註華嚴法界觀門 1.128

1.128

The above properly differentiates practice and understanding. Below, their mutual necessity is shown by contrast, just as eyes and feet mutually assist each other. Furthermore, the first phrase gathers rūpa into emptiness, being free from the slander of superimposition; the second clarifies that emptiness is rūpa, being free from the slander of deprecation; the third is the non-obstruction of emptiness and rūpa, not being a double negation, and is free from the slander of frivolous proliferation; the fourth is total cessation without resting on anything, not being both empty and rūpa, and is free from the slander of contradiction. With the four slanders eliminated, the hundred negations are completely extinguished, which already corresponds to the ultimate reach of the signless Mahāyāna in the eight Prajñā sections; how much more so with the subsequent two contemplations, which progressively deepen and become more profound. Furthermore, the first phrase corresponds to 'rūpa is precisely emptiness', the next phrase to 'emptiness is precisely rūpa', the third to 'rūpa is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from rūpa', and the fourth corresponds to 'neither arising nor ceasing' up to 'no wisdom and no attainment'. Moreover, viewing the text superficially, it might seem that the first phrase corresponds to the contemplation of emptiness contemplating the ultimate truth, the next phrase to the contemplation of provisionality contemplating the conventional truth, and the third and fourth phrases to the contemplation of the Middle Way contemplating the supreme truth—the third being illuminating both to clarify the Middle, and the fourth being negating both to clarify the Middle. But examining closely the thesis of the contemplative text, this is not so. Although there are words like 'emptiness' and 'rūpa', they are only to accomplish the contemplation of true emptiness; the title is clearly as such, and if the three contemplations and three truths of emptiness, provisionality, ultimate, and conventional were already complete, what contemplation would the subsequent non-obstruction of principle and phenomena be? Thus we know this is not so. Next, the mutual support of practice and understanding is shown by contrast: