---
title: "均如大師華嚴學全書 · 流轉章"
description: "均如大师华严学全书（第1卷-第9卷）是朝鲜高丽时期著名佛教高僧均如的华严宗著作集，由现代学者金知见编纂整理。均如大师（923-973）是高丽华严宗的重要代表人物，其思想融合了华严经义理与禅宗实践，对东亚佛教影响深远。全书系统收录了均如的华严学论述、注释及诗歌作品，集中体现了华严宗\"法界缘起\"\"事事无碍\"的核心教义，是研究朝鲜华严宗思想与中韩佛教交流的重要文献。该书不仅在高丽佛教史上占有重要地位，也为理解东亚华严学发展提供了珍贵资料。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmawebq32008nla04moh0kvbh"
---

### 流轉章

> The Chapter on Transmigration

前明三寶於法寶中有教理行果之四而理法之中有流轉生滅之義欲現此義故次来也又前明所迷三寶今此明迷於三寶生滅流轉之義故次來也此中先開數列章后初中已下依門別𥸩別𥸩中十門即為十叚初叚中先通𥸩生滅流轉之義后生滅違順下正𥸩違順初中先自意𥸩次引訂后皆是流轉等者結也引訂中經云者沮般經云如人捨命受大苦時宗親呼哭其人惶怖莫知依救雖有五情无所知覺攴即顫動不能自持身体虛冷暖氣欲盡見先所修善惡報相此陰滅時彼陰續生如燈生暗滅灯滅暗生善男子如臘印印泥印与泥合印滅文成而是臘印不變在泥文非泥出不余処来以印因緣而生是文現在陰滅中陰陰生是現在陰終不變為中陰五陰中陰五陰亦非自生不從余來因現陰故生中陰陰如印印泥印壞文成名雖无差而時即各異等又經云者苐三會偈也二生滅違順中先捻后別捻中一相違可知二相順中先正𥸩次問若前下問荅除疑后是故下結也問荅中有五重問荅初重問荅中初若前念至二念不並者帖前次既其滅已下正難后是故滅已無物下重難也初中若前念至不得生者正帖前二念不並者出所因次既其滅至不得生者正難以生无所依故者出所因也如論下引訂是故已下重難可知荅意者有断滅有剎𨚗滅若断滅則不得生后以剎𨚗滅故能生后也第二問荅問意者若是滅者即同無物若不同無物應非是滅荅中是剎𨚗滅必引后故不同无物者荅此剎𨚗滅不同无物之問若不引后非此滅故者荅應非是滅之問也若具云者若不引后非此滅故而引后故即此滅也今此言略也第三問荅問中无心定等者等取滅盡定也荅中一能依轉識麁等者入无心定等非是不生以能依轉識麁故入无心定若經劫數若便出定前后相望俱為等无間緣二所依本識細故流注相續也是故約能依轉識故入无心定若約本識則无入無心定之理也唯識章云七云何處無心定不可得耶如世尊說入无想及滅盡定當知尒時識不𮥷身若無阿賴耶識尒時應𮥷身識若𮥷身便應捨命非謂處之定已上雖入滅定由有阿賴耶識故前后流注相續不絕也第四問荅中荅意者小乘中但論六識不知有賴耶末那是故云入無余滅根識永滅不得更生若終教中說此入滅之人不滅賴耶末𨚗不断根本无明是故更起心想受變易身行菩薩道以無眾生作非眾生者小乘中謂入滅人灰断永滅故云非眾生終教則不尒故云尒也是故瑜伽第八十云入無余滅人常居清淨界終不墮在天龍藥叉𠃵達波阿修羅迦樓羅緊𨚗羅摩睺羅迦人非人等眾生數中已上小乘及始教云入无余滅則非眾生數也四記論者俱舍論云一向記󷒤問記嘿然記分別記也又佛地論第六云一向記分別記反問記嘿然記也謂一向記者如有問言一切生者決定滅耶佛法僧寶名福田耶如是等問應一向記此義應决定故分別記者如有問言滅者定更生耶如是等問應分別記何者煩惱已断更不生三界若不尽断者還生三界故分別也反問記者如有問言北洲南洲何勝何劣應反問言問何勝劣若問福之勝劣北洲則勝南閻浮提則劣也若問善根北洲則樂多苦小故劣南閻浮提則苦多樂小多有樂求佛法之人故勝也默然記者外道之人手握活鳥問生与死又立門閫問入与出應嘿然不荅也滅者復生分別記者此約小乘者小乘中言滅者復生則但對外道故分別而云汝之所立滅不生者實是生也我宗所立断煩惱滅者實不生也若約終教則小乘滅者實是生也第五問荅荅中先正荅次引訂后是故流轉等者結也引訂中經云者楞伽經又經云者維摩經也三中亦違亦順中若不滅生无以生生等者滅彼生故滅違於生然不滅彼生則无以生生由滅生故得生生故順於生也依彼滅故生順於滅然而背滅故生違於滅也非句中具形奪无寄二義故由前二義相形奪者形奪也无二為一下无寄也以順奪違故唯順無違故云无二為一以違奪順故唯違无順故無二為一也第二別解者前則通舉前念后念論生滅此中前念開引后与滅壞二義后念開依前与背前二義故云別解也由滅壞不異至亦違亦順者由滅壞故亦違不異引后故亦順也由依前義故亦順不異背前故亦違也由滅壞至非違非順者滅壞故非順客引后故非違也背前故非順容依前故非違也更有句數者或具前四以解境故或絕前五以行境故等也第二断常者亦先捴后別捴則通約前后念別則前后念中各開二義也別中由滅壞至不常者以滅壞故過去之法不至未來以背前故未來之法不至過去各各不動故法不至法也是故昨日已滅故昨日之法不至明日明日未起故明日之法不至昨日也由引后至不断者前念位引后念位后念位依前念位故前后流注不絕也問何故不常所以中云法不至法不断所以中云位不絕位耶荅且舉一邊耳是故不常中亦得云位不至位不断中亦得云法不絕法等也謂前念位滅故生后念位故於不常中可云位不至位也前念法引后念法后念法依前念法故不断中可云法不絕法也不断至轉不轉无二故也者不断故恒流不常故不轉也不断之不常故恒流而不轉不常之不断故不轉而轉也非常非非常非断非非断者類類說故如是作句也󷒟則非常非非断非断非非常如是云也謂由滅壞違生后故由背前違依前故是故非常非非断反此則云由引后違滅壞故由依前違背前故是故不断非非常謂滅壞違引后故非常背前違依前故非非断也引后違滅壞故不断依前違背前故非非常也今此至非不流轉者約非常非非断義云非流轉約不断非非常義云非不流轉也第三一異中先捴后別揔中由前念引后等者何故一異門中不作不異而云俱不俱等耶荅一云不一門中作三句不異門中唯一句故謂不一門中由前念滅壞与背前故不一前念引后与后念背前故不一前念滅壞与后念依前故不一是則三句也不異門中一向前念引后与后念依前故不異故唯一句如是略故不作也而云等者等取不異句与不一句中不作之二句也一云有无中一后念中背前義是有二前念中滅壞義是无三后念中依前義是非有四前念中引后義是非無是故后念背前義与前念引后義齊是有故不異然前念后念異故不一此二不相難故俱此二絕故不俱也又前念滅壞義与后念依前義等是無故不異然前念后念異故不一此二不相難故俱此二絕故不俱也如是可作二重四句是故等者亦可云等取不現作之二重四句也別中亦四謂前后非一等者后念中背義与依前義為二故不一此二无二故不異此二不難故俱上之三句絕故不俱也又前念中滅壞義与引后義為二故不一此二不二故不異此二不難故俱雙泯故不俱也如是前后念中各開四句是則云前后非一者非謂四句中不一之句是前念后念各別不一中各開四句也又交終相望等者前后二念各開四句又通約二念論四句謂前念引后義与依前義故不異前念滅壞義与后念背前義故不一不相難故俱㸦形𡙸故不俱也既云又交絡相望故捴中立論亦得也第四有無中何故標云有四句𥸩則具說七句耶荅二義可見一義者從初四句而摽加后三句開論存泯及与无尋而𥸩也謂澄觀和上廣狹門中云唯廣唯狹俱不俱乘此而云五具前四以解境故六絕前五以行境故至於中門云四句六句可准知之已上四句謂唯攝唯舒俱不俱也六句謂解境行境也今此亦尒摽中四句從初四句說也𥸩中后三從解行境通前說也一義者雖是七句不出於四謂初一是有次一是無第三四六是非有非無第五句是亦有亦无也第七句中存則第五泯則第六也是故七句即四句也經云者楞伽經云一切法不生我說剎𨚗義初生即有滅不為愚人說一切法不生訂泯義我說剎那義訂存義也第六前后中亦二先捴后別通論意者以前捴中唯約非初非中后作四句故略故名捴此中非唯如前非初非中後論四句亦約前中后取論四句廣故名別也初捴中初三句則非初非中后意也苐四句則還是前中后取意故若作不俱則非非前后非非同時意也是故此不俱句者是前中后取之意然而非初非中后中三句之不俱義故是故當於非初非中后之四句也是故引訂中非初非中后者訂初三句前中后取故者訂苐四不俱句也別中通論等者初三句則前中后取之意也第四句則還是非初非中后之意然而以前中后取為詮所論故是故當於前中后取之四句也第七約時世初趣向中二依后向前至還無等者本无則未來今有則現在還无則過去是故此意者明日則未起故本无至明日則已起故今有明日至已即滅故還无也即當來作現在現在現滅為過去等者明日是未起故為當來至於明日則為現在而明日滅則為過去是故尒云也三由前二義不相難等者向后故生无盡然向前故無不滅也向前故滅無積然向无不生也四由前二義形𡙸等者非向后故滅无積然非向前故无滅也非向前故生无盡然非向后故無生也第二約相成中有五句云云三由前二門至三世俱泯等者光明覺品多中無一性一亦無有多如是二俱捨普入佛功德已上新䟽𥸩云一多相依㸦為本末然有四義一相成義一多俱有㸦相待故有力俱存二相容義形𡙸兩亡以相依故各无性也已上与此何別荅約三世約一多故詮則有異義乃無二也問若尒於異体本法訂中亦以力無力義為訂耶荅但約相由為訂非以力無力義為訂也第三時法中有五門一時不流而法轉者若約我身說則九歲十歲時三十四十時六十七十時各別非是九与十歲時去入三十四十時非謂三十四十時去入五十六十時各各住故云時不流也今我此身從九歲十歲時至五十六十時故云法轉也此中先標次謂已下𥸩后此即約時已下結也𥸩中先𥸩法轉后然過去已下𥸩時不流也初中先正𥸩此是法轉者結也后時不流中先正𥸩此時不流者結也捴結中約時念念間断者結時不流也約法相續恒流者結法轉也二法不轉而時迁者芽長花開則春葉茂枝繁則夏菓熟葉𮕱則秋𠬧藏皈根則冬則春之芽長花開不迁入夏之葉茂枝繁夏之葉茂枝繁不迁至秋之菓熟葉𮕱等故法不轉然時莭則依前起后前后流注相續不絕故云時迁也此中分科叚如前准也問何󰿣時法中各有流不流耶荅前念時法中滅壞義后念時法中背前義是故時法各有不流之義前念時法中引后義后念時法中依前義是故時法各有流轉之義也三俱迁者約苐一法轉第二時迁也四非迁者約第一時不流第二法不轉故云非迁也五合前四句不相難等者約第一法轉第二時迁及苐三句全故云不動而流也約第一時不流第二法不轉及第四句全故云迁而不易也第八因果門一無中前因已滅等者過去既滅故非是判現在果之因當來未起故非望現因而得為果又當念不住故非因果是則昨日已滅故非今日之因明日未起故非望今日之因而得為果是故云對誰稱果也當念不住等者若約今日午時則已時已滅故同於昨日之滅未時未起故同於明日之未起又約此午時第二刻則初刻已過故同於巳時之已滅第三刻未起故同於未時之未起又約此一刻欲求剎𨚗之相剎󱞑剎󱞑元來不住故云當念不住也二有中如論云者唯識論也三俱中由引后至亦因亦非因者由引后故亦因也而不異滅壞故亦非因也由酬前至亦果亦非果者由酬前故亦果也不異背前故亦非果也四俱泯至非因非非回者由滅壞故非因不異引后故非非因也由背前至非果非非果者由背前故非果不異酬前故非非果也此二門復不異故非因果非非因果者約前非因非果合為非因果約前非非因非非果合為非非因果也又若因果已下前論非因果今此亦遣非因果也第九真妄中先開數列名后初中已下𥸩𥸩中從初中至從此至彼者立宗也以生滅法下出所以也論云者正意菩薩十二囙緣論中偈云煩惱初八九業二及与十余七說為苦三攝十二法從三故生二從二故生七從七復生三是故如輪轉一切世間法法因果无人但從於空法還生於空法已上初八九者無明愛取三為煩惱道行与有為業道余並為苦道也三攝十二者煩惱是捴故攝十二尽也從三故生二者由煩惱故造業也從二故生七者由業故感苦報也從七復生三者於此苦上又起惑造業受於苦報流轉不已猶如車輪也一切世間法法因果无人者訂无人也但從於空法還生於空法者訂下無法也二無法中先𥸩无法次但緣起力已下遣伏執初中此生滅法者捴举次由后依前起至前念而來者舉后念法無從前生起之義𥸩現无法也由前滅至后位者舉前念法不至后念之義𥸩現法无也是故下結結中前念无法可去至后念者結后叚后念无法可從前念來者結初叚初中由后依前起后無自性等者舉依前義𥸩現无法此意者后依前起后則无体是故后念法体不從前來故知法之無也由后背前等者舉背前義𥸩現无法此意者以后背前故前不及后是故后法不從前來故知法之无也云此亦者前舉依前𥸩无法中云不從前念而來對此舉背前義𥸩無法云不從前念而來故云此亦也由前滅壞故無法可至后念者举滅壞義𥸩無法此意者前念之法已滅壞故前法不至后念故知無法也由能引后義故体非后位攝等者舉引后義𥸩現無法此意者以前念能引后故后念之法不攝前念是故前念不至后念故知法之無也二中伏執云前中說无人无法若尒何故現見有生滅流轉故今遣云󷒟無人法而以緣起力故似有相續也三相盡中先𥸩后問荅除疑初中從初至無体也者現三世之体空也又復思惟已下現来去住相本自尽也又細思惟下別約現在法現体空也當念速故不能自住者如空中雨滴既𮥷於上又不至下不於中住於三際中求其住相永不可得此亦尒也以𮥷首尾者首則過去尾則未來若𮥷過未即无体也且約午時而說巳時已滅同於昨日無未時未至同於明日无又於午時約第二刻說初刻已過故同巳時无三刻未至故同未時無又此一刻中若細分首尾則現在之体永不可得是則前中捴相而說故云當念速故不能住也今此深細而𥸩故云經思惟等也問荅中荅中先以自意荅經云下引訂也初中從初至無不是真空者正荅不㝵假有方是真空者現真空異断空也是故下捴結也正荅意者以同過未之空無為現假有故此假有即真空也断空者猶穿井𭏚方得為空是故滅色方為空也外道断滅皈於大虛小乘断滅皈於涅般今此則不破假有即為真空是故異於滅色為空也經云者大品經又經云者般若經也四理現者前現虛相皆尽今說真理露現也先自意𥸩次論中已下引訂后諸佛菩薩已下現悲智不住也初中即由如是相自尽等者帖前相尽說真理現也引訂中現楊論云真如有六種一流轉真如二󷒟相真如三唯識真如四安立真如五邪行真如六清淨真如七淨行真如也又經云者涅般經也悲智不住中先法說次喻說后依此道理下結成也第十成觀二叚可知初中先識妄念后引訂初中先現能緣所緣𮥷相即空次既知下知法不有傷己顛倒后又復思惟下重現能緣所緣不有也初中既思惟下昨日已滅无明日未至無當念不住无如約一刻分首尾則乃至一念悉无所有永不可得故云一念无念也非唯所念之法如是不有能緣之心亦尒過去不至現在現在不至未來㸦不及也相即空者帖前相尽性本現者帖前理現也經云者普賢觀經也二成觀中先說解行二門后問荅除疑也初中解可知行中亦二一始思惟彼法等者法界觀云第四泯絕無寄觀者謂此所觀真空不可言即色不即色亦不可言即空不即空一切皆不可不可亦不可此語亦不受逈絕無寄非言所及非解所到已上從此觀義說也言說不及者言語道断也念慮不到者心行処滅也問一切並絕既是行始何者為終耶荅玄鏡𥸩此語亦不受等云若受不可言是即有受有受則有念皆是心言之󱛙故逈絕無寄二邊既𮥷中道不存心境兩亡土絕無寄般若現矣已上般若現前是行終也是故第六地中初七八平等以无破有苐九平等以有破無苐十平等有无双破如是苐十平等中具說亦有亦无非有非无󵓕四句然后四句双泯百非頓絕方為般若現前之因已上則四句絕是生般若之因故名行始般若現前方名行終也此亦是至初地真觀中時正体智与真󴖻合境智双融之義也若於乃至作無念󵓕者諸見絕処即是真行何得而言絕亦絕耶故令遣云若言一切皆絕即作無念之解若作无念之解亦是妄念故非󷒟行故云絕亦絕也二終謂以念智照無相境者正体智照真也非照非境者以境智双融故无有境外智來照於境亦无智外境為智所照也非照非境者令絕止也无觀无不觀者令絕觀也四威儀中常作一切者觀也而无所作者止也双行無㝵者止觀双運也后問荅問中此一門无念者帖前行門何湏如上廣分別者望解始終云也荅中若不如前󵓕者示有解始若不解知等者示有解終謂解終云正行不如所解是故今此欲令知解行之別故示有解終也設捴无知已下示无知之失謂无所知曉是過之大者是故如上分別令廣知也經云者大乘同性經也十輪經中僧有四一第一義僧謂諸佛菩薩辟支佛四果聖人二清淨僧謂持具足戒三啞羊僧謂不知智凢不知輕重之罪可懺不親近善知識不諮問是義非義无智而不起言如噁羊故四无慚无愧僧謂欲活命故入於佛法恣於六情而常著五欲樂者又智論第四云是僧有四種云何有羞僧持戒不破身口清淨能別好醜未得道名有羞僧云何无羞僧謂破諸戒身口不淨無惡不作是名无羞僧云何啞羊僧雖不破戒鈍根无惠不別好醜不知輕重不知有罪無罪若有僧事二人共諍不能断結嘿然无言猶如白羊不能作声名啞羊僧云何󷒟僧若學人若无學人住四果中行四向道是名突僧无慧修靜慮等者唯修智惠不修靜慮失在狂惠唯修靜慮不修智慧失在頑癡双修㝎惠方免狂癡之失也並如別說者智者禪師十卷止觀章主起信論䟽󵓕也。

