華嚴五十要問答 2.14

2.14

First, listing the names and the intent behind the arising of the teachings: As for the initial four thorough inquiries: first, name, which refers to the teaching that expresses; second, referent, which refers to the meaning that is expressed; third, intrinsic nature, which refers to the substantial capacity of name and referent; fourth, distinction, which refers to the mutual comparison of name and referent, and their differing distinctions in relation to the characteristics of dharmas, hence called distinction. The six thorough inquiries divide name and referent into each having intrinsic nature and distinction, and therefore there are six. The three thorough inquiries combine name, referent, intrinsic nature, and distinction, thus making three. As for the intent behind the arising of the teachings: Question: Why are four thorough inquiries established? Answer: Because people of intermediate faculties have two kinds of views: first, the view of integration; second, the view of distinction. The view of integration means that referent and name integrate into one. The view of distinction means that referent and name each have intrinsic nature, possessing the capacity to correspond while their substances are distinct. The sages established teachings to counter those afflictions, giving rise to the four thorough inquiries to open up the initial name and referent. To counter the former view of distinction, they combined those meanings of intrinsic nature and distinction to counter the view of corresponding and becoming one. Question: In general, when speaking of antidotes, the obstacle and the antidote must be distinct. When non-Buddhists establish a single antidotal dharma, through the distinction of realms it forms multiple dharmas, revealing that the one is nominal, and demonstrating non-existence, and so forth. Why is it now said that opening up the two of name and referent remedies distinction? What is the reasoning? Answer: If confronted with the views of non-Buddhists and the triyāna, not relying on the methods of treatises would incur the Tathāgata's reproach. Now, these thorough inquiries are the bodhisattva's own contemplation, universally countering all non-Buddhists, two vehicles, and bodhisattvas, or conforming to the methods of treatises; hence this remedy arises. How is this known? If, like distinguishing realms, one analyzes and destroys integrated nominality and the view of intrinsic nature, this contradicts the method of the treatises. Why is this? Integrated nominality and intrinsic nature are dharmas assembled through conditions, and are constituent dharmas; the distinction of realms and so forth, rather, are destructive dharmas. Completion and destruction are not the same, and they rely on conditions distinctly; therefore they do not remedy each other. For this reason, the contemplation gates arising in the text have slightly different scopes, as explained fully below, and should be considered accordingly. The six thorough inquiries remedy the view of distinction, namely for persons of sharp faculties. The three thorough inquiries remedy integration and the view of oneness and so forth, for persons of dull faculties. Why? Because the view of distinction is an action of view, while the view of integration and oneness is an action of attachment.