止觀輔行傳弘決 2.35

2.35

Regarding the section below 'Next, contemplate' in terms of the six actions: Zhuang Zhou also said 'appearing, dwelling, speaking, and staying silent', where 'appearing and dwelling' are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down; yet Zhuang Zhou did not consider them objects of contemplation. Now, all three contemplations are provided; the contemplation of emptiness accords with what came before, and its meaning can also be known. Below 'And due to...', it is the contemplation of provisionality. Through the mind's mobilization, it becomes the cause of the ten realms—meaning, due to this mind, for what purpose one walks, stands, and so on; hence all instances of the character wei (為) are pronounced in the falling tone. 'Violating the precepts' is the hells. 'Deceiving others' is the hungry ghosts. 'Family and kin' is animals. 'Overcoming others' is asuras. 'Righteousness and yielding' is humans. 'Virtue' is the ten virtuous actions of the desire-realm heavens; 'dhyāna' is the four dhyānas of the form-realm heavens. The formless realm is omitted. 'Nirvāṇa' is the two vehicles. From 'kindness and compassion' onwards is the bodhisattvas of the six perfections. From 'skillful means' onwards is the shared bodhisattvas. 'Trance-like and elusive' describes a state that is formless and non-substantial. Lifting a foot and lowering a foot correspond with emptiness; therefore subject and object, as well as near and far, are annihilated. Whatever is done, if even a single thought does not correspond with emptiness, it is termed in vain. Below 'In this way...', it is the distinctive teaching. Entering provisionality from an empty mind is why it says 'in this way'. Gathering emptiness to constitute provisionality is why it says 'Ganges sands'. Since the textual phrasing is narrow, the meaning also includes the shared teaching emerging into provisionality. Previously, when explaining the shared teaching, it spoke only of the contemplation of emptiness, not distinguishing the difference between emptiness and provisionality across the three vehicles. Furthermore, a person of the distinctive teaching points to the preceding nine realms; hence it says 'in this way'. The nine realms being already empty, emptiness is identical to the nine realms; therefore it establishes the distinctive teaching's Buddha-dharma of the Ganges sands. Below 'Furthermore, contemplate one movement...', it is the contemplation of the Middle Way. Neither one nor ten; explain it in accordance with what preceded. Below 'Therefore the Lotus [Sūtra]...', it adduces proof. Question: Why cite relinquishing robes to substantiate the six actions? Answer: Following the momentum of the text, it cites relinquishing clothes as a general proof for practicing and receiving charity, and cites the Buddha-path to substantiate the perfect middle. Below 'Previously in terms of...', regarding discussing the six [perfections] for each of the twelve matters: first, similarities and differences are indicated. The previous twelve matters all together discussed charity; hence it says 'together'. Now, each single matter fully discusses all six; hence it says 'each'. Furthermore, previously when discussing charity together, for each of the twelve matters the charity-characteristics of the ten realms were illuminated. Now, within the individual discussion, according to the rule, it should also completely set forth the twelve matters as before, and for each elucidate the six perfections of the ten realms, but the text follows brevity. At times it mentions nine realms, or only the Buddha realm; the expanded and condensed mutually balance to jointly achieve the perfect meaning. Furthermore, not only do the twelve each possess the six, but within the six each also possesses the six; therefore each single perfection is adorned with the other five—that is, using five to adorn charity, down to using five to adorn wisdom. Subject and object spoken together are both called possessing the six. The various Mahāyāna sūtras—Śūraṅgama, Dazhidulun, Dapin, and so on—are all like this regarding the six perfections; thus now, following them, the characteristics of the perfections are explained; what is used in the present text is indeed the Śūraṅgama. It is also as the 'Mutual Inclusion Chapter' of the Dapin says: 'Pūrṇa addressed the Buddha: "I now wish to expound the bodhisattva's practice." The Buddha said: "Speak as you please." Thereupon he broadly expounded the six perfections mutually illuminating each other, thereby forming six times six, thirty-six perfections; hence it says: sometimes taking giving as the name to speak of the various pāramitās, down to sometimes taking prajñā as the name to speak of the various pāramitās.' Five perfections enter into one, taking their name from the one. Moreover, the 'Mutual Illumination Chapter' of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the 'Unbroken Chapter' of the Dayingluo both share the same meaning as the Śūraṅgama. Fascicle 82 of the Dazhidulun asks: 'If all mutually adorn, why is charity alone made the first? Answer: Because it is expedient for gathering sentient beings. From noble and base down to animals, charity can gather them, even gradually turning them into relatives. All the marks and characteristics of the Buddhas are born from giving.' Explanations such as this still belong to the doctrinal path; if explained according to the realized path, there is nothing that is not the dharma-dhātu; when inclusion lacks before and after, who would speak of a sequence? The initial text, because within practice the six are complete, presents the text of charity and that which adorns in sequence, without needing to separately explain what adorns and what is adorned. The initial text says 'the eye of great compassion' and so on: as the Śrīkaṇṭha states, 'When a bodhisattva walks, he looks ahead six feet, with double yokes furrowing the ground, looking neither left nor right. Not distressing sentient beings, seeing all sentient beings with the thought of an only son, looking at them without partiality is called the eye of great compassion.' Thus we know that when a bodhisattva looks upon sentient beings, he always wishes to give them the single real bliss and extract their twofold suffering. Since the eye's seeing is like this, the five sense-faculties follow by analogy. 