止觀輔行傳弘決 8

English (machine translation) 8

Language: English

8.1

Expounded by the Śramaṇa Zhanran of Piling during the Tang

Regarding the explanation of the object of afflictions: From here down, the six objects in the present text and the three abbreviated objects are all manifestations obtained [through practice]. The afflictions arising outside of these nine objects, up to the four universal vows, merely belong to the aggregate object and are subsumed under the three aggregates. Therefore, in ordinary times, one is not without afflictions, and up to the arousing of the aspiration [for awakening], all must equally be contemplated; it is not that they are not called objects. The present text speaks of distinguishing what is manifested and obtained through contemplating the aggregates, hence the distinction must be made. Let readers and practitioners not be confused about the fundamental principle. As stated in the earlier discrimination of the seven pairs: "These ten objects are subsumed under the three obstacles," which does not mean the three obstacles that arise in the present. As for the present three obstacles, as the tenth fascicle of the Great Scripture states: "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who seeks the knowledge of all aspects does so to eradicate the three kinds of obstacles for sentient beings. As for the obstacle of affliction, it refers to the entanglements and covers of the three poisons, the eight forms of arrogance, the four perversions, and so forth. As for the obstacle of karma, it refers to the five acts of immediate retribution. As for the obstacle of retribution, it refers to the three evil destinies, slandering the true Dharma, and being an icchantika." Thus we know that pointing out evil as capable of obstructing is why it is called an obstacle; here, by extension of type, those latter two are subsumed. First, in the general explanation of the reason for its occurrence, he first concludes the preceding and introduces what follows; from "the aggregates above" down concludes the preceding, and from "yet when examining" down introduces what follows. Next, from "previously admonishing desires" down directly explains the reason for its occurrence, first distinguishing it from the various passages above, which contains the Dharma, a simile, and their combination. First, he explains the distinction from the admonishing of desires and discarding of covers among the expedients above; next, the distinction from the aggregate object above. Although the covers of desire above and [the phenomena] in the aggregates and bases possess marks of delusion, they have not become excessively intensified and are not the object of afflictions. Therefore, in admonishing desires, one merely knows that the five dusts are conditions for generating the practitioner's covetous desire; generating desire is a fault, and due to the fault, sin arises; therefore they must be admonished. Among the covers, it is merely that conditions [arising from] departing dusts hinder entry into contemplation, and so they must be discarded. Furthermore, whether these two sets of five are admonished or discarded, they only constitute expedients and are not yet the primary application of contemplation. Previously, contemplating the aggregates and bases was contemplating the retribution aggregates; the retribution aggregates are indeterminate, and upon those aggregates one seeks wondrous understanding; therefore that aggregate object was not yet termed affliction. Furthermore, although the earlier passage on separately traversing the single mind contemplated greed and anger, that was not the import of the present object. It is merely that all the good and bad delusions arising in the present are subsumed under the aggregates and bases; therefore the afflictions arising on account of the aggregates are all called the aggregate object. The present object must manifest on account of contemplating the aggregates; when severe greed and so forth manifest, only then is it called the present object. From "now contemplating" onwards directly presents the present object as distinct from the aggregates, covers, and so forth; thus it says, "arousing severe greed and anger." From "like iron" down provides a simile. The iron is like the aggregates, and the fire is like contemplation. When the aggregates have not met with contemplation, past delusions remain submerged; therefore it says, "it is merely black." On account of contemplating the aggregate object, before understanding of the aggregates is born, latent habits arise differently from before; therefore it is said to be "blazing red." Furthermore, from "retribution dharma" down next discriminates the difficult and the easy. He reiterates the covers of desire as well as the aggregates and bases, and together discriminates the difficult and the easy in comparison with the present afflictions. Thus, the essence of the covers of desire generally belongs to the aggregates and bases, and so together with the aggregates and bases they are generally called "ordinary." From "Why is this?" down, he explains separately. He discriminates the difficult and the easy in contrast with the preceding three dharmas. First, in the direct explanation of the contrast, there is first the Dharma, followed by a simile. In the Dharma, he sets out the previous three poisons in contrast with the present. The former are retribution dharmas and presently active afflictions, and are therefore easy to quell; the present manifestation is already severe, and is therefore difficult to restrain. "Inverted thinking" is ignorance. Greed is obvious. As for the "dead horse," the first precept in the Ten Recitations tells of a heavenly māra who, wishing to ruin Nanda, transformed into a woman and lured him to the location of a horse, then vanished; that person's desire was so intense that he did not even discriminate. From "this delusion" down, he further discriminates supporting conditions. The afflictions that have manifested have already exceeded the ordinary, and with the addition of external conditions, they cause one to run wild. From "just as" down presents a simile. The "flowing water" is like the dharma of the aggregates; "applying contemplation" is like the wooden dam; "stirring up habits" is like surging waves. As for "ripples" and so forth, when the wind moves, the flowing water forms patterns. Now, being dammed by wood, that wind moves swiftly, and the stream compresses so that the water surges up. Furthermore, ripples are doubled waves; waves atop waves, hence called doubled waves. The character for "surging" originally has the sound bào, as in "the leopard changes" (bàobiàn); here it is the rising of water, borrowing the character with the water radical. The simile of the "strong man" has broadly the same meaning as that of the water. From "afflictions" down combines the similes. From "like touching a sleeping lion" down further reinforces and clarifies the previous simile with an analogy. From "if not" down concludes with an exhortation to recognize it. From "not only" down explains the faults arising on account of the object, as the fifth fascicle states: "Following along with it drags a person toward evil"; this is what it means. Next, within the direct explanation, first, in explaining the characteristics, there are two explanations in interpreting the name: First, interpreting the characters together, the three poisons are that which disturbs (fan), and the mind-spirit is that which is distressed (nao); next, interpreting the characters separately, fan is that which disturbs, and nao is that which is distressed. One should know that the common name applies to both views and thoughts. From "this preliminary division" down explains that within the blunt there is the sharp. Just as bugs, beasts, and common people can also arouse [the view of] self, and self is precisely sharp; although sharp, it belongs to the blunt; thus it says, "truly not inferring principles, up to being conceited." "Wriggling things" refers to tiny insects that have consciousness and the ability to move. "Raising their pincers" and so forth refers to the crab family. The Picang says: "One of its pincers is entirely large, named 'gripping the sword,' also named 'holding fire,' because the claw is red." It is also like the praying mantis resisting the carriage rut, and the like. "Mane" (qi) refers to the hair on the neck. The Shuowen says: "Qi is a horse's mane." When wolves and the like grow angry, they invariably bristle their manes in fury. This brings up inferior classes such as insects to illustrate humans: if even these grasp at a self, how much more so humans? From "inferior, common, and base" down brings up blunt-affliction commoners who also possess the sharp. From "the five sharp, up to how could it ever..." down next explains that within the sharp there is the blunt, just as the various non-Buddhists rely on various views to arouse anger. From "if before dhyāna has manifested" down: Question: If, like the disciples of the Buddha, people practicing sequentially have also not yet manifested dhyāna, why are these called the delusions of view severed by the srotāpanna? Answer: Here, determining the sharp and the blunt is done in terms of presently manifested views and the delusions generated by views. If before one has attained dhyāna, even if all afflictions from past habits arise, along with the view of self arising on account of the present aggregates, they still belong to the blunt entanglements. What is severed at the first fruit is shared by common people, remaining latently submerged in the body to obstruct true taintlessness; if one sees the principle of the truths, this delusion is naturally eliminated; therefore this delusion is designated as "views," and is thus not the same as what arises after dhyāna. As for the various non-Buddhists, because they have not seen the truths, even after obtaining dhyāna and severing the blunt entanglements, they have still not severed a single hair of the delusions of view. Since their delusions of view are actively operating, they are not the same as all delusions of view before dhyāna has manifested or those that are latently submerged; therefore they are not taken as analogous to the delusions of view among the eighty-eight entanglements. Thus, the eighty-eight entanglements conceptually belong to what is subsumed under the aggregate object; only when distinguished against the sharp and blunt do they receive the name of "views," which again differs from the marks of the delusions of view after dhyāna. Here, they are merely distinguished in contrast to views after dhyāna; therefore it says that if views arise after attaining dhyāna, even if there is greed and anger, they equally belong to the sharp. From "like two scholars" down gives an example. Attaining the words is like the blunt; attaining the meaning is like the sharp. When both attain the words and meaning, their disputes are fierce; when both grasp at a self and attain dhyāna, their views are intense. From "if it manifests" down selectively reveals the substance of the object. Although the eighty-eight entanglements are completely present in the body, what arises merely belongs to the blunt entanglements and constitutes the present object. From "if within the sharp" down next judges the root and branches. First, he raises an interrogation: If within the sharp there is the blunt, then when a person severs the delusions of view, this is merely called severing the sharp, and this delusion of the blunt within the sharp ought to remain. If not, then the blunt within the sharp would not be called blunt. Therefore, he next cites the Abhidharma's explanation, saying: Although the sharp contains the blunt, this blunt belongs to the sharp, arising upon the back of the sharp entanglements. Although an inferior person arouses the sharp, this sharp belongs to the blunt, arising upon the back of the blunt entanglements. Therefore it says, "the thinking [delusions] are also like this."

