妙法蓮華經文句 3.98

3.98

Furthermore, concerning the ultimate equality of the three virtues: the various distinctions between the expedient and the real, opening and integrating, of the characteristics and natures across the ten realms are, when viewed as they truly are with the great wisdom of equality, all ultimately equal. If one is deluded about this realm, there are the characteristics and natures of the six realms, called the conventional truth. If one understands this realm, there are the characteristics and natures of the two vehicles, called the true truth. Realizing that it is neither delusion nor understanding, there are the natures and characteristics of the bodhisattva and Buddha realms: the Middle Way paramārtha-satya. If this wisdom is equated with the conventional truth, the conventional truth is not delusion; if equated with the true truth, the true truth is not understanding. Neither understanding nor delusion, doubly negating both delusion and understanding, it is simply called equality. If both are illuminated together, the expedient is the real, and the real is the expedient; though two, they are non-dual, which is also called ultimate equality. Furthermore, regarding the realm where expedient and real are non-dual, the seven expedient means cannot equate the non-dual realm with non-dual wisdom; only the Buddhas equate the non-dual realm with non-dual wisdom, hence it is called ultimate equality. Furthermore, now that the capacity for the Mahāyāna is stirred, rather than clarifying the natures and characteristics of the nine realms, it directly explains that all natures and characteristics entirely enter the natures and characteristics of the Buddha realm. Because the previous teachings did not explain this, people thought the past was not equal to the present; now that this teaching explains it, one knows that past and present are equal, hence it is called ultimate equality. First, it is explained in terms of the equality of delusion and understanding; next, in terms of the equality of persons; and finally, in terms of the equality of teachings. This explanation is extremely broad; the recorder cannot provide all the details. In terms of cutting off speech and cutting off thought to clarify the inconceivable, Treatise [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā], fascicle seventy-nine, states: 'The inconceivable is called indeterminate; it transcends all minds and mental factors; it transcends all paths of speech; it cannot be traveled and cannot be reached; hence it is called inconceivable.' In terms of using analogies to clarify the inconceivable, Treatise, fascicle fourteen, states: 'Not by destroying material form does one attain approach to the path of equality; contemplating material form as non-different allows one to equate with the Mahāyāna. Just as light and darkness unite together, yet you do not see it and think light and darkness are different—if you wish to understand its meaning, look at the moonlight. Moreover, when the sun rises, darkness does not depart to the ten directions; darkness is ever present, having nowhere to go; light is also like this, uniting with darkness. Saṃsāra is united with the path; the path is saṃsāra. What the Buddha has exhausted has been exhausted, and what he has crossed over has been crossed over; all are inconceivable.' Such examples abound in the various sūtras and treatises. If in terms of inconceivable phenomena: the Āgamas explain four inconceivables, namely, sentient beings, the world, nāgas, and the Buddha. Where do sentient beings come from? Where do they go? Why are they born? Why do they die? Is the world finite or infinite? Can it be severed or not severed? Was it created by devas, nāgas, humans, or pretas? The Āgamas state: 'A man, sitting beside the Koṭṭhila pool in Rājagṛha, was contemplating whether the world is finite or infinite when he saw a fourfold army enter the pore of a lotus fiber. He was startled and wondered, “Am I mad? There is no such madness in the world.” He asked the Buddha, and the Buddha said, “You are not mad; they were asuras! Pursued by the devas, they retreated to hide inside the pore of the lotus fiber.”' This was worldly speculation, not the path of nirvāṇa, affording no genuine benefit, no benefit of Dharma, and no benefit of the holy life (and so on). Does rain from a nāga emerge from its mouth, ear, eye, nose, or tongue? In truth, it does not emerge from these places, but solely emerges from its thought: whether thinking good or thinking evil, it can produce rain. Due to past fundamental practices, it now obtains this power. At the waist of Mount Sumeru, there is a deva named Great Strength who can also produce rain. Furthermore, a sūtra presents one inconceivable for each of the five destinies: the hells have interruption and continuity; animals can fly; pretas can transform little into much; humans can cause fire to burn wood; devas can naturally receive retributive fruits. These are all inconceivable phenomena of retributive dharma (and so on). These explain the inconceivable in terms of conditioned phenomena; how much more so with the profound realm—how could it not be inconceivable?