摩訶止觀 10

English (machine translation) 10

Language: English

10.1

Expounded by the Great Master Tiantai Zhizhe of the Sui

Seventh, the realm of contemplating views: not one is called 'various'; perverted understanding is called 'views'. Understanding and knowing is also the meaning of 'views'. When one infers the principle improperly, yet biased views are distinct and one forms a definitive understanding, this is called a 'view'. Now, those who study by listening recite the names and characteristics, forming understanding aligned with the text; their mind's eye does not open, completely lacking contemplation of principle. Those who rely on the text survive [only in words], while those without realization perish. Those who practice dhyāna value only contemplation of principle, their minds blending with whatever they touch; yet they are dark regarding names and characteristics, not knowing a single phrase. Reciters of texts keep watch by the stump, while those of open sensibility attain wondrous awakening; both houses lack something, and both their evaluations fall short.

10.4

If one's view and understanding are unhindered and one is also familiar with names and terms, questioning others with one's view and understanding will be inexhaustible, like curving an arrow around birds so that their flight and running lose the path. If one's explanations of difficult questions have room to spare, like shooting into empty space with the arrow passing unobstructed, one should know that this does not come from study, but that a view must have arisen. This view may arise through dhyāna or through hearing [the Dharma], just as when the outflow-free arises, it relies on faith, Dharma, hearing, and reflecting. For those in whom it arises through hearing, originally they did not listen to much, yet they are broadly able to turn it into awakening, with clear views and understanding, and clever eloquence in question and answer. For those in whom it arises through dhyāna, at first it is due to mental tranquility, and later their contemplation becomes increasingly clear, turning freely as though in wondrous penetration. In the south, practitioners of dhyāna are few, and people in whom views arise are rare; in the north, this occurrence is common.

10.5

Blind and unseeing, they say they have attained the true path, or say they have attained dhāraṇī. Dim in discerning people, they place themselves high in rank. At times, not believing them, others repudiate them as mad and deluded. I now say they are neither mad nor sage. When someone is possessed by a ghost, they can speak, but when the ghost departs, they become dull; since this is not the case here, we know they are not mad. Searching into their old delusions, greed and anger are still present; examining their new delusions, afflictions have increased further, and the eighty-eight anusayas bind them vastly—hence we know they are not sages. It is simply that the wisdom of views has arisen. Broadly speaking, the arising of views occurs through hearing or through dhyāna, but mostly through dhyāna. Either views arise after dhyāna, or dhyāna and views arise together; cases where dhyāna is attained after views are rare, while the other two meanings are frequent. For example, all dhyānas generally give rise to the outflow-free, yet those arising from the not-yet-arrived [dhyāna] are few, while those arising from the six stages or nine stages are many. For this reason, following the realm of dhyāna-samādhi, the various views are discussed.

10.6

If when a view arises, a person's sharp wisdom and faculties are mature so that they can correct themselves, or they examine scriptures and treatises to recognize their own errors, such a person is rare to find. If they cannot correct themselves, but encounter a good spiritual friend who clearly points out right and wrong and breaks their mind of views, this too is rare to find. Therefore it is said: 'Because the true Dharma, the one who expounds it, and the audience that listens are rare to find.' When one neither realizes it oneself nor meets a teacher, perverted delineations increase by the day and saṃsāra intensifies by the month; like dragging a crooked log through a dense forest, when will there ever be a time of emergence?

10.7

The contemplation of the realm of views now comprises four parts: first, clarifying the persons and dharmas of various views; second, clarifying the causes and conditions for the arising of various views; third, clarifying the faults; fourth, clarifying calming and contemplation.

10.8

First, clarifying the persons and dharmas of various views also has two parts: first, the differences among perverted persons; second, the differences among the dharmas grasped by perverted persons. The differences among perverted persons further comprise three: first, tīrthikas outside the Buddha-Dharma; second, tīrthikas attached to the Buddha-Dharma; third, those who study the Buddha-Dharma and become tīrthikas.

10.9

First, the external tīrthikas. Their original sources are three: first, the Kapila tīrthikas, translated here as 'Yellow Head', who postulate that the effect exists within the cause; second, Ulūka, translated here as 'Rest and Wait', who postualtes that the effect does not exist within the cause; third, Ṛṣabha, translated here as 'Ascetic Practice', who postualtes that the effect both exists and does not exist within the cause. Furthermore, the *Ru dacheng lun* states: 'What Kapila expounded has the fault of postulating oneness: the agent and the action are one, the mark and the marked are one, the part and the whole are one—such things are called postulating oneness. Ulūka postualtes difference; Kakuda postualtes oneness and difference; the Nirgrantha son postualtes neither oneness nor difference. All tīrthikas and Makkhali and so forth who postulate difference do not depart from these four.' From these three or four tīrthikas branched out streams, until when the Buddha appeared in the world there were the six great teachers: namely, Pūraṇa Kāśyapa—Kāśyapa being his lineage name—who postulated non-arising and non-ceasing; Maskarin Gośālīputra, who postulated that the suffering and pleasure of sentient beings have no causes and conditions, being naturally so; Sañjayin Vairaṭīputra, who postulated that sentient beings attain the path when their time is ripe, reaching it after eighty thousand kalpas just as a ball of thread unravels to its very end; Ajita Keśakambala—*kambala* meaning coarse clothing—who postulated that the suffering of karmic retribution could be substituted by jumping off cliffs and pulling out hair; Kakuda Kātyāyana, who postulated both existence and non-existence; and Nirgrantha Jñātiputra, who postulated that what is made by karma is fixed and unchangeable. This derives from Kumārajīva's commentary; the names are the same as in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*. What they postulate has three identical and three different; whether this is a translation error or has another meaning is not yet clear at present. But in general, they trace their lineage to Kapila and the others, relying on an original three, or perhaps four—meaning the four views.