> First, I will clarify the meaning of the Three Jewels. Within the Dharma Jewel, there are the teachings, principles, practices, and fruits. Among the principles, there is the meaning of cyclic existence—birth and death. To illustrate this, this section follows. Also, previously we clarified the Three Jewels as objects of confusion. Now, this section clarifies the confusion regarding the Three Jewels and the meaning of birth, death, and cyclic flow. Hence, this section follows. Here, we first open with a numerical list and chapter arrangement. After the initial section, we explain according to the divisions. In the detailed explanation, the ten divisions become ten segments. In the first segment, we first generally explain the meaning of birth, death, and cyclic flow. Then, under "birth and death, accord and conflict," we properly explain accord and conflict. In the initial part, we first explain according to our own intention, then cite scriptures for verification. Then, "all these are cyclic flow" is the conclusion. In the scriptural citation, the sutra says: "Like a person who, at the moment of losing their life and experiencing great suffering, has relatives crying out in grief. That person, in terror and confusion, knows not where to seek refuge. Although they still have the five sense faculties, they are unaware of anything. Their limbs tremble and cannot hold themselves steady. Their body becomes weak and cold, and their vital breath is about to end. They see the karmic signs of good and evil deeds previously performed. When this aggregate of form ceases, another aggregate arises. Like a lamp being born while darkness perishes, or darkness being born while the lamp perishes. "Good man, it is like stamping a seal into wax. The seal and wax merge together. When the seal is removed, the impression is formed. Yet the wax seal itself does not transform into the impression. The impression does not come from the wax, nor does it come from elsewhere. It is due to the cause and condition of the seal that this impression is produced. "Likewise, when the present aggregate ceases, the intermediate aggregate arises. The present aggregate never transforms into the intermediate five aggregates. The intermediate five aggregates neither arise by themselves, nor do they come from elsewhere. Due to the cause of the present aggregates, the intermediate aggregates arise. Like the seal impressing the wax—when the seal is destroyed, the impression is formed. Although there is no difference in name, yet the times are distinct." Another sutra passage, from the third assembly, is in verse form. \*\*2. In the section on "birth and death, accord and conflict,"\*\* there is first a general explanation, then a detailed one. In the general explanation, the meaning of "one contradiction" is evident. In "one accordance," we first properly explain, then "If the previous..." introduces questions and answers to resolve doubts. Finally, "therefore" is the conclusion. In the Q&A, there are five rounds of questions and answers. \*\*First round:\*\* In the question, "If the previous moment..." through "two moments cannot coexist" refers to the previous statement. "Since it has already ceased..." is the proper rebuttal. "Therefore, after cessation, there is no thing" is the further rebuttal. In the initial part, "If the previous moment... cannot arise" properly refers to the previous statement. "Two moments cannot coexist" gives the reason. "Since it has already ceased... cannot arise" is the proper rebuttal, with "because arising has nothing to rely on" as the reason. "As the treatise says" is the scriptural citation. "Therefore" and following is the further rebuttal. The meaning of the answer: There is annihilation and there is momentary cessation. If it were annihilation, then the latter could not arise. Because of momentary cessation, the latter can arise. \*\*Second round:\*\* The question's intent: If it is cessation, it is the same as non-existence. If it is not the same as non-existence, it should not be cessation. In the answer: "This momentary cessation necessarily leads to the latter, therefore it is not the same as non-existence"—this answers the question of how momentary cessation differs from non-existence. "If it did not lead to the latter, it would not be this cessation"—this answers the question of whether it should be cessation. Expanding: If it did not lead to the latter, it would not be this cessation; because it leads to the latter, it is precisely this cessation. The text here is abbreviated. \*\*Third round:\*\* In the question, "non-mind concentration" etc. includes the concentration of cessation. In the answer: First, "the dependent consciousness is coarse"—entering non-mind concentration does not mean there is no arising, because the dependent consciousness is coarse. When entering non-mind concentration, whether for eons or upon emerging, before and after are equally "equal non-interrupted conditions." Second, "the ground consciousness is subtle, flowing continuously." Therefore, regarding the dependent consciousness, one enters non-mind concentration; but regarding the ground consciousness, there is no principle of entering non-mind concentration. The Consciousness-Only chapter says: "Why is it said that in non-mind concentration, the mind is not absent? As the World-Honored One said, 'When entering the concentration of non-thought and the concentration of cessation, know that at that time consciousness does not leave the body.' If there were no storehouse consciousness, at that time consciousness would leave the body. If consciousness left the body, one would die, not be in concentration."<note>End</note> Although one enters the concentration of cessation, because of the storehouse consciousness, before and after flow continuously without interruption. \*\*Fourth round:\*\* In the answer's intent: In the Small Vehicle, only the six consciousnesses are discussed, with no knowledge of the storehouse consciousness or the manas. Therefore it is said that entering remainderless nirvana, the sense faculties and consciousness are eternally extinguished and cannot arise again. In the Final Teaching, it is said that those who enter such cessation do not extinguish the storehouse consciousness or manas, nor do they cut off fundamental ignorance. Therefore, they can again produce thoughts, cognition, undergo transformation bodies, and practice the bodhisattva path. Regarding "there are no sentient beings who are non-sentient beings": In the Small Vehicle, those who enter cessation are said to be completely annihilated, hence "non-sentient beings." In the Final Teaching, it is not so, hence "sentient beings." Thus, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states in section 80: "Those who enter remainderless cessation always abide in the pure realm, never falling into the categories of sentient beings such as gods, dragons, yakṣas, gandharvas, asuras, garuḍas, kiṃnaras, mahoragas, humans, non-humans, etc."