二諦義 2.29

2.29

Question: High and low incline towards each other, and existence and non-existence generate each other—these may be in mutual dependence. How do the two results, pot and cloth, depend on each other? Counter-question: For you, are affirmed and denied in mutual dependence or not? Does 'pot' depend on 'non-pot' or not? The other replies: Affirmed and denied do depend on each other; 'pot' depends on 'non-pot'. If so, cloth is 'non-pot'. Since 'non-pot' depends on 'pot', cloth therefore depends on 'pot'. Since cloth depends on 'pot', pot and cloth are conditioned: cloth is the meaning of pot, and pot is the meaning of cloth. Since cloth is the meaning of pot, all things are the meaning of pot. Furthermore, explaining that all phenomena are the meaning of the conventional is clarified in terms of the meaning of suchness. The suchness of form is the suchness of all phenomena; the suchness of form is precisely the suchness of all phenomena, and all phenomena are precisely form. To cite an analogy: just as in refuting the Sāṃkhya view that great existence and a pot are identical, because existence and pot are not different, existence is precisely the pot; and since existence is not different from the myriad phenomena, the myriad phenomena are also precisely the pot. Here it is also like this: suchness is not different from the conventional, so the conventional is precisely suchness; suchness is not different from all phenomena, so all phenomena are precisely the conventional. Why is this? Because their essence is suchness. What does the Avataṃsaka mean when it says, "A single thought-moment is immeasurable kalpas; immeasurable kalpas are a single thought-moment"? It is like this because one embodies the Way. Why? A single thought-moment is precisely the Way, and immeasurable kalpas are also the Way; therefore, immeasurable kalpas are precisely a single thought-moment. Why is this? Because it is the unhindered Way. Because one embodies the unhindered Way, one obtains unhindered function: a single thought-moment is immeasurable kalpas, and immeasurable kalpas are a single thought-moment. Immeasurable kalpas as a single thought-moment is not a single thought-moment; a single thought-moment as immeasurable kalpas is not immeasurable kalpas. Being neither a single thought-moment nor immeasurable kalpas, yet a single thought-moment is immeasurable kalpas; this is because the horizontal and the vertical are completely unhindered within it. The sūtra says: "Within one, understand the immeasurable; within the immeasurable, understand one." However, these four meanings cannot be ordered as before and after. Why? The first explains the meaning with respect to the worldly-conventional: conventionality in the sense of insubstantiality and in the sense of custom—this is temporarily explained in accord with worldly sentiment. The second gradually deepens, clarifying the conventional as the meaning of the ultimate and the ultimate as the meaning of the conventional. The third enters into the neither-ultimate-nor-conventional from the ultimate and the conventional, entering the Way from function. The fourth, having awakened to the Way, gives rise to function from the Way; thus they successively generate each other. Explaining these four meanings with respect to the ultimate and conventional, by analogy all cause and result, persons and phenomena, etc., are also like this. The previous explanation of one name and one meaning, and one name and immeasurable meanings, is complete.