8.3

From "if opening" down next explains opening and combining. Opening makes eighty thousand; combining makes only the three poisons. Since eighty thousand does not go beyond the three poisons, now contemplating the three poisons is precisely contemplating the eighty thousand. For the sake of this meaning, opening and combining must be distinguished. From "the three poisons" down explains the differences in acting as obstacles. First, it explains that the four parts can all obstruct concentration. Only the indeterminate, belonging neither to good nor evil, does not obstruct concentration. That which does not obstruct concentration still belongs to the aggregate object. As for those that act as obstacles, their two affiliations are different—namely, manifesting and not manifesting—as distinguished before. From "the scripture says" down cites the Dapin to prove that the indeterminate does not obstruct, which refers to the dispersed mind entered from concentrations such as the lion [stride]. These all rely on the intent of the Abhidharma. Next, relying on the intent of the masters of the Satyasiddhi, they also concede that in the Abhidharma all four parts are dispersed, yet they do not say that all four parts are obstructive; they merely say that within the dispersed, there is none that does not concurrently have associated ignorant delusion; hence it says, "the dispersed is accompanied by lack of knowledge," and that which can obstruct concentration lies in ignorance. From "if so" down refutes the Satyasiddhi master's claim that all four parts are dispersed, the dispersed is accompanied by lack of knowledge, and ignorance can obstruct concentration. As for this associated ignorance, ignorance necessarily involves anger and desire. Since ignorance obstructs concentration, and ignorance has anger and desire, why would these not obstruct concentration, such that he uniquely establishes that ignorance can obstruct concentration? From "our present explanation" down gives our school's correct interpretation. The phrase "specific meaning" is like the explanation of covers above, which varies according to the person: if someone has heavy greed, greed is the cover; anger and ignorance acting as obstacles are also like this. Therefore, regarding their acting as obstacles now, one should know by analogy to that. Thus, as for what the Abhidharma master cites from the Dapin as proof, that meaning is incorrect. That Dapin Scripture clarifies the leaping samādhi, where one arises from the concentration of cessation and enters into the dispersed mind; therefore it says that this dispersed state does not obstruct concentration. Now, in discussing whether the dispersed state obstructs or does not obstruct, one should analyze the three poisons possessed by common people; how could one cite the characteristics of an arhat's superior concentration, arising into the dispersed state, and the like?

8.4

From "However, afflictions" below, it clarifies the present defining of characteristics as the contemplated object. Merely mentioning the four shares indeed does not fully encompass the characteristics. If discussed in terms of one's own practice, it is sufficient to serve as an object. Hence the Lotus Sūtra is cited to clarify the intent behind contemplating the object: the intent lies in abandonment, whereas discriminating is not urgent. As for "twenty years," the commentary provides multiple explanations: because [the afflictions of] views and thoughts were not yet eliminated and the capacity for the Great [Vehicle] was not yet mature, for twenty years he was temporarily made to shovel dung. Furthermore, destroying the afflictions of views uses one unobstructed [path] and one liberation [path], and destroying the afflictions of thoughts uses nine unobstructed [paths] and nine liberation [paths], which together make twenty. Again, severing the fetters across the two paths is collectively called twenty. Again, the higher bounds and lower bounds are collectively called twenty. Again, relying on the two types of emissaries (or persons) to jointly sever views and thoughts is also called twenty. The first explanation defines twenty based on the enumeration of obtainments of disjunction; the subsequent explanations all take dual meanings to constitute twenty. From "If so" below, doubts are resolved. The doubt states: If the intent lies in abandonment, did the five hundred arhats not abandon them, yet make various discriminations in the Mahāvibhāṣā? From "For the sake of preserving" below, the doubt is resolved: The five hundred originally entered the path through a single gate and also did not make discriminations; after attaining arhatship, in order to preserve the Buddha-Dharma and make it abide long, and since they were leaders of the assembly, they had to resolve external challenges. For this reason, the five hundred extensively expounded discriminations. If one is not a leader of the assembly, even if one becomes an arhat, unless one enters the rank of provisionality, one also does not necessarily have to make various discriminations. From "Furthermore" below, it clarifies that these marks of delusion precisely serve as the object contemplated by the ten contemplations; therefore, one must differentiate whether they are shared or distinctive, conceivable or inconceivable, and so forth. Since it is said that each possesses four shares, the present object consists only of the four shares among the dull. The present text is brief and has no leisure to differentiate them, but merely differentiates the shared, distinctive, and so forth. If one differentiates them in detail, the sharp and dull belonging to the aggregates are not what is presently contemplated; the sharp and dull that are manifested are what is presently contemplated. Those manifested are further twofold: the sharp that follow dhyāna belong to the view-object below; those outside of views, pride, and karma are what is presently contemplated. In the initial differentiation of shared and distinctive, the statement "combining sharp and dull each into four shares" is in contrast to the earlier unfolding into eighty thousand; hence it is now said that combined there are only four shares. Since the name of four shares is established beyond the realms, the meaning of unfolding and combining is identical in meaning to that within the realms, differing only in that distinctive delusions are different from those within the realms. From "If one treats them as interrelated" and so on, it next differentiates conceivable, inconceivable, and so forth. It clarifies that the preceding shared and distinctive vary according to the teachings. If one treats them as interrelated, that is the meaning of the distinctive [teaching]. Because it does not clarify mutual identity, it is called "interrelated." "Shared delusions are like branches"—branches means branches and leaves. "Distinctive delusions are the root"—root means fundamental root. Branches and root can only be interrelated and nothing more, which is the meaning of the distinctive [teaching]. If treated as the inconceivable, one should say that shared delusions are like flowers and the dharma-nature is like empty space: due to an eye disease, one sees flowers in empty space; if one can realize the disease, one knows that the flowers are identical to space, and space and flowers are identical in substance, which is the meaning of the perfect [teaching]. This has already been explained in the first fascicle, where the three types of calming and contemplation conclude the arousing of the aspiration for awakening. Therefore we know that both the conceivable and inconceivable take the shared delusions within the realms as the contemplated object, because what is manifested is certainly not distinctive delusions. In the contemplation aroused below, it first clarifies the conceivable; hence here in anticipation it also explains both, with the intention lying in mutual identity. Both meanings apply to the shared delusions, hence it says "If one treats them." Next, it explains that there are three causes and conditions. "As explained later" refers to the three: habituation and the rest. From "Marks of arising" below, it first evaluates their marks of arising through four phrases. Therein, it first lists the four phrases, and next evaluates the marks of the object. Although the previous text differentiated the meanings of separation, combination, shared, distinctive, and so on, it did not clarify the conditions of their arising in the internal mind; therefore, in this passage, it re-differentiates the marks of arising, thereby knowing that their present arising is different from desire-covers, aggregates, sense-bases, and so forth. From "Causes and conditions" below, it directly clarifies causes and conditions. Accumulation-cause refers to the cause, with continual perfume-habituation serving as the condition; mental karma serves as the cause, with bad deeds of body and speech serving as the condition; demonic conduct serves as the cause, with the capture by the ten armies serving as the condition. Because these three exist, when one now cultivates the aids to the path, these three manifest again, which are also called conditions. The first, accumulation, has the principle, metaphor, and application. The term "aids to the path" merely means directly contemplating the object of the aggregates and sense-bases. Flowing with the current is called "going down-current": because one does not cultivate contemplation, one follows the flow of birth and death. From "If cultivating the path" below, it refers to currently contemplating the aggregates, which further manifests past seeds. Going against the current is called "going up-current." "States of existence" refers to the twenty-five states of existence, namely the four continents, the four wretched destinies, the six [heavens of] desire together with the Brahmā King, the four dhyānas, the four formless [realms], the Non-conceptual [Heaven], and the five anāgāmin [heavens]. "Towering" (wei) means lofty and steep, the appearance of rising high. The character wei has three pronunciations (wǔhuí, wǔfēi, wǔwéi). Affliction is restrained by contemplation, and therefore rises high. Next, in clarifying karma: "Na" means what. "Zhuo" means high. The marks of karma having already arisen is called "attainment." The grades and ranks not being accomplished is called "not established." In the metaphor it says "like a river" and so on: "calm" (tian) means the water is still; [the reading] "without water" is incorrect. "Waves like connected mountains": Zhuangzi says, "White waves like mountains." The Wenxuan's 'Sea Rhapsody' says, "Waves like connected mountains." The aggregate-object is like the calm river; cultivating contemplation is like the wind rising; the manifestation of delusions is like great waves; indulging body and speech is like "dropping the sail"; losing the single mind is like "letting go of the rudder." Due to this letting go and dropping, the sailing boat is wrecked. If the rudder of the mind is resolute and the sail of body and speech is straightened, the boat of correct contemplation will surely avoid defeat by karma, cross the river of afflictions, and reach the shore of nirvāṇa. Next, regarding the "ten armies" in clarifying māra: the Dazhidulun's explanation of the four māras states, "Question: Where is affliction explained as a māra? Answer: As in the Saṃyuktaratnapiṭaka Sūtra, where the Buddha spoke in verse to Māra, saying:

8.5

"‘Desire is your first army, sorrow is the second,
/ Hunger and thirst are the third army, craving is the fourth,
/ The fifth is the army of sleep, fear is the sixth,
/ Doubt is the seventh army, venomous malice is the eighth,
/ The ninth is the army of gain and offerings, attached to false and deceptive fame,
/ The tenth army is self-exaltation, disparaging renunciants.
/ Among all devas and worldly people, none can break them.
/ By the power of wisdom, I subdue your armies;
/ Though you do not wish to let go, I will reach where you cannot go.’"