<note>End</note> The Small Vehicle and the Initial Teaching say that entering remainderless cessation means not being counted among sentient beings. \*\*Regarding the four types of records (vyākaraṇa):\*\* The \*Abhidharma-kośa\* says: "Direct answer, question-answer, silent answer, and analytical answer." Also, the \*Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra\* (chapter 6) says: "Direct answer, analytical answer, counter-question answer, and silent answer." - \*\*Direct answer (ekāṃśa-vyākaraṇa):\*\* For example, if asked, "Do all the living definitely die? Are the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha jewels fields of merit?" Such questions should be answered directly—this meaning should be decided. - \*\*Analytical answer (vibhajya-vyākaraṇa):\*\* For example, if asked, "Does the one who ceases definitely arise again?" Such questions should be answered analytically: "Which afflictions, once cut off, do not arise again in the three realms? If not completely cut off, one is still born in the three realms." Hence it is analytical. - \*\*Counter-question answer (paripṛcchā-vyākaraṇa):\*\* For example, if asked, "Between the northern continent and the southern continent, which is superior and which inferior?" One should counter-ask: "What superiority or inferiority are you asking about?" If asking about superiority in merit, the northern continent is superior; the southern Jambudvīpa is inferior. If asking about good roots, the northern continent has more pleasure and less suffering, so it is inferior; the southern Jambudvīpa has more suffering and less pleasure but has people who joyfully seek the Dharma, so it is superior. - \*\*Silent answer (sthānīya-vyākaraṇa):\*\* When a non-Buddhist holds a live bird in hand and asks whether it is alive or dead, or stands at a threshold and asks whether one enters or exits, one should remain silent and not answer. "The one who ceases arises again—analytical answer." This is from the Small Vehicle perspective. In the Small Vehicle, saying "the one who ceases arises again" is specifically for non-Buddhists, so it is analytical: "What you call cessation and non-arising is in fact arising. What our tradition calls cutting off afflictions and cessation truly does not arise." From the Final Teaching perspective, the Small Vehicle's cessation is in fact arising. \*\*Fifth round:\*\* In the answer, there is first the proper answer, then scriptural citations, and finally "therefore, cyclic flow" is the conclusion. In the scriptural citations, one sutra is the \*Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra\*, and another is the \*Vimalakīrti Sūtra\*. \*\*3. In the section on "both accord and conflict":\*\* "Without cessation, there is no arising" means: ceasing that arisal is "ceasing that conflicts with arising." However, without ceasing that arisal, there would be no way for arising to arise. Because one ceases arising, one can cause the next arising. Hence, it "accords with arising." "Depending on that cessation, arising accords with cessation; yet turning away from cessation, arising conflicts with cessation." In the "neither" clause, there are two meanings: mutual opposition and non-dependence. Because the previous two meanings oppose each other (mutual opposition). "No two, one" is non-dependence. When accordance overcomes conflict, only accordance remains, no conflict—hence "no two, one." When conflict overcomes accordance, only conflict remains, no accordance—hence "no two, one." \*\*Second detailed explanation:\*\* The previous section generally discussed the previous and next moments in terms of birth and death. Here, the previous moment is analyzed into two aspects: leading to the next and destruction. The next moment is analyzed into two aspects: depending on the previous and turning away from the previous. Hence it is called "detailed explanation." "Because destruction is not different..." through "both accord and conflict": Because of destruction, there is also conflict; because it is not different from leading to the next, there is also accordance. "Because of the meaning of depending on the previous, there is also accordance; because it is not different from turning away from the previous, there is also conflict." "Because of destruction... neither conflict nor accordance": Because of destruction, it is not accordance; because it leads to the next, it is not conflict. Because it turns away from the previous, it is not accordance; because it depends on the previous, it is not conflict. There are additional enumerations: either possessing the previous four to explain the sphere of objects, or transcending the previous five to explain the sphere of practice, etc. \*\*2. The second—permanence and annihilation:\*\* Here, first there is the general, then the specific. The general is about the previous and next moments together. The specific analyzes the previous and next moments, each opening two aspects. In the specific: "Because of destruction... not permanent": Because of destruction, the past dharmas do not reach the future. Because of turning away from the previous, future dharmas do not reach the past. Each is unmoving, so dharmas do not reach dharmas. Therefore, since yesterday has already ceased, yesterday's dharmas do not reach tomorrow. Since tomorrow has not arisen, tomorrow's dharmas do not reach yesterday. "Because of leading to the next... not annihilated": The previous moment's position leads to the next moment's position; the next moment's position depends on the previous moment's position. Therefore, before and after flow continuously without interruption. \*\*Question:\*\* Why, in the "not permanent" section, does it say "dharmas do not reach dharmas," and in the "not annihilated" section, "positions do not interrupt positions"? \*\*Answer:\*\* We are only presenting one side. Therefore, in "not permanent," we can also say "positions do not reach positions," and in "not annihilated," we can also say "dharmas do not interrupt dharmas." That is: The previous position ceases, giving rise to the next position. Hence, in "not permanent," we can say "positions do not reach