止觀輔行傳弘決 7.17

From "If one applies..." below, [the text] explains in full the characteristics of shifting the remedies according to the four siddhāntas (freely according to people's capacities). In the preceding remedies, one of the four [remedies] has already been used; if it is suddenly no longer suitable, one must shift its application, either concurrently, completely, or as the ultimate truth. Therefore, it states generally: "One should rely on the four siddhāntas." First is the general statement. Next, in the specific explanation, "such as curing a single [form of] stinginess" briefly demonstrates the characteristics of the four siddhāntas with regard to a single obscuration. Question: If the text has already explained the remedy [siddhānta], it should only explain the remaining three siddhāntas here. Why does it list all four with respect to stinginess? Answer: Although the remedy was explained before, that was merely the direct application of a cure without yet distinguishing whether using the cure was beneficial or not—that is, whether evil was eliminated and good arose. Now, to show the characteristics of complying with capacities and to teach how to shift [remedies], it therefore fully lists the characteristics of the four siddhāntas. Furthermore, among the four, explaining the characteristics of shifting according to delight or lack of delight means that if one does not delight in dāna (giving), one shifts to using śīla (precepts) or even prajñā. If a wholesome mind arises, or even if [wisdom] opens, these are shifting to concurrent [application], complete [application], and the ultimate truth. Furthermore, within the remedy, if [the obscuration] is eliminated, that is the remedy; if it is not eliminated, that is shifting to concurrent [application], complete [application], and so on. Therefore, it is raised generally as the formula for shifting and so forth. What is called "shifting" means either shifting to śīla or even prajñā, either in sequence or by skipping—skipping from one to four—in reverse, forward, or interspersed; when the illness is gone, one ceases. With the five perfections as the head, they simply bypass their original positions, the rest being identical to dāna. In this case, the illness does not shift, but the remedy shifts. Shifting from one perfection to use the remaining five perfections produces five propositions; with the six perfections, there are thirty propositions of remedies in total. If both the delight and the illness shift, it is called both a direct remedy and a shift, forming thirty propositions. Being a shift and not a direct remedy also forms thirty propositions. Furthermore, being a shift and a direct remedy, or being a shift and not a direct remedy, are provisionally established as thirty propositions for the time being. If there is skipping, mixing, and the like, the characteristics of the propositions are unfixed; practitioners will know this for themselves, so how could it all be recorded? Furthermore, when one perfection is shifted to use two, three, or four, it can be called a shift and can also be called concurrent; if it reaches five perfections, it is called a shift and called complete. If it cannot be called complete, it is because it is a shifted application. If one calls it complete, it cannot be called shifted. Merely using all six completely to cure one obscuration also loses the name "concurrent" because of shifting; hence, although it is concurrent and complete, it is only called a shift. Thus, shifting to five is not called complete, because shifting is applying single [remedies], while complete is concurrent and simultaneous; therefore they are not the same. If the illness shifts but the medicine does not shift, it is neither called a shifted remedy nor concurrent or complete. Or, the ultimate truth is called an exclusive remedy; it also has skipping, forward, reverse, interspersed, and so forth. As the illness shifts to become the five obscurations, it also forms thirty propositions of exclusive remedies. What is called "concurrent" means that the medicine combines one, two, or even three or four; reaching five is called complete, so there are only four. For each perfection, four propositions make twenty-four. One perfection reaching five makes only six propositions, which is properly called a complete remedy. The reason there is no "complete" in the present text is simply due to brevity; it is found in the eighth fascicle. This is the characteristic of applying phenomenal remedies for a person of the perfect [teaching]. In the cases of the Tripiṭaka, shared, and distinctive [teachings], the initial mind's application of phenomenal remedies for the four stations of mindfulness and so forth can be understood by analogy with this. As for "the ultimate truth," it is exclusively contemplating the quiescent principle of signless true suchness. If considered according to the teachings, each uses the true principle of its respective teaching as the remedy; up to the person of the perfect [teaching], who also uses the principles of the three teachings as remedies, and so forth. Furthermore, the initial minds of the four teachings all require phenomenal remedies, as explained above. If one uses the four teachings successively as remedies, with the earlier assisting the later, one also uses the earlier six to shift toward the characteristics of the six obscurations in the later teachings as remedies, shifts, and so forth. For example, a person of the shared teaching