止觀輔行傳弘決 3.66

3.66

Regarding the fifth [section], on the provisional and the real: First, explaining the names. This 'provisional' is originally the wonderful essence of all Buddhas; expedient means within the essence are therefore named 'provisional stratagems' (quanmou). Setting up stratagems as inconceivable provisionality is why they are called 'provisional stratagems'. 'Stratagem' (mou) means planning and deliberating; this is deliberating without deliberation, and is thus called 'provisional stratagem'. It is not the provisionality with deliberation of the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings]; this is called 'deliberated provisionality' (mouquan). Therefore, the Lotus Sūtra is cited to explain the provisional and the real, because it is precisely the provisionality within the essence. Regarding the words 'temporarily using', and so forth: this means temporarily using the text from the Lotus Sūtra that explains the names, bringing it here to explain the terms 'provisional' and 'real'. As for the 'question': For what reason does one use the provisional and also use the real? The intent of the answer is: First, broadly clarifying the intent of using the teachings. Because the capacities of sentient beings are shallow, they are brought to maturity through the provisional; once their capacities are mature, the provisional is opened and discarded. Setting forth, opening, and discarding are all discussed in terms of the four siddhāntas; it is for this meaning that both the provisional and the real are used. Next, clarifying the marks of rising and discarding. Regarding classification by the five flavors: if one does not rely on the five flavors, there is no way to reveal the real portion of the Lotus Sūtra. From 'Therefore' downward, the intent of the teaching is concluded. From 'Now further' downward, there is the opening. The previous [discussion] of alternating rising and discarding according to the four siddhāntas was not yet in terms of time; in terms of the divisions [of teachings], there is eternal discarding, so we know the previous passage was merely a classification. Thus, by clarifying the opening through critical analysis, all four teachings are real. From 'Furthermore, the four kinds' downward, the provisional and the real are discussed by looking at the principle from the perspective of teaching. Then the principle is real and the teachings are provisional; although there are names of 'provisional' and 'real' within the teachings, they are all stated for others out of inability to do otherwise, and are therefore called 'forced'. From 'Being equally' downward, there is an objection: Since provisional and real within the teachings are both forced designations, why not take the real as provisional and call the provisional real? From 'Because there is' downward, the answer is given: What is now called 'forced' is called 'forced preaching' from the side of having verbal explanation. 'Forced' is precisely 'provisional'; calling the preaching 'provisional' is strictly from the side of verbal explanation, and the provisional and the real cannot be conflated. From 'Furthermore, this' downward, it is further determined that within the teachings, whether provisional or real, both are neither provisional nor real. From 'Why is this?' downward, an explanation is given: Because these provisional and real are both neither provisional nor real, they cannot be spoken of as provisional or real. From 'This neither provisional nor real' downward, identity is shown: Although both provisional and real are negated, it cannot be different from the reality of opening the provisional as explained just now. From 'Previously, because of' downward, the principle of non-difference is restated: Because of opening the provisional, one sees the real principle; this real principle is just the double negation of two levels mentioned earlier: first, negating both the two principles of provisional and real; second, negating both preaching the provisional and the real principle. Both are because the principle cannot be spoken; hence we know this principle is just the previous real principle. From 'If it were different' downward, divergent views are refuted: If the principle of double negation were different from the real principle, there should be another principle outside the real principle. Since there is neither wisdom capable of illuminating another principle, nor an object of another principle to be illuminated, there is no separate double negation outside the real principle. From 'In opposition to the provisional' downward, the reason there is no other principle is explained: The real teaching is spoken in opposition to and refutation of the provisional teaching; thus there is provisional and there is real, and the real also explains the principle. If the teachings of provisional and real are discarded, one speaks of 'neither provisional nor real'; discarding the teachings also reveals the one reality, and refuting principle and teaching in opposition [to each other] also reveals the one reality; therefore, the principle of double negation is not different from the principle of the one reality. From 'Identical to the teaching' downward, the teaching is opened to reveal the principle: If discarding the teaching and discarding the provisional already reveals the principle, how much more so is the written word itself the principle of the true mark! One should know that the teachings of provisional and real also do not correspond to provisional and real; since this double negation is also not different from the previous double negation, it is said: 'There is neither two nor difference.' Because they follow different preachings, they are not combined; because the principle is not different, they are not dispersed. From 'Neither provisional nor real' downward, it concludes with the single calming and contemplation. From 'Because of contemplation' downward, different names are distinguished. From 'This is not only' downward, it is a general conclusion: As opened just now, provisional and real are both the principle, and the principle has neither provisional nor real; therefore, neither corresponds to the provisional or the real. Regarding the words 'It still belongs to', and so forth: fearing that hearing the double negation one might think it exceeds the real, it therefore concludes, 'It merely reveals the real.' Question: All meanings in the Lotus Profound Meaning (Fahua xuan) first open and then discard, as cited just now; why is it that here, discarding comes first and opening comes later? Answer: The Lotus Profound Meaning relies on a metaphor: like a worldly lotus flower, it must first open and then fall; here, it follows the convenience of the doctrine, so discarding comes first and opening comes later. Once the provisional has been discarded, the real can be seen, which has the meaning of opening. Moreover, this passage on discarding is slightly different from that one: that one relies on the Lotus Sūtra to discard the provisional divisions and provisional teachings of the past, and further must open the provisional divisions and provisional teachings of the past; the present text relies on various texts that discard each other alternately, resembling what has not yet been opened, and thus comes before