positions." The previous dharmas lead to the next dharmas; the next dharmas depend on the previous dharmas. Hence, in "not annihilated," we can say "dharmas do not interrupt dharmas." "Not annihilated... because revolving and non-revolving are not two": Because it is not annihilated, it always flows. Because it is not permanent, it does not revolve. Because it is not annihilated and not permanent, it always flows without revolving. Because it is not permanent and not annihilated, it does not revolve yet revolves. "Neither permanent nor not permanent, neither annihilated nor not annihilated"—this is said in categories: Thus, "neither permanent nor not annihilated, neither annihilated nor not permanent." That is: - Because destruction contradicts the arising of the next, and turning away from the previous contradicts depending on the previous, hence "neither permanent nor not annihilated." - Conversely: Because leading to the next contradicts destruction, and depending on the previous contradicts turning away from the previous, hence "neither annihilated nor not permanent." That is: - Destruction contradicts leading to the next, hence not permanent. - Turning away from the previous contradicts depending on the previous, hence not not-annihilated. - Leading to the next contradicts destruction, hence not annihilated. - Depending on the previous contradicts turning away from the previous, hence not not-permanent. "Now this... is not non-flowing": Regarding the meaning of "neither permanent nor not annihilated," it is said to be "not flowing." Regarding the meaning of "neither annihilated nor not permanent," it is said to be "not non-flowing." \*\*3. The third—unity and difference:\*\* First general, then specific. In the general: "Because the previous moment leads to the next..."—Why, in the unity/difference gate, instead of making "not different," does it say "both, neither, etc."? \*\*Answer:\*\* One explanation: In the "not one" gate, three statements are made; in the "not different" gate, only one statement. That is: - In the "not one" gate: because the previous moment's destruction and turning away from the previous, there is "not one." - Because the previous moment leads to the next and the next moment turns away from the previous, there is "not one." - Because the previous moment's destruction and the next moment's depending on the previous, there is "not one." These are three statements. - In the "not different" gate: solely because the previous moment leads to the next and the next moment depends on the previous, there is "not different." Hence only one statement. Being concise, these were not made. The "etc." includes the "not different" statement and the two statements not made in the "not one" gate. Another explanation: In "existence and non-existence": 1. The next moment's "turning away from the previous" aspect is existence. 2. The previous moment's "destruction" aspect is non-existence. 3. The next moment's "depending on the previous" aspect is neither existence nor non-existence. 4. The previous moment's "leading to the next" aspect is neither non-existence nor existence. Therefore: - The next moment's "turning away from the previous" aspect and the previous moment's "leading to the next" aspect are both existence, hence "not different." Yet the previous and next moments differ, hence "not one." These two do not conflict, hence "both." These two are transcended, hence "neither." - The previous moment's "destruction" aspect and the next moment's "depending on the previous" aspect are both non-existence, hence "not different." Yet the previous and next moments differ, hence "not one." These two do not conflict, hence "both." These two are transcended, hence "neither." Thus, two sets of four statements can be made. "Therefore, etc."—one may also say it includes the two sets of four statements not explicitly presented. In the specific, there are also four aspects: - "Previous and next are not one": The next moment's "turning away" and "depending on the previous" aspects are two, hence "not one." These two are not two, hence "not different." These two do not conflict, hence "both." The above three statements are transcended, hence "neither." - Also, the previous moment's "destruction" and "leading to the next" aspects are two, hence "not one." These two are not two, hence "not different." These two do not conflict, hence "both." Both are obliterated, hence "neither." Thus, the previous and next moments each open four statements. "Previous and next are not one" does not mean only the "not one" statement of the four; rather, the previous and next moments each separately open four statements within "not one." "Also, interspersed and mutually facing" etc.: The previous and next moments each open four statements, and also together discussing the four statements across both moments: - The previous moment's "leading to the next" aspect and the next moment's "depending on the previous" aspect—hence "not different." - The previous moment's "destruction" aspect and the next moment's "turning away from the previous" aspect—hence "not one." - These two do not conflict, hence "both." - They mutually obliterate each other, hence "neither." Since it says "also interspersed and mutually facing," it is also permissible to establish these in the general discussion. \*\*4. The fourth—existence and non-existence:\*\* \*\*Question:\*\* Why does the text label "four statements" but the explanation fully states seven statements? \*\*Answer:\*\* Two meanings can be seen. One meaning: The label follows the first four statements, and the addition of the last three statements opens up the discussion of preservation, obliteration, and non-seeking. That is, Master Chengguan, in his "broad and narrow gate," says: "Only broad, only narrow, both, neither." Following this, the fifth statement possesses the previous four to explain the sphere of objects; the sixth transcends the previous five to explain the sphere of practice. As for the middle gate, he says, "Four statements and six statements can be known accordingly."<note>End</note> The four statements are: only encompassing, only unfolding, both, neither. The six statements are: the sphere of objects and the sphere of practice. Here too: the label's "four statements" refers to the first four statements. The explanation's last three statements, from the spheres of objects and practice, are added to the previous. Another meaning: Although there are seven statements, they do not go beyond four: 1. The first is existence. 2. The second is non-existence. 