止觀輔行傳弘決 2.59.1

2.59.1

From "Furthermore, the four kinds" below is the analytical distinction. The opening text briefly classifies that their practices differ while their principle is identical, distinguishing "following one's own thought" against the [other] three. Why is this? It is because while the active hindrances they trigger differ, their contemplation of principle is not distinct. Question: Constantly sitting contemplates the three paths, and so forth; constantly walking contemplates the Buddha's thirty-two marks, and so forth; the Vaipulya contemplates the venerable form of the Mahāpratisarā, ritual implements, and so forth; the Lotus contemplates the six-tusked white elephant, and so forth; following one's own thought contemplates good, evil, indeterminate [phenomena], and so forth. Since the four contemplations are each distinct, how can they be called identical? Answer: These are all stated with reference to the specific activities engaged. If we consider the contemplation that can contemplate, it is none other than the single mind; the principle that is cognised is none other than the three truths. Therefore it can be said that "the contemplation of principle is identical." From "If only" below, it is clarified that one must rely on principle to achieve the practice of specific activities. From "Furthermore, if one does not grasp the intent of the contemplation of principle" below, it is clarified that one must use principle as the basis for specific activities. From "If the forms of specific activities" below, this is used to distinguish uninterruptedness and interruptedness with respect to the [other] three. As for "Method is restricted to the three" and so forth, this distinguishes the universality and particularity of principle and specific activities with respect to the [other] three. In this [fourth samādhi], relying on the sūtras, it is not without methods; moreover, all that is not subsumed by the [former] three samādhis belongs here. It is not that methods are unnecessary here; it is merely that this samādhi does not strictly require methods. Therefore, methods are restricted to the former three. From "Question" below, he distinguishes whether the four samādhis include exhortation or lack exhortation. The intent of the question is evident. As for the intent of the answer: although this samādhi encompasses all sūtras and all good deeds, because it permits cultivating calming and contemplation on evil, in order to guard dull roots who do not comprehend the textual purport, it straightforwardly explains the contemplation without explicitly exhorting practice. If evaluated according to the earlier text where [affliction] arises and is illuminated, this too is an exhortation to cultivate contemplation upon arising; yet one must not openly declare or clearly encourage it, and therefore, in comparison to the former [three], it is designated as lacking exhortation to cultivate. If evaluated according to various sūtras that can eradicate grave sins, because there are grave transgressions, exhortation to cultivate is all the more necessary. Hence the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara states: "Washing away the excrement and filth, causing one to attain purity," and so forth. The other sūtras follow this model, and so it is not entirely absent. From "The Huai River" below, it clarifies the error in the master's own practice. In the regions north of the Huai and north of the Yellow River, people of erroneous emptiness falsely claimed Mahāyāna, entering evil without contemplation; hence this is illustrated by the metaphor of "catching a snake without a charm." "Charm" means restraint, because an incantational technique restrains creatures. Greed is like a snake, the method of contemplation is like a charm, contemplating desire with contemplation is like catching a snake, and lack of skill in the four phrases is like lacking a charm. As the Ariṭṭha Sūtra states: "The Buddha was at Anāthapiṇḍada's park. Ariṭṭha Gādhābādhipubba produced this evil view: 'I know that the World-Honoured One taught that engaging in sexual desire does not obstruct the Path.' The monks admonished him three times without his stopping, and came to inform the Buddha. The Buddha said: 'Call him here.' Once he arrived, the Buddha questioned him. He replied: 'It is so.' The Buddha called the monks and asked them, and all the monks said: 'The Buddha only said that desire is like fire, like a snake, like poison (and so forth).' The Buddha said: 'That is because he understands inversely. Just like a person wishing to catch a snake, walking along searching for a snake. In a quiet forest he sees an extremely large snake, and then grabs the snake by the waist. The snake turns its head around and bites his hands, feet, and other limbs. Because he was not skilled in the method of