止觀輔行傳弘決 3.3

3.3

Next, in explaining the absolute: first, a general indication of the text's intention; second, refuting the horizontal and vertical; third, directly clarifying the absolute. Regarding the first, the text's intention: refuting by means of horizontal dharmas, refuting so as to make them horizontal, makes one know that horizontal relativity is not called the absolute; refuting by means of vertical dharmas, refuting so as to make them vertical, makes one know that vertical relativity is not called the absolute. What is called 'horizontal' means that looking among the four propositions, there is not yet shallow or deep, hence it is termed horizontal. In the four, such as 'production of production', looking among the four propositions, there is depth and shallowness, hence it is termed vertical. First, in refuting the horizontal, as for the previous two propositions both stating 'illuminating the object is primary, eliminating defilement is secondary': secondary is the other, primary is the self; wishing to judge the fault of self-nature, one first establishes the secondary and the primary. What are the secondary and primary? It is merely a single calming, differing in the basis for receiving its name. In terms of breaking defilement, it is named halting; in terms of relying on wisdom, it is named stopping; in terms of relying on the essential nature, it is named neither-stopping-nor-non-stopping. Thus it causes the reception of distinctions such as primary and secondary. Why is this? Generally speaking, in entering the path, the primary is employing wisdom, and the secondary is eliminating defilement. If the name is established from eliminating defilement, the name is established from the secondary; if the name is established from illuminating the object, the name is generated from the primary. What is refuted is defilement; defilement in relation to wisdom is the other, hence the calming of halting is established from what is refuted, and falls into 'other-nature'. The calming that can refute is again from what can illuminate; illuminating in relation to defilement is the self, hence the calming of stopping is established from what can illuminate, and falls into 'self-nature'. Here, stating 'illuminating the object' and so forth is done for convenience of phrasing. According to the principle, it should say relying on the truth is primary, halting defilement is secondary; only when arriving below at explaining contemplation can one speak of illuminating. From 'if neither' below, if grasping both self and other, one falls into 'common nature'. The text seems like a double negation, but the intent is actually a double affirmation, hence it says 'calming through the causes and conditions of wisdom and severance'. Not using one exclusively, it therefore seems like a double negation. The meaning of the calming of neither-stopping-nor-non-stopping falls into 'uncaused nature', which is precisely the double negation, simply because it is free of both self and other. 'Non-calming' is being free of self; 'neither non-calming' is being free of the other. Being free of the other is being free of what is refuted; being free of self is being free of what can be relied upon. Hence the third calming falls into uncaused nature. Contemplation is also like this, and can be known by analogy. However, the names that can express [it] in fact do not exceed these three calmings and three contemplations; therefore, in the absolute and in revealing the essence, it is also in terms of these names that the sudden is distinguished. To eliminate emotional reckonings, it is necessary to refute natures; therefore, Nāgārjuna's [statement that dharmas are] not produced from self and so forth is cited to verify freedom from the faults of nature. From 'unproduced' downward, it concludes. The absolute is unproduced; it does not establish its name from the four propositions of mutual relativity. Below 'establishing names from the four propositions', it reproves forming the meaning of relativity. Being mutually dependent and established in opposition, being thinkable and speakable, it is then conceivable. Not yet having severed grasping to natures is called bound defilement. Due to bound defilement, not yet realizing the unproduced is called the production of bound defilement. Being refuted by horizontal dharmas is called being refutable. The meaning of twofold emptiness being established, the meaning of mutual relativity is broken, which is called destructible. From 'arising and perishing' onward, it refutes specifically in terms of the three calmings and three contemplations. It briefly adduces the middle calming and middle contemplation; fully, it should explain that all three calmings and three contemplations are not established. The middle exemplifies the preceding and succeeding, hence it is briefly omitted.