8.6

Now, the arising of afflictions has māra as its condition, using these ten armies to intercept and block practitioners, preventing them from escaping the realms; hence it is subsumed under the māra-object below. Therefore, although what arises is affliction, it is not subsumed under affliction, but is merely called the ten armies. Because they are all set up by māra, they are called māra's armies. As for the metaphor of the ocean and so forth: even if the previous two are absent, māra can stir them up: the "current" is like the habituated seeds, the "wind" is like karmic force, and "suction" is like māra's fanning. Suction is inhaling breath. Water enters along with the breath, hence it is called "sucking water." Fascicle Seven of the Dazhidulun states: "Five hundred merchants entered the ocean to gather gems, and encountered the king of timiṅgila fish opening its mouth; the boat moved extremely swiftly. The shipmaster asked the person in the tower: 'What do you see?' He replied: 'I see three suns and a great white mountain, the water rushing as if falling into a great pit.' The shipmaster said: 'As for the three suns, one is the real sun and two are the fish's eyes. The white mountain is the fish's teeth, and the rushing water is entering the fish's mouth. We are done for.' At that time, the people in the boat each invoked what they worshipped, but none had any efficacy. Among them, an upāsaka said to the assembly: 'We should together invoke the Buddha's name; the Buddha is the unsurpassed rescuer from suffering and distress.' The assembly with a single mind together recited 'Namo Buddhāya.' In a previous life, this fish had once received the five precepts and attained knowledge of past lives; upon hearing the Buddha's name, it immediately repented, and the fish closed its mouth, so the lives of the people were preserved." Māra's fanning is like the timiṅgila sucking water; heavy delusions are like the rushing current; the scattered good deeds of body and speech cannot restrain it, just as it cannot be resisted by force; only calming and contemplation of quiescence and illumination can reach across, just as single-mindedly invoking the Buddha's name. Next, the overall metaphor of fire is as in the text. From "Demonic karma" below, it differentiates and indicates the locus of the object. Although three are comprehensively listed, here it only contemplates accumulation. Next, it clarifies the methods of cure. First, it clarifies that the methods of cure in the two vehicles, the Great and the Small, are different; next, it evaluates the Great and Small according to the four siddhāntas. In the first text, first the Small, then the Great. In first clarifying the Small, it first briefly marks and lists them, and next indicates the location of the missing text. Matching the five gates of dhyāna as antidotes to the four shares, only the one curing obstacles to the path is missing; hence it points to the text below, which is the six hindrances and hindering versus non-hindering in the karma-object. The five, including antidotes and so forth, are fully as in the Notes on the Aids to the Path; this merely adds the single type of "non-turning." That cures the six hindrances, while this addresses the four shares; the number of phrases can be known by inference from the explanation.

8.7

In the present antidotes, the mention of "twelve" is fully explained below in the seventh text on antidotes among the ten dharmas accomplishing contemplation. The actual contemplation of impurity is as explained above in the seventh [method] on aids curing and subsuming dharmas, and also like the Elder Selected in the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha. Imaginative contemplation is as explained below in the dhyāna-object; however, that is manifested while this is cultivated, which marks the difference. The remaining loving-kindness and the rest are fully as in the dhyāna-object. First, regarding "the illness not turning while the remedy turns": for instance, the object of impurity turns into the visualization of relatives, directly taking the visualization of relatives to be pure, because one should not give rise to lustful thoughts toward relatives. Producing the visualization of relatives directly from this impurity is called the contemplation of loving-kindness. If loving-kindness turns into the contemplation of impurity, one sees one's parents swollen, bloated, putrid, and decaying; toward relatives one should not be angry, let alone make them putrid and decaying. In ignorance, one cultivates causes and conditions as the cure. If ignorance is not broken, one conversely uses perverse wisdom to ponder finite and infinite; since this isolated ignorance-mind mostly sinks into torpor, one uses thinking as an antidote. This finite and infinite constitutes the future four phrases among the sixty-two [views]; originally it is perverse wisdom, but now it turns into a cure. If using counting the breaths cannot cure distraction, one should ponder the supramundane, outflow-free characteristics of dharmas; by taking miscellaneous objects as conditions, distraction will subside. The four medicines mutually turning constitute twelve phrases. Both turning together is "turning," also called "countering," which can be known by inference from the preceding. Next, regarding the Mahāyāna's non-countering and so forth: only the supreme truth is like the agada medicine. This is provisionally setting aside the Small to clarify the marks of the cure, without yet discussing the complete use of the various teachings to mutually cure, as well as aids curing and subsuming dharmas and so forth, which are in the seventh gate of cultivating contemplation below. Here it provisionally uses the cure of the supreme truth, named the agada cure. This Mahāyāna cure is fully as in the contemplation of lust and so forth in "Following One's Own Mind" above. Therefore it admonishes below to "grasp its meaning well." If one misses the meaning, it is fully as the faults of teacher and disciple in "Following One's Own Mind."

8.8

Next, the passage stating, "In the Small Vehicle they mostly use..." determines the cures in terms of the four siddhāntas. The Dazhidulun says, "Other sūtras mostly use three siddhāntas," which refers to the Tripiṭaka sūtras by designating them as 'other.' Speaking comprehensively, both the great and the small possess all four. Now, setting aside the comprehensive to follow the specific, we temporarily rely on the treatise. The meaning in the previous [discussion of] the aggregates and sense-bases is also like this: although they are comprehensively possessed, they exist only in the shared and perfect [teachings]; the Tripiṭaka and distinctive [teachings] never use the ultimate truth as a cure. The phrase "within emptiness and unarisenness..." represents the definitive mark of the ultimate truth of the unarisen, like extinguishing a fire in a dream, where both the subject and object are non-existent. Next, regarding "cultivating calming and contemplation": from this point down to the bodhisattva object, the contemplation methods are the same as before, differing only in the objects they confront, explained separately according to the ailment. Now we first directly clarify the ten contemplations, and next correlate different names. Regarding the first, the ten dharmas: first, in the conceivable object, beasts have shamelessness as their basis, which leads them to lose etiquette and standards. Etiquette and standards pertain to humans, so losing etiquette and standards is called losing the human seed. "Also begrudging other families": not only does one not want others to encroach on one's own sphere, but one also does not want others to encroach on the sphere of desire belonging to others. Ghosts have greed and stinginess as their basis, and furthermore, out of flattery, they begrudge others. "Poisonous entrapment" (zhenxian): because it entraps others like the zhen bird. Guo's commentary on the Shanhaijing and the Guangya states: "This bird's body is poisonous. It is as large as an osprey, purple-green in colour, with a long neck and a red beak seven or eight inches long, and it eats snakes. The male is called Yunri; the female is called Yinxie. When it trails its tail across food, eating it kills people." Hence it is said in this way. "Hun" (marriage) means dusk; because the rites are performed at dusk, it is called hun. The Erya says: "The husband is called yin, the wife is called hun." "Ping" means to marry. The Rites of Zhou says: "Coming in numbers is called fu; coming few in number is called ping." The character fu is pronounced tu-diao. Ping refers to holding jade and silk while hastening to make inquiries. "Self-restraint" (zunjie) means possessing proper decorum. The Book of Rites says: "The gentleman is reverent and exercises self-restraint." "A vulgar person whose desire is coarse": like Nanda and others. "Again, contemplating the mind of desire, reproaching and discarding it...": discarding is as in discarding the hindrances, and reproaching is as in reproaching desire; because one reproaches and discards it, one develops the first dhyāna, which, though superior to Nanda, has not yet transcended the form realm. Again, "if one contemplates desire as an obscuration and practices giving... down to delusion": this briefly mentions the first and last of the six obscurations.