10.10

Second, tīrthikas attached to the Buddha-Dharma: originating from Vātsīputra and Fangguang, who, considering themselves clever, read the Buddha's sūtras and treatises and gave rise to a view; because it arose attached to the Buddha-Dharma, it received this name. Vātsīputra read the *Śāriputrābhidharma* and constructed a separate doctrine himself, saying: 'The self is outside the four propositions, within the fifth ineffable treasury.' What are the four propositions? Tīrthikas postulate that form is the self, the self exists apart from form, the self exists within form, or form exists within the self; the same holds for the other four aggregates, totaling twenty views of selfhood. The *Da zhidu lun* says: 'Shattering the twenty views of selfhood achieves the status of srotāpanna'—this is the meaning. Now Vātsīputra's postulation of a self differs from the six teachers and is also not the Buddha-Dharma; all treatises push it aside and do not accept it, so it is the dharma of a perverted person attached to the Buddha-Dharma. Some say that the three times and unconditioned dharmas constitute the four propositions. Furthermore, the Fangguang practitioner, considering himself clever, read the Buddha's ten similes and constructed his own doctrine, saying: 'Unarisen and unceasing, like an illusion and like a transformation, emptiness and illusion are the fundamental principle.' Nāgārjuna refuted it, saying: 'This is not the Buddha-Dharma!' What Fangguang produced is likewise the dharma of a perverted person.

10.11

Third, studying the Buddha's teaching and becoming tīrthikas: clinging to the Buddhist doctrinal gates and giving rise to afflictions, failing to enter the principle. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "If one does not attain the skillful means of prajñā, then entering the Abhidharma, one falls into existence; entering emptiness, one falls into non-existence; entering the Piṭaka of Kāraṇḍa (Kunle), one falls into both existence and non-existence." The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "Clinging to neither existence nor non-existence is called foolish talk." Inversely clinging to the true Dharma, it turns back into the doctrine of wrong people. If one studies the four gates of the Mahāyāna and thereby loses the intent of prajñā, being burned by wrong fire, it likewise turns into the doctrine of wrong people. Hence the Śatakaśāstra primarily refutes external tīrthikas. Now the Mahāyāna treatise masters fiercely refute the Abhidharma and the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, asserting that they are tīrthikas clinging to existence and non-existence. However, the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra says: "Emptiness is the true meaning within the Tripiṭaka." This resembles the intent of non-existence. Furthermore, it agrees with the correctness of the hundred schools and differs from the errors of the hundred schools, grasping at meanings that appear and disappear, which again resembles the intent that an effect both exists and does not exist in the cause, and also resembles the intent of the Piṭaka of Kāraṇḍa. When those treatises arose at that time, people all attained the path; those today who cling to them are simply in personal error—what does this have to do with the Dharma being flawed? Here one should be judicious and not equate them unreflectively with Kapila and the rest. If one refutes the Hīnayāna by means of the Mahāyāna, like the rebuke in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, it is because their failure to see the principle of the middle is identical to that of tīrthikas, not that it deprives them of the intent of skillful means.

10.12

Second, explaining the differences in the Dharmas adhered to by wrong people: the Guanzhong commentary says, "Each master has three kinds of methods: first, the method of attaining all-knowledge; second, the method of attaining supernormal powers; third, the method of attaining the Vedas." As for all-knowledge, each gives rise to a kind of view regarding what they hold; with a luminous and sharp understanding, they apply this view and knowledge to penetrate all phenomena, hence they are called "all-knowledge tīrthikas." As for the method of supernormal powers, they arouse and attain the five supernormal powers: turning a city into salt, transforming Śakra into a sheep, halting a river inside an ear, and touching the sun and moon; these are called "supernormal power tīrthikas." As for the method of the Vedas, they are able to understand worldly writing, astrology, medicine, military tactics, and commerce; these are "Vedic tīrthikas." Thus, for one master there are three different kinds of attainments. Vātsīputrīya and the Fangguang are also like this.

