止觀輔行傳弘決 3.25

3.25

Third, regarding the clarification of the objective realm: this is simply the character of the teaching, that which is revealed by eye and wisdom. Since the character of the teaching and eye and wisdom have already been clarified previously, they are sufficient to reveal what is expressed, what is known, and what is seen; there would be no need to further deliver this single section. However, although people of dull faculties have the former two made clear, they still do not comprehend. Therefore, this one section further and repeatedly clarifies what is revealed. Thus we know that this section directly clarifies what is revealed. Now, first, to clarify the intent of its coming: the reason it does not mention 'the character of the teaching' but only says 'eye and wisdom' is that although the character of the teaching is likewise that which can reveal, when teaching is viewed in relation to practice, practice is direct and teaching is distant. Speaking from what is direct, it therefore only mentions eye and wisdom. In general terms, both are capable of revealing the essence. From 'Now, practice by faith' onward, it takes up the preceding two chapters to clarify the intent of its coming. 'Practice by faith' takes up the preceding character of the teaching; it is properly situated in the character of the teaching, and is called 'valuing extensive learning.' 'Consummately wonderful' is precisely the present wonderful objective realm. 'Practice by Dharma' takes up the preceding eye and wisdom; it is properly situated in concentration and wisdom, and is called 'holding deep contemplation as the core.' The 'correct objective realm' is also the present wonderful objective realm; the two terms are established for rhetorical elaboration. Because it identifies the object grasped specifically for the two types of practitioners, it discusses it further. From 'The sutra says' onward directly clarifies the intent of the objective realm: for what purpose is the objective realm spoken of? It is to make personal practice recognize what is known and seen by the three eyes and the three wisdoms. Recognizing what is known and seen enables one to transcend reliance on the character of the teaching, cultivate the cause of calming and contemplation, and attain the fruition of eye and wisdom. For this reason, one must clarify the objective realm. From 'If it is for the sake of...' onward clarifies the intent of transforming others: for the sake of transforming others, one must speak of the objective realm. If one does not speak of the objective realm, what will one take as the basis for expounding the Dharma? The basis is the objective realm. Although there is the fundamental objective realm, one must accord with ordinary feelings. Thus it lists the three [modes]—according with feelings, according with wisdom, and so forth—so that one who transforms beings expounds in reliance on the objective realm. The intent in expounding the wonderful objective realm lies herein. First is the intent of the Great Master [Zhiyi]; next is the intent of Zhang'an. In the first passage, it first lists and then explains. First, it uses metaphors for the listener grasping at gates and being deluded about the teaching. The four metaphors here illustrate the grasping person's delusion over names. The sutra text originally used the metaphor for the non-Buddhists' wrong view of a false permanence; citations across various texts all accord with the sutra's meaning. The present text borrows the usage with a slightly different intent, yet though it differs from that text, the principle is not lost. Relying on the meaning and not on the words, it is therefore adaptively applied. How so? Although the sound of a conch is insubstantial, the substance of the conch is real; hence it illustrates the gate of existence. Rice flour is soft; it can illustrate the gate of emptiness. Snow is both existent and non-existent; hence it can illustrate 'both empty and existent.' A crane flies in the sky yet does not abide in the sky; hence it can illustrate 'neither empty nor existent.' From 'Ordinary feelings' onward is the application [of the metaphor], which also has three parts: first, clarifying that it is expounded out of great compassion; next, from 'although hearing' onward, clarifying the individual graspings of ordinary feelings; third, 'these various...' and so forth, concluding with their faults. Ordinary worldlings each grasp at a gate of entry and are deluded about the destination; thus they cannot see the true color of milk—permanence, bliss, self, and purity. This again follows the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra: just as the various non-Buddhists grasp at permanence, bliss, and so forth and lose the gate of entry, they consequently also lose the principle to which it leads. From 'Therefore, in the conventional path...' onward clarifies that expounders are deluded about the teaching. First, it clarifies the delusion of ordinary masters regarding the teaching. The kinds of people who grasp at teachings are not just one stream; for