涅槃玄義發源機要 3.2.6

3.2.6

From 'Only converging' downward, he shows his own position that converging at the utmost point is 'merging', not that having an identical essence is 'merging'. From 'The seal of wisdom' downward, he cites proof that converging at the utmost point is 'merging', and that quiescence is also 'merging'. From 'Treatise of Sengzhao' downward, this is a passage in the Treatise on Prajñā Being without Knowing. Thus that treatise says: 'Function is itself quiescence; quiescence is itself function. Function and quiescence are identical in essence.' As for 'Although the Buddha knows illusions, etc.', it is as in the sūtra below where an elder challenges the Buddha, saying: 'Gautama knows illusions; he must be an illusionist.' The Buddha asks in return: 'You know an outcaste (caṇḍāla); does that mean you are an outcaste? If not, how could the Tathāgata's illusion make him an illusionist?' From 'If so' downward, he clarifies the meaning based on the sūtra. One must understand that the wisdom of the Middle Way illuminates both and in its very essence precludes both; hence one knows that the conventional does not merge into the conventional, nor is the ultimate identical with the ultimate. From 'Third, giving rise to function in the future' downward, earlier when listing the headings it said 'giving rise to sovereign function', but now it says 'future', which means that the present third is precisely the second: once the future fruition is accomplished, it gives rise to sovereign function. Clarifying the meaning based on their mutual dependence, it is therefore called 'giving rise to function in the future'. Compared to the previous listing of headings, they mutually manifest each other. Such instances are very numerous in the commentary. Those who alter 'future' in this text to 'sovereign' are mistaken. From 'Tentatively regarding three kinds' downward, these are the bestowals of transformation through the three wheels: 'inconceivable' refers to placing Mount Sumeru into a mustard seed, which is the bodily wheel manifesting supernormal powers; 'two birds flying in tandem' refers to double illumination of the permanent and impermanent, which is the mental wheel discerning the capacities of good and evil; 'gathering both the heterodox and the orthodox' refers to the voice and teaching being bestowed equally, which is the verbal wheel preaching the Dharma. As for 'inconceivable function', in the 'Chapter on the Four Marks' clarifying the secret of the body, the sūtra states: 'Good sons! This Great Nirvāṇa can establish great meaning. You should now listen attentively with a sincere mind and explain it broadly to others; do not give rise to alarm or doubt. If there is a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who abides in the Great Nirvāṇa, a king of mountains such as Mount Sumeru, so high and broad, he can take it all and make it enter into a mustard seed. The various sentient beings who depend on Mount Sumeru will also not be cramped, nor will there be any mark of going or coming; it will be no different from before. Only those who should be saved will see this bodhisattva take Mount Sumeru and place it into a mustard seed, and then return it to settle in its original dwelling place. This is called inconceivable function.' Historically, however, the explanations of seven schools have differed. From 'One says' downward, he sets forth the positions of the seven schools in sequence. As for 'How can this be called supernormal powers?': it is merely that sentient beings see it themselves—how does this manifest the bodhisattva's supernormal powers? What is more, the sūtra says: 'So high and broad, he can take it all and make it enter into a mustard seed,' yet this master says that in reality it does not enter, which blatantly contradicts the Buddha's words. From 'The third explanation' downward, this is the position of the Chengshi master. Below, when commenting on the 'Chapter on the Four Marks', the commentary's text refutes this treatise master's view again, saying: 'This is the provisional skillfulness of a sage, which is not understood by ordinary beings.' Hence it says: 'Since it is inconceivable, etc.' From 'The others' downward, what the sūtra discusses is nothing other than the realm of the sages; since they interpret all the meanings, proving they comprehend and know them all, why do they say they do not understand only with respect to provisional skillfulness? As for 'Both the small and the large are empty', the meaning explained by Changsha is the same as this. His verse says: 'Sumeru originally does not exist; / The mustard seed is fundamentally empty. / Taking emptiness and inserting it into nonexistence, / Where would they not accommodate each other?' From 'If so' downward, this is a refutation. Furthermore, the mutual entrance of the large and the small directly discusses concrete function; one should not interpret it in terms of principle by taking them as both empty. 