止觀輔行傳弘決 3.24

3.24

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.