觀心論疏 2
English (machine translation) 2
- Language
- English
2.1
Composed by the Śramaṇa Guanding of Tiantai under the Sui
2.2
The treatise states: 'The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra explains the forty-two syllabic doors. The first says: "If one hears the syllable door of A, one understands all meanings, namely that all phenomena are fundamentally non-arising."' Now, the beginning of this treatise clarifies the four inexpressibles, which is precisely the meaning of non-arising; hence it cites that passage. Next, it cites the eight negations from Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: first, the beginning of that treatise clarifies the eight negations, taking non-arising as the foremost, which is identical with the present treatise. Second, that treatise clarifies that phenomena do not arise from themselves, nor do they arise from another, nor from both, nor without a cause; therefore it speaks of non-arising. The treatise master used these four phrases to explain the eight negations, discerning that phenomena do not arise, in order to elaborate the sūtra. The present treatise takes that single phrase 'from oneself' to raise thirty-six questions. Because of these two points, it cites the text of that treatise.
2.3
Question: What is the manner in which Nāgārjuna used the eight negations to refute and establish, thereby elaborating the sūtra? Furthermore, what is the manner in which the four phrases of self and other explain the eight negations to elaborate the sūtra? Furthermore, what is the manner in which the single phrase of self-arising is used to raise thirty-six questions?
2.4
Answer: Now I shall explain these three questions in sequence. First, I will clarify refutation and establishment in the sūtra, and afterwards clarify the treatise's elaboration of refutation and establishment. Why is this? The Nirvāṇa Sūtra clarifies that previously it used the four witherings to refute the heterodox views of deviant permanence, and now uses the four flourishings to refute the attachment to nihilistic non-existence held by the three cultivations. Only when the illnesses of the two extremes are eliminated does one first attain neither withering nor flourishing, entering great nirvāṇa. Moreover, withering and flourishing are doubly employed, the two birds roaming together; those of sharp faculties enter the secret storehouse through this. The sūtra states: 'I place all my children within the secret storehouse, and before long I myself will abide therein.' The Lotus Sūtra also first refutes the illness of the four witherings of the three vehicles, hence stating that there are not two, nor are there three; thereafter it converges into permanence, bliss, self, and purity, hence stating: 'You are my children; I now abide permanently without extinction, and you too are endowed with the four flourishings.' Having recognized withering and flourishing, one is awakened to neither withering nor flourishing; the sūtra says: 'Ultimately returning to emptiness,' which is precisely neither withering nor flourishing, entering the emptiness of great, tranquil nirvāṇa. Moreover, one can doubly employ withering and flourishing; the sūtra says: 'All goods and wealth, you know them all.' Before those without wisdom, do not recklessly proclaim it; among those with wisdom, it may be proclaimed extensively. Why is this? Even though those of the three faculties all awakened, the group of five thousand still did not believe. As for the refutations and establishments in the various Mahāyāna texts, those who grasped the meaning have already awakened, while those who are deluded cling to the teachings without understanding. Later, Nāgārjuna appeared and composed the treatise, first clarifying the eight negations to refute attachment to the deviant delusions of the two extremes, and to elaborate the Buddha's correct teaching of the Middle Way. Now, although the treatise clarifies the eight negations, when synthesized they are merely the two phrases 'non-arising' and 'non-ceasing', which refute the two extremes of annihilation and permanence. Why is this? Non-permanence is precisely non-arising, and non-annihilation is precisely non-ceasing; non-sameness is non-arising, and non-difference is non-ceasing; non-coming is non-arising, and non-going is non-ceasing. Thus, non-arising is the emptiness of the four witherings, refuting the illness of arising that imputes permanence, bliss, self, and purity to the twenty-five states of existence; non-ceasing is the provisionality of the four flourishings, refuting the illness of cessation that is the nihilistic non-existence of the two vehicles. Therefore, because Nāgārjuna used non-arising and non-ceasing to refute the two extremes, sentient beings have their illnesses eliminated, only then understand the Middle Way, and first awaken to withering and flourishing, neither withering nor flourishing, the wondrous functions of the three contemplations in the sūtras, opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and recognizing the jewel within their garments. Therefore, in discerning the names of the three contemplations, the treatise states: 'Phenomena arisen through causes and conditions, / I declare to be emptiness; / they are also termed provisional names, / and are also the meaning of the Middle Way.'
2.5
Question: If so, how do the four phrases of phenomena arisen from causes and conditions synthesize with the three contemplations of non-arising and non-ceasing?
