Selections from the Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, by Woncheuk the Śramaṇa of Ximing Temple (Haesimmil gyeong so)
Translated by A. Charles Muller
Table of Contents
|2.||Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra|
The Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra by Woncheuk 圓測 (613–696) is regarded by scholars as one of the most important commentarial works in the entire Yogâcāra tradition. 1 Woncheuk’s original dharma-name was Mun-a 文雅, but he apparently accepted the appellation Woncheuk (Perfect Fathoming). He was born into the Silla royal family; ordained at the age of three, he left in his teens to study in China. He became enthusiastic about doctrinal studies after having had the opportunity to hear about the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-śāstra from Fachang 法常 (566?–645) and Sengbian 僧辯 2 (568–642), and received permission from the Tang emperor Taizong to remain at Yuanfasi 元法寺 in Chang’an to work with state support. Woncheuk studied broadly the various Buddhist doctrinal systems, including the various strands of Abhidharma and Satyasiddhi, while at the same time becoming proficient in six languages, including Sanskrit.
When Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) returned from India in 645, bringing such texts as the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra and Cheng weishi lun back for translation, Woncheuk became an avid student of these works. At the completion of the construction of Ximing Temple 西明寺 in 658, the emperor invited Woncheuk to take up residence there in the capacity of Great Master 大德. There, starting with his commentary on the Cheng weishi lun, Woncheuk engaged himself in the exegesis of many of Xuanzang’s new translations, adding much impetus to the popularization of these works. At one point Woncheuk retired to Yunjisi 雲際寺 in Zhongnan and stayed in another place for a period of peaceful seclusion for eight years, but afterwards he returned to Ximingsi to renew his lectures on the Cheng weishi lun.
He also served within the translation project as the primary checker against the source texts during the translations of the Miyan jing 密嚴經, Xianshi lun 顯識論, and other works. Starting with such monumental works as commentaries on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Cheng weishi lun, and Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, he produced more than ten major exegeses. Unfortunately, only the commentaries on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Sūtra for Humane Kings, and the Heart Sūtra have survived to the present. Recently, a restoration of his commentary on the Cheng weishi lun has been developed based on citations in later works. Silla King Sinmun repeatedly requested Woncheuk to return home to Silla, but in the end, he never made it back. Woncheuk’s final project was that of participation in the translation of the eighty-fascicle Huayan jing that had arrived to Luoyang, but before this task was completed, he succumbed to illness, passing away in 696 at the age of 84.
Since Woncheuk had studied for a few decades in China before the introduction of Xuanzang’s new translations, he was already deeply steeped in, and somewhat intellectually committed to, the interpretations of Yogâcāra based on the earlier translations by Paramârtha 眞諦—“Old Yogâcāra.” Nonetheless, after having the chance to fully work through Dharmapāla’s 護法 (6th c.) theoretical system, he embraced and praised the “new Yogâcāra.” Woncheuk subsequently tended to be critical of Paramârtha’s system, citing instead theories of consciousness—especially the three-nature theory elaborated in the new Yogâcāra—which he felt more clearly accounted for the function of the mind in its apprehension of external objects.
While the Dilun school had previously developed a theory of consciousness based on a model of eight levels, the Shelun school, under the influence of Paramârtha, took the eighth consciousness, the ālayavijñāna, to be a mixture of truth and delusiveness, and posited beyond this a ninth consciousness, called the amalavijñāna, which was understood to be a pure consciousness of thusness. In response to this, Woncheuk, in a thorough examination of terminology and principles, criticized the nine-consciousness theory and supported the eight consciousness model. Woncheuk criticized Paramârtha’s views primarily through the framework of the three natures and three non-natures, which included within it a concrete revolution of the phenomenal world from the perspective of both rational theory and direct awakening. In using the three nature framework, Woncheuk responded to what he perceived as a complete rejection by Paramârtha of both the dependent nature, and the nature of pervasive discrimination, which attaches to phenomena. Woncheuk took the position that since the rejection of the dependent nature implied the denial of the basis of all existence, its rejection amounted to an error in regard to the understanding of reality.
Nonetheless, in the course of investigating and explicating various theories of consciousness, Woncheuk relied extensively on Paramârtha’s works. But in the case of a discrepancy between the positions of the old and new Yogâcāra, Woncheuk inevitably followed the line of thinking of the new Yogâcāra. This shows that Woncheuk’s basic orientation is toward the doctrinal flow of the new Yogâcāra introduced by Xuanzang, which was the overwhelming force in the Buddhist world of the time. Additionally, Woncheuk showed a much more accommodating approach toward Madhyamaka than that seen in the mainstream Faxiang thought exemplified in the writings of Xuanzang and Kuiji 窺基 (632–682).
Woncheuk explained how the early Yogâcāra founders attempted to merge the real and the conventional, how Nāgârjuna attempted to deny both real and conventional, and furthermore, how the debate regarding the juxtaposition of emptiness and existence developed between Yogâcāra and Madhyamaka and how that argument played out in the works of Bhāvaviveka 淸辯 (ca. 490–570) and Dharmapāla. Bhāvaviveka maintained that all dharmas are empty, while Dharmapāla said that all dharmas are both existent and non-existent. Woncheuk tended to emphasize the fact that the problem occurs only because one stubbornly holds to one’s own principle and is unable to consider that that of one’s opponent, and he tried to harmonize the two approaches through the contemplation of emptiness. Fully understanding the truth of existence to be its emptiness, knowing the reality of neither empty nor existence, one experiences the middle way for oneself, within which the positions of both Bhāvaviveka and Dharmapāla can be accepted. Thus, while seeking to stress the greater and deeper meaning of the Buddhadharma, he warned against the ever-present danger of attaching to one’s own position, or the view of one’s own school, to the point of setting up a confrontational situation.
One of the most noted aspects of Woncheuk’s Consciousness-only system is his rejection of the firm distinction in five natures. He asserted instead that even so-called icchantikas have the potential for enlightenment. 3 Moreover, with the basic purpose of taking to task the narrow and biased attitude seen in the canonical interpretations of the newly translated scriptures, Woncheuk sought to clarify the various positions on the possibility of attainment of buddhahood by icchantikas based on the canonical sources that supported both sides of the issue. 4 For Woncheuk, the scriptures and treatises were to be seen as organically related and were to be interpreted from a wider viewpoint, and so he did not deem it incumbent upon scholars to rigidly follow the line of argumentation regarding the distinctions in the five natures and distinctions in the three vehicles as presented in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. As a way of approaching the five-natures theory, he thought it necessary to distinguish between whether one is approaching the matter from the perspective of the essential nature or from the perspective of the nature acquired by practice. From the perspective of essential nature, all sentient beings are the same. That from the perspective of the nature imprinted from practice it is obvious that sentient beings differ can be characterized as the position of Kuiji’s lineage. Woncheuk sought to transcend the difference between these two approaches, assimilating them into a single standpoint that emphasized equality. 5 This debate on the interpretation of Woncheuk’s position is still ongoing, but no matter what, we can certainly praise Woncheuk’s unstinting efforts at comprehensively understanding the conflicted standpoints of both the division between Madhyamaka and old Yogâcāra and the division between old Yogâcāra and new Yogâcāra and trying to overcome these oppositions through an ecumenical approach. 6
After Woncheuk’s time, the Faxiang school, led by Kuiji, established itself as the orthodoxy in China as the transmission of Consciousness-only, and in the process sharply criticized the interpretations of the Woncheuk stream as deviant. Thus, the Woncheuk tradition did not endure in China. However, the ecumenical attitude from which Woncheuk viewed the differences in Buddhist doctrines was an invaluable contribution to the doctrinal Buddhist discourse of the period, with his middle way of Consciousness-only allowing the debates of the time to be elevated to higher levels of sophistication. Disciples who were affiliated with the broadminded approach taught by Woncheuk ended up forming a school of thought distinct from the Faxiang school of members connected with Xuanzang and Kuiji, and this group that followed Woncheuk came to be known as the Ximing 西明 school. The major Silla Yusik scholars who were influenced by Woncheuk, including Seungjang 勝莊 (7th c.), Dojeung 道證 (7th c.) and Doryun 道倫 (7th c.), continued to exhibit a tendency of independent thinking in regard to Yogâcāra doctrines. The differences between the thought of the members of the Ximing school and those of the Cien school can be most clearly seen in their respective interpretations of the Cheng weishi lun. In his treatment of the Cheng weishi lun, Woncheuk tends to take a critical stance toward the various positions of the ten great Yogâcāra masters whose views are understood to constitute the texts. He compares their positions in order to come up with a more accurate presentation of Consciousness-only. His approach is thus different from that of Huizhao, who rather than treating each position objectively, tended to adhere rather slavishly to the interpretations of Kuiji, using these to argue against any divergent views. 7 The Consciousness-only thought of Woncheuk, which featured an interfused standpoint based on the viewpoint of the single taste, was taught in the Silla through Dojeung, and the influence of this approach made its mark on Daehyeon 大賢 (8th c.). The influence of the broad Consciousness-only thought of Woncheuk was exerted on the foundation of the Consciousness-only thought that served as the mainspring of Silla doctrinal studies.
Outline of Woncheuk’s Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra
The marker 〇 indicates sections that have been translated in the present work.
To show as many features as possible of the Consciousness-only thought of Woncheuk, we selected the Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, and from within this, translated a few of the most important sections. We have translated most of the sections of the “motivation for the teaching and the title” and the “revealing the essence” portion of the “distinction of the doctrines of the sutra” following the paragraph arrangements of Woncheuk, and then from the exegesis proper we have selected sections that have been the subject of debate, such as the materials related to the distinction into the five natures. In this relatively small sampling of Woncheuk’s work, we hope to provide the best possible sense of his Consciousness-only thought.
2. Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra
Preface to the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Chapter One
I would like to explain the sūtra in four parts: (1) the motivation for the teaching, and the title; (2) the distinction of the doctrines of the sūtra; (3) the elucidation of its bases and purpose; (4) the exegesis proper, following the text.
2.1. The Motivation for the Teaching, and the Title
第一教興及題目者。竊以、眞性甚深、超衆象而爲象。圓音祕密、布群言而不言。斯乃、卽言而言亡。非象而象著。理雖寂而可談。卽言而言亡、言雖弘而無說。無說 9 故、嘿不二於丈室。可談故、辨三性於淨宮。是故慈氏菩薩、說眞俗而竝存。龍猛大士、談空有而雙遣。然則存不違遣。唯識之義彌彰 10 、遣不違存、無相之旨恆立。亦空亦有、順成二諦之宗。非有非空、契會中道之理。故知迷謬者說空而執有、悟解者辨有而達空。
How mysterious! 11 The nature of reality is extremely profound, transcending myriad forms, yet becoming form. The Perfect Voice 12 is mysterious—it articulates a multitude of words, yet does not speak. It is nothing but words, yet words are forgotten. It is not form, yet forms are revealed. Although the principle is quiescent, it can be discussed. As for it’s being nothing but words, yet words are forgotten: even though one speaks at length, nothing is explained. Since nothing is explained, there is silent non-duality in the ten-foot room. 13 Since it can be discussed, the three natures 14 are articulated in the pure abode. 15 Therefore Maitreya Bodhisattva 16 explains the real and the conventional, but leaves both intact. Nāgârjuna 17 Bodhisattva discourses upon emptiness and existence, and both are negated. Yet this remaining intact does not differ from negation. As the meaning of Consciousness-only is further clarified, negation does not differ from leaving intact. The meaning of no-marks is always established. Both empty and existent, it is positive proof of the teaching of the two truths. 18 Neither existent nor empty, it matches with the principle of the Middle Way. Hence we know that when the deluded proclaim emptiness, they are attached to existence, and when the enlightened articulate existence, they are penetrating emptiness.
The Buddhadharma is the ultimate source: how could it be otherwise? Yet there are many ways of leading people, and not only one entry into reality. Therefore the Dharma king taught in three turnings of the wheel. 19 The first was the teaching for practitioners of the śrāvaka vehicle, 20 delivered at the Deer Park 21 in Vārāṇasī 22 —the first revelation of the causes and effects of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. This was the first turn of the Dharma, that of the four truths. 23 Next is the teaching aimed the bodhisattva vehicle, where in the sixteen sermons at Vulture Peak 24 and so forth, he explained the Prajñā teachings. This is the second, the turning of the Dharma of signlessness. Last is the teaching for all vehicles, where in the pure and defiled lands of the lotus flower bank world, he taught the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and so forth. This is the third, the fully revealed meaning of the Great Vehicle. This is the intention with which the Tathāgata initiated his teaching.
題云解深密經者。一部總名、序品第一者, 品內別目。解謂解釋、深即甚深、密者秘密。此經宗明境行及果三種無等、解釋如是甚深之義, 名解深密。經者、梵音名素怛纜、此云經也。若依俗典、經者常也。經古歷今、教義恒定、目之為常、或翻為綖. 四分律云, 「綖貫華定不失落。」
The words of the title [in Chinese] are jie shen mi jing. In part, this is a general name, but in the preface, the components of the title are broken down into detail. Jie 解 means “explication”; shen 深 means “profound”; mi 密 means “hidden.” The thrust of this sūtra is to clarify the three categories of sphere, practices, and effects as being peerless. Since it explicates this profound meaning, it is called Explication of the Profound and Hidden. Jing 經 is a translation of the Sanskrit sūtra. In rendering as jing, there is a borrowing from its connotations seen in the Confucian classics, where it means “constant” 常. Constant from ancient times up to the present, the doctrine is always stable, thus it is called “constant.” Sūtra is also translated as “thread.” The Four-Part Vinaya 25 says: “[When the] thread strings the flowers [of a garland] together firmly, they do not fall.” 26
The Great Tang Trepiṭaka 27 translates this as “commensurate sūtra” 契經. This applies commensurate matching 契合: being commensurate with reason, and matching the capacities of sentient beings.
Sūtra also has two meanings: the first is that of penetrating; the second is that of supporting. It penetrates the meaning that is to be explained, and supports the sentient beings that are to be edified. Because it includes these two meanings, it is called “commensurate sūtra.” If we analyze the title, the two words “understanding” 解 and “sūtra” 經 refer to the teaching expressed in words. The words “profound” 深 and “secret” 密 indicate the principle that is explained. The title is created reflecting the connotations of the agent and object of explanation: thus it is the “explaining sūtra” 解經 of the “profound and hidden” 深密. Among the six types of explanation of compound words, this is [the first,] that of “compound words that contain a principal component and qualifying component.” 28
As for the words “preface, chapter number one”: “Preface” 序 means “introduction.” It is the part that explains the motivation for initiating the main teaching 正說. “Chapter” 品 means “category”; it also has the meaning of differentiation. Expressing what has been heard and so forth, groups of distinctive content are arranged in order; these groups are organized under headings and are called chapters. Within each section there are eight chapters. This chapter is the first in order, therefore it is called “number one.” Thus the label Scripture That Explicates the Profound and Hidden: Preface, Chapter One.
2.2. Articulating the Essence of the Doctrine
Regarding the words “essence of the doctrine:” the word “essence” refers in a general way to the essence of the teaching that elucidates. “Doctrine” refers to that which is elucidated in the various teachings that are specifically expressed. The essence of the holy teachings is revealed by the Great Tang Trepiṭaka in five approaches.
2.2.1. Approach of Gathering up the False and Returning to the Real
The first is the approach of gathering up the false and returning to the real. From this perspective the holy teachings have the collection of words, collection of phrases, and collection of phonemes, 29 along with sound, functioning as their essence. As the Vimalakīrti-sūtra 30 and so forth say: “All sentient beings are thus; all dharmas are also thus.” 31
2.2.2. Approach of Gathering Marks and Returning them to Consciousness
Second is the approach of gathering marks and returning them to consciousness. Briefly speaking, there are two interpretations. The first is that which is clarified through the three parts [of cognition]. Self-witnessing is called consciousness, and the subjective and objective parts are both called marks. 32 Therefore, the first fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun 33 says: “ ‘Transformation’ means that the substance of consciousness comes forth resembling two parts, because the subjective and objective parts both arise on the basis of the self-witnessing nature of consciousness” (T 1585.31.1a29–b1) . Also, in the second fascicle it says: “Although the marks that are transformed by consciousness are of innumerable varieties, the types of consciousness that carry out the transformation are only three” (T 1585.31.7b26) . If we rely on this explanation, “mark” means “form.” This is because the subjective and objective parts are the forms of the self-witnessing part of consciousness.
二、二分明義。見分名識、相分爲相。故成唯識云、「或、復內識轉似外境」 若依此釋、相分名相。相不離見、說名唯識。總說意云、名句文身及以音聲 識之相故、名爲識也。
The second is the elucidation of the meaning through the two parts of consciousness. [In this case,] the subjective part is called consciousness, and the objective part is called marks. Therefore the Cheng weishi lun says: “Or, internal consciousness comes forth resembling external objects.” 34 If we follow this interpretation, the objective part is called marks. The marks not being different from their seeing is called “consciousness-only.” More generally speaking, since the collection of words, collection of phrases, and collection of phonemes, along with sound, are the marks of consciousness, they are called consciousness.
2.2.3. Approach of According with the Real by Means of the Nominal
Third is the approach of according with the real by means of the nominal. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra and so forth say: “Names and so forth are mere designations; sound is real. Therefore, apart from sound there are no distinct names and so forth.” 35
Further explanation: Each of the above three approaches opens up into two more aspects. In the case of the first two approaches, the first, that of gathering in the false and returning it to the real, is only true and not false. The second is the approach of distinguishing between true and false. This is false and not true, because the four dharmas of words [phrases, phonemes, and sound] are not real. As for the second aspect, in the first approach, that of gathering up marks and returning them to consciousness, there is only consciousness—there are no marks. The second is the aspect of distinguishing between consciousness and marks. Provisionally relying on this ground, the four dharmas of words and so forth are only marks and not consciousness, because words and so forth are all subsumed in the objective part. As for the latter two approaches, the first, that of using the nominal to accord with the real, is only real and not nominal. The second, that of distinguishing between nominal and real, encompasses both nominal and real. This is because words and so forth are nominal, and sound is real.
2.2.4. Approach of Determining the Essence of Three kinds of Dharmas
Fourth is the approach of determining the essence of the three dharmas. The three dharmas are dharma-approaches of the categorization into three categories of the [five] aggregates 蘊, [twelve] fields 處, and [eighteen] elements 界. The Mahāyānâbhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā 36 calls them the three categories of dharmas. 37 Since the orthodox position of the Sarvâstivāda 38 commentators 39 is to take sound as being substantial, within these three categories, it is included in the aggregate of form, 40 the field of sound, 41 and the element of sound. According to the Sautrāntikas, 42 two kinds of sound as nominal and real are taken as the substance of the teaching. Among the five aggregates, it is included in the aggregate of form. In the categories of the fields and elements, they are in the field of sound and the field of concepts, the element of sound and the element of concepts. These are elaborated in detail in [the ensuing section on] the enumeration of technical terms. Now we are relying on the Mahāyāna [view, in which] the four dharmas of sound and the collections of words, etc., are taken as essence; within the five aggregates, they are contained in the two aggregates of form and impulse, and within the fields and elements, they are contained in the field of sound and the field of concepts, the element of sound and the element of concepts. This is because the three dharmas of [collections] of words and so forth are objects of the conceptualizing consciousness (mano-vijñāna).
2.2.5. Approach of Revealing the Essence through Categories of Enumerated Technical Terms
The fifth approach is that of revealing the essence through categories of enumerated technical terms. This approach is divided into four subapproaches. The first is that of revealing the essence through enumerated terms. The second is that of existence or not of raw substance (bimba; 本質) and reflected images (pratibimba; 影像). The third is that of assembling all appearances and separating out the various mental permutations. The fourth is that of distinguishing sameness and difference in sound.
18.104.22.168. Revealing the Essence through Enumerated Technical Terms
By “revealing the essence through enumerated terms,” we can provisionally elaborate the non-Buddhist schools of philosophy. The non-Buddhist Sāṃkhyas 43 take the element of sound 聲諦 as an essence. According to the Vaiśeṣikas, 44 the quality of sound 聲德 is an essence. The Materialists 45 take the four elements 46 as essences. Since all take the physical elements as essences, all those who regard sound to be eternal 47 take sound to be an essence. Thus, the Vedic schools’ position on the eternality of sound allows them to use it as an established valid source of cognition in order to elucidate the various doctrines.
Now, in our own school, there are divergent theories on the matter. The Sarvâstivādins posit a total of seventy-five dharmas, 48 which are understood according to the standard interpretation. Yet in terms of the composition of this doctrine, we can see two different theories in the *Saṃyuktâbhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra, 49 the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, 50 and the Abhidharma-mahā-vibhāṣā-śāstra. 51 The first is that of taking the Tathāgata’s dharma aggregate 52 and the aggregate of form as essence, since these are sound. The other is the aggregate of impulse, since it includes words, phrases, and phonemes.
Concerning this doctrinal point, these Indian masters are not in agreement, with there being three different interpretations. One says that the vocal teaching is the correct doctrine, since sound is regarded to be of wholesome moral karmic quality, whereas the collections of words, phrases, and phonemes are of indeterminate karmic moral value. 53 Therefore the Saṃyuktâbhidharma-hṛdaya says: “The sūtras, vinaya, and abhidharma are the conventional correct dharma; the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment 54 are called the cardinal meaning” (T 1552.28.957b22–23) . The prose section of the text explains this, saying: “Conventional correct Dharma means ‘the correct Dharma explained in language.’ ” 55
The second interpretation takes [collections of] words and so forth as the actual doctrine, since they are the agents expressing the content of the doctrine that is expressed. Therefore the *Abhidharma-jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra 56 says: “What is the essence of the twelve-part canon? 57 It is the ordered placement of collections of words, collections of phrases, and collections of phonemes . . . ” And so forth.
一云、通用音聲名等爲體、由前所說二種義故。今依新翻倶舍第一、具申兩釋。謂說音聲、或說名等、而無別判。正理第三、敍兩師說、亦同倶舍、兼有問答。故彼論云、「 ‘語教異名、教容是語、名教別體、教何是名。’彼作是釋。‘要由有名、乃說爲教。是故佛 58 教體卽是名。所以者何。詮義如實、故名佛教。名能詮義、故教是名。由是佛教定名爲體。擧名爲首、以攝句文。’」 顯宗第三、同順正理。
The third explanation says that sound [and the collections of] words and so forth are all to be taken as essence, based on the prior two kinds of interpretations. Now, according to the first fascicle of the new translation of the Kośa, both interpretations are fully articulated. That is, when discussing sound, some discuss it along with [collections of] words and so forth, without making any distinction. In the third fascicle of the Abhidharma-nyāyânusāra śāstra, 59 the positions of both masters are included, just as in the Kośa, in connection with a question and answer. Hence, in that text it says: “ ‘[Question:] Language and teaching are different from words; the content of the teaching is language; words and the teaching are in essence distinct; so how could the teaching be words?’ He explains it like this: ‘There have to be words, and thus they are called the teaching. Therefore the Buddha’s teaching is called words. How so? Since it expresses the doctrine accurately, it is called the Buddha’s teaching. Since words are the agent expressing the doctrine, the teaching is called words. Based on this, the Buddha’s teaching definitely has words as its essence. Offering words as an example, phrases and phonemes are also implied.’ ” 60 The third section of the Abhidharma-samayapradīpika 61 agrees with the Nyāyânusāra.