the opening. Now, both meanings are present, so discarding comes first. Furthermore, discarding is equivalent to the relative (dai), and opening is equivalent to the absolute (jue); the relative comes first and the absolute comes after, which does not violate the standard rule. Furthermore, followers of the Laṅkāvatāra say: The opening of the provisional in this sūtra is equivalent in meaning to the Lotus Sūtra. If so, why do the texts before and after all repudiate the two vehicles and non-Buddhists? Thus, the third [chapter] speaks of 'dhyāna of all fools', referring to the two vehicles, which repudiates the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. Second, 'dhyāna of observation', which means leaving behind self and other to attain the non-self of persons, and also leaving behind non-Buddhists—is this not the shared teaching? Third, 'tathatā dhyāna', which means knowing that thoughts do not arise—is this not the distinctive teaching? Fourth, 'Tathāgata dhyāna', which means entering the Buddha stage—is this not the perfect teaching? Thus we know that this sūtra still preserves the provisional vehicles, and using the Mahāyāna to repudiate the Hīnayāna is identical in intent to the stages explained previously. The end of the fascicle also states: 'The Path of the One Vehicle is attained only by the Tathāgata; it is not attained by non-Buddhists, the two vehicles, or Brahmā.' How could this be like the Lotus Sūtra, where the wrong-viewed King Śubhavyūha, the five-rebellions Devadatta, the animal Dragon Girl, and the ruined-seed two vehicles all receive prediction of attaining Buddhahood? From 'Question: Setting forth the provisional for the sake of the real' downward, it further analyzes the meaning of reception (jie) in principle and teaching. From the beginning down to 'into what stage are they received', there are five questions in total, with the single word 'Question' governing the five passages below: first, asking whether it is provisional or real; second, asking for what reason it is not included in the count of the four [teachings]; third, asking why it only receives [practitioners of] the shared [teaching]; fourth, asking at what stage one is received; fifth, asking into what stage one is received. In the answers, all five questions are answered, still in two levels: first in terms of the teachings, next in terms of the truths. First, within [the answers] in terms of the teachings, answering the first question: Those who are received by the distinctive [teaching] do not necessarily all realize [it], and therefore there are differences between provisional and real. From 'The four teachings' downward answers the second question: Because those who receive via the distinctive teaching only use the end of the distinctive teaching, as explained previously. From 'The various teachings' downward answers the third question: The Lotus Profound Meaning fully explains using the perfect to receive the shared, and using the perfect to receive the distinctive; that is in terms of the path of the teachings. In the path of the teachings, one either uses provisional teachings to receive the provisional, or uses real teachings to receive the provisional. Now, strictly in terms of the principle explained by the teaching, merely having the provisional principle be received by the real principle is briefly sufficient in meaning; therefore it only says that at the juncture between internal and external one must establish a reception, and the rest is as distinguished earlier. From 'If according to' downward answers the fourth question: One is only received at the eighth stage; this is based on those of lower capacities. From 'The ninth stage' downward answers the fifth question: Coming from lower capacities, they mostly reach the first stage (bhūmi); for those of intermediate and superior [capacities] who enter, this is not fixed. Furthermore, entering according to the stages, it is before the stages; entering through superior advancement, it reaches the first stage. As for saying 'subduing in the ninth stage and breaking in the tenth stage': names are still established based on the original [teaching], calling them the ninth and tenth stages; entering the distinctive or perfect teachings, one should say the first stage and the first aboding. From 'If with respect to' downward, it answers in terms of the truths. It only answers four questions, omitting the answer to the second. Because the second question only asked for what reason it is not included in the count of the four, which does not directly reveal the principle, it is briefly not answered. Among the answers to the four questions, they are not in order. First, answering the first question: Discussed together in emptiness and the middle, emptiness is precisely the provisional, and the middle is precisely the real. From 'Breaking views and thoughts' downward answers the fourth question, which means one is only received at the eighth stage. Question: Why must one reach the eighth stage before being received? Answer: In order to reveal the middle within the true [emptiness], one waits until emptiness is realized before pointing it out, causing them to deeply contemplate emptiness and immediately see non-emptiness. If so, what is the meaning for the intermediate and superior capacities? Answer: Those of intermediate and superior capacities also see the true [emptiness] before being shown the middle in emptiness; it is just that for the former two capacities, true emptiness is still shallow, so the teaching is mostly stated with reference to the lower capacities. From 'Having heard' downward answers the fifth question: It only speaks of the 'distinctive stage' without naming the stage, firstly because the stage of those who enter is not fixed; secondly, the distinctive [proper] is at the first stage, because the stages prior to the stages are shared with the previous teaching, and so the first stage is referred to as the distinctive stage. Just as the perfect teaching is entirely perfect from beginning to end, if one designates the stage of the perfect, it is at the first aboding. From 'The bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka' downward answers the third question: The bodhisattva's subduing of afflictions is as explained earlier. As for the two vehicles of the two teachings, they are only converged in the Lotus, and reception is not discussed for them. Question: The Lotus Profound Meaning says 'reception is not the meaning of convergence'; now regarding the Lotus, one should only discuss convergence, so why discuss reception? Answer: The meaning of convergence across the texts before and after is not singular. Now, in discussing the practice of contemplation, one may also restate the teachings prior to the Lotus to serve as an example for practitioners, discussing the marks of pass and blockage in the gates of teaching. Therefore, clarifying it does not interfere with convergence. How much more so since reception pertains to the bodhisattva, which is not different from convergence. Furthermore, earlier and later texts everywhere explain the conceivable and so forth, merely to reveal the inconceivable. The relative preceding and the absolute following is the natural sequence; why should one ask that reception ought not to be discussed?