大乘玄論 5.5

5.5

Second, stimulus and response [has] three aspects. Stimulus and response are indeed the cardinal tenet of the Buddha-Dharma and the essential guide of all sūtras. “Stimulus” means the sense of drawing forth and summoning; “response” means the sense of approaching and receiving. When sentient beings have good [roots], they bring about [the Buddha's appearance] before them; [the Buddha] lowers his form to approach and receive them, in an accord with principle that is never violated: this is called stimulus and response. Ordinary beings stimulate but do not respond; the Buddhas respond but do not stimulate; bodhisattvas both respond and stimulate. Stimulations are not identical; briefly, there are four kinds: First, stimulating form but not sound: they only see the Buddha and do not hear the Dharma. Second, stimulating sound but not form: they directly hear the teaching and do not see the Buddha. Third, stimulating both form and sound: they see the Buddha and hear the Dharma. Fourth, neither seeing the Buddha nor hearing the Dharma: they directly stimulate his spiritual power and receive hidden benefit.

Second, the essence of stimulus and response. Question: Among the good [actions] of the three periods of time, which good stimulates [the Buddha]? Answer: Some say that future good stimulates. If so, then the future Buddha would respond, not the present Buddha. Others say that present good stimulates. Still others say that past good stimulates. Others say that evil stimulates. Some say good stimulates, while others say good and evil together stimulate. If one says evil can stimulate, why do all sentient beings who give rise to evil not see the Buddha? If one says good can stimulate the Buddha, since sentient beings already have good roots and are all able to attain the Way, what need have they of the Buddha? As when one is not sick, what need is there for a physician? If both good and evil stimulate, since all sentient beings possess both good and evil, why would they not stimulate the Buddha while suffering in the six destinies? We now clarify that the good of the three periods of time stimulates: past and present are the primary stimuli, while future is the auxiliary stimulus. Hence a sūtra says: “Having long cultivated good roots in the past, and now being mindful of the Buddha, one is able to see the Tathāgata.” Now clarifying stimulus by good and evil: one is about to extinguish evil, and good can be born.

Question: How does this differ from others' [theories of] stimulus and response? Answer: We now clarify that stimulus is the meaning of response, and response takes stimulus as its meaning; stimulus and response depend on each other, which is dependent co-arising.

Question: Does the Buddha have a responsive dharma that arises, the cessation of which is called extinction? Or is there no responsive dharma that arises, and yet it is called extinction? Answer: From antiquity down to the present there are altogether three explanations. Master Kaishan [Zhizang] used the doctrine of Master [Seng]bi: sentient beings see birth and extinction upon the dharmakāya, whereas the Buddha in reality has no birth and extinction. Hence a sūtra says: “By the power of the roots of benevolence, he causes them to see it”—referring to [an illusion of a lion where] there is in reality no lion. Dharma Master Min of Zhuangyan said: There is distinctly a responsive dharma that arises; hence, displaying the trace from the root is birth, and resting the trace to return to the root is called extinction. As a sūtra says: “The king of garuḍas ascends into empty space, looks down upon the nature of the water, and sees its own reflection”—this is the proof of it. Yan of Zhaoti said: It possesses both meanings. We now clarify correctly that due to conflicting diverse theories—some saying there is real extinction, some saying there is no real extinction, some saying a responsive dharma arises, some saying there is no arising—all are contentious disputes. Therefore Nāgārjuna appeared in the world to refute them. When all views cease, only then does one recognize the boundless great functioning of the conventional designation of dependent co-arising: neither arising nor non-arising, both arising and non-arising, neither non-arising nor non-non-arising, functioning in adaptation to conditions and mastering all skillful means. Although it encompasses all these meanings, it is also not identical to the old explanations. It is merely that arising where there is nowhere to arise is called non-arising, and non-arising yet arising is called arising. One must not hear of arising and fixate on an understanding of arising, nor hear of non-arising and fixate on an understanding of non-arising.

Question: Because the Buddha crosses over into extinction, sentient beings give rise to delusion; if he did not become extinct, they would not give rise to delusion. Is the fault then with the Buddha? Answer: The *Dazhidu lun* says: “The Buddha benefits sentient beings at three times: first, when he is a bodhisattva; second, when he attains buddhahood; third, when he crosses over into extinction.” The *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* says: “Wishing to cause sentient beings to give rise to joy, he manifests birth in the royal palace; wishing to cause sentient beings to give rise to longing and good [roots], he manifests extinction in the twin śāla trees.” Since it says that he benefits beings at three times, we know that the delusion arises of itself due to conditions; the Buddha is without fault.

Question: Is it the good of the habitual cause that stimulates, or the good of the retributive cause that stimulates? The answer says: The habitual cause is the primary stimulus, and the retributive cause is the auxiliary stimulus, because seeing the Buddha gives rise to pleasant sensations.