3. The third, fourth, and sixth are neither existence nor non-existence. 4. The fifth is both existence and non-existence. 5. In the seventh, "preservation" is the fifth; "obliteration" is the sixth. Thus, seven statements are exactly four statements. The sutra says (Laṅkāvatāra): "All dharmas are unarisen—I speak of the meaning of momentariness. At the first arising, there is already cessation; this is not spoken for the foolish." "All dharmas are unarisen" validates the obliteration meaning. "I speak of the meaning of momentariness" validates the preservation meaning. \*\*6. The sixth—before and after:\*\* Here too, there is first the general, then the specific. \*\*General intent:\*\* In the previous general section, only "not beginning, not middle, not end" was used to make four statements, hence it was called "general" for being abbreviated. Here, not only do we discuss the four statements in terms of "not beginning, not middle, not end" as before, but we also discuss the four statements in terms of "beginning, middle, end" from the other side. Hence it is "specific" for being extensive. In the initial general: - The first three statements express the intent of "not beginning, not middle, not end." - The fourth statement returns to the intent of the "beginning, middle, end" side. Therefore, if making "neither," it means "neither non-before-and-after, nor non-simultaneous." Hence, this "neither" statement belongs to the "beginning, middle, end" side. However, within "not beginning, not middle, not end," it is the "neither" of the three statements. Therefore, it belongs to the four statements of "not beginning, not middle, not end." Therefore, in the scriptural citation, "not beginning, not middle, not end" validates the first three statements; "beginning, middle, end" validates the fourth "neither" statement. In the specific: - The first three statements express the intent of "beginning, middle, end." - The fourth statement returns to the intent of "not beginning, not middle, not end." However, since "beginning, middle, end" is the subject of discussion, it belongs to the four statements of "beginning, middle, end." \*\*7. The seventh—the time gate:\*\* \*\*1. In the initial "turning toward":\*\* \*\*2. "From the latter returning to the former... returning to non-existence":\*\* Originally non-existent means the future; now existing means the present; returning to non-existence means the past. Thus, this intent: Tomorrow has not arisen, hence "originally non-existent." Upon reaching tomorrow, it has already arisen, hence "now existing." Upon tomorrow ceasing, it returns to the past, hence "returning to non-existence." "That is, the future becomes the present; the present, presently ceasing, becomes the past": Tomorrow has not arisen, hence it is the future. Upon reaching tomorrow, it becomes the present. When tomorrow ceases, it becomes the past. Hence it is said so. \*\*3. "Because the previous two meanings do not conflict...":\*\* Turning toward the later, arising is endless. Yet turning toward the earlier, there is nothing not ceasing. Turning toward the earlier, cessation does not accumulate. Yet turning toward the later, there is nothing not arising. \*\*4. "Because the previous two meanings oppose each other...":\*\* Not turning toward the later, cessation does not accumulate; yet not turning toward the earlier, there is no cessation. Not turning toward the earlier, arising is endless; yet not turning toward the later, there is no arising. \*\*2. The second—mutual formation:\*\* There are five statements.<note>And so on</note> \*\*3. "Because the previous two gates... the three times are all obliterated":\*\* The \*Flower Adornment (Avataṃsaka) Sutra\*, "Light Enlightenment Chapter" says: "In the many, there is no nature of one; in the one, there is also no many. Thus giving up both, one universally enters the Buddha's merit."<note>End</note> The new commentary explains: "One and many depend on each other, mutually being root and branch. However, there are four meanings: 1. Mutual formation: one and many both exist, depending on each other; hence both have power and both exist. 2. Mutual inclusion: mutual opposition obliterates both; because of mutual dependence, each lacks self-nature."<note>End</note> \*\*Question:\*\* How is this different from the present case? \*\*Answer:\*\* One is about the three times, the other about one and many. In expression, there is difference; in meaning, there is no duality. \*\*Question:\*\* If so, in the "different substance, original dharmas" section, is the "power and no-power" meaning also used as validation? \*\*Answer:\*\* There, it is only about mutual dependence as validation, not the "power and no-power" meaning. \*\*3. The third—time and dharmas:\*\* There are five gates. \*\*1. "Time does not flow, but dharmas revolve":\*\* For example, regarding this body of mine: the age of nine, the age of ten; the age of thirty, forty; the age of sixty, seventy—each is distinct. It is not that the time of nine and ten departs and enters the time of thirty and forty; nor is it that the time of thirty and forty departs and enters the time of fifty and sixty. Each abides separately. Hence, "time does not flow." Now, this body of mine, from the age of nine and ten to the age of fifty and sixty, changes. Hence, "dharmas revolve." Here, there is first the label, then the explanation ("namely..."), and finally the conclusion ("this is about time..."). In the explanation: - First, explain "dharmas revolve." - Then, "however, the past..." explains "time does not flow." In the initial part, after the proper explanation, "this is dharmas revolving" is the conclusion. In the "time does not flow" section, after the proper explanation, "this is time not flowing" is the conclusion. In the general conclusion: - "In terms of time, moment by moment is interrupted" concludes "time does not flow." - "In terms of dharmas, continuous and ever-flowing" concludes "dharmas revolve." \*\*2. "Dharmas do not revolve, but time moves":\*\* When a sprout grows and a flower opens, it is spring. When leaves flourish and branches multiply, it is summer. When fruit ripens and leaves fall, it is autumn. When storage returns to the root, it is winter. - The spring's sprout growing and flower opening does not move into summer's leaves flourishing and branches multiplying. - The summer's leaves flourishing and branches multiplying does not move into autumn's fruit ripening and leaves falling. Thus, dharmas do not revolve. Yet the seasonal moments, depending on the previous, give rise to the next; before