止觀輔行傳弘決 3.56

3.56

Regarding "this subsumes all stages": in the initial presentation of intent, first the absence of stages is clarified. If one wishes to clarify existence, one must first distinguish non-existence; for the emergence of stages and ranks comes from the holy mind, and since the holy mind is fundamentally tranquil, how could stages and ranks be applied? To adapt to the faculties and conditions of sentient beings with their graduations of sameness and difference, unless one were an ultimate sage who transcends all stages, how could one determine the various lower [ranks]? Therefore, the principle of the absence of stages is clarified first, and subsequently stages are explained in terms of phenomenal matters. Moreover, non-existence pertains to the ultimate truth, while existence is framed in terms of the conventional truth; because ultimate and conventional are non-dual, the ultimate is distinguished first. Thus, Chapter Four of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, the "Chapter on the Heart of the Buddha's Words," states: "In the foremost truth there is no sequence." The present text follows this meaning, hence it says "quiescent true suchness." Furthermore, a verse below states: "The tenth ground is then the first; the first ground is then the eighth; the ninth is then the seventh, and the seventh is again the eighth; the second is the third; the fourth is the fifth; the third is the sixth—where nothing exists, what sequence is there?" This alone is from the four-fascicle translation of the sūtra; the others cited are all from the seven-fascicle translation. The statement in the sūtra regarding the absence of stages is found only in this single passage; all the texts above and below clarify stages and ranks, yet they mostly distinguish the shared and distinctive [teachings] and rarely clarify the Tripiṭaka and perfect [teachings]. If one discusses wisdom and practice, all four teachings are fully present, but because the Vaipulya section mostly rebukes the Tripiṭaka, its discussion of stages is also sparse. One should know that the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra clarifies the absence of stages and ranks from the side of the perfect principle, but in terms of phenomenal matters they are not absent; even when it clarifies phenomenal matters of the perfect teaching, they mostly concern the dharma-gates of mutual identity beyond the triple realm, and for this reason the stages of the perfect teaching in that sūtra are also few. Therefore, in the specific preface of that sūtra, when the World-Honoured One was invited and entered the city of Laṅkā, he used his supernormal powers to manifest countless jewelled mountains, all with buddhas on the mountains, and before each and every buddha there were rākṣasas and assemblies, with the lands of the ten directions all appearing therein. How is this different from the transformation of the unified parasols appearing in the Vimalakīrti? It does not yet equal the Prajñā, where all those requesting in the ten directions were called Śakra Devānām Indra, and those empowered to speak were all called Subhūti and Śāriputra—this clearly proves that that section belongs to the Vaipulya. Since the stages and ranks are such, the dharma characteristics discussed should also comprise all four [teachings] with little of the Tripiṭaka, in accordance with the intent explained above. For instance, when the rākṣasa king in his original palace thought of the Buddha, and the Buddha preached dharmas such as illusions and transformations, that was the shared teaching. Developing good roots, leaving behind mind, intellect, and consciousness, and entering the tathāgata-garbha is the distinctive and perfect teachings. If one uses this as a guideline, the rest may be known by analogy. The specific preface contains so little that introduces the perfect teaching, which proves that the main teaching does not have much of the meaning of the perfect teaching. Therefore, in the main teaching, Mahāmati asked: "Is the purification of the self-manifest flow of mind of all sentient beings gradual or sudden?" The Buddha said: "It is gradual, not sudden." Although the text below says that "the Buddha's purification of the self-manifest flow of mind of sentient beings suddenly manifests everything," this refers to the culmination of the gradual being designated as sudden, which is simply the marvellous awakening stage of the distinctive teaching. How much more so when the text establishes five lineages—namely the buddha, bodhisattva, śrāvaka, indeterminate, and lineage-less—because the provisional has not yet been opened, the various lineages remain separated; how could this be identical to the ruined seeds receiving prediction in the Lotus? How much more so when the five dharmas, three intrinsic natures, eight consciousnesses, and two forms of selflessness are entirely the meaning of the distinctive teaching; how could one cling to a single phrase and assert that there are no stages and ranks? From "Furthermore, the Mahāyāna..." downward, the presence of stages and ranks is clarified. Previously, the absence of stages was clarified as also being Mahāyāna; now the presence is clarified again, hence it says "furthermore." From "Indeed, because..." downward, existence and non-existence are reconciled. As stated previously, unless one has verified the absence of stages, one cannot distinguish stages; and to prevent fools from one-sidedly clinging to the absence of stages, it concludes: "Why should one object to stages and ranks?" From "If one analyses..." downward, the stages and ranks of the various teachings are properly clarified. First is the Tripiṭaka. Regarding the "seven worthies and seven sages": the seven worthies refer to the seven expedient means; the seven sages refer to those who practice by faith, practice by Dharma, are liberated by faith, attain views, are bodily witnesses, are liberated in due time, and are liberated not in due time. Regarding the twenty-seven worthies and sages: opening the candidate for the first fruit into three—namely those who practice by faith, practice by Dharma, and practice