not understand that this method of practice transcends the preceding understanding, there is no way to accomplish correct understanding.

1.132

Transcending understanding is true understanding. Through this, the preceding is accomplished.

1.133

If one clings to understanding without relinquishing it, there is no way to enter this correct practice.

1.134

Relinquishing understanding accomplishes practice.

1.135

Therefore, practice is accomplished through understanding, and when practice arises, understanding ceases.

1.136

Contemplation of the Non-Obstruction between Principle and Phenomena

1.137

Non-obstruction between principle and phenomena (the contemplated), contemplation (the contemplating). Second.

1.138

Although rūpa was discussed earlier, it was to eliminate emotional clinging so as to accomplish true emptiness; only when emptiness and rūpa are unobstructed and there is total cessation without resting on anything does it constitute the principle of tathatā. Because the wondrous functioning of tathatā had not yet been revealed, it was solely the gate of the contemplation of true emptiness, not yet the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena. Now, all phenomena and principle are clearly and mutually fused; hence it receives the name of this contemplation. The text has three parts: first, presenting [the gates]; second, explaining [them]; third, concluding with an exhortation.

1.139

Only principle and phenomena

1.140

In pairing them, principle being above is because it is the fundamental support.

1.141

fuse

1.142

Rong [fuse] means smelting, referring to the meaning of the initial melting.

1.143

and harmonize,

1.144

Rong [harmonize] means concord, referring to the meaning of mutual accomplishment. With principle fusing phenomena, phenomena and principle harmonize. These are the first two gates; because the two gates mutually harmonize, they mutually pervade.

1.145

preserving (nine and ten), vanishing (seven and eight), contrary (five and six), and conforming (three and four), having ten gates in total.

1.146

[This] designates [the themes]. Only when endowed with these ten is it termed the non-obstruction between principle and phenomena. Contemplating them in the mind is termed the 'contemplating subject.' Contemplating phenomena corresponds to the conventional, and contemplating principle corresponds to the ultimate; causing contemplation to be unobstructed accomplishes the contemplation of the ultimate truth of the Middle Way. Compassion and wisdom will naturally guide each other, accomplishing non-abiding practice. This already serves as the culmination of the Common Teaching of the Great Vehicle. Therefore, the third contemplation below is the Distinct Teaching of the One Vehicle, which is far removed from all other teachings. Above, the explanation of what was designated is concluded. Next below, individually explaining the ten gates, there are five pairs: first, mutual pervasion; second, mutual establishment; third, mutual subversion; fourth, mutual identity; fifth, mutual negation. Within the first pair there are four [sections]: first, the direct explanation; second, praising its profundity; third, pointing via metaphors; fourth, questions and answers. In the first [section], the text also has two parts.

1.147

1. The gate of principle pervading phenomena.

1.148

This means that the nature of principle, which is the pervading subject, has no divisions or limits,

1.149

because the true principle of the emptiness of nature has a single characteristic that is without characteristics.

1.150

while phenomena, which are the pervaded objects, have differentiated states and positions.

1.151

Defiled and pure minds and objects serve as pratītyasamutpāda for each other. Their temporal periods of arising and ceasing, and their characteristics of 'this' and 'that,' cannot be fully recounted.

1.152

Within each and every phenomenon, principle entirely pervades in its entirety;

1.153

not in its entirety would mean it is divisible.

1.154

it is not a partial pervasion.

1.155

The sūtra says: 'Dharmatā is everywhere present in all places, / in all sentient beings and lands; / in the three times it is entirely present without remainder, / nor are any shapes or characteristics apprehendable.' The [first] two lines refer to entire pervasion, and the last line refers to being indivisible.

1.156

Why? Because that true principle cannot be divided.

1.157

This explains the reason for entire pervasion.

1.158

Therefore, each and every minute speck of dust subsumes the boundless true principle, completely perfect in every respect.

1.159

2. The gate of phenomena pervading principle.

1.160

This means that phenomena, which are the pervading subjects, have divisions and limits, while principle, which is the pervaded object, must be without divisions or limits; these divided phenomena are entirely identical with the undivided principle, not partially identical.

1.161

It is named 'pervasion' because of this entire identity.

1.162

Why? Because phenomena have no substance of their own and return to being like principle. It is not like floating clouds pervading the sky. Therefore, a single speck of dust pervades the dharmadhātu without being destroyed. As with a single speck of dust, all phenomena are also like this: reflect on it.

1.163

Above, the direct explanation of the two gates is concluded. From here below, it concludes with a praise of their profundity.

1.164

This gate of entire pervasion transcends ordinary sentiments and departs from views.

1.165

Since a single speck of dust has no boundaries or divisions, how could there be an entity corresponding to [ordinary] sentiments? That is, it cannot be known by consciousness. The true principle is entirely within the speck of dust; how could any of the five eyes behold it? That is, it cannot be known by wisdom. Some editions read 'difficult to see,' which seems to suggest there might still be some part that could be seen; however, it is not as good as the word 'departs'.

1.166

It cannot be illustrated by worldly metaphors.

1.167

The sūtra says: 'All existent and non-existent phenomena in the three realms cannot serve as a metaphor for this.' Here, through concluding with praise, the subsequent metaphors are simultaneously delimited: they also cannot be viewed through the worldly sentiments [of ordinary people]. How could worldly people see the whole of an entire great ocean within a single wave? Above, the explanation concluding with praise is finished. From here below, pointing via metaphors has three parts: first, illustrating the non-obstruction of large and small; second, illustrating the non-obstruction of one and different; third, illustrating all phenomena each entirely pervading. This merely uses the ocean and waves to point to the positions of principle and phenomena so as to distinguish their doctrinal characteristics, not to serve as a complete metaphor for the teaching.

Linked texts (1)

註華嚴法界觀門 — Classical Chinese