[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [止觀輔行傳弘決](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912) › 3.24 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.24 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.24 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.24) 「問」下，料簡也。初約慧眼一切智廣辨、次餘二眼二智略例。初問，可見。次答中，先約四句，依《大經》文。彼經十五廣釋四句，今但借彼知見之名，非全用意。問：前文因觀發者為智，今此以因聞生者為知。文既不同，云何用此而釋於彼？答：名異義同，聞是慧性，觀亦慧性。問：亦知亦見對二乘竟，見而非知何得重對辟支佛耶？答：前據佛世聞教二乘，二人俱是亦知亦見。見而非知，據無佛世獨覺辟支佛，是故重以支佛別對。「復次」下，重約信法以對知見。問：前明眼智止觀為因，今何得以信法為因？答：聞同於觀、思同於止，義類相似，故得對之。次明不次第者，初總斥。云「不如此」者，一心不同次第故也。「如前」下，開前遠由成不次第。次「得體」下，開前近由成不次第。次「眼故」下，明近由體同。遠由既其止觀相即，近由亦應眼智不二，因果相順故也。「佛眼」下，釋眼智也。「王三昧」去，引證佛眼具五眼，故云「一切悉入其中」。「大品」下，引證佛智具三智，故皆云「學」。三智四智，至下當釋。「問」下，料簡智眼。初問者，言「欲得」者，或是一人前後欲得，或是多人各各欲得，但云當學，豈名一心？答意者，法在一心說必次第，豈說次第令法縱橫？「金剛」下明五眼者，皆云佛有，故在一心。「秖約一眼有五用」者，應云佛眼而有四用，云何言五？答：此約五眼而論體用，故佛眼為體、四眼為用。若作總別者，如涅槃是總、三德是別。五眼亦爾，秖是圓常不思議眼名為佛眼，而有見中乃至見於色等五用，故得五名。是則佛己一體五眼開發，非為本無至佛方有。「所以者何」下，釋。然此五眼，天親、無著非不解釋，未若《智論》最為委悉。三十九云「佛肉眼者，見因緣麁色，乃至亦過人所見。名肉眼者，見形顯色不異於人。人見不遠所見又倒，如近看小則大、遠看大則小，乃至諸色若遠觀者，則但見於空一顯色。」《大品》云「如來肉眼見於大千。」論「問曰：如來何故但見大千？答：若佛肉眼應過大千，但以風輪為隔障故不見異界。又有菩薩住大千上，據理亦合見大千外。問：何不修肉眼令見遠耶？答：若無天眼，則彊修肉眼令見於遠。」又云「佛法難思，佛肉眼或能遠見故也。若不及佛者，漸漸減之。二千一千乃至一洲，是名肉眼小淨。」故據理盡說，佛肉眼見法界麁色。論依教道附近小宗，是故但云見於大千。若但以先世施燈明等，及以輪王終不能見至百由旬，若小菩薩亦不過此。問：日月去地四萬二千由旬，人皆見之，見百由旬何足為奇？答：日月有光令人得見。餘色不爾，天眼乃見。人雖云見，所見猶倒。日月方圓五十由旬，所見不過如扇許大；菩薩不爾。問：見何等色？答：見可見色名為肉眼。論中不明修肉眼法。若欲比知，施燈明等下因也，菩薩更加慈心伏惑，故所見漸廣乃至大千。「亦能照細色」下明天眼者，如微塵名為細色。諸天天眼下不見上，梵王不過見於大千，佛見過此名佛天眼。《大品》云「佛告須菩提：『佛天眼見於尼吒，亦見十方恒沙世界死此生彼及善惡等。』」論無修相，如那律緣亦是其事。言「過天」者，諸天報得，極如梵王。今見十方，尚過那律，何況梵王？是故《淨名》正呵那律、旁折梵王。「達麁細色」下明慧眼者，言「如二乘所見」者，且約次第一往而說。據理亦應云過二乘，二乘但見大千之內麁細色空，佛見法界假中俱空。《大品》云「云何名菩薩摩訶薩慧眼淨？佛告舍利弗：『慧眼菩薩不作是念，有為無為、世出世、漏無漏一切知見。』」論云「肉眼見不遠，故修天眼。天眼虛誑，故求慧眼。」論文既云一切知見，是故即是過二乘也。修相者何？有人云：八道中正見是，能觀五陰倒故。有云：能緣涅槃。有云：三脫門相應慧，能開涅槃門。有云：能觀實際，通達悉知。有言：定心知諸相。有云：空是。有云：十八空是。有云：世出世是。是則名為慧眼修相。復有說言行於中道。問：二乘亦有慧眼，何不云無法不見？答：二乘但能總相，而見又是有量；佛見無量，無有邊底。佛與二乘既二相不同，驗知修法二因各別。是故文中所有眾釋不出空中，空屬二乘、中屬於佛，彌顯修發二義不同。如初三釋及第五下三釋是共二乘修相，仍是通教，依即空慧。若三藏二乘多依根本，與此不同。前第四釋及最後釋即是圓修，圓修實際後時發得方名慧眼，是故亦應云過二乘。「照達假名不謬」等名法眼者，但云「如菩薩所見」者，如別菩薩行向位中所見者是，亦寄次第故云假名，假名即是十六門法。據理亦應云過菩薩。任運真化究竟藥病，名佛法眼。《大品》云「云何名菩薩摩訶薩法眼？佛告舍利弗：『法眼人者，隨信隨法三空五根，此業此果受某身生某處，某菩薩退不退、得記不得記等，皆當知之。』」論云「菩薩摩訶薩初發心時，雖得肉天慧眼等，以見眾生種種不同，云何能得如是實法？故求法眼引導令入，故名法眼。」又法眼有二：一分別二乘、二分別菩薩。分別二乘處處有文，分別菩薩即此文是。廣列一切因果行相，一切種種諸方便門，令眾生入，是名法眼。既云一切因果，復云分別菩薩，是故當知亦過菩薩。「於諸法中」下名佛眼者，但云「見法實相」，從勝為名。《大品》云「云何佛眼？佛告舍利弗：『菩薩摩訶薩求佛道時，入金剛三昧得一切種智，成就力、無所畏、十八不共，知一切法（云云）。是名菩薩摩訶薩得菩提時佛眼淨相。』」論云「有人言：十住菩薩得佛眼，與佛無別。如遍吉、文殊具佛功德，而不作佛廣度眾生，是故生疑，故說佛眼遍見十方。是菩薩於餘菩薩名大，於佛猶不遍知遍聞等也。」問：眼應云見，云何言聞？答：眾生智慧從六情入，能知六塵。人謂佛眼有所不聞，然諸經論皆云佛及菩薩俱得五眼，故知並作，非張眼也。故今文中雖云佛有，理論眾生一切具足。何者？眼智既以止觀為因，止觀圓融眼智亦爾。論欲遍說，是故委論深淺不同。「故經云」下，引《請觀音》以證《金剛》。佛菩提滿、權實智足，以此二智能生三有菩提佛子，復云「父母」。「而獨稱」下，佛眼之意。故論四十五料簡云「佛見一切非是慧眼，云何而言慧眼見耶？答：慧眼成時轉名佛眼，乃至四眼失本名字。如河入海，失本河名。何以故？肉天二眼有漏因緣，慧法二眼習氣未盡，故捨本位入佛眼中。」此仍寄於廢麁而說。「佛智」下，釋一心三智。「故知」下，結得名之由。「境之與諦」下，明止觀不二。初以左右眼目為譬。諦之與境猶如一物，而得左右兩名不同。一人在物左謂物為右、一人在物右謂物為左，由人所在左右名生，而此一物本未曾異。諦境亦爾，對止名諦、對觀名境。眼智二法以譬眼目者，秖是一物立二種名。眼見智知亦復如是，秖是一法，雖從止觀二法得名，圓頓止觀本來不二，故所成眼智一體無殊。是故知見但從當體而立二名，猶如眼目。諦境雖從所對立二，則成所對體亦無殊，致使能對諦境無別。「今將」下，立異顯體。體本不二，暫寄異名顯不二體。何者？諦境眼智體雖不二，然智由觀成；觀本對境，今還將境以顯於智，令觀易明，觀明即智成，智成即體顯。眼由止成，止本對諦；今還將諦以目於眼，今止可解，止解即眼開，眼開即體顯。雖寄因顯法不分張，故云「雖作三說實是一法」。「用此」下，結也。以能顯所，正用如向一法眼智顯於圓頓止觀體也。「如此」下，結歸師資所傳之法，結上諸文歸於正行，正行有在出自本師。言「實非讀經安置」等者，如空假中觀，先明次第、後不次第，引諸大乘證成門戶，乃至止觀為因、眼智為果，即一而三即三而一。如是等相，豈由經文而安布耶？但避嫌疑，幸須引證。意外之事，故云幸也。 > From "Question" onward, it is an analytical distinction. First, it extensively distinguishes with respect to the wisdom eye and all-knowledge; next, it briefly gives parallel instances for the remaining two eyes and two knowledges. The initial question is self-evident. Next, in the answer, it first draws upon four propositions, relying on the text of the \*Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra\*. Fascicle fifteen of that sūtra broadly explains the four propositions; here it merely borrows the terms "knowing" and "seeing" from it, not completely using its meaning. Question: In the previous text, that which arises due to contemplation is wisdom, whereas here, that which arises due to hearing is knowledge. Since the texts differ, how can this be used to explain that? Answer: The names are different, but the meaning is the same: hearing is of the nature of wisdom (prajñā), and contemplation is also of the nature of wisdom. Question: "Both knowing and seeing" had already been correlated with the two vehicles; how can "seeing but not knowing" be correlated once again with pratyekabuddhas? Answer: The former was based on the two vehicles who hear the teaching in a Buddha's era: both individuals possess both knowing and seeing. "Seeing but not knowing" is based on solitary awakeners (pratyekabuddha) in an era without a Buddha; therefore, pratyekabuddhas are specifically correlated a second time. From "Furthermore" onward, it correlates knowing and seeing again with respect to faith and the Dharma. Question: Previously it explained that calming and contemplation are the causes for the eye and wisdom; why here may faith and the Dharma be taken as the causes? Answer: Hearing corresponds to contemplation, and reflection corresponds to calming; their conceptual categories are similar, so they may be correlated. Next, regarding the explanation of the non-gradual \[nature\], first it makes a general refutation. Saying "it is not like this" is because a single mind is not the same as a sequence. From "as before" onward, it opens the previous remote cause to establish the non-gradual. Next, from "attains the substance" onward, it opens the previous proximate cause to establish the non-gradual. Next, from "because of the eye" onward, it clarifies the identity of the substance of the proximate cause. Since the remote cause has calming and contemplation mutually identical, the proximate cause should also have the eye and wisdom non-dual, because cause and effect accord with one another. From "Buddha eye" onward, it explains the eye and wisdom. From "king of samādhis" onward, it cites evidence that the Buddha eye is endowed with the five eyes; hence it says "all enter into it." From "Dapin" onward, it cites evidence that the Buddha wisdom is endowed with the three knowledges; hence in all cases it says "study." The three knowledges and four knowledges will be explained below. From "Question" onward, it critically examines the wisdom and the eye. As for the first question, when it says "wishing to attain," this either means one person wishing to attain them sequentially, or many persons each wishing to attain them separately; it merely says "one should study"—how can this be called a single mind? As for the import of the answer: when the Dharma is within a single mind, its exposition must be sequential; how could an exposition of sequence cause the Dharma to be disparate? From the \*Vajracchedikā\* onward, regarding the five eyes, it states in all cases that the Buddha possesses them; hence they are in a single mind. To "merely speak of one eye having five functions": should it not say that the Buddha eye has four functions—why speak of five? Answer: This discusses substance and function with respect to the five eyes; hence the Buddha eye is the substance, and the four eyes are the functions. If considered as general and particular, it is like nirvāṇa being the general and the three virtues being the particular. The five eyes are also like this: it is simply that the perfect, eternal, inconceivable eye is called the Buddha eye, yet it has five functions ranging from seeing the middle down to seeing forms and so forth; thus it obtains five names. It is therefore that the Buddha himself manifests the five eyes from a single substance; it is not that they were originally non-existent and only exist upon reaching Buddhahood. From "Why is this?" onward, it explains. Now, regarding these five eyes, it is not that Vasubandhu and Asaṅga did not explain them, yet none is as exhaustive as the \*Dazhidulun\*. Fascicle thirty-nine states: "The Buddha's fleshy eye sees coarse forms of causes and conditions, up to even exceeding what humans see. It is called the fleshy eye because its seeing of shapes and visible colours is not different from humans. What humans see is not distant, and what they see is also inverted: for instance, when viewed close up, what is small seems large; when viewed from afar, what is large seems small; up to all forms, if viewed from afar, merely appearing as a single visible colour of empty space." The \*Dapin\* states: "The Tathāgata's fleshy eye sees the great trichiliocosm." The \*Treatise\* asks: "Why does the Tathāgata merely see the great trichiliocosm? Answer: If it were the Buddha's fleshy eye, it ought to exceed the great trichiliocosm; it is only because the wind-wheel forms an obstruction that he does not see other worlds. Furthermore, there are bodhisattvas residing above the great trichiliocosm who, in principle, should also see outside the great trichiliocosm. Question: Why not cultivate the fleshy eye so that it sees afar? Answer: If one lacks the divine eye, then one forcefully cultivates the fleshy eye to make it see afar." It also says: "The Buddha-Dharma is difficult to conceive; it may be that the Buddha's fleshy eye can see afar. If one does not equal the Buddha, it gradually decreases: two thousand, one thousand, down to a single continent; this is called the fleshy eye's minor purity." Therefore, speaking exhaustively according to principle, the Buddha's fleshy eye sees coarse forms throughout the dharma-dhātu. The \*Treatise\*, relying on the pedagogical path, draws close to the lesser school; hence it merely says it sees the great trichiliocosm. If it were merely by offering lamp-light and so forth in prior lives, or being a wheel-turning king, one would ultimately not be able to see up to a hundred yojanas; for a minor bodhisattva, it also does not exceed this. Question: The sun and moon are forty-two thousand yojanas from the earth, and humans all see them; what is so extraordinary about seeing a hundred yojanas? Answer: The sun and moon have light that enables humans to see them. Other forms are not like this; only the divine eye sees them. Although humans are said to see them, what they see is still inverted. The sun and moon are fifty yojanas in breadth, yet what is seen is merely the size of a fan; for a bodhisattva, it is not like this. Question: What kind of forms does it see? Answer: Seeing visible forms is called the fleshy eye. The \*Treatise\* does not clarify the method for cultivating the fleshy eye. If one wishes to know by inference, offering lamp-light and so forth are the lower causes; bodhisattvas additionally use a compassionate mind to subdue delusions, and thus what is seen gradually broadens, up to the great trichiliocosm. From "it can also illuminate subtle forms" onward, regarding the divine eye: for example, minute dust motes are called subtle forms. The divine eyes of the gods do not see upward from below; the Brahmā king sees no further than the great trichiliocosm; the Buddha sees beyond this, and this is called the Buddha's divine eye. The \*Dapin\* states: "The Buddha told Subhūti: 'The Buddha's divine eye sees up to Akaniṣṭha, and also sees the sentient beings in worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges throughout the ten directions dying here and being born there, their good and evil \[deeds\], and so forth.'" The \*Treatise\* has no cultivation characteristics; things like the causes and conditions of Aniruddha are cases of this. As for "surpassing the gods": for the various gods it is an karmic retribution, reaching its limit in the Brahmā king. Now seeing the ten directions even surpasses Aniruddha, how much more so the Brahmā king! Therefore \*Vimalakīrti\* directly reproves Aniruddha and incidentally humbles the Brahmā king. From "penetrating coarse and subtle forms" onward, regarding the wisdom eye: the statement "like that seen by the two vehicles" is temporarily made from the perspective of sequence. According to principle, one should