10.13

If considered in terms of wrongly clinging to the Buddha's teaching, based on the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching, one gate has three: first, directly generating understanding of the principle, so that the nature of wisdom gives rise to a view; second, attaining various supernormal powers; third, understanding the texts of the four Āgamas. In this way, across the four gates there are twelve different kinds of attainments. If one grasps the intent, at the beginning in each gate there are three kinds of smṛtyupasthāna: first, intrinsic nature smṛtyupasthāna; second, shared smṛtyupasthāna; third, conditioned smṛtyupasthāna. "Intrinsic nature" is directly taking the principle of truth as condition; "shared" is the joint cultivation of phenomena and principle; "conditioned" is universally taking all objective realms and phenomena as conditions, and is also taking the doctrinal teachings of the Tripiṭaka as conditions. Later, when verifying the fruit, one accomplishes three kinds of liberation: wisdom-liberation, dual liberation, and doubt-free liberation. Therefore, when compiling the Dharma treasury, one thousand persons were selected, all possessing doubt-free liberation, who universally understood internal and external scriptures and treatises to subdue external opponents. The Abhidharma-vibhāṣā says: "Liberation from the obstacle of afflictions, liberation from the obstacle of dhyāna-concentration, and liberation from the obstacle of all phenomena." A person of wisdom-liberation attains the first liberation; a person of dual liberation attains the second liberation; only a Buddha attains the third liberation, collectively named "doubt-free liberation." For those who cling to the four gates of the shared, distinctive, and perfect teachings of the Mahāyāna and lose their intent, by analogy there are thirty-six different kinds of attainments.

10.14

Second, explaining the arising of the various views has two parts: first, explaining the arising of the various views; second, differences in the arising of the views. First, explaining the arising of the views: it occurs either due to dhyāna or due to hearing. For long kalpas sentient beings have left nothing undone, having previously practiced various views; separated by rebirths, they forgot them midway, and demérit veiled their original understanding so their minds did not open swiftly. Now, if the obstacles become thin, they can arouse various dhyānas: either dhyāna and views arise together, or views arise after dhyāna, or upon hearing others speak, views suddenly arise. It is like spring water blocked by earth and stone: once the obstruction is cleared away, it surges forth into a river. The dark obstacles having been removed, discriminative thinking unfolds continuously, persisting day after day for ten days without cease; round after round they raise their own objections and round after round they resolve them themselves; what they adhere to appears real and coherent, while what they do not adhere to appears false and refutes itself. Furthermore, their eloquence is unhindered; they skillfully expound their own doctrines with ornate expressions; when others come to challenge them, they are wonderfully able to explain and defend them.

10.15

From where does such view-wisdom emerge? It is because within dhyāna there is the contemplation factor. The contemplation factor is a mental factor of wisdom; it contemplates all phenomena unchecked without knowing when to stop itself, like a swift horse drenched in sweat that cannot be reined in. If people who listen to lectures have no dhyāna to moisten their views, as soon as they wish to discriminate, they often vomit blood from their intestines, thereby terminating their lives, and the view is ultimately not accomplished. If the power of samādhi moistens contemplation, though unchecked and hard to restrain, it does not lead to vomiting blood from the intestines, and often succeeds in forming a view.

10.16

Investigating principle from this contemplation factor, one claims that in all phenomena an effect exists within the cause. This understanding is luminous and sharp, penetrating profound meanings that surpass other people. Applying this to challenge others, others cannot understand and are called liars; clinging to one's own proposition, others cannot refute it, and one considers oneself to be true, lacking the genuine wisdom of non-arising and the subtle mind that attains principle. If investigated closely, it is merely the delusion of views. Worldly wisdom and dialectical cleverness are fully endowed with the net of eighty-eight anusayas of inverted delusion—how could this relate to genuine understanding? One should know that this is the characteristic of the arising of Kapila's view.

10.17

Furthermore, investigating all phenomena based on the contemplation factor, one claims that an effect does not exist within the cause. This view is distinct and the understanding mind is fierce and sharp: though various objections are raised, one can resolve them in various ways and cite various proofs, establishing the doctrine that an effect does not exist within the cause. Using this to refute others, others cannot withstand it and the rest are deemed liars; when others come to refute oneself, one's own adherence becomes all the firmer, regarding this as the truth. Establishing assertions and their ultimate purport, one turns solely toward the non-existence of an effect in the cause. One should know that this is definitely the arising of the Sāṃkhya view.

10.18

If one ponders through the contemplation factor that in all phenomena an effect both exists and does not exist in the cause: the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "Existence disputes with non-existence, and non-existence disputes with existence." It states that Dīrghanakha clung to both existence and non-existence, disputing with those who held to existence and non-existence. If one enters this view, raising objections is inexhaustible; how could this not be the arising of the view of Ṛṣabha?

10.19

The assertions of the six teachers are different. One must thoroughly comprehend the underlying adherence of each teacher and examine it against the view that has arisen. Although there are slight differences, as long as the general outline is similar, it is the arising of the views of the six teachers.

10.20

If through the contemplation factor one asserts that there must be a self, which is neither within the four propositions of personality view nor within the four propositions of the three times and the unconditioned, but exists in the fifth ineffable treasury: when this view arises, the understanding mind is luminous and sharp, capable of questioning and answering, remarkably swift and agile, difficult to meet head-on. Refuting others and establishing oneself, it is utterly unshakeable. One should know that this is the arising of the Vātsīputrīya view.

10.21

If through the contemplation factor one asserts that all phenomena are illusory and creates the characteristic of absolute emptiness: this understanding is nihilistic, failing to see any difference between the understanding mind and all phenomena, treating them alike as illusory. Holding only this to be correct and all else to be false: this is the arising of the Fangguang view.

10.22

If through the contemplation factor one investigates all phenomena as impermanent, arising and ceasing without abiding; a person and self are unattainable like turtle hair and rabbit horns, and there are only real phenomena; analyzing the dust-particles of real phenomena, whether coarse or subtle, contemplating them collectively as impermanent and non-self, and clinging to this as real: the view and understanding that arise fully accord with the Abhidharma. Former listeners, though understanding names and marks, had no open path in their minds; if this view arises, though they may be obtuse in written texts, their spiritual understanding is magnified a hundredfold. Those who do not recognize it consider them to be sages, but in reality they are not. If one were a sage, the mind of the path would be flourishing, arising together with understanding, capable of subduing afflictions and fulfilling the stage of skillful means. Now, although they understand impermanence, dispute and contention increase, the mind of the path sinks away, and afflictions become increasingly fierce; hence one knows this is the arising of the view of the gate of existence. If through the contemplation factor an understanding of emptiness suddenly arises, asserting that impermanence, arising, and ceasing, as well as the three provisionalities, are insubstantial and vacuous; analyzing dust-particles to enter emptiness through various skillful means; this view is luminous and sharp, its mental functioning swift, strong in interrogation, refuting others and establishing oneself, this being true and the rest false: this is the arising of the view of the gate of emptiness. If through the contemplation factor one asserts that all phenomena both exist and do not exist: if one enters this gate, raising objections is inexhaustible. This is the intent of the Piṭaka of Kāraṇḍa; since the treatise was not translated, the arising from habituation is indeterminate. This is the arising of the view of both existence and non-existence. The view of neither existence nor non-existence can be known by analogy. One should know that when the four gates penetrate principle, they become right views; if one loses skillful means, one falls into the four views, hence it is called "internal wrongness within the Buddha's teaching." Not only does clinging to the four gates of the Tripiṭaka turn into wrong views, but for immeasurable kalpas one has also studied the shared, distinctive, and perfect teachings of the Mahāyāna without entering principle, preserving them as correct, seizing upon the four extremes, and being burned by the fire of wrong views.

10.23

Now, within the contemplation factor, past understanding suddenly arises: viewing illusory existence as like dreams and flowers in empty space, one forms this understanding of existence, and the understanding mind is luminous and sharp. Or one considers the illusion to have originally no reality, and because it lacks reality it is empty, so that the understanding of emptiness is luminous and sharp. Or one forms an understanding of both emptiness and existence, like an illusory object which is visible yet cannot be grasped as real. Or one forms an understanding of neither emptiness nor existence, being neither illusory existence nor illusory non-existence. The "Chapter on Contemplating Dharmas" in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "If one says that all phenomena are neither existent nor non-existent, this is called foolish talk." When a practitioner heard it expounded and immediately awakened, that was called attaining true reality; when a wrong mind grasps and adheres to it, generating conceptual proliferation, it is determined to belong to foolish talk. These are the four views of the four gates of the shared teaching.

10.24

If within the contemplation factor one ponders that the understanding of the four gates of the shared teaching is an illusory dream within the realms; this dream arises from the state of sleep, and sleep is avidyā. Contemplating avidyā to enter dharmatā also has four gates. One either says that dharmatā is like the seven treasures in a well; or says it is like empty space; or says it is like a jar of fermented milk; or says it is the middle way. When these four understandings are luminous and sharp, this is the arising of the views of the four gates of the distinctive teaching.

10.25

If within the contemplation factor one suddenly understands that avidyā, when turned around, transforms into vidyā, and vidyā is endowed with all phenomena. Or one asserts that avidyā cannot be obtained to transform into vidyā, and how could vidyā be obtained? This unobtainability is endowed with all phenomena. Or one asserts that the vidyā of dharmatā is both obtainable and unobtainable, neither obtainable nor unobtainable. One gate is immediately three gates, and three gates are immediately one gate. This understanding is luminous and sharp; whatever it refutes, nothing is not destroyed, and whatever it maintains, nothing is not established; none can surpass it, and one also considers oneself to have attained the forbearance of non-arising. Such an understanding as this is the arising of the views of the four gates of the perfect teaching.

10.26

When all four gates of the Mahāyāna become views, true words become false words because a view of words has arisen. Nirvāṇa becomes saṃsāra because greedy attachment has arisen. Taking too much ambrosia harms life and brings premature death; losing the gate of skillful means, one falls into wrong adherence, hence it is called "internal wrong views." The four views are the root of all views; self and other are further the root of both shared and causeless. Therefore, after Nāgārjuna refuted self and other, he pointed out that shared has two faults, and causeless is impossible. Since self and other are already unreal, how much more so causeless? When the root is broken, the branches collapse—his intention lies here. If self and other are established, shared and causeless are established by analogy. Now, regarding the mistaken clinging to the four gates of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna turning into views, having merely explained the intent of self and other, the rest can be known.