The Trepiṭaka (Xuanzang) explains, saying: “The Indian masters transmitted and composed these interpretations. The Kośa and the Nyāyânusāra both include both positions, depending on the context. How so? In bringing joy to sentient beings, sound is best. In terms of expressing the teachings, [collections of] words and so forth are best. Therefore we know that their respective objects are not the same—each is used in a certain context.” 62 Based on this, both theories are valid as interpretations. Now, to give due care to the various theories, we distinguish from each other according to the context.
In the understanding of the Nyāyânusāra, [collections of] words and so forth are true. Therefore, that text concludes the argument by saying: “Therefore the Buddha’s teaching definitely has words as its essence” (T 1562.29.346c17) . In regard to this point the Kośa is the same as the Nyāyânusāra, since it neither refutes this interpretation nor contradicts it. It is possible that later scholars established their own conclusions, rather than its being an evaluative judgment by the authors of the Nyāyânusāra. If we follow the orthodoxy of the authors of the Mahāvibhāṣā, sound is true. Hence, it is said in fascicle 126 of the Mahāvibhāṣā:
Question: What is to be regarded as the essence of the Buddha’s teachings? Is it verbal activity? Or is it words?
Answer: It should be said that verbal activity is the essence.
Question: If we follow the subsequent explanation, how can this be interpreted? Within the teaching of the Buddha, what kind of dharmas are words?
Answer: It means that the collections of words, collections of phrases, and collections of phonemes are lined up in order, are arranged in order, and are combined in order. The latter portion of the answer is intended to clarify the function of the Buddha’s teaching. It is not supposed to disclose the essence of the Buddha’s teaching. The meaning of orderly lining up, arrangement, and combination of collections of words, phrases, and phonemes is that of the function of the Buddha’s teaching. There are those who say that [collections of] words and so forth are the essence of the Buddha’s teaching.
Question: If that is the case, how can the explanation of this sentence be reconciled with that of the Jñāna-prasthāna? What is the Buddha’s teaching?
Answer: “This refers to the Buddha’s speech, intoning, discussions, pronunciation, flow, verbal activity, and verbal expressions—these are called the Buddha’s teachings. This answer is constructed based on the principle of successive causation. It is like successive generations producing the Dharma. It means that speech gives rise to words, and words act to express meaning. In this kind of explanation, verbal activity is the essence. This is because the Buddha’s intent that is explained is heard by others.” 63 The full explanation is like that.
Question: Isn’t it the case that the Abhidharma-nyāyânusāra-śāstra relies on the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra and so forth? Why don’t you rely on the authoritative interpretation of the Vibhāṣā scholars?
Answer: Saṃghabhadra 64 excelled in the profundity of logic, and thus produced his own treatise in which [collections of] names and so forth are taken as “true.”
Explanation: In this school’s taking of sound as essence, within the categories of enumerated terms, they only take the one dharma of sound as essence. Those who take [the collections of] words and so forth as essence apply the three dharmas of words and so forth as essence. If we combine these theories, we would take the four dharmas together as being essence—that is, sound, words, and so forth. In the authoritative interpretation of the Vibhāṣā commentators, only the one dharma of sound is taken as essence. According to the Sautrāntika doctrine, sound is regarded as essence. Therefore, we can read a refutation of the Sautrāntikas in the fourteenth fascicle of the Nyāyânusāra, which says: “You should not say that the collections of words, phrases, and phonemes are the same as sound in being essence.” 65 The first fascicle of Asvabhāva’s 66 Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha agrees with this, saying: “[They take] the language in all of the phrases of the sūtras as essence, and this is not logical.” 67
Yet this school contains within it the theories of three different scholars. The first says that among the twelve sense fields, 68 it is the sense field of sound that has its own essence. This is because apart from sound there can be no separate existence of words, phrases, or phonemes. The second says that continuity of nominal sound in the field of concepts 69 is taken as essence, since this can be apprehended as an essence only by the thinking consciousness. The third position takes both the nominal and real aspects of sound as essence, based on the two previous interpretations.
How can the Sautrāntikas maintain all three interpretations? The Trepiṭaka explains, saying:
Anyone who takes the sūtras as the ultimate authority to judge all interpretations is called a Sautrāntika. Therefore the Sautrāntika tradition includes these three interpretations. That school has various arrangements of the categories of technical terms, which are not in agreement with one another. One says that apart from the mind there are no distinct mental factors. If we follow this theory, there would be nineteen dharmas, namely, the fourteen in the aggregate of form, which means the five faculties and their five objects, along with the four material elements. Mind is only one, since there are no mental factors. The factors not concomitant with mind would be only one, meaning that they are uncreated. Within the unconditioned category there would be three: space (ākāśa; 虗空), conscious cessation of the afflictions (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha; 擇滅) and effortless cessation of affliction (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha; 非擇滅). These nineteen dharmas would all take the field of sound as their essence. The continuation of nominal sound is not a distinct essence. Therefore one must discriminate carefully when discussing the meaning of the mental factors within the other theoretical frameworks [of this Sautrāntika system]. (Citation not located)
Now, within the purview of the Mahāyāna there are two divergent theories. The first is that of the school of Nāgârjuna, which does not have a text that properly delineates these. Regarding the number of mental factors, they follow the explanation given in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, 70 which generally follows that of the Sarvâstivādins, who tally 761 dharmas altogether. How do we know this? The Sarvâstivādins elucidate seventy-five dharmas. The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā 71 posits seven hundred non-concomitant dharmas. Thus we know that if we subtract the fourteen non-concomitant dharmas from the Sarvâstivāda system and add these seven hundred non-concomitant dharmas, we come up with 761 dharmas. [Other theories are also considered.] Based on this kind of understanding, among the eleven form dharmas, sound is taken as essence.
Thus it is said in fascicle thirty-three of the Prajñāpāramitā-śāstra:
Concerning arhats who possess the six supernatural powers: 72 Even if they are not physically present when the Buddha delivers a sermon, with their divine vision they see the Buddha; with their divine hearing they listen to the Buddha. If there were a place to which these supernatural sensory abilities did not reach, they would not be able to see or hear it. (T 1509.15.308b7–10)
Accordingly, the Buddha’s teaching takes words to be essential.
二彌勒宗、總有百法、如百法論。然出教體、諸教不同。有處唯聲、如維摩經等、「佛以一音演說法、衆生隨類各得解。」 又、無量義經云 「能以一音、普應衆聲。」 又、大界經云 「如來一語說法中、演說無量契經海。」
Second is the school of Maitreya, 73 which enumerates one hundred dharmas in total, as is stated in the Treatise on the Hundred Dharmas. 74 Yet once we examine the content of the teaching, there are numerous inconsistencies among the various teachings [of Mahāyāna Buddhism]. There is the case of the teaching of only sound, as is seen in the Vimalakīrti-sūtra and so forth: “The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, which sentient beings understand according to their type” (T 475.14.538a2) . Also, the Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings 75 says: “He is able, using one voice, to respond to myriad sounds” (T 276.9.386c6) . Furthermore, the Greater Region Sūtra says: “Within a single word of the Tathāgata’s preaching of the Dharma, he explains countless oceans of scriptures.” 76
又、此經第五云 「如來言音、略有三種、一者契經、二者調伏、三者本母。」 相續深密二經皆云、「佛語有三、一脩多羅語、二毘尼語、三摩德勒伽語。」 顯揚等論、卽說 「聖教名爲聲量、有處但用名等爲體。」
Furthermore, in the fifth fascicle of this [Saṃdhinirmocana-] sūtra it says: “The speech of the Tathāgata can be broken down into three general types: (1) the sūtras, (2) the disciplines (vinaya), (3) the mātṛkā (i.e., śāstras) ” (T 676.16.708c12) . Both the Guṇabhadra and Bodhiruci translations of the sūtra 77 say: “The Buddha’s speech is of three kinds: (1) the sūtras; (2) the vinaya; (3) the mātṛkā.” 78 Treatises such as the Acclamation of the Holy Teaching 79 say: “The holy teaching is called authoritative valid cognition. There are cases where mere words and so forth are taken as essence. ” 80
如仁王經云、「此經名句百千佛說。」 又、此經第四云、「一者於無量說法、無量法句文字、後後慧辨陀羅尼自在愚癡。二者辨才自在愚癡。」 解云、「無量說法者、義無礙境。無量法句文字者、法無礙境。後後慧辨者、辭無礙境、辨才自在者、辨說無礙境。」 故知聖教名等爲體。故成唯識第二卷云、「若名句文、不異聲者、法辭無礙境應無別。」 准知名等以爲自性。
As the Sūtra for Humane Kings 81 says: “This sūtra’s words, phrases [. . .] are hundreds of thousands of Buddha sermons . . .” 82 Furthermore, in the fourth fascicle of this sūtra it says:
[In the ninth ground there are two kinds of folly:] The first is the folly in regard to the omnipotence of the innumerable explanations of the Dharma, innumerable phrases, phonemes, and words of the Dharma, the ultimate wisdom and discernment, and dhāraṇīs; the second is the folly in regard to omnipotent rhetorical skill. 83
Explanation: “Innumerable explanations of the Dharma” is the realm of unimpeded meaning. “Innumerable phrases, phonemes, and words of the Dharma” is the realm of the unimpeded dharma. “ultimate wisdom and discernment” is the realm of unimpeded analytical ability. “Omnipotent rhetorical skill” is the realm of unimpeded eloquence. 84
Hence we know that the holy teaching takes words and so forth as its essence. Therefore it is said in the second fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun: “If words, phrases, and sentences are not different from sound, the unimpeded realm of the elocution of the Dharma should not be distinguished.” 85 By this we know that words and so forth are taken as the essence [of the teachings].
有處合說聲及名等。如仁王經云、「十二部經如、名句文聲。」 又、維摩經第三卷云、「有以音聲語言文字而作佛事。」如是乃至「諸佛威儀進止、諸所施爲、無非佛事。」 無垢稱經亦同維摩。又、十地論第一卷云、「說者以此二事說、聞者以此二事聞。」 具如彼說。解云、言二事者、謂聲及名等。
There are cases where sound and words, etc., are discussed together. As the Sūtra for Humane Kings says: “The twelve divisions of the canon are nothing but words, phrases, phonemes, and sound . . .” 86 Also, in the third fascicle of the Vimalakīrti-sūtra it says: “Buddha works are carried out through sounds, words, and text” 87 . . . and so on up to “It is the same up to all buddha-deportments of advancing and stopping, all the things that he does, none are not Buddha-works.” 88 The Spotless Name Sūtra 89 corroborates the Vimalakīrti. 90 Furthermore, the first fascicle of the Daśabhūmika-bhāṣya 91 says: “Those who teach do so by these two phenomena; those who hear, do so by these two phenomena” (T 1522.26.129a20–21) . For details, see that text. This is explained as “The words ‘two phenomena’ refer to sound, and the [collections] of words and so forth.”
There are cases where the text and its meaning are discussed together as essences. As it says in fascicle eighty-one of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra: “In discussing the essence of the sūtras, there are in brief, two kinds: the first is text, and the second is meaning. The text is that which supports; the meaning is that which is supported. These two kinds [of essences] are collectively referred to as ‘all knowables’” (T 1579.30.750a1–3) .
Regarding all these differences in regard to the essence of the teaching, the Trepiṭaka explains:
From the perspective of reality, all take [collections of] words and so forth as essence. Yet since the various holy teachings each interpret from their own perspective, there is no contradiction. How so? In the case of the nominal following the real, sound is taken as essence, since apart from sound there is no distinction between [collections of] words, phrases, etc. From the perspective of essence following function, [collections of] words and so forth are essence, since they are the two supports for the expression of the distinction of and the essences of all dharmas. The nominal and the real are explained together in their mutual dependence as essence; if you explained only one without the other, this argument would not be valid. The production of understandings ultimately must be based on texts and their meaning. Therefore there is no conflict between these theories. 92
22.214.171.124. The Existence or Not of Raw Substance and Reflected Images
Second is the question of the existence and non-existence of raw substance (bimba) 93 and reflected images (pratibimba). 94 Here there are two interpretations: the first is that of the existence and nonexistence of raw substances and reflected images; the second is distinctions in teaching. As for the existence and nonexistence of raw substances and reflected images, the Tathāgata’s holy teaching takes four dharmas as essences: sound and [the collections of] words, phrases, and phonemes. These four dharmas, according to the Tathāgata’s own explanation, are called raw substances. The listener’s transformation of these through cognition is called “reflected images.” The distinction between the existence and non-existence of these raw substances and reflected images is broadly distinguished into four kinds of tenets by the various traditions.
126.96.36.199.1. Existence of Raw Substance and Non-Existence of Reflected Images
The first tenet is that of the existence of raw substance and non-existence of reflected images, but there are various theories about this. Now, among the various schools, we will introduce three theories. The first is that of the Sarvâstivādins, for whom all buddha-voices are nothing but contaminated. 95 Some also say that words, etc., are definitely of morally indeterminate karmic character. This kind of point is elaborated in detail in the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, etc.
The second is the position taken up by the Mahāsāṃghika, 96 Ekavyāvahārika, 97 Lokôttaravādin, 98 Kukkuṭika, 99 and so forth, who say that all world-honored buddhas are transmundane, lacking contaminated dharmas. The words of the tathāgatas turn the wheel of the Dharma; the buddhas, in a single voice, articulate all the teachings.
The third is the position of the Bahuśrutīya, 100 who take the “five notes” of the Buddha’s teaching to be transmundane. These are the so-called suffering, emptiness, impermanence, no-self, and quiescence of nirvāṇa—because these are cited from the holy teachings. All other kinds of voice are the mundane teachings. Such schools as this all say that there are only raw elements and no reflected images. This is because these schools do not understand the meaning of Consciousness-only.
188.8.131.52.2. Existence of Reflected Images and Non-Existence of Raw Substance
The second tenet is that of the existence of reflected images and the non-existence of raw substances. The Nāgasena 101 —which is translated as “Dragon-General”—are the primary exponents of the three-body theory in the earlier translations. 102 Their theory is that the Buddha-realization consists only of thusness and the thusness-cognition, and does not involve coarse attributes such as form, sound, and so forth. Treatise master Sthiramati 103 and Vajrasena 104 also supported this interpretation. Treatise master Sthiramati, who is the chief exponent of the old translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga, 105 was from the northernmost of the five regions of India.
184.108.40.206.3. Existence of Both Raw Substance and Reflected Images
三本影倶有者。月藏菩薩 [亦名護月]及親光等、皆作是說。一切如來、具有三身色聲等德。金光明云、「如來能轉三種法輪、謂轉照持。」 如是等教、誠證非一。或能聞者識變似彼、故知倶有本質影像。
The third tenet holds that raw substance and reflected images both exist. Such scholars as Candragupta Bodhisattva [His name is also written “Moon Protector” 106 ] Bandhuprabha 107 et al., all say that all tathāgatas are endowed with such attributes as the form and sound of the three bodies. The Suvarṇa-prabhāsôttama-sūtra 108 says: “The Tathāgata is able to turn three kinds of dharma wheels—the turning [wheel], the illuminating [wheel], and the maintaining [wheel].” 109 This kind of teaching shows that what is witnessed is not the same. In some cases the listener’s consciousness transforms [what is heard] to appear like another teaching. Hence they know that raw substance and reflected images both exist.
220.127.116.11.4. Non-existence of Both Raw Substance and Reflected Images
The fourth tenet holds that both raw substance and reflected images are non-existent. Coming from the point of view of the absolute truth, Bhāvaviveka 110 Bodhisattva advocates the emptiness of the natures of all dharmas. Some assume that Dharmapāla 111 took the stance of the ultimate truth when he said that in the Tathāgata’s holy teaching, raw substances and reflected images are both non-existent. This is because in the context of the ultimate truth, there are no words and so forth.
Although the positions are categorized into four like this, the school of the Trepiṭaka of the Great Tang (Xuanzang) and of Dharmapāla have two interpretations. One is from the perspective of the teaching of reality, in which there is only raw substance and no reflected images; this is because raw substance is that which is properly explained by the Tathāgata. In the second theory both are properly included; this is because both arise according to the power of the Tathāgata’s teaching.
Question: If this is the correct teaching as explained by the Buddha, how can it be reconciled with the teachings of the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra 112 and so forth?
四卷楞伽第三卷云、「我從某夜得最正覺、乃至某夜入般涅槃、於其中間、不說一字。亦不已說當說、不說是佛說。」 又、大般若第五百六十七云、「衆生各各謂佛獨爲說法。而佛本來無說無示。」 又、五百七十一云、「諸佛菩薩、從始至終、不說一字。」
In the third fascicle of the four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra it says: “During the time between the night I attained supreme perfect enlightenment until the night I entered final nirvāṇa, I did not explain a single thing. Furthermore, I did not explain it in the past, and will not explain it in the future. Not-explaining is the Buddha’s explanation” (T 670.16.498c17–19) . In fascicle 567 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra 113 it says: “All sentient beings say that the Buddha alone explains the Dharma. Yet there is originally nothing that the Buddha explained or showed” (T 220.7.928b1–2) . In fascicle 571 it says: “The buddhas and bodhisattvas, from beginning to end do not explain a single word” (T 220.7.948a9–10) .
Interpretation: “Not explained” can be understood in three ways.
一、依眞如離言說等種種相故、故言「不說」。是故四卷楞伽第三卷云、「何因說言‘不說是佛說。’ 佛吿大慧、‘我因二法故、作如是說。云何二法。謂緣自得法及本住法。’」 又、十卷楞伽第五卷云、「一者依自身內證法、二者依本住法。」 廣說如彼。
First, since, [the Buddha’s teaching is] based on thusness and free from such signs as language and so forth—therefore it is said, “did not explain.” Therefore, in the third fascicle of the four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra it says: “For what reason do you say ‘not-teaching is the Buddha’s teaching’? The Buddha said to Mahāmati: ‘I make this sort of pronouncement based on two kinds of dharma (i.e., enlightenment). What are the two? They are the individually attained Dharma and the eternally abiding Dharma’ ” (T 670.16.498c20–23) . In the fifth fascicle of the ten-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra it says: “The first is the Dharma realized within oneself; the second is the originally abiding Dharma” (T 671.16.499a7–10) . And so forth.
Interpretation: The meaning of the sūtra is that the notion of singular thusness has two connotations. The first is thusness as personally realized; the second is the thusness always abiding as nature and characteristics, regardless of whether a buddha appears or not. 114 Since this thusness is free from language, it is said to be “unexplained.” Therefore the verse in the fourth fascicle [of the Laṅkâvatāra] says:
彼佛及與我 悉無有差別 (T 670.16.499a6–10)
Then, the World Honored One, wanting to restate the gist of this, spoke a verse, saying:
From the night I was enlightened, up to the night I achieved nirvāṇa
During the interim, there was absolutely nothing that I explained.
Because of the personally attained and the inherently abiding dharmas, I say this:
There is absolutely no difference between that buddha and myself.
十卷第五、大同前頌。 [第五句云、 內身證法性] 又、仁王經云、「無聽無說如虗空、法同法性、聽同說同、一切法皆如也。」 又、天親菩薩波若論云、「若人言如來說法、則爲謗佛、不能解我所說法故。」 此義云何。偈曰。
The fifth fascicle of the ten-fascicle [Laṅkâvatāra] says basically the same thing. [The verse in the fifth fascicle says: “personally realized [dharma]” and “[eternally abiding] dharma nature” (T 671.16.541c27) . ] Furthermore, the Sūtra for Humane Kings says: “Without listening and without speaking, it is like empty space. The dharma is the same as dharma-nature; listening is the same and speaking is the same. All dharmas are simply thus” (T 245.8.826b13–14) . Furthermore, in Vasubandhu Bodhisattva’s Prajñā Treatise 115 it says: “If a person says the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma, this is denigrating the Buddha, as he has not understood what I have taught” (T 1511.25.793a22–23) . What does this mean? A verse says:
The Buddha’s Dharma is also like this: its two distinct aspects that are articulated
Are never separated from the Dharma-realm; the Dharma that is explained has no special characteristics. (T 1511.25.793b1–2)
The treatise’s own exegesis says: “There is a distinction into two: the Dharma that is explained and its meaning.” (Citation not located.)
Interpretation: The point of the treatise is that transformation-body tathāgatas, apart from thusness, have no specially distinguishing characteristics; just like the Buddha, who apart from thusness, has no specially distinguishing characteristics. The Dharma that is taught and the meaning that is explained are the same as this.
The second interpretation [of “does not explain”] is from the perspective that there is no difference between what all the buddhas teach, and therefore he says he “does not explain” [anything]. Hence, the Prajñā Treatise says: “As the sūtra says: ‘Subhūti, this is because the Tathāgata has no [special] Dharma to explain.’ ” 116 What does this mean? It means that there is no such thing as a teaching that is explained by the Tathāgata that is not also taught by other buddhas.
三、約墮文字法、故言不說。是故四卷楞伽第四云、「如來不說墮文字法。文字有無不可得故、除不墮文字。若有人言、如來說墮文字法者、此則妄說。法離文字故。是故諸佛及諸菩薩、不說一字、不答一字。」 乃至廣說。又、彼復云、「大慧、若不說一切法者、教法則壞。教法壞者、則無諸佛菩薩緣覺聲聞。若無者誰說爲誰。」 十卷第六、大同此說。故不繁述。
The third is the perspective wherein “not explaining” is so that people don’t fall into the trap of words. Therefore, in the fourth fascicle of the four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra it says:
The Tathāgata does not teach a dharma that falls into the trap of words. Since the existence and non-existence of words is indeterminable, he [also] rejects not being trapped in words. If someone says that the Tathāgata teaches a dharma that falls into the trap of words, this is a deluded interpretation, since the Dharma is free from words. Therefore the buddhas and bodhisattvas neither teach a single word, nor answer with a single word. (T 670.16.506c2–6)
And so forth. It also says:
Mahāmati, if I do not expound all dharmas, then the teaching of the Dharma will deteriorate. If the teaching of the Dharma deteriorates, then there will be no buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, or śrāvakas. Without [these sages] who will teach, and for whom? (T 670.16.506c7–9)
The sixth fascicle of the ten-fascicle edition says basically the same thing, so we won’t repeat it unnecessarily.
