止觀輔行傳弘決 6.16

6.16

From "Such" downward, it clarifies the positions where benefit is obtained within the gates. Regarding the term "gully-harbour" (goutang): in ancient translations, because local dialects were not fully understood, they translated srotāpanna as "gully-harbour". Open water is called a gully (gou), and a bend in the water is called a harbour (tang). From "Four gates" downward, it explains that the gates are different while the principle is the same. First, it directly clarifies that the gates are different and the principle is identical, containing the doctrinal point, a simile, and scriptural proof. In reconciling disputes based on principle, it first directly reconciles them. "Varman": during the time of Emperor Wen of Song he came to this land, was ordered by imperial decree to reside at Jetavana, and in his deathbed testament stated that he had already attained realization. He transmitted it to the monastic assemblies of this land and foreign countries, in a verse of forty-six lines. Having first taken refuge and paid homage to the Three Jewels, he then spoke of the contemplation of impurity, subsequently spoke of attaining the second fruit, and at the very end said: "That Abhidharma / Expounds the dharma of the five conditions; / Practicing wisdom regarding the true meaning, / Those who cling to names cannot perceive it." "The various treatises have different points; in cultivation the principle is non-dual," etc.: Guṇavarman attained the path relying on the Abhidharma, and therefore rebuked those of the Tattvasiddhi who failed to attain the path, who merely grasped at differing doctrines without conduct that accords with principle. "However, the ultimate truth is tranquil and void," etc., is not verse text (liao also means tranquil, empty and without anyone). "Dispel" (qu) means to remove delusion. "Treatise Master": Harivarman composed the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra. From "For what reason" downward, it discriminates the existence or non-existence of dispute. Although the treatise text distinguishes Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna to discriminate dispute, it is now applied universally. If one accords with principle, there is definitely none; missing the principle gives rise to dispute. In the non-dispute of bodhisattvas, "Śākya initially met [a Buddha] up through three [asāṃkhyeya-]kalpas," etc.: the Kośa says: "During the three incalculable kalpas, / He made offerings respectively to seventy thousand [Buddhas], / And successively made offerings / To five, six, and seven thousand Buddhas." The commentary explains: in the beginning of the first asaṃkhyeya, he first made offerings to 75,000 Buddhas; in the second asaṃkhyeya, to 76,000; in the third asaṃkhyeya, to 77,000. The verse says: "At the fulfillment of the three incalculable kalpas, / In reverse order he met Vipaśyin, / Dīpaṃkara, Ratnacūḍa, / And the initial Śākyamuni." The commentary explains: at the beginning of the first asaṃkhyeya he first met Śākyamuni; at the fulfillment of the first asaṃkhyeya he met Ratnacūḍa Buddha; at the fulfillment of the second he met Dīpaṃkara Buddha; at the fulfillment of the third he met Vipaśyin Buddha. The Dazhidulun names the one at the second asaṃkhyeya as Kauṇḍinya Śikhin and the third as Vipaśyin, which are merely phonetic variations. The "six perfections" are fully cited as in the third fascicle. "Discussing the cause, it points to Śākya," etc.: in that Vibhāṣā, when explaining the meaning of a bodhisattva, clarifying the cause points to Śākya's three asaṃkhyeyas and hundred kalpas, while clarifying the fruit points to Maitreya's future realization. Why is this so? Śākya's fruit is already accomplished, and therefore it points to his causal practices, in order to cause others to aspire to the fruit and practice the cause. Maitreya's causes are already complete, and therefore it points to his future fruit, so that all may contemplate the cause and thereby know the fruit. Therefore, the various sacred teachings all clarify Śākya's cause, as in speaking of the bodhisattva's past austerities, etc.; and all clarify Maitreya's fruit, as in speaking of the Maitreya Descent Sūtra, etc. "Nāgārjuna objected, saying," etc.: the Dazhidulun, chapter 27: "Question: Contemplating the true mark of all dharmas and cultivating loving-kindness and compassion reduces the three poisons. Because they are