also say it surpasses the two vehicles: the two vehicles only see coarse and subtle forms within the great trichiliocosm as empty; the Buddha sees both provisionality and the middle throughout the dharma-dhātu as empty. The \*Dapin\* states: "What is meant by the purity of a bodhisattva-mahāsattva's wisdom eye? The Buddha told Śāriputra: 'A bodhisattva with the wisdom eye does not form this thought: all conditioned and unconditioned, mundane and supramundane, defiled and undefiled are known and seen.'" The \*Treatise\* says: "Because the fleshy eye does not see afar, one cultivates the divine eye. Because the divine eye is false and deceptive, one seeks the wisdom eye." Since the text of the \*Treatise\* says "all are known and seen," it therefore surpasses the two vehicles. What are the characteristics of cultivation? Someone says: correct view in the eightfold path is it, because it can contemplate the inversions of the five aggregates. Someone says: being able to take nirvāṇa as object. Someone says: wisdom associated with the three gates of liberation, being able to open the gate of nirvāṇa. Someone says: being able to contemplate the limit of reality, thoroughly penetrating and knowing all. Someone says: knowing all marks with a concentrated mind. Someone says: emptiness is it. Someone says: the eighteen emptinesses are it. Someone says: the mundane and supramundane are it. These are called the characteristics of cultivating the wisdom eye. Furthermore, there is an explanation stating: practicing the middle path. Question: The two vehicles also have the wisdom eye; why is it not said that there is no phenomenon they do not see? Answer: The two vehicles can only see the general characteristics, and their seeing also has limits; the Buddha's seeing is measureless, having neither edge nor bottom. Since the two marks of the Buddha and the two vehicles are different, verification shows that the two causes in their methods of cultivation are distinct. Therefore, none of the numerous explanations in the text go beyond emptiness and the middle: emptiness belongs to the two vehicles, and the middle belongs to the Buddha, making all the more manifest that the two meanings of cultivation and manifestation are different. The first three explanations and the three explanations from the fifth downward are characteristics of cultivation shared with the two vehicles; they still belong to the shared teaching, relying on the wisdom of identity-with-emptiness. If it is the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka, they mostly rely on the fundamental \[teachings\], which differs from this. The fourth explanation mentioned earlier and the final explanation are the perfect cultivation; only when one subsequently manifests \[it\] through the perfect cultivation of the limit of reality is it called the wisdom eye; therefore, one should also say it surpasses the two vehicles. As for "illuminating and penetrating provisional names without error" and so forth being called the Dharma eye: merely saying "like that seen by bodhisattvas" refers to what is seen in the stages of practice and dedication of a distinctive bodhisattva; it also relies on sequence, and hence says "provisional names"—provisional names being the teachings of the sixteen gates. According to principle, one should also say it surpasses bodhisattvas. Spontaneous, true transformation that exhaustively knows medicine and illness is called the Buddha's Dharma eye. The \*Dapin\* states: "What is meant by a bodhisattva-mahāsattva's Dharma eye? The Buddha told Śāriputra: 'A person with the Dharma eye should know all of these: those following by faith, those following by the Dharma, the three emptinesses, the five faculties, this karma and this fruit, receiving such a body and being born in such a place, such a bodhisattva regressing or not regressing, receiving a prediction or not receiving a prediction, and so forth.'" The \*Treatise\* says: "When a