uses the six of the Tripiṭaka; a person of the distinctive teaching uses the two sets of six of the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings]; and a person of the perfect teaching uses all three, each having shifts and so forth. Like curing a single [form of] stinginess, one looks at what kind of stinginess it is; stinginess with wealth, body, or life is different. Having understood the stinginess, one uses phenomenal [practices] as a remedy. The person of the distinctive teaching uses two, which can be understood by analogy. As for the person of the perfect teaching using three: if one uses phenomenal [practice] to cure stinginess, although the stinginess seems to be eliminated, because of this one conceptualizes the three renunciations as real; this merely increases samsāra, and there is no rectitude to speak of. One then shifts to using emptiness to cure this conceptualization of reality. If the conceptualization of reality is eliminated, one should be able to accord with the dharma-dhātu. If the real is eliminated but emptiness is retained, one should then shift to using the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges, renouncing body, life, and wealth without the ten realms knowing it. When practicing this contemplation, conceptualizing the provisional as real can only be called great compassion tainted by attachment and views; one should then shift to contemplating that body, life, and wealth are all the dharma-dhātu. That the contemplation method of the perfect teaching attains the name of a remedy is truly due to this. Here, there is only the shifting of both medicine and illness; there is never a case where the illness shifts but the medicine does not shift. It can also happen that the medicine shifts while the illness does not shift. Why? The conceptualization of reality does not shift, yet it also admits the application of the latter three medicines; concurrent and complete [applications] can be understood by considering this analogy. Furthermore, this shifting remedy, starting from production and cessation and ending in unconditioned (anabhisamiskāra), is called a gradual shift. If it shifts from unconditioned to production and cessation, or shifts reciprocally, it is called indeterminate. If it is the ultimate truth, it is called a sudden shift. As it is with one obscuration, so it is with the remaining obscurations. Thus, within a single illness, shifting to use the five of the Tripiṭaka teaching and the six of the three teachings results in twenty-three perfections; for the six obscurations, there are one hundred and thirty-eight remedies in total. Both shifting together is called a direct remedy and is also called a shift, each having one hundred and thirty-eight remedies. The characteristics of concurrent, complete, and so forth can be understood by considering this. Only when one grasps this meaning will one understand this text. Next, under "combined practice of the auxiliary six perfections," in further explaining the formula for combined practice generally, it clarifies that the characteristics of the remedies and their phenomenal matters are not singular. In each and every phenomenon there is combined practice, which cannot be detailed here; hence it refers to the later text on mutual subsumption. From "Some say..." below, intending to clarify combined practice, it first presents differing interpretations, and then refutes the differences to clarify the necessity of combined practice. From "Therefore our school..." below, the text contains four kinds of six perfections. In the first passage directly presenting differing interpretations, it reveals that ten and six are merely opening and combining. The ancients did not see the intention of opening and combining, and misapplied the passage on the ultimate tenet and teachings from the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra. That Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra states: "For the two vehicles and bodhisattvas there are two kinds: the first is the dharma-characteristics of the ultimate tenet (siddhānta), which means what is personally realized, free from conceptual characteristics, entering the realm of uncontaminatedness; the second is spoken discourse, which means expounding the nine divisions [of scripture], free from the four propositions, causing sentient beings to enter." However, that [passage] generally brings up what is realized and spoken by the two vehicles and bodhisattvas, forming the characteristics of principle and teaching shared by the three vehicles. Ancient masters did not understand, holding that the ultimate tenet without spoken discourse is principle and is the Great [Vehicle], belonging to bodhisattvas; and holding that teaching with spoken discourse is phenomenal and is the Lesser [Vehicle], belonging to the two vehicles. The presence or absence of tenet and teaching is refuted in full as in the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti-sūtra. Next, it cites the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and the Dapin to prove that the six perfections subsume all dharmas; thus we know that outside the six there are no other dharmas. Just as with the four noble truths earlier, it only says that the four noble truths have immeasurable characteristics, but does not say that outside the four there are other dharmas; why then say that the six belong only to the shared teaching? Next, from "If one grasps..." below, it briefly shows the meaning of the text.