reduced, one can amass pure merits—just as a person free from desire cuts the fetters of the lower realms while still retaining higher delusions, which is called 'reduced'. Again, just as with the first fruit, views are exhausted but desires remain, which is not yet called 'reduced'. As the Buddha said, cutting lust, anger, and delusion is called a sakṛdāgāmin, which is termed 'reduced'. In such senses, reduction is cutting off; why do you call it 'reduced' when it is not yet cut off?" The treatise says: "When attaining the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas, one cuts primary afflictions; when attaining the Buddha fruit, one cuts the remaining residual habit-energies; this is the true explanation." This still retains the shared teaching to refute the Tripiṭaka. Furthermore, the fifth chapter of the Dazhidulun broadly rebukes the bodhisattvas of the six perfections, saying: "These fellows like Kātyāyanīputra do not read the Mahāyāna sūtras and are not great bodhisattvas. Not knowing the true mark, they rely on their sharp faculties to fashion various treatises within the Buddha's Dharma; composing treatises on fetters, faculties, and knowledge (skandha), they still err at every point, let alone on treatises on bodhisattvas." Thus the opening passage here says: "The commentary cites Kātyāyanīputra to clarify the meaning of a bodhisattva." One should know that the Dazhidulun cites him in order to refute him, and therefore the treatise rebukes him, saying: "Just as a petty person cannot even leap across a small ditch, how much less could he cross a great river without sinking and perishing? How would he perish? As it is said, in the past a bodhisattva was a great merchant leader (mahāsārthavāha) crossing the great ocean. An adverse wind battered the ship; he told the merchants: 'Hold onto my hair, and I will ferry you across.' When everyone had taken hold, he killed himself with a blade. By the law of the great ocean, it does not keep a dead corpse overnight; immediately a swift wind blew them to the shore." Having such great compassion, yet you say he was not a bodhisattva! He received the prediction from Dīpaṃkara, his body rose into empty space, and he saw the Buddhas of the ten directions standing in space praising him. Dīpaṃkara gave him the prediction, saying: "In a future age you will become a Buddha named Śākyamuni." Having attained such a prediction, how can you say he was not yet a bodhisattva? In three asaṃkhyeyas there are no marks and minor characteristics, nor the causes and conditions for planting marks; yet seeing Dīpaṃkara Buddha, his body rising into empty space and seeing the Buddhas of the ten directions—is this not a great mark? Being predicted by a Buddha that one will attain Buddhahood is also a great mark. Abandoning this great mark and grasping at the thirty-two marks—a wheel-turning king or Māra can also produce the thirty-two marks; Devadatta also possessed thirty marks; other people each had some or many, such as blue eyes, long arms, and so forth. Why do you value physical marks? What sūtra says that a bodhisattva of three asaṃkhyeyas does not plant the causes of marks and minor characteristics? For instance, because Nanda bathed Vipaśyin Buddha, painted a pratyekabuddha stupa with indigo, and made an image of a pratyekabuddha, he vowed to obtain an upright, golden body and enjoy pleasure life after life. Taking rebirth everywhere, he was constantly upright and handsome—this was the residue of that merit. Born among the Śākyas of Kapilavastu, he obtained thirty marks, left home and attained the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa), and the Buddha declared Nanda foremost among the five hundred monks. Such marks are easily obtained; why should they be planted over ninety-one kalpas, while others obtain them in a single lifetime? This is a great mistake. Furthermore, regarding the claim that in the first asaṃkhyeya one does not know whether one will become a Buddha or not: whether in the Tripiṭaka or Mahāyāna, where is such a statement made? Kātyāyanīputra said: "Although the Buddha's mouth did not speak of it in the Tripiṭaka, in principle it must be so." The Abhidharma and Vibhāṣā make this claim. As explained in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra regarding the four kinds of predictions: there is receiving a prediction before arousing the mind; there is receiving a prediction