instance, as recorded in Prince Zhaoming of Liang's preface on the various masters' explanations of the meaning of the two truths, twenty-nine individuals each explained it differently—as found in the Guang hongming ji. None of them understood according with feelings, and all ran contrary to the Buddha's intent. Thus we know that these are merely different names to accommodate feelings. The two truths are not distinct; hence one must not grasp at each separately, losing the Buddha's expedient means. If one grasps at disparate names, one loses the single principle; one must comprehend the single principle to accommodate the myriad names. As in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā, how did it ever fail to clarify the conventional truth and the truth of the ultimate meaning? Although the names are identical to the Mahāyāna, the meaning ultimately belongs to the Hīnayāna. How much more so given that the truths of both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna each accommodate feelings! Thus we know that the twenty-three houses were still ignorant of texts that accord with feelings, so how much less could they understand 'feelings and wisdom' and the like? Regarding 'Though imbibing sweet dew...': the Shuowen says, 'To die before reaching the capping ceremony is called shang [premature death].' The Rites says, 'Age nineteen and below is called elder premature death; fifteen and below is called middle premature death; eleven and below is called lower premature death; seven and below is called premature death without mourning dress.' Therefore, shang means an early death. 'Yao' means dying halfway. Sweet dew is the medicine of immortality of the devas; hence it illustrates the eternal abiding like the medicine of immortality. Although they each grasp at the name of the sweet dew of the two truths, they forfeit the wisdom life of the Buddha's intent, which is eternally abiding. From 'The sutra states' onward clarifies the past causes of the two sages to verify the failure to understand the teaching that accords with feelings. The Miaoshengding jing says: 'The Buddha told Ānanda: "In the past, when I was a learned scholar, I disputed the meaning of the two truths with Mañjuśrī, and at death fell into the three evil paths."' Where the text says 'Maitreya', it is likely a scribal error. Therefore, what the Fahua xuanyi cites is precisely like that sutra: disputing the two truths, he spent immeasurable kalpas swallowing red-hot iron pellets. Emerging from hell, he encountered Kāśyapa Buddha, who explained the two truths of existence and non-existence for him. Kāśyapa Buddha said: 'All dharmas are devoid of fixed nature; your speaking of existence and non-existence is not correct. All myriad dharmas are entirely empty and tranquil; these two truths are both existent and non-existent. You only know the words and do not understand their meaning. Regarding this meaning, you are like one deaf and mute; how could you understand this profound meaning?' Having heard this, I entered dhyāna-concentration and immediately saw that all myriad dharmas are entirely empty and tranquil.' Thus we know that without seeing the principle of emptiness and tranquility, each grasping at the text that accords with feelings, one still falls into the three evil paths—how could one see the truth? If one grasps the present intent of determining what accords with feelings, the various interpretations will wonderfully harmonize. From 'In present times' onward clarifies that modern ordinary people do not understand according with feelings. 'Keng' means solid or unyielding. 'Thus...' onward concludes, as in the text. From 'If one recognizes...' onward clarifies that one who recognizes understands the teaching: recognizing that the Buddha accommodates conditions, one is not deluded by differing expositions. 'Fu' means reaching down to receive. From 'According with feelings and wisdom' onward explains 'according with feelings and wisdom.' First, it directly establishes it. One feeling and one wisdom together constitute the three truths; hence it is called 'feelings and wisdom.' The statement 'one cannot take one locus to discuss the three' means that although perfect cultivation is entirely threefold from beginning to end, since the three truths are discussed in terms of feelings and wisdom, they must be expounded relative to the various stages. Next, from 'Like resemblance...' onward, it determines them by stage: thus true and conventional are separated to belong to feelings, with their stage in the six sense faculties; the middle way is conceded to belong to wisdom, with its stage in the first abode. Then before the seventh faith is subsumed under the true, and from the eighth faith onward is subsumed under the conventional. Thus from the first abode upward, the middle way also possesses identical-substance true and conventional [truths]. The purification of the six sense faculties also possesses a resemblance middle way; hence Zhang'an below gives an explanation in terms of 'granting and withholding.' That is, for the six faculties he withholds their resemblance middle way and grants them their resemblance true and conventional [truths]. From 'According with wisdom' onward next clarifies the three truths within according with wisdom. First, it determines them by stage. They all belong to what is realized by the noble ones; hence from the first abode upward it is still partial attainment. One should know that it is contrasted with feelings. It is not that feelings do not attain the resemblance three truths; it is merely that its middle way is withheld and deferred to the first abode. 