止觀輔行傳弘決 5.28

5.28

From "Now a single mind..." onward, [the text] concludes by establishing the object as principle. What was explained before is fundamentally rooted in a single mind. Since the perfectly integrated three truths have already been revealed and explained, lest people fall into confusion, [the author] concludes again to bring them into a single thought-moment. One should know that body and land are the three thousand in a single thought-moment; therefore, when attaining the Way, in accord with this fundamental principle, a single body and a single thought pervade the dharma-dhātu. The statement "[it is] merely not being devoid of mind" indicates that the mind is not nonexistent. The term "slightest" (jie'er) refers to a kṣaṇa mind: continuing without gap, never interrupted; in merely a single kṣaṇa, the three thousand are complete. Analogous to the eight-characteristics metaphor, by pondering it one can understand this. If it possesses the three thousand, it possesses the three virtues. Thus the first fascicle of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa states: "Relying on the dharma-body, when first arousing the mind [for awakening], the non-retrogressing mind, the vajra mind, and the Tathāgata mind are manifested." The non-retrogressing [mind] is the mind of liberation; the vajra [mind] is the mind of prajñā; and the Tathāgata [mind] is the mind of the dharma-body. Hence we know that the causal mind fully possesses the fruitional substance. "Again, as for 'the slightest' (jie'er)": jie means weak. The Book of Odes says: "Assisting (jie) your vast fortune" (jie'er jingfu); this refers to a subtle thought. As long as it is distinguished from non-mind, the three thousand are complete. Therefore, in the Great Master's texts on mind contemplation—such as the Samādhi of Awoken Awareness, the Method for Contemplating the Mind during Eating, the Method for Reciting the Sūtras, and the Xiao zhiguan—he only investigated the three provisionalities by means of contemplating self and other, and nowhere stated that a single thought possesses the three thousand. Even in the Guanxin lun, he merely reproached the four [types of] mind with thirty-six questions, without touching upon the three thousand in a single thought. Only in the Four Stations of Mindfulness did he briefly mention contemplating the ten realms in the mind. Thus, arriving at the Zhiguan to directly clarify the contemplation method, he uniformly took the three thousand as the guiding compass—this is the ultimate, exhaustive, and consummate teaching. Therefore the preface says, "preaching the dharma-gate practiced in his own mind"; indeed there is good reason for this. Let the inquiring reader have no distracted mind! Question: Is this [contemplation of] the three thousand for the initial mind's contemplation, or is it also contemplated by the subsequent mind? Answer: The initial and subsequent are not two. Question: In the ordinary person's mind the natures of all buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth are fully present, so they may well be contemplated together. In the intermediate and subsequent minds, the realms and suchnesses gradually decrease, until, upon attaining buddhahood, there is only the single realm of the Buddha. How, then, does the subsequent mind still possess the three thousand? Answer: In our lineage's perfect doctrine, when speaking of the dharma-dhātu, one must state that the ten realms are identical to emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, and that the initial and subsequent are not two; only then does it differ from other teachings. If one grasps the textual meaning of the Guanyin xuan[yi], then the meanings of phenomena and principle, ordinary and holy, self and other, beginning and end, cultivation and nature, and so forth, can all be seen. In its analysis of the conditioning and revealing [causes], it says: "The Tathāgata does not cut off inherent evil; the icchantika does not cut off inherent good." Pointing to this single principle, all blockages naturally dissolve. Because inherent good is not cut off, the conditioning cause is originally present. That text says: "The revealing [cause] is the adornment of manifest wisdom; the conditioning [cause] is the adornment of assisting merit. Due to these two as causes, the Buddha possesses the two fruits. Originally these causes and fruits are inherently present virtues; the inherent virtues of conditioning and revealing are inherently possessed." Now, the three thousand are identical to emptiness—this is the revealing inherent cause; the three thousand are identical to provisionality—this is the conditioning inherent cause; the three thousand are identical to the middle—this is the primary inherent cause. Therefore, other interpretations only know that the icchantika does not cut off the primary cause, but do not know that they do not cut off the conditioning and revealing of inherent virtue. Hence we know that good and evil do not go beyond the three thousand. That text further asks: "Since there is inherently virtuous good, is there also inherently virtuous evil?" Answer: "It fully possesses it." Question: "What kinds of good and evil are cut off by the icchantika and the Buddha?" Answer: "The icchantika cuts off cultivated good, but inherent good remains. The Tathāgata cuts off cultivated evil, but inherent evil remains." Question: "Why are inherent good and evil not cut off?" Answer: "Inherent virtues are merely dharma-gates of good and evil, so they cannot be cut off; nothing in all the worlds can destroy them. Just as when Māra burns scripture scrolls, how could that exhaust the inherent dharma-gates? Even if one burns registers of evil, that also cannot exhaust the dharma-gates of evil." Question: "Because the icchantika does not cut off inherent good, does good arise again later? Because the Tathāgata does not cut off inherent evil, should evil arise again later?" Answer: "Because the icchantika does not penetrate inherent evil, cultivated evil arises again later; because he does not understand inherent