bodhisattva-mahāsattva first arouses the mind \[for awakening\], although he attains the fleshy, divine, and wisdom eyes and so forth, because he sees that sentient beings are manifold and diverse, how can he attain such true phenomena? Therefore he seeks the Dharma eye to guide them and cause them to enter; hence it is called the Dharma eye." Furthermore, there are two kinds of Dharma eye: first, discerning the two vehicles; second, discerning bodhisattvas. Discerning the two vehicles is found everywhere in texts; discerning bodhisattvas is precisely this text. Broadly listing the marks of all causes, effects, and practices, and all manifold gates of expedient means to cause sentient beings to enter, is called the Dharma eye. Since it says "all causes and effects" and also says "discerning bodhisattvas," therefore one should know it also surpasses bodhisattvas. From "in all phenomena" onward, regarding what is called the Buddha eye: it merely says "seeing the true mark of phenomena," taking its name from what is superior. The \*Dapin\* states: "What is the Buddha eye? The Buddha told Śāriputra: 'When a bodhisattva-mahāsattva seeks the Buddha path, he enters the diamond samādhi, attains all-seed-knowledge, accomplishes the powers, fearlessnesses, and eighteen unshared qualities, and knows all phenomena (and so forth). This is called the pure mark of the Buddha eye when a bodhisattva-mahāsattva attains bodhi.'" The \*Treatise\* says: "Someone says: A bodhisattva of the ten abodes attains the Buddha eye without difference from the Buddha. For example, Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī are endowed with the Buddha's virtues, yet do not act as Buddhas broadly delivering sentient beings; therefore doubt arose, and so it was taught that the Buddha eye universally sees the ten directions. This bodhisattva is called great with respect to other bodhisattvas, but with respect to the Buddha, he still does not universally know, universally hear, and so forth." Question: For an eye, one should speak of "seeing"; why speak of "hearing"? Answer: Sentient beings' wisdom enters through the six sense faculties and can know the six sense objects. People assume that the Buddha eye does not hear certain things; however, the various sūtras and treatises all state that both Buddhas and bodhisattvas attain the five eyes, so one knows that they operate together, rather than opening an eye. Therefore, although the present text says the Buddha possesses them, in principle sentient beings are completely endowed with them all. Why? Since the eyes and knowledges take calming and contemplation as their cause, and calming and contemplation are perfectly fused, the eyes and knowledges are also like this. The \*Treatise\* wished to speak comprehensively, and therefore exhaustively discussed differences of depth. From "Therefore the sūtra states" onward, it cites the \*Qing Guanyin jing\* to verify the \*Vajracchedikā\*. The Buddha's bodhi is complete, and his provisional and real wisdoms are fulfilled; with these two wisdoms he can give birth to the Buddha sons of bodhi in the three realms of existence, and hence they are also called "father and mother." From "yet uniquely called" onward is the meaning of the Buddha eye. Therefore fascicle forty-five of the \*Treatise\* critically analyzes: "The Buddha seeing all is not the wisdom eye; why is it said that the wisdom eye sees? Answer: When the wisdom eye is perfected, it changes its name to the Buddha eye, up to the four eyes losing their original names. It is like rivers entering the ocean and losing the original names of the rivers. Why is this? The two eyes, fleshy and divine, are conditioned by defilements; the two eyes, wisdom and Dharma, have not exhausted latent tendencies; therefore they relinquish their original positions and enter into the Buddha eye." This is still spoken in terms of discarding the coarse. From "Buddha wisdom" onward, it explains the three knowledges