10.27

If the Tripiṭaka [teaching] explains that the great birth produces the small birth, both arise from avidyā and do not arise from the real. If avidyā ceases, conditioned formations cease; it has nothing to do with the cessation of the real. One who grasps this view has formed the wrong view of svabhāva (inherent nature). The shared teaching explains that the real is non-arising; because it is non-arising, it gives rise to all delusions. If these delusions are extinguished, it is also due to non-arising. Grasping this is the wrong view of parabhāva (other-nature). Within the realms [of samsara], delusions are taken as the self and the real as the other, and thus this explanation is made. Beyond the realms, dharmatā is taken as the self and avidyā as the other. The distinctive teaching maintains that the ālaya produces all delusions, and through the cultivation of wisdom, this avidyā is extinguished; what can produce and what can extinguish have nothing to do with dharmatā. This grasping of parabhāva produces wrong view. The perfect teaching asserts that dharmatā produces all phenomena and dharmatā extinguishes all phenomena; this is grasping the wrong view of svabhāva. Formerly the lord was weak and the ministers strong; now the lord is strong and the ministers weak. The remaining two [modes of view] can be known by inference.

10.28

Generally, from hearing [the teachings] one mostly generates views of principle and rarely generates supernormal powers or the Vedas; from meditation one mostly generates supernormal powers and the Vedas, and rarely generates views of principle. One who manifests views of principle subdues scholars; one who manifests supernormal powers subdues ordinary people. Ordinary people grasp at the wondrous and do not grasp at understanding; scholars grasp at understanding and do not grasp at the wondrous. One who manifests the Vedas concurrently subdues [both]; one who fully manifests all three is best able to concurrently subdue [both]. Those manifested from meditation have already been explained above; those manifested from hearing will now be explained.

10.29

Although the practitioner has attained meditation, views have not yet arisen; he requires an external person to inspire his mind. His mind being quiet and sharp, he suddenly hears that an effect exists within the cause, his mind opens in enlightenment, and he penetrates wrong wisdom: hundreds of thousands of layers of meaning grow ever deeper and more distant, like a spring in rock. This is the arising of the Kapila view from hearing. The other three are also like this. If he hears of the fifth ineffable treasury or hears of illusory transformation, the Vātsīputrīya view then arises. Or, hearing the four gates of the Tripiṭaka, according to whichever phrase he understands, a viewing mind suddenly surges up, with a deep understanding of impermanence, and the contemplating mind leaps so vigorously that it can no longer be controlled. This is the arising of the gate of existence view through hearing. The [other] three gates are also like this. If he hears the twelve gates of the Mahāyāna, he generates understanding according to each gate; his understanding mind is sharp and bright, surpassing what he had previously heard. Although he produces this understanding, it is not great expedient means, nor does it enter the minor worthies, nor is it the wrong understanding of Kapila and the like; therefore it is known to be the arising of the twelve-gate view.

10.30

Second, explaining the differences in the dharmas manifested: the Kapila tīrthika directly generates view-understanding; his understanding mind is mighty, his wrong wisdom outstanding and impossible to vanquish: this is the attainment of the dharma of all-knowledge (sarvajñā). If he directly manifests supernormal powers, treading on water and fire, appearing and disappearing at will, who would not call him a sage? Paramārtha Tripiṭaka said: 'In the land of Cina there are two kinds of blessings... (and so forth).' This is the attainment of the dharma of supernormal powers. If he directly manifests the Vedas, he knows secular writing, reads all the classics, and understands them at first glance. Or he secretly reads the scriptures of the Tripiṭaka, the Mahāyāna, and so on; as soon as they meet his eye he recognizes them, and turns around to use this knowledge to adorn his own teachings. If so, the inner and outer mix together, becoming almost indistinguishable. Nowadays there are many who return to lay life: fearing royal service, they enter among the tīrthikas, steal the Buddhist teachings, secretly interpret Zhuangzi and Laozi, and thus create a confusion that deludes beginners: who is orthodox, and who is heterodox? This is the manifestation of the dharma of the Vedas. Each single type of tīrthika attains three dharmas; in terms of persons this makes seven: namely, the simple three, the compound three, and one who is complete. The other two tīrthikas are also like this; combined there are twenty-one different attainments of dharmas. In terms of the six teachers, one teacher has three, making eighteen in total. In terms of how much a person attains, there are forty-two different attainments of dharmas. The differences in the dharmas manifested by the Vātsīputrīya and the Fangguang (Vaitulya) also have the simple three, the compound three, and one who is complete.

