十不二門指要鈔 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Zhili of Siming under the Song dynasty.

2.2

Three, the Gate of the Nonduality of Cultivation and Nature has three parts:

First, the introduction. Cultivation means cultivation, correction, and active creation—namely, the three thousand realms created by transformation. Nature means originally existing and unalterable—namely, the three thousand realms inherent in principle. Here it is shown that when cultivation arises entirely from nature, all practices are non-active; when cultivation resides entirely in nature, the single thought-moment is perfectly realized. Thus, outside of cultivation there is no nature, and outside of nature there is no cultivation. Since they are mutually eliminated and mutually merged, it is called nondual, and taking the subtlety of the mental dharma as the gate.

2.4

Second, from "The virtues of nature..." downward is the explanation, which has two parts:

2.5

First, jointly establishing cultivation and nature has three parts:

2.6

First, the paired discussion of cultivation and nature has two parts:

2.7

First, directly explaining the virtues of nature. Speaking of "virtues" refers to the originally inherent three thousand realms, because all are permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Realms and suchness in a single thought-moment refers to the aforementioned internal object, the momentary mind endowed with virtue. Since the realms and suchness are identical to emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, they spontaneously constitute the three virtues, the three tracks, and so forth. Identical to emptiness is the meaning of prajñā's purity; identical to provisionality is the meaning of liberation's sovereignty; identical to the middle is the meaning of the Dharma body's culmination. The other groups of three follow this by analogy. However, although all dharmas can be discussed in terms of cultivation and nature, in order to accomplish contemplation one points exclusively to the single thought-moment. One should know that the preceding two gates directly explain establishing contemplation based on the object, while this gate and the nonduality of cause and effect thoroughly show the preceding two so as to bring the perfect practice to completion from beginning to end. Why is this? Do the virtues of nature depart from the nonduality of form and mind? Are the virtues of cultivation anything other than the threefold contemplation in a single mind? Now, showing that cultivation and nature mutually accomplish each other constitutes subtle wisdom and practice. With this wisdom and practice proceeding from cause to fruit, every stage is non-active; only then is it called "diligently applying oneself as if in a dream" and so forth—that is, one's own practice from beginning to end is entirely subtle.

2.8

Second, from "Although the nature..." downward is distinguishing them against cultivation, which has two parts:

2.9

First, their mutual accomplishment. Although the nature is complete, its entire essence is in delusion; it must rely on subtle wisdom to understand and awaken the perfect cultivation. Therefore it says, "Although the nature is originally so, it relies on wisdom to give rise to cultivation." Through this wisdom and practice one can thoroughly illuminate the virtues of nature. Furthermore, this wisdom and practice arise from the entire essence of the virtues of nature. If it were not arisen from nature, it could not illuminate nature; if it did not thoroughly illuminate, there would be no way for nature to be revealed. Therefore it says, "Through cultivation one illuminates nature; through nature one gives rise to cultivation." These two lines precisely distinguish the mark of their mutual accomplishment.

2.10

Second, from "Existing in nature..." downward explains mutual inherence. Although the meaning of mutual accomplishment is clear, it is feared people might think cultivation exists only after being revealed and arisen, and that the virtues of nature differ slightly from what is accomplished by cultivation. Therefore, it now points to what is accomplished by cultivation as being already originally inherent in its entirety. As Mohe zhiguan broadly distinguishes the marks of the three thousand realms: although these are the two cultivations of adverse and aligned, they serve entirely to reveal what is inherent in nature; thus, the entirety of cultivation constitutes nature. Moreover, every single action, cause, effect, self, and other, although accomplished through cultivation, is entirely the manifestation of the three thousand virtues of nature; therefore it says, "Nature in its entirety constitutes cultivation." Furthermore, although cultivation arises entirely from nature, it never diminishes the virtues of nature in the least because nature is permanently unalterable; therefore it says, "Nature has no displacement." Although the entirety of cultivation constitutes nature, it has never for a moment lacked the virtues of cultivation because it is constantly transforming and creating; therefore it says, "Cultivation is ever distinct." If one knows that cultivation and nature each discuss the three thousand realms, then all meanings become clear. Hence Jingxi said that the various masters did not understand cultivation and nature because they did not understand it in this way.