immediately upon arousing the mind; others completely know it while oneself does not; both others and oneself completely know it. Why say that for two asaṃkhyeyas one does not know one will become a Buddha? Furthermore, you say that planting marks and minor characteristics occurs only in the desire realm. Why could they not be planted in the form realm? As when the Brahma kings constantly request the Buddha to turn the wheel of the Dharma, why say they cannot be planted in the upper realms? Furthermore, not begrudging body and life is called dāna; yet without knowing the three emptinesses it is not called pure; up to prajñā, one must also know that the three elements are all empty. Regarding "dividing the earth to end disputes": it is said that even the two vehicles and bodhisattvas cannot divide it; dividing the earth into seven parts is a method of calculation, a mere fraction of worldly prajñā. Furthermore, you say that the causes of the marks must be planted among human beings; yet, for example, the Nāga Bhāgato is a bodhisattva of the ten abodes; the Nāga King Anavatapta is a bodhisattva of the seventh abode; the Asura King Rāhu is also a great bodhisattva. Why do you say they are not planted in the other destinies? Regarding "one thought, one mark": within a finger-snap, the mind has sixty arisings and cessations; a single mind does not abide and cannot discriminate—how could it plant a great mark? One should not plant them in an uncomprehending mind; only the combination of many minds can plant them, just as a heavy object can be carried by many people, but cannot be carried by a single person. If you claim that Śākyamuni's disciples had ripened capacities, neither the Tripiṭaka nor Mahāyāna sūtras have such a teaching; it comes from your own mind. In such diverse ways, the marks and minor characteristics of the Tripiṭaka are refuted. If so, what are the Mahāyāna marks? Answer: Dazhidulun chapter 29 states: "What are called marks and minor characteristics in the Mahāyāna? The Buddhas of the ten directions and the three times are all entirely markless; why speak of marks? If not even a single mark exists, why speak of thirty-two marks? Answer: The Buddha's Dharma is of two kinds: conventional truth and ultimate truth. The conventional truth has marks; the ultimate truth is markless. Again, there are the path of merit and the path of wisdom. Again, there are the physical body and the dharma-body. Again, marks and minor characteristics adorn the body; fearlessnesses and unshared dharmas adorn sentient beings. Again, for the sake of two kinds of sentient beings, two bodies are manifested: for those attached to names, marks and minor characteristics are taught; for those who know the provisional names of dharmas, the thirty-two marks are not taught. Question: The powers and fearlessnesses also have marks; why say the dharma-body is markless? Answer: All dharmas are entirely markless. Manifesting the physical body is for the sake of those who, seeing physical form, give rise to joy and arouse the resolve for the path; expounding marks is without fault." In the various explanations above, each is unfolded into the intention of the three teachings to refute the Tripiṭaka, only then matching the scriptural intent. Question: Why neither more nor less, speaking only of thirty-two marks? Answer: For a sixteen-foot body, fewer would leave the adornment incomplete, while more would be cluttered and chaotic. Question: What are called minor characteristics? Answer: Marks are major bodily adornments; minor characteristics are minor bodily adornments. If one speaks of the major, one has already spoken of the minor. Furthermore, marks are coarse, and minor characteristics are subtle; when sentient beings see the Buddha, they see the Buddha's marks, but the minor characteristics are difficult to see. Question: The Buddha eliminates selfhood and pride in sentient beings; why does he adorn his own body with marks and minor characteristics? Answer: Having the wondrous Dharma to adorn his mind, if his body lacked marks and minor characteristics, those to be saved might perhaps give rise to arrogance, thinking that the Buddha's bodily marks were incomplete, and could not single-mindedly receive the path. Just as if a vessel is unclean, even if it holds fine food, people do not delight in it; just as with a foul leather bag, even if it holds fine treasures, those who take