'Having the nature of the small within the large' means Sumeru has the nature of a mustard seed and therefore can be small. 'Having the nature of the large within the small' means the mustard seed has the nature of Sumeru and therefore can be large. From 'This also' downward, refuting this explanation involves three errors in total: first, it is identical with the heterodox; second, it is identical with the Hīnayāna, because of clinging to a fixed nature. Even if it is not heterodox, it still matches the doctrine of the Hīnayāna gate of existence, hence it says 'it also resembles the Abhidharma'. Third, it does not achieve wonderful function; hence it says: 'It is still the large accommodating the small, etc.' The position of the Dilun master is roughly the same as the fourth master's position. The master of Xinghuang said that the Dharma-nature is fundamentally empty, transcending the marks of large and small, hence he says 'fundamentally there is neither large nor small'. Conventional truth is deceptive and fictitious, spoken of relatively, having the names large and small. Their essence is not different; they are merely a single conditioned dharma. 'The small is the large of the small' means the mustard seed is the large mark of Sumeru. 'The large is the small of the large' means Sumeru is the small mark of the mustard seed. Since these two marks exist within a single conditioned dharma, what obstacle is there to their mutual entrance? Hence he says: 'Thus they can accommodate each other.' As for 'The large is not large of itself, etc.': Sumeru of itself has no large mark, but depends on the other—the smallness of the mustard seed—to be the large mark; 'the small is not small of itself, etc.' means the mustard seed of itself has no small mark, but depends on the other—the largeness of Sumeru—to be the small mark. Therefore he falls into the heterodox clinging to other-nature. From 'Own-nature' downward, he adduces the previous fifth master to rebuke Xinghuang by comparison. The previous explanation said: 'There is the nature of the small within the large, and the nature of the large within the small', which is large and small of own-nature. That meaning was very clever and yet was still refuted; how much more so when he now makes an explanation based on the other, whose meaning is convoluted and clumsy? From 'Now to clarify' downward, he clarifies the present position in two parts: first, giving rise to function based on principle; second, function pervading the Dharma realm. Because one partially realizes the wonderful principle, one has great function, which responds to capacities with sovereignty and universally encompasses the ten realms. Hence there are two sections: the first also has two parts: first, principle transcends the four propositions. As for the small of the mustard seed and the large of Sumeru, both are concrete phenomena, yet these concrete phenomena are themselves principle, and both transcend the four natures—how could this be the same as the ancient masters? In the text, he first clarifies the small, and next uses the large as an analogy. Within clarifying the small, the first sentence clarifies that it is not self-arisen. From 'Nor is it' downward, it clarifies that it is not other-arisen. From 'The large does not' downward, these two sentences belong to examining the large. However, they come about through mutual contrast; since this passage directly examines the small, the subsequent statement 'The large is also like this' is what truly clarifies the large. 'Small and large on account of causes and conditions' clarifies that they are not jointly arisen. One should carry down the words 'nor is it' from the preceding phrase. From 'Nor is it' downward, it clarifies that it is not arisen without a cause. From 'Not in' downward, he cites the sūtra to verify that principle transcends the four propositions. 'Internal' is self, 'external' is other, 'in between the two' is joint, and 'always of itself' is without cause. Because this wonderful principle fundamentally transcends the four clingings, it cannot be deliberated upon through the thoughts and words of the nine realms. From 'The large is also' downward, it clarifies that using the large as an analogy for the small can be understood, hence it says 'is also like this'. From 'Thoroughly penetrating' downward, it clarifies giving rise to function based on principle. 'Thoroughly penetrating this principle' means thoroughly penetrating the principle just explained that transcends the four [propositions]. 'Phenomena are identical with the real' means penetrating that the phenomena of large and small are themselves the principle of true reality. 'Only those who should be saved' are those who are capable of stimulating [the response]. 'Seeing the inconceivable, etc.' is the concrete matter of being capable of responding. Stimulus and response interact along the path, whereby it is seen.