止觀輔行傳弘決 3.38

3.38

Next, from 'the persons of the three vehicles' onward, it clarifies separation and combination in the shared teaching. Although they sever [defilements] identically, because there are sharp-rooted ones among the bodhisattvas, departing from the real brings forth the middle, which is why it is called 'difference in the real'. Next, where it cites the Dazhidulun and so forth: 'the wise person' refers to the sharp-rooted one who sees the middle, which is called 'seeing the non-empty'; 'non-empty' is simply 'not merely empty'. Possessing the three virtues completely is called 'great nirvāṇa'. Below, where it says 'the two vehicles', it cites the text of the Dapin. Wisdom like the sun is precisely illuminating the middle. The dull-rooted from beginning to end only see emptiness. Being brought together in the Lotus is not the meaning of opening and combining here. Below, where it says 'Since emptiness is different', it directly clarifies opening and combining. Merely empty and not merely empty are called 'difference in emptiness'. The all-knowledge illuminates mere emptiness, and the knowledge of all aspects illuminates non-mere emptiness; this is called 'difference in wisdom'. Since the real contains the two, the wisdom is also twofold. Opening the middle way out from within the truth of the real is why it says 'there is the distinction of two truths'. But as for combining them now: provisionally based on the shared teaching, it is therefore said that they are now stated as two truths, merely called 'the truth of the real'. Below, where it says 'the two vehicles', it opens out the difference in the contemplation of the truths between the two vehicles and the sharp- and dull-rooted bodhisattvas; because of the difference, there can be the meaning of containing the middle. Regarding 'purifying the Buddha-land': a bodhisattva of the shared teaching who emerges into provisionality also creates causes for a pure land for the sake of sentient beings, establishing affinities everywhere; when sentient beings' capacities are ripe, they sever habitual tendencies and achieve Buddhahood, which is called purifying the Buddha-land. The time of establishing affinities is called pure land practice. Therefore the Vimalakīrti says: 'A bodhisattva's taking of a pure land is entirely for the sake of benefiting all sentient beings. Thus giving is the bodhisattva's pure land; when the bodhisattva achieves Buddhahood, sentient beings who are capable of renunciation come to be born in that land.' At the time of establishing affinities, they gather them through giving; at the time of achieving Buddhahood, the ground has many precious jewels, and those capable of renunciation are born together in that land, receiving the five kinds of transformative benefit of giving. This is because when gathering sentient beings there are five differences, namely humans and devas, and the four teachings. None of all the practices is not the practice of a bodhisattva's pure land; thus there are four lands that gather beings horizontally and vertically. This relies on crossing boundaries, so the meaning of pure land runs through all teachings. The present text provisionally relies on the bodhisattva of the shared teaching severing the remaining residual habitual tendencies as the fruition of the pure land, which is merely different from the two vehicles. If fascicle twenty-two of the Great Sūtra clarifies the meaning of pure land, it merely speaks of gathering through vows, and its meaning is universal. While the contemplations of the various teachings differ, their gathering of beings is in all cases like this. Below, where it says 'bodhisattvas of superior faculties', it clarifies that sharp-rooted bodhisattvas open the real to bring forth the middle. Below, where it says 'In the past, Zhuangyan', it refutes the ancients. Zhuangyan said it emerges, while Kaishan said it does not emerge; this is because among the bodhisattvas who study in common with the three vehicles, there are those of the merely [empty] and the not merely [empty]. The ancients did not understand the two faculties of sharp and dull, but only disputed whether the Buddha fruition emerges or does not emerge, never seeing the present meaning of opening and combining; this caused the two houses to each cling to their own calculation. The present text refutes both together, which is why it says in both cases that 'the formulation of the principle is not established'. Therefore we know that the two houses each grasped one side of sharp or dull in the present text, which is why it is called 'a partial idea'. Still unable to know the realm of the middle way that is illuminated separately outside, and using the wisdom of the middle way to advance and sever ignorance, this is why it is called 'a partial idea'. If one does not know that the dull-rooted rely on the teaching to realize the truth of the real together with the people of the two vehicles, this is also merely grasping a partial idea of the present text. If one completely grasps the present intention, the principles of both emerging and not emerging are fully established. Regarding 'From ancient times this has been called...', etc.: as each of the two houses deemed what it stated to be profound, right and wrong were difficult to distinguish, and from ancient times there was no judgment; therefore the ancients praised both theories equally, calling these two truths 'elegant'. Saying 'elegant' means movement and rest conform to propriety, so they granted that the two houses were without fault in emerging or entering. Now being refuted, emerging and entering are both wrong and their actions lack propriety—where is their elegance? If one relies on the present two truths containing the middle, advancing and retreating are both fine, and there is elegance to spare. As in the Biographies of Eminent Monks, there was a Dharma Master Cheng who formerly stayed at Kaitai Monastery with another Dharma master; this master left Kaitai Monastery halfway through. Later, Cheng gave a lecture at the original monastery, introducing this doctrine of the Buddha fruition emerging from the two truths. This master challenged him: 'Does the Buddha fruition emerge from the two truths? Or do the two truths emerge from the Buddha fruition?' Cheng asked in return: 'Did the Dharma master emerge from Kaitai? Or did Kaitai emerge from the Dharma master?' He replied: 'Like the mandarin duck that does not live in a privy.' Cheng said: 'Śakra Devānām Indra does not live with ghosts.' He replied: 'The kokila bird does not perch on a withered tree.' Cheng said: 'Just as the great ocean does not harbor a corpse.' Although the back-and-forth was splendid, the principle in the end was not made clear. Furthermore, as at the end of the text of fascicle thirty-six of the Great Sūtra, the Buddha spoke of the four different kinds of wisdom contemplating causes and conditions, which result in different bodhi. When this was spoken, ten thousand bodhisattvas attained the true mark in one birth, and five thousand bodhisattvas attained the dharma-dhātu in two births. Zhang'an says: 'The three vehicles contemplate the supreme truth together, but their intellectual understanding differs. One birth or two births refers to severing one grade or two grades of ignorance. The true mark is the principle of the distinctive [teaching], and the dharma-dhātu is the principle of the perfect [teaching]; that is, the sharp-rooted are led into the distinctive and perfect [teachings]. Having severed ignorance, they manifest the eight phases to achieve Buddhahood, which is the meaning of the Buddha fruition emerging outside. Merely observe whether they attained the path at the assemblies of the various sūtras, and you will recognize the meaning of the common and the distinctive that was spoken.' Below, where it says 'mere emptiness', it distinguishes the difference. Below, where it says 'This is...', it concludes, as in the text.