Question: When good and evil stimulate the Buddha, is good the primary stimulus, or is evil the primary stimulus? Answer: Good is the primary stimulus; evil is the auxiliary stimulus.

Question: Someone says there is no distinct response that arises, but one merely sees the sixteen-foot [body] upon the dharmakāya. What about this? Answer: It contradicts the sūtra text. The *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* says: “The king of garuḍas flies and ascends into empty space, looks down upon the nature of the water, and sees its own reflection.” Empty space is the dharmakāya Buddha; the king of garuḍas is the saṃbhogakāya Buddha; and seeing its own reflection is the nirmāṇakāya Buddha.

Third, the category of symbolic response. After the Buddha's extinction and crossing over, there are physical images and written sūtras; these are called symbolic responses, not primary responses. Why is this? Because the sixteen-foot [body] and the verbal teachings are manifested by observing beings' capacities; since they respond to capacities, they should be called primary responses. After sentient beings have seen and heard them, they make images to symbolize what they have seen, and copy them down to transmit what they have heard. Since these originate from sentient beings and do not originate primarily from the Buddha, they are symbolic responses and not primary responses. If we speak now according to inclusion, they also enter into the response. How is this known? Since images are included within the Buddha Jewel, why should they not be included within response? Although written sūtras are the true Dharma, since they are copied down by sentient beings, they are likewise included in response.

Question: The essence of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is non-dual; as for that which is able to respond, it is not yet clear what kind of dharma this non-duality is. Answer: The Tattvasiddhi masters say that ultimate truth is the gate of non-duality; the *Dazhidu lun* masters say it is the prajñā of the true mark; the Dilun masters employ the ālayavijñāna; and Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha of the Shelun school takes it to be the amalavijñāna. Among these four traditions, the first two rely on the cognitive object, while the latter two are based on mind. Although the meanings of consciousness and object differ, they equally transcend the catuskoṭi. Therefore Śākyamuni remained secluded in Magadha, and Vimalakīrti held his tongue in Vaiśālī. These are both regarded as spiritual governance, and thus the mouth was silent on account of it. How could one say they lacked eloquence? It is that which eloquence cannot express. We now clarify that it is principle of the Middle Way buddha-nature, which cannot be called cognitive object or mind, nor can it be called non-cognitive-object or non-mind.

Question: At what stage is a bodhisattva able to contemplate both the ultimate and conventional simultaneously, manifesting form in response to beings like the moon in water, and ferrying people across to liberation? Answer: Master Lingwei said: Upon the first stage, attaining the unborn, one is able to contemplate both the ultimate and conventional simultaneously. Masters Kumārajīva and Sengzhao said: On the seventh stage they are contemplated simultaneously. The Tattvasiddhi masters say: On the eighth stage they are contemplated simultaneously. We now say that from the initial aspiration of the mind, one trains in the unborn and practices simultaneous contemplation. Therefore the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: “Between the initial aspiration and the ultimate, the two are not distinct.” There are four graduated levels: First, in contrast to the ordinary stages prior to the bhūmis, only the patience of compliance is explained; there is not yet the unborn, nor can the ultimate and conventional be contemplated simultaneously. The first stage is called noble; only here does one begin to attain the unborn, and the two contemplations first run simultaneously. Both the *Humane Kings Sūtra* and the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* have this statement. Second, from the first stage up through the sixth stage, the unborn is still shallow, so it is given the name of the patience of compliance. Arriving at the seventh stage, which is called the stage of equal samādhi and wisdom, only then is it the unborn, named simultaneous contemplation. The *Dazhidu lun* says: “The first three stages have much wisdom and little samādhi; the latter three stages have much samādhi and little wisdom”; hence samādhi and wisdom are unequal. Arriving at the seventh stage, samādhi and wisdom are balanced and equal, so it is called the stage of equal samādhi and wisdom. This explains that the quiet contemplation of prajñā is samādhi, and the active illumination of skillful means is wisdom. The sixth stage is wonderful in quiet contemplation but clumsy in engaging activity, so samādhi and wisdom are not yet equal. Arriving at the seventh stage, both functions are skillful, so it is called the stage of equal samādhi and wisdom. Third, although the seventh stage has attained the unborn and is already able to contemplate simultaneously, there is still effort. On the eighth stage, the mind of effort never arises again, which is named the unborn. Fourth, although the eighth stage is without effort, it is not yet ultimate; the ultimate unborn lies in the Buddha stage. The “Expedient Means” chapter says: “Having long been in the Buddha-Way, their minds are already fully ripened.” One should know that this is the unborn of the Buddha stage. The Golden Grain Tathāgata [Vimalakīrti], based on this text, has already shown that the unborn is fully present in all four places. The various masters each cling partially to one, in vain losing its true intent.