'Not only...' and so forth is an argument a fortiori. The three truths according with wisdom abide solely in the noble mind, as in the 'Inconceivable Chapter' of the Vimalakīrti. These are all the bodhisattva's inconceivable conventional [truth]; how could it be heard or seen by lower stages? Since the conventional is like this, the true is also the same: the sights and sounds emptied by a bodhisattva of the first abode cannot be heard or seen by ordinary persons or followers of the Hīnayāna. From 'The three truths...' onward praises and explains the three truths. Speaking from what is superior, it only mentions the double negation. That which can negate is the middle; that which is negated is the two [extremes]. Being non-dual yet dual constitutes the negator and the negated. In the explanation of the ten dharmas' merits in the nineteenth fascicle, it first says: 'Not shared with the two vehicles, inconceivable, making listeners startled and astonished. ... Up to having no marks or appearances, non-existent in the world.' The present text interprets this in terms of the hundred negations and four propositions. The sutra text directly praises the first bhūmi and above, which directly corresponds to the first abode; hence it is cited to verify the three truths according with wisdom. Zhang'an explains this, saying: 'Hearing of its depth without bottom, one is startled; hearing of its breadth without boundary, one is astonished. Because its nature does not reveal itself, it is not internal; because its nature is not revealed by another, it is not external—this internal and external extends to both inside and outside the realms. Because sentient beings are identically it, it is not difficult; because the seven expedient practitioners cannot fathom it, it is not easy. Because it is not a physical dharma, it is not a mark; because it is not a mental dharma, it is not a non-mark. Furthermore, because it is not the realm-thusness, it is not a mark; because it is not separate from the realm-thusness, it is not a non-mark. Because it is not of the three times, it is not a worldly dharma; having neither boundary nor middle, it has no marks or appearances; transcending the four [propositions] and departing from the hundred [negations], it is non-existent in the world. Because all negations are entirely eliminated, it is collectively called a hundred; because every affirmative proposition is destroyed, it is briefly called four. The four subsume all sets of four; hence it is provisionally called four.' Question: Zhang'an's explanation of the propositions does not resemble double negation; how can it serve as proof? Answer: It directly clarifies that the middle way negates the two extremes. Because prajñā is deep, and because liberation is broad, the two virtues are precisely the two truths of the true and conventional. 'Self' means internal illumination; 'other' means according with conditions—these are also merely different names for the true and conventional. 'Sentient beings are identically it' is spoken in terms of principle; 'the expedient practitioners cannot fathom it' is spoken in terms of phenomena—phenomena and principle are also different names for the true and conventional. The physical forms of the hundred realms and the single thought-moment of the mind are also the true and conventional. The lower two propositions are again expounded in terms of the complex and relaxed three truths. From 'Only a Buddha...' onward cites the Lotus Sūtra, which also verifies according with wisdom; the former was in terms of the first abode, whereas this is solely in the Buddha. 'Only a Buddha' refers to Śākyamuni; 'and a Buddha' refers to [the Buddhas of] the ten directions and the three times. Although there is beginning and end, they identically see the three truths. From 'It cannot be...' onward refutes and deprives, containing doctrine, metaphor, and application. Within the first abode, the oneness of dharma-nature and the threeness of the three truths cannot yet be fathomed by the ordinary stage of the six faculties; how much less could worldly feelings and conceptual projections know the true, good, and wonderful color of the milk of the three truths? Only when the five eyes are fully opened does one see the realm of truth; thus resemblance still belongs to blindness, because ignorance that obstructs the middle has not yet been broken. If we follow the Lotus Sūtra, one should clarify those who do not know in terms of the three teachings. 'Thus...' onward concludes, as in the text.