and after flow continuously without interruption. Hence, "time moves." Here, the division into sections follows the previous pattern. \*\*Question:\*\* Why, within the time-dharma category, are there both flowing and non-flowing? \*\*Answer:\*\* In the previous moment's time-dharma, the "destruction" aspect; in the next moment's time-dharma, the "turning away from the previous" aspect—therefore, time and dharmas each have a non-flowing meaning. In the previous moment's time-dharma, the "leading to the next" aspect; in the next moment's time-dharma, the "depending on the previous" aspect—therefore, time and dharmas each have a flowing meaning. \*\*3. "Both move":\*\* This refers to the first (dharmas revolve) and second (time moves). \*\*4. "Neither moves":\*\* This refers to the first (time does not flow) and second (dharmas do not revolve). Hence, "neither moves." \*\*5. "Combining the previous four statements, they do not conflict":\*\* - Referring to the first (dharmas revolve), the second (time moves), and the third statement entirely: hence, "unmoving yet flowing." - Referring to the first (time does not flow), the second (dharmas do not revolve), and the fourth statement entirely: hence, "moving yet unchanging." \*\*8. The eighth—cause and fruit gate:\*\* \*\*1. "Non-existence":\*\* "The previous cause has already ceased": The past has already ceased, so it cannot be the cause that judges the present fruit. The future has not yet arisen, so it cannot be the fruit in relation to the present cause. Moreover, the present moment does not abide, so it is neither cause nor fruit. That is: Since yesterday has already ceased, it is not today's cause. Since tomorrow has not yet arisen, it cannot be the fruit in relation to today's cause. Hence, "to whom do we call it fruit?" "The present moment does not abide": If we speak of noon today, the巳 time (9–11 AM) has already ceased, same as yesterday's cessation. The未 time (1–3 PM) has not yet arisen, same as tomorrow's non-arising. Again, within this noon hour, at the second quarter, the first quarter has already passed, same as the巳 time's cessation; the third quarter has not yet arisen, same as the未 time's non-arising. Again, within this single quarter, seeking the characteristic of a moment—moments originally do not abide. Hence, "the present moment does not abide." \*\*2. "Existence":\*\* "As the treatise says"—this is the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra\* (Consciousness-Only Treatise). \*\*3. "Both":\*\* - "Because of leading to the next, it is also cause and also not-cause": Because it leads to the next, it is also cause. Yet because it is not different from destruction, it is also not-cause. - "Because of repaying the previous, it is also fruit and also not-fruit": Because it repays the previous, it is also fruit. Yet because it is not different from turning away from the previous, it is also not-fruit. \*\*4. "Both obliterated, neither cause nor not-cause":\*\* - "Because of destruction, it is not-cause; because it is not different from leading to the next, it is not not-cause." - "Because of turning away from the previous, it is not-fruit; because it is not different from repaying the previous, it is not not-fruit." "These two gates are again not different, hence neither cause-fruit nor not-cause-fruit": Regarding the previous "not-cause, not-fruit" combined as "not-cause-fruit"; regarding the previous "not not-cause, not not-fruit" combined as "not not-cause-fruit." "Also, if cause-fruit...": The previous discussion was about "not-cause-fruit"; now this also dispels "not-cause-fruit." \*\*9. The ninth—true and false:\*\* First, open the numerical list and give the names. Then, from the beginning onward, explain. In the explanation: \*\*1. From the beginning to "from here to there" is establishing the thesis.\*\* "Because it is a birth-death dharma" onward gives the reason. The treatise says—the \*Bodhisattva's Twelve Causal Links Treatise\* verse: "Afflictions: first, eighth, ninth; karma: second, and also tenth; the remaining seven are spoken of as suffering. Three encompass the twelve. From three arise two. From two arise seven. From seven again arise three. Thus, like a wheel revolving, all worldly dharmas—dharmas, causes, effects, without a self—only from empty dharmas, again arise from empty dharmas."<note>End</note> - "First, eighth, ninth": ignorance, craving, and clinging—these three are the affliction path. - "Second and also tenth": volitional action and existence are the karma path. - The rest are the suffering path. "Three encompass the twelve": Affliction is the totality, hence it encompasses all twelve. "From three arise two": Because of afflictions, one creates karma. "From two arise seven": Because of karma, one experiences suffering retribution. "From seven again arise three": Upon this suffering, one again arises delusion, creates karma, and undergoes suffering retribution, flowing endlessly like a wheel. "All worldly dharmas—dharmas, causes, effects, without a self": This validates "no self." "But only from empty dharmas, again arise from empty dharmas": This validates the next statement, "no dharmas." \*\*2. In "no dharmas":\*\* First, explain "no dharmas." Then, "but only by the power of dependent origination" onward dispels hidden attachments. In the initial part: - "This birth-death dharma" is the general statement. - "Because the latter arises depending on the former... comes from the previous moment" presents the meaning that the latter dharma has no arising from the former, explaining the non-existence of the present. - "Because the former ceases... to the latter position" presents the meaning that the former dharma does not reach the latter, explaining the non-existence of the present. - "Therefore" and following is the conclusion, which concludes the latter section: "The former dharma has no existence that can go to the latter." - The latter section concludes the initial part: "The latter dharma has no existence that can come from the former." In the initial part: - "Because the latter arises depending on the former, the latter has no self-nature": citing the "depending on the former" meaning to explain the non-existence of the present. The intent: The latter arises depending on the former, hence the latter has no substance. Therefore, the latter dharma's substance does not come from the former. Thus, we know dharma is non-existent. - "Because the latter turns away from the former": citing the "turning away from the former" meaning to explain the non-existence of the present. The