大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經略疏 2.519

2.519

This is rendered as "still contemplation" (jìnglǜ). Being still while contemplating, there is no distraction or agitation; thus it corresponds to the meaning of samādhi. Contemplating while being still, it is not an indeterminate state (avyākṛta); thus it corresponds to the meaning of prajñā. Therefore, in the four dhyānas, samādhi and prajñā are equal. Question: "Since samādhi and prajñā are equal, why does the outline call it 'the non-relative numinous mind'?" Answer: "Precisely because of not stagnating in these two and directly arriving at the mind's source, samādhi and prajñā are equal. In the text explaining its marks, the meaning of transcending relativity is very clear, so there is certainly no doubt. However, the explanation of marks points to the practitioner's application of mind with false sentiment, thereby revealing transcending relativity through the negation of both. Later, it concludes merely according to the doctrinal meaning, hence adopting mutual fusion through affirming both. Mutual fusion, transcending relativity, affirming both, and negating both are all the Middle Way; thus the explanation of marks and the concluding name mutually illumine each other." That the texts of the three contemplations all state awakening at the beginning is due to having heard the preceding sūtra text. That is, the initial contemplation of stillness cultivates the understanding in the Mañjuśrī chapter; next, the contemplation of illusion cultivates the understanding of the entire Samantabhadra chapter and the first half of the Samantacakṣus chapter; finally, the contemplation of the numinous mind cultivates the understanding of the latter half of the Samantacakṣus chapter and the entire Vajragarbha chapter. Matching them with the preceding sūtra text, it is clearly visible. However, these three approaches are largely the same with minor differences compared to the three marks in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra; compared to the Tiantai three contemplations, the principles are the same while the purports differ. As for their identity: first, the elimination of marks is the contemplation of emptiness; second, giving rise to illusion is the contemplation of the provisional; third, transcending relativity is the contemplation of the middle. As for their difference: this text clarifies the practitioner's expedient application of mind, whereas that text investigates the nature and marks of all dharmas; this text mostly accomplishes practice in terms of mind, and therefore does not establish an object to be contemplated; that text mostly generates understanding in terms of meaning, and therefore pairs with the three truths as the object of contemplation.