10.31

If the internal wrong views differ in the dharmas attained: subtly distinguishing the principles maintained according to each and every gate, is this attaining the view of the smṛtyupasthāna of intrinsic nature, and also liberation through wisdom? The other gates are also like this. If one solely or concurrently manifests supernormal powers, soaring and flying freely at will, is this attaining the view of the smṛtyupasthāna of common characteristics, and also liberation in both ways? If one has unimpeded penetrating wisdom yet cannot preach the Dharma, or investigates sūtras and treatises, or listens to others speak, and instantly penetrates names and terms; moreover, below he penetrates the Vedas and above he penetrates the Mahāyāna, using his own views entirely to resolve all Dharma gates and using all Dharma gates to adorn his own views. Each of the four gates has three kinds; in terms of persons there are also seven meanings. If in the four gates of the shared, distinctive, and perfect teachings, each directly manifests wisdom-understanding, each merely manifests transformations and powers, and each knows inner and outer scriptures, they themselves claim their path is true, while others say they are lofty and eminent—now we merely call this wrong view. One gate has seven, combining to make eighty-four kinds (and so forth).

10.32

Furthermore, previously we generally discussed similarities and differences; now we will discuss them one by one. Although the three outer [traditions] and the six teachers all alike manifest all-knowledge, some have the all-knowledge of the view of existence, and some have the all-knowledge of the view of non-existence. Such various forms of all-knowledge grasp different points; therefore, views and knowledge differ. Each claims itself to be right and all others to be wrong. The Lotus Sūtra says: 'The jackal dies first.' This explains that when the sharp proclivities arise, the blunt proclivities submerge; hence it says 'dies first.' It also says: 'Many great ferocious beasts race to devour it.' This means that the single view grasped can devour all other views. A treatise on strength says: 'All teachers have the ultimate path; the Deer-Head is foremost.' One should know that the kinds of all-knowledge are each different. This extends to the all-knowledge of the four gates of the Tripiṭaka and the all-knowledge of the four gates of the Mahāyāna: each grasping what it views, mutually swallowing one another; their differences can be understood through contemplation.

10.33

Next, the differences in the dharma of supernormal powers: supernormal powers are attained by virtue of meditation, and the meditations attained are not fixed. Outer tīrthikas merely manifest powers based on fundamental [dhyāna], either the first, second, third, or fourth; their bases being different, their power and function are also distinct. Internal wrong views are also based on the fundamental, as well as on pure dhyāna; their bases being shallow or deep, the functions of their powers are superior or inferior. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Where there is a base, the function of the power is broad; where there is no base, the function of the power is inferior.' But meditation is the phenomenal practice, and supernormal power is the function; both belong to the adornment of merit and are not subjects of dispute. Although there is no dispute over principle, when comparing their bases, the powers and functions are entirely different.

10.34

Next, the differences in the Vedas: if they are the books for regulating the household and saving the world manifested and read by outer tīrthikas, their fascicles are not the same and their explanations differ. Those who manifest and read much have broad knowledge; those who do so little have narrow knowledge. The growth of pride and arrogance is entirely due to differences in texts. If those of internal wrong views do not manifest or read the texts of outer tīrthikas, their knowledge is narrow; if they manifest and read them, their knowledge is broad. If they do not manifest or read the texts of the Tripiṭaka, they do not know the names and characteristics within the realms [of samsara], and their knowledge and views are narrow; if they manifest and read them, their knowledge is broad. If they do not manifest or read the Mahāyāna, they do not know the names and characteristics beyond the realms, and their knowledge is narrow; if they manifest and read them, their knowledge is broad. One should know that the dharma of the Vedas differs sentence by sentence.

10.35

Furthermore, concluding and uniting the differences: now, both internal and external wrong views expound principle and wisdom, supernormal powers, and texts; they establish virtue, harmonize the mind, honor others and humble themselves, their renown moving living beings. They are like the āmra fruit, difficult to know whether raw or ripe; none under heaven can discern whether their fine appearances are heterodox or orthodox. Now it is very easy to judge them: as with the seven kinds of Kapila, if one examines their roots, they all arise from wrong non-existence. If one posits that the effect exists within the cause, he destroys all dharmas and preserves only this proposition. He performs various supernormal powers to sway the secular populace, causing people to believe and accept the dharma that the effect exists within the cause. The different schools of the Vedas he cites are names and characteristics adorning 'an effect exists within the cause.' All practices he establishes ultimately point toward and aim at 'an effect exists within the cause.' For the sake of the dharma he grasps, he moves body, speech, and mind, creating immeasurable sins, as will be explained later. From this examination one knows he is a Kapila tīrthika. The Sāṃkhya and Śaiva are also like this by analogy. Originally arising from wrong non-existence, in the end they return to what they grasp; the Vātsīputrīya is also like this. The small and great four gates can be understood on this model. Testing them by their origin and inspecting them by their final aim, the Jing and Wei rivers part their currents, and beans and wheat are distinguished in kind. Why should one carelessly equate Zhuangzi and Laozi with the Buddha's Dharma? If the heterodox and orthodox are already blended, how can one extract the great from the small? If one's own practice is not clear, how can one transform others? Master and disciple both fall.