8.9

Next, within [the discussion of] the inconceivable [object], first [the Great Master] directly explains it, and next he unpacks the meanings of various sutras to explain and establish the wondrous object. Within the direct explanation, first he cites a sutra to establish the object, and next explains it. Within the explanation, first he briefly clarifies progress and regress; next he cites the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* on 'not severing' and so on to explain 'not following' and so on; next he cites 'not abiding' and so on to explain 'not severing' and so on. In the first text, directly using the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* to further explain the *Wuxing jing*: because ignorance is not severed, the three clarities arise—delusion is itself ignorance, and ignorance is itself clarity, unlike the two vehicles who sever ignorance to give rise to the lesser three clarities. Because craving is not severed, the eight liberations arise—craving is bondage, and bondage is itself liberation, unlike the two vehicles who, having severed greed and craving, give rise to the lesser eight liberations. In clarity and in liberation, all dharmas are fully present; therefore, it is unlike ordinary beings, the two vehicles, and the bodhisattvas of the various teachings within the provisional path of instruction. Next, as for citing 'not abiding' and so on to explain 'not severing' and so on: first he lists the clauses, and next explains them from 'why is this?' downward. First, explaining the sutra's meaning, he opens it into four clauses; next, from 'now I say' downward, he opens it into eight clauses. Regarding the first four clauses: first, explaining the sutra, he rebukes errors. That sutra originally established the meaning of the inconceivable primarily for bodhisattvas while also rebuking bias and falsity. Now, wishing to clarify the inconceivable object, [this text] also first rebukes bias and falsity, and next establishes the wondrous object. Hence he judges that ordinary beings and the Hinayāna suffer the faults of abiding in the first and second clauses. Next, from 'not severing afflictions' downward, he rebukes heresy and counterfeit, which is the fault of abiding in the third and fourth clauses. First, under 'ordinary beings' downward, in rebuking ordinary beings it says 'stubborn and perverse' and so on: 'stubborn' (*hen*) means contentious and litigious, and also perverse (*li*). 'Perverse' (*li*) means bent or crooked, like a dog bending its body as it exits a door. The character *li* [with the heart radical] means sorrowful groaning, which is not the present sense. 'Tame' (*xun*): the *Zilin* says, 'the natural conduct is regulated and tame.' The character *xun* has the fanqie *yu-lun*, and also the sound *xun*. Under 'two vehicles' downward, next he rebukes the Hinayāna. Under 'the arhat' downward, he re-analyzes the fault of the Hinayāna. 'The delusions of the three realms are exhausted, so there is no delusion to tame'—this explains the meaning of 'not tamed.' It is not like the Mahāyāna, where non-arising and non-arising is called 'not tamed'; rather, because [the arhats] use clumsy wisdom to partially sever the shared delusions, where the shared delusions are exhausted they are clearly 'not tamed,' and this 'not tamed' is precisely called 'tamed.' From 'scorched seeds' onward, he further rebukes the Hinayāna's fault. Thus the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* says, 'like scorched grain sprouts,' and it is also like Kāśyapa, seeing the inconceivable deeds of the bodhisattvas, despising himself and saying: 'We, regarding this, are already like ruined seeds.' Under 'bodhisattvas' downward, he adduces the superior to contrast with the inferior so as to distinguish their attainment. First he sets up both, and next explains both. Within the explanation, first, explaining 'having courage', it says 'like a flower in the mud' and so on: the sutra says, 'Lotus flowers do not grow on dry high plateaus, but grow in the low, damp mud.' Hence we know that on the high plateau of nirvāṇa the flower of the bodhisattva's great compassion does not grow, while in the mud of saṃsāra there are the bodhisattva's superior functions of benefiting others. Though residing in saṃsāra, they are undefiled by saṃsāra. The physician metaphor is largely the same. Moreover, the flower compares to the bodhisattva's body wheel, and the physician compares to the bodhisattva's mind wheel. They may also both compare to the bodhisattva's three wheels; hence the *Dazhidulun* says, 'The Buddha is like the king of great physicians, the sutra teachings are like medicinal prescriptions, and the Sangha is like the one nursing the patient.' Hence we know that only upon attaining buddhahood is one called a great physician. It also says, 'When a bodhisattva transforms sentient beings, although seeing that sentient beings have various afflictions, refuse to accept transformation, and instead become angry at the bodhisattva, the bodhisattva at that time is like a great physician treating a person possessed by a ghost: the sick person reviles him in return. The physician at that time does not blame the sick person or match his wrath, for he knows that person is driven by a ghost. The bodhisattva is also like this, knowing that sentient beings are driven by the ghosts of afflictions.' Next, in explaining 'not savoring', it says 'like a bird flying in the sky' and so on: a bodhisattva-mahāsattva severs delusions and enters emptiness yet does not abide in emptiness; they must certainly emerge into provisionality to benefit sentient beings. First, the mud metaphor illustrates that suffering cannot taint them. Next, the healing metaphor illustrates that origination cannot defile them. Finally, the flying bird metaphor illustrates that they do not cling to cessation or the path. Although the text is framed in terms of the bodhisattva who emerges into provisionality, its primary intent is to accomplish the inconceivable object, which thereby accomplishes the inconceivable function of emerging into provisionality; hence, by distinguishing the bodhisattva from the two extremes, it directly reveals the wondrous object of the true, eternal middle path. In the earlier citation of the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa*, since the opening text already said that not severing delusion and craving gives rise to clarity and liberation, one should know that this text must be interpreted in terms of unconditioned [contemplation] to clarify the bodhisattva's ease of the real and response bodies. From 'not severing afflictions' downward, he rebukes heresy and counterfeit. First, he directly rebukes the fault of not abiding in the third and fourth clauses. Therein, first he directly analyzes the fault of the third and fourth clauses, and next he re-analyzes the fault of the fourth clause. In the first analysis of the third and fourth clauses: first he marks out the characteristics of the clauses about which they are deluded; next he concludes the previous and introduces the subsequent faults; next, from 'now, foolish people of the final age' downward, he rebukes the fault. The phrase 'gouging out the pit too excessively': fascicle ten of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says, 'Good man! For instance, a person eats an āmra fruit, spits out the pit, and casts it on the ground. But he then thinks: "This pit must be sweet." He immediately retrieves it, breaks it open, and tastes it. Its flavor is extremely bitter; regret arises in his mind, and fearing he might lose the fruit seed, he immediately gathers it up and plants it in the ground. He diligently tends it, irrigating it in due season with ghee, oil, milk, and curds. Could it possibly grow or not? "No, World-Honoured One! Even if heaven were to shower supreme amṛta, it still would not grow."' 