華嚴經 品二十七 十定品 · 第三 次第遍往諸佛國土神通大三昧Avataṃsaka Sūtra · The Ten Samādhis · The Third, the Great Samādhi of the Spiritual Penetration That Travels in Due Order to All Buddha-Lands

The Question This Samādhi Must Answer

Each of the ten great samādhis has one question, and every one of them is a question Samantabhadra Bodhisattva sets himself and then answers himself. The question of the third samādhi is “What is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s samādhi of the spiritual penetration that travels in due order to all buddha-lands?” — what is asked is ‘what is it called,’ not ‘how is it cultivated to completion.’ So the whole passage that follows sets out the character of this samādhi, not its stages.

The name of the samādhi has to be read open first. “Travelling in due order to all buddha-lands” is the matter carried out: he goes to them one by one, without skipping and without missing any, and that is why it is called in due order. “Spiritual penetration” is the power relied upon: it is not that the body actually goes and walks there, but that the power of penetration reaches there. “Samādhi” is the substance dwelt in: he travels without coming out of the samādhi, and so it is named a samādhi and not named a practice.

Here is the place where it is easiest to read wrongly. Hearing “travels to all buddha-lands,” one pictures a long journey, and then this samādhi turns into a display of spiritual powers. But look at the text below and you will see: not one clause of the whole passage puts its weight on the “travelling.” The weight is on the “entering” of “in all those worlds he enters this samādhi,” and on that mind after entering which gives rise to no discrimination. It is named travelling everywhere; what it actually speaks of is entering samādhi. Brought down to use: when you read a passage on spiritual penetration in the Huayan, the first step is always to ask ‘what field of samādhi does this penetration show forth,’ and never to ask ‘how many places did he get to.’

Dharma One: Entering Samādhi Throughout the Lands — What Is Travelled Is Numberless, What Is Entered Is One

The first subdivision, which Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu names ‘entering samādhi throughout the lands.’ The sūtra says that this bodhisattva “passes beyond numberless worlds to the east,” and must further “pass beyond as many worlds again as the dust motes of those worlds” — first a number of worlds beyond all measuring, and then those numberless worlds ground into dust motes, and by the number of those motes he passes beyond them all once more. This is the Huayan’s habitual method of doubling: a number that already cannot be measured is multiplied by itself once again, and the purpose is to drive the very business of “number” into failure.

Then comes the pivotal clause: “in all those worlds he enters this samādhi.” It is not that he enters samādhi after having passed beyond; it is in all those worlds that he enters.

One misunderstanding has to be cleared away: this is not saying that the bodhisattva divides himself into numberless bodies and that each body enters a samādhi of its own. What the sūtra says is one and the same samādhi — “this samādhi.” The lands travelled are measureless, while the samādhi entered is one alone. If it is taken as ‘many bodies, many samādhis,’ then this samādhi is no different from a spiritual transformation, and one cannot read out of the text below why “giving rise to no discrimination” should matter.

Brought down to use: when the Huayan says “everywhere,” what it is looking at is the relation of one and many — the more the object faced is broken into pieces past all counting, the more the mind shown forth must be whole. The realm in pieces and the mind not in pieces: that is entering samādhi throughout the lands.

Dharma Two: The Sequence of the Times of Entering — Laying Time Out to Its Utmost

The second subdivision, which Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu names ‘the sequence of the times of entering.’ From “or he enters in a kṣaṇa” the sūtra lays out the divisions of time of entering samādhi all the way along: a kṣaṇa, an instant, continuously; the three parts of the day, first, middle, and last, and the three parts of the night, first, middle, and last; one day, five days, half a month, a month; a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, a hundred thousand years, a koṭi of years, a hundred thousand koṭis of years, a hundred thousand nayutas of koṭis of years; and then it steps across into the measures of kalpas — a kalpa, a hundred kalpas, a hundred thousand kalpas, a hundred thousand nayutas of koṭis of kalpas; numberless, measureless, boundless, unequalled; uncountable, unnameable, unthinkable, immeasurable, unspeakable — on to “or he enters for unspeakably unspeakable kalpas.”