2.6
Answer: 'Arisen through causes and conditions' refers to the twenty-five states of existence, the conditioned phenomena of arising and ceasing; this first sets forth the objective realm to be refuted. Next, saying 'I declare to be emptiness' is non-arising; it refutes the conditioned, defiled phenomena of arising, clarifying their non-arising; hence it is emptiness. Next, saying 'they are also termed provisional names' is non-ceasing; it refutes extinction like reduction to ashes and nihilistic non-existence; hence it says 'also termed provisional names'. Next, saying 'also the meaning of the Middle Way' means: because they are non-arising they are not permanent, and because they are non-ceasing they are not annihilated; because they are neither permanent nor annihilated, neither existent nor non-existent, it is also termed the meaning of the Middle Way. Therefore, the treatise uses the emptiness and provisionality of non-arising and non-ceasing to refute delusion and elaborate the Buddha's perfectly wondrous three contemplations of the Middle Way; the intention lies herein. The treatise refutes the outsider, saying: 'If it were as you maintain, there would be no Three Jewels or Four Noble Truths. If it is as I refute, then the Three Jewels and Four Noble Truths are not lost.' The Three Jewels and Four Noble Truths are precisely the function of the single bird on the flourishing tree. The final two chapters of the treatise explain the contemplation methods of the Hīnayāna, which are precisely the function of the single bird on the withered tree. Thus, the two birds roaming together, and withering and flourishing doubly operating, are the wondrous function of this treatise. Furthermore, the treatise clarifying the 'two contemplations' is the function of the treatise, while the 'Middle' is the essence of the treatise; therefore it is called the Treatise on the Middle Way.
2.7
Question: Now one should directly clarify the four inexpressibles of this treatise; why instead explain the intention of refuting and elaborating in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā?
2.8
Answer: The four phrases of 'phenomena arisen through causes and conditions' in that treatise, such as non-arising and non-ceasing, which refute and elaborate, are identical to the four inexpressibles of the present treatise in refuting attachments and elaborating the Buddha's teachings; because they are identical, I first explain that and next interpret this. Why is this? The sūtra states 'arising of arising is inexpressible', which is identical to those defiled phenomena 'arisen through causes and conditions' in that text. The sūtra states 'non-arising of arising is inexpressible', which is identical to 'I declare to be emptiness' in that text. The sūtra states 'arising of non-arising is inexpressible', which is identical to 'also termed provisional names' in that text. The sūtra states 'non-arising of non-arising is inexpressible', which is identical to 'also the meaning of the Middle Way' in that text. Thus the names are different but the meaning is identical; refuting and elaborating are one.
2.9
Question: Since they are identical, and that text has already clarified it, why explain it repeatedly and redundantly here?
2.10
Answer: Although they are the same, they are also greatly different. Why? That [treatise] traverses all dharmas, broadly refuting all delusional attachments, but it does not specifically refute the mind to discern the insight that all Buddha-dharmas issue from the mind; therefore, students often lose the fundamental core of the lineage. Now, [this treatise] clarifies that the mind is the root of the myriad dharmas, and therefore refutes line by line with reference to the mind, revealing that within the mind all Buddha-dharmas are completely endowed, causing them to recognize the hidden treasure in their home and the jewel in their clothing, and putting an end to the toil of their seeking outside. It is greatly different from that treatise.
2.11
Now, next, to answer the previous question: 'Why use the four tetralemmas of self and other to explain the eight negations in order to expound the sūtra?': Now I first explain the line 'non-arising'. Why? Sentient beings in all their delusions invariably grasp at and cling to the three realms and the twenty-five states of existence, and give rise to the four inversions. Arbitrarily postulating a spiritual self, they give rise to the three poisons and the eighty-four thousand afflictions and delusions; with ignorance conditioning volitional formations, down to aging and death, suffering and its origin revolve, and birth-and-death is vast and boundless; having died, they are born again, and having been born, they return to death, vainly undergoing the severe sufferings of the three evil destinies without knowing any rest. But Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, pitying this host of the deluded, composed the treatise to expound the sūtra and show sentient beings that the original source of all dharmas is pure, without arising and without ceasing, causing them to return to the root and go back to the source; therefore, he said that all dharmas do not arise, and so forth. Yet sentient beings have clung to their attachments for a long time and are unable immediately to awaken to the principle of non-arising. Therefore, the outsider rescues [his view], saying: 'In the world one currently sees all the myriad things—pots, robes, pillars, the earth, the spiritual self, and so forth. How can the author of the treatise refute them, saying that they do not exist?' The author of the treatise says: 'How can one believe what you see with the eyes of foolish oxen and sheep and thereupon call it existent? Like a diseased eye seeing flowers in the sky, how can a diseased eye be sufficient proof?' Because such sentient beings are unable to attain faith and awakening, the author of the treatise examines, refutes, and thoroughly interrogates them one by one with reference to the four tetralemmas of self and other, exhausting their sentiment and taking the principle to its utmost, so that they only then awaken to the principle of non-arising; hence it is said, 'using the four tetralemmas of self and other to explain and establish the eight negations'.