'Gaining fearlessness toward bodhisattvas': precisely when, lacking wealth, one mobilizes the six actions, bestowing fearlessness is called charity. 'Having nothing that causes injury or harm to sentient beings': contemplating in accord with principle, leaning neither to emptiness nor provisionality, not destroying the true mark; hence it says 'without harm'. Harm (sun) is like decrease; that is, the cultivate without decrease of the Aṅgulimāla. Seeing guilt and merit as the dharma-dhātu is called 'neither guilt nor merit'. Not being subsumed by emptiness or provisionality is called 'thoughts of the mind do not arise'. Because thoughts do not arise, it is called 'unshakeable'. Pervading all places is called 'non-abiding'. The aggregates are identical to the dharma-dhātu, and hence also unmoving. 'The mind without prior reflection' and so on: thought after thought in accord with principle, without false calculation and reflection, which is only realized later. Thus the Awakening of Faith says: 'Awakening to the previous thought giving rise to evil and being able to stop the subsequent thought from arising, though called awakening, is in fact non-awakening. Reflection is identical to the dharma-dhātu; who is the one capable of awakening? Though it is non-awakening, it is named awakening.' In 'among all dharmas' and so on, thought after thought is the dharma-dhātu; therefore one is not interrupted by arising and ceasing. In 'cannot attain body and mind' and so on, one cannot attain the two extremes, because the extremes are identical to the middle. Since it is like this within dhyāna, the before and after follow by analogy. The words differ but the meaning is the same; one must carefully contemplate and discern. In 'without receiving' and so on, one does not experience the extremes, does not ponder or cling to the middle, does not taste nirvāṇa, and does not confuse saṃsāra. 'When walking, the head and the other six parts': when walking one is like a shadow, not thinking that there are distinctly two hands, two feet, a trunk, and a head. 'Like clouds, like shadows': as explained below in the ten similes. Although all are the dharma-dhātu, there is coming and going; coming and going have no reality, which is called 'like shadows' and so forth, unlike the shared teaching's illusion being identical to emptiness, having no birth in saṃsāra and no extinction in nirvāṇa. The two vehicles are severed by emptiness; ordinary people reckon permanence. The five aggregates are indeed the house of ultimate emptiness; therefore there is no longer the bondage and release of the two extremes. Below 'Fully as in...', it directly points to the Śūraṅgama, taking it as the model for mutual adornment. In that sūtra, the Buddha asked Dṛḍhamati: 'How does one practice the six perfections in a single thought?' He answered: 'When this bodhisattva relinquishes everything and the mind has no greedy attachment, that is dāna; when the mind is thoroughly tranquil and ultimately free of evil, that is śīla; knowing the exhaustiveness of dharmas and remaining uninjured amid all sensory dusts, that is kṣānti; zealously investigating the mind and being able to know freedom from marks, that is vīrya; being ultimately tranquil and taming one's mind, that is dhyāna; knowing that the mind has no mind and penetrating the characteristics of the mind, that is prajñā.' The present text broadly adheres to the meaning of that sūtra's text, and is therefore largely the same with minor differences. Question: Since the wording is broad, how does one know that passage pertains to the perfect teaching, so as to cite it to verify the perfect? Answer: In the sūtra, when the Buddha finished extensively explaining the sequence to Dṛḍhamati, the Buddha asked Dṛḍhamati: 'How does one fully practice the six perfections in a single thought?' Dṛḍhamati then answered the Buddha with this passage; hence it is clear that what explains the perfect comes after the sequential. Failing to see the sūtra's intention, people claim that this interpretation is a subjective conjecture; therefore, modern commentators entirely discard this passage, leaving later students of the perfect practice with nothing to rely on. The present text follows it: traversing all dharmas, there is none that is not the characteristic of the non-active six perfections. Thus the Lotus [Sūtra] says: 'Benevolent one, receive this Dharma-gift of precious jewels and necklaces.' The necklace is material wealth; material wealth is identical to the Dharma. Below 'Furthermore, within practice...', it re-examines the two pāramitās of dhyāna and prajñā, both first citing their faults, then clarifying their virtues. The initial passage cites the fault of dhyāna. Although termed 'Śūraṅgama', giving rise to attachment toward dharmas is why it says 'generating defilement'. Below 'Now contemplating...', it explains the virtues. Contemplating that the