intent: Because the latter turns away from the former, the former does not reach the latter. Thus, the latter dharma does not come from the former. Hence, we know dharma is non-existent. - "This too": Earlier, in citing "depending on the former" to explain non-existence, it said "does not come from the previous moment." Now, in citing "turning away from the former" to explain non-existence, it also says "does not come from the previous moment." Hence, "this too." - "Because the former is destroyed, there is no dharma that can reach the latter": citing the "destruction" meaning to explain non-existence. The intent: Because the former dharma has already been destroyed, the former dharma does not reach the latter. Hence, we know dharma is non-existent. - "Because of the meaning of leading to the latter, the substance is not included in the latter position": citing the "leading to the latter" meaning to explain the non-existence of the present. The intent: Because the former can lead to the latter, the latter dharma does not include the former. Thus, the former does not reach the latter. Hence, we know dharma is non-existent. \*\*In the second, dispelling hidden attachments:\*\* Earlier we said "no self, no dharmas." If so, why do we now see birth, death, and cyclic flow? Hence, we now dispel: It is not that there is truly no self or dharmas, but due to the power of dependent origination, there appears to be continuity. \*\*3. In "three—the exhaustion of characteristics":\*\* First, explain, then question and answer to remove doubt. In the initial part: - From the beginning to "no substance" manifests the emptiness of the substance of the three times. - "Again, contemplating..." onward manifests the characteristics of coming, going, and abiding as fundamentally exhausted. - "More subtly contemplating..." specifically focuses on the present dharma to manifest the emptiness of its substance. "The present moment is swift, cannot abide by itself": Like raindrops in the sky—having left above, they do not reach below, nor do they abide in the middle. Seeking their abiding characteristic among the three time periods is forever impossible. This case is the same. "Because it abandons head and tail": Head is the past, tail is the future. If one abandons past and future, there is no substance. For example, speaking of noon: the巳 time has already ceased, same as yesterday's non-existence; the未 time has not yet arisen, same as tomorrow's non-existence. Again, at noon, speaking of the second quarter: the first quarter has already passed, same as the巳 time's non-existence; the third quarter has not yet arrived, same as the未 time's non-existence. Again, within this single quarter, if we finely divide head and tail, the substance of the present is forever unobtainable. This is the previous general explanation, hence "the present moment is swift, cannot abide." Now this is a deeper, finer explanation, hence "more subtly contemplating." \*\*In the Q&A:\*\* In the answer, first the answer according to one's own intention; "the sutra says" onward is the citation. In the initial part: - From the beginning to "none is not true emptiness" is the proper answer. - "Not obstructing conventional existence, then it is true emptiness" manifests that true emptiness is different from annihilating emptiness. - "Therefore" and following is the general conclusion. The proper answer's intent: Because the emptiness shared with the past and future is used to be the present conventional existence, this conventional existence is precisely true emptiness. Annihilating emptiness is like digging a well: only by hollowing out a space can it be empty. Hence, one must destroy form to obtain emptiness. Non-Buddhists annihilate and return to great vacuity; Small Vehicle practitioners annihilate and return to nirvana. Now here, without destroying conventional existence, it is precisely true emptiness. Hence, it differs from "destroying form to obtain emptiness." \*\*The sutra says:\*\* the \*Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra\*. \*\*Another sutra says:\*\* the \*Heart Sūtra\* (\*Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya\*). \*\*4. In "four—the manifestation of principle":\*\* Earlier, we manifested the exhaustion of empty characteristics. Now we speak of the manifestation of the true principle. First, explanation by one's own intention. Then, "in the treatise" onward is the citation. Finally, "all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas" onward manifests compassion and wisdom not abiding. In the initial part: - "Since it is thus that characteristics are self-exhausted": this refers to the previous "exhaustion of characteristics" and speaks of the manifestation of the true principle. In the citation: The \*Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra\* says: "True suchness has seven aspects: 1. True suchness of cyclic flow. 2. True suchness of characteristics. 3. True suchness of consciousness-only. 4. True suchness of establishment. 5. True suchness of wrong practice. 6. True suchness of purity. 7. True suchness of pure practice."<note>End</note> \*\*Another sutra says:\*\* the \*Nirvāṇa Sūtra\*. \*\*In "compassion and wisdom not abiding":\*\* First, dharma explanation; second, simile explanation; finally, "based on this principle" onward is the conclusion. \*\*10. The tenth—establishing contemplation:\*\* Two sections can be known. In the initial part, first know the false thoughts, then cite the sutra. In the initial part: - First manifest that the perceiving subject and perceived object lack characteristics and are identical to emptiness. - Then, "now knowing..."—know that dharmas are non-existent, and lament one's own inversion. - Then, "again, further contemplating..."—again manifest that the perceiving subject and perceived object are non-existent. In the initial part: - "Having contemplated..."