The question to ask is: why does the sūtra list them out like this? If it were only to say ‘the length of time in samādhi is not fixed,’ one clause would have been enough.

The answer is in the shape of the clauses. Every clause of this long string is built alike, with only one number changed; and by the end the number can no longer be changed at all — above “unspeakable” there is still “unspeakably unspeakable,” and language here admits defeat on its own. This is the Huayan’s way of using laying-out as negation: it is not that you are to remember how many kinds of time-measure there are, but that at the moment you grow weary with reading you are to see for yourself the pointlessness of time-measure itself.

One misreading has to be cleared away: this is not saying that the longer the samādhi the better it is. The sūtra counts from a kṣaṇa upward, and a kṣaṇa stands side by side with unspeakably unspeakable kalpas with no word of higher and lower between them. Brought down to use: the way to read this passage is to read it right through as it stands and not to skip — whoever skips it does not get what this passage really has to give.

Dharma Three: The General Summing Up of the Many Gates — Long and Short, Dharma and Time, Differing in Every Way

The third subdivision, which Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu names ‘the general summing up of the many gates.’ The sūtra gathers up the whole long string that came before with the one clause “whether long or short, whether by dharma or by time, in every kind of way they differ.”

This sentence is short, and yet it is the pivot on which the whole passage turns. More than thirty clauses were laid out before it, and here four “whethers” draw them all together: long and short are the two ends of time; dharma and time are the two respects with regard to which the difference is spoken — the difference may be spoken with regard to the dharma entered, or with regard to the time passed through. In one sentence the actual state of difference is granted: these differences really are there, and the four graphs “in every kind of way they differ” carry no note of denial in them.

A common misreading has to be cleared away: to suppose that when the Buddha-dharma speaks of non-discrimination it is saying that difference does not exist. The sūtra here does exactly the opposite: it first states the differences honestly and grants them to the full, and only in the next sentence says that toward these the bodhisattva gives rise to no discrimination. First grant them, then do not cling to them — the order cannot be reversed.

Brought down to use: when you read the Huayan’s sense of non-discrimination, look whether there is an honest laying-out of difference before it. If there is, that non-discrimination is alive; if there is not, it is mostly just shutting the eyes.

Dharma Four: The Mind Accords with the Substance of the Samādhi — He Makes Neither Two nor Not-Two

The fourth subdivision, which Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu names ‘the mind according with the substance of the samādhi.’ The sūtra says “toward these the bodhisattva gives rise to no discrimination, his mind is without defiling attachment,” and then gives four clauses: “he makes neither two nor not-two, neither the universal nor the particular.”

First a question: since he does not make “two,” why is it still necessary to say that he does not make “not-two”?

Because “not-two” is also a standing-place. To say two is to split long and short and dharma and time into two stumps; to say not-two is to set up a further “joining” to remedy that “splitting” — and once a remedy has been set up, discrimination has arisen for another round. So the sūtra negates twice over with four clauses: two and not-two are one pair, universal and particular another, and it blocks the setting-up and blocks the blocking as well. This is precisely the “substance” of this samādhi: not the flattening of difference into a single taste, but a mind that within difference comes to rest nowhere.

One misreading has to be cleared away: “giving rise to no discrimination” is not the same as not knowing long from short. The bodhisattva knows perfectly well that long is long and short is short; it is only that he does not give rise to defiling attachment upon them — the four graphs “his mind is without defiling attachment” are the sūtra’s own statement of where the measure of non-discrimination lies.

Brought down to use: to tell right from wrong and long from short clearly while the mind does not rise and fall along with them is the real ground of this clause; to be unable to tell them apart and call it non-discrimination is muddle, not samādhi.

