止觀輔行傳弘決 4.33

4.33

"scolding and abandoning" onward, he explains shattering the hindrances to enter emptiness. He provisionally concludes with the first fruit because it is provisionally named after shattering sharp drives. From "from the first fruit" onward, he again takes the first fruit as the marks of the five hindrances of dull drives, which are shattered by the subsequent three fruits; using the hindrance-marks of the first fruit as an analogy, he distinguishes the hindrance-marks in the second and third fruits. From "furthermore, relying on emptiness" onward, he explains the hindrances upon emerging into provisionality, which arise relying on emptiness. As for "five kinds of salt," fascicle 24 of the Dazhidulun says, "The six masters do not allow eating the five kinds of salt." It is not yet clear what the five salts of that land are. If it is the five salts of this land, they refer to granular salt, green salt, red salt, white salt, and stamped salt; there are many types of salt, but roughly five. The Western regions may also be understood in accordance with this. There was an arhat who was asked by another, "What is called red salt?" Not knowing where it came from, he asked the Tripiṭaka [master]. The Tripiṭaka [master] said, "Salt is a taste; red is a colour." That he did not understand small matters was because he did not yet have the wisdom of emerging into provisionality. Since it is lack of comprehension, in meaning it corresponds to sleepiness. In the hindrances arising relying on the middle, where it says "a large tree breaks a branch" and so on, fascicle 30 of the Dazhidulun says, "For example, in an empty marsh there is a tree named Śālmali with vast branches and boughs where many birds roost together. A dove came later and perched on one branch; the branch immediately snapped under it. The marsh spirit asked, 'Pheasants and vultures can all be supported; why could you not even bear a little bird?' The tree spirit replied, 'This bird came from the tree of my enemy, having eaten the fruit of that nyagrodha tree, and came to roost upon me. It might drop dung, and if the seeds fall to the earth, the evil tree will grow again, and the harm will certainly be immense. Therefore, harbouring worry, I would rather surrender one branch, for what is preserved is great.' The bodhisattva-mahāsattva is also like this: toward the non-Buddhists, heavenly māras, various drives, evil karma, and so forth, he has no such fear; but he fears the two vehicles. In relation to the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, the two vehicles are just like that bird: they ruin his Great Vehicle mind and extinguish forever the Buddha-vehicle mind." The treatise explains the shared stages of the three vehicles, using the great to reprimand the small, and thus contrasts it with the mind of the two vehicles. Now, borrowing that text, it also provisionally relies on it to speak of the mind of the two vehicles. If one accords with the intention of the present text, one should speak of not delighting in the mind of the two extremes, like the bird of the enemy not roosting. Because of not delighting, in meaning it corresponds to anger. Where it says "the Dazhidulun says" and so on, it proves that in stage after stage there is ignorance, and because there is ignorance, there are the five hindrances. Therefore, the Dazhidulun's commentary on the Dapin says, "Why does the scripture speak everywhere, before and after, of the samādhi that shatters ignorance? Answer: Attachment to the Dharma is difficult to sever, so it speaks everywhere of the samādhi that shatters ignorance. This is the attachment to the Dharma of the true path, not like illusory attachment. Thus, although the first abide shatters one grade, every grade must be shattered." Those who rely on dark realisation claim that as soon as one knows the true principle one is a Buddha; this is because they do not understand the doctrinal characteristics. Therefore it is now said that bodhisattvas, compared to Buddhas, still have leakages. Thus, equal awakening, compared to a Buddha, still has one grade of leakage, to say nothing of the lower stages. Where it says "the Di chi says the ninth" and so on, the text of the treatise takes equal awakening to correspond to the ninth dhyāna, and the ninth dhyāna is named "leaving all views"; thus we know that equal awakening still cultivates the leaving of views, so the meaning of views is not proximate; thus it says "only the Buddha is ultimate." Even the eighty-four thousand are just four divisions, and the four divisions are just the five hindrances; therefore only at the Buddha-stage are the five hindrances exhausted. From "furthermore" onward, he treats abandoning the hindrances in terms of a single mind. Although previously there were the three truths, because they were sequential, they were not a single mind. Therein, the first text first refutes the sequential, and thus says "the later does not concern the earlier." How much more so when dividing them among three different persons: because ordinary persons have the sharp and dull, up to bodhisattvas who have mundane hindrances, it therefore says "what is abandoned at the time of an ordinary person," up to "what is abandoned at the time of a bodhisattva," and so on. From "Di and She" onward, he cites the two treatises to clarify the sequential view. From "perfect explanation" onward, he cites the Buddha's ritual of conversion to prove the perfect teaching. Indeed, the perfect and sudden teaching is fundamentally meant for ordinary persons. If it were not intended to benefit ordinary persons, why would the Buddha not remain himself in the land of dharma-nature and, with the body of dharma-nature, preach this perfect and sudden [teaching] for the bodhisattvas? Why would he need, together with the dharma-body bodhisattvas, to manifest ordinary bodies and appear in these three realms?