—yesterday has already ceased, non-existent; tomorrow has not yet arisen, non-existent; the present moment does not abide, non-existent. - If we divide the single quarter into head and tail, then even a single thought is entirely unobtainable, forever impossible. Hence, "a single thought is no-thought." "Not only the perceived dharmas are thus non-existent; the perceiving mind is also the same": - The past does not reach the present. - The present does not reach the future. - They do not reach each other. "Characteristics are identical to emptiness": This refers to the previous "exhaustion of characteristics." "Nature is originally manifest": This refers to the previous "manifestation of principle." \*\*The sutra says:\*\* the \*Samantabhadra Contemplation Sūtra\*. \*\*2. In "establishing contemplation":\*\* First, explain the two gates of understanding and practice, then Q&A to remove doubt. In the initial part, the understanding gate can be known. In the practice gate, there are also two: \*\*1. Initial—"contemplating that dharma" etc.:\*\* The \*Dharma Realm Contemplation\* says: "The fourth contemplation—obliterating and transcending all reliance. This is to say that the observed true emptiness cannot be spoken of as 'form' or 'not form,' nor as 'emptiness' or 'not emptiness.' All 'can' and 'cannot' are also inadmissible. This very statement is also not accepted. Completely transcending, without reliance, beyond words, beyond understanding."<note>End</note> This is spoken from the meaning of this contemplation. "Beyond words" means the path of words is cut off. "Beyond thought" means the place of mental activity ceases. "\*\*Question:\*\* If all are transcended, and this is the beginning of practice, what is the end?" \*\*Answer:\*\* The \*Mystic Mirror\* explains "this very statement is also not accepted" as follows: "If one accepts 'cannot be spoken,' then there is acceptance. With acceptance, there is thought. These are all traces of mind and speech. Hence, completely transcending, without reliance—both extremes are obliterated, the middle way does not exist. Mind and object both cease, utterly transcending, with nothing to rely on. Prajñā appears."<note>End</note> "The manifestation of prajñā is the end of practice." Thus, in the sixth ground: - The seventh and eighth equalities use non-existence to destroy existence. - The ninth equality uses existence to destroy non-existence. - The tenth equality destroys both existence and non-existence. Thus, in the tenth equality, both "also exist, also non-exist, neither exist nor non-exist"—the four statements are fully spoken. Then the four statements are both obliterated, and the hundred negations are suddenly cut off. This is the cause for the manifestation of prajñā.<note>End</note> Thus, the cutting off of the four statements is the cause that gives rise to prajñā, hence called "the beginning of practice." The manifestation of prajñā is called "the end of practice." "This also reaches the first ground's true contemplation—at that time, the fundamental wisdom and true thusness merge; object and wisdom both fuse." "If even 'making no-thought'..."—Where all views are cut off is precisely true practice. How can one say that the cutting off itself is also cut off? Hence, we teach: "If one says 'all are cut off,' one forms an understanding of 'no-thought.' If one forms an understanding of 'no-thought,' that is also a false thought, hence not true practice." Hence, "the cutting off is also cut off." \*\*2. "The end"—"using thought-wisdom to illuminate the signless realm":\*\* "The fundamental wisdom illuminates the true." "Neither illumination nor realm": Because object and wisdom both fuse, there is no realm outside wisdom that comes to illuminate; nor is there wisdom outside the realm that is illuminated by the realm. "Neither illumination nor realm" causes the cessation of clinging. "No contemplation, no non-contemplation" causes the cessation of conceptualization. "In the four deportments, always performing all": this is contemplation. "Without doing anything": this is cessation. "Both practice without obstruction": this is the simultaneous operation of cessation and contemplation. \*\*In the later Q&A:\*\* In the question: "This one gate, no-thought" refers to the previous practice gate. "Why is it necessary to extensively discriminate as above?" This looks at the understanding gate from beginning to end. In the answer: "If not as before..." indicates the existence of the understanding beginning. "If one does not understand and know..." indicates the existence of the understanding end. That is, the understanding end says: "True practice is not as understood. Therefore, now, wishing to make known the distinction between understanding and practice, we indicate the existence of the understanding end." "Even if totally without knowledge" onward indicates the fault of ignorance. That is, having no understanding at all is the greatest fault. Therefore, as above, we discriminate to make one extensively know. \*\*The sutra says:\*\* the \*Mahāyāna Same-Nature Sūtra\*. \*\*In the \*Ten Wheels Sūtra\*, there are four types of Saṅgha:\*\* 1. \*\*The Saṅgha of ultimate meaning:\*\* all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and sages of the four fruits. 2. \*\*The pure Saṅgha:\*\* those who uphold the complete precepts. 3. \*\*The mute sheep Saṅgha:\*\* those who do not know wisdom, do not know the weight or lightness of offenses, what is confessable, do not associate with good spiritual friends, do not ask about what is or is not meaning, have no wisdom, and do not speak—like a mute sheep. 4. \*\*The shameless Saṅgha:\*\* those who, to sustain their lives, enter the Dharma but indulge the six senses and constantly cling to the pleasures of the five desires. Also, the \*Great Prajñāpāramitā Treatise\* (chapter 4) says: "There are four kinds of Saṅgha: - \*\*The shameful Saṅgha:\*\* upholds precepts without breaking them, body and speech pure, able to distinguish good and bad. Not yet having attained the path, it is called the shameful Saṅgha. - \*\*The shameless Saṅgha:\*\* breaks all precepts, body and speech impure, committing all evil. This is called the shameless Saṅgha. - \*\*The mute sheep Saṅgha:\*\* although not breaking precepts, is dull-rooted and without wisdom, unable to distinguish good and bad, not knowing heavy or light offenses, not knowing guilty or innocent. If there is a Saṅgha matter and two people dispute, unable to resolve, remaining silent like a white sheep, unable to speak—this is called the mute sheep Saṅgha. - \*\*The great assembly Saṅgha:\*\* whether learners or non-learners, abiding in the four fruits, practicing the four paths—this is called the great assembly Saṅgha." \*\*"Without wisdom, cultivating concentration" etc.:\*\* If one cultivates only wisdom without cultivating concentration, the fault lies in mad wisdom. If one cultivates only concentration without cultivating wisdom, the fault lies in dull stupidity. Cultivating both concentration and wisdom together can avoid the faults of madness and stupidity. "\*\*All as separately explained\*\*"—this refers to the ten-fascicle \*Contemplation\* by Great Master Zhiyi, the commentary on the \*Awakening of Faith\*, etc.<note>End</note>