2.12
Now, to briefly set forth the features of interrogating and refuting through the four tetralemmas of self and other: all sentient beings, first, posit a self of mental spirit; second, posit all the myriad things. Now we shall first refute and examine the mental spirit. We now ask: As for positing that mind arises, within the four tetralemmas of arising and non-arising, does it arise from itself? Does it arise from another? Does it arise from both? Or does it arise without cause? If one says that a single thought-moment of mind arises not from external sense-objects, but solely from one's own mind, then it arises from itself; then it should constantly arise, so how could it be that it arises when facing an object and does not arise when not facing it? Therefore, the sūtra says: 'With conditions, thought arises; without conditions, thought does not arise.' Hence we know that mind does not arise from itself. If one says that it arises from the sense-object, then it arises from another. If it arises from another, it should be able to arise apart from the internal mind; if it definitely cannot arise apart [from it], how can it be called arising from another? If one says that due to having mind internally and relying on sense-objects externally, the internal and external combine to arise together: we now ask, since previously interrogating self-arising showed it to be impossible, that means internally there is no arising; since previously interrogating other-arising showed it to be impossible, that means the external object has no arising. These two each have no arising; when joined together, how could they produce arising? Just as one grain of sand has no oil, joining two grains of sand also has none. If the internal and external each had arising, joining them would produce two arisings. Furthermore, if they each certainly had their own arising, why would they need to combine to arise? Thus, arising from both still has three faults. If one says that apart from mind and apart from sense-objects it arises without cause and conditions: when there are causes and conditions, seeking arising is still impossible, so how much less could there be arising without causes and conditions? Therefore, the *Madhyamakaśāstra* says: 'Dharmas do not arise from themselves, nor do they arise from another, nor from both, nor without cause; therefore, they are spoken of as non-arisen.' The extensive refutation is as in the treatise. Next, refuting the insentient. To show that seeking arising among all dharmas is impossible, we provisionally lodge the examination and refutation in a cereal grain; by analogy, all other dharmas are also like this. Why? We now ask: Does a cereal grain arise from itself, arise from another, arise from both, or arise without cause? If one says that the cereal grain arises from itself, it should not rely on water and soil to arise; now, in reality, it is not so, hence we know that the cereal grain does not arise from itself. If one says that it arises from the other of water and soil, then apart from the cereal grain, the other of water and soil should be able to give rise to it; now, in reality, it is not so, hence we know that another cannot give rise to it. If one says that internally due to having the cereal grain and externally relying on water and soil as causes and conditions, they arise together: previously it was already interrogated that seeking arising from self and other respectively is impossible; how could they arise together? Arising from both has three faults, as explained before. If one says that apart from the cereal grain, water, and soil, it arises without cause: when there are causes and conditions, seeking arising is still impossible, so how much less could it arise without cause? Therefore, it is said: 'Dharmas do not arise from themselves', and so on (and so forth). Now I have briefly presented the main outline; those who grasp the meaning will find it sufficient to eliminate doubt. If one wishes to know it in detail, one may consult the treatise oneself.
2.13
The *Dazhidulun* says: 'Among all dharmas, there are only name and form; if you wish to contemplate in accordance with reality, you should simply contemplate name and form.' Now, name is precisely the mind, which subsumes all sentient dharmas; form is the external dust, which subsumes all insentient dharmas. Thus, now examining 'arising is unattainable' with reference to the two dharmas of form and mind via the four tetralemmas of self and other, one should know that all the myriad dharmas are without arising. Sentient beings, by means of these four tetralemmas examining, interrogating, and finding that arising is unattainable, first awaken to and understand that all dharmas are without arising; they then can return to the root and go back to the source, returning to the real and original purity, and only then comprehend that all the myriad dharmas are false and unreal, with no further grasping or clinging. The dull-witted who have not awakened, hearing the refutation that all dharmas do not arise, then further claim that there is ceasing; the author of the treatise then again seeks and examines ceasing through the four tetralemmas. Why? If one says that the essence of a dharma ceases by itself, then that is self-ceasing; if one says that the essence of a dharma is ceased by the three characteristics, then that is other-ceasing; if one says that the essence of a dharma and the three characteristics combine to cease, then that is ceasing from both; if one says that it ceases apart from the essence of a dharma and the three characteristics, then that is causeless ceasing. The four tetralemmas are all unseekable, and examination finds them unattainable; only then does one awaken to the fact that all dharmas fundamentally do not arise, and now they do not cease. Knowing that form is itself emptiness, not that the extinction of form is emptiness, this is refuting the arising and ceasing of the twenty-five states of existence and returning to the emptiness of one-sided real intrinsic nature; this has not yet revealed the Middle Way. Now, using 'non-ceasing' to refute intrinsic-nature emptiness: if one says that the intrinsic nature of form itself is empty, that is self-ceasing; if one says that by annihilating form one grasps emptiness, that is other-ceasing; if one says that annihilating form and self-emptiness combine, that is ceasing from both; if one challenges self and other, that is causeless ceasing. Thus, examining intrinsic-nature emptiness through the four tetralemmas is also unattainable. This is precisely that dharmas do not cease from themselves, nor do they cease from another, nor from both, nor without cause; therefore, one knows there is no ceasing. Not permanent and not annihilated, not one and not different, not coming and not going—by analogy, examining them through the four tetralemmas, all are unattainable; hence one knows that non-ceasing thus has two applications. However, since examining intrinsic-nature emptiness through the four tetralemmas of non-ceasing finds it unattainable, this is precisely the non-empty that is empty, called the ultimate truth, which is the four witherings. Examining the existence of intrinsic nature through the four tetralemmas of non-arising finds it unattainable, which is precisely the non-existent that exists, called the form of dharma-nature; the sūtra says: 'Relinquishing impermanent form, one obtains permanent form,' which is the four flourishings. By using these four tetralemmas of self and other to seek and examine arising and ceasing, not permanent and not annihilated, not one and not different, not coming and not going, sentient beings thereby awaken to the Middle Way of the three contemplations of withering, flourishing, and neither withering nor flourishing in the sūtra. These are called the four tetralemmas of self and other. The manner in which the initial 'eight negations' of the *Dazhidulun* are used to expound the Buddha's sūtra is like this.