According to the above passages from the sūtras, even if the Buddha cannot teach a dharma that falls into the trap of words, he is able to expound a holy tripiṭaka teaching of not being trapped by words. Therefore the Vimalakīrti-sūtra says: “Now in the explaining of the Dharma, nothing is explained, and nothing is shown; for those who listen to the Dharma, there is neither hearing nor apprehension. It is like a magician expounding the Dharma for an illusory person. One should establish such an attitude in teaching the Dharma” (T 475.14.540a18–20) .
Furthermore, how can the theory that includes both raw substance and reflected images be reconciled with what is written in the commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha by Asvabhāva Bodhisattva? 117 That text only uses “the listeners aggregate appearances on the surface of their consciousness, and take them to be essences.” 118
Interpretation: Since Dharmapāla did not rely on that treatise as an authority, this does not constitute an objection. We can also interpret by saying that Dharmapāla’s theory is the same as that of Asvabhāva. Asvabhāva acknowledges the attributes of the three bodies such as the form and sound, and also that these are able to expound the Dharma. Therefore that treatise says: “The enjoyment [body] 119 and the transformation [body] 120 are none other than distinctions in the subsequently-attained cognition. 121 ”
Question: If this is so, how is it that listeners take the aggregated images appearing on their consciousnesses as the essence of the teaching, yet it does not say that viewers take the form body displayed on their consciousness as the transformation body?
Interpretation: This is because [the writer] has omitted [the mention of] images in expressing them by means of contrast. In reality, both the body and the teachings have raw substance and reflected images; hence there is no discrepancy.
Question: If images were omitted from the discussion in the same way, why is it not explained that the viewer cognizes characteristics as the two bodies?
Interpretation: They are not necessarily the same, because of the [logical] problem of lacking an exclusion. 122 Further interpretation: The teaching gives rise to understanding. The cognition of characteristics by the listener directly produces understanding, and within one’s own body one gives birth to the buddha-body. Based on this, we explain the Buddha’s form, mind, and so forth.
Question: Is the essence of the teaching transformed on the surface of the listener’s consciousness contaminated or uncontaminated?
大唐三藏釋云、「西方兩釋。一云無漏心變、定唯無漏。有漏心變、自有二義。橫尅而言、名爲有漏、以有漏心所變境故。若從法界所流義邊、名爲無漏。無性論宗、多依此釋。一云有漏心所變者、定是有漏。若無漏心所變相者、定唯無漏。」 雖有兩說、大唐三藏、護法菩薩、意存後說。故成唯識論第十卷云、「見相二分、有漏無漏、定是同性。善等三性、不必同性。三性因緣、雜引生故。」 123
The Great Tang Trepiṭaka explains this, saying:
The Indian scholars explain it both ways. One group says that the transformations of an uncontaminated mind are definitely only uncontaminated. In the case of the transformations of a contaminated mind, there are two interpretations. Generally speaking, it should be regarded as contaminated, since they are objects transformed by a contaminated mind. But if it is understood from the perspective of what issues into the experiential realm, it is said to be uncontaminated. Most of those who follow the tradition of Asvabhāva’s commentary [on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha] follow this interpretation. The other group says that the transformations of a contaminated mind are definitely only contaminated. In the case of the marks transformed by an uncontaminated mind, they are definitely only uncontaminated.
Despite the existence of these two interpretations, the understanding of the Trepiṭaka of the Great Tang and the Bodhisattva Dharmapāla follows the latter interpretation. Therefore in fascicle ten of the Cheng weishi lun it says: “In terms of their being contaminated or uncontaminated, the two parts [of cognition] of subjective and objective are definitely of the same quality. But when it comes to the three karmic moral qualities of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate, they do not have to be the same, since the causes and conditions of the three natures are mixed together in the course of production.”
Question: Could it be the case that something that is contaminated can manifest a correct teaching, and that a correct teaching produces something contaminated; or that something uncontaminated turns into a mistaken teaching and a mistaken teaching accords with something uncontaminated?
Explanation: This can indeed be accepted as not incorrect, since the uncontaminated changes.
Question: The teachings are distinguished between mistaken and correct. Does this mean that they are all both contaminated and uncontaminated? If we accept this, since people are distinguished into worldling and sage, should they both be called sages and non-sages?
Explanation: This is also admissible as not being mistaken, since the subjectively transforming mind includes both kinds. When it is said that there are distinctions in the articulation of the Dharma, this is said from the perspective of there being two kinds. One is from the perspective of the three bodies, the second is from the perspective of lands.
Question: Relying on what bodies is the Dharma taught?
Answer: In the Sarvâstivāda system, the Buddha has two kinds of bodies. The first is his earthly body, which is the contaminated body received from his father and mother. The second is the Dharma body—i.e., the five-part Dharma body. 125 It is the earthly body that expounds the Dharma, and not the Dharma body. This is because he does not expound the Dharma while in the state of meditation. The Sautrāntikas also teach two bodies, both of which are able to teach. In this school, the uncontaminated ability to articulate sounds is called the holy teaching. Now here we will follow the Mahāyāna teaching, which includes the three bodies. Regarding which bodies teach and which do not, there are four cases.
In the first case, one body teaches and [the other] two do not teach. This is the enjoyment body, which experiences the bliss of the Dharma, and is thus able to teach without prompting. It is not the Dharma body, which lacks verbal expression. It is also not the transformation body, which does not actually preach. Some say that it is the transformation body that teaches and not the other two, based on the view that they lack language, and have no form. Even though the body for enjoyment of others teaches according to the capacity of the listeners, it is actually the transformation body.
The second position is that two bodies teach and [the other] one does not. In this case the two are the Buddha’s Dharma body and enjoyment body. This is because it is with these bodies that he personally realizes the field of holy activity and experiences the bliss of the Dharma. There is also the position that the two teaching bodies are the enjoyment and transformation bodies, and not the Dharma body, since it lacks [the capacity of] verbal expression.
The third position is that all three bodies expound the Dharma. As it says in the second fascicle of the ten-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra: “The Dharma body expounds the Dharma—because it personally realizes realization of the field of holy activity. The reward body expounds the Dharma—because it teaches all marks of distinction and sameness. The transformation body expounds the Dharma, because it teaches the six perfections and so forth.” 126 And so forth. The teaching given in the first fascicle of the four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra is basically the same as this.
The fourth position is that none of the three bodies expound the Dharma. Why? Because the true Dharma body lacks verbal expression, because the self-enjoyment body has no purpose, and because the transformation body and so forth do not deliver the truth.
The *Buddhabhūmi-śāstra 127 also follows this interpretation, outlining the [position of all] three bodies teaching. Therefore, it says in the first fascicle of the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra:
Between the two buddha-lands of enjoyment and transformation: in which is this pure land to be included? And what body is manifested by the buddha who teaches this sūtra? There is an interpretation that the Dharma is expounded by the transformation body [buddha] in a transformation land; there is also an interpretation that the Dharma is expounded by an enjoyment body [buddha] in an enjoyment land. (T 1530.26.292c5–12)
The text goes on in detail on this point. The true interpretation is that when Śākyamuni delivered this sermon, those in the assembly who at the ranks prior to the bhūmis saw his transformation body abiding in this defiled land, expounding the Dharma. Those in the great assembly who were in the bhūmis saw his enjoyment body, abiding in the Buddha’s Pure Land, expounding the Dharma. Even though what was heard was the same, the members of each group saw differently. Fully explained, it is like that. Following this true interpretation, among the three bodies, it is these two that expound the Dharma, and not the Dharma body. They are distinguished according to the land [in which they teach].
依楞伽經、有十種說法。一語言說法、乃至第十動身說法。故十卷經第四卷云、「大慧復言、‘世尊有語言說、應有諸法。若無諸法、應無言說。’ 佛吿大慧、‘亦有無法而有言說、如兔角等。大慧、兔角非有非無、而有言說。故汝所難此義已破。大慧、非一切佛土言語說法。何以故。有佛國土、直親不瞬口無言說、名爲說法。 [四卷楞伽云瞻視顯法] 有佛國土、直示相名爲說法。 [四卷楞伽或有作相] 有佛國土、但動眉相名爲說法。 [四卷楞伽或有揚眉] 有佛國土、唯動眼相名爲說法 128 。 [四卷楞伽或有動精] 有佛土、嘆 129 名爲說法。 [四卷亦同] 有佛國土、欠名爲說法 130 。 [四卷亦同] 有佛國土、咳 131 名爲說法。 [四卷云或磬咳] 有佛國土、念名爲說法。 [四卷經云或念刹土] 有佛國土、動身名爲說法。 [四卷云或動搖] ’」
According to the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra, there are ten kinds of “expounding the Dharma.” These range from number one, “expounding the Dharma through language,” to number ten, “expounding the Dharma through bodily movements.” Hence, in the fourth fascicle of the ten-fascicle rendition of the sūtra it says:
Mahāmati further said, “World Honored One, if there are linguistic expressions, dharmas must exist. If there are no dharmas, there should be not be any linguistic expressions.” The Buddha responded to Mahāmati: “It is also the case that there are inexistent dharmas, yet which have linguist expression, such as the horns on a rabbit and so forth. Mahāmati, rabbit’s horns are neither existent nor inexistent, and yet they are verbally expressed. Therefore the point of your object is already refuted. Mahāmati, it is not the case that in all buddha-lands the Dharma is expounded through linguistic expressions. Why not? There are buddha-lands where [that buddha teaches] by gazing unblinkingly, without a word coming out of his mouth, and it is called expounding the Dharma. [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra says: “gazing, reveals the Dharma.”]. There are buddha-lands where bodily gestures are called expounding the Dharma. [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra says “makes gestures.”] There are buddha lands where simply moving the eyebrows is called expounding the Dharma. [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra says “raising the eyebrows.”] There are buddha-lands where merely indicating with the eyes is called expounding the Dharma [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra says: “moving the spirit.”] There are buddha lands where praising is called expounding the Dharma. [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra concurs here.] There are buddha-lands where yawning is called expounding the Dharma. [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra concurs here.] There are buddha-lands where clearing the throat is called expounding the Dharma. 132 There are buddha-lands where mindfulness is called expounding the Dharma. [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra says “mindfulness of buddha-lands.”]. There are buddha-lands where bodily movements are called expounding the Dharma. [The four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra says “Shake, or tremble.”]” 133
In the third fascicle of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra it says:
There are cases where buddha-works are conducted by means of the buddha’s luminosity; buddha-works are also conducted by bodhisattvas, by the people that are converted by the buddha, by the bodhi tree, by clothing and bedding, by foodstuffs, by the observation platform in a park, by the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks, by the buddha-bodies, by dream metaphors, and so forth; by voice, words, and letters. There are also buddha-lands where buddha-works are conducted with silence, lacking words and explanations, without signs or consciousness, without activity or goal-orientation. In this way, Ānanda, with all the buddhas’ bodily deportments, their going and stopping, and all of the things that they carry out, there are none that are not buddha-works. 134
For the extensive articulation of this point, you should see explanation in the fifth fascicle of the Impeccable Name Sūtra (Xuanzang’s translation of the Vimalakīrti). These kinds of variations in doctrine are interpreted from four main perspectives according to general Mahāyāna theory: (1) that of verbal expressions, such as in the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra, where the first two buddha bodies expound the Dharma, but not the Dharma body. (2) that of the production of understanding that expounds the Dharma, which also includes the Dharma body, as in the case of the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra; (3) that of the ten ways that the Dharma is expounded according to distinctions in lands, as explained in the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra; (4) That of the Dharma’s being expounded in all of the Buddha’s activities of going and stopping. As explained in the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, these are numberless. Each of these interpretations is made according to its own perspective, and therefore there is no contradiction among them. Some allow for the buddha-works, expressed as works that bring benefit—they are not limited to verbal explanations of the Dharma.
Question: Do all of the above theories each admit of words and so forth? Or is this not determined?
Answer: It is not determined. “The Dharma body expounding the Dharma,” and space and so forth are able to produce understanding; therefore they are said to expound the Dharma. Yet the reason that they are said not to have words and so forth is because unconditioned dharmas have no distinct status. In the case of “not explaining, not indicating” and so forth, when words and so forth are metaphorically designated on the surface of the silent mind, there is no error in regard to the principle. This is because conditioned states of mind and so forth have distinct status.
2.3. Exegesis Proper, Following the Text (from the section on “Three Vehicles and Becoming Buddha”)
Next, Paramârthasamudgata, sentient beings with the seed nature of the śrāvaka vehicle, who follow this path and this course, will attain unsurpassed calm nirvāṇa. Sentient beings with the seed nature of the pratyekabuddha vehicle and sentient beings with the seed nature of the Tathāgata vehicle who also follow this path and this course attain unsurpassed calm nirvāṇa. 135
Explanation: In the below fourth section, the meaning of the One Vehicle is analyzed from the perspective of the three non-natures. Within this section there are three subsections. The first analyzes the meaning of the One Vehicle from the perspective of the holy path. Next, the subsection after “Sons of good families” clarifies that those śrāvakas who are set on extinction do not become buddhas. Finally, the subsection after “If you change your orientation . . .” clarifies that śrāvakas [who are now] dedicated to enlightenment definitely become buddhas. The point of the general explanation states that the content of the first level is from the perspective of the three seed-natures, a teaching of skillful means by the Tathāgata. The teaching of the One Vehicle, from the perspective of reality, includes the three vehicles, each of which realizes remainderless final nirvāṇa. 136 The point of the Śrīmālā-sūtra 137 is the same as is explained here.
第二段意、定性二乘、唯證二乘無餘涅槃。必無後時得成佛義。故瑜伽云「二乘所證無餘涅槃、唯有眞如淸淨法界。」 第三段意、不定種姓、迴向聲聞必當成佛。是故法華方便品說、爲二乘種姓、理實決定得成佛果。若依此說、方便說三、就實爲一。故法華云、「十方佛土中、唯有一乘法。無二亦無三、除佛方便說。」法華勝鬘、各據一義。今此一部義倶有、故解深密是最了義。 [義如別章]
In the second level of interpretation the two vehicles of fixed nature 138 only realize the remainderless nirvāṇa of the two vehicles. There is definitely no doctrine of their becoming buddhas at a subsequent time. Therefore the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “The remainderless nirvāṇa realized by adherents of the two vehicles only includes the pure experiential realm of thusness.” 139 In the third level of interpretation, śrāvakas of indeterminate nature who have been converted will definitely become buddhas. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra’s chapter on Skillful Means says that those who have the natures of the two vehicles, will, in actuality, definitely attain Buddhahood. According to this interpretation, three vehicles are taught as an expedient, but in actuality there is only one. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra 140 says: “Through the buddha-worlds of the ten directions, there is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle. There are neither two nor three—these others are skillful teachings offered by the Buddha” (T 262.9.8a17–19) . The Lotus Sūtra and the Śrīmālā-sūtra each interpret from their own perspective. Since the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra fully includes this partial interpretation in its own doctrine, it is said to contain the definitive interpretation. [This interpretation is like that in the separate chapter.]
In the first paragraph there are again three. The first clarifies that [the adherents of] each vehicle attain their own remainderless nirvāṇa. The second takes the perspective of the holy path, skillfully teaching the One [Vehicle]. The third clarifies the distinctions in the three vehicles from the perspective of reality.
As for the first interpretation, the implication is that those with the natures of the three vehicles each realize the state of remainderless marvelous nirvāṇa through the natureless pure path. Yet since this holy path has the meaning of “traversability,” it is called “path.” Thus, this holy path is that which all the sages have traversed, and so it is also called “the tracks of their wanderings.” Since this path and traces are free from the afflicted, contaminated, suffering body, one realizes the state of eternally quiescent bliss. Therefore it is called tranquil nirvāṇa.
All śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas share in this single marvelous pure path. All experience this same perfect purity, and there is no second vehicle. Because of this, I have secretly said that there is only one vehicle (T 676.16.695a18–20) .
Explanation: This is the expedient explanation of One Vehicle in the second level. As for the meaning of śrāvaka (voice-hearer), voice is taken to be paramount in all the Buddhist scriptures. They hear the voice of the teaching from their teachers and friends, and follow it up with practice and realization. Long departed from the secular world, they engage in minor practices, and attain minor results. Therefore they are called “voice-hearers.”. Those who are called pratyekabuddhas always enjoy quiescence. Having no taste for the hustle-bustle of worldly affairs, they apply themselves in practice to the maximum. Without the instructions of teachers or friends, they awaken independently of their own accord. They engage in middling-level practices and achieve middling-level results; hence they are called “self-enlightened.” Or, since they awaken to the holy realization by contemplating dependent arising, they are called “enlightened by contemplation on dependent arising.” Those who are called bodhisattvas, hesitant in seeking great enlightenment, have pity on sentient beings. If they do seek bodhi, they are adamant in their aspiration. Having spent a long time in practice and realization, they long depart from the secular world. Their practices are great and their achievement is great; therefore they are called bodhisattvas. This is explained in full in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra-kārikā. 141
The general interpretation is that these three vehicles all share in the one marvelous natureless path, and thus this path is taught, being called perfectly pure. There is only this path, and no second. Hence, from the perspective of this one path it is said that there is one vehicle. Thus the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: “There is only one pure path, and no second path, yet there is no separate explanation of perfect purity” (T 676.16.671c18) . Hence we know that this perfect purity is none other than this marvelous pure path. Furthermore, from the word “one” there are three kinds. First, the path is one, and therefore it is called one. Second, the achievement is one, and therefore it is called one. Third, principle is one, and therefore it is called one.
今依此文、有其二種。妙淸淨道卽是道一、究竟淸淨卽是果一。依此二一、更無第二。故深密意說唯有一乘。而不同下第四卷中、約理無別故說一乘。然一乘者、唯一佛乘。故勝鬘經云、「聲聞緣覺皆入大乘、大乘卽佛乘也。」 又、法華經云、「十方佛土中、唯有一乘法。無二、亦無三。」 或可法身以明一乘。故法華論云、「以如來法身與聲聞法身法身無異、故與授記。」 後當分別。此卽六中帶數釋也。
Now, according to this sentence, there are two kinds [of meaning of “one”]. The marvelous pure path is the path Sthat is one; ultimate purity is the achievement that is one. Depending on these two “ones,” there is no second. Therefore it is explained that at the most profound level there is only one vehicle. Yet this is not the same as the discussion in the fourth fascicle below, where the oneness of the vehicle is explained from the perspective of the principle of non-distinction. Yet this One Vehicle is nothing but the One Buddha Vehicle. Therefore the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas all enter the Great Vehicle. The Great Vehicle is the Buddha Vehicle.” (T 353.12.220c19–20) Also, the Lotus Sūtra says: “The buddha-lands in the ten directions have nothing but this Dharma of the One Vehicle. There are not two, nor three” (T 262.9.8a17) . Some take the Dharma body to express the One Vehicle. Thus the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkôpadeśa 142 says: “Since there is no difference in dharma-bodies between the Dharma body of the Tathāgata and the Dharma body of the śrāvakas, they are given the assurance [of future enlightenment]. ” 143 After this it should be distinguished. This is what is known as an enumerative compound word 144 from among the six kinds of categories of compound words.
In discussing what is essential from the perspective of the enjoyment body, the aggregates and so forth that are subsumed in the mental functions of the four forms of purified cognition 145 are taken as essential. From the perspective of the Dharma body, thusness is essential. If the essence is shown as a whole, in the one vehicle approach, the teaching, theory, practice, and reward are taken as the One Vehicle. Yet the holy teachings of this One Vehicle are exceedingly numerous; the translations differ, and the meanings are extremely profound. Hence the positions of the older and newer translations are at odds with each other.
一、眞諦等一類諸師、依法華等諸經及論、皆作此說。「一切衆生皆有佛性。」 故涅槃經第七卷云、「‘二十五有有我不耶。佛言、‘善男子、我者卽是如來藏義。一切衆生悉有佛性、卽是我義。’’又、第二十五云、「衆生佛性不一不異。諸佛平等 猶如虛空。一切衆生、同共有之。」 [此說理性] 」
First, scholars who think like Paramârtha, 146 relying on the Lotus Sūtra and other related scriptures state that “all sentient beings without exception have the Buddha-nature.” Therefore, in the seventh fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra 147 it says: “ ‘In the twenty five stages of existence, 148 is there a self or not?’ The Buddha said: ‘Sons of Good Families, the word “self” means “tathāgatagarbha.” All sentient beings without exception possess the Buddha-nature. This is the meaning of “self”’ ” (T 374.12.407b7–10) . In the twenty-fifth fascicle it says: “Sentient beings and Buddha-nature are neither the same nor different. All buddhas are equal, just like empty space. All sentient beings are the same in their sharing of this” (T 374.12.539a9–11) . [This explains the nature in principle.]
又、第二十七云、「師子吼者、名決定說。一切衆生悉有佛性。」 又云、「譬如有人、家有乳酪、有人問言、‘汝有蘇耶。’答言、‘我有。’ 酪實非蘇、以巧方便、定當得故、故言有蘇。衆生亦爾。悉皆有心、凡有心者、定當得成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提以是義故。我定說一切衆生悉有佛性。」 [此說行性] 又三十三云、「一切衆生、同有佛性、皆同一乘、同一解脫、一因一果、同一甘露、一切當得常樂我淨。是名一味。」 [通說理行]
Again, in fascicle twenty-seven it says: “The Lion’s Roar is called the definitive statement: all sentient beings without exception possess the Buddha-nature” (T 374.12.522c23–24) . It also says: “It is, for example, like a person in whose home there is dairy cream. Someone asks, ‘Do you have buttermilk?’ The first replies, ‘I do.’ Dairy cream is not buttermilk, but since through the application of some technique one can definitely obtain it, he says he has buttermilk. The situation of sentient beings is the same as this. All have mind, and the possession of mind by worldlings means that they will definitely attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. Based on this rationale, I state with certitude that all sentient beings without exception have the Buddha-nature” (T 374.12.524c5–10) . [This explains the nature in practice.] Again, in fascicle thirty-three it says: “All sentient beings possess the same Buddha-nature; all [ride] the same One Vehicle; [experience] the same one liberation, one cause, one effect, the same one sweet dew. All will attain permanence, bliss, self, and purity. 149 This is called the Single Flavor” (T 374.12.559a21–23) . [This expresses both the natures of principle and practice. ]
Furthermore, it says in the Lotus Sūtra:“The buddha-lands in the ten directions have only the Dharma of the One Vehicle—there are not two, and there are not three, except for when the Buddha teaches using skillful means” (T 262.9.8a17–18) .