2.11

Question: "Others say that older editions read 'relying on knowing is called cultivation' (jie zhi yue xiu), and use the numinous knowing of the fundamental nature to interpret the word 'knowing' (zhi). If one says 'relying on wisdom gives rise to cultivation' (jie zhi qi xiu), this is merely because a copyist wrote 'yue' (曰) too close to 'zhi' (知), and later people mistook it for the character 'wisdom' (zhi 智); since that did not form a complete sentence, and seeing the phrase 'give rise to cultivation' (qi xiu) in the following line, they arbitrarily added the character 'give rise' (qi 起). How should this be resolved?"

2.12

Answer: "Since you grant that a copyist writing 'yue' too close to 'zhi' could result in the single character 'wisdom' (zhi 智), why could it not be that a previous copyist wrote the 'sun' radical (ri 日) too far from 'zhi' (知), mistakenly producing the two characters 'knowing is called' (zhi yue 知曰)? It must be that due to the omission of the character 'give rise' (qi 起), and because the two parts of the character were separated, some editions came to read 'relying on knowing is called cultivation.' Thus we know that in the addition or omission of characters by copyists, the proximity or distance of strokes is difficult to determine; how could the confusion between yu and lu be unique to the present day? One must determine the correct reading by means of the doctrinal meaning to see what is right and wrong. Why is this? Since those others are ignorant of the subtle meaning of the three dharmas, they already interpret the momentary causal mind and the aggregate-consciousness directly as true knowing; how much more so when there is this erroneous character 'knowing' (zhi) to cling to—how could they not interpret it as 'numinous knowing'? Furthermore, the term 'numinous knowing' was used exclusively by Guifeng [Zongmi]; it is neither shown as being identical to the aggregates, nor does it have the mark of arising through cultivation. It precisely points exclusively to pure tathatā, applying only to the true mind and the meaning of 'severing the nine [realms] by according with principle.' Others say: 'Because the conditions of the true teaching reveal that the knowing of good and evil is itself true knowing, one realizes that all dharmas are mind-only; hence it says relying on knowing is called cultivation.' Now I ask: is this character 'knowing' an understanding, or is it a practice? If it lacks either one, it cannot be called cultivation. If establishing the single character 'knowing' is sufficient for both understanding and practice, then the two subtleties of wisdom and practice in the Xuanwen and the wondrous understanding and correct cultivation in the Zhiguan would be deployed in vain, and Tiantai would merely be transmitting the Chan Preface (Chan quan duxu). Moreover, as for the assertion that showing the knowing of good and evil to be true knowing: must one first use wondrous understanding to identify it, or not? Must one next use wondrous practice to identify it, or not? If so, then it is precisely 'relying on wisdom to give rise to cultivation.' If not, then the two subtleties of wisdom and practice are entirely useless. Now, saying 'relying on wisdom to give rise to cultivation' simply means that through the subtlety of wisdom one gives rise to the subtlety of practice. Therefore the concluding passage below says: 'Just as the object originally possesses the three, based on principle one generates understanding, which is therefore called wisdom. The understanding of wisdom guides practice; the understanding of practice accords with principle; the three dharmas tally with one another, being different without being different.' Now, although both wisdom and practice are cultivation, here the emphasis is placed on practice because wisdom has the stronger sense of understanding and initiation, while practice has the stronger sense of progressing and cultivating; thus it follows the stronger. Furthermore, this single line is entirely the text from the subtlety of practice in the Shiqian, which states: 'because it relies on wisdom to give rise to practice.' They also say: 'The term wisdom does not yet match the idea that the entirety of nature constitutes cultivation.' If so, why is it called the subtlety of wisdom? Should that also originally have been the 'subtlety of knowing,' with later people altering it to 'subtlety of wisdom'?!"