Whether six or ten, since this is an opening and combining, one should not use this to differentiate between the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, teachings, traditions, and the like. Under "like dhyāna," he directly shows this opening and combining. Combining them means that phenomenal and noumenal aspects are explained together; opening them means that phenomenal and noumenal aspects are explained separately. Furthermore, explaining six applies generally to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, whereas explaining ten pertains exclusively to the Mahāyāna. Moreover, among these ten, interpreted generally, they apply to the four teachings; interpreted specifically, they pertain only to the distinctive and perfect teachings. For example, a bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka teaching regards the subduing of delusions as the knowledge of all phenomena, the provisional practice during the three asaṃkhyeya kalpas as the knowledge of the paths, and the fruit of buddhahood as the knowledge of all aspects; because they can manifest spiritual penetrations and possess superior uses of vows, a bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka teaching may also be said to have the ten [pāramitās]. However, viewed from the perspective of not yet having severed delusions, even prajñā is lacking. Not yet having emerged from emptiness, the knowledge of the paths is unaccomplished. Not yet having attained the dharma-body, there are no powers of vows and knowledge. If, provisionally, their partial stage is taken as prajñā, then there are only six. A bodhisattva of the shared teaching, from the perspective of mere emptiness, opens up skillful means, the fruit of buddhahood's knowledge of the paths, and the power of vows and knowledge to constitute the ten pāramitās. Not yet having attained the dharma-body, they are identical to the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. Having already severed delusions common [to the three vehicles] and emerging from emptiness into provisionality, their ease of advance and retreat differs somewhat. Thus, within these two teachings, there are either six, or seven, or eight, or ten. The present text, for the moment, opens the six into ten based on the principles of the distinctive and perfect teachings; other increases or decreases are not discussed in the text. Furthermore, retaining the doctrinal method [of the distinctive teaching] also partially includes the distinctive teaching, but the primary intention lies in the perfect [teaching]. *Nizi* [for praṇidhāna] and vow, *bala* and power, are merely differences in regional pronunciation. As for the statement "absorption guards the dhyāna pāramitā": if dhyāna is opened into three, then fundamental absorption guards the fifth pāramitā, termed the dhyāna pāramitā, while the others opened from it are termed power and vow. Empty knowledge guards the sixth, prajñā, while the others opened from it are termed upāya and so forth. Upāya is the knowledge of emerging into the provisional. Jñāna is the knowledge of entering the middle. These are also differences in regional pronunciation. Next, explaining the subsumption of dharmas directly demonstrates that because phenomenal and noumenal are practiced together, they can subsume all dharmas. If one does not comprehend that all dharmas enter into this gate of antidotes, how could the antidotes subsume all dharmas? First, explaining that the six pāramitās subsume the aids to the path is broadly explained below. Although the meaning can be seen, I will now explain it generally beforehand, so that when we reach the text it will be easy to understand. How so? Giving subsumes two factors of awakening, namely, elimination and equanimity. In the text one is omitted, but below they are completely listed. Precepts subsume three, namely, right speech, action, and livelihood. Patience subsumes four, namely, the faculty of mindfulness, the power of mindfulness, the mindfulness factor of awakening, and right mindfulness. Vigor subsumes eight, namely, the four right exertions, the faculty of vigor, the power of vigor, the vigor factor of awakening, and right vigor. Dhyāna subsumes eight, namely, the four bases of spiritual power, the faculty of concentration, the power of concentration, the concentration factor of awakening, and right concentration. Wisdom subsumes ten, namely, the four stations of mindfulness, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, investigation of dharmas, joy, right view, and right thought. These total thirty-five. The remaining two are faith, which permeates the thirty-five, because faith is the basis of all dharmas. According to the *Vibhāṣā*, thirty-seven are subsumed by eleven real entities. Therefore, in the *Vibhāṣā*, the seven factors of awakening first subsume