止觀輔行傳弘決 5.46

5.46

From "Furthermore" onward, mutual support is treated. It first marks the upcoming intent. From "As with the Dharma practitioner" onward, it directly shows the characteristics of mutual support. If there is much Dharma and little faith, it is called faith supporting Dharma; if there is much faith and little Dharma, it is called Dharma supporting faith; they are also called primary and auxiliary. First, it explains faith supporting Dharma. Since it says "mutual support," both faith and Dharma practices are beneficial. First, in calming there are the four siddhāntas. The phrase "Dharma practitioner" refers to faith supporting Dharma; since Dharma is primary, the designation is based on the Dharma practitioner, hence it says "like the Dharma practitioner." First, it generally explains faith as that which is able to support, capping the four siddhāntas below. If expounded in full, each and every siddhānta above should say, "Following hearing a single phrase up to all are relinquished"; to avoid cumbersome text, only the first phrase is marked. From "returns to sitting" onward, it is the Dharma practitioner's delight. Next below are three instances of "again hears," which are the three such as for the sake of persons in the Dharma practitioner. From "again hears" onward, these are the four siddhāntas in contemplation. Faith supporting Dharma means the first two siddhāntas have the words "hearing contemplation." The lower two siddhāntas are abbreviated, which can be known by analogy with calming. "Destroying evil" is counteracting; "wishing to awaken" is the supreme truth. Question: Why does it not say "awakening" but instead says "wishing to awaken"? Answer: As for the supreme truth among these four siddhāntas, why must verifying the principle be called the supreme truth? Merely taking what is not the marks of the preceding three siddhāntas and approaches the flavor of the principle, it belongs to the supreme truth; hence the preceding text merely says "broad and bright," etc. From "this is indeed" onward, it concludes faith supporting Dharma. From "faith practitioner" onward, it is Dharma supporting faith, which can be understood by analogy with the preceding Dharma practitioner. From "this is" onward, it concludes Dharma supporting faith. From "the mind-ground" onward, it concludes the meaning of calming the mind. Because general calming consists solely of calming and solely of contemplation, now using the four siddhāntas and so on, it says "following desires." Added to this are the three pairs of metaphors—food and drink, pills and powders, yin and yang; in each pair, the preceding meanings are comprehensively present, together composing the meaning of the four siddhāntas. "Following their desires" is delight. "Food and drink" is generating goodness. "Pills and powders" is counteracting. "Yin and yang" speaking of seeing the nature is the supreme truth. From "a single kind" onward, it clarifies the faults of one-sided practice. Therefore, we know that the two teachers not only used calming and contemplation one-sidedly, but also completely lacked a single calming and a single contemplation within faith and Dharma, and so on. The verses quoted by the two teachers have not been seen in the standard scriptures; each gained entry following a single gate, and because their own practiced transmission had not encountered the universal path, they took their one-sided gates and had others study them universally, resulting in practitioners criticizing one another. If so, they do not even have the goodness of humans and devas—how could they attain the marvel of the supreme truth? Hence it cites the Great Scripture on exclusively drinking milk. In the third fascicle of the sūtra, the Buddha told Kāśyapa: "For example, an elder (the Buddha) has many cows (the teachings). Although their colors are various (accommodating capacities), they share a single herd (the principle is one). Entrusting them to a cowherd (propagating the teaching), he has them follow water and grass (befitting capacities). It is solely for the sake of clarified butter (eternal abiding) and not seeking milk or curds (humans, devas, and the two vehicles). Then the cowherd, having milked them, eats it himself (the propagator benefits himself). When the elder passes away (the Buddha's parinirvāṇa), all the cows are plundered by a band of thieves (stealing the Buddha's Dharma-teachings). The thieves, having obtained the cows, have no women (no compassion); having milked them, they eat it themselves (personal gain). The thieves say to one another: 'The elder raised cows solely for the sake of clarified butter and did not seek milk or curds. What strategy should we devise to obtain it (yearning admiration)? We have no vessels (not being the right capacity); though we obtain the milk, we have nowhere to store it (even if maintaining precepts, it is not the root of eternal abiding).' Again they say to one another: 'Only leather bags can hold it (the fruitions of the aggregates in humans and devas).' Though they have a place to hold it, they do not know how to churn it; even buttermilk is difficult to obtain, let alone curds and butter (lacking the skillful means of samādhi and prajñā is called not knowing how to churn; even the resemblance path is absent, let alone the true and eternal). At that time, for the sake of clarified butter, the thieves add water to it (giving rise to views). Because of the abundance of water, everything is lost (giving rise to views, falling into evil, and losing the fruitions of humans and devas)." Now these two teachers one-sidedly grasp the great principle of quiescence and illumination, concentration and wisdom; in meaning this corresponds to the thieves not knowing how to churn, and so on. "Why did the Buddha speak of various kinds?" cites the various four siddhāntas to severely reprimand one-sided confusion. From "If in terms of" onward, it further passes through the three kinds of calming and contemplation to conclude the preceding count. The words "if in terms of" are words of distinct positing. Although the text refers only to the sudden, if further distinctly addressing the three gradual contemplations, each has one hundred and twenty-eight, hence the inclusion of the words "if in terms of." The gradual three are unified, hence positing the single mind. Relying on the preceding and reiterating it, it therefore only says "again." People, seeing that after the three rounds it further mentions "single mind," then assume that outside of the three types of calming and contemplation such as the sudden, another "single mind" is posited, assuming this single mind is unrelated to the preceding sudden. Now, this calming of the mind relies on the preceding wondrous object and preceding wondrous vow; hence the preceding text says that one must practice to fulfill the vow, then vow and practice correspond. Thus the calming of the mind previously, whether general or distinct, is entirely the perfect and sudden fulfilling the perfect and sudden vow. Further opening it up in contrast to