2.13

Second, from "Cultivation also..." downward explains the mutual reversal of adverse and aligned, which has two parts:

2.14

First, explaining that in contrast to the adverse, both natures coexist.

2.15

Second, explaining that due to the aligned, both minds are eliminated. Regarding the first passage: the aforementioned 'cultivation arising entirely from nature' discussed only aligned cultivation for the time being. Since the term 'cultivation' is general, having both aligned and adverse, now in wishing to extinguish both, one must first distinguish them. 'Understanding nature constitutes practice' means relying on wisdom to give rise to cultivation. 'Turning one's back on nature constitutes delusion': from Avīci up through the path of the distinct teaching, all turn their backs on nature. Calling the adverse 'cultivation' belongs to the category of cultivated evil. 'Although the mind is nondual' and so forth: in the states of delusion and understanding that accord with conditions, the nature of mind does not change; hence it says 'nondual.' The two natures of adverse and aligned are the entire essence according with conditions, so phenomena as identical to principle are constantly distinct; hence it says 'phenomena differ.' Thus, contrasting the previously mentioned cultivation in accord with the perfect principle against the present turning away from nature makes them two. Second, 'due to the aligned, both minds are eliminated': [in the text,] ke (可) means buke (不可, cannot); you (由) means yin (因, because). One cannot, because the two phenomena of adverse and aligned share the same nature of mind, make the phenomenon of deluded adversity into aligned understanding! This is to rebuke them for failing to distinguish between delusion and awakening. Therefore, directly establishing the principle, it says: 'Therefore, one must for a period [turn] delusion into understanding, illuminating nature to accomplish cultivation.' Speaking of 'for a period' (yiqi) is of the same kind as 'for the time being' (yiwang); it does not have the sense of being final. This means: although based on the quiescent principle both cultivations are ultimately eliminated, for a period one must change delusion into understanding; once the understanding mind arises, it will necessarily illuminate nature to accomplish cultivation; if one sees nature, the cultivating mind and both minds will naturally be eliminated. This meaning is as clear as pointing to one's palm; why should people be confused by it? Is it not like adverse cultivation being the disease and aligned cultivation being the medicine? Although knowing that both medicine and disease must ultimately be forgotten, for the time being one must take medicine to cure the disease. If the medicine's power is effective, the body will surely be healthy; if the body is peaceful and healthy, both medicine and disease are eliminated. The Dharma analogy is like this; let the wise consider it.

2.16

Question: "Others say that older editions have the characters 'this' (ci 此) and 'its' (qi 其), explaining the meaning as: 'How could one, because the unchanging nature and phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are constantly distinct, casually take this as understanding-cultivation?' Therefore the following line says: 'Therefore one must take this/its (ci/qi) delusion and understanding, illuminating nature to accomplish cultivation.' How should this be resolved?"

2.17

Answer: "Although they cling to an older edition, it contradicts the present text. Why is this? The text says: 'Could one, because phenomena do not displace the mind, make deluded cultivation become understanding?' The meaning of the text solely rebukes clinging to delusion as understanding; when did it ever jointly rebuke delusion and understanding as understanding? Is this not blatantly contradicting the text? Therefore we know that the dual elimination of delusion and understanding owes its efficacy to understanding-cultivation. Why is this? Since delusion turns its back on nature, understanding-cultivation is established to overturn it, whereby for a period phenomena are distinct. Since understanding accords with principle, and principle has neither opposition nor accord, both minds are naturally eliminated. Hence we know that using this character 'period' (qi 期) neither contradicts the text and accords with principle. If one uses the characters 'this' and 'its' (ci/qi), there are rather many contradictions, which cannot be refuted at length."