It also says, “There is only this one true matter—the other two are not true” (T 262.9.8a21) . Also, the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas all enter the Great Vehicle” (T 353.12.220c19–20) .
又、須眞天子所問經云、「文殊師利言、‘一切皆得審當作佛、卿莫疑也。所以者何。一切當得如來覺故。’」 廣說如彼。又、入楞伽第二、明五乘性云、「闡提二種、一者焚燒一切善根、二者憐愍一切衆生、作盡願。二中從一定不成佛。」 具說如彼。四卷楞伽第一卷說、言雖有異、意同前本。准此等經、無姓有情、亦得成佛。
Furthermore, the Sūtra of the Questions of Suvikrāntacinti-devaputra 150 says: “Mañjuśrī said, ‘All [sentient beings] will certainly become buddhas—have no doubts about this. Why? Because all will attain the enlightenment of the Tathāgata’” (T 588.15.104c26–28) . And this discussion continues at length. Also, in the second fascicle of the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra, in the explanation of the natures of the five vehicles, 151 it says: “There are two kinds of icchantikas: 152 the first are those who burn away their wholesome roots; the second are those who vow to exhaustively [save all sentient beings]. The first two are the same in the certitude of their non-attainment of Buddhahood.” 153 The point is explained more fully there. Although we can see some differences in the corresponding passage in the first fascicle of the four-fascicle Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra, the point is basically the same as presented above. According to sūtras of this pedigree, natureless sentient beings also become buddhas.
Also, in fascicle fifteen of the Liang Translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha it says: “The fifth is the taking of the activity of the salvific vehicles as one’s occupation. . . . Śrāvakas of yet undetermined capacities are able to establish themselves in [correct teachings] and undertake the practices of the Great Vehicle” (T 1595.31.264c22–29) .
釋曰、「乃至若得信等五根。不名定根、以未得聖故。若得未知欲知等三根、則名定根、以得聖故。若至頂位、不名定性、以不免四惡道故。若至忍位、名爲定性、以免四惡道故。若依小乘解、未得定根性、則 154 轉小爲大。若得定根性、則不可轉。如此聲聞、無有改小爲大義。云何 155 說一乘。今依大乘解、未專修菩薩道、悉名未定根性。故一切聲聞、皆有可轉小爲大義。安立如此大小乘人、令修行大乘。」
The explication of that text says:
. . . this is the case including the attainment of the five wholesome faculties of faith and so forth. 156 Since they have not yet attained sagehood, they are not yet called determined faculties. Once one has attained three faculties of wanting to know what is not known, and so forth, 157 then, since they have attained sagehood, they are called determined faculties. When one has reached the summit stage, 158 this is not called a determined nature, since one does not avoid rebirth in the four evil destinies. Once one reaches the stage of patience, 159 he is said to have a determined nature, as he avoids rebirth in the four evil destinies. According to the Hīnayāna understanding, if one has not attained a determined faculty-nature, then one converts to the Mahāyāna from the Hīnayāna. If the nature of one’s faculties is determined, then conversion is not possible. There is no reason why this kind of śrāvaka should convert from the Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna. This being the case, how is it possible to say there is only one vehicle? Now, relying on the Mahāyāna understanding, because they have not yet devoted themselves to the practice of the bodhisattva path, they are all said to have faculties of indeterminate nature. Therefore it is understood that all śrāvakas can be converted from Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna. Positing these kinds of Mahāyāna-Hīnayāna practitioners, they lead them to engage in the practices of the Great Vehicle. (T 1595.31.265a7–16)
In the eighty-fourth fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra it says:
There are four kinds of paths. The paths of humans and gods, along with the paths of the three vehicles, totals to four. The dharma of the bodhisattva should guide sentient beings such that they attach themselves within the great path. If this is done, they will naturally enter into the great path, firmly planted in the midst of the three vehicles. If they don’t automatically enter nirvāṇa, they adhere to the good fortune of the paths of humans and gods, cultivating the causes and conditions of nirvāṇa. (T 1509.25.649a6–10)
Also, the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkôpadeśa says:
There are four kinds of śrāvakas: the determined śrāvakas, the arrogant śrāvakas, śrāvakas retrogressing from enlightenment, and transformation śrāvakas. 160 Among these, two kinds of śrāvakas receive assurance of future attainment of Buddhahood from the Tathāgata—the transformation śrāvakas and the śrāvakas retrogressing from enlightenment. Since the religious faculties of the determined śrāvakas and arrogant śrāvakas are not yet matured, the Tathāgata does not guarantee their enlightenment. The reason the bodhisattvas give them assurance is to skillfully cause them to give rise to the aspiration for enlightenment. (T 1520.26.9a15–20)
According to this text, there are definitely no sentient beings who lack Buddha-nature, and there are also no śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas of determined nature who necessarily do not become buddhas. Yet when the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, and so forth say that they “definitely do not become [buddhas],” it is from the perspective of their faculties not being matured; thus it is an interpretation based on distinctions in time. It is not that they are saying that they will absolutely never become buddhas. Therefore it says in the second fascicle of the Ratnagotravibhāga:
What is the point of the one-sided claim that icchantikas never enter nirvāṇa, and that they lack the nature of nirvāṇa? This is done in order to show the causes of denigration of the Mahāyāna. This kind of theory is based on the perspective of limitless time. Since they actually do possess a pure nature, it cannot be said that they are eternally and absolutely lacking a pure mind. 161
Question: In the eightieth fascicle of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, it says: “In the state of remainderless nirvāṇa, one is free from all activities aimed at a specific goal; all exertion is completely stopped” (T 1579.30.749a5–9) . According to the previous explanation, determined śrāvakas also become buddhas. How can that position be reconciled with this passage from the Yogâcārabhūmi?
Answer: A passage in the third fascicle of the Lotus Sūtra says:
After my extinction there shall again be disciples who, not having heard this scripture and not knowing, nor being aware of bodhisattva-conduct, shall entertain the notion of extinction with regards to the merits attained by themselves and shall enter nirvāṇa. I will become a buddha in another realm, having again a different name. Though these persons may evince the notion of extinction and enter nirvāṇa, yet in that land, seeking buddha-wisdom . . . (T 262.9.25c14–17; Hurvitz, Scripture of the Lotus Blossom, p. 147)
Fascicle ninety-three of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra includes the same explanation.
Also, in fascicle twenty-three of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra it says: “The eighty-thousand, sixty-thousand, forty-thousand, twenty-thousand, and ten thousand abodes of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are called nirvāṇa. The abode of the sage king who is the lord of the peerless dharma is worthy of the label of Mahāparinirvāṇa” (T 374.12.502b27–29) .
Furthermore, the verse in the fourth fascicle of the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra says:
Like driftwood in the ocean, which is carried about by the waves,
Śrāvakas are like this—carried about by the winds of signs.
Free from the derivative afflictions and the bonds of habituated affliction,
They enjoy the bliss of samādhi, abiding in an uncontaminated state.
Without a final destination, also without turning back,
Attaining various bodies of samādhi, they are unenlightened for numberless kalpas.
Just like a drunken man, awakening from his stupor;
Attaining the Buddha’s unsurpassed essence; this is my true Dharma body. (T 671.16.540b1–8)
第二 162 亦同此意。又、法華論云、「實無而有增上慢人。以有世間三摩跋提實無涅槃、而生涅槃想。對治此故、說化城譬喩應知。」 又云、「第四人者、方便令入涅槃城故。涅槃城者、諸禪三昧城、過彼城已、令入大般涅槃城故。」
The second fascicle also expresses this kind of point. Also the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkôpadeśa says: “[The fourth kind of] arrogant śrāvakas are those who lack attainment yet claim to have it. Experiencing the mundane samāpatti that is actually not nirvāṇa, they imagine it to be nirvāṇa. You should know that it is in order to correct this that he teaches the parable of the conjured city.” 163 It also says: “. . . since the fourth person is skillfully made to enter the city of nirvāṇa. As for the city of nirvāṇa, it is the city of all meditations and samādhis. Since they have already entered this, he has them enter the city of great final nirvāṇa.” 164
According to such passages, the remainderless nirvāṇa taught in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra is equivalent to the samādhi of enjoyment taught in the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra. Since it is free from delimited saṃsāra, 165 it is said to be remainderless. [But] it is not truly remainderless, since there is miraculous saṃsāra. 166 The Śrīmālā-sūtra says that there is no remainderless [nirvāṇa]. Hence, that sūtra says: “Therefore, the arhats and pratyekabuddhas have remainder and rebirth. Since their production of dharmas is not exhausted, they are born with energies remaining; since they have [not] completed practices of purity, they remain impure; since they have not exhausted [their activities], there is still something to be done; since they have not reached [the final stage], there are still [afflictions] to be eliminated; since there are still [afflictions] to be eliminated, they are far from the realm of nirvāṇa. . . When it is said that they attain nirvāṇa—this is [merely] the skillful means of the Buddha. Only the Tathāgata attains parinirvāṇa.” 167
准此應知、八萬劫等、入三昧樂、假名無餘、無實身智倶滅無餘涅槃。 [然須陀洹等者從本爲名實是無學] 是故二乘定得成佛。由此諸經、實說一乘、假說二乘。
Based on this we should understand that while entering into absorption into samādhi after eighty thousand eons and so forth is metaphorically labeled as remainderless, there is in reality no body or consciousness that is extinguished together in remainderless nirvāṇa. [However, stream-winners 168 and so forth are originally actually called post-learners.] Therefore practitioners of the two vehicles definitely become buddhas. Hence, in reality the sūtras teach the One Vehicle, and only provisionally teach the two vehicles.
Second, the Great Tang Trepiṭaka, relying on the sūtras and śāstras, posited the existence of five natures [wherein] natureless sentient beings lack the nature of nirvāṇa and those whose nature is determined for the two vehicles definitely do not become buddhas. Therefore, in the first fascicle of the Sūtra on Wholesome Morality 169 says: “Lacking the bodhisattva nature, even if one were to repeatedly give rise to the aspiration for enlightenment and practice energetically, in the end one would not be able to attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.” (T 1582.30.962c4–5)
Also, in the first fascicle of the Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra 170 it says: “Since those who are not in the family lack the seed nature [of nirvāṇa], even if they repeatedly give rise to the aspiration for enlightenment and practice energetically, in the end they will definitely not attain anuttarā-bodhi” (T 1581.30.888a23–25) . Fascicle thirty-five of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra is equivalent to the Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra.
又、此經云、「 一向趣寂聲聞種姓補特伽羅、雖蒙諸佛施設種種勇猛加行方便化導、終不能令當坐道場證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 又、深密解脫經第二云、「成就第一義寂滅聲聞性人、一切諸佛盡力教化、不能令其坐於道場得無上菩提。我說名爲寂滅聲聞。」
Furthermore, this sūtra says: “Although those souls in the family of the śrāvakas wholly aiming for quiescence are skillfully guided by the buddhas who set them up with various energetic applied practices, in the end they cannot be made to sit on the seat of enlightenment and realize anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.” 171 Also, in the second fascicle of the [Bodhiruci translation of the] Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra it says: “For persons with the nature of quiescent śrāvakas, despite the exhaustion of the energies of all buddhas in lending guidance, they are unable to get them to sit on the seat of enlightenment and attain peerless bodhi. I call them quiescent śrāvakas” (T 675.16.671c20–22) .
Furthermore, in the fifth fascicle of the Bodhisattva piṭaka-sūtra 172 it says:
Correctly determined sentient beings 173 are vessels of the correct dharma. They all attain liberation whether or not there is a buddha teaching. Aberrantly determined sentient beings are not vessels of the correct dharma, and so whether or not there is a tathāgata teaching, in the end they will not be fit for the experience of liberation. The Tathāgata, once accurately perceiving these sentient beings as being inadequate as vessels of the Dharma, promptly casts them aside. 174
In fascicle three of the Aṇgulimala-sūtra it says:
The distinction of the three groups of sentient beings 175 is for the śrāvaka vehicle. Those of the Great Vehicle fall into only two groups—the remediable and the irremediable. The “aberrantly determined” are the icchantikas. The correctly determined are the tathāgatas, bodhisattvas, and adherents of the two vehicles. 176
Also, in fascicle three of the Sūtra on Wholesome Morality it says:
There are four categories in the disciplining of sentient beings: (1) those of śrāvaka-nature, who attain the śrāvaka enlightenment; (2) those of pratyekabuddha-nature, who attain the pratyekabuddha enlightenment; (3) those of Buddha-nature, who attain the Buddha’s enlightenment; (4) those of the nature of humans and gods, who attain the enjoyments of [rebirths as] humans and gods. These are called the four. 177
The Śrīmālā-sūtra says:
Furthermore, it is like the great earth that supports four heavy burdens. What are the four? They are the great oceans, the mountains, the grasses and trees, and sentient beings. In this way, those sons and daughters of good families who get hold of the correct dharma establish a great earth which is also able to support four heavy burdens. What are the four? This refers to sentient beings who, without a spiritual guide and without hearing false teachings, complete themselves using the wholesome faculties of men and gods. If they are pursuing the śrāvaka path, they teach them the śrāvaka vehicle; if they are pursuing the pratyekabuddha path, they teach them the pratyekabuddha vehicle; if they are pursuing the Great Vehicle, they teach them the Great Vehicle. (T 353.12.218b7–14)
又、大般若五百九十三云、「若有情類、於聲聞乘性決定者、聞此法已、速能證得自無漏地。於獨覺乘性決定者、聞此法已、速依自乘而得出離。於無上乘性決定者、聞此法已、速證無上正等菩提。若有情類、雖未證入 178 正性離生、而於三乘不定者、聞此法已、皆發無上正等覺心。」 十輪經第九意同大般若。
Furthermore, in fascicle 593 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra it says:
There are types of sentient beings whose natures are fixed in the śrāvaka vehicle. Once they have heard this dharma, they are quickly able to attain their own uncontaminated state. Those whose natures are fixed on the pratyekabuddha vehicle, once they have heard this dharma, are quickly able, based on their vehicle, to obtain release. Those whose natures are fixed on the peerless vehicle, are, once they have heard this dharma, quickly able to realize peerless perfect enlightenment. If there are sentient beings who, even though they have not yet realized the correct nature free from arising, 179 and yet are not determined in regard to any of the three vehicles, once they have heard this dharma, they will all produce the aspiration for peerless perfect enlightenment. 180
The ninth fascicle of the Daśacakra-kṣitigarbha-sūtra 181 reflects the same meaning as this passage from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra.
This accords with the passage in the second fascicle of the Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra, which says:
There are four kinds of maturation 182 of beings. Those having the seed-nature of śrāvakas mature themselves by means of the śrāvaka vehicle. Those having the seed-nature of pratyekabuddha mature themselves by means of the pratyekabuddha vehicle. Those having the seed-nature of Buddhahood mature themselves by means of the unsurpassed Great Vehicle. Those without seed-nature mature themselves by being born in the good courses of rebirth. 183
The thirty-seventh fascicle of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra contains the same discussion.
Also, in the second fascicle of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra it says: “Those who lack the property of nirvāṇa are certainly deficient in the seed of three-vehicle enlightenment” (T 1579.30.284b1) . Furthermore, in the sixty-seventh fascicle of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra it says: “Those lacking seed-nature are said to ultimately lack the property of nirvāṇa” (T 1579.30.284b1–2) and so forth. Again, in fascicle fifty-two it says: “If in the realization of [causation] taking thusness as its referent there is ultimately obstruction of seeds, this results in the positing of souls of non-parinirvāṇic seed-nature. If this is not the case, then it results in the positing of souls of parinirvāṇic seed-nature” (T 1579.30.589a22–24) .
Also, in the first fascicle of the Mahāyāna-sūtrâlaṃkāra 184 it says:
There are two kinds of naturelessness: one is lacking [the property of] parinirvāṇa with a temporal limitation; the other is complete lacking [the property of] parinirvāṇa. There are four kinds of temporally limited lack of the property of parinirvāṇa: (1) fervent engagement in unwholesome activities, (2) total severance of all wholesome properties, (3) lacking the portion of wholesome roots conducive to liberation, 13(4) insufficiency of wholesome causes. Complete lack of the property of parinirvāṇa, means that since one is without causes, one has no inclination for parinirvāṇa. This person pursues only birth and death, and does not pursue parinirvāṇa. 185
又、梁朝攝論第十四云、「彼 186 障因不具、一切衆生界、住二種定中、諸佛無自在。」 天親釋曰、「衆生無涅槃性 名因不具、諸佛於此位中、不能令般涅槃、神通亦無自在。諸貪著生死、不信樂大乘。」
Also, in the fourteenth fascicle of the Liang Mahāyānasaṃgraha it says:
Being impeded, and deficient in causes,
All realms of sentient beings
Are stuck in two kinds of determinacy.
The Buddhas are limited here [in terms of what they can do for them]. (T 1593.3.131b18–19)
Vasubandhu comments: “Sentient beings’ lacking the nature of nirvāṇa is called ‘deficiency in causes.’ All buddhas in this position are unable to get them to attain parinirvāṇa—their supernatural cognitive abilities are impeded. [‘Not having the nature of nirvāṇa’ means that] they are addicted to saṃsāra, and neither believe in nor appreciate the Great Vehicle.” 187
又、大唐攝論云、「有情界周遍 具障而闕因 二種決定轉 [造業受果二種決定] 諸佛無自在。」 世親釋論第十卷云、「若諸有情界、無涅槃法、名爲闕因。此意說彼無涅槃因無種姓故、諸佛於彼無有自在。」 又、大業論亦同此意。
Also, the Tang translation of the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha 188 says:
Throughout the realms of sentient beings,
Fully obstructed, and deficient in causes,
In changing the two kinds of determinacy [two kinds of determinacy in terms of practices performed and effects received]
The buddhas are limited here. (T 1595.31.150c24–25)
In the tenth fascicle of Vasubandhu’s commentary it says: “If all realms of sentient beings lack the properties of nirvāṇa, it is called ‘deficiency of causes.’ This means that since they lack the causes of nirvāṇa and do not have the seed-nature, the buddhas are limited in terms of what they can do for them” (T 1597.31.376b12–14) . The Daye translation of the Commentary 189 also makes this same point.
又、無性云、「謂具煩惱業異熟障故、名具障。無涅槃因無種姓故、名爲闕因。諸佛於上所說有情、皆無自在令得涅槃。」 廣說如彼。依佛地論、有五種姓、義如常說。乃至彼云、「第五種姓無有出世功德因故、畢竟無有滅度之期。」 又、十地論第十一云、「邪定聚名無般涅槃性。」
Also, Asvabhāva says: “Since they are fully obstructed by ripened afflictive karma, they are said to be ‘fully obstructed.’ Since they have neither the causes of nirvāṇa nor its seed-nature, they are called ‘deficient in causes.’ In regard to the above-described sentient beings, all buddhas are powerless when it comes to causing them to attain nirvāṇa.” 190 It is explained like this at length. According to the Fodijing lun there are five distinct natures, as is usually explained. In that text it says: “Since those of the fifth nature lack the meritorious causes for world-transcendence, there is ultimately no expectation of their attaining extinction.” 191 Also, in the eleventh fascicle of the Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra it says: “Those of the wrongly determined group are called the ones who lack the nature of parinirvāṇa.” 192
准此等文、無性有情無涅槃因、定性二乘必不成佛。若爾如何說爲一乘、前所引教如何會釋。解云。如涅槃云、「善男子、我者卽是如來藏義。」 又、 「一切衆生悉有佛性、常住無有變易。」
According to passages such as this, natureless sentient beings who lack the causes of nirvāṇa and those who nature is determined such that they must be adherents of the two vehicles definitely do not become buddhas. If this is the case, how is such a thing as the One Vehicle explained, and how can this be reconciled with the authoritative teachings just cited?
Explanation: As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “Sons of Good Families: ‘self’ has the meaning of ‘Tathāgatagarbha’” (T 374.12.407b9) . Also, “All sentient beings without exception possess the Buddha-nature. [The Tathāgatagarbha] eternally abides, without change.” 193
又、寶性論第一卷云、「問。云何得知一切衆生有如來藏。答、依一切諸佛 平等法性身 知一切衆生 皆有如來藏。」 如此等文、皆是眞如法身佛性、此卽五性皆有佛性。又、涅槃云、「譬如有人、乃至定當得故」者、如此等教、皆是行性、定當得故、約不定姓少分而說。
Also, in the first fascicle of the Ratnagotravibhāga it says:
Question: How do we know that all sentient beings possess the womb of the Tathāgata?
Answer: Based on the body with the nature of the equality of dharma of all buddhas, we know that all sentient beings without exception possess the womb of the Tathāgata. 194
Passages such as this all advocate the Buddha-nature of the Dharma body of thusness, with the implication that beings of the five natures all have the Buddha-nature.
Also, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “It is as if there were a person [who had cream in his home, and when someone asked if he had butter, he said he did. Although cream is not really butter, by the application of the appropriate technique, butter] will definitely be procured.” 195 These kinds of teachings saying that there will definitely be attainment are all based on the nature that is revealed through practice. They only provide a partial explanation from the perspective of those of indeterminate nature.
又、法華經云、「十方佛土中 唯有一乘法 無二亦無三 除佛方便說。」者、釋此經文、諸說不同。羅什等云、「言無二者、無聲聞緣覺、無三者、無聲聞緣覺及大乘中偏行六度獨善菩薩。」
Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra says: “In all the buddha-lands in the ten directions, there is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle. There are not two and not three—except for when the Buddha teaches using skillful means” (T 262.9.8a17–18) . Treatments of this line by various commentators differ. Kumārajīva and so forth say, “The meaning of ‘not two’ is that there are neither śrāvakas nor pratyekabuddhas. ‘Not three’ means that there are neither śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, nor go-it-alone bodhisattvas within the Great Vehicle who stick to the practice of the six perfections.” 196
There are also some who say: “The words ‘not two’ mean there is ‘no second’—referring to the pratyekabuddhas. The words ‘not three’ refer to the third vehicle, that of the śrāvakas.” Another explanation says: “The prior two explanations are based exclusively on the vehicle, and thus, seeing the Buddha-vehicle to have the nature of final realization, have no reason to refute it here. Now, we will correctly analyze the meaning of ‘not two’ and ‘not three’ from the perspective of the Buddha’s three bodies, in order to clarify this point. ‘Not two’ means that there is only the One Vehicle of the Tathāgata’s reward body, and there are not these two vehicles of śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha.” 197
The Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “The śrāvaka vehicle and the pratyekabuddha vehicle enter into the Great Vehicle—this is none other than the Buddha-vehicle.” 198
The Lotus Sūtra says: “There is only this one matter that is true; the other two are not true” (T 262.9.8a21) . “Not three” means that there is only the One Vehicle of the Tathāgata’s Dharma body, and not three vehicles called śrāvaka vehicle, pratyekabuddha vehicle, or Buddha-vehicle.
The Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha says: “Bodhisattvas who have not yet entered the second ground think that there are persons linked to each of the three vehicles who engage in distinct practices—and are oblivious of the principle of the One Vehicle.” 199
法華經云、「尚無二乘、何況有三。」 涅槃云、「如來、聲聞、緣覺、同一佛性、同一無漏。」 前破二皈一、是破小入大。後破三皈一、是泯事歸理。雖有三釋、第二爲正。故法華論末云、「第二方便品、示現破二明一。」 [或有本云破三明一、然諸本中多云破二明一。]
The Lotus Sūtra says: “There are not even two vehicles. How could there be three?” (T 262.9.7b21–22)
The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “Tathāgatas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas share in the same single Buddha-nature, and in the same [state of] non-contamination. ” 200
The prior citations rejected the two [vehicles] and take refuge in the One [Vehicle], which is rejecting the Small [Vehicle] and entering the Great [Vehicle]. The latter example rejects the three and takes refuge in the one, which implies rejection of phenomena and taking refuge in the principle. Even though there are three interpretations given, it is the second that should be regarded as authoritative. Therefore at the end of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkôpadeśa it says: “In the second chapter on skillful means, there is indicating and revealing, rejecting two and illuminating one. ” 201 [There are texts that say “rejecting three and illuminating the one,” but “rejecting two and illuminating one” is seen more often.]
又、華嚴經第十二十八第六十等、皆云無二乘之名。又、法華經第三卷云、「世間無有二乘而得滅度、唯一佛乘得滅度耳。」 又云、「唯有一佛乘、息處故說二。」 梁攝論云、「信等五根不名定根」 等者、大業大唐二本攝論、皆無此言、故不可依。
Furthermore, in fascicles twelve, eighteen, and sixty of the Flower Ornament Sūtra it says there is no such term as two vehicles. In fascicle three of the Lotus Sūtra it says: “In the world there are not two vehicles to the attainment of extinction; there is only the One Buddha-vehicle to the attainment of extinction!” (T 262.9.25c22–23) . And again: “There is only one Buddha-vehicle; in order to provide respite he says there are two” (T 262.9.27b2) .The Liang translation of the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha says: “The wholesome faculties of faith and so forth are not called set faculties,” 202 etc. Since the Daye and Tang translations of the Commentary on the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha are missing this remark, it is not reliable.
The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra says: “If one is not up to entry into nirvāṇa, while attached to the pleasures of human and celestial rebirths, one creates the causes and conditions for nirvāṇa” (T 1509.25.649a9–10) . Within the pleasures of human and celestial rebirth, there are two kinds: the first is the absolute lack of the nature of nirvāṇa, which is formed in merely being a human or a celestial. The second is the temporary lack of the nature of nirvāṇa, where after attaining rebirth as a human or a celestial, one creates the causes of nirvāṇa. Even though there are these two kinds, the discussion in that treatise is based only on the aspect of the temporary lack of nature. Some interpret this as showing that in their compassionate vow the bodhisattvas desire to cause everyone to enter remainderless nirvāṇa. It is not that all sentient beings without exception actually enter into nirvāṇa.
The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkôpadeśa says: “Since the faculties of the two kinds of śrāvakas of determined and arrogant are immature, they are not given an assurance of enlightenment [from the Buddha]. The bodhisattvas’ offering of the assurance of enlightenment is a skillful means to cause them to give rise to the aspiration for enlightenment” (T 1520.26.9a18–20) . The bodhisattvas’ offering of the assurance that they will become buddhas is because they want them to give rise to the mental state of faith within the Great Vehicle. This is [,however,] nothing but an expedient—they do not actually become buddhas. The Lotus Sūtra says: “Though these persons may give rise to thoughts of extinction, and enter into nirvāṇa, in another land they will seek the Buddha’s wisdom” (T 262.9.25c17–18; Hurvitz, Scripture, p. 147) .
依正法華第四卷云、「一切志在無爲之想、謂當滅度。甫當往至他佛世界。」 又、第三云、「臨欲滅度、佛在前住、誨以要法。發菩薩意、不在生死、不住滅度、解三界空。」 第四卷文意同此也。此文旣云臨欲滅度。准此應知、住無餘依、臨入無餘。發菩提心、非是已入而能發心。釋通智度、准此應知。
As it says in fascicle four of the True Dharma Flower Sūtra: 203 “All of their intentions remain in the notion of the unconditioned—i.e., they will enter nirvāṇa. In the future they will proceed to that Buddha-world” (T 263.9.92b14–15) . Also, it says in the third fascicle: “Approaching extinction, the Buddha appears before one, teaching the essentials of the Dharma. Giving rise to the bodhisattva’s aspiration, one does not remain in saṃsāra, and does not abide in nirvāṇa; he understands that the three realms are empty” (263.9.85c14–15) . The point of the passage in fascicle four is the same as this. This passage has already said “approaching extinction.” According to this, one should know that “one abides in the remainderless,” and when one approaches and enters the remainderless, one “gives rise to the aspiration for enlightenment”—it is not the case that one is able to give rise to the aspiration after already entering [the remainderless state]. This should be clear enough if one properly understands the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra.
又、涅槃云、「八萬劫住處」 等者。三藏釋云、「預流等位、迴心向大。受變易生、行菩薩行。至十信位、住於八萬六萬劫等。名爲住處。」 眞諦三藏九識章云。
Also, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “[This person, after] abiding for eighty thousand kalpas [will accomplish anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi]” 204 and so forth. The Trepiṭaka [Xuanzang] explains, saying: “Those at the stage of stream-winner and so forth turn their devotion to the Mahāyāna; they undergo miraculous rebirth, and engage themselves in bodhisattva practices. Reaching to the stage of the ten kinds of faith, they abide for eighty thousand or sixty thousand kalpas and so forth. This is called ‘abode.’ ” The Essay on the Nine Consciousnesses 205 by the Trepiṭaka Paramârtha says:
「問。大本云、 ‘緣覺十千劫到,’ 到何位、是何宗。答、此是寂 206 宗意、除三界或 207 、迴心學大乘。入十信、信法如如。」 准知眞諦亦說、十信爲所到處。
Question: In the larger version of the sūtra it says: “Pratyekabuddhas arrive after ten thousand kalpas.” 208 To what stage do they arrive, and what tenet is this?
Answer: This is the point of the tenet of quiescence, of removing the afflictions of the three realms, of undergoing conversion and studying the Great Vehicle. Entering the ten stages of faith, one has faith the thusness of dharmas.
We can infer that Paramârtha also takes the ten stages as the level to which one arrives.
Question: If this is the case, how can you explain it to be nirvāṇa?
Answer: The Buddha relies on śrāvakas who have converted to the Great Vehicle who take [his] cremated body and demonstrate nirvāṇa [for him]. They call this nirvāṇa, but it is not true nirvāṇa. This is like the explanation in fascicle eighty of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, which says:
Once they have completed these practices of longevity, they remain in their physical body, separately creating the transformation body. They skillfully appear before their fellow practitioners; while in the realm of remainderless nirvāṇa they simulate nirvāṇa. Because of these circumstances, their comrades think “such and such a World Honored One has attained parinirvāṇa in the realm of remainderless nirvāṇa.” They abide as distantly as they like in this real physical body that remains in this Jambudvīpa world. If even the celestials are unable to get a glimpse of them, how much more difficult is it for the rest of the sentient beings to see them? 209
This point is explained as such: In order to remove their doubts, in front of fellow practitioners they simulate entry into remainderless nirvāṇa, and therefore it is called nirvāṇa. [But] it is not that they are truly in the state of remainderless nirvāṇa. If you allow that buddhas and bodhisattvas change and enter into remainderless [nirvāṇa] in order to draw in beings of the same type, then during the time when the body is still maintained, their display of these two kinds of effect is not perfect. As the Śūraṃgama-samādhi-sūtra 210 says: “Śāriputra, in this way the bodhisattvas, using the vehicle of the pratyekabuddhas enter into nirvāṇa, yet do not permanently disappear” (T 642.15.642c13–14) . And so on.
As is explained in the second and fourth fascicles of the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra, 211 the aspect of enjoyment of meditative absorption means that the stream-winners and so forth convert to the Mahāyāna, and extend their lives. Based on the apex of concentration, 212 and supported by contaminated karma, they undergo miraculous rebirth. Passing through eighty thousand, or sixty thousand or so kalpas, they arrive at the ten levels of faith. This concentration is called enjoyment of samādhi. Yet it is not called samādhi because they already dwell in remainderless nirvāṇa. Based on this principle and doctrine, when it is said that they abide [in a body for] eighty thousand kalpas, or as little as ten thousand kalpas, it is not that they have already entered remainderless nirvāṇa; it is because they have lost their destination.
瑜伽第八十云、「問。囘向菩提聲聞爲住無餘依涅槃界中、能發趣阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶、爲住有餘依涅槃界耶。答、唯住有餘依涅槃界中、可有此事。所以者何。以無餘依涅槃界中、遠離一切發趣 213 事業、一切功用皆悉止息。」
In the eightieth fascicle of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra it says:
Question: Do śrāvakas who have turned to bodhi initiate anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi while abiding in the state of remainderless nirvāṇa, or while abiding in the state of nirvāṇa with remainder?
Answer: It is only while abiding in nirvāṇa with remainder that they can do this. Why? Because in the state of remainderless nirvāṇa they are far removed from engagement in activities, and all exertion ceases. (T 1579.30.749a5–9)
又云、「問。於無餘依涅槃界中、所得轉依、當言何相。答、無戲論相。又善淸淨法界爲相。」 又、解深密經第三及深密解脫經、皆云、「於無餘依涅槃界中、一切諸受無餘永滅。」 廣說如經。
It also says:
Question: What kind of characteristics does the transformation of the basis 214 have within the state of remainderless nirvāṇa?
Answer: It is marked by absence of conceptual proliferation and is marked by the perfect purity of the dharma-realm. 215
Also, both the third fascicle [Xuanzang’s translation] of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and [the Bodhiruci translation] say: “In the state of remainderless nirvāṇa, all sensations 216 are extinguished without remainder.” 217 The full explanation is seen in the sūtra.
1. Translated from the introduction written for the Korean version.
2. During the course of this translation virtually all Sino-Korean terms, person names, and text names have been added to the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and can thus be further investigated online at http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb.
3. This interpretation of Woncheuk’s position is agreed upon by most scholars. See, for example, Jeong Yeonggeun 丁永根, “Woncheuk ui yusik cheolhak: singu yusik ui bipan jeok jonghap,” and Nam Muhui 南武熙, “Woncheuk ui saeng-ae wa yusik sasang.” See the bibliography at the end of chapter 3 for complete information about sources. There are also scholars who read Woncheuk differently, claiming that in fact he ultimately supported the five-nature theory in the same way as Chinese Faxiang scholars such as Kuiji and Huizhao 慧昭. See, for example, Kitsukawa Tomoaki 橘川智昭, “Saimyō Enjiki to goshō kakubetsu ron” and “Woncheuk sasang ui jae geomdo wa gwaje,” pp. 170–173. The gist of this position is that Woncheuk asserted that sentient beings have only a single nature, and that they all attain Buddhahood because Huizhao, who argued against this position, never actually claimed that Woncheuk said it. Furthermore, a citation from Doryun’s Yugaron gi 瑜伽論記 claims that Woncheuk supported the view that there is a class of sentient beings who lack the potential for Buddhahood. Clearly, these objections need to be taken into serious consideration before a final determination can be made on the topic. However, merely saying that because Huizhao’s Liaoyideng was written to refute Woncheuk’s views on the Cheng weishi lun and because all of the differences between Faxiang’s Consciousness-only and Woncheuk’s Consciousness-only are included, but not objected to does not suffice as evidence. It is more likely that in response to Woncheuk’s positive assertion of the reality of the equality of sentient beings, Huizhao wanted to show the difference in his position by objecting that sentient beings are not originally equal in their innate capacities, and thus wanted to clarify how his opinion differed from that of the theory that all sentient being possess a single nature of potentiality for attainment of buddhahood.
4. See Jeong Yeonggeun, “Ilche jungsaeng ui seongbul e de han Woncheuk ui ipjang,” pp. 159–163.
5. Ibid., pp. 173–174.
6. Jeong Yeonggeun, “ Woncheuk ui yusik cheolhak: singu yusik ui bipanjeok jonghap,” p. 34–46.
7. See Nam Muhui, “Woncheuk ui saeng-ae wa yusik sasang yeon-gu,” pp. 141–150.
8. The source of this translation is Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sutra 解深密經疏, HBJ 1.123b1–129a4.
9. This second occurrence of 無說 is not in the source text of either the HBJ or XZJ versions; we have added it based on the context.
10. Compare this passage to T 1595.31.183a5–7
11. The Nakamura Bukkyōgo daijiten (p. 832b) defines 竊以 as “to think personally, secretly.” In Buddhist texts, however, this word almost always appears at the beginning of a phrase or passage that introduces some inconceivable aspect of the Dharma in a praising manner. Thus it seems that it might be taken as a kind of exclamatory, praising opening of a passage, without actual meaning implied. The Japanese Hossō monk Zenju says: 「 竊以者、斯發端之辭也。」 (成唯識論疏序釋 T 2260.65.318a25).
12. Synonymous with the term “single voice” 一音. The voice of the Buddha, which, although delivering a single perfect teaching, is understood differently by listeners of different capacity.
13. The room of Vimalakīrti, where he expressed the thunderous silence of non-duality.
14. The three natures of cognition in Yogâcāra (Skt. tri-svabhāva), which are three general modes of cognition according to which living beings perceive the world: (1) the nature of existence produced from attachment to illusory discrimination; the mind that operates in such a manner as to mistakenly impute a real essence to those things that are produced from causes and conditions and in fact have no true essence; thus the appearance of a mistakenly imagined world (parikalpita-svabhāva 遍計所執性); (2) the nature of existence arising from causes and conditions; the more accurate view that sees that all phenomena are produced according to myriad causes and conditions (paratantra-svabhāva 依他起性); (3) the nature of existence being perfectly accomplished; the highest state of existence conforming to ultimate reality, perceived in a non-discriminating mode of cognition (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva 圓成實性). (Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (hereafter, DDB))
15. Assuming parallelism with the above reference to Vimalakīrti, and taking note of the distinctive Yogâcāra notion of three natures, this is probably a reference to Tuṣita Heaven, the abode of Maitreya, who is in some accounts said to have come down from this heaven to teach Yogâcāra to Asaṅga.
16. Maitreya (or Maitreyanātha) the semilegendary figure usually named as the founder of Yogâcāra Buddhism. He is thought to have lived from about 270 to 350 CE and is the putative author of such Yogâcāra works as the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra 瑜伽論 and the Madhyânta-vibhāga 中邊分別論. He is credited with the establishment of such basic Yogâcāra notions as Consciousness-only 唯識, the three bodies of the Buddha 三身, the three natures 三性, and the ālayavijñāna 阿賴耶識. He is said to have been the teacher of Asaṅga 無著. (DDB)
17. Nāgârjuna (2nd–3rd century) is one of the most esteemed figures in Buddhist history, considered by many Mahāyānists as second in insight and importance only to Buddha himself. A master of Sanskrit grammar and linguistics as well as a devastating debater and critical thinker, his masterwork, Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), sharply critiqued with elegant, sophisticated verse many treasured concepts and theories held by Buddhists and non-Buddhists, from causality and time to karma and nirvāṇa. Based on the title of that text, the school that based itself on his thought was called Madhyamaka. (DDB)
18. The absolute truth 勝義諦 (paramârtha-satya) and conventional truth 世俗諦 (saṃvṛti-satya). The absolute truth is the view of reality as experienced by enlightened people. Since it transcends dualistic logic, it cannot exactly be expressed in linguistic constructions. The relative truth is reality as experienced by unenlightened people, and is expressed readily in dualistic linguistic constructions. (DDB)
19. The Faxiang school’s 法相宗 broad division of the Buddha’s teachings into three periods. The three are (1) the teaching of existence 有相法輪, which says that all existence is established by causes, but the dharmas of this composition are truly existent. This is in accordance with the Āgama sūtras 阿含經 and other lesser-vehicle sūtras; (2) the teaching that the original nature of all things is empty, that signs are not ultimately real 無相法輪. This is considered to be the beginning of “great vehicle” teaching, as it is changing from “lesser vehicle” teaching. The prajñāpāramitā sūtras 般若經 are cited as examples of this teaching; (3) the teaching of true emptiness: the middle way is explained affirmatively through such sūtras as the Avataṃsaka and the Saṃdhinirmocana 解深密經. This is also called the period of the “ultimate turn of the Dharma wheel” 無上法輪. In the two earlier periods the Buddha is said to have adapted his teaching to the development of his hearers; in the third to have delivered his complete and perfect doctrine. (DDB)
20. The term śrāvaka (“voice-hearer”) originally refers to a direct disciple of the Buddha (one who heard his voice). In Mahāyāna texts, it is a technical term that usually carries negative connotations. While śrāvakas are disciplined monk-practitioners who contemplate the principle of the four noble truths for the purpose of the attainment of arhatship, and thus eventually nirvāṇa, they are also considered along with the pratyekabuddha to be a practitioner of the two lesser vehicles, inferior in insight and compassion to the bodhisattva. (DDB)
21. Mṛgadāva, known also as the “park of wise men.” A famous park northeast of Vārāṇasī, a favorite resort of Śākyamuni. The modern Sārnāth near Benares, where Śākyamuni is said to have delivered his first sermon. (DDB)
22. An ancient Indian state, west of Magadha (the site of the Mṛgadāva park) and north of Kośala, along the Ganges. The capital, also called Vārāṇasī, is the present-day Benares. (DDB)
23. The four truths explain suffering, its causes, its riddance, and the method of its riddance, which can be characterized as the causes and effects of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. The first and first and third truths can be seen as effects, and the second and fourth as causes.
24. Gṛdhrakūṭa-parvata, also translated into English as Eagle Mountain. A narrow, high mountain near Rājagṛha in the ancient Indian state of Magadha, a place frequented by the Buddha. Given as the site for the preaching of several of the Buddha’s Mahāyāna sermons, such as the Lotus Sūtra and Sūtra of Limitless Life. (DDB)
25. Or Vinaya of the Four Categories (Skt. *Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, *Cāturvargīya-vinaya). The Sifen lu; 60 vol., T 1428. The influential Vinaya text transmitted from the Dharmagupta sect, one of the four major Vinaya works transmitted to East Asia. This work investigates the origins and causes by which the prātimokṣas enumerate the offenses of the precepts of the bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs—especially distinguishing the reasons for the lightness and heaviness of punishments. There is also detailed explanation consisting of two parts dealing with various concrete regulations concerning activities of everyday life, ceremonies, and rules of behavior. (DDB)
26. This citation, found also in various other commentarial works, is not in the version of the Four-Part Vinaya in the Taishō canon. A line clearly expressing this theme is found in the Samantapāsādikā: 善見律毘婆沙: 譬如散花、以綖貫穿風吹不散。修多羅者亦復如是、貫諸法相亦不分散。 (T 1462.24.676b1–3).
27. A reference to Xuanzang (602–664), the noted pilgrim who traveled to India, eventually becoming one of the most important figures in the history of scholastic Chinese Buddhism. He lived in Chang’an at the outset of the Tang dynasty, being fully ordained in 622. Finding that China possessed only half of the Buddhist scriptures, and believing that many of these were either corrupted, incomplete, or improperly translated, he set out for India. After arriving, he studied with many famous Buddhist masters, especially at the famous center of Buddhist learning in Nālanda temple. Returning home in 645, he was received with honor, and with the emperor’s support, set up a large translation bureau in Chang’an, drawing students and collaborators from all over East Asia. He translated seventy-five works in 1,335 juan into Chinese. His strongest personal interest in Buddhism was in the field of Yogâcāra/Consciousness-only. The force of his own study, translation, and commentary of the texts of these traditions initiated the development of the Faxiang school 法相宗 in East Asia, and the Faxiang school’s theories regarding perception, consciousnesses, karma, rebirth, etc., found their way into the doctrines of other schools. (DDB)
28. The six interpretations of compound terms (Skt. ṣaṭ-samāsāḥ) are (1) 依主釋 (Skt. tat-puruṣa)—dependent compound, in which the first noun modifies the second noun (“mountain temple”), e.g., 眼識 visual consciousness, where the eye is the qualifying term; (2) 相違釋 (Skt. dvaṃdva)—a compound in which both elements are equal (“mountains and temples”); (3) 持業釋 (Skt. karma-dhāraya) —a compound in which the first element is an adjective or adverb, and the second element a noun or adjective, respectively (“high mountain,” “very high”); (4) 帶數釋 (Skt. dvigu) —a compound in which the first element is a numeral (“five dharmas,” five aggregates 五蘊, etc.; (5) an adverbial compound 鄰近釋 (Skt. avyayī-bhāva), or a term resulting from “neighboring” association, e.g., 念處 thought or remembering place, i.e., memory; (6) 有財釋 (Skt. bahu-vrīhi) —a compound of two or more elements that is used adjectivally (“black robe” used adjectivally—“black-robed man”); the sign of possession, e.g., 覺者 he who has enlightenment. (DDB)
29. 名句文身: Separately, 名身, 句身, and 文身. 名 (Skt. nāman) is the names of things, single words. 句 (Skt. pada) means phrases, and 文 (Skt. vyañjana) refers to the breaks and inflections in voice that serve as the bases for words and phrases—thus, phonemes. Being formed as grouped collections, they are termed in Sanskrit as kāya 身. Plural assemblages of these are termed as 多文身, 多名身, and 多句身. The Sarvâstivādins took these elements of language as having elemental existence, whereas the Sautrāntikas and Yogâcāras took them to be provisional entities, nothing more than the temporary manifestations of voicing. Dharmakīrti upheld the basic Sautrāntika position. In Yogâcāra these are categorized within the twenty-four factors not associated with mind 心不相應行法 (Skt. nāma-pada-vyañjana-kāya). (DDB)
30. The 維摩經Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra is considered one of the most profound, as well as literarily excellent, of the Indian Mahāyāna sūtras. The sūtra expounds the deeper principle of Mahāyāna as opposed to lesser-vehicle teachings, focusing on the explication of the meaning of non-duality. A significant aspect of the scripture is that it is a teaching addressed to high-ranking Buddhist disciples through the mouth of the layman bodhisattva Vimalakīrti, who expounds the doctrine of emptiness in depth, eventually resorting to silence. There are three translations extant: the Weimojie suoshuo jing 維摩詰所說經 (trans. Kumārajīva; T 475), the Shuo wugoucheng jing 說無垢稱經 (trans. Xuanzang; 6 fasc.; T 476), and the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 (trans. Zhi Qian; 2 fasc.; T 474). (DDB)
31. 一切衆生皆如也、一切法亦如也。 T 475.14.542b12.