'Not growing' designates an icchantika. 'Tasting' means testing the flavor. Foolish people of the final age are also like this: hearing 'not severing' and so on, they take it to mean double negation, and claim that this double negation does not obstruct double abiding, taking this to be unhinderedness; they then turn their backs on the two extremes and practice 'unhinderedness.' Turning their backs on the method of taming is like losing the sweet taste; turning their backs on untamedness is like losing the fruit seed. A bodhisattva is not like this: because they attain clarity and liberation, it is called double negation; because they illuminate both extremes and benefit and transform endlessly, it is called double abiding. Hence we know that foolish people merely turn their backs on the Tathāgata's expedient means for subduing delusions, which is called 'not abiding in taming.' Giving free rein [to passions] in saṃsāra without abiding in contemplation is called 'not abiding in untamedness.' Hence we know that such people lose both. Losing the fourth clause means claiming there is no hindrance between being tamed and untamed. Hearing double negation, they claim it does not obstruct double abiding, and widely commit unlawful acts as 'double abiding'; hence we know this is precisely losing the third clause. Under 'this is' downward, he uses a metaphor to conclude the fault, rebuking the preceding 'unhindered' evil emptiness. Regarding 'eating salt too excessively': as for salt, in this land [of China] a minister of Duke Ling of Qi boiled sea water to make salt, but in that region [of India] it existed from antiquity. Saying that one does not know it likely refers to the beginning of salt, or it is a hypothetical metaphor. Thus the *Dazhidulun*, fascicle eighteen, says: 'Like a rustic who initially did not know salt, seeing people add salt to various vegetables and meats, asked others: "Why do you do so?" They answered: "This salt can make all flavors delicious." This man then thought: "Since salt can make all flavors delicious, its own flavor must be abundant." He then filled his mouth from an empty vessel and ate it. It was salty, bitter, and injured his mouth, so he blamed the other, saying: "Why did you say salt could make things delicious?" The other said: "Fool! One must measure the quantity and blend it to make things delicious. Why eat it plain?"' A person lacking wisdom hears the liberation gate of emptiness, does not practice any merits, but merely wishes to attain emptiness—this is wrong view, which severs all wholesome roots. If one understands the samādhi of emptiness, one knows that all principles do not contradict one another. Being able to know this matter is the power of prajñā; if one attains prajñā, in entering all dharmas one never holds wrong views. Again, fascicle ninety-nine of the treatise says: 'Like a person eating bean sauce too excessively. This is a metaphor for not practicing the five perfections but only practicing prajñā: because of desiring attachment, one only generates wrong views and cannot advance in any wholesome dharmas. One should blend the merits of the five perfections; only when the flavor of the principles is complete is it called unhindered.' In the present text, losing the meaning of double negation and so on also carries the same significance. One should know that a person who loses the meaning and practices 'unhinderedness' not only loses the flavor of the middle in all dharmas, but also injures the mouth of the eternal; it is like craving salt or sauce, losing the flavor and destroying one's body. Under 'a sutra says' downward, he adduces proof. First he cites the *Wuxing jing* to verify the fault of deviating from the Dharma; next he cites the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* to confirm [the fault] through non-cultivation. Under 'this person' downward, he offers a general rebuke. Under 'there are also practitioners' downward, he re-analyzes those in the fourth clause as having the same fault as the second clause. Not abiding in taming or untamedness while looking toward and seeking the middle path: although they seek the middle path, this merely amounts to abiding in the second clause, and is therefore called a fault. Next, under 'the North' downward, he concludes that the northern [masters] fully possess the faults of both the third and fourth clauses. Although the text concludes that they incur the faults of abiding in the first and second clauses, this fault originally arises from the third and fourth clauses. Next, under 'furthermore, beginners studying middle contemplation' downward, he concludes the characteristics of the fault. First, concluding that double abiding constitutes a fault: no sutras or treatises say that an initial mind severs greed and desire, nor do they say that cultivating the middle is neither perfect nor gradual; hence it is contradictory, to say nothing of thereafter giving free rein to unhindered conduct. Under 'the Zhou house' downward, he adduces historical events as proof. As cited earlier in [the section on] cultivating according to one's own intention regarding Yuwen Yong and others, these are all the fault of the fourth clause. 'It is also abiding in untamedness and abiding in taming' means abiding in double abiding and the fault of double abiding. When a beginner studying middle contemplation severs greed and desire, it resembles abiding in taming; finding that abiding in taming brings no benefit, giving free rein to the mind to enter evil is called abiding in untamedness. Such a person grasps the middle, taking it to be not abiding in taming or untamedness, and later indulges the mind, which becomes abiding in untamedness; combined with the former, this amounts to the fault of abiding in taming and untamedness. 'What connection does it have to not abiding' and so on directly rebukes the fault of double negation. 'This is called great hindrance' and so on rebukes the previous fault of unhinderedness in abiding in the third and fourth clauses. These both lose the intended meaning of the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* and *Wuxing jing*. Under 'such' downward, summarizing the previous four clauses, it again amounts to the fault of abiding in the second clause, hence called 'untamed'; therefore, all lose the meaning of the inconceivable.

