止觀輔行傳弘決 4.25

4.25

Regarding 'scolding desire by contemplating the mind': the opening text brings up that desire can give rise to the three truths. 'Permanence and impermanence' and so forth are the two extremes; the truth of the supreme meaning is the middle way. Since desire contains the flavor of the three truths, why not contemplate it so as to generate contemplative understanding, rather than merely clinging to worldly, coarse, and defiling desires? How mistaken that is! Under 'Therefore the Dazhidulun [states]', it clarifies that immeasurable views also arise within desire. Desire is a blunt affliction, yet it further gives rise to immeasurable views; both sharp and blunt are fully present and all arise within desire. This serves as the objective realm to be contemplated by the threefold contemplation below. Under 'Now, contemplating...', this is the contemplation that can contemplate. In the sequential contemplation, emptiness contemplation is explained first—namely, the distinction between analytical and essential [emptiness]. Moreover, how could these two kinds of emptiness be the same as Laozi and Zhuangzi? Zhuangzi says: 'The five colors confuse the eyes, making the eyes blind. The five sounds confuse the ears, making the ears deaf. The five scents confuse the nose, blocking and congesting the nostrils and forehead. The five tastes spoil the mouth, causing the mouth to become diseased and distressed. Attachment and aversion disturb the mind, causing one's nature to fly about recklessly. These five cause harm to life, harming the five sense faculties.' Laozi's words are largely the same. Although their teaching speaks of harming life, it does not know the root of what harms life; it only knows being harmed by the five, remaining forever confused about the method for eliminating the harm. The character quan (七全切 [qiuan]). The character zhuo (竹救切 [zhou], beak. The character hui is 許穢切 [hui], mouth). One should know that Laozi's teaching is not without form from the beginning, so how has it not always been blind? The same comparison can be made all the way down to disturbing the mind. In the contemplation of provisionality, when it says 'it is still called accepting and entering form-emptiness', this rebukes the preceding contemplation of emptiness: if one cannot comprehend all buddhadharmas within form, it is merely called accepting and clinging to form-emptiness. Contemplation of the middle is clear to see. Under 'Therefore the treatise states...', it rebukes the lesser [vehicle] again, showing that the two vehicles do not perceive the true mark of form. Under 'Deeply rebuking...', it explains the purpose of the rebuke based on principle: within the phenomenon, scolding desire while combining it with the perfect principle alone can serve as an expedient method for the perfect school; hence it says 'the intention lies herein'. If people do not see this, of what use is this text? It is so throughout from top to bottom; please deign to give it your attention.