涅槃玄義發源機要 2.3.4

2.3.4

"From "Severing expedients" downward: directly explaining expedients. First, severing the partial to reveal the perfect. In some editions, there is an extra character "severing" under "severing expedients," which is an error. From "As the sūtra says" downward: general establishment based on the sūtra. From "Tripiṭaka" downward: distinct indication according to the teachings. "All nets of doubt" are the partial doubts of the three teachings. In "Rather give rise to a net of doubt": *ning* (rather) is an expression of preference. Because doubt is the ford to understanding, if one does not give rise to a doubtful mind, how could understanding arise? Hence the "Kāśyapa Chapter" says: "If a person gives rise to a doubtful mind regarding this, they can shatter afflictions like Mount Sumeru." Therefore, we know that those who cling to the small as definitive have no way to enter the perfect. In "in the expedient path": this refers to the contemplation-practice and resemblance [stages]. From "This is the perfect" downward: concludes into the four gates. In "The gate of both existence and non-existence": one being three is both existence; three being one is both non-existence. Inconceivable means neither three nor one, so it belongs to the gate of double negation. From "If it is said" downward: the opening, displaying, awakening, and entering of the true path refers to the forty stages of true causes. The golden probe allegorizes the nirvāṇa teaching. The cataract on the eye allegorizes ignorance. The three fingers allegorize the three truths. In "This is called ultimate severance": contrasted with the preceding expedients, the partial revelation of the true causes is comprehensively called ultimate; it does not explicitly designate sublime enlightenment. In "Yet not a single word": words are transformed from the mind; words are directly the mind. Because the mind is empty, words are empty; hence throughout the entire dharma realm, not a single one can be apprehended. The mind filling [all] is analogized similarly: the mind has no fixed characteristics and arises according to conditions; following defiled conditions it gives rise to the minds of the nine realms, while following pure conditions it gives rise to the mind of the Buddha realm. Although defiled and pure differ, they are only the one mind; because mind-nature is obliterated, there is not a single thought. From "However, the sūtras" downward: citing various sūtras to corroborate. In "Moreover, the bodhisattvas speaking of speech" and so on: the thirty-two bodhisattvas each spoke of the dharma gate of non-duality, which is speaking of the teaching that explains principle; hence it is called "speaking of speech." Vimalakīrti held his tongue, directly revealing the principle of severance. Mañjuśrī praised Vimalakīrti, saying: "Quiescent without words, this is truly entering non-duality." This is using words to explain the principle beyond words: neither severed nor unsevered. Like the four gates of the separate [teaching], it is neither the severance of the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings nor the non-severance of the six realms. The former fire-wood refers to a firebrand. Grass allegorizes what is severed; wood allegorizes that which severs. Next, from "General conclusion" downward: showing that the preceding five layers all establish their meaning based on the sūtra, not in vain; hence citing the sūtra to reveal the gates and subsume the five meanings. This is apparent in the text. "Same name" means the general name. In "The four are gates": nirvāṇa is the principle entered; the four statements are the gates that can enter it. From "Like Indra" downward: Indra allegorizes principle, and the thousand names allegorize the gates. In "Nirvāṇa is a name" and so on: it is also because people designate names by fixing essences and establish titles to manifest virtues. In "Cannot be made empty again": the meaning is that nirvāṇa is subtle existence. In "Endowed with the two designations of continuity and relativity": as explained before. In "This is the meaning of being identical with the ultimate": because it is identical with the ultimate, it is not completely the same as conventional truth. In "Yet not united with the ultimate": because it is not united with the ultimate, it is not completely the same as the ultimate truth. Therefore, it differs from the positions established by the three previous masters.