Dharma Five: Not Abandoning the Rising of the Penetration — Discrimination Left Behind, and Not a Particle of Function the Less

The fifth subdivision, which Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu names ‘the not abandoning of the rising of the penetration.’ The sūtra says “though he has left this discrimination behind, he yet rises from the samādhi by skillful means of spiritual penetration, and toward all dharmas he neither forgets nor loses, on to the very last.”

This clause is there to stop a leak in the fourth subdivision. When it has been said above that he gives rise to no discrimination and makes neither two nor not-two, the reader at once has a doubt: does the bodhisattva not then become a pool of dead water, doing nothing at all?

The sūtra answers directly: the single graph “though” turns it — the leaving behind of discrimination is a real leaving behind, and the rising of the spiritual penetration is a real rising. And it is not a forced rising into function; it is “by skillful means of spiritual penetration,” freely and at ease. More important still is the latter half: “toward all dharmas he neither forgets nor loses, on to the very last.” One who has left discrimination behind has not thrown away all the dharmas he knew; not only has he not thrown them away, he keeps them on to the very last.

One misreading has to be cleared away: to suppose that deep samādhi is ‘remembering nothing at all.’ The samādhi the sūtra speaks of is exactly a neither forgetting nor losing. Brought down to use: to test whether a practice has gone astray, look at whether it has diminished one’s clarity about the dharmas of the world — if the more one cultivates the more muddled one grows and the less able one is to do anything, that is not the samādhi spoken of here. Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu takes in under this subdivision the two parts of simile and joining as well, closing them with “the text may be understood as it stands,” and does not open them out in separate detail.

The Simile: The Sun God-Son Travels His Round — Day Does Not Arise, Night Does Not Cease

The sūtra draws to a close with a simile: “It is as when the sun god-son travels his round and shines, and neither day nor night stands still; when the sun comes out it is named day, and when the sun goes down it is named night, and yet day does not arise, and night does not cease.” Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu divides the whole passage into the three parts of dharma, simile, and joining, and this is the part of the simile.

First a question: what is the simile of the sun god-son a simile for?

Look at the three layers of the simile. The first layer, “travels his round and shines, and neither day nor night stands still” — the sun does not stay still, just as the bodhisattva enters the samādhi throughout numberless worlds. The second layer, “when the sun comes out it is named day, and when the sun goes down it is named night” — the names of day and night are not the sun’s own names; they are names set up by the relative position between the sun and the one who watches. In other words, the names of difference are set up by conditions. The third layer, which is also where the eye of the simile lies: “day does not arise, and night does not cease” — the names have their rising and setting, while the substance of the sun has never arisen or ceased.

One misreading has to be cleared away: this is not saying that day and night are false while the sun is true, thereby setting up a true and a false. The sūtra says only that day does not arise and night does not cease — not even day and night themselves have ever arisen or ceased, still less is a true substance set up over against them.

Brought down to use: read it with the four graphs ‘long and short, dharma and time’ substituted in — to enter samādhi for a kṣaṇa is named short, to enter samādhi for unspeakably unspeakable kalpas is named long; the names of long and short are set up by time, while the substance of the samādhi is like the sun and has never been two. This simile is exactly what serves as the eye for the third and the fourth subdivisions.

The Joining: Entering the Samādhi He Sees Clearly Numberless Worlds, So It Is Here Too

The simile spoken, the sūtra closes with the part of the joining: “When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva enters the samādhi of spiritual penetration in numberless worlds, and having entered the samādhi sees clearly that many numberless worlds, so it is here too.”

First a question: why does the part of the joining have only this one clause, and why does it speak only of “seeing clearly”?

Because dharma and simile have here already been matched to the full, and all that is needed is a clasp to fasten them. And that the clasp falls upon the two graphs “sees clearly” is deliberate: it was said above that he gives rise to no discrimination and that his mind is without defiling attachment, and without this clause the reader would easily read this samādhi as a blur. The sūtra says, on the contrary, that after entering samādhi he “sees clearly” that many numberless worlds — without discrimination and yet seeing distinctly, just as the sun forms no thought of day and night and yet its shining is everywhere.