in a single mind. From "Therefore one knows" onward, it concludes with the reason for obtaining the names. From "The object and the truth" onward, it clarifies the non-duality of calming and contemplation. First, it uses the left and right eyes as a metaphor. The truth and the object are like a single entity, yet obtain two different names, left and right: a person on the left of the entity calls the entity the right, while a person on the right of the entity calls the entity the left; the names left and right arise depending on where the person is located, yet this single entity was originally never different. The truth and the object are also like this: correlated with calming, it is called the truth; correlated with contemplation, it is called the object. Taking the two phenomena of the eye and wisdom to metaphorize the eye and vision is simply positing two names for a single entity. The eye seeing and wisdom knowing are also like this: they are simply a single phenomenon. Although they obtain their names from the two phenomena of calming and contemplation, perfect and sudden calming and contemplation are fundamentally non-dual; therefore the resulting eye and wisdom are identical in substance without difference. For this reason, knowing and seeing merely establish two names based on the substance itself, just like the eye and vision. Although truth and object are established as two based on what they correlate with, the substance of what is correlated with is ultimately without difference, which brings about that the correlates, truth and object, are not distinct. From "Now taking" onward, it establishes difference to reveal the substance. The substance is fundamentally non-dual; it temporarily relies on different names to reveal the non-dual substance. Why? Although truth, object, eye, and wisdom are non-dual in substance, yet wisdom is perfected through contemplation; contemplation originally correlates with the object, and now it takes the object in turn to reveal wisdom, causing contemplation to be easily understood—when contemplation is understood, wisdom is perfected, and when wisdom is perfected, the substance is revealed. The eye is perfected through calming, and calming originally correlates with the truth; now it takes the truth in turn to designate the eye, causing calming to be understood—when calming is understood, the eye opens, and when the eye opens, the substance is revealed. Although it relies on causes to reveal the phenomenon, they are not split apart; hence it says "although three explanations are made, it is truly a single phenomenon." From "Using this" onward is the conclusion. Revealing the object by means of the subject precisely uses the eye and wisdom of the single phenomenon as described above to reveal the substance of perfect and sudden calming and contemplation. From "Like this" onward, it concludes by tracing back to the Dharma transmitted between master and disciple; it concludes the preceding texts by returning them to correct practice, and correct practice has its locus originating from our original master. As for the statement "it is truly not arranged by reading sūtras" and so forth: like the contemplations of emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, first clarifying sequence and afterwards the non-gradual, citing various Mahāyāna texts to verify the doctrinal gates, up to calming and contemplation being the cause and the eye and wisdom being the effect, being three while one and one while three—could marks such as these be arranged based on sūtra texts? It was only to avoid suspicion that citations were fortunately necessary as evidence. Since it was an unexpected matter, it is said to be fortunate. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.23) - [Next: 3.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.25) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.3.24) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.24) · Pramāṇa