aforementioned mind capable of attachment is itself without mind, how could one further reckon a locus for Śūraṅgama concentration? Below 'One should know...', it re-judges. Saying 'there is concentration' arises from inversion. Below 'Thus...', it concludes. Having the marks of concentration and distraction, how could one still see emptiness and non-emptiness? This refutes the mark of generating defilement in concentration. Immediately free from the bondage of craving the taste of dhyāna, its essence is identical to the dharma-dhātu and responds universally to all; this is called 'skillful means arisen'. Below 'The practitioner...', next it cites the fault of prajñā. One who has that which reckons is already crude; how much more so if one elevates oneself—how could this be called wisdom? The clinging mind obstructing wisdom is called the cognitive obstacle. All non-Buddhists each consider themselves right; now, elevating oneself turns out to be identical to non-Buddhists, so how could it merely be losing the wisdom of the middle? The Dazhidulun says: 'If there is a bodhisattva who, regarding other bodhisattvas, has this thought: "You do not have this matter, I alone have it," by this cause and condition he turns back and loses the path.' Thus the Dapin says: 'If another bodhisattva slight other bodhisattvas for the duration of a single thought, for an eon he will be far from the Buddha-path, and will take another eon to cultivate the Buddha-path again. Therefore, neither elevate oneself nor belittle others.' Below 'Immediately turns back...', next it clarifies virtue. Turning back to contemplate the mind that is capable of clinging to the wisdom of the middle: the 'contemplator' is the self, and 'non-contemplators' refers to scattered-minded persons; the mind of the wisdom of the middle is free from the duality of those two. Below 'Since the contemplator does not exist...', realizing the reckon-er does not exist, that which is contemplated is also broken. Below 'Unable to attain...', it again refutes that which is capable of reckoning. This is the primary intention here, hence it is stated again. Below 'Dazhidulun...', it adduces proof to refute the notion of capable of contemplation. Reckoning that there is a wisdom of the middle is called conceptual proliferation; mindfulness and thought reside in the mind, whereas conceptual proliferation extends to the mouth; speaking necessarily relies on the mind, hence it is called the 'mind of conceptual proliferation'. Now, destroying its root, mindfulness and thoughts are removed; this is called conceptual proliferation extinguished. Because of conceptual proliferation all sins are born; therefore conceptual proliferation extinguished is called 'all sins removed'. Originally cultivating the wisdom of the middle, attachment hindered the middle; thus with all sins removed, it returns to the original eternal oneness. 'In this way' and so on: only this unattached person sees wondrous wisdom. In 'the Mahāsaṃnipāta contemplates mind upon mind', it means the contemplated mind and the capable-of-contemplating thought are called contemplating mind upon mind. If one does not contemplate both, conceptual proliferation arises again; being able to illuminate like this is also called eternal oneness; hence it says 'this is precisely the meaning'. Below 'In this way...', it concludes the preceding text, establishing the three samādhis. Since after the aids to the path the three liberations are opened, and the six perfections and aids to the path differ in name but are identical in meaning, therefore after the six perfections it concludes by establishing the three liberations. The characteristics of similarity and difference between the six perfections and the aids to the path will be explained in the seventh fascicle under auxiliary paths. Now, since these six perfections are non-active, the three samādhis should be interpreted according to the perfect, just as explained after the aids to the path in the seventh fascicle. Below 'Furthermore, refuting...', in concluding the various pāramitās: because inversions are broken, poisons are extinguished; because poisons are extinguished, existence is transcended; because existence is transcended, Māra is subdued; because Māra is subdued, the pāramitās are fulfilled. 'Three inversions' refers to mind, thought, and view; these belong to the afflictions of view. 'Three poisons' refers to greed, anger, and delusion; these belong to the afflictions of cultivation. 'Three flows of existence' refers to the desire, form, and formless [realms]. Because cause and effect do not abide, they are called flows. Because they drift and drown the practitioner, they are again called flows. The four māras refer to the defilements and so on, treated below under the object of māra. Māra is the Buddha's enemy, hence called the 'māra-enemy'. Regarding these three inversions and so forth, the text is near but the meaning is far; one must divide it into two senses. In terms of crude afflictions, the person of the perfect teaching eliminates crude afflictions first. In terms of subtle afflictions, one must explain them all together in terms of what is beyond the triple realm. The identical essence of view and cultivation, the transformed triple realm, the four māras beyond the triple realm, down to the crude and subtle being of a single essence—only then is it called the perfect pāramitā. Below 'Gathering...', it explains by comparison. If it even accomplishes everything, how much more so the aforementioned breaking of the three inversions, breaking of the four māras, and establishment of the three samādhis?