32. Under discussion here are the first three parts of the four parts 四分 of consciousness. According to the Weishi school, when the cognitive mental functioning is activated, the mind itself is divided, depending upon the particular function, into four aspects, and based on this, that which we know as cognitive function is established. Namely, the mind is divided into the parts of: (1) that which is seen (objective part) 相分, (2) that which sees 見分 (subjective part); (3) the confirmation of that seeing 自證分 (self-aware part, self-witnessing part); and (4) the acknowledgment of that confirmation 證自證分 (reconfirming self-aware part, rewitnessing part) (T 1585.31.10b17). This theory developed over a period of time, with its final formulation being attributed to Dharmapāla. The course of its development is understood as having been initiated by Sthiramati, who first posited a self-aware aspect only. Then Nanda distinguished this into the objective and subjective aspects, with Dignāga formulating the three-part model. (DDB)
33. 成唯識論: The Cheng weishi lun; 10 fasc.; T 1585. Mainly a translation by Xuanzang of Dharmapāla’s commentary on the Triṃśikā, by Vasubandhu, but it also includes edited translations of other masters’ works on the same verses. It is the primary text of the Faxiang school. The aim of this work is to explain the entire received system of Yogâcāra in an organized fashion, and thus it is probably the most complete exposition of Yogâcāra in the entire Buddhist tradition. This is the only work by Xuanzang that is not a direct translation of a text, but instead a selective, evaluative editorial, drawing on several (traditionally ten) distinct texts. Since Kuiji aligned himself with this text while assuming the role of Xuanzang’s successor, the East Asian tradition has treated the Cheng weishi lun as the pivotal exemplar of Xuanzang’s teachings. Translated into English by Francis Cook for the Numata series in the volume entitled Three Texts on Consciousness Only. (DDB)
34. T 1585.31.1b2–3. This kind of opinion is understood to represent the position of Nanda, one of the ten Yogâcāra masters cited in the Cheng weishi lun. He took the subjective part 見分 as the essence of awareness, and the transformation of this essence of awareness into something resembling external objects to be the objective part 相分.
35. We were not able to find this kind of passage in the Yogâcārabhūmi, but something very close is contained in the Cheng weishi lun at T 1585.31.6b5–7: 然依語聲分位差別而假建立名句文身。名詮自性句詮差別、文卽是字爲二所依。此三離聲雖無別體、而假實異亦不卽聲。
36. An explication of Asaṅga’s Abhidharma-samuccaya 大乘阿毘達磨集論 (T 1605); trans. in 646 by Xuanzang; 16 fasc.; T 1606.31.694b–774a. This is the only text by Sthiramati translated by Xuanzang. The Tibetan tradition attributes the Zaji lun to Jinaputra. (DDB)
37. See, for example, T 1606.31.694b18.
38. Sarvâstivāda was a major branch of Indian Abhidharma Buddhism, developed some two hundred years after Śākyamuni’s death, understood to be derived from the Sthavira school. Although the adherents of this school denied the existence of a unitary self, they were known for their belief in the inherent existence of dharmas. They analyzed these dharmas into five groups, including seventy-five distinct dharmas. The Six Padas 六足論 (“six feet”) and the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra 大毘婆沙論 contain the main teachings. The Abhidharmakośa generally presents Sarvâstivāda positions, but also has Sautrāntika influences. Its Vinaya texts, Mūla-sarvâstivāda-vinaya (T 1442) and the Ten Recitations Vinaya (T 1435), were also influential.
39. A reference to the four masters of the Vibhāṣā council 四評家. In the state of Kaśmīra during the reign of King Kaniṣka, it is said that five hundred learned Buddhist masters articulated the Abhidharma doctrines, compiling the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra 大毘婆沙論. The four include Dharmatrāta 法救, Ghoṣa 妙音, Vasumitra 世友, and Buddhadeva 覺天. These four scholars hypothesized the existence of an eternal essence in dharmas as well as clear distinction in the three time periods.
40. 色蘊 (Skt. rūpa-skandha): The physical aspect of human beings and the world. One of the five aggregates. It refers to material existence as opposed to the mental functions represented by the other four aggregates. In Yogâcāra, there are eleven factors in this category, including the five sense organs, the five faculties, and subtle form. (DDB)
41. 聲處 (Skt. śabda-āyatana): Or sense base of sound. One of the twelve fields of perception, composed of the six faculties 六根 and six objects 六境. (DDB)
42. The Sautrāntikas were one of the twenty early Indian schools, best known for their positing of a basic seed-consciousness theory. They also developed the idea of the continuation of saṃsāra by mutual perfuming of consciousness and materiality as well as a theory of a subtle and uninterrupted base consciousness, which became a precursor for the Yogâcāra notion of ālayavijñāna. While the Sarvâstivādin Abhidharma described a complex system in which past, present, and future phenomena are all held to have some form of their own existence, the Sautrāntikas subscribed to a doctrine of “extreme momentariness,” which held that only the present moment existed. (DDB)
43. Sāṃkhya is an Indian brahmanistic philosophical sect founded by Kapila, often mentioned in Buddhist treatises as one of the six non-Buddhist schools and proponents of the four non-Buddhist views of causation. Kapila “enumerated” 數 all concepts in twenty-five categories (tattvas, or “true principles”), with puruṣa 神我 and prakṛti 冥性 at the head and the others in ordered progress. The object of this paradigm was to effect the final liberation of the twenty-fifth tattva (puruṣa, “soul”) from the fetters of the phenomenal creation by conveying the correct knowledge of the twenty-four other tattvas, and rightly discriminating the puruṣa from them. Vasubandhu wrote in criticism of the system. (DDB)
44. The foundation of the Vaiśeṣika school is ascribed to Kaṇāda. The school, when combined with the Nyāya, is also known as Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika. It is the oldest of the “six non-Buddhist schools” of Indian philosophy 六外道. The Sanskrit vaiśeṣika literally means “referring to the distinctions (viśeṣa).” The Vaiśeṣikas chiefly occupied themselves, like those adhering to the orthodox Nyāya philosophy, with the theory of knowledge, but they differed by distinguishing only six categories of cognition 六句義 (padârthas)—viz., substance, quality, activity, species, distinction, and correlation—a seventh of non-existence, and nine substances possessed of qualities, these being the five elements—air, fire, water, earth, and ether—together with time, space, spirit (manas), and soul (ātman). The Vaiśeṣikas maintained the view that through the fulfillment of particular duties one may come to know these six categories, and that this knowledge leads to bliss. Kaṇāda presents his system in the Vaiśeṣika-sūtra, which consists of ten adhyāyas (chapters). (DDB)
45. The Lokâyatika is a materialistic school that arose in India about the sixth century B.C.E. Interpreted as worldly, epicurean, hedonist, etc. Its adherents believed that human existence was nothing more than a combination of physical elements and that the soul perishes with the body, with the pleasures of the senses being the highest good. (DDB)
46. The four mahā-bhūta, which all physical substances are composed of. They are (1) 土 the earth element (Skt. pṛthivī dhātu), which has the basic quality of hardness 堅 and the function of protection; (2) 水 water (Skt. ab-dhātu), which has the function of gathering and storing wetness 濕; (3) 火 fire (Skt. teja-dhātu), which is the nature of heat and has the function of warming 煖; (4) 風 wind (Skt. vāyū-dhātu), which has the function of giving motion to all living things; motion produces and maintains life. It is thought that when these are gathered, material substance is produced. In India, there are other transmissions of ideology whose explanations resemble this one, and even within Buddhism there are other explanations, but in the explanation of Abhidharma Buddhism, the objects of consciousness of earth, wind, fire, and water are provisional elements, since the true elements are imperceptible. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra disputes their substantiality and recognizes only their provisionality. (DDB)
47. Advocates of the eternality of sound 聲論師 (Skt. śābdika; also called 聲常住論 and 聲論). These thinkers believed, based on the Vedas, that sound (śabda) was eternal, an inherent phenomenon. This position, rejected by the Vaiśeṣikas, becomes a standard example in the explication of syllogisms for refutation in Buddhist logic. (DDB)
48. The seventy-five mental factors listed in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, which classifies all dharmas under seventy-five categories, divided into five groups: (1) material factors 色法 rūpāṇi (eleven items); (2) mind 心法 cittam (one item); (3) factors associated with mind 心所有法 citta-saṃprayukta-saṃskārāḥ (forty-six items); (4) factors not associated with mind 心不相應行法 cittaviprayukta-saṃskārāḥ (fourteen items); (5) three unconditioned dharmas 無爲法 asaṃskṛta dharma. In Yogâcāra, this list is expanded out to one hundred. (DDB)
49. 雜阿毘曇心論: 11 fascicles, T 1552. Written by Dharmatrāta, translated into Chinese by Saṃghavarman et al.; completed in 434. Translated in full in Bart Dessein, Saṃyuktâbhidmarmahṛdaya: Heart of Scholasticism with Miscellaneous Additions. (DDB)
50. Abhidharma Storehouse Treatise (C. Apidamo jushe lun 阿毘達磨倶舍論); by Vasubandhu. Translated between 563 and 567 by Paramârtha (22 fasc.; T 1559) and between 651 and 654 by Xuanzang (30 fasc.; T 1558). Vasubandhu’s most important pre-Yogâcāra work, consisting of verses with exposition, the Kośa organizes and condenses primarily Sarvâstivāda Abhidharma teachings, as well as adopting positions associated with other Buddhist schools, such as the Sautrāntikas. This text includes detailed analysis of the action of human consciousness in its relationship to the environment, as well as the transformations that occur in the process of meditation practice, containing treatment of most of the philosophical topics contained in the Abhidharma treatises, as well as a refutation of the theories of the Vaibhāṣikas. (DDB)
51. 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論: by Kātyāyanīputra, trans. Xuanzang between 656 and 659; 200 fasc.; T 1545. Traditionally assumed to have been composed in Kashmir around the second century C.E.; the actual date is uncertain. A key philosophical treatise of the Kaśmīra Sarvâstivāda sect that presents and argues against the theories of various other schools—though not held to be the earliest extant text of that school. (DDB)
52. I.e., the full collection of the teachings.
53. 無記: Moral neutrality is one of the three qualities 三性 of all activities (karma)—distinguished from mental states that are either good 善 or evil 惡. While the latter two states cannot but bring about precise, concomitant karmic effects, indeterminate states do not have a determinable good or evil consequence. (DDB)
54. The thirty-seven factors of enlightenment (Skt. saptatriṃśad-bodhi-pakṣikādharmāḥ) are thirty-seven kinds of practices for the attainment of enlightenment. They are the four bases of mindfulness 四念處, the four kinds of right effort 四正勤, the four supernatural powers 四神足, The five roots of goodness 五根, the five powers 五力, the seven factors of enlightenment 七覺支, and the eightfold holy path 八聖道. (DDB)
55. The full source text reads: 經律阿毘曇、是名俗正法者、修多羅律阿毘曇、是言說正法。 (T 1552.28.957b24–25).
56. Treatise on the Arising of Wisdom through the Abhidharma; written by Kātyāyanīputra about three hundred years after the death of the Buddha; trans. Xuanzang in 657; 20 fasc.; T 1544. It is the principal treatise of the Sarvâstivāda school, dealing with wisdom, meditation, pudgala, the physical elements, etc. There are two Chinese translations, one by the Kashmir monk Gautama Saṃghadeva and Zhu Fonian in 383, entitled Abhidharmāṣṭagrantha, generally known as the Aṣṭagrantha, and this one by Xuanzang, generally called the Jñānaprasthāna. The Jñānaprasthāna is much shorter than the Aṣṭagrantha, the former consisting of twenty fascicles, the latter of thirty. Both versions contain eight sections covering forty-four chapters. This work comprises the seventh volume of the Sarvâstivāda Abhidharma piṭaka, often considered along with the Mahāvibhāṣā, which is a commentary on it to be the central canonical text of the Sarvâstivādins. (DDB)
57. The twelve divisions of the Buddhist canon, divided according to genre (Skt. dvādaśa-anga): (1) sūtra 修多羅, the Buddha’s discourses; (2) geya 重頌), verses; (3) gāthā 伽陀, verse part of a discourse; (4) nidāna 因緣, historical narratives; (5) itivṛttaka 本事, activities of Buddha or his disciples in past lives; (6) jātaka 本生, Buddha’s past life stories; (7) adbhuta-dharma 未曾有, the Buddha’s miraculous acts; (8) avadāna 譬喩, legends; (9) upadeśa 論議, didactic lessons; (10) udāna 自說, teachings offered by the Buddha without prompting; (11) vaipulya 方廣, expanded teachings; (12) vyākaraṇa 授記, assurances of future attainment. (DDB)
58. The HBJ has 似 here instead of 佛 as found in the source text in Taishō. We follow Taishō.
59. The Apidamo shunzhengli lun 阿毘達磨順正理論; authorship attrib. Saṃghabhadra; trans. Xuanzang between 653 and 654; 80 fasc.; T 1562. A counter-argument to some of the positions expressed in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya from the perspective of the Sarvâstivāda school. Also referred to as the Refutation of the Kośa 倶舍雹論. (DDB)
60. The full text reads: 論曰。有說、佛教語爲自體。彼說法蘊皆色蘊攝、語用音聲爲自性故。有說、佛教名爲自體。彼說法蘊皆行蘊攝。名不相應行爲性故。語教異名。教容是語。名教別體。教何是名。彼作是釋、要由有名乃說爲教。是故佛教體卽是名。所以者何。詮義如實、故名佛教。名能詮義、故教是名。由是佛教定名爲體。擧名爲首。 (T 1562.29.346c11–17).
61. 阿毘達磨藏顯宗論: The Apidamozang xianzong lun; by Saṃghabhadra, trans. Xuanzang during 651–652; 40 fasc.; T 1563. This and the Nyāyânusāra 阿毘達磨順正理論 are two Abhidharmic commentaries by Saṃghabhadra (a younger Sarvâstivādin contemporary of Vasubandhu) translated by Xuanzang. This work criticizes Vasubandhu’s Kośa from an orthodox Sarvâstivādin position. (DDB)
62. Source not found.
63. 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論: Treatise of the Great Commentary on the Abhidharma T 1545.27.659a11–659b11. (DDB)
64. A Sarvâstivādin scholar-monk from Kashmir who lived during the fifth century and who is the putative author of the Abhidharma-nyāyânusāra śāstra 阿毘達磨順正理論. As the story goes, he studied the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra and when Vasubandhu wrote the Abhidharma-kośa, Saṃghabhadra disputed the views of both treatises from a Sautrāntika perspective. Over a twelve-year period he researched these texts in composing his Abhidharmanyāyânusāra-śāstra in which he formulated his refutation. Together with several students he sought to meet Vasubandhu for direct debate, but he could never quite catch up to him. Arriving in Matipura still in search of Vasubandhu, he suddenly took ill and died. When his students found Vasubandhu and showed him the manuscript, Vasubandhu praised Saṃghabhadra’s insight. (DDB)
65. The source sentence, just slightly different, reads: 「故不應立名句文身卽聲爲體。」 (T 1562.29.414c28).
66. *Asvabhāva, an Indian Yogâcāra scholar who wrote a commentary on the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha 無性攝論 (T 1598). His interpretations on this text differed significantly from those of Vasubandhu, and he is thus often cited in the Cheng weishi lun and the works of Kuiji. (DDB)
67. T 1598.31.380b12–13. This critique shows the Yogâcāra standpoint in regard to the Sarvâstivāda acceptance of the reality of these elements of language. The Yogâcāras reject the metaphysical existence of elements of language as existing as independent entities apart from cognitive experience.
68. 十二處: twelve sense fields, or twelve sense “bases” (Skt. dvādaśâyatana). The six sense organs 六根 and their six objects 六境. In Abhidharma and Yogâcāra theory, the factors of cognitive experience are divided up according to an arrangement that counts each of the sense organs and each one of their objects as one of these fields, making ten. To this, the mind field and dharma field are added, totaling twelve. A classification of the cognitive factors made with a view to a division into faculties and their objects. Each cognitive faculty grasps the corresponding object, and thus the corresponding consciousness comes into existence. There are six cognitive faculties and six categories of the corresponding objects. Thus they make the twelve sense fields or bases of cognition. According to this system of Buddhist philosophy, consciousness never arises alone. It is always introduced by two elements—a sense organ and a corresponding object. These two elements are the supporters of consciousness. For instance, the visual consciousness 眼識 arises when the sense of vision catches some color and shape. In the case of the sixth 意識 (cognitive faculty), consciousness itself acts as a faculty for the apprehending of non-sensuous objects. (DDB)
69. I.e., the field of operation of the sixth, thinking consciousness.
70. Dazhi du lun; a commentary on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, attrib. Nāgârjuna; trans. by Kumārajīva; 100 fasc.; T 1509. Based on the Mādhyamika-kārikā, providing detailed elaboration of the doctrine of emptiness. (DDB)
71. 十住毘婆沙論: Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā; 17 fasc.; T 1521. A commentary on the Daśabhūmika-sūtra 十地經 attributed to Nāgârjuna, translated by Kumārajīva about 405 C.E. Consists primarily of an explanation of the bodhisattva stages contained in the Huayan jing. (DDB)
72. 六神通 (Skt. ṣaḍ-abhijñā): The six abilities possessed by a buddha (also by an arhat through the fourth degree of dhyāna), which are best described as six kinds of unimpededness. They are (1) unimpeded bodily action 神足通; (2) the power of divine vision 天眼通, wherein they can observe the full course of passage by sentient beings through the six destinies; (3) the power of divine hearing 天耳通, with which they are able to hear all the words of suffering and joy experienced by living beings in the six destinies; (4) the power of awareness of the minds of others 他心通, whereby they know the thoughts of all the beings who pass through the six destinies; (5) the power of the knowledge of previous lifetimes 宿命通, 宿住通, whereby they know the events of countless kalpas of previous lifetimes experienced by themselves as well as all the beings in the six destinies; (6) the power of the extinction of contamination 漏盡通, whereby they completely extinguish all the afflictions of the three realms and thus are no longer subject to rebirth in the three realms. (DDB)
73. The Yogâcāra school.
74. 大乘百法明門論: Dasheng baifa mingmen lun (Mahāyāna śatadharmā-prakāśamukha-śāstra); by Vasubandhu; trans. Xuanzang in 648; 1 fasc.; T 1614. A very brief Yogâcāra text that lists the hundred dharmas 百法. (DDB)
75. 無量義經: Wuliangyi jing (Amitartha-sūtra); trans. Dharma-jātayaśas; 1 fasc.; T 276. This text teaches the immeasurable meanings of the one true nature, divided into the three thematic sections of virtuous deeds, sermons, and merits. The setting of the sūtra is understood to be at the point where Śākyamuni passed forty years after attaining enlightenment, delivered just prior to the Lotus Sūtra, and therefore is regarded as an introduction to the Lotus, as part of the “three-part Lotus” 法華三部經. It discusses topics such as emptiness of nature and characteristics, and also broaches the discussion of one and three vehicles. (DDB)
76. We cannot identify a sūtra by this name, nor locate this citation in an original source. Woncheuk repeats this citation in a longer form in his commentary on the Sūtra for Humane Kings at T 1708.33.360a1.
77. Guṇabhadra’s partial translation of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (1 fasc.; T 678) is entitled Xiangxu jietuo jing 相續解脫經 (Sūtra of Continued Liberation). Bodhiruci’s translation of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra is the Shenmi jietuo jing 深密解脫經 (5 fasc.; T 675.16.668–687). (DDB)
78. The line from the Guṇabhadra translation is at T 678.16.718b21–22; the line from Bodhiruci’s translation is at T 675.16.685b8–10.
79. 顯揚聖教論: Xianyang shengjiao lun; 20 fasc.; T 1602. One of the seminal treatises of the Yogâcāra tradition. A combination of verse by Asaṅga, commented on by Vasubandhu; translated into Chinese by Xuanzang. Contained in this treatise are discussions of all the major Yogâcāra topics, such as the eight consciousnesses, three natures, theories of dharmas, etc. (DDB)
80. Here is another line that is not found in the present source text, but that again Woncheuk has cited in his commentary on the Sūtra for Humane Kings at T 1708.33.405b18:
81. The Sūtra for Humane Kings 仁王經. The Renwang jing is one of the more influential of the East Asian “apocryphal” scriptures. Although its full title indicates that it is a “transcendent wisdom” (prajñāpāramitā) text, it is better characterized as a blend of Prajñāpāramitā, Yogâcāra, and Tathāgatagarbha teachings. This scripture’s target audience is the ruler, rather than either lay practitioners or the community of monks and nuns. Thus, for example, where the interlocutors in most scriptures are arhats or bodhisattvas, the discussants in this text are the kings of the sixteen ancient regions of India. The foregrounded teachings, rather than being meditation and wisdom, are “humaneness” 仁 and “forbearance” 忍, these being important religious values for the governance of a Buddhist state. (DDB)
82. The full text reads: “Great king, this sūtra’s words, flavor, and phrases are the words, flavor, and phrases explained by one hundred buddhas, a thousand buddhas, a hundred thousand buddhas.” 大王、是經名味句、百佛千佛百千萬佛說名味句 (T 245.8.826a24–25) .
83. With a bit more context: 於第九地有二愚癡。一者於無量說法無量法句文字後後慧辯陀羅尼自在愚癡。二者辯才自在愚癡。及彼麤重爲所對治。 (T 676.16.704b24–26). This comes from a section where two kinds of folly are discussed in each of the ten grounds.
84. We have not found this exact citation, but a similar passage is seen at T 1828.42.785a21 ff.
85. This exact phrase is not in the Cheng weishi lun, but a discussion that includes this point is found at T 1585.31.6a21–29. Here again we have a citation not found according to Woncheuk’s reference, but that appears cited exactly the same way in his commentary on the Sūtra for Humane Kings. See T 1708.33.360a3.