2.14
Next, to answer the third question above, 'How does one raise thirty-six questions with reference to the single phrase "self-arising"?': The sūtra says, 'Not contemplating internally does one attain this wisdom, up to not contemplating internally and externally does one attain this wisdom, nor apart from contemplating internally and externally does one attain this wisdom.' Now it is also like this: seeking arising through the four tetralemmas is impossible, yet it is also not apart from the four tetralemmas of self and other. The author of the treatise also clarifies that not arising means not being existent, and not ceasing means not being non-existent; because it is not non-existent, one can raise thirty-six questions with reference to the single phrase 'self-arising'. The rest—other-arising, arising from both, and causeless arising—are also like this.
2.15
The treatise says: "[One] asks: In contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, why are there the four inexpressibles? Free from frivolous debate and disputes, the mind is pure as space." From this single verse onward is the second [major section], the presentation proper, which comprises thirty-six verses forming thirty-six questions. The presentation proper is divided into ten chapters. The first single verse clarifies that the principle of the teaching is consummate, wondrous, and inexpressible. The second has two verses, clarifying that being confused about the principle and the teaching gives rise to the two delusions of views and inclinations. The third has four verses, clarifying that awakenings to the principle have depths and shallows, giving rise to the distinction of the four teachings. The fourth has one verse, clarifying that one who wishes to seek the principle underlying the teachings should practice in accordance with the methods and rules of the four kinds of samādhi. The fifth has one verse, clarifying that the wondrous principle cannot be ascended to all at once, so one must first cultivate the twenty-five expedient means. The sixth has one verse, clarifying that when the mind contemplates the true nature of the principle, various objects arise in diverse and differing ways. The seventh has one verse, clarifying that in accord with contemplating any single object, one employs the ten dharmas to form the vehicle. The eighth has seven verses, clarifying that when contemplation through the ten dharmas is perfected, one witnesses the various stages and abodes, possessing distinct dharma-doors. The ninth has fourteen verses, clarifying the differences in the application of dharmas to convert others. The tenth has four verses, concluding generally that the dharma-doors of one's own practice and converting others all reside in the complete purity of the one mind, where the path of words is cut off. The verse says: "As for the four inexpressibles: first, arising-arising is inexpressible; second, arising-non-arising is inexpressible; third, non-arising-arising is inexpressible; fourth, non-arising-non-arising is inexpressible." The treatise's explanation says: "Because of arising-arising, there is arising; because of arising, there is non-arising." How could it be expressed? To extrapolate from this statement: because of arising-arising, there is arising; because of non-arising-arising, there is non-arising-non-arising. How could it be expressed in isolation? It would lose its consummate purport. Furthermore, arising-arising is the Tripiṭaka teaching; arising-non-arising is the shared teaching; non-arising-arising is the separate teaching; non-arising-non-arising is the consummate teaching. Thus, not only are the three phrases the one phrase and the one phrase the three phrases, inexpressible also means the three teachings are the one teaching and the one teaching is the three teachings; how could it be expressed? Therefore, the treatise first states "the four inexpressibles," and subsequently delineates the four teachings. Furthermore, the sūtra's explanation says, "Arising-arising refers to conditioned dharmas"; hence it says arising-arising is the "dharmas produced through causes and conditions" of the Madhyamakaśāstra. Arising-non-arising is explained as: "At the time of death in conventional truth, it is named arising-non-arising"; this is the Madhyamakaśāstra's "I declare that it is emptiness." Non-arising-arising is explained as: "First emerging from the womb is named non-arising-arising"; this is the Madhyamakaśāstra's "It is also a provisional designation." Non-arising-non-arising is explained as: "The great parinirvāṇa has non-arising-non-arising"; this is the Madhyamakaśāstra's "It is also the meaning of the Middle Way." Thus, the four phrases in the treatise are precisely the three contemplations in the treatise; the three contemplations are the one contemplation, and the one contemplation is the three contemplations. How could they be spoken of in isolation? If spoken of in isolation, those who are confused would only grasp the superficial title; how could they tally with the profound purport? The sūtra says: "Stop, stop! There is no need to speak; my Dharma is wondrous and difficult to conceive"—this is precisely its meaning. Therefore, it first clarifies the four inexpressibles, and further clarifies the wondrousness of the principle of the three contemplations. Furthermore, the sūtra says: "All sentient beings are both one, not one, and neither one nor not-one." "Both one" means all sentient beings are of the One Vehicle; hence it is the meaning of the Buddhadharma. "Not one" means that enumerating these dharmas registers the three vehicles; hence it refers to the enumerations of the three dharmas of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas. "Neither one nor not-one" means that these numbers are indefinite; hence it refers to the dharma-realms of the six destinies. Moreover, the word "sentient beings" refers to the six destinies. Thus the sūtra clarifies that the mind in a single thought-moment is endowed with the ten dharma-realms; this