the three gradual contemplations, in each and every contemplation all the previous one hundred and twenty-eight are present; contrasted with the original single mind, this makes four rounds of one hundred and twenty-eight, totaling five hundred and twelve. People do not see this and make up groundless interpretations. Furthermore, the three of emptiness, provisionality, and the middle are no different from the three of sudden, gradual, and indeterminate. Hence in the preceding inconceivable [contemplation], where different names were not yet harmonized, what is manifested is the three contemplations; when contemplation is perfected, they become the three knowledges; when teaching others, they become the three statements; when taking refuge in the ultimate, they become the three destinations. The three destinations are precisely the three such as the sudden. Because the entire treatise together completes a single intent, there is still fear of omissions; how could it be that, hidden within the concluding count, merely saying "single mind" causes wondrous practice to be accomplished right here? This would render the texts above and below redundant. This is fully summarized as in the beginning of the fascicle, and in fascicles three and four. Failing to see this intent, one loses calming the mind oneself; since calming oneself is absent, where would teaching others be? From the beginning onwards, it should be linked like an interlocking chain, horizontal and vertical, lofty and deep, front and back capping and girding, only then completing the procedural decorum of practice. How could one arbitrarily establish such divergent views? As in the universal refutation, each and every phrase of views, each and every grade of thought, dust-and-sand [defilements], and ignorance, all speak of faith and Dharma mutually supporting and turning back and forth; this means that the grades of views, grades of thought, unknowing, and ignorance each have sixty-four rounds; horizontal and vertical non-duality is precisely the single mind; hence self and other in mutual contrast also each must have one hundred and twenty-eight. That it speaks here of five hundred and twelve rounds is provisionally spoken from combination, stated in accordance with the truths. If spoken as revealing characteristics, it uses the gradual to reveal the non-gradual, fully as distinguished in the texts before and after. Furthermore, why should it only rely on the meaning of non-gradual to later establish three sets of one hundred and twenty-eight? Merely relying on the three within the one of the inconceivable to make three rounds, and the one within the three to make the single mind—discussing the three and the one together also yields five hundred and twelve. Question: How can a practitioner of the perfect teaching have the three contemplations discussed distinctly, possessing these distinctions of faith and Dharma mutually supporting, and so on? Answer: As the later sixth fascicle states, "mostly entering emptiness, rarely entering provisionality and the middle," etc. Since one-sided entry is permitted, one-sided contemplation is also possible. Furthermore, at the start of universal refutation, non-arising is the foremost; non-arising is emptiness. If the gate of emptiness is like this, the other gates are also like this. In accord with suitability, seven distinct phrases are formed, which still make seven rounds of one hundred and twenty-eight; how could it be merely three? Hence we know both self and other have seven phrases; if it is the gradual contemplation, there can only be three. From "the three siddhāntas" onward, it determines that although the preceding four siddhāntas have five hundred and twelve rounds, they speak only of faith and Dharma. Alternatively, through calming and contemplation nothing is left uncontained; to determine the provisional and the real, one must rely on the four siddhāntas. That which is called "worldly physician" borrows the text from the Dazhidulun to complete the present meaning, and therefore merely belongs to conventional truth, determined as a worldly physician. Just as after the worldly [siddhānta] one must further generate goodness; if goodness is not generated, one must further destroy evil; whether evil is eradicated or not, one must see the principle; hence it says that with the three siddhāntas, "once healed, it arises again." Reaching the supreme truth, even if non-arising is not yet achieved, one is certain to accord with this; hence it says "once healed, it never flares up again." Furthermore, it concludes: "Worldly and transworldly dharmas mutually complete and manifest one another"; hence each and every practice passes through the four siddhāntas. Although practicing the three siddhāntas, one must see the principle; if entering the supreme truth one's seeing of the principle is not yet deep, one must again use the three siddhāntas to complete it. Furthermore, the three siddhāntas are originally intended for the supreme truth, hence it says "mutually manifest." Furthermore, the gradual four siddhāntas that open the provisional and reveal the real all enter into the non-gradual four. All the more so since these are originally three among the four inconceivable siddhāntas, and all three within the inconceivable are the supreme truth. From "If departing from" onward, it reiterates the preceding wondrous object as the place to be calmed; calming, contemplation, and the four siddhāntas are merely the methods that are able to calm. From "If the mind is calmed" onward, it resolves doubt. The doubt asks: Must each and every practitioner calm through all the preceding phrases? Hence it now explains: If the mind is calmed in the truth, a single phrase is sufficient. Just as the preceding general calming merely calms in the dharma-nature; if it is not calmed, one sets aside the general and uses the distinct; within the distinct, perhaps a single siddhānta is sufficient, because contemplating the worldly is precisely the supreme truth. Or one uses two phrases up to multiple phrases, up to fully using sixty-four rounds, up to using multiple sixty-four rounds; hence it says "skillfully applying skillful means to cause the mind to be calmed." From "a single mesh" onward, it adduces a metaphor. To accommodate many people, or a single person's beginning and end, they must be broadly set forth. If according to one's attainment of entry, then many are not needed; hence it says "catching a bird with a single mesh of a net." Speaking of a single mesh refers to the final entry into the Dharma. Practicing it throughout a lifetime, how could it be merely a single mesh? Therefore, one person may use many, or many people may use one. Furthermore, a single person's beginning and end cannot be distinguished as merely one; hence the application below says: "As for the many, so it is for a single person." A net (luo): the Erya says, "A bird net is called luo; a rabbit net is called di, also called ju." From "Sentient beings" onward is the application. "To catch" means terrestrial hunting, to pursue.