86. This line is found only once, in another commentary, at T 2196.56.487b20.
87. T 475.14.553c25–26.
88. T 475.14.553c28.
89. 說無垢稱經: The title of Xuanzang’s translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra.
90. 維摩詰經: The title of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Vimalakīrti-sūtra.
91. Or Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra (Shidi jinglun; 十地經論); 12 fasc.; T 1522. Written by Vasubandhu, translated into Chinese by Bodhiruci and others in the sixth century; also called the Shidi lun 十地論 and Dilun 地論. It is an extensive explanation of the gist of the “Ten Stages” chapter of the Huayan jing which covers many topics, such as the eight consciousnesses, nescience, the three bodies of the Buddha, the three cumulative rules of discipline, the cause and effect aspects of Buddhahood, etc. The Chinese Dilun school was established based on this treatise, and the Huayan school used it to explain many of its teachings. (DDB)
92. Again, this passage is not found in any extant text by Xuanzang, but is almost fully replicated in Woncheuk’s commentary on the Heart Sūtra at T 1711.33.543a16–21.
93. 本質: The raw substance of something that impinges on our consciousness (Skt. bimba). The original form of something as contrasted to its reflection, projection, or perceived manifestation (pratibimba; 影像). The variation in the qualities of this aspect accounts for the variation of the power of people’s perception. In his Buddhist Phenomenology Dan Lusthaus devotes considerable attention to developing an accurate interpretation of this concept. He sees it as an important link to the Western division of philosophy known as Phenomenology, fitting well to the Husserlian notion of the hyle, which he glosses as “[that which] an individual consciousness encounters that cannot, in some important sense, be reduced to that consciousness, and yet which never appears anywhere else except in that consciousness” (p. 14). Woncheuk’s application of these terms here lies somewhat out of the standard application that we see in most Yogâcāra treatments. The original locus classicus for the juxtaposition of these two concepts in a direct complementary manner occurs in a passage explaining the application of śamatha and vipaśyanā meditation that is shared almost verbatim in the YBh and Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, where the pratibimba are the objects of meditation (this passage is also treated in considerable detail in Woncheuk’s commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra). The exact connotations of bimba in that context are not clear. Later, in the Cheng weishi lun, the pair are described in the context of the function of daily waking consciousness, in addition to meditation. Kuiji elaborates on this pair extensively in his commentaries on the YBh and Cheng weishi lun. See A. Charles Muller, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Philosophy (2010 conference proceedings forthcoming) “Woncheuk 圓測 on bimba (本質) and pratibimba (影像) in his Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra”. (DDB)
94. 影像: Projections of consciousness—reflections, images, shadows, etc., that lack their own nature (Skt. pratibimba). The various images manifested in the mind due to discrimination. I.e., colors and shapes, etc., as perceived by the visual consciousness. The complement of raw substance 本質. (DDB)
95. 有漏: The Sanskrit sāsrava means to be flawed, tainted, or contaminated, and because of this, is often seen conflated with such notions as kleśa (煩惱, 染汚) that refer to direct influence from evil activities or factors (akuśala, 不善, 惡). However, the notion of āsrava does not mean that the consciousnesses, or the mental factors involved are necessarily unwholesome or afflicted—they can be of neutral moral quality, or even wholesome. The point is that they have some sort of intent involved—“the fulfillment of some sort of desire, noble or ignoble, is anticipated” (Buescher, The Inception of Yogâcāra-Vijñānavāda, p. 118, n. 1). (DDB)
96. 大衆部: The Mahāsāṃghika (great assembly) was one of the early branches of Indian Nikāya Buddhism, and one of the four branches of the Vaibhāṣika, said to have been formed after the second council in opposition to the Sthaviras. It is thought to have been a relatively liberal sect, which ran into conflict with the Sthaviras when they proposed to make adjustments in the rules of conduct to allow for exigencies of time, local customs, and geography. They are also known to be associated with lay practice movements, and therefore considered to be a forerunner of the Mahāyāna movement. After the third council this school split into five schools: Pūrvaśāila, Avaraśāila, Haimavatā, Lokôttaravādin, Prajñāptivādin. (DDB)
97. 一說部: One of the twenty (or eighteen) early Indian schools, which considered things as nominal, i.e. names without any underlying reality; also styled that things are but names. (DDB)
98. 說出世部: One of the eighteen early Indian Nikāya schools. Like the Prajñaptivādins, they were a branch of Mahāsāṃghika, distinctive for their view that all in the world is merely phenomenal and that reality exists outside it. They believed that since all things in the phenomenal world are produced as a result of illusion, they lack real substance and can be regarded only as designatory names applied to transitory phenomena. Since nirvāṇa is unchanging and free from illusion, it is real. (DDB)
99. 雞胤部: One of the eighteen schools. A branch of the Mahāsāṃghikas that disappeared at a relatively early date. (DDB)
100. One of the eighteen/twenty early Indian schools. According to the Cycle of the Formation of Schismatic Doctrines 異部宗輪論, this school existed about two hundred years after the passing of Śākyamuni, branching out from within the Mahāsāṃghikas. (DDB)
101. There are a few figures in Indian Buddhist history named Nāgasena 那伽犀那. The reference to a Nāgasena as a Mahāyāna author who is credited with the formation of the three-body theory seems to have this passage as its main source.
102. I.e., pre-Xuanzang translations.
103. 安慧: Sthiramati was an Indian master of the Yogâcāra school (7th c. C.E.). Because of the characterization of him in the Cheng weishi lun, he is considered in East Asia to be one of the ten great masters of the Yogâcāra school. He is known for refuting the theories of Saṃghabhadra through his treatises on the Abhidharmakośa and on Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā 唯識三十頌. In addition to his mention in the Cheng weishi lun, discoveries of Sanskrit texts by later scholars have separately confirmed his role as an important Yogâcāra master, showing that his interpretations of key Yogâcāra theories of consciousness differed sharply from those of such thinkers as Dharmapāla. (DDB)
104. 金剛軍: (d.u.) According to the Huayan jing zhuanji 華嚴經傳記, a commentator on Vasubandhu’s Shidijing lun 十地經論 who composed 1,200 verses. (DDB)
105. 寶性論: Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānôttaratantra-śāstra. A mixture of verse and prose, it is a basic text in the articulation of Tathāgatagarbha thought in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism (4 fasc.; T 1611). The Chinese tradition gives Sāramati as the author, while the Tibetan tradition lists Maitreya and Asaṅga as coauthors. The translation into Chinese is recorded as being done by Ratnamati in 511. The text explains in detail the theory that all sentient beings, no matter how horrible their crimes (such as icchantikas), possess the potential to attain Buddhahood. The great power possessed by the buddhas is able to erase the karma of these crimes. (DDB)
106. 護月: Also written 月藏. Candragupta was a monk from Nālanda temple, a contemporary of Dharmapāla, also a Yogâcāra scholar. We have no full account of his biography or his writings, but we know through the works of Xuanzang and Kuiji that he wrote a commentary to the Madhyântavibhāga, and he held a distinctive theory regarding the dependent arising of the store consciousness, disagreeing with the thesis of originally existent seeds. (DDB)
107. 親光: Or Prabhamitra. A philosopher of Nālanda monastery who was a commentator of the Yogâcāra School, and the author of the Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra. It is said that he was the disciple of Dharmapāla . (DDB)
108. 金光明經: A text primarily regarded as a scripture for state protection; it offers a wide range of instruction on Buddhist practices such as expression of faith and repentance, as well as basic doctrines, such as the five skandhas, dependent origination, emptiness, and so forth. There are five Chinese translations, as well as various commentarial works available. The merit of this sūtra is that wherever it is worshipped, the four guardian gods protect the state and benefit the people. It is one of the three popular state-protecting sūtras in East Asia, along with the Lotus Sūtra and Sūtra for Humane Kings. (DDB)
109. T 664.16.368b10–11. These three are explained by Paramârtha and others as the three periods of the teaching 三時教.
110. 淸辯: Also known as Bhavya (ca. 490–570). An influential Madhyamaka scholar, originally from South India, who came to Magadha to study the Middle Way teachings of Nāgârjuna and Saṃgharakṣita. He was known for his usage of positive dialectic to support the theory of emptiness. In this he was distinguished from philosophical opponents such as Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti, both of whom denied the validity of the use of logical propositions that ended up affirming any sort of positive assertion. Bhāvaviveka’s position would form the basic theme for Svātantrika, a branch of Madhyamaka that developed in the eighth century. He criticized the theories of Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, and Dignāga in the fifth chapter of his Madhyamaka-hṛdaya, also being critical of the theories of Dharmapāla, his contemporary. Although open debate between these two figures apparently did not occur, the controversy between them certainly did. (DDB)
111. 護法: Dharmapāla is understood through the influence of the Cheng weishi lun to be one of the ten great exponents of Yogâcāra in India, supposed to have been born in the middle of the sixth century C.E. He wrote a commentary on the Thirty Verses on Consciousness-only by Vasubandhu, which was later translated into Chinese by Xuanzang. He is especially well known for his assertion that consciousness is always manifested in both its subjective and objective aspects, as distinguished from Sthiramati, who understood the bifurcation of consciousness into subject and object to be wholly imaginary. His interpretations regarding the nature of consciousness became predominant in the Faxiang stream of Xuanzang and Kuiji. (DDB)
112. 楞伽經: Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra; T 670,T 671, T 672. Sūtra on (the Buddha’s) Entering (the Country of) Lanka, of which there were four translations into Chinese, three of which are extant. A text that held enormous influence among many schools in all regions of East Asia, including such disparate traditions as East Asian Yogâcāra, who considered it to be one of their six orthodox texts, and Chan, where it is associated with some of the early founders of the Chinese tradition. The Laṅkâvatāra contains criticisms of the Sāṃkhya, Pāśupata, and other Brahmanistic schools, and attempts to explain the points of potential conflation of Mahāyāna and Brahmanistic philosophy. Discussing a number of seminal theories generally held in common in Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha discourse, the sūtra was instrumental in the formation of the Tathāgatagarbha flow of Mahāyāna thought. which greatly influenced the development of Chan. (DDB)
113. 大般若波羅蜜多經: Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra: 600 fasc.; T 220. A collection of sixteen sūtras, short and long, which articulate the doctrine of prajñāpāramitā; trans. Xuanzang. This massive work, filling three entire Taishō volumes, includes popular texts such as the Heart Sūtra and Diamond Sūtra and is one of the most complete collections of Prajñāpāramitā sūtras available. Xuanzang considered abridging his translation to avoid repetition, but was dissuaded by a dream, and thus translated the Prajñāpāramitā corpus in toto. Edward Conze has translated many different portions of this corpus (see bibliography at the end of chapter 3). Though taken from the Sanskrit, not Chinese versions of these texts, Conze’s translations provide a sampling of the style and content of the Chinese versions. (DDB)
114. 有佛無佛性相常住: “Regardless of whether a buddha appears, nature and characteristics abide eternally.” Whether or not a buddha is in the world, the nature and characteristics of all dharmas are always abiding, without change, increase or decrease, etc. This phrase is originally from the Northern edition of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (T 374.12.567a18), but is found cited often in East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhist literature. (DDB)
115. 金剛般若波羅蜜經論: Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitôpadeśa. A commentary on the Diamond Sūtra by Vasubandhu; trans. Bodhiruci; 3 fasc.; T 1511;. This commentary is structured as notes by Vasubandhu attached to the verses of Maitreya. (DDB)
116. An summary of T 1511.25.786c23–25: 須菩提、佛說般若波羅蜜則非般若波羅蜜、須菩提、於意云何。如來有所說法不。須菩提言、世尊、如來無所說法。
117. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha 攝大乘論 is an anthology of Mahāyāna essays, ascribed to Asaṅga, that gives an overview of most of the important categories in the Yogâcāra system, including the eight consciousnesses, Consciousness-only, the three natures, affliction, two hindrances, buddha-bodies, and meditative practices that lead to liberation. It is a seminal text in the Yogâcāra tradition, of which three translations were done into Chinese. The text being cited in this instance is the commentary done by Asvabhāva, translated into Chinese by Xuanzang. (DDB)
118. T 1598.31.380b9. The actual source text reads: 聞者識上直非直說、聚集顯現以爲體性。
119. 受用身: One of the bodies of the Buddha, synonymous with 報身 (Skt. saṃbhogakāya). As the result of enlightenment, enjoyment of the Dharma and causing others to receive this enjoyment. This usually refers to the reception of enjoyment of the Dharma for oneself 自受用. The body that causes others to receive spiritual benefit is called 他受用 or 他受用身. (DDB)
120. 化身: Rendered by some scholars as “avatar,” the transformation body is the provisional form of the Buddha (Skt. nirmāṇa-kāya). The transformation of the Buddha’s body into the form of a sentient being in order to teach and save sentient beings. In addition to this form the buddhas manifest themselves in the Dharma-body 法身 and reward body 報身, adding up to three bodies. (DDB)
121. T 1598.381c17–18: 二受用身、卽後得智; c21–22: 三變化身、卽是後得智之差別. 後得智: The knowledge attained as a result of enlightenment that the bodhisattvas use for the task of liberating other sentient beings (Skt. pṛṣṭha-labdha-jñāna). As contrasted with innate cognition 根本智. Buddhas and bodhisattvas are able to utilize their discriminating capacities after attaining enlightenment, but without reifying and appropriating notions regarding their own selfhood or the intrinsic reality of objects. (DDB)
122. Taking 不離 as an equivalent to the technical term 無離, in Buddhist logic, one of the five fallacies that occurs as a result of an error in positive exemplification (Skt. avyātireka).
123. The full citation reads: 此諸身土若淨若穢 無漏識上所變現者。同能變識倶善無漏。純善無漏因緣所生。是道諦攝非苦集故。蘊等識相不必皆同。三法因緣雜引生故。有漏識上所變現者同能變識皆是有漏。純從有漏因緣所生是苦集攝。非滅道故。善等識相不必皆同。三性因緣雜引生故。蘊等同異類此應知。不爾應無五十二等。然相分等依識變現。非如識性依他中實。不爾唯識理應不成。許識內境倶實有故。或識相見等從緣生。倶依他起虛實如識。(T 1585.31.58c27–59a8).
124. The source text has 諸知, but since the later discussion will be on buddha-lands, rather than on cognition, we have changed this to 諸土.
125. 五分法身: The five attributes of the spiritual body of the Tathāgata, attained either at the stage of no further training 無學位 or at Buddhahood. The meaning of this term is that the body naturally contains the following five virtuous aspects: morality body 戒身, concentration body 定身, wisdom body 慧身, liberation body 解脫身, and body with full awareness of the state of liberation 解脫知見身. (DDB)
126. A summary of T 671.16.525b16–c6, which reads in full as follows: 復次大慧、法佛報佛說一切法自相同相故、因自心現見薰習相故 ,因虛妄分別戲論相縛故、如所說法無如是體故。大慧、譬如幻師幻作一切種種形像、諸愚癡人取以爲實、而彼諸像實不可得。復次大慧, 虛妄法體依因緣法、執著有實分別而生。大慧、如巧幻師依草木瓦石作種種事、依於呪術人工之力、成就一切衆生形色身分之相名幻人像。衆生見幻種種形色、執著爲人而實無人。大慧、衆生雖見以爲是人、無實人體。大慧、因緣法體隨心分別亦復如是、以見心相種種幻故。何以故。以執著虛妄相因分別心熏習故、大慧、是名分別虛妄體相。大慧、是名報佛說法之相。大慧、法佛說法者、離心相應體故,內證聖行境界故。大慧、是名法佛說法之相。大慧、應化佛所作應佛說施戒忍精進禪定智慧故、陰界入解脫故、建立識想差別行故, 說諸外道無色三摩跋提次第相。大慧、是名應佛所作應佛說法相。
127. 佛地經論: By Bandhuprabha et al.; trans. Xuanzang in 650; 7 fasc.; T 1530. One of the most important works for the formulation of the mature form of Weishi doctrine in East Asian Buddhism. Contains detailed explanations of Yogâcāra concepts such as the five capacities of beings, four forms of purified cognition, three natures, two hindrances, and so forth. The author explains the five kinds of dharma taught in the Buddhabhūmi, in the form of combined commentaries on the Buddhabhūmi. Since some of the passages reappear in the Cheng weishi lun, some speculate that these parallel passages should be attributed to Dharmapāla (though neither this text nor the Cheng weishi lun explicitly makes this attribution). Wonhyo’s Ijang ui also makes numerous unreferenced statements that appear to be from this text, although he doesn’t cite it by name (which is odd in this case, since in the same sections he explicitly cites the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha, and other works). A Tibetan translation of a commentary to the Buddhabhūmi also parallels passages in this text; Tibetans attribute that commentary to Śīlabhadra, the head of Nālanda while Xuanzang was there. (DDB)
128. Here adding the logograph 法 according to the source text.
129. The Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra has 笑 instead of 嘆 (T 671.16.534c2).
130. The text in the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra has the logograph 呿 after 欠 (T 671.16.534c2).
131. Following the source text, changing 咬 to 咳.
132. The source text has the compound word 磬咳 for this.
133. The text from the four-fascicle translation is found at T 670.493a27–493b1. The full passage from the ten-fascicle version of the Laṅkâvatāra is found at T 671.16.534b19–534c4.
134. This citation is abbreviated from the full text, which reads: 世尊、如此香飯能作佛事。佛言、如是如是。阿難、或有佛土以佛光明而作佛事、有以諸菩薩而作佛事、有以佛所化人而作佛事、有以菩提樹而作佛事、有以佛衣服臥具而作佛事、有以飯食而作佛事、有以園林臺觀而作佛事、有以三十二相八十隨形好而作佛事、有以佛身而作佛事、有以虛空而作佛事。衆生應以此緣得入律行, 有以夢幻影響鏡中像水中月熱時炎如是等喩而作佛事、有以音聲語言文字而作佛事、或有淸淨佛土寂寞無言無說無示無識無作無爲而作佛事。如是阿難、諸佛威儀進止、諸所施爲無非佛事 (T 475.14.553c16–28).
135. T 676.16.695a13–17.
136. 無餘涅槃: Or nirvāṇa without remainder, or nirvāṇa without residue. Unconditioned, unlimited nirvāṇa; the state of total liberation from all physical and mental conditions. This is contrasted to nirvāṇa with remainder 有餘涅槃, where the body still exists. One of the four kinds of nirvāṇa in Yogâcāra, wherein the afflictive hindrances in the mind are cut off, and the body that is composed of the five aggregates is extinguished. Therefore there is nothing remaining to depend upon. In this nirvāṇa, all afflictive hindrances are destroyed, so it can be attained by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. (DDB)
137. 勝鬘經: Śrīmālādevī-siṃha-nāda-sūtra; trans. into Chinese in 436 CE by Guṇabhadra (394–468); 1 fasc.; T 353. This sūtra is one of the main early Mahāyāna texts that taught the theories of (1) innate enlightenment in the form of the tathāgatagarbha and (2) the One Vehicle, through the words of the Indian Queen Śrīmālā. The notion of tathāgatagarbha is then taken up as a central topic in such texts as the Ratnagotravibhāga, the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra, the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, etc. It has been translated into English by Alex and Hideko Wayman as The Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā, and by Diana Paul as The Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā of the Lion’s Roar. (DDB)
138. 定性二乘: The two vehicles of fixed nature are those for practitioners whose proclivities regarding spiritual attainment are fixed on the predilections of the two non-Mahāyāna adherents of śrāvaka (direct disciples) and pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers). These are the first two of the five natures taught in Yogâcāra; the characteristic of these practitioners is that they are able to fully eliminate the afflictive hindrances (Skt. kleśâvaraṇa) through the early Indian Buddhist practices of contemplation of the four truths and dependent arising, but because of their incomplete understanding of the emptiness of objective phenomena, they are unable to eliminate the cognitive hindrances (Skt. jñeyâvaraṇa) and attain complete enlightenment. Those with the proclivity for bodhisattvahood are able to do this. (DDB)
139. Citation not located.
140. 法華經 (Skt. *Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra): Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華經; trans. Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什; T 262. This is one of the most popular scriptures in the East Asian Buddhist tradition, especially known for its stories and parables. It is also known for several teachings that, though not necessarily unique to it, are prominent in it: especially the idea that everyone has a potential to become a buddha, later understood to be “Buddha nature” 佛性; “skillful means” 方便, according to which buddhas and those representing them use a great variety of appropriate and creative teaching methods according to the capacities of their listeners; the One Buddha Vehicle 一佛乘, according to which the great variety of skillful means all serve the one purpose of leading all to become buddhas; and the extraordinarily long lifetime of the Buddha, giving rise to the notion of Eternal Buddha 久遠佛. (DDB)
141. 瑜伽師地論釋: By Jinaputra; trans. Xuanzang in 650; 1 fasc.; T 1580. The oldest surviving commentary on the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra. Jinaputra, who lived during the 6–7th centuries, is understood as having been a student of Dharmapāla and one of the ten masters of Yogâcāra whose discourse informs the Cheng weishi lun. This work addresses some of the major themes of the Yogâcārabhūmi, such as the explanation of the seventeen stages. (DDB)
142. 妙法蓮華經憂波提舍: Miaofa lianhua jing youbotishe; trans. Bodhiruci and Tanlin; 2 fasc.; T 1519, 1520. A short commentary on the Lotus Sūtra, attributed to Vasubandhu. This is the only surviving commentary on the Lotus Sūtra that is of Indian provenance. This commentary focuses on the Preface and the chapters on Skillful Means and Parables. Another translation of this work was made by Ratnamati of the Wei dynasty and is known as the Fahuajing lun 法華經論. See Abbott, “Vasubandhu’s Commentary.” PhD diss. UC Berkeley, 1985. (DDB)