is clear. Furthermore, the sūtra says: "Within the body of sentient beings there are poisonous herbs, and there is also the king of wondrous medicines." The poisonous herbs are the realms of the six destinies; the king of medicines is the realms of the four nobles. The six destinies are arising-arising; the two vehicles are arising-non-arising; the bodhisattva realm is non-arising-arising; the Buddha realm is non-arising-non-arising. In conclusion, the four phrases are the one phrase, residing in the one mind; the nine realms are the one realm, residing in a single thought-moment. The text and its meaning accord and join: in conclusion, the realms of the six destinies are saṃsāra, and the realms of the four nobles are nirvāṇa; nirvāṇa is saṃsāra, saṃsāra is nirvāṇa; the nine realms are the one realm, and the one realm is the nine realms. This is the inconceivable object; how could it be expressed? Furthermore, the saṃsāra of the six destinies is demerit, and the nirvāṇa of the four nobles is merit. Thus, within the mind, one recognizes the four inexpressibles of the ten realms. The inconceivable object is precisely recognizing the wondrous principle that "saṃsāra is not [other than] nirvāṇa," profoundly penetrating the characteristics of demerit and merit. The Lotus Sūtra says: "Profoundly penetrating the characteristics of demerit and merit, / Illuminating everywhere throughout the ten directions, / The subtle, wondrous, pure dharmakāya / Is endowed with the thirty-two marks." The dragon girl awakened to this consummate principle and swiftly achieved the Buddha Path; because Sadāparibhūta had consummate faith in this wondrous principle, he attained purity of the six sense faculties. Thus, the object, wisdom, and principle are wondrous and inexpressible. Therefore, it first clarifies the inexpressible, and afterwards delineates that the mind possesses the ten realms, clarifying the inconceivable object. Concluding the teachings of the four phrases, the ten dharma-realms, the three contemplations, and the texts of the various teachings, the treatise says: "Words are liberation, and liberation is the wondrous principle." How could the wondrous principle be expressed? Therefore, it first clarifies the inexpressible, and subsequently concludes: "The path of all language is cut off, and in the end nothing is attained." However, the four inexpressibles and other such dharmas must all be approached through a single thought-moment: the mind in a single thought-moment is produced through causes and conditions, is empty, is provisional, and is the Middle. Being empty, it is ever tranquil; being provisional, it is ever illuminating; being the Middle, it is neither tranquil nor illuminating; the dharmas produced through causes and conditions can also be said to doubly illuminate both emptiness and the provisional. Concluding these four phrases, they are the four inexpressibles. As explained previously, one can understand the four phrases of tranquility and illumination by analogy. Since it is precisely tranquil yet illuminating, precisely illuminating yet tranquil, precisely tranquil and illuminating yet neither tranquil nor illuminating while doubly tranquil and illuminating—one phrase is four phrases, and thus the principle is consummate; how could it be spoken of in isolation? Therefore it says, "the four inexpressibles." For one who attains its consummate principle, "disputes cease, and the mind is pure as space," just as the verse says.
2.16
Question: Why not raise the thirty-six questions with respect to other dharmas?
2.17
Answer: The sūtra says, "The triple realm has no separate dharmas; it is made solely by the one mind." It also says, "The mind is like a master painter, able to paint the various five skandhas"; "In all the worlds, there is nothing that is not made from the mind." Therefore we know that the mind is the root of the two rivers and the source of the myriad things. Yet now, it is simply because all students of dhyāna and wisdom do not know how to contemplate the mind to eliminate the root of the illness of defilements—just as if one wishes to fell a tree by lopping off the branches without clearing its roots, so that its growth never ceases; or just as when repairing a dike, one does not plug its holes, so that the leaking never stops; or just as a foolish dog chases the clod without knowing to chase the person, so that the clods never cease. The various analogies are clear, and therefore it is delineated with respect to the mind; the sūtra says, "Being able to contemplate the nature of the mind is called the supreme concentration."
2.18
Question: If so, why did the Buddha not merely instruct [people] to contemplate the mind?
2.19
Answer: For the sake of sentient beings of dull faculties, [the Buddha] gave various different teachings; the wise must grasp their intention. It is like the poor woman who did not know to seek the treasure inside her house and sought it outside; it was because she was dull. The arising of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra's] teaching was precisely to show her the "hidden storehouse in the mind." Because the śrāvakas were intoxicated, they were unaware of the jewel of the mind within their inner garment; the arising of the Lotus [Sūtra's] teaching was precisely to show it to them, and thus it says: "It is in order to cause sentient beings to disclose the Buddha's knowledge and vision that [the Tathāgata] appears in the world." The Vimalakīrti is also like this, and thus it says: "The liberation of the Buddhas should be sought within the mental actions of sentient beings." The present treatise is also like this: it also shows sentient beings the hidden storehouse in their minds; therefore it raises the thirty-six questions with respect to the mind. If one can answer them, one recognizes all dharmas within the mind.
2.20
Question: If so, one should only ask about the mind generating all dharmas; why furthermore ask about the mind generating the two delusions of views and inclinations?