10.36

Section three, explaining the faults, divided into two: first, explaining the faults; second, resolving them together. First, directly explaining the faults: if India has three main traditions, Cīnasthāna also has this meaning. Zhou Hongzheng, explaining the three mysteries, said: 'The Yijing divides the eight trigrams into yin and yang, auspicious and ominous; this clarifies the mystery with reference to "existence." Laozi is vacuous and harmonious; this clarifies the mystery with reference to "non-existence." Zhuangzi is natural spontaneity (ziran); this clarifies the mystery with reference to "existence" and "non-existence."' Other branches and lineages all trace their ancestral source to this. Now we shall briefly explain gain and loss with reference to this. As Zhuangzi says: 'Nobility and meanness, suffering and joy, right and wrong, gain and loss, are all their natural spontaneity.' If one says natural spontaneity, this does not destroy the effect; not discerning past karma is destroying the cause. Ritual regulation, benevolence, and righteousness protect the person and pacify the state; if not put into practice, the clan is wiped out and the family perishes. Merely establishing virtue in the present life without speaking of incurring retributions in future lives is destroying the effect without destroying the cause. If one says that blessing flows into future generations, combining this with the former, then there is both an effect and no effect.

10.37

Under a single proposition there are three kinds of actions: first, positing existence and practicing good; second, positing existence and practicing evil; third, positing existence and practicing the neutral. As it is said: 'In principle and proportion it should be so; wealth and nobility cannot be schemed for, poverty and meanness cannot be resented or avoided, life is not worth rejoicing over, and death—why bother fearing it?' Taking this empty mind, one dwells in nobility without arrogance and resides in destitution without distress; greed and anger cease, and one calms the breast. Instructing creatures with natural spontaneity as a prelude to entering principle—this is its gain. Gains are of many kinds. If one says: 'Constantly without desire, one observes its subtleties'—what kind of desire is absent? Disdaining jade discs, casting aside high ministerial ranks, washing the ears, and returning the ox, keeping to high aspirations: this is discarding the desires of the desire realm and grasping at the wondrous superiority of transcending above, taking the first dhyāna and so on as the wondrous. How is this known? Master Zhuang [relates]: 'The Yellow Emperor inquired of the Dao: observing the spirit and qi, he saw all the objects within the body.' Taking this as the Dao, it resembles manifesting the wonder of the first dhyāna in the contemplation of penetrating brightness. If one says: 'Greedy desire is the root of all suffering; if one is free from greedy desire, one attains nirvāṇa'—this is freedom from desires of the three realms, and attaining the wonder of cessation, stillness, subtlety, and departure. Furthermore, the Dharma is called undefiled: if defiled by the Dharma, that is defilement by nirvāṇa; free from this defiling desire, one attains the subtlety of the single path, making all these desires subtle, so that desires and subtlety are both absent. Which have you attained? You do not even recognize the desires of the desire realm and the wonder of the first dhyāna, how much less the subsequent desires and wonders? If discussed in terms of the provisional, it is adapting to capacities to gradually lead them, discussing desire and wonder through hidden characteristics, unable to speak clearly in definitive meaning. Merely ceasing the desire to strive and scheme, observing the wonder of natural spontaneity: once treacherous and crooked actions are eliminated, the wind of benevolence and yielding remains. These are all positing natural spontaneity and practicing good.

10.38

Furthermore, positing natural spontaneity, one gives free rein to his temper, neither steering toward the good nor exerting effort in doing evil. If he harms the harmony of the spirit, he does not accord with natural spontaneity. Although without taking and discarding, this is practicing the neutral. Since karmic action is not exhausted, how can receiving retribution be doubted?

10.39

As for those who posit nature and commit evil: they claim that all things are natural, indulge their desires to create evil, and in the end return to nature. This turns one's back on desirelessness and indulges desires, going against the subtle to consort with the coarse. Just as Zhuang Zhou denounced benevolence and righteousness, saying that although they guard against petty thieves, he did not consider that great thieves would hold up benevolence and righteousness to plot against their states. Originally, nature was used to quell desires, yet they hold up nature to do evil; the meaning here can be understood.

10.40

Next, with regard to the various Indian views, the view of emptiness is the strongest; we now rely upon it to discuss strengths and shortcomings. The view of emptiness comprises three: first, refuting causes without refuting results, or refuting results without refuting causes; second, refuting both causes and results, but not refuting all phenomena; third, refuting causes, results, and all phenomena. 'All phenomena' refers to the three unconditioned states. How does this third [view of] tīrthikas differ from the Buddha-dharma? The Da zhidu lun explains that the emptinesses of the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna differ in terms of embodying [emptiness] and analyzing [to emptiness]. Tīrthikas also have embodying and analyzing; how does this differ? Tīrthikas proceed from perverse causes and conditions or uncaused conditions, whether analyzing, embodying, or through ultimate emptiness. Disciples of the Buddha know that [phenomena] arise from causes and conditions of craving, whether analyzing, embodying, or through ultimate emptiness. Some say: 'The language of refutation is not embodying [emptiness].' We now clarify that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā from beginning to end uses refutation in the titles of its chapters; how could refutation be different from embodying [emptiness]? Therefore, one does not use this to distinguish correct from perverse, or great from small; one simply relies on the Da zhidu lun: analyzing correct causes and conditions differs from tīrthikas; embodying correct causes and conditions differs from the Hīnayāna.