143. The full text reads: 以佛法身聲聞法身平等無異故與授記 (T 1520.26.9a1–2).
144. 帶數釋 (Skt. dvigu): A compound in which the first element is a numeral (like “three vehicles,” “five aggregates,” etc.). (DDB)
145. 四智 (Skt. catvāri-jñāni): In Yogâcāra, the four kinds of pure cognition attained upon the full enlightenment of the Buddha, first introduced in Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha. These are (1) “mirror cognition” (Skt. ādarśa-jñāna) 大圓鏡智, the purified form of the eighth consciousness, the ālayavijñāna; (2) “cognition of equality in nature” 平等性智 (Skt. samatā-jñāna), the purified form of the seventh consciousness, the manas; (3) “wondrous observing cognition” 妙觀察智 (Skt. pratyavekṣa-jñāna), the purified form of the sixth consciousness, the mano-vijñāna; and (4) “cognition with unrestricted activity” 成所作智 (Skt. kṛtya-anusthāna-jñāna), the purified form of the five sense consciousnesses. (DDB)
146. 眞諦: A scholar-monk (499–569) of Brahman background from Ujayinī in the Avanti region of Western India, who became one of the “four great translators” in Chinese Buddhist history. After traveling throughout India, he had been staying in Funan (present-day Cambodia). In 546, in response to the invitation of the emperor Wu of Liang (r. 502–549) of the southern court, he went to Jiankang, where he undertook the translation of Buddhist texts—a project seen by Wu as a way of bringing peace to a land long torn by military struggles. After the emperor’s demise, political conditions in the Liang deteriorated rapidly, and since they did not stabilize during Paramârtha’s career, he regularly moved from place to place, and so was rarely able to enjoy working with a stable team for extended periods. Thus, the sixty-four works in 278 fascicles that he translated are nothing short of an amazing output. Among these translations were such influential scriptural texts as the Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-(uttama)-sūtra 金光明經, the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha 攝大乘論, and the Madhyânta-vibhāga 中邊分別論. (DDB)
147. 涅槃經: Nirvāṇa Sūtra is a generic name for a group of sūtras entitled Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra, depicting events at the end of Buddha’s life. This text relates a series of events leading up to the death and cremation of the Buddha and the disposal of his relics. Three Chinese versions of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra have come down to us: two translations and a revision. (DDB)
148. 二十五有 (Skt. pañca-viṃśati-bhava): The division of the three realms that sentient beings transmigrate through into twenty-five subrealms. In the desire realm there are fourteen existences, in the form realm there are seven existences, and in the formless realm, four existences. (DDB)
149. 常樂我淨: Permanence, bliss, self, and purity are the four virtuous aspects of realization 果德 taught in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra 涅槃經. These are taught as a positive response to the long-promulgated basic Buddhist notions of impermanence 無常, suffering 苦, no-self 無我, and defilement 汚. (DDB)
150. 須眞天子經: *Suvikrāntacinti-devaputra-paripṛcchā; trans. Dharmarakṣa between 266 and 313; 4 fasc.; T 588. In the course of question and answer between Suvikrāntacinti-devaputra and Mañjuśrī, the śrāvaka vehicle and the pratyekabuddha vehicles are criticized and the bodhisattva vehicle is valorized. After clarifying the faults of the śrāvaka view, the merits of the bodhisattva practices through the six perfections are elucidated. (DDB)
151. 五乘 (Skt. pañca-yāna): Five teachings conveying the karma-reward that differs according to the vehicle: (1) 人乘 rebirth among men attained by observing the five precepts; (2) 天乘 rebirth among the gods by the ten forms of good action; (3) 聲聞乘 rebirth among the śrāvakas by adherence to the four noble truths; (4) 緣覺乘 rebirth among pratyekabuddhas by contemplation of twelvefold dependent arising; (5) 菩薩乘 rebirth among the buddhas and bodhisattvas by the practice of the six pāramitās 六波羅蜜. There are numerous variants of this list. For example, in some lists the two-vehicle practitioners are placed together, with bodhisattvas and buddhas being listed separately. (DDB)
152. 一闡提: The icchantika is generally understood as a person who is not capable of attaining the Buddhist goal of enlightenment, best known as a component in the five-nature taxonomy of proclivities for enlightenment articulated by the Yogâcāra school, where it represents a category of sentient beings who are deemed incapable of attaining nirvāṇa. The existence of such a class of beings was denied by such schools as Tiantai 天台 and Huayan 華嚴, whose doctrines strongly asserted the possibility of Buddhahood for all sentient beings. The passage cited here from the Laṅkâvatāra introduces the notion of bodhisattva-icchantikas. Since they have taken a vow to liberate all sentient beings, eschewing the goal of self-liberation, they, like real icchantikas, will never attain liberation. These people are called 大悲闡提, the greatly merciful icchantikas. However, since the Laṅkâvatāra is a Buddha-nature-oriented text, it ends up being only the bodhisattva-icchantikas who do not enter nirvāṇa, with the original notion of icchantika being rejected. The actual origins of this concept are more complex. See the entry in the DDB for details. (DDB)
153. A summary of the point of the passage at T 671.16.527b2–7.
154. In the source text, the logograph 可 is included here (T 1595.31.265a12).
155. In the source text, the logograph 得 is included here (T 1595.31.265a13).
156. (1) 信根 the faculty of faith, (2) 精根 the faculty of effort, (3) 念根 the faculty of mindfulness, (4) 定根 the faculty of concentration, (5) 慧根 the faculty of wisdom. (DDB)
157. These are the three uncontaminated faculties 三無漏根, which are (1) to realize the principle of the four noble truths, which one did not know before 未知當知根; this is the faculty required by a practitioner in the darśana mārga 見道, who is occupied in knowing what he heretofore did not know (anājñātam ājñāsyāmîndriya); (2) to study further the four noble truths in order to destroy defilements; that which is already known 已知根; in the bhāvanā mārga 修道 he knows the truth already and therefore has nothing new to know, and is a “savant” (ājña); even though he knows all he needs to, however, he must ponder it again and again (bhāvanā), and the faculty with which he does so is ājñêndriya; (3) to know that one has comprehended the principle of the four noble truths 具知根; when he reaches the “way of the aśaikṣa” 無學 he becomes conscious that he understands, and is therefore an ājñātāvin and his faculty is known as the ājñātāvîndriya. (DDB)
158. 頂法: Also called the “highest worldly meditative state”; interpreted as the stage wherein, after entering the stage of patience 忍位 where one does not retrogress, one enters into the Path of Seeing 見道; the stage where one falls back to the stage of warmth 煗位 and into negative rebirths. Vacillating unstably with wholesome faculties 善根, one ascends to one’s peak on the verge of advancing or falling back, cultivating the sixteen defining activities of the four noble truths 十六行相. Having reached to this stage, even if one falls into the hells, one’s good faculties will not be severed. (DDB)
159. 忍位: The stage just prior to the entry into sagehood, where the seeds of merit are firmly established; one of the four good faculties 四善根. (DDB)
160. In the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, the four are (1) Determined śrāvakas 決定聲聞, also called śrāvakas one-pointedly aiming for nirvāṇa 一向趣寂聲聞 and śrāvakas by inherent nature 種性聲聞. They are content in this status, and do not seek the Great Vehicle. (2) Śrāvakas retrogressing from enlightenment 退菩提聲聞, also called śrāvakas aiming to be bodhisattvas 迴向菩提聲聞. They were originally bodhisattvas, but lost their motivation, drifting back into this state. (3) Transformation śrāvakas 應化聲聞, also written as 變化聲聞. These śrāvakas are originally bodhisattvas, and inwardly they secretly maintain bodhisattva practices, but outwardly maintain the śrāvakas’ appearance, as a strategy for teaching sentient beings. (4) Arrogant śrāvakas 增上慢聲聞, who claim to have attained enlightenment, and look down on others. These śrāvakas hate saṃsāra and enjoy nirvāṇa. (DDB)
161. The source text has minor differences. 向說何義。爲欲迴轉誹謗大乘心不求大乘心故。依無量時故、如是說。以彼實有淸淨性故。不得說言彼常畢 竟無淸淨性。又依相應義故。 (T 1611.31.831b5–9).
162. We take the repetition of the words 第二第二 here in the source text to be an error.
163. In the text where this is cited, seven types of arrogant śrāvakas are described, with this one being the fourth. See T 1519.26.8b15–17: 四者實無謂有增上慢心。以有世間三昧三摩跋提、實無涅槃生涅槃想、如是倒取、對治此故爲說化城譬喩應知. The parable of the conjured city 化城喩 is one of the seven major parables of the Lotus Sūtra. In this story, a group of people were making a journey to reach a jeweled city, but became exhausted along the way. A wise man, through his magical powers, manifested an apparition of a jeweled city for the people to rest in. Once they had recovered from their exhaustion, he allowed the mirage of the jeweled city to fade way so the people could once again resume their journey to the real city. So it is with the Hīnayāna nirvāṇa, which is just a temporary resting place on the road to the ultimate goal of Mahāyāna. Hīnayāna nirvāṇa, like the transformed city, is merely an upāya to lead the person a higher end.
164. 第四人者、方便令入涅槃城故。涅槃城者、所謂諸禪三昧城故。過彼城已、然後令入大涅槃城故。(T 1520.26.8c3–5).
165. 分段生死: Delimited cyclic existence; fragmentary birth and death (Skt. pariccheda-jarā-maraṇa). The situation of life and death experienced by unenlightened persons who wander about in the world of delusion. Distinguished from miraculous saṃsāra 變易生死, the saṃsāra experienced by bodhisattvas. (DDB)
166. 變易生死: Miraculous or inconceivable saṃsāra (Skt. parinamiki-jarā-maraṇa). The saṃsāra experienced by enlightened bodhisattvas, as opposed to the “delimited saṃsāra” 分段生死 experienced by unenlightened people. It is the cyclic existence that is experienced from the time of being freed from the body of transmigration through the triple realm up to the attainment of buddhahood. (DDB)
167. 是故阿羅漢辟支佛、有餘生。法不盡故、有生有餘。梵行不成故、不純事。不究竟故、當有所作。不度彼故、當有所斷。以不斷故、去涅槃界遠。何以故。唯有如來應正等覺得般涅槃、成就一切功德故。阿羅漢辟支佛、不成就一切功德。言得涅槃者、是佛方便、唯有如來得般涅槃、成就無量功德故、阿羅漢辟支佛、成就有量功德。 T 353.12.219c1–9. See Paul, Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā, pp. 30–31.
168. 須陀洹: A transliteration of the Sanskrit srota-āpanna, translated into Chinese as 入流, 預流, and 至流; also rendered in English as “stream-enterer.” It is the first of the four realizations 四果 of the śrāvaka path, which eventually leads to the level of arhat. The practitioner succeeds in breaking the deluded view of the three worlds and pushing his/her own karmic flow clearly onto the path of enlightenment. A practitioner who is fully established in the course of Buddhist practice and who has entered the stage of the Path of Cultivation. (DDB)
169. 菩薩善戒經: Pusa shanjie jing (Sūtra on the Wholesome Morality of the Bodhisattvas); trans. Guṇavarman; 9 fasc.; T 1582. Provides a detailed account of the bodhisattva practices. (DDB)
170. 菩薩地持經: Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra (Pusa diqi jing); trans. into Chinese by Dharmakṣema (C.E. 414–421 or 426); 10 fasc.; T 1581. It was originally called a śāstra, and is said to be the teaching of Maitreya as recorded by Asaṅga. It explains in detail the practices of the Mahāyāna Bodhisattva. In East Asian Buddhism, it is usually grouped together with the Sūtra of Brahma’s Net. It was translated by Guṇabhadra into the nine-fascicle Pusa shanjie jing 菩薩善戒經 and by Xuanzang as part of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra 瑜伽師地論. (DDB)
171. The full text reads: 若一向趣寂聲聞種性補特伽羅、雖蒙諸佛施設種種勇猛加行方便化導、終不能令當坐道場證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。(T 676.16.695a22–25).
172. 大菩薩藏經: The Da pusa zang jing. Part of the Ratnakūṭa sūtra; trans. Xuanzang in 645; included in T 310 [sūtra 12] secs. 35–54). The brunt of the Ratnakūṭa was translated by Bodhiruci (706) and Dharmarakṣa (313), though many other translators contributed selections. According to Xuanzang’s biography, the last text he was asked to translate was the complete Ratnakūṭa. He began, but sickness and age prevented him from getting very far. (DDB)
173. 正定聚: Among three classes of sentient beings 三聚, those who are fully set on attaining enlightenment (Skt. niyata-rāśi). This usually refers to bodhisattvas who have entered the middle level of practice, such as the ten abodes 十住, and who have solidified their practice to the degree that they will not retrogress. (DDB)
174. The full text is as follows: 舍利子、云何名爲正定之性。謂由因力先世方便、開智利根之所生故、若諸如來爲彼說法、若不說法、如來如實知彼有情前世因果堪任法器、隨應說法令速解脫。 (T 310.11.219c8–11). 舍利子、云何名爲邪定之性。謂有情性煩惱所蔽不修淨業、識性薄弱愚癡深厚、住邪見網非正法器、若使如來爲彼說法、若不說法、終不堪任證於解脫, 如來如實知彼有情非法器已而便捨置。 (T 310.11.219c16–21).
175. 三聚: The three classes of sentient beings, in terms of their determination toward enlightenment, are (1) those who are certain of following correct paths 正性定聚, (2) those who will follow evil paths 邪性定聚, and (3) those whose course is undecided 不定聚. While precise definitions of these categories vary according to the text, it is a widely-used characterization that can be seen in major texts from the Abhidharma, Yogâcāra, Tathāgatagarbha, and Pure Land traditions. (DDB)
176. The source text reads: 可治不可治 唯二無有三 若作三分別 亦是聲聞乘。 (T 120.2.529c7–8). 所言邪定者 謂彼一闡提 正定謂如來 菩薩及二乘。 (T 120.2.529c11–12).
177. 衆生調伏者有四種。一者有聲聞性得聲聞道。二者有緣覺性得緣覺道。三者有佛性得佛道。四者有人天性得人天樂。是名爲四、是名衆生調伏。(T 1582.30.974a19–23).
178. Following the source text, changing 人 to 入.
179. 正性離生: The correct nature free from arising (of afflictions) is a reference to the Path of Seeing (Skt. darśana-mārga). “Correct nature” refers to the undefiled sagely path. “Free from arising” means that the afflictions arisen by discrimination have been eliminated (Skt. niyāmāvakrānti). (DDB)
180. The full text reads: 若有情類於聲聞乘性決定者、聞此法已、速能證得自無漏地。若有情類於獨覺乘性決定者、聞此法已、速依自乘而得出離。若有情類於無上乘性決定者、聞此法已、速證無上正等菩提。若有情類雖未已入正性離生、而於三乘性不定者、聞此法已、皆發無上正等覺心。(T 220.7.1066a29–b6)
181. 大方廣十輪經: Dafangguang shilun jing; trans. unknown; 8 fasc.; T 410; also known by the titles Fangguang shilun jing 方廣十輪經 and Shilun jing 十輪經. (DDB)
182. The source text has 成熟 rather than 成就 as provided in HBJ.
183. 善趣 refers to the two good destinies of rebirth as human or god. The original text reads: 人成熟者、略說四種。有聲聞種性、以聲聞乘而成熟之。有緣覺種性、以緣覺乘而成熟之。有佛種性、以無上大乘而成熟之。無種性者、則以善趣而成熟之。(T 1581.30.900a16–20).
184. 大乘莊嚴經論: Treatise on the Scripture of Adorning the Great Vehicle (Dasheng zhuangyanjing lun); attrib. Asaṅga; 13 fasc.; T 1604. According to some traditions, the verses were written by Maitreya and were expanded into prose form by Asaṅga, or his brother Vasubandhu. Translated into Chinese by Prabhākaramitra during 630–633. There is also a Tibetan translation. It is an important text for the Yogâcāra school, being one of the eleven treatises on which the Cheng weishi lun is based. Its contents are almost exactly the same as that of the chapter on the Bodhisattva Stages in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, with the most important discussions being in regard to: the bodhisattvas seeds, arousal of intention to save sentient beings, six perfections, and the merits of practice. (DDB)
185. The full text reads: 無般涅槃法者、是無性位。此略有二種。一者時邊般涅槃法、二者畢竟無涅槃法。時邊般涅槃法者有四種人。一者一向行惡行、二者普斷諸善法、三者無解脫分善根、四者善根不具足。畢竟無涅槃法者無因故、彼無般涅槃性、此謂但求生死不樂涅槃人。(T 1604.31.595a24–29).
186. The source text in Taishō has 被 rather than 彼.
187. 若衆生無涅槃性、名因不具。諸佛於此位中、不能令彼般涅槃,通慧亦無自在。無涅槃性、謂貪著生死不信樂大乘。(T 1595.31.261c17–20).
188. I.e., Xuanzang’s translation.
189. The Daye lun, usually listed as the 攝大乘論釋論 (Skt. Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha-bhāṣya). The translation by Dharmagupta et al., of Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha; 10 fasc.; T 1596. (DDB)
190. The full text says: 有情界周遍具障而闕因者、謂具煩惱業異熟障故名具障。猛利煩惱諸無間業愚戅頑嚚如其次第。無涅槃因無種性故、名爲闕因。 (T 1598.31.445b5–8).
191. 一聲聞種性、二獨覺種性、三如來種性、四不定種性、五無有出世功德種性。 (T 1530.26.298a13–15) 第五種性無有出世功德因故、畢竟無有得滅度期。(298a17–18).
192. The full text says: 衆生三聚行稠林差別有五種。一有涅槃法無涅槃法三乘中一向定差別、如經是菩薩如實知衆生三聚正定相邪定相離此二不定相故。(T 1522.26.189a18–21).
193. The full source text reads: 一切衆生悉有佛性、如來常住無有變易。(T 374.12.522c2).
194. The full source text reads: 問曰。云何得知一切衆生有如來藏。答曰、偈言、一切衆生界 不離諸佛智 以彼淨無垢 性體不二故 依一切諸佛 平等法性身 知一切衆生 皆有如來藏。(T 1611.31.813c23–2)
195. The full text reads: 善男子、譬如有人家有乳酪、有人問言、汝有蘇耶。答言、我有酪實非蘇、以巧方便定當得故。故言有蘇。(T 374.12.524c5–7).
196. This line is cited in the same way in two other late commentarial works found in Taishō, but with no clue as to the original source.
197. Source not located for either quotation.
198. The actual text reads: 聲聞緣覺乘皆入大乘、大乘者卽是佛乘。(T 353.12.222c19–20).
199. The full text reads: 菩薩未入二地生如此想、謂三乘人有三行差別、迷一乘理故稱無明。 (T 1595.31.221b22–24).
200. The full text reads: 聲聞緣覺菩薩亦爾、同一佛性猶如彼乳。所以者何。同盡漏故。(T 374.12.422c28–423a1).
201. 第二方便品有五分示現破二明一。(T 1520.26.10b22–23).
202. The full source text reads: 若得信等五根、不名定根、以未得聖故。(T 1595.31.265a7–8).
203. 正法華經: The Zhengfa hua jing (T 263) is the earliest Chinese translation of the Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra; it was translated in ten chapters and twenty-seven fascicles by Dharmarakṣa in 286. It traditionally has not been as popular as the translation by Kumārajīva (T 262). This translation corresponds with that of Kumārajīva in most respects, except that it contains several parables not found in the other version. (DDB)
204. The source text (which actually marks the initiation of a lengthy discussion) reads: 是人未來過八萬劫、便當得成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 (T 374.12.431c18–20).
205. Not extant. Listed in Uicheon’s Sinpyeon jejong gyojang chongnok ( 新編諸宗教藏總錄; Newly Compiled Comprehensive Record of the Canonical Works of the Various Schools) HBJ 4.695c18.
206. Following the note in HBJ, we change 客 to 寂 here.
207. Reading 或 as 惑.
208. The source text reads: 辟支佛者十千劫到。(T 374.12.491c3).
209. The full source text reads: 彼旣如是增壽行已、留有根身、別作化身、同法者前方便示現、於無餘依般涅槃界、而般涅槃。由此因緣皆作是念。某名尊者、於無餘依般涅槃界、已般涅槃、彼以所留有根實身、卽於此界贍部洲中、隨其所樂遠離而住、一切諸天尚不能覩、何況其餘衆生能見。(T 1579.30.749a20–26)
210. 首楞嚴三昧經: Shoulengyan sanmei jing (Sūtra of the Concentration of Heroic Progress); 2 fasc.; T 642. An early Mahāyāna sūtra, closely related in content to the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra 維摩經. The concentration explained here is the śūrāmgama, or “heroic progress,” named such because whoever possesses it goes everywhere in the manner of a hero (śūra) without meeting any resistance, or because it is frequented (gata) by those heroes the buddhas and bodhisattvas. The complete work is known at present through two translations: a Chinese translation made by Kumārajīva, probably between 402 and 409 C.E. and a Tibetan translation dating from the beginning of the ninth century C.E. ascribed to the collaboration of the Indian pandit Śākyaprabha and the Tibetan exegete Ratnarakṣita. (DDB)
211. In the second fascicle, at T 672.16.596c10–12, it says: 菩薩摩訶薩雖亦得此聖智境界、以憐愍衆生故、本願所持故、不證寂滅門及三昧樂. In the fourth fascicle, at T 672.16.607b28–c2, it says: 謂三四五地入於三昧、離種種心寂然不動、心海不起轉識波浪、了境心現皆無所有、是名入三昧樂意成身.
212. 邊際定 (Skt. prānta-koṭika-dhyāna): The fourth concentration of the form realm. In contrast to the three prior levels of concentration, in the fourth concentration, the mental functions of discursive thought 尋, fine analysis 伺, pain 苦, pleasure 樂, sadness 憂, happiness 喜, inhalation 入息, and exhalation 出息 (the so-called eight obstructions 八災患) have ceased, and calm abiding 止 and clear observation 觀 have become equalized. Thus it is the most subtle level of concentration. (DDB)
213. The Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra has 起 here instead of 趣.
214. 轉依: The conversion of the distorted modes of cognition germane to unenlightened beings. In Yogâcāra, this provides a detailed explanation as to what exactly occurs in the various types of mental functions in the process of the conversion from the unenlightened to the enlightened state. In this experience, each of the four broad categories of consciousness—the sense consciousnesses 五識, the thinking consciousness (mano) 意識, the self-centered (manas) consciousness 末那識, and the store (ālaya) consciousness 阿賴耶識—changes into an undefiled mode of function, henceforth becoming known as the four kinds of [purified] cognition 四智 (Skt. āśraya-parāvṛtti). (DDB)
215. The full text reads: 問。於無餘依涅槃界中、般涅槃已所得轉依、當言是有、當言非有。答當言是有。問當言何相。答。無戲論相、又善淸淨法界爲相。(T 1579.30.748b10–13).
216. The sensations discussed here are not simply the sensations that form a category of the five aggregates or the twelve limbs of dependent arising. They are the sensations of physical incapacitation 所依麤重受, which are discussed only in this passage, which also appears in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra.
217. In the Xuanzang translation this is T 676.16.702c24–25; in the Bodhiruci translation, T 675.16.679c5–6. The Chinese text reads: 如來常說無餘涅槃界中、一切受滅盡無餘.