One misreading has to be cleared away: what “so it is here too” points to is not ‘the worlds are also like the sun,’ but ‘the bodhisattva’s entering samādhi and seeing clearly is also like the sun’s travelling its round and shining.’ What is joined is the mind that enters, not the realm that is seen.

Brought down to use: samādhi is tested in seeing, not in darkness. The deeper the samādhi the greater the clarity — that is the measuring-line this passage hands over.

The Concluding Name: The Skillful Wisdom of the Third Samādhi

The last sentence: “Sons of the Buddha! This is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s skillful wisdom of the third great samādhi of the spiritual penetration that travels in due order to all buddha-lands.” It clasps the opening question head to tail, and it is the fixed pattern common to every section of the ten samādhis — opening with “what is” as the question, closing with ‘this is …’ or ‘this is named … the skillful wisdom’ as the answer (the tenth samādhi closes in a different form; see the apparatus).

Two additions in the concluding name are worth noticing. First, at the asking it was named “the samādhi of spiritual penetration,” and at the concluding it is named “the great samādhi of spiritual penetration,” with the one graph “great” added. Second, the close is tied off with the three graphs “skillful wisdom.” These three graphs are where the whole discourse of the ten samādhis comes to rest: what is accomplished is not the field of samādhi itself, but that wisdom which is free and at ease within samādhi.

One misreading has to be cleared away: “skillful” must not be read as cleverness of method. What has been spoken of all along is travelling throughout the lands while the samādhi is one, laying time out while clinging to none of it, leaving discrimination behind while not abandoning function — to be unobstructed among these several layers is what is called skillful. Brought down to use: read the passage through and then look back at the name of the samādhi, and the four graphs “travels in due order to all” are no longer a walking about in space, but another name for this wisdom.

Lineage

The explanations of the ancient masters upon this passage survive in the single track of Chengguan’s Huayan jing shu alone: he judges this samādhi to have “three parts within the explanation, namely dharma, simile, and joining,” and opens five subdivisions further within the dharma — entering samādhi throughout the lands, the sequence of the times of entering, the general summing up of the many gates, the mind according with the substance of the samādhi, and the not abandoning of the rising of the penetration. The five subdivisions fit the sequence of the sūtra text closely, and this piece expounds by following that outline. The two parts of simile and joining Chengguan closes with “the text may be understood as it stands,” without opening them out in separate detail; this is recorded.

The Yanyi chao has no separate unfolding of the third samādhi within the range of this chapter — the chao by its own convention explains selectively, and this is not an oversight; the gap is recorded as it stands. What Fazang’s Tanxuan ji comments upon is the sixty-fascicle Avataṃsaka, and the sixty has no Chapter on the Ten Samādhis, so there is no corresponding text to record. Li Tongxuan’s Xin Huayan jing lun explains this samādhi under three gates in outline — explaining the name, explaining its substance and function, and explaining the sense following the text — establishing the name by “the self-nature of the principle-nature pervading everywhere, so that the very substance of the functioning of wisdom pervades everywhere, and thereby spiritual penetration pervades everywhere.” The Jin translation, the sixty-fascicle Avataṃsaka, has no Chapter on the Ten Samādhis, and so this passage has no parallel translation to be collated; the forty-fascicle Avataṃsaka preserves only the last chapter and likewise does not touch it. In the Huayan school’s treatises — the Wujiao zhang, the Shixuan men, the Fajie xuanjing, the Huanyuan guan — no text directly citing this passage is found, and there is no lineage to be attached; all of this is marked as it stands.

Two tracks stand side by side — Chengguan by the outline of the text, Li Tongxuan by the pervasion of principle and wisdom — recorded together without adjudication.