10.41

If one gives rise to the view of emptiness based on perverse causes and conditions, there are also three lines of practice, yet they mostly commit evil. A person who truly contemplates emptiness knows that [things] arise from craving; they do not even perform good, how much less evil? For a person who gives rise to the view of emptiness, karmic rewards, wealth, and status are not their grounds for dispute; emptiness is their ground. With those who agree with their dharma of emptiness, they make friends and generate love; when someone praises existence and refutes emptiness, they become hostile enemies, angered and vexed; toward those who do not understand emptiness, they look down on them as mere dirt. Their minds of emptiness are without fear, they observe no rules or standards, giving free rein to their passions and indulging their desires, destroying correct view, comportment, and pure livelihood; upon death they will all fall into the three evil destinies. The six teachers say: 'If one has shame and conscience, one falls into hell; if one lacks shame and conscience, one does not fall into hell.' Sitting back-to-back to fish, walking past screens, urinating into wells during thunderstorms, rebelling against fathers and scorning mothers worse than strangers—they call this unhindered. If kin are treated differently from strangers, it is not equanimity. Practicing treachery and evil themselves, they further use it to convert others, engaging universally in wrongdoing together, devoid of propriety like beasts; how could the world tolerate this? Although they claim to be unhindered, they dare not rebel against their lords or scorn their queens, valuing their own bodies; thus they are hindered regarding the body. If this person simply generates this [state of mind], their view becomes ever more blazing, and they will never attain dhyāna. If having attained dhyāna they then generate the view, their dhyāna dharmas will mostly be lost. The dhyāna attained after generating the view is mostly demonic dhyāna and demonic superknowledges, able to divine good and bad fortune and know the minds of others. Furthermore, they extensively search the Vedas to corroborate this view and cause others to believe and accept it. Destroying worldly and world-transcending goodness, they are called 'man-eating dogs.' If one kind is not destroyed, they are not called satiated; only when they have refuted all dharmas is their mind of view satiated, and satiation means becoming ever more blazing. Internally they have no actual practice, but only empty disputatious calculation, like howling dogs begging for food. Grasping emptiness and disputing with existence, the mutual refutation of emptiness and existence is their snarling; praising themselves is their barking; refuting others is called clawing; establishing themselves is called snatching. Moreover, wavering in doubt is their snarling, while intimidating others is their barking, just like a watchdog barking to make others afraid. Such a person purely practices evil themselves.

10.42

Converting others has four modes: first, committing evil oneself and encouraging others to practice good; second, praising and practicing good oneself and encouraging others to commit evil; third, both oneself and others committing evil; fourth, both oneself and others practicing good. As for committing evil oneself and encouraging good: saying, 'I can penetrate the principle, so evil does not obstruct me; your practice is shallow, so you must first train in good.' The way of conversion should first guide them with good. As for being good oneself and encouraging evil: saying, 'I am the converting master, blending light requires good; you are engaged in personal practice, so you should rightly commit evil.' As for both oneself and others committing evil: because both practice the ultimate way. As for both oneself and others practicing good: because both practice the expedient way. Although these four differ, all take evil as their root and sink down according to karma; what way could one follow here?

10.43

Furthermore, as for those who practice good with the view of emptiness: emptiness is devoid of good and evil, yet one must practice good. If one does not practice good, Viṣṇu will be angered and sentient beings will suffer affliction. Because of affliction, karma is formed; karma originates in the past, and one receives retribution in the present. By currently upholding precepts and austerities to prevent current evil fruits, one attains the exhaustion of contaminations. If so, because good is necessary, they uphold precepts and regulate the body, have few desires and know contentment, wearing coarse clothing and eating grass. Performing practices for the sake of emptiness, they give rise to joy and anger; emptiness is their place of anger, love, dispute, and calculation. If they attain dhyāna and give rise to views, when dhyāna wanes the view blazes; having generated the view and then attaining dhyāna, it is demonic dhyāna and demonic superknowledge. With such a view of emptiness, personal practice is only one, and converting others has four modes, analogous to the preceding. Personal practice and converting others simply follow karma; rising and falling according to karma, what does it have to do with the Way?

10.44

Next, grasping the view of emptiness without doing good or evil, remaining indifferent and placid. Although they claim to remain placid, praise brings love and defamation brings grief, while they hold themselves high through placidity. One should know that placidity is the place that generates afflictions; attaining dhyāna and generating views is as described before. They also penetrate the Vedas and surreptitiously interpret the Buddha's teachings, adorning neutral indifference; snarling and howling, immeasurable fetters arise from neutral indifference. Personal practice is only one, and converting others is also four. If they do not generate dhyāna, karma drags them to the evil destinies; if they generate dhyāna, they take birth according to dhyāna. If this karma has not ripened, among the karmas of past lives, the strongest draws them first. One should know that the various views cannot even subdue delusions; how could they sever delusions? The characteristics of gain and loss regarding 'both existence and nonexistence' and so forth can be known by analogy with this.

10.45

Great Calming and Contemplation, Fascicle Ten (Part One)

First 45 of 86 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

摩訶止觀 — Classical Chinese