止觀輔行傳弘決 1.74

1.74

Next, from "If the practitioner of contemplation" onward, he discusses attainment and non-attainment in terms of those being transformed. First, clarifying non-attainment, he therefore says that what they cultivate and manifest is the manifest. "Manifest" refers to the three types of calming and contemplation, sudden and so forth. Those who receive the teaching are not fit to cultivate the esoteric, hence he says "they neither manifest nor cultivate." Furthermore, since what the esoteric teaching explains is identical to the manifest, there is no meaning of separately establishing the cultivation of esoteric contemplation, hence he says "they do not cultivate." Next, from "manifesting past habits" onward, he conceptually establishes attainment in terms of those being transformed. For example, cultivating arising and cessation while manifesting the uncreated, an explicit indeterminacy resembling an esoteric indeterminacy, conceptually establishes esoteric contemplation, hence he says it can be discussed. Question: If from initial shallow to later deep is gradual, speaking comprehensively, from good and evil up to reaching the permanent, can it all be generally named gradual? Answer: It is indeterminate. Principle is deep and phenomena are shallow when spoken of in terms of the four siddhāntas; it can also be regarded in terms of the gradual, mutually viewing each other as deep and shallow in turn. Question: If the Hinayana is also [the initial preaching] and so forth, he repeats the challenge against the previous answer. The Hinayana is also the initial preaching of the Tathāgata; for what reason do you say it is not? Here there are two levels to the objection: First, an objection that both Mahayana and Hinayana are spoken by the Buddha, so why say uniquely that the three are [gradual] while the Hinayana is not? Second, an objection that the Hinayana is the gradual [path leading] to the Mahayana; since the three are said to be so, why uniquely is the Hinayana not? The intent of the answer is that the Hinayana has two meanings: if in terms of the path of teaching, it is still separated from the Great [Vehicle], therefore it says "not." The Dharma is at the beginning of the gradual; people originally know the Great. Extending from subtle to prominent, it even subsumes humans and devas; speaking in terms of rebuking and stripping away, it takes the Hinayana to be not [gradual]; this is based on those who have not opened the provisional and do not know the real. Therefore, within the gradual, even a hair's breadth of good all belongs to the Great, hence it can be named "from subtle to prominent." In "Questioning and pointing out the three texts" and so forth, in questioning and pointing out the locus, he promises to point out three texts; what kind are these three texts? First, he determines both: Is form a gate? Or is form not a gate? If it is a gate, below he objects on both sides. First, he objects to it being a gate: A gate is named as that which is able to lead through, while the true mark constitutes that which is reached—why call it a gate? Under "If it is not a gate," he next objects to it not being a gate: Form is named the Middle Way, and the Way is named that which is able to lead through. That which is able to lead through is precisely a gate—why call it not a gate? Next, the intent in the answer: Text is the dharma of form, and form is also the true mark. If text is a gate, the gate is the dharma-dhātu, and the dharma-dhātu is precisely the real, hence it says "both are." From "Sentient beings are mostly inverted" onward, he explains the reason for the gate. Taking text as form to act as the gate that is able to lead through is merely because sentient beings are confused about the real principle, hence text is called a gate. Seeing principle in text, text is precisely the true mark—what is there of that which can lead through and that which is reached? Therefore, reflecting back upon text and gate, they are nothing other than the three truths: text is the conventional truth, not-text is the truth of emptiness, and the negation of both is precisely the ultimate truth. Contemplating the gate as threefold can also be understood by analogy. When contemplating like this, how are text and gate different? Both are named that which can lead through, and both are that which is reached. As for "inverted" (diandao): dian means the crown [of the head]; the crown falling downward is therefore called inverted. The *Guangya* states: "Dian means dao (inverted)." The commentary to the *Analects* states: "Dianpei means falling prone."