止觀輔行傳弘決 3.60

3.60

Next, in explaining the great [vehicle], first the contemplation method is indicated. From "great beings" onward, it cites the people who can ride [the vehicle] and the teachings that explain it, proving and knowing that it is the great. From "in the [Mahā]yāna" onward, it cites proof for the shared vehicle. From "for example" onward, is an analogy. From "now" onward, is the application. It is readily understood. From "by analogy with" onward, examples are cited. In general, analogical meanings can be contrary or conforming; here, contrary to expectation, the Small Vehicle is used as an analogy for the Great. Just as there is the great within the small, yet it is still named small, why should there not be the small within the great, yet it is still named great? From "what is called" onward, the essence of phenomena is distinguished comparatively. There are two tiers of phenomena and analogies: first, analysis; second, the essence. In the first, on analysis, the phrase "the Tripiṭaka speaks of provisional names" and so forth means that comprehensively seizing upon the five aggregates is provisionally called a "sentient being"; "being" is a provisional name, while the aggregates are real dharmas. Since dharmas are grasped as real, they are analyzed to enter emptiness. From "now in the Mahāyāna" onward, next the essence is explained: the aggregates and sentient beings are both unattainable; therefore both are provisional. Here, although the reflection in a mirror is used as an analogy for the Mahāyāna, even if those of lesser schools hear the mirror-reflection analogy, they also consider it real. As stated in Fascicle 42 of the *Vibhāṣā*: "Question: Is the reflection in water or a mirror real or unreal? The Dārṣṭāntikas say: It is unreal, because the mirror and the face do not enter into each other. The Abhidharmikas say: The reflection is an existent dharma. Why? Because it is a form-base (rūpāyatana) and is grasped by the eye-consciousness. Question: Since they do not enter into each other, how can it be real? Answer: Since various produced forms constitute a form-base, it is not only one kind of produced form that constitutes a form-base. Just as fire is produced due to the sun and a jewel, and water is produced due to the moon and a jewel—though what is produced is distinct in each case, it is not without real reality. Relying on the mirror and relying on the face, the reflection is produced; it is not without the function of a reflection, and its ability to produce the eye-consciousness is not without real reality. Echoes and phantom transformations are also like this." Thus the Abhidharma theorists grasp the reflection as arising from conditions and having a separate set of derived forms made of the four great elements, so it is really existent. What the Mahāyāna followers see is entirely unreal; using the unreality of the reflection to illustrate the unreality of external things, the easy is used to analogize the difficult. What is called the Dārṣṭāntika masters of the *Vibhāṣā* are the views of distinctive masters of the Sāṃmitīya school. Because they grasp it as unreal, they also resemble what the Mahāyāna gate sees as illusion-like; yet it is not the main doctrine of the *Vibhāṣā*, so the Abhidharmikas do not accept this view. "Citing the Buddha on a square block of wood" directly indicates the contemplation of the essence. Fascicle 12 of the treatise (*Dazhidulun*) says: "The Buddha was on Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa and entered Rājagṛha with the monks. On the road they saw a large square block of wood. The Buddha spread his niṣīdana, sat upon that wood, and addressed the monks: 'If a monk enters meditation and achieves mental mastery, he can make this wood become earth, and it will become real earth. Why is this? Because the wood has the portions of earth, water, fire, and wind. It is like a beautiful woman: a lustful person sees her as a human, one who contemplates impurity sees her as impure, and a person uninvolved has a mind with nowhere inclined. Thus, in accordance with what people see, what is apprehended differs.'" The text is made to follow the meaning. And saying "transforming gold into earth" and so forth is also because there is a portion of earth within gold, just like wood becoming earth. Regarding "also citing the length of cotton cloth" and so forth, in the treatise's explanation of the three kinds of existence, it first says that analyzing the length of cotton cloth down to atomic particles and comprehensively contemplating it as impermanent and non-self is analytical emptiness. Furthermore, there is the contemplation of emptiness like contemplating this cloth: the cloth is originally unproduced and now likewise does not perish; therefore it is also the same as the analogy of gold and earth. When gold becomes earth, the gold is originally unproduced and the gold likewise does not perish; when earth becomes gold, the earth is originally unproduced and the gold likewise does not perish (and so forth). Up to the eighteen kinds of emptiness, as explained in Fascicle 5. Therefore, citing that the cloth possesses the nature of emptiness, like the wood possessing the nature of earth, proves identity with emptiness. These eighteen kinds of emptiness, in meaning, run through the three teachings (and so forth). From "furthermore" onward, in explaining conforming to sentiment and conforming to principle, within the text both the shared and non-shared principles are fully treated; this passage is used again to explain the great and the small. First, in explaining the small emptiness, it speaks of "Buddha and Buddha-nature"; thus we know the Tripiṭaka's emptiness is clumsy and is categorically classified under conforming to sentiment. From "Mahāyāna" onward, it explains the great emptiness in terms of conforming to principle. Why? Although the Tripiṭaka is empty, this emptiness is attained through the annihilation of phenomena, and is therefore called conforming to phenomena. If it is Mahāyāna emptiness, this emptiness is attained through identity with phenomena, and is therefore called conforming to principle. Principle being identical to phenomena, the meaning of identity is profound; therefore, identity with emptiness contains within it the non-empty, which is called Buddha-nature. Hence the emptiness of illusions and transformations runs through the shared, distinct, and perfect teachings; that is why analogies such as tracing the illusion are used. "Tracing the illusion and finding the illusionist" is an analogy for contemplating illusions and transformations to see the shared principle. "Tracing the illusionist and finding the illusory art" is an analogy for contemplating the principle of emptiness to see the non-empty. The dream analogy is also like this: tracing the dream one finds sleep; tracing sleep one finds the mind; by comparison with the illusion it can be seen. If so, from "tracing illusory form and mind one finds ignorance" onward is the application of the text. Why does it not correspond to the analogy, but only says tracing illusion one finds ignorance, and tracing ignorance one finds Buddha-nature, instead of saying tracing illusion one finds the true, and tracing the true one finds Buddha-nature? Answer: The principle of the truth of the real is itself ignorance; simply by deeply contemplating the real one sees Buddha-nature, which is contemplating ignorance to see the nature. Moreover, worldly people only speak of tracing the mind to see the nature, but do not speak of tracing form to attain seeing the nature. Setting aside external form and directly contemplating the aggregates, when have worldly people ever seen the Buddha-nature in the aggregates?