the other six categories; those that are not included are the two faiths counted as one, and right thought as one. Since speech, action, and livelihood constitute only two real entities, this brings the total to eleven. The *Kośa* has only ten, because it combines the limbs of moral discipline. What is meant by "entering the seven": the four stations of mindfulness, the faculty and power of wisdom, and right view enter the investigation-of-dharmas factor of awakening. The four right exertions, the faculty and power of vigor, and right skillful means (skillful means being vigor) enter the vigor factor of awakening. The four bases of spiritual power, the faculty and power of concentration, and right concentration enter the concentration factor of awakening. The faculty and power of mindfulness, and right mindfulness enter the mindfulness factor of awakening. Thus, twenty-four dharmas are subsumed under the seven factors of awakening; together with the original seven factors of awakening, they make thirty-one; together with the six including faith, they make thirty-seven. Now, among the seven, subsuming joy into investigation and subsuming elimination into equanimity combines the seven into five. Taking mindfulness as patience, speech and so forth as precepts, investigation and joy belonging to wisdom, elimination and equanimity being giving, concentration and so forth being dhyāna, and the two faiths as before being universally pervasive, the meaning of the seven factors of awakening and the six pāramitās is complete. Therefore, the present opening and combining does not differ from the treatise. Although the opening and combining are such, their meaning differs from the treatise. These six passages here have a meaning that runs through the four teachings, each containing ten. These six pāramitās are structured into six sections, each having six meanings. First is the Tripiṭaka text, which is the primary intent regarding phenomenal antidotes; hence the text is somewhat broad. First, explaining that the phenomenal giving subsumes two, the textual structure is clear. From "If in the Tripiṭaka" onward, it directly explains phenomenal relinquishment, still adducing the noumenal by way of comparison. Although it has not yet realized the noumenon, giving possesses the benefit of phenomenal antidotes. Next, citing the treatise, he raises a query, which is answered from "Relinquishment can" onward. Next, from "Moreover, relinquishment" onward, it explains that giving can accomplish the [other] five; its general and specific aspects are as in the text. Next, in explaining perfect relinquishment: the perfect is the present text, practiced together with phenomenal action, which is the primary intent. It also accords with the substance of the primary practice in the present text; hence the passage is cited to broadly clarify its characteristics. First, in directly explaining perfect relinquishment, the phrase "the physical bodies of the ten dharma-dhātus" and so forth means that merely by contemplating the three items, the mind is merged with the dharma-dhātu, and the three items of the ten realms are mysteriously and spontaneously eradicated. The direct reward is the "body," and the dependent reward is the "wealth." What is termed "life" means continuous maintenance, which exists in each of the realms. For example, the karmic life spans in the six destinies differ, and among the four noble ones there are the life of wisdom, the life of eternal abiding, and so on. These three items, being complete with the three truths in a single thought-moment, can eliminate the three delusions; hence it is called relinquishment. As for "entering the non-dual limit," it is simply the relinquishment of non-duality of the middle way. This refers to the final noumenal contemplation on the meaning of giving; if one is to explain their combined practice, both phenomenal and noumenal must be complete. Thus, in the text below, concluding on one-sided errors, it says, "noumenal contemplation is profound and subtle, yet phenomenal practice is neglected," which in turn cites the characteristics of phenomenal antidotes in the Tripiṭaka. After the text on phenomenal antidotes concludes, it also reproaches, "yet noumenal contemplation is neglected," and then evaluates it with the six phrases on pāramitā aids. Therefore, one should know that for those cultivating noumenal contemplation, if severe delusions arise, they must rely on phenomenal assistance; phenomenal and noumenal operating together is termed "combined practice." Thus, the six phrases directly reveal that the pāramitā aids possess both phenomenal and noumenal aspects; hence there are mutual refutation, mutual cultivation, and mutual identity. People fail to see this, thinking it is merely an ordinary distinction. If that were so, what benefit would it