2.21
Answer: It is simply because of not knowing to contemplate the mind that the ice of the eighty-four thousand defilements congeals and forms. If one is able to exercise contemplative wisdom, illuminating and understanding it, it immediately melts, giving forth the water of the eighty-four thousand pāramitās. Yet ice and water have never been different; how could understanding and delusion have separate essences? Because [people] do not understand, [the treatise] shows the mind's various faults, causing them to know their offenses and surely reform them, swiftly eliminating and forgetting delusions; and it shows the mind's dharma-doors, causing them to recognize merit without forgetting, diligently cultivating and practicing them. For this reason, it contemplates external delusions with respect to the mind. Furthermore, the mind is a single dharma, easy to contemplate; whereas the myriad dharmas and myriad objects shift with external things and the intent, making them difficult to illuminate.
2.22
The treatise says: "[The verse] asks: Contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, / How is it the practice of Māra? / Bound by karma and defilements, / Burned in the burning house of the three realms. / [The verse] asks: Contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, / How is it [the way of] non-Buddhists? / With the karmas of defilements [born of] various views, / One transmigrates through the six destinies." These two verses explain that failing to understand that the spontaneously arising mind in a single thought-moment is empty, and failing to comprehend the principle of the four inexpressibles, therefore gives rise to the two delusions of views and inclinations. The delusions of inclination are themselves Māra—not the Māra of the sixth heaven; the delusions of view are themselves non-Buddhists—not the six teachers. A sūtra says: "Māras take pleasure in birth and death; the bodhisattva does not abandon them in birth and death. Non-Buddhists take pleasure in various views; the bodhisattva remains unperturbed among various views." These [statements] both discuss Māra and non-Buddhists in terms of the mind of the delusions of views and inclinations. Now, to discuss Māra as the delusions of inclination in terms of the six sense objects: failing to understand that the mind in a single thought-moment is empty, one falsely sees pleasant six sense objects, becomes entangled in loving attachment, and gives rise to greed; this produces 21,000 delusions, which are the "soft thief" Māras. Seeing terrifying six sense objects, one gives rise to fear and anger; this produces 21,000 delusions, which are the strong Māras. Toward middling six sense objects, one gives rise to delusion; this produces 21,000 middling Māras. Toward equal proportions, one further produces 21,000 equal-proportion Māras. Thus, because one does not realize that the mind in a single thought-moment is empty and false, one encounters conditions and confronts objects, and is entangled by the three poisons and equal proportions—the 84,000 Māra-thieves—and bound by karma and defilements, burned by the burning house of the three realms. Therefore, the verse says: "[The verse] asks: Contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, / How is it the practice of Māra?" and so forth; this is what it means. Next, to explain the delusions of view: when one inquires into the truths and principles incorrectly, mental activities go outside the principle and give rise to defilements; these are called delusions of view and termed non-Buddhists. What does this mean? If one determinately asserts that the mind in a single thought-moment fully contains all phenomena and is the tathāgatagarbha, this is identical to the Kapila non-Buddhists, the reckoning that the effect pre-exists in the cause. If one determinately asserts that the mind lacks all phenomena and only has them through cultivation, this is identical to the Ulūka non-Buddhists, the reckoning that there is no effect in the cause. If one determinately asserts that the mind both contains and does not contain them, this is identical to the Ṛṣabha non-Buddhists, the reckoning that the effect both exists and does not exist in the cause. The six teachers each had their determinate attachments, up to the simple four propositions, compound four propositions, complete views, and so forth, all of which are reckonings of non-Buddhists; by deducing accordingly, this can be known. Therefore, hearing that the mind contains all phenomena and is the tathāgatagarbha, they say it is like a bag holding sand; hearing that the mind lacks all phenomena, they say it is like a rabbit's horns. These are all people who permanently cling to wrong views; how could one discuss the Way with them? The sūtra takes the simile of the sound of a lute: it cannot be fixed as real, and one cannot demand it through the four propositions of existence and non-existence. If one is like the foolish king who cut the strings seeking the lute's sound, when such a person seeks the principle through the existence or non-existence of the four propositions, it is entirely dogmatic clinging to wrong views. If one can be like the wise minister who skillfully took the sound, one will be adept at uniting with the real, and the four propositions will all be doors of entry. A "door" means being able to lead through; then no phenomenon is not fully present: a single color, a single scent is nothing other than the Middle Way; raising a foot, lowering a foot is nothing other than the bodhimaṇḍa. But if one clings stubbornly, the door will be blocked; if it is blocked, no phenomenon will not be delusion, and every single color and scent seen by the deluded mind will be nothing other than inversion: a non-Buddhist of wrong views. Briefly setting forth the eighty-eight afflictions of the delusions of view: if, when contemplating the mind in a single thought-moment, one becomes attached to the method of contemplation, as the sūtra says: "The Dharma is named free from defilement; if one is defiled by the Dharma, even up to nirvāṇa, this is being defiled by phenomena, not seeking the Dharma"—this is the affliction of greed. Because of greed and love, one is pleased when one's contemplation method is praised and angry when it is rebuked—this is the affliction of anger. Since the true truth has not yet manifested, there is the darkness and delusion of ignorance—this is the affliction of ignorance. Having the obscurity of ignorance, one doubts the truth and principle—this is the affliction of doubt. Relying on one's own contemplative understanding to demean others—this is the affliction of conceit. Retaining a self that is the contemplating mind—this is the view of selfhood. Not having seen the Middle Way—this is extreme view. Clinging to one's own view as right and rejecting others as wrong—this is wrong view. Insisting that one's contemplative understanding is the cause of nirvāṇa—this is attachment to precepts and vows. Determinately holding that the principle one sees is the fruit of nirvāṇa—this is attachment to views. These are the delusions of the ten afflictions that arise from failing to understand when contemplating the spontaneously arising mind in a single thought-moment. The ten afflictions, applied to the four truths of the desire realm, make thirty-two; for the four truths of the form and formless realms, there are twenty-eight each; thus, across the three realms and four truths, there are eighty-eight afflictions, which are called the truth of origination. Views must depend on form, which is the truth of suffering. Even Long Nails of sharp faculties did not recognize the suffering and origination of his viewing mind, but puffed himself up with conceit; how could practitioners of today recognize it? Therefore, before a practitioner has awakened to the principle, how could he not have views? One ought to empty the mind, banish deliberate thoughts, repent errors, and examine oneself; one must not stubbornly cling to right and wrong, disputing and reckoning, thereby generating conceit, giving rise to the eighty-eight afflictions, and entangling oneself in vain delusions, which may be called failing to remove the old illness while adding new diseases. However, the four teachings each have four doors, making sixteen doors in all; the contemplation of delusions of view practiced in one door is like this, and the remaining fifteen doors may be known by analogy.
