止觀輔行傳弘決 3.6

3.6

Regarding the passage from "absolute calming and contemplation" onward: next is explaining benefiting others. First, the intention of explaining is clarified. Having personally realized the absolute, one can adapt to the four kinds of capacities; expounding without exposition, it is therefore called "expoundable." If so, how could only the [first] three siddhāntas be methods for transforming others? The supreme-truth siddhānta is also for transforming others; hence the four chapters are matched to the four siddhāntas. From "If there is..." onward, the correct explanation begins. Question: Now when explaining the absolute, one should only clarify the absolute; why then match the four chapters to the four siddhāntas? Answer: Personal practice is exclusively absolute, but what is suitable for others varies; hence the absolute is divided into four teachings. Therefore, the text of the *Fahua xuanyi* states, when distinguishing and showing function: "The core is personal practice, so it must be distinguished from others; function is benefiting others, so both are adopted." If the inconceivable function still employs provisional devices, how much more so can the perfect absolute not be expounded as the four perfect siddhāntas? Thus, at the end of fascicle six of the *Fahua xuanyi*, in clarifying the opening of the four siddhāntas, it states: "Opening the crude worldly siddhānta perfects the wonderful worldly siddhānta, and so forth up to opening the crude supreme truth identically perfects the wonderful supreme truth. Therefore, either there is no exposition at all, but if there is exposition, it must be the four siddhāntas. Why? Difference means separation; converging them perfects the perfect difference. Differing without being different is thus matched to the worldly. Pervasion is the meaning of production; the name can penetrate principle; hence the goodness of principle is matched to the individual. Countering has that which counters and that which is countered; the absolute lacks that which counters and that which is countered; yet one temporarily relies on countering and countered to form the perfect therapeutic. The absolute pertains to principle; although principle is beyond exposition, based on the absolute principle the supreme truth is also expounded. When expounded as calming and contemplation, none of these four chapters is not calming and contemplation, and there is none that does not arrive at the absolute principle." Furthermore, regarding clarifying the absolute in terms of the manner of conversion: as in the *Vimalakīrti*, the thirty-two bodhisattvas each expounded the gate through which they entered; the gates all penetrated principle, and principle is therefore called absolute. Thus, after the bodhisattvas had spoken, they said to Mañjuśrī: "Virtuous one, you should speak." Mañjuśrī said: "Up to the absence of words and letters is truly entering the Dharma-gate of non-duality." This is named "extinguishing the absolute." Vimalakīrti closed his mouth and spoke not a word; this is named "the absolute extinguished." Question: If both attain the absolute, why are they different? Answer: Because they concurrently symbolize [different things], different avenues are shown. The bodhisattvas symbolize the difference of that which expresses; Mañjuśrī symbolizes the non-difference of that which is expressed; Vimalakīrti symbolizes the inexpressibility of that which is expressed. Furthermore, the bodhisattvas symbolize only transforming others; Mañjuśrī symbolizes both personal practice and transforming others; Vimalakīrti symbolizes only personal practice; each taking up one side, together they accomplish the wonderful matter. The absolute in the four siddhāntas can be understood by analogy to this. Furthermore, the inexpressible of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*, the wordlessness of the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra*, the purity of the *Prajñāpāramitā*, the stopping and praising of the *Lotus Sūtra*, and the non-arising of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* are all different names for the absolute. Yet one must also know that the absolute differences of the various teachings are opened and revealed to have nothing outside them; only then does it match the present text. From "This..." onward, this absolute is concluded to establish the two emptinesses. First it is posited; next, from "This word..." onward, it is explained. First, emptiness of nature is clarified. From "Nor does it reside..." onward, next the emptiness of characteristics is clarified. Having refuted the horizontal and vertical and then responded to the four capacities, what is the absolute principle? It is the so-called true mark. The substance of the true mark fully possesses the two emptinesses, eternally different from the former two emptinesses of entering emptiness from provisionality. From "This word is unobtainable" onward, the name is concluded. From "It is also named..." onward, different names for the absolute are clarified. From "Therefore, like this..." onward, the characteristic of the absolute is explained. Since the substance of the absolute is omnipresent, there is nothing to be opposed to it; thus it is not named great because of the small. From "For example..." onward, an analogy is raised; this is clear. From "Calming and contemplation are also like this" onward, the analogy is matched. It is not named contemplation because of foolishness; it is not named calming because of distraction. From "Worldly people..." onward, the error is refuted. First, it generally refutes worldly people who speak based on the worldly mind, using words to refute words: words cannot be made absolute, and their explanation of the absolute fails to succeed; therefore, one should know that one must recognize the absolute principle. From "Why?" onward, the reason why the words of worldly people do not succeed in being absolute is explained: because words change following thoughts, words are not absolute. Therefore, though they speak of awakening, non-awakening, and so forth, they do not escape affliction and defilement. Mutually opposing endlessly, it is thus called "revolving." Awakening pertains to realization by wisdom; the mind pertains to the object of delusion. Having a mind is not awakening; awakening is cutting off the mind—it is not merely non-existence. Lacking the mind of the nine realms, it is thus called "non-mind." When compliant with thoughts there is empty talk, the absolute turns back into the relative; having no principle to rely upon, it is therefore said to be "without lodgment." From "If one grasps the meaning..." onward, the correct substance of the absolute is brought forth. Once one has penetrated the absolute principle, who discriminates anymore? Although focusing on the absolute principle, if discrimination does not perish, all are termed relative; thus only realization is called "the opening of true wisdom." Furthermore, from "grasps the meaning" onward, it clarifies that the absolute is inconceivable in discussion. From "activity of mind" onward, it clarifies that the absolute is inconceivable in thought. From "following wisdom" onward, it reiterates the stage of the absolute. From "Nor does it..." onward, it overturns the mistaken understanding of worldly people mentioned before. "And so forth" encompasses revolving and the like. From "various kinds..." onward, it reiterates the reprimand. From "true wisdom" onward, it reiterates the functions of the stage. From "As before..." onward, it again raises an analogy to illustrate the absolute. "Before" means moving forward, referring to the fire-poker. Once the poker has stoked the fire, it also burns itself; having made all relatives absolute, the absolute also makes itself absolute. Therefore the *Dazhidulun* says: "Question: One should not speak of signlessness. Why? If one speaks of signlessness, that is itself a sign. If there is no signlessness, it should not be able to refute the signs of all phenomena. If there is signlessness, one should not say that all are signless. Answer: One uses signlessness to refute all signs. If there were a sign of signlessness, one would fall among all phenomena. Signlessness extinguishes all signs, and also extinguishes signlessness itself. Just as the aforementioned fire-wood, having burned all the fuel, also burns itself. Therefore, the sage cultivates the samādhi of signless signlessness to refute signlessness; the samādhi of empty emptiness and the samādhi of unconditioned unconditioned are also like this." To make absolute what is already absolute has the same intention. From "If so..." onward, doubt is resolved. The doubt states: If only when true wisdom opens is it called the absolute, this only applies to the first abodement; what benefit does it have for the initial mind? From "Now with..." onward, it explains. The initial mind is precisely it, so nothing is lost. Sages reside in the ultimate stage and must not be conflated with the initial stage.