have for cultivation? From "Why is this?" onward is the explanation. First, he clarifies the non-dual relinquishment; next, he cites the *Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra* to corroborate perfect relinquishment. Therein, he first lists the sūtra text, and explains the meaning of the sūtra from "possessing limits" onward. Saying "not destroyed" means that right within the bodies of saṃsāric birth-and-death of the hundred realms, one realizes the principle of eternal abiding; serving as an antidote to stinginess, it also reveals the dharma-body. Since the dharma-body is such, wealth and life are likewise. Next, citing the *Diamond Sūtra*, the four lines are the teaching; cultivating contemplation based on the teaching, the contemplation and the teaching are endowed with the three kinds of prajñā.

The prajñā of the true mark nourishes the dharma-body, renouncing all bodies; the prajñā of contemplative illumination nourishes the life of wisdom, renouncing all life; the four-line verse of written letters nourishes the wealth of eternal presence, renouncing all wealth. Furthermore, because cultivation of the three nourishes the three of the principle, when the principle is revealed, one is able to renounce everything. Again, written letters can express the three kinds of prajñā, contemplative illumination cultivates and attains the three kinds of prajñā, and the true mark inherently possesses the three kinds of prajñā. Thus the ancients said: 'Abandoning [bodies] three times a day as numerous as the sands of the Ganges does not avoid rebirth; a four-line verse of prajñā exhausts defilements and accomplishes the path.' Therefore one should know that the merit of a four-line verse is profound, while the power of [renouncing bodies like] the three Ganges is inferior. Thus one knows that how could one even compare the merits of a four-line verse with renouncing the body? Below, 'In this manner...' reproves one-sidedness. The opening text presents the marks of mutual deficiency; hence it says, 'Both have faults.' Either one cultivates only the perfect contemplation, being utterly devoid of phenomenal practice; or one exclusively cultivates phenomenal perfections, being completely cut off from the perfect principle. Therefore both faults equally lack conjoined practice. As it is with the perfection of giving, so it is with the other five. Moreover, looking at these two faults together, there is certainly a difference in excellence, but here both practices are urged simultaneously, and for this reason both faults are rebuked. The mention of 'gouging out the body' and so forth still refers to deeds of a Tripiṭaka bodhisattva. The Bao'en jing says: 'When Śākyamuni Bodhisattva was a wheel-turning king, he gouged out his body for a thousand lamps in order to seek a half-gāthā. The gāthā said: "Whatever is born must die; this cessation is bliss." Having obtained this gāthā, he commanded the great assembly to read and recite it, and wrote it on stone walls and important roads, so that all who saw it would arouse the aspiration for awakening. The light of the body-lamps also spoke this gāthā, and all who heard it aroused the aspiration for awakening. Its light reached upward to the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, and the lights of the gods were all obscured. When the gods asked one another the cause of this light, using their divine eyes they saw this wheel-turning king who, out of great compassion for sentient beings, sought a half-gāthā by gouging out his body for a thousand lamps, and this light was the radiance of those body-lamps. The king of the gods thereupon went to the bodhisattva and asked him: "In making this offering, do you seek to become the king of the gods or the like?" He replied: "It is for the sake of sentient beings and seeking awakening." The king of the gods asked: "What is your proof?" He replied: "If it is not false, my body shall be restored." As soon as he spoke, his body was restored as before.' It is explained in detail as in that sūtra. It is also like the Yueguang pusa jing, where there was a king named Zhimeng who gouged out his thigh flesh to save a sick monk. In the Dazhidulun, Crown Prince Candraprabha drew blood and marrow to save a leper, excised flesh from his ribs to trade for a monkey, and exposed his backbone to aid a lame hare, and so forth. As for 'renouncing one's state and cities', it is like in the Dazhidulun where King Beishijia was invaded by a neighboring state. When the fourfold army was almost upon him, he was calm and unperturbed. His ministers reported: 'By what method can we repel them?' The king said: 'There is a method.' Thus it went up to three times; each time he said there was a method. After the enemy arrived, the king said to his ministers: 'You serve your lord; what difference is there