御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.7

1.7

Second, concerning the explanation of the essence and nature of the scripture: first the essence, then the nature. In setting forth the essence of the teachings, there are five levels in all. 1. The essence of the signifier's nature and function. Names express self-nature; phrases express distinctions; words are syllables, serving as the support for both. These three depend on sound. Explaining the nominal and the real together, the four dharmas of sound, name, phrase, and word constitute the essence. The *Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra* says: "Both speaker and listener achieve perfection through two things: first, wholesome sounds; second, wholesome syllables (syllables being the support also subsume names and phrases)." The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* says: "Although these three have no separate essence apart from sound, they differ in being nominal or real, and are not identical with sound. Consequently, the objects of the two unobstructed understandings of dharmas and words differ: dharmas take names and the like as their objective support, while words take sound as their objective support." 2. Concealing the nominal and discussing the real. Although the essence consists of names, phrases, and words, they are nominally established based on function; they have no separate essence and are not apart from sound. It is merely said that the sound of the holy teaching constitutes the essence. Therefore, the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* speaks of "that which is elicited by accomplishment as sound," and does not speak of names and the like as that which is elicited by accomplishment. The *Vijñaptimātratā* also says: "If names, phrases, and words were real entities apart from sound, they should, like form and the like, not be real signifiers." 3. The essence of the manifest expression of signifier and signified. Fascicle 81 of the *Yogācārabhūmi* presents the essence of the sūtras as having two kinds in brief: first, the phrasing; second, the meaning. Through the expressive phrasing, the meaning is manifested. This essence takes both signifier and signified together, for the holy teaching must have signified meanings. 4. Subsuming dharmas under the mind as essence. The *Avataṃsaka* and other scriptures say that the three realms are mind-only. Furthermore, sūtras say that the objective supports of the consciousnesses are manifestations of consciousness only. The treatises say that mind, mental factors, form, non-concurrent conditioned dharmas, and all unconditioned dharmas are not apart from the mind. Therefore, the consciousness of mind-only constitutes the essence of this teaching. In terms of the root, it is the mind of the speaker; in terms of the branch, it also takes the cognitive consciousness of the listener as essence. Hence the *Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā* states that through mutual predominant influence, the two consciousnesses become determined; this refers to the differentiation of consciousness in other continuous series causing the arising of differentiated consciousness in another continuous series, as they mutually serve as predominant conditions for each other. 5. Subsuming phenomena into tathatā as essence. The *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa* says: "All dharmas are suchness; all the noble and wise are also suchness," and so on. It also says: "Although the nature of syllables is devoid of syllables, this is liberation." It also says: "Dharma is not seeing, hearing, perceiving, or knowing," and so forth, in numerous passages. Phenomenal marks are like waves; the nature of principle is like water. The waves are not apart from water; phenomenal dharmas are all suchness. Therefore, the teaching takes only tathatā as its essence. The above presentation of essence proceeds from branch to root, from shallow to deep, simply presenting the view that does not contradict other meanings. Next, regarding the explanation of the nature, there are again three gates: 1. The nature of pariniṣpanna and the others; 2. The nature of defiled or undefiled; 3. The three natures of wholesome and the rest. Regarding pariniṣpanna and the others: subsuming phenomena into tathatā is pariniṣpanna nature; subsuming dharmas under mind is paratantra nature. The first two gates are also paratantra. The third gate pertains to all three natures, since the parikalpita, though lacking real essence, is also what is signified. Regarding defiled or undefiled: based on the root teaching spoken by the Tathāgata, all are undefiled. The statement that the fifteen dhātus are defiled accords with the Hīnayāna tenets and is not the Mahāyāna meaning. In Mahāyāna, the Buddha's body, the eighteen dhātus, and so forth are all undefiled. When bodhisattvas of the ten bhūmis and persons of the two vehicles speak or listen to the teaching, distinctions must be made. The eighth consciousness of a bodhisattva is subsumed under the defiled nature, so the sounds and so forth manifested by it are also exclusively defiled. If speaking and listening occur within an undefiled mind, it involves the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, and this reflected teaching is also exclusively undefiled, because the seeing and form parts belong to the same category of nature. Although the two vehicles have undefiled contemplation, entry into the absorption of cessation, and so forth, these are minor and negligible; when speaking or listening to the Dharma, they are exclusively defiled. Worldlings can be understood accordingly. Regarding the three natures of wholesome and the rest: that which is manifested by the undefiled is unequivocally of wholesome nature. What is spoken and heard by a defiled mind—the manifested sounds and so forth—are all exclusively indeterminate, because they are direct perceptual objects. Question: That which is manifested by the eighth consciousness may be exclusively indeterminate, but with regard to the six consciousnesses, what is the status of that which is manifested during states of wholesome and the rest? Answer: While the seeing part may be wholesome and so on, that which is manifested is indeterminate, because the seeing and form parts are permitted to be generated separately. The treatises state that form and sound are of neither good nor bad nature; they are nominally called good or bad in accordance with the mind that generates them. Question: If sound is exclusively indeterminate, what of names and the like? Answer: If considered in accordance with what is signified, they nominally extend to the three natures; if considered in accordance with their supporting sound, they are also exclusively indeterminate. If that is so, why does Vasubandhu's treatise say: "My Dharma is wholesome; yours is exclusively indeterminate"? Answer: You, the Hīnayāna master, hold that the sound dhātu is defiled, and names are exclusively indeterminate. In my Mahāyāna tradition, the Buddha's sound is undefiled, and therefore it is exclusively wholesome.