signlessness—together with the first fruit makes four; fifth is the candidate for the second fruit; sixth is the second fruit; seventh is the candidate for the third fruit; eighth is the third fruit. Within this [third] fruit, it is further opened into eleven—namely intermediate, arising, with effort, without effort, delighting in samādhi, delighting in wisdom, changing realms, present, liberated by faith, attaining views, and bodily witness—which, combined with the previous seven, make the eighteen learners. Opening the non-learners into nine—namely those subject to falling away, guarding, maintaining, thinking, dying, non-falling away, liberated by wisdom, liberated both ways, and of indestructible Dharma. The Abhidharmakośa states: "The World-Honoured One taught eighteen learners: the four candidates, three fruits, practice by faith, practice by Dharma, liberated by faith, attaining views, from family to family, one interval, and the five kinds of non-returners—namely intermediate, arising, with effort, without effort, and going upstream. There are nine non-learners: falling away, guarding, thinking, maintaining, mastery, unshakeable, non-falling away, liberated by wisdom, and liberated both ways. These twenty-seven are called fields of merit." Question: For what reason is the bodily witness not included among the number? Answer: The three outflows-free trainings are the causes of the sage, and nirvāṇa through analytical cessation is the fruit of the sage. The cessation absorption has outflows and is not the relying cause, so it is not included in the number. If one wishes to know the details, please consult the original treatise. In Madhyama-āgama 40, an elder asked the Buddha: "How many fields of merit are there?" The Buddha's answer was the same as the Abhidharmakośa. Since the other two gates each have treatises, they should also have stages, but they are omitted and not discussed here. The common stages of the three vehicles will be distinguished below under the stages and ranks. Since within the shared teaching there is no distinction among treatises of the four gates, it merely lists the ten common grounds based on the sūtra. Next, regarding the distinctive stages: just as in the Laṅkāvatāra, where the first-ground bodhisattva is empowered by the Buddha, accumulates all good roots over hundreds of thousands of myriads of kalpas, gradually enters the various grounds, and arrives at the Dharma-Cloud Ground to sit upon a great lotus flower. The present text properly uses the stages listed in the Yingluo jing. Regarding "not grasping the intent, one constitutes the thirty minds," etc.: out of unavoidable necessity the instructional path was devised, provisionally accommodating beings' capacities, which was not the Buddha's original intent. His intent was in the middle-way true mark of the first ground; still dwelling in the stages prior to the grounds where afflictions are suppressed is called "not grasping the intent." Grasping the intent means entering the stage of breaking through ignorance, which is why it comes immediately after the second contemplation. Regarding "or solely the contemplation of provisionality": first, this distinguishes those who have missed the intent; second, since the first ground is identical to the first abode, this teaching merely accomplishes the contemplation of provisionality. In the stages of the perfect teaching, opening, demonstrating, awakening, and entering provisionally verify the causal stage. Equal awakening is sometimes clarified within the ten grounds. The four propositions of opening and combining to determine the stages of the perfect teaching, as explained before, are fully presented in the text of the Xuan[yi]. Regarding the "fourteen prajñās": Question: The Renwang explains the five patiences of practice, in which the text lists fourteen patiences, but there is no name of prajñā. Why does it now say "fourteen prajñās"? Answer: Patience is the cause, wisdom is the fruit. Patience suppresses, wisdom severs. Suppression necessarily involves severing, so it is spoken of in terms of severing. From "Question" downward is an analysis: for those who do not understand, a doubt is raised once more. Clinging to the previous passages of the Laṅkāvatāra and various Mahāyāna sūtras that clarify the empty, sweepingly negated characteristics, why must one clarify stages and claim that calming and contemplation subsumes stages and ranks? In the answer, it returns to the previously clarified Mahāyāna sūtras which all clarify stages and ranks. From "Although it is taught..." downward, it repeats the previous text from "Indeed, because..." onward. You avoid existence and enter non-existence; your intent is biased and your text restricted—how much more do you resemble the non-Buddhists' wrong non-existence? From "The Madhyamakaśāstra..." downward, it cites the treatise to rebuke those who cling to the absence of stages. Stages are cause and effect; your assertion of no stages means there is no cause and effect, which resembles the non-Buddhists repudiating the worldly as well as the world-transcending three kinds of four fruits. From "What kind... is absent?" downward, it presses the adherent again: what kind of cause and effect do you claim is absent? From "Since views..." downward, it evaluates: since the adherent has not yet verified and entered, worldly views are blatant; clinging to no stages breaks down arising and perishing. From "Still not..." downward is a comparison. Even the clumsy crossing has the cause and effect of the Tripiṭaka, yet you do not even have that; how could you possess the cause and effect of the latter three teachings? From "This rebukes..." downward is the conclusion. The statement "this rebukes non-Buddhists" aims to rebuke those who cling to the absence of stages: you say there is nothing at all, which is identical to those non-Buddhists. From "If one rebukes..." downward refutes the Hinayāna. It provisionally concedes to them: if you wish to use the Mahāyāna to rebuke the Hinayāna, asserting that the Hinayāna only has the cause and effect of the Tripiṭaka and lacks the subsequent three tiers of causal and