catching snakes, he only experiences extreme suffering. Inverse understanding of the meaning is also like this. If one wishes to be skilled in catching snakes, one holds an iron staff in hand, and upon seeing an extremely large snake, first presses down on the snake's head with the iron staff, and takes hold of its neck with one's hand. Although the snake twists its tail, it only wraps around the hands, feet, and other limbs, and cannot harm the person who caught the snake, because he is skilled in understanding the method of catching snakes.'" Now, entering evil without the method of contemplation is also like this: claiming that evil is non-obstructive, one is instead harmed by evil. If one enters the forest of the six sense-objects with the staff of wondrous contemplation, encounters the snake of greed, pins down the head of the four phases of mind, and seizes the neck with contemplation, one does not allow the virulent harm to culminate in bodily action and cause the loss of the pure, eternally abiding dharma-body. That Ariṭṭha lacked the staff of right contemplation and merely said that greed is non-obstructive. The meaning is nearly identical, and therefore this metaphor is borrowed. From "Now I shall" below, these are the characteristics of the former master catching a snake without a charm. As for that former master, of dull roots and heavy obstacles, his good cultivation failed; temporarily letting himself enter evil, he imagined something resembling contemplation of emptiness, and regarding this understanding of emptiness as profound realization, this was the error in his own practice. From "Not recognizing" below is the error of teaching others. Because wholesome [roots] did not arise in himself, he abandoned good to pursue evil, and solely took this understanding of emptiness from entering evil to teach others. When others also occasionally produced an understanding of emptiness, they immediately took it as proof, claiming that evil alone is real. From then on, even the understanding of emptiness was forgotten, and they only committed evil comprehensively. From "Blind without eyes" below is the error of disciples erroneously receiving it. Lacking the eye of doctrinal characteristics is called being blind; wholesome cultivation failing is called having dull roots; frequently arousing greed is having heavy afflictions. When such persons further hear their master's teaching instructing them purely to enter evil, they indulge desires and passions, comprehensively committing all kinds of evil. From "Consequently causing the common people" below clarifies the errors of oneself and others. Hu means to disparage and abandon. Because of the errors of oneself and others, the populace was disparaged and the kings perished. In present times, the lingering customs of Wu and Yue still remain: taking aloof rectitude to be the Hīnayāna, and taking promiscuous disorder to be unobstructedness. This still existed in the Sui dynasty, hence it is said that it has not yet changed. From "Records of the Grand Historian" below, he cites historical events to analogize the errors. First, he cites the Records of the Grand Historian to analogize the master's error of erroneous transmission. Zhou is the name of a state, with the surname of the Ji clan. The Annals of Emperors and Kings states: "The consort of Emperor Ku, Jiang Yuan, trod upon the footprint of a divine being and became pregnant. Thinking it inauspicious, she abandoned it in a narrow alley, but cattle and sheep did not trample it; she placed it upon cold ice, and birds covered it with their wings. Yuan regarded it as divine, retrieved it, and raised it. In childhood he was fond of agriculture, and when grown up, looked up to observe the Room constellation to gauge the farming seasons. Shun presented him to Yao to oversee agricultural governance as the agricultural minister; therefore he was called Lord Millet (Houji), and was granted the surname Ji." Beginning with Wu and ending with Nan, there were thirty-seven kings. The verse says: Wu, Cheng, Kang, Zhao, Mu, Gong, Yi, / Xiao, Yi, Li, Xuan, You, Xie, Ping, / Huan, Zhuang, Xi, Hui, Xiang, Qing, Kuang, / Ding, Jian, Ling, Jing, Dao, Jing, Yuan, / Zhen, Ai, Si, Zhe, Wei, An, Lie, / Xian, Shen, Nan: thirty-seven kings. / Xie did not rule for a full year; some say thirty-eight. The Zuo Commentary states: "Early on, when King Ping moved east, Xin You went to Yichuan, and seeing a person with disheveled hair making offerings in the wild, said: 'Before a hundred years pass, will this not belong to the Rong? Its rituals have perished first.'" When he speaks of the end of the Zhou, this only refers to the waning end, not to the very last. As for the Quanrong, they are precisely the Six Rong. Originally they were named Liuhun; at present, Liuhun County is established in that territory.