華嚴法界玄鏡 1.59

1.59

Explanation: The third [part] provides questions, answers, and explanations, explaining both the dharma and the metaphor. Yet in the text, it speaks only in terms of dharma, making it clear by analogy. In the above metaphor there were three sections in the text, but now they are combined into just two sets of questions and answers: the first question raises large and small while the answer also incorporates unity and difference; the second poses a question against the third section above, where the great ocean is simultaneously contrasted with a single wave and multiple waves to mutually consider their equal pervasion without obstruction. In the former, first comes the question, followed by the answer. Now this is the first question. In the text there are two parts: First, questioning by viewing phenomena from principle; in terms of the metaphor, this corresponds to the entire great ocean being in a single wave above yet the ocean not being small; hence it says "since principle completely in its entirety pervades," etc., which uses pervasion to challenge non-smallness. From "since it is not small like the dust particle" downward, it uses non-smallness to challenge pervasion. Second, from "furthermore, a single dust particle completely encompasses" downward, it challenges by viewing principle from phenomena. First, it uses a single dust particle to challenge greatness; next, saying "if it is not broad and large like principle" downward, it uses non-broadness to challenge pervasion. In terms of the metaphor, this corresponds to a single wave completely pervading the great ocean above yet the wave not being large. From "this becomes a contradiction" downward, it concludes the challenge. "Mao" is a spear (zuan); "dun" is a shield (pai). In the past, someone was selling both articles; praising his shield, he said: "No spear can pierce it." Praising his spear, he said: "It can pierce a ten-layered shield." A buyer said: "If I buy your spear and pierce your shield with it, will it not pierce it?" The meaning clarifies that the two statements mutually contradict each other.