between him and me? You may serve him; I am leaving now.' He then fled out through the back gate. After the later king was seated, he immediately decreed: 'Whoever can capture the former king will be given a great reward.' Later, another person, who previously knew this king's disposition was fond of giving, came to the king to beg, not knowing that this king had abandoned his state and cities. Meeting this king on the road, he did not recognize him. Upon meeting him, he asked: 'I have heard that King Beishijia is fond of giving by nature; I wish to go to him and beg.' The king then said to him: 'You may bind me and take me to the new king; you will surely receive a great reward.' Having heard this, the man gave rise to great reverence and dared not agree. The king said: 'Just follow me to the city, and you may bind me and present me.' When they arrived, the ministers saw the king and wept bitterly. When the new king asked about it, the ministers answered in full, and the beggar also related the affair. The new king descended the steps, bowed to him as a brother, and took turns governing the affairs of the state. Rescuing the dove and feeding the tigress are renouncing both body and life. Below, 'Now explaining...' clarifies the marks of attainment. Below, 'If a person...' elaborately clarifies the marks of loss. 'Fu' means to strike; 'yi' refers to the chest. To inspect one's heart and reprove oneself is to know that one's practice is incomplete. Below, 'Protecting...' is being unable to renounce wealth. Below, 'Hesitating and shrinking...' is being unable to renounce the body. Below, 'Greedily begrudging...' is being unable to renounce life. Below, 'Touching upon affairs...' summarizes the lack of all three. 'Now in the sanctuary...' and so forth is establishing practice and supplicating for empowerment. 'Practicing oneself and teaching others...' and so forth: fascicle fifty-six of the Dazhidulun says: 'A bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not himself kill living beings, up to and including the knowledge of all aspects; teaches others not to kill, praises the dharma of non-killing, and rejoices in those who do not kill, up to and including the knowledge of all aspects. This bodhisattva cherishes the Buddhadharma; knowing that body, speech, and mind are impermanent, he does not speak useless words. Because he causes wholesome dharmas to increase, he prevents all defilements from covering his mind. When the practitioner engages in this practice, although fetters arise, wisdom and reflection prevent them from covering the mind. If one indulges the fetters, one loses the wealth of goodness in this life and future lives, obstructing the Buddha path. Even if they arise in the mind, he does not let them arise in speech; even if they arise in speech, he does not let them arise in the body; even if they arise in the body, he does not let them commit grave transgressions like an ordinary person. Although this bodhisattva may be lowly, humble, and base, because he practices the supreme Dharma, he is counted among the supreme people. Because this person deeply delights in merit, he can practice the four kinds of supreme practices; the two vehicles cannot fully possess the four kinds, because they do not deeply delight in the Buddhadharma. This bodhisattva, having personally abstained from killing, out of compassion teaches others not to kill. Compassion is the wholesome dharma of all sages and worthies, so it must be praised. A bodhisattva constantly wishes to bring joy to others; therefore, seeing another not killing, he generates joy and praise in his mind; and so it is up to the knowledge of all aspects. If one does not practice it oneself, how can one benefit others? If one does not benefit others, how can one bring all sentient beings to accomplishment? If one does not bring all to accomplishment, how can one purify the buddha-land? Why is this? Because when sentient beings are pure, the world is pure.' Fascicle eighty-eight also says: 'These four kinds of practice are essentials for the initial mind of a bodhisattva-mahāsattva, which must be recognized. Why? Because if these four are not complete, one cannot be called a bodhisattva-mahāsattva. What are they? Either being able to practice oneself but unable to transform others, and so forth (and so on).' The four dharmas are permuted into clauses, extensively discerning their mutual aspects. From non-killing and non-stealing up to the knowledge of all aspects, because they are incomplete, the ultimate fruit is not accomplished. 'If the mind is genuine...' and so forth refers to receiving empowerment and gaining benefit. 'Able to move, up to the Siyi [jing]...' and so forth means that in that sūtra the Buddha emits the light of all dharmas. The present text cites six passages to verify the six perfections.