2.23
Question: The eighty-eight afflictions obstruct only the Small Vehicle; how can they apply generally to the Great Vehicle?
2.24
Answer: Distinctly speaking, it is as you ask; universally speaking, they are all present, but though present, their meaning is distinct. All these non-Buddhists with delusions of view, because of failing to understand the mind in a single thought-moment, are falsely entangled in delusive suffering and transmigrate through birth and death. Thus the verse says: "[The verse] asks: Contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, / How is it [the way of] non-Buddhists?" and so forth; this is it.
2.25
The treatise says: "[The verse] asks: Contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, / How is it the three vehicles? / Clumsy crossing over severs views and inclinations, / Escaping the burning house of the three realms." The preceding three verses clarified the failure to understand the spontaneously arising mind in a single thought-moment and the failure to comprehend the principle of the four inexpressibles, thus giving rise to the two delusions of views and inclinations, as explained above. From here there are four verses, which form the third [section], clarifying that the principle has shallow and profound levels. If one awakens to the spontaneously arising mind in a single thought-moment and comprehends the principle of the four inexpressibles, yet because understanding has great and small, skillful and clumsy, and awakening has gradual and sudden, shallow and profound, this leads to the distinction of the four teachings, which constitutes the four verses.
2.26
Question: Teachings fundamentally express principle, and that which is expressed is only two; how can the expressing teachings be four?
2.27
Answer: In expressing the two principles, each has crooked and straight, skillful and clumsy [aspects], and thus they become four. This will be seen later.
2.28
Question: Where are the two principles expressed by the place of jewels and the transformed city located now? If their location is known, seeking them will be easy.
2.29
Answer: A single color, a single scent is nothing other than the Middle Way, nothing other than the place of jewels; form itself is emptiness, nothing other than the transformed city—this is how it is discriminated. Since we are discussing it immediately in terms of the mind close at hand, a sūtra says: "All sentient beings are themselves the mark of nirvāṇa, and will not be extinguished again"; "The liberation of the Buddhas should be sought in the mental conduct of sentient beings"; "In order to cause sentient beings to disclose the Buddha's knowledge and vision." It is only because sentient beings do not realize that there is a priceless jewel within their inner garments; how could they know that the principle of the place of jewels lies within the immediate mind itself? Just as the poor woman did not recognize the hidden treasure in her house, how could sentient beings awaken to the source of the Middle Way within their own bodies? A sūtra says: "Birth and death are themselves nirvāṇa; defilements are themselves bodhi." That being so, how could the principle of the place of jewels be outside of five hundred yojanas? A sūtra says: "Form itself is emptiness"; the transformed city of one-sided truth is likewise not outside of three hundred [yojanas]. Thus, the two principles reside in the mind in a single thought-moment; there is no need to travel far. A sūtra says: "Being able to contemplate the nature of the mind is called supreme absorption." However, when sentient beings seek the two principles, their faculties have sharp and dull, and the conditions are fourfold: skillful and clumsy; the teachings follow the conditions, leading to the distinction of four teachings. Now, first explaining the first verse on the Tripiṭaka teaching: sentient beings, being inverted, take body and mind to be permanence, bliss, self, and purity; following inverted thoughts, they give rise to the two delusions of views and inclinations, create boundless karmic fruits of birth and death, and constantly remain within the burning house, scorched and pressed by defilements, constantly suffering affliction. A sūtra says: "The fire comes pressing upon their bodies, and the agony pierces them directly." Although encountering great suffering, they do not consider it a calamity; they merely run back and forth, gazing at their father, having no thought of seeking to escape. Although the elder has strength in his body and arms, he does not use it, but through skillful means devises goat-carts, deer-carts, and so forth, expounding for the three vehicles the truths, conditions, and perfections; this is called the Tripiṭaka teaching that expounds the three vehicles. A sūtra says: "He proceeded directly to Vārāṇasī and turned the Dharma-wheel of the four truths, expounding for the five monks the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas," and so forth. "Five skandhas" refers to expounding the five skandhas. "Arising and ceasing" refers to the Tripiṭaka teaching of arising and ceasing. If practitioners today wish to receive and practice the Tripiṭaka contemplation of arising and ceasing, they should contemplate the spontaneously arising mind in a single thought-moment as being shifted by the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing, impermanent from thought-moment to thought-moment; because it is impermanent, it is suffering; because it is suffering, it is non-self; because it is non-self, it is empty. By contemplating and knowing suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self, one destroys the four inversions of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Because the four inversions are destroyed, one does not give rise to the false delusions of views and inclinations. When the delusions of views and inclinations are eliminated, it is called the extinction of the fire; then they push and shove together, vying to escape the burning house. Thus, because the "basis possessing delusion" arises and the "thought possessing delusion" ceases, it is called the contemplation of arising and ceasing. By cultivating this contemplation of arising and ceasing, one awakens to the emptiness of mind and realizes the principle of the transformed city; this is called the clumsy crossing over of the Tripiṭaka, crookedly realizing the true principle. Therefore, the verse says: "[The verse] asks: Contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, / How is it the three vehicles?" and so forth; this is it.