it do not rejoice. Therefore, marks and minor characteristics adorn his own body. Furthermore, mental adornment opens the path to nirvāṇa; bodily adornment with marks opens the way to humans and devas. Furthermore, mental adornment calms the minds of the three realms; bodily adornment calms minds of the three wretched destinies. However, clarifying the three asaṃkhyeyas and hundred kalpas here is slightly different from the Kośa. In the Kośa, before the bodhi tree four pāramitās were fulfilled, and upon reaching the rank of the Buddha fruit, two pāramitās were fulfilled. Thus the verse states: "Only through compassion, giving universally, / Having his body cut without anger, / Praising the Buddha [Puṣya / Tiṣya], / And next reaching unexcelled awakening: / The six pāramitās / In these four positions / Are cultivated and perfected successively: / One, two, and again one and two. / The first one is giving; / The next two are morality and patience; / The next one is vigor; / The next two are meditation and wisdom." Corresponding successively to the four lines: because of praising Tiṣya he surpassed nine kalpas, and so from Vipaśyin Buddha onward, over ninety-one kalpas, the two pāramitās of meditation and wisdom were completed. According to the Dazhidulun, the six pāramitās are completed across the three asaṃkhyeyas. Are they not in contradiction? There is no contradiction either. In the Dazhidulun, the three asaṃkhyeyas only fulfill phenomenal meditation and phenomenal wisdom. When he reaches beneath the king of trees, it is only then that meditation and wisdom directed at principle are fulfilled. The Kośa says: "During the causal stage, he had already cut the delusions of the eight grounds." Since he had not yet cut the peak of existence (bhavāgra), he only made use of the contaminated. Therefore, the Dazhidulun conceals the prior designation of contaminated, and only upon his reaching beneath the king of trees does it speak of using thirty-four minds to cut the delusions of view and cultivation in the three realms; thus we know that only at that time did he attain the uncontaminated. The present text temporarily establishes the meaning of the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva based on what the Dazhidulun refutes; thus it temporarily retains it, calling it the "path of subduing". "Half-letter": citing proof that it is exclusively Hīnayāna. The fifth [chapter/scroll] says: "For example, an elder has only an only child whom he constantly loves and cherishes. He takes him to a wise teacher, but fearing he will not succeed quickly, immediately brings him back. Because of his love and cherishing, day and night with diligent care, he teaches him half-letters but does not instruct him in the Vyākaraṇa treatise, because his capacity is not yet capable." The application of the simile says: "The 'half-letters' refer to the nine-division canon. The 'Vyākaraṇa treatise' refers to the Vaipulya scriptures." The commentary explains: this treatise is the origin of letters. Hexi [Dharmanandi/Liangzhou tradition] says: "It is the root of worldly writing. A treatise on scriptures and sounds, it articulates and penetrates the four unhindered knowledges, reproaches worldly phenomena, and praises the phenomena of leaving home; its words are elegant and its principle is profound. Although it is a non-Buddhist treatise, it contains no heterodox teaching, and must have been composed by a great being of skillful means." Therefore, this treatise is used to symbolize the Vaipulya sūtras. "The Lotus mentions twenty years," etc.: in terms of persons, it provisionally aligns with the two vehicles; in terms of principle, it is the two truths of ultimate and conventional; in terms of delusion, views and desires are both shattered. Question: These two meanings are acceptable, but what does twenty signify? Answer: The two vehicles each possess ten knowledges. Furthermore, cutting views involves one [path of] uninterruptedness and one of liberation; cutting desires involves nine [paths of] uninterruptedness and nine of liberation. "The dharmas delighted in by the poor," etc.: just as a plowman has no thoughts of being an emperor, and a weaving woman completely gives up coveting being an empress. The two vehicles are also like this: prior to the Lotus, although they heard and spoke [the Dharma], they despised themselves, felt excluded, and had no aspiration to seek it.