止觀輔行傳弘決 5.31

5.31

From "One should know" below, the text concludes what preceded and gives rise to what follows. It concludes the preceding self-practice and gives rise to the subsequent conversion of others. If one's self-practice is complete, there must be the conversion of others; hence multiple meanings are cited to conclude what preceded and generate what follows. First, it is addressed in terms of the two truths. The ultimate truth concludes the preceding self-practice by examining phenomena as unproduced. As for the conventional truth, desiring to speak for others, the explanation must use the four propositions in order to give rise to the three thousand [realms]; this also uses an analogy to clarify that there are the three thousand [realms] which can be explained for others. From "As the Buddha told" below, this refers to the Buddha speaking to the virtuous woman in the *Dapin*: the World-Honoured One asked and the virtuous woman answered, and the words of her answer all conclude the preceding self-practice. "The Buddha said: It exists in this manner" generates the subsequent conversion of others. Next, Nāgārjuna is cited, and furthermore the four inexpressibles of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* are cited: to conclude what preceded, because there are causes and conditions; to generate what follows, that is, because there are causes and conditions for benefiting others. From "Although the four propositions" below, this explains the preceding passages, concluding what preceded and generating what follows. "The four propositions are profoundly quiescent" explains the preceding self-practice to conclude what preceded; "with compassion and pity" explains the subsequent conversion of others to generate what follows. Whether sage or ordinary person, whenever one wishes to benefit others, one must use the four propositions in their horizontal and vertical dimensions to refute attachments; only then can one use the four propositions with compassion for others. However, this acting for others differs in meaning from the subsequent arousing of the teachings: that pertains solely to the eight aspects of the reward-body responding to beings, launching the provisional and real, bestowing, opening, discarding, and so forth; this pertains solely to the initial mind generating understanding based on the principle, which, having eliminated attachments to natures, speaks the four [propositions] for others; it also extends to the subsequent mind still in the stage of non-arising forbearance of fruition through practice, where the four attachments are truly refuted and the four are spoken responding to beings. Question: In the preceding self-practice, the four natures were fully refuted; why are they here in converting others taken one by one? Those who receive conversion also achieve self-practice; why does it differ from the preceding self-practice? Answer: Sages set up conversions accommodating what is suitable for them; those who receive it achieve contemplation and are truly free from the four attachments. If they were attached to "self", would the Buddha increase their attachment by speaking it? The remaining three propositions should be understood accordingly. From "Or treating it as worldly" below, this directly explains accommodating beings. Speaking the four propositions based on the four siddhāntas constitutes sixteen rounds of speaking the objective realm of converting others; because conversion of others covers everything universally, sixteen are listed. As for those recipients, they apply one, two, three, or four propositions as appropriate. In the *Treatise on the Contemplation of the Mind*, the thirty-six questions universally covering each of the four natures are for the sake of universal questioning and universal generation of dharmas, yet they omit the four siddhāntas and directly bring up "self" and so forth; here, addressing only the four siddhāntas, it remains general compared to that. First, among the four in the worldly [siddhānta]: if one says the mind is endowed [with them], the mind is "self". "A good spiritual friend" is "other". Blending mercury as "other" with real gold as "self" is "both". "Naturally so" is merely an alternative name for "without cause". All four must accord with the meaning of joy, completing the worldly siddhānta. Among the four for the individual: stating "faith alone"—faith is "self". Stating "merely arousing the aspiration"—arousing the aspiration is "self". If one states "seeing the Buddha"—the Buddha is "other". One's own jewel awaiting the clarity of other's water is "both". Moreover, the other's root of compassion causing me myself to see is also "both". "Neither internal" is not self, and "nor external" is not other, which is "without cause". As for "Śreṇika": this is used to verify that non-attachment in the four propositions belongs to transcendence, and transcendence is non-attachment. If there is attachment, as with the Śreṇika brāhmaṇa, generating faith even in the Hīnayāna was difficult, how much more so in the Mahāyāna! Fascicle forty-seven of the *Dazhidulun* states: "If in the Buddha-Dharma there were the slightest phenomenon that could be apprehended, Śreṇika would never have generated faith among all phenomena. How did he generate faith? Believing that the Perfection of Wisdom is neither by marks of existence nor by marks of non-existence, and because he did not grasp at marks, he abided in the practice of faith." The treatise asks: "Why is Śreṇika cited here? Answer: This sūtra speaks of the emptiness of phenomena through various causes and conditions up to having not the slightest mark that can be apprehended, and people's minds are suspicious and do not believe; this principle is difficult to see, therefore Subhūti cited that there is still emptiness of phenomena even in the Hīnayāna, how much more so in the Mahāyāna teachings." The intention of citing this in the treatise is that Śreṇika had attachment, and believing in the Hīnayāna emptiness of phenomena was already difficult, how much more so believing in the Mahāyāna emptiness of phenomena? Hīnayāna emptiness of phenomena is like "who is it that undergoes aging and death?" in the *Āgamas*. The other two siddhāntas can be understood by analogy. From "The Buddha's intent is utterly pure" below, this clarifies the essential nature of the Buddha's intent, that is, clarifying the mutual identity of self-practice and converting others. "Not residing in causes and conditions" and so forth is the ultimate truth; that is, the mind converting others does not diverge from self-practice, so the conventional truth is precisely the ultimate truth. From "Furthermore, the four" below, in converting others, first is the doctrine. "If for the blind" and so forth reiterates the mutual identity of essential nature through an analogy. The four explanations for the blind—seashells and the like—are all such. Just as the preceding four times four, the sixteen explanations, all accord with the siddhāntas, it says "seeing milk". "It is precisely the conventional truth" concludes the analogy with the doctrine. From "One should know" below, it concludes the intention. Not speaking is silence; this means speaking and silence are mutually identical all day long; all day long one doubly negates speaking and silence, and all day long one doubly illuminates speaking and silence. Refutation is not speaking; establishment is the four explanations. Furthermore, refutation is double negation, and establishment is double illumination; the sūtras and treatises are as cited above.