The sūtra says: 'Furthermore, the Tathāgata has a light named "Able to Renounce"; by this light the Buddha can destroy the stingy and greedy mind of sentient beings, enabling them to practice giving. Furthermore, the Tathāgata has a light named "Free from Regret and Torment"; by this light the Buddha can destroy the precept-breaking mind of sentient beings, enabling them to uphold the prohibitive precepts. Furthermore, the Tathāgata has a light named "Peaceful and Harmonious"; by this light the Buddha can destroy the angry mind of sentient beings, enabling them to practice patience. Furthermore, the Tathāgata has a light named "Diligent Cultivation"; by this light the Buddha can destroy the indolent mind of sentient beings, enabling them to practice vigor. Furthermore, the Tathāgata has a light named "Single Mind"; by this light the Buddha can destroy the distracted mind of sentient beings, enabling them to practice dhyāna. Furthermore, the Tathāgata has a light named "Able to Understand"; by this light the Buddha can destroy the foolish mind of sentient beings, enabling them to practice wisdom.' This extends to the four deportments and all dharmas likewise. It will not be cited further in the texts below. As for 'Because of receiving the light, up to: each must be explained': having received the light, according to one's past conditions and present preparatory application, one attains correspondence with the four modes of practice. The wording of the text is brief, saying only 'renouncing like dropping a mustard seed' without minutely clarifying the depth or shallowness of the contemplative practice; therefore, subsequent people are instructed to explain one by one the four marks of giving to match the four teachings, so that those who receive benefit may recognize the benefit and understand the empowerment. If one explains them, one should say: if corresponding with the giving of the Tripiṭaka [teaching], one can renounce phenomenal body, life, and wealth. If corresponding with the shared [teaching], one knows the three things are empty. If corresponding with the distinctive [teaching], one understands that giving encompasses all dharmas. If corresponding with the perfect [teaching], one sees that giving is the dharma-dhātu. When past and present unite, there is correspondence with the four. As with the perfection of giving, so it is with the other five. Below, 'Able to ultimately...' clarifies that when the principle is complete, the phenomena are accomplished. 'If there are no causes and conditions...' and so forth: this body and so forth of mine has no conditions to benefit things; I temporarily entrust myself to this foul carcass to advance my own path. If suddenly there is a slight benefit to others, I renounce this body and so forth just like straw and mustard seed. In worldly life people can still sacrifice their bodies to achieve benevolence; how could a lofty gentleman who has transcended the world be deluded by a foul carcass? 'This is...' and so forth summarizes gaining benefit. Proper and auxiliary practices are accomplished, thereby reproving non-accomplishment. Proper wisdom is like fire, the object of the aggregates is like a wick, and the phenomenal perfections are like oil. If the fire is not bright, the wick is not scorched; this is precisely because the oil of phenomenal practice is exhausted. Because the oil is exhausted, by what means could the great darkness of ignorance ever be extinguished?