good, he is later still defiled by cultivated good, and therefore cultivated good can still arise. Using cultivated good to cure cultivated evil, cultivated evil is prevented from arising. Although the Buddha does not cut off inherent evil, he thoroughly penetrates inherent evil; being master of evil dharmas, he is not defiled by cultivated evil, and therefore cultivated evil cannot arise. Thus the Buddha is forever free from cultivated evil and freely employs the dharma-gates of evil. If an icchantika can penetrate cultivated evil, he is no different from the Tathāgata. Hence we know that regarding good and evil, one must skillfully penetrate cultivation and nature: illuminating nature through cultivation, and understanding cultivation through nature. Only one who knows this can discuss the three inherent causes, birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, afflictions and bodhi, and the twelve links of dependent origination being identical to the three virtues—in this way, there is no limitless principle that is not penetrated." That text further asks: "If the icchantika cuts off good completely, it is held by the ālaya[vijñāna]. All seeds are perfumed by the internal and external, enabling good to arise again. Since this consciousness is morally neutral (avyākṛta), how does it differ from suchness? Moreover, where do these seeds reside such that they are not perfumed earlier? Therefore we know that provisional explanations are not definitive teachings. If someone says that the Buddha arouses supernatural powers to manifest evil in order to transform beings, this is deliberate supernormal power, identical to the powers of non-Buddhists and the two vehicles, and not like a bright mirror spontaneously manifesting reflections. As the thirty-second fascicle of the Great Sūtra [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra] says: 'There is a buddha-nature that icchantikas have and those with good roots do not.' Ancient masters took this to be the nature of evil objects. 'There is a buddha-nature that those with good roots have and icchantikas do not.' Ancient masters took this to be the conditioning-cause nature. 'There is also a buddha-nature that both possess.' Ancient masters took this to be the primary-cause nature. 'There is also a buddha-nature that neither possesses.' Ancient masters took this to be the revealing-cause nature. Such an interpretation is also the perspective of the distinctive teaching, an open/non-definitive explanation. If it were the definitive explanation, one should say: both icchantikas and good persons possess inherent virtue; but the icchantika lacks cultivated good while the person with good roots possesses it, and the icchantika has cultivated evil while the person with good roots lacks it. That neither possesses it means they lack the non-retrogressing nature, because they have not yet entered the stage of semblance [awakening]." In citing the analogy, "as the eight characteristics transform things": the characteristics are that which transforms, and things are that which is transformed. The Kośa verse says: "This refers to production-production and so forth; among the eight, each is capable regarding one." This refers to the four primary characteristics and the four secondary characteristics, termed the eight. The major characteristics are termed primary, and the minor characteristics are termed secondary. By means of these eight, all conditioned phenomena are made to possess conditioned characteristics. "Production-production" refers to minor production producing major production, and so on. "And so on" means it is equivalent to the other three characteristics—namely, minor abiding abiding in major abiding, minor change changing major change, and minor cessation ceasing major cessation. "Among the eight, each is capable regarding one" resolves the objection of infinite regress. That is, a minor characteristic is capable regarding one, being able to characterize a major characteristic. A major characteristic is capable regarding eight: when one major characteristic arises, it must arise together with the other three major characteristics, the four minor characteristics, and the one fundamental dharma; thus it is said to be regarding eight. The other three major characteristics are also each like this. Therefore these eight characteristics, in relation to the fundamental dharma, are neither earlier nor later. The mind's possession of the three thousand is also like this: the three thousand are like the eight characteristics, and the single mind is like the fundamental dharma. From "Now, this mind..." downward is the matching of the analogy. A single thought does not even exist—who could speak of horizontal or vertical? One should know that in the single-thought mind, these three thousand dharmas are truly neither horizontal nor vertical. "Not consciousness" means inconceivable (bu si); "not words" means inexpressible (bu yi). Thus the thirty-third fascicle of the Great Sūtra says: "Buddha-nature is not named one dharma, not named ten dharmas, not named a hundred dharmas, not named a thousand dharmas, not named ten thousand dharmas. Prior to attaining bodhi, all good, evil, and neutral [dharmas] are named buddha-nature." Since the sūtra text says it is not one up to not ten thousand, and also says good, evil, and neutral are identical to buddha-nature, good, evil, and neutral are indeed the three thousand. Thus we know the three thousand are not three thousand, but fully possess the three buddha-natures. The subsequent texts that conclude the meanings of the three truths and so on are all based on the object as principle. If there were no object as principle, in reference to what could one discuss the truths? Question: This inconceivable [object] merely explains the ten realms in sequence; how does it differ from the conceivable? Answer: In reality there is no difference. The conceivable is explained as arising from mind; the inconceivable is explained as possessed by a single mind. To reveal inherent possession through arising—why need one ask further?