華嚴法界玄鏡 1.43

1.43

Commentary: This fourth contemplation is broadly divided into two: first, directly explaining the fourth; second, reconciling and explaining it in conjunction with the preceding three contemplations to complete the whole. The present section is the first, containing three parts in the text: first, stating the name; second, from "This means that this" downward, explaining the characteristics; third, from "Why is this?" downward, inquiring and concluding. The general intention here is merely to brush away traces and reveal perfection. If explained in detail, form and emptiness in relation to each other entail many meanings: First is the meaning of harmonizing the two truths: the first [gate], reducing form to emptiness, clarifies that the conventional is identical to the ultimate; the second, clarifying that emptiness is form, reveals that the ultimate is identical to the conventional; the third, the non-obstruction of form and emptiness, clarifies that both truths are simultaneously manifest; the fourth, total annihilation without reliance, clarifies that both truths are entirely annihilated. In terms of the three truths, the first is the ultimate truth, the second is the conventional truth, and the latter one is the middle-way primary truth. In terms of the three contemplations, the first is the contemplation of emptiness, the second is the contemplation of provisionality, and the third and fourth are the contemplation of the middle way—the third clarifies the middle by illuminating both, and the fourth clarifies the middle by negating both. Although there are three contemplations, their intention is to clarify that the three contemplations fuse into true emptiness. Second, form and emptiness in relation to each other have four propositions in total, with slight variations in the texts used: In the first contemplation of reducing form to emptiness, among its four propositions, the first three propositions clarify that form is not different from emptiness, and the fourth proposition clarifies that form is emptiness. In the second contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is form, among its four propositions, the first three propositions clarify that emptiness is not different from form, and the fourth proposition clarifies that emptiness is form. The third contemplation merely unites the preceding two. Now the fourth proposition brushes away the characteristics of the four propositions, revealing the characteristic of true emptiness: neither arising nor ceasing, up to no wisdom and no attainment; thus the contemplation of true emptiness is complete. If considered in terms of the three contemplations according to the meaning of the Heart Sūtra: "form is not different from emptiness" clarifies that the conventional is not different from the ultimate; "emptiness is not different from form" clarifies that the ultimate is not different from the conventional; and the mutual identity of form and emptiness clarifies the middle way. Thus the above four propositions constitute the three contemplations of emptiness, provisionality, and the middle. This is identical to the present meaning, with only slight differences in the texts used. Third, form and emptiness in relation to each other have three meanings in total: first, the meaning of mutual establishment; second, the meaning of non-obstruction; third, the meaning of mutual negation, as detailed in the second contemplation of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena. The present text contains these three: the first two of mutual identity are also the meaning of mutual establishment; the third contemplation of the non-obstruction of form and emptiness directly clarifies the meaning of non-obstruction; the present fourth contemplation is precisely the meaning of mutual negation, for by mutually negating, both are entirely annihilated. Although there are these three meanings, they all reveal the meaning of true emptiness. If explaining the text separately: "cannot be called identical to form or not identical to form" brushes away the preceding second contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is form. "Cannot be called identical to form" directly brushes away the fourth proposition; "cannot be called not identical to form" also brushes away the first three propositions. Because emptiness is non-empty, there is nothing that can be called identical to form or not identical to form. Moreover, because principle fundamentally transcends speech, and in terms of contemplation the mind merges with the ultimate reality, only then is the marvelous contemplation of form achieved. Next, "nor can it be called identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness" brushes away the first contemplation of reducing form to emptiness. "Cannot be called identical to emptiness" directly brushes away the fourth proposition; "cannot be called not identical to emptiness" also brushes away the first three propositions. Because form is also non-form, there is nothing that can be called identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness; because phenomena are identical to principle, because principle fundamentally transcends speech, and because the mind merges with the ultimate reality without any mind that identifies, only then is the contemplation of identity with emptiness achieved. Furthermore, the above reducing form to emptiness is free from the calumny of reification; clarifying that it is identical to form is free from the calumny of denigration; the non-obstruction of form and emptiness is free from the calumny of non-duality and conceptual proliferation; now, there being nothing to mutually identify is free from the calumny of mutual contradiction. Since the four calumnies are absent, the hundred negations are completely severed; hence it is utterly detached and without reliance. Moreover, "All dharmas are inadmissible" concludes by analogizing and generally brushing away. "Analogizing" means that it is not only form-dharmas that constitute their three contemplations, but they are all brushed away; the myriad transforming dharmas of feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are all identical to the preceding form. "Generally brushing away" means generally brushing away the preceding three—reducing form to emptiness and so forth—as all being inadmissible; nor are there four propositions that can be severed, or three contemplations that can be brushed away; therefore, even this inadmissibility is inadmissible. Saying "this statement is also not accepted" means that if one accepts that it is inexpressible, asserting this would mean there is an acceptance; if there is an acceptance, there is thought; and whatever has thought is a trace of mind and speech; therefore it is utterly detached and without reliance. Since the two extremes are left behind, the middle way does not remain; mind and object are both forgotten; forgotten and severed without reliance, prajñā is manifest. If one generates mind and stirs thought, one fails in every case to tally with principle; because the path of language is cut off, speech cannot reach it; because the place of mental activity is extinguished, understanding cannot arrive at it. Saying "this is called the realm of practice" concludes by establishing the practice above. This has two meanings: First, what precedes is the realm of the practitioner; now, mind and object merge, wisdom and spirit unite, speech is forgotten and the bosom is hollowed, the mind is submerged and wisdom is discarded, and only then does one reach this realm, making clear that only practice can arrive, as it is not the realm of understanding. Second, precisely the above tallying of mind and wisdom is true practice; practice is itself the boundary of the realm and practice. Third, from "Why is this?" downward, it explains by negation to establish practice.