2.30
The treatise says: "[The verse] asks: Contemplating the spontaneously arising mind, / How is it skillful crossing over? / The three vehicles do not sever bonds, / Yet attain entry into the two nirvāṇas." This single verse clarifies the shared teaching. The practitioner receives this teaching and cultivates contemplation, contemplating that the spontaneously arising mind in a single thought-moment is itself empty; it is not empty by the cessation of the mind, but the mind is empty in its own nature. A sūtra says: "Because it is devoid of own-nature, because own-nature does not exist, because own-nature cannot be attained." A sūtra says: "Just as a magician sees the people he has conjured," so does the bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings. Like a wise person seeing the moon in the water, like seeing one's reflection in a mirror, like a mirage in the heat, like an echo to a shout, like clouds in the sky, like bubbles upon water—so does the bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings. A sūtra says: "The fundamental nature of ignorance originally does not exist; it comes to exist through the aggregation of false conceptualization and conditions." Sentient beings merely fail to know that it is false and unreal, taking the body to be real, claiming it is permanence, bliss, self, and purity, and giving rise to the four inversions, arbitrarily reckoning various delusions, and transmigrating through birth and death. If practitioners today contemplate their own bodies and minds as illusory and lacking reality, how could there be permanence, bliss, self, and purity? Then inverted thoughts do not arise, and defilements are spontaneously extinguished. Just as a person in a dream sees someone disparaging or praising him, and is overjoyed when praised and grieved when disparaged; only after awakening from sleep does he realize that the joy and anger, pleasure and fear during sleep arose arbitrarily. The bodhisattva practitioner contemplates that the joy and anger of the spontaneously arising mind, and the various delusions that arise, are likewise like illusions and transformations; as a sūtra says: "Like what is seen in a dream." By performing this contemplation, one awakens to the principle of emptiness of the spontaneously arising mind in a single thought-moment; this is called the shared teaching, embodying phenomena as non-arising, skillful crossing over, which laterally expresses the principle of the transformed city.
2.31
Question: Why is it called the contemplation of embodying phenomena as non-arising and skillful crossing over?
2.32
Answer: Now this should be explained through a metaphor: first, like an actual form outside a mirror; second, like a reflected image inside a mirror. Would worldly people not say that the form outside the mirror is truly existent, while the image inside the mirror is non-existent and empty? A practitioner who undertakes the Tripiṭaka teaching contemplates the phenomena of body and mind as being like the actual form outside the mirror; merely because they are shifted by the three marks [of conditioned phenomena], they are impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self. One who performs this contemplation attains awakening to the principle of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness. But now, a practitioner of the shared teaching embodies the knowledge that body and mind are unreal and empty just like the image inside the mirror. However, is an image in a mirror not empty in its very identity as an image—why must one extinguish the image before it is empty? Therefore the sūtra says: 'Form itself is emptiness; it is not that the extinction of form makes it empty.' Form is by its own nature empty; thus there is no original extinction of the mirror's image. Hence the sūtra says: 'Originally not arisen, now there is no extinction.' Because this contemplation is both skillful and subtle, it is called the contemplation of embodying phenomena as non-arising and skillful crossing over. If the mirror metaphor is thus, the analogies of dreams, illusions, shadows, and echoes can be understood accordingly. Compared with the Tripiṭaka [teaching], it is only people of sharp faculties in the three vehicles who are capable of cultivating this contemplation of skillful crossing over. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Understanding the cause of suffering as having no cause of suffering, there is the true noble truth.' Since it says 'understanding the cause of suffering as having no cause of suffering,' what afflictions are there to be severed such that there is the true noble truth? This is precisely obtaining the two nirvāṇas, as the verse says: 'The three vehicles do not sever fetters, / yet attain entry into the two nirvāṇas.'
First 32 of 42 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 觀心論疏 — Classical Chinese