fruitional stages, then if you can refute them, you must still possess the subsequent three tiers of cause and effect; but you merely refute others and completely lack any stages, so we know you are identical to the wrong refutations of non-Buddhists. From "As in our..." downward properly clarifies the formula of refutation used by our school. Only using wisdom to break through affliction is called refutation. As for what you refute, using affliction to break through wisdom is termed refutation; if not identical to non-Buddhists, to whom can it be attributed? From "Question" downward, citing the verse of the treatise, why do each and every stage and the analysis all speak of breaking through the three paths? Answer: Earlier, the principle was first clarified; the principle is completely [covered by] affliction, so next affliction is broken through. Affliction is overturned into wisdom, and affliction is what is refuted. When wisdom breaks through affliction, karma and suffering are both broken through. The refutation must have distinctions of earlier and later, shallow and deep stages; therefore, clarifying stages must still be framed in terms of the three paths that are broken through. Regarding "pointing to this single word": this concludes the essential point. Plain speech is called speech (yan), explaining meaning is called words (yu); it also refers to the preface of the cited treatise, termed a single word. Now we provisionally follow plain speech, meaning that the single word is precisely "refutation." Using the great to refute the small cures the internal; using the small to refute the deviant cures the external. This cites Sengrui's Preface to the Madhyamakaśāstra. The preface states: "The Śata-śāstra refutes the external to ward off the deviant; this text eliminates the internal stagnation." Now we generally apply the intent of both treatises from that preface to establish our school's formula of refutation and establishment. The Guangya states: "To ward off (xian) means to rectify." Refuting the external eliminates the deviant of the extreme of existence; curing the internal eliminates the smallness of the extreme of non-existence. This preserves the gradual dharma, discussing mutual refutation through great and small, deviant and correct. In accordance with the Mahāyāna sūtras, one should further say: using the perfect to refute the biased. In accordance with the intent of the Lotus: opening the biased and revealing the perfect. From "Now only..." downward relies on the teaching. It still relies on the previous explanation of meaning via the two truths, so one cannot one-sidedly cling to existence or non-existence, because both existence and non-existence rely on the teaching. The proposition of non-existence is the bodhisattva proposition, and discussing stages based on emptiness, etc., are all texts of the two truths. Next, citing the Madhyamakaśāstra: the treatise has four lines, and for now three lines are matched with the three contemplations. Contemplation contemplates affliction; afflictions fall away not all at once, which causes the three contemplations each to have various stages. One should know that the verse of the treatise briefly distinguishes stages; how can one say there are none? That the first line is not matched with a stage here is because stages are established from the perspective of that which can refute. Causes and conditions are merely the object contemplated and the affliction refuted, so they are not matched. The rest of the text matching with the Tripiṭaka teaching provisionally follows the meaning for now, borrowing a match for the beginning, which is not the treatise's original intent. The earlier text of this treatise properly clarifies the Mahāyāna, so the intent of the verse lies precisely in the meaning of the three teachings and three contemplations. If one uses the three contemplations to subsume the stages of the four teachings, the Tripiṭaka is subsumed within the initial contemplation. In the initial line on emptiness, merely stating that breaking through the three paths accomplishes the bodhisattva highlights the superior while subsuming the inferior; hence it says the srotāpanna's wisdom and severing is the bodhisattva's non-arising. Furthermore, merely stating "the sixth ground," etc., is because the bodhisattvas of the shared teaching have differences in clarifying stages, as fully detailed in fascicle six. Here it also provisionally and briefly highlights the side of the sixth ground; its meaning actually extends to the seventh ground, being equal to the two vehicles. If one says that the seventh ground is equal to the two vehicles, then one should say that the eighth ground is the expedient means. Expedient means possesses two meanings: if one has not been received and stimulated, then emerging into provisionality is the expedient means; if one has been received and stimulated, then cultivating the middle is the expedient means. Therefore, the text below says: "On the eighth ground one hears the middle; on the ninth ground one cultivates contemplation to break through ignorance." This statement speaks for those of the lowest faculties; here, speaking of the seventh ground is based on middling faculties. Regarding "being like a buddha": this also has two meanings. If one separately establishes patience stages for bodhisattvas, then adjacent to the tenth buddha ground there is a bodhisattva stage, hence it is said to be like a buddha; if one has been received and stimulated, having broken through one grade of ignorance upon arriving here, one can also enter manifestations like those eight manifestations, hence it is said to be like a buddha. Prior to the sixth ground, the three paths within the realm are broken through; arriving here, the three paths beyond the realm are broken through. The statement in the provisional name line about breaking through the three paths beyond the realm is provisionally spoken based on the previous line concerning those not yet received and stimulated, so the first two lines merely sever the three paths within the realm. The line on the middle way shares and differs from this explanation.