華嚴一乘法界圖 1.42

1.42

Question: If the dharmas of the domain of realization cannot be reached by verbal characteristics, and the dharmas of the verbal teaching reside within phenomena, do not the two dharmas of realization and teaching constantly incur the fault of residing in the two extremes? Answer: If spoken of according to sentiment, the two dharmas of realization and teaching constantly reside in the two extremes. If according to principle, the two dharmas of realization and teaching have originally been the Middle Way, unified without discrimination. How is this known? The imagined has no characteristics, the dependent has no arising, and the perfected has no nature; the three natures constantly reside in the Middle Way. Outside these three dharmas, there are no realization and teaching apart from them; therefore, one should know they are unified without discrimination. Therefore, when the ultimate person attains this principle, names and characteristics cannot reach it; yet to speak for sentient beings, words reside within phenomena. Thus the sūtra verse says: 'All Tathāgatas / do not teach Buddha-dharmas; / according to how they should be converted, / they preach the Dharma for them'—this is precisely its meaning. Therefore the noble one, following the imagined, establishes the three natures to temporarily pacify exhausted minds, and gradually thereafter reveals the three non-natures to awaken the dreaming person. This is precisely the great skillfulness of the noble one. Question: As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'The parikalpita is the realm of ordinary people; the paratantra and pariniṣpanna are the realm of noble wisdom.' Why does the noble one accord with the imagined? Answer: Imagined dharmas exist due to inversion; therefore the treatise says: 'Because the realm of ordinary people is ultimately empty, there is nothing to be opposed to.' Therefore in the treatise it is not the realm of the noble one; it does not mean that the emptiness of wisdom is not the realm of the noble one. Therefore, out of compassionate upāya, the noble one speaks of flowers in the sky according with the eye disease—what objection could there be? The conclusion lies right here. The characteristics of the dependent nature arise from causes and conditions, lack svabhāva, are free from the fault of the two extremes, and are identical with selflessness. The perfected nature is an equal dharma, perfectly fused, neither other nor this can be distinguished, originally of one taste; by this meaning, discrimination cannot reach it. Therefore the treatise says: 'the realm of noble wisdom.' Such is the distinct meaning. If spoken of according to reality, all three natures are the realm of ordinary people. Why is this? Establishing the three natures by explaining phenomena according with nature is the realm of noble wisdom. Why is this? Because it manifests principle according with wisdom and is not an establishment. Therefore, in the sūtras there are places where outside the three natures the three non-natures are not established, and there are also places where outside the three natures the three non-natures are separately established. Why is this? Because establishing them according with sentiment pertains to the gate of understanding, the three non-natures are separately established; because manifesting principle according with wisdom pertains to the gate of practice, the three non-natures are not established outside the three. Even outside the two there is no reality, how much less could there be three non-natures separately outside the three natures! How is it known? Wisdom without characteristics and so forth is directly present and ultimately has no dharma to be opposed to, solely abiding in the Middle Way. Therefore, one must understand the reason for the establishment of the teachings.