8.10

From "Now we say" downwards, [the text] extensively unfolds eight propositions that subsume all phenomena, constituting the inconceivable. First, it lists two sets of four propositions; from "Why is this?" downwards is the explanation. First, it explains the four propositions of non-abiding. The first two propositions can be understood. Next, regarding the third proposition, "Because it is identical to the Middle, one does not abide in both-are," "both-are" is none other than the Middle Way's twofold illumination, and "neither-is" is none other than the Middle Way's twofold negation. Because there is twofold illumination, one does not abide in twofold negation; because there is twofold negation, one does not abide in twofold illumination. Summing it up, it is simply that while not being one, two, or three, it is one, two, and three. Next, from "Although not abiding" downwards, it clarifies the mutual entry and mutual identity between the four propositions of abiding and the four propositions of non-abiding. Within abiding and non-abiding, it only raises the first two propositions in each case, which represents the remaining two as well. Following the text to complete the meaning, it should also further explain the four propositions of abiding before demonstrating their mutual entry and mutual identity with the four propositions of non-abiding; yet to avoid tedious writing, it directly clarifies their mutual identity. Explaining the four propositions of abiding according to the meaning of non-abiding: being identical to emptiness, one abides in subduing; being identical to provisionality, one abides in non-subduing; being neither, one abides in the third proposition; being both, one abides in the fourth proposition. Question: Both abiding and non-abiding have a third and a fourth proposition, and both propositions are negation and illumination; what is the difference between the two texts? Answer: Non-abiding means not abiding in negation and illumination; within abiding, it means abiding in negation and illumination. Although there are abiding and non-abiding, both are the essence and function of the Middle Way: abiding is the function of the Middle Way, and non-abiding is the essence of the Middle Way. If we follow this meaning, one might also ask further: Both abiding and non-abiding have a first and a second proposition; how do they differ from the third and the fourth? One should answer that the first two singly clarify abiding and non-abiding, while the third and fourth jointly clarify abiding and non-abiding. This is still said in terms of distinct pairing. If discussed comprehensively, all eight propositions are the essence and function of the Middle Way: because the extremes are identical to the Middle, there are two sets of the third and fourth propositions; because the Middle is identical to the extremes, there are two sets of the first and second propositions. Since one contemplates that craving is identical to the eight propositions, one should know that craving is identical to the dharma-dhātu. From "Why is this?" downwards explains the dharma-dhātu. Next, from "Using this" downwards concludes that craving pervades all phenomena according to what it belongs to. Or again, within these mutually identical propositions, one presents teachings according to what is appropriate; this is because they conform to the intended meaning of the expedient teachings, and also because those deluded about phenomena are entirely subsumed by the eight propositions. Teaching in accordance with this can then be called preaching with mastery. Therefore, one knows that only by relying on the wondrousness of the contemplated object can one preach for exhaustive kalpas without departing from this. "Understanding thus," etc., uses the persons capable of riding [the vehicle] to explain the characteristics of gain and loss regarding abiding and non-abiding. Therein, first is gain, then loss. In first clarifying gain, it first clarifies the immediate benefit to explain the gain. Therein, it also first clarifies that abiding and non-abiding obtain benefit, and next explains it from "How so?" downwards. The text cites Vasumitra, as fully presented in the second fascicle. That these four propositions of abiding all speak of benefit is because every single proposition contains all the other propositions. Although it may say "abiding in subduing" down to "jointly contemplating," etc., because each and every proposition is inconceivable, they all bring benefit. One should also say that not abiding in subduing, etc., never fails to bring benefit; that it is absent from the text is merely an abbreviation. From "Like Xigen" downwards, it next clarifies the distant benefit. In the seventh fascicle of the Dazhidulun, explaining the clumsy and skillful cross-river crossings, it says: "A grass raft is clumsy, a raft of paired boats is skillful. 'Clumsy' refers to the śrāvakas, and 'skillful' refers to the bodhisattvas." As Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha: "In the past, immeasurable kalpas ago, there was a buddha named Lion Sound King (Siṃhaghoṣarāja), and the lifespan of all sentient beings was ten trillion nayutas of years. He transformed people through the three vehicles. Jewelled trees constantly emitted the sound of neither arising nor ceasing, and those who heard it attained the path. The assembly of bodhisattvas all attained the tolerance of the non-arising of dharmas, dhāraṇīs, and samādhis, and those newly entering the path were beyond reckoning. After the Buddha entered nirvāṇa, the trees ceased to make sound. At that time there were two monks: one named Xigen (Pleasure-Root) and the other named Shengyi (Superior-Intent). Xigen's deportment was straightforward and natural; he did not abandon worldly phenomena, nor did he discriminate between good phenomena and evil phenomena. Xigen's disciples were intelligent and delighted in hearing profound meanings. Their master did not praise having few desires, keeping the precepts, or practicing the dhūta austerities; he spoke only of the true mark of all phenomena. He said to his disciples: 'The characteristics of lust and delusion are none other than the true mark, without any obstruction. Through this expedient, among crowds of people one is without anger and without regret, attains the tolerance of non-arising, and remains unshakeable like a mountain amidst mental dharmas.' Shengyi maintained the precepts, practiced the dhūta austerities, and had the four dhyānas, while his disciples had dull faculties and sought much discrimination. On another occasion Shengyi went to the home of Xigen's disciples. He praised and spoke of maintaining precepts, the dhūta austerities, and quiet seclusion, and disparaged Xigen, saying: 'This man teaches others to enter into wrong views, preaching that lust, anger, and delusion are without obstruction. He is a practitioner of mixed conduct, not pure and unadulterated.' But this disciple had already attained the tolerance of dharmas and asked Shengyi: 'Venerable Sir! What kind of characteristic is this phenomenon of lust named?' He replied: 'The characteristic of affliction.' He asked again: 'Is it internal or external?' He replied: 'This affliction is neither internal nor external. If it were internal, it should not depend on conditions; if it were external, it would have nothing to do with me.' The householder said: 'If it is like this, affliction is neither internal nor external, nor is it in the ten directions; sought, it cannot be found. Since it neither arises nor ceases, how could it perform the work of affliction?' When Shengyi heard this, his mind was displeased, and unable to give any reply, he rose from his seat and left, saying: 'Xigen deceives and deludes people, causing them to cling to wrong views.' Shengyi had not yet attained the sound dhāraṇī: hearing the Buddha speak, he was joyful; hearing outsiders speak, he was angry; hearing of the three wholesome paths, he was joyful; hearing of the three unwholesome paths, he was angry. Leaving the householder's home, he went into the woods, and arriving at the monastery, he said to the monks: 'You should know that Xigen deceives and deludes people into entering wrong views, saying that lust is an unobstructed dharma.' At that time Xigen thought to himself: 'This man is overcome by the evil karma of great anger and is destined to fall into great guilt. I must now preach the profound Dharma for him to serve as a cause for future lives.' He then gathered the saṃgha and recited verses together: 'Lust is none other than the Way, and anger and delusion are also likewise,' in more than seventy lines of verse. Thirty thousand sons of gods attained the tolerance of non-arising, and eight thousand śrāvakas all attained liberation. Shengyi immediately saw his body sink into hell, where he suffered agony for tens of billions of years. When born among humans, for 740,000 lifetimes he was constantly slandered. For immeasurable kalpas he did not hear the name of a buddha. When this guilt gradually lessened, he was able to hear the Buddhadharma, left the household life to practice the Way, but again abandoned the precepts; like this, for 62,000 lifetimes he constantly abandoned the precepts. For immeasurable lifetimes he was a śramaṇa, and though he did not abandon the precepts, his faculties were dark and dull. Bodhisattva Xigen has now, in the east, past a hundred billion buddha-realms, become a buddha; his land is named Jeweled Adornment (Ratnavyūha), and the buddha is named Light Surpassing Sun and Moon. At that time Shengyi was none other than myself." Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha: "If a person seeks the path of the three vehicles, they should not cling to characteristics and harbor anger." The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī: "When you heard those verses, what kind of benefit did you obtain?" He replied: "Hearing those verses, I came to leave behind all evils, possessed sharp faculties life after life, attained the root of all dharmas, skillfully preached all dharmas, and attained the supreme foremost among the bodhisattva dharmas." From "skillfully contemplating" downwards concludes the characteristics of obtaining benefit. The immediate refers to the householder who, hearing Xigen's preaching, attained the tolerance of non-arising; the distant refers to Shengyi who obtained benefit only after a long time. Obtaining benefit does not go beyond the characteristics of the eight propositions. From "If not" downwards uses loss conversely to conclude gain. One's own practice must rely on the wondrous object; teaching others must be at the rank of the dharma-body; only then can one correspond to the essence and function of the eight propositions. "If in a single thought," etc., directly clarifies that the eight propositions constitute the inconceivable object. First is the doctrine, then the similes. In the similes, "the shadow of a tree in darkness," etc.: the first illustrates that within the darkness of the fundamental nature there is brightness; the second illustrates that within the brightness of the cognitive obstacle there is darkness; the third illustrates the light of Middle Way wisdom of the wish-fulfilling jewel. These three meanings clarify that brightness and darkness are non-dual, so as to constitute the inconceivable object. The meaning of the first text is that the third fascicle of the Great [Parinirvāṇa] Sūtra, in explaining the eternity of the Three Jewels, says: "Just as a shadow arises because of a tree, if there are the Three Jewels, there is refuge. Kāśyapa objected: 'There is a tree in darkness, yet there is no shadow.' The Buddha said: 'A tree in darkness is not without a shadow; it is simply not something that can be seen by the physical eye, but can only be seen by the Tathāgata's eye of wisdom.'" First, the Buddha established the simile: If there is a tree, there must be a shadow; if there are the Three Jewels, there must be refuge. Kāśyapa's objection was: A dark tree has no shadow, so there should be Three Jewels without refuge. The Buddha turned and replied: A dark tree has a shadow; you should know that the Three Jewels all have refuge. Here it says: wherever there is a tree, light is inevitably blocked; if light is blocked, a shadow inevitably arises. Darkness also possesses light, and therefore a shadow arises, yet it is not something that the physical eye can see. Just so, within ignorance there is the light of the dharma-nature, yet it is not something that the four eyes can see. Therefore, the essence of affliction is fundamentally inconceivable, but it is not something that biased and small [capacities] can comprehend. Now, demonstrating that affliction is none other than the dharma-nature, we therefore know that the essence of darkness and brightness are non-dual; hence it is called the inconceivable object. From "cognitive obstacle" downwards clarifies that within brightness there is darkness. Although the wisdom of the two wisdoms' essence is called brightness, its essence is ignorance; therefore we know that the essence of brightness and darkness are non-dual, and hence it is called the inconceivable object. From "also like" downwards next provides the simile of the lamp for the cognitive obstacle: the lamp is like the cognitive obstacle, and the darkness is like ignorance. From "like this" downwards contemplates the nature of brightness and darkness: first the simile, then the application. In the simile, it is first established; from "Why is this?" downwards is the explanation. The meaning in the explanation is: the essence of darkness is brightness, and the essence of brightness is darkness; this simply points out that the cognitive obstacle is ignorance. In principle one speaks of darkness coming, yet darkness does not truly come; it simply points out that the two wisdoms are ignorance, hence it says the lamp is extinguished. It also points out that the two wisdoms can destroy the two afflictions; in principle one speaks of darkness departing, yet darkness does not truly depart. From "seeking darkness, there is no darkness" onwards directly illustrates using wisdom to give rise to illumination, illuminating brightness and darkness. From "although there is no" onwards is the application. Within the application, it first directly applies it: although the essence is non-dual, destroying and covering remain distinct. "Destroying" refers to destroying darkness; "covering" refers to covering brightness. "Not receiving," etc., further reveals the operational characteristics of the wondrous object. First, "not receiving," etc., lists the four propositions. Next, from "newly arisen" downwards is the explanation. The wisdom of the Middle is the new, and ignorance is the old. The fundamental nature is internal, and the various dharmas are external. If one takes the twelve links of dependent origination and the sense-faculties and objects as new and old, etc., that is naturally the intention of the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings. From "If the worldly wisdom lamp" onwards, it further uses the wish-fulfilling jewel simile to reveal the wisdom of the Middle. The wisdom of the Middle is constantly luminous, unlike the two wisdoms which combine brightness and darkness. Beginning from the tree's shadow and ending with the wish-fulfilling jewel, through recognizing the cognitive obstacle and the lamp simile, etc., one therefore recognizes that the essence of the Middle and the light of wisdom are non-dual; this directly points to affliction as being the wondrous object. Therefore, the summary conclusion states, "contemplating the darkness of affliction as being the brightness of great wisdom," revealing that only when ignorance is forever exhausted in the ultimate fruit of buddhahood is it called not coming. "Following the above," etc., is because the aggregate object is not different from ignorance. From "When contemplating thus" downwards, the second part clarifies arousing the aspiration [for awakening]. It still takes affliction as brightness and darkness, and relying on this brightness and darkness it arouses the universal vows. Relying on brightness it arouses loving-kindness, and relying on darkness it arouses compassion; this is fully arousing the four universal vows relying on the uncreated four noble truths, hence it says "arising together," fully as in the aggregate object. From "In order to fulfill" downwards next clarifies calming the mind. First it draws upon the three successive types of calming and contemplation; next, from "skillfully" downwards shows the general and specific characteristics of calming the mind. As previously explained with the 512 turns, this clarifies the fulfillment of the wisdom eye of the single mind. From "If the eye and wisdom are not yet opened" downwards next clarifies universal refutation. Following the previous text, it only lacks imparting medicine and the ignorance and dharma-nature among the three provisionals; this is merely an abbreviation in the text. From "Within being identical to emptiness" downwards next clarifies pass and blockage. As for the word "contrived," it means giving rise to a blockage where there is a pass; hence it is called contrived. This precisely corresponds to the distinct characteristics of pass and blockage.

First 10 of 56 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

止觀輔行傳弘決 — Classical Chinese