2.18

Three, from "Moreover, understanding..." downward explains that separation and combination are fundamentally the same, having two parts:

2.19

First, explaining the differences between separation and combination in terms of dharmas. Setting aside adverse cultivation again, we discuss only the separation and combination of the aspects of the dharmas of aligned cultivation. These matters of cultivation and nature are not easily classified across the various sūtras and treatises; if one grasps this meaning of separation and combination, one will not be confused about the quantity of cultivation and nature. For example, the ten kinds of three dharmas in the Jinguangming xuanyi draw upon the dharma-characteristics of cultivation and nature from the sūtras and treatises, thus providing both accounts of separation and combination. For instance, the three virtues and the three jewels, although the culmination of the virtues of cultivation, must in meaning encompass nature. Although the texts discuss the three bodies and three wisdoms in terms of awakening, their principle must extend to delusion. Since the three consciousnesses and three paths indicate phenomena as identical to principle, cultivation must arise entirely from nature. Are not these six each three in terms of cultivation and nature? The three causes pair the single nature with the two cultivations of wisdom and practice; the three bodhis, three Mahāyānas, and three nirvāṇas all pair the single nature with the two cultivations of realizing principle and giving rise to function. Are not these four two in cultivation and one in nature? If each has three, it belongs exclusively to the perfect teaching, because each corresponds as master and counterpart, with cultivation arising entirely from nature; therefore, two in cultivation and one in nature also encompasses the distinct teaching. Directly using the two of cultivation to reveal the one of nature is what the teaching track expounds; if one understands combining nine into three, it is again the perfect meaning. This text mostly uses each having three, as when it says, 'Nature points to the three obstacles, therefore it possesses three; cultivation is accomplished from nature, and its accomplishment is naturally three.' It also says: 'Since the causal mind of a single thought-moment possesses the three tracks, this cause achieving fruit is called the three nirvāṇas.' If the concluding text below says that the three dharmas tally with one another, though appearing to be two in cultivation and one in nature, it is actually combining nine into three. Speaking of 'the two of cultivation each having three' and so forth unfolds each based on combination. For example, the three prajñās and so forth are the three of the revealing cause; the three bodhis and so forth are the three of the conditioning cause; together they bring about the three paths and so forth, which are the three of the direct cause. Since they bring about the three of nature, and all are called the nine of cultivation: although including the three of nature, all are what is brought about, so they all belong to cultivation. Furthermore, whenever one discusses cultivation, one must include nature. The nine are merely three: just as the three prajñās are merely the revealing cause, the three liberations are merely the conditioning cause, and the three paths and so forth are merely the direct cause. 'In order to correspond' and so forth explains the previous intention of combination: since nature establishes only the direct cause, in order to correspond to nature to form three, cultivation has only the conditioning and revealing causes. All the meanings of combining into three are like this by analogy.

2.20

Question: "The ten kinds of three dharmas all apply to both cultivation and nature, and each can correspond to the three virtues and three causes. Why do the three prajñās and so forth correspond exclusively to the revealing cause, while the three bodhis and so forth correspond solely to the conditioning cause?"

2.21

Answer: "Matching them in this manner is precisely the perfect exposition. To speak of the revealing cause alone is not deficient, because it possesses all three. The three aspects of the revealing [cause] naturally possess the three causes, the three virtues, and so forth; hence the conditioning and direct [causes] are also like this. One should know that a single virtue is not deficient, and three times nine are not redundant. As for the ineffable teaching, how could it exceed the One?"

2.22

Second, from "Two and..." downward, explaining that the essence of cultivation and nature is identical by means of an analogy. Although the distinctions between cultivation and nature, as well as wisdom and practice, have been explained, they are all 'two yet nondual.' Therefore, they are illustrated horizontally and vertically through the analogy of waves and water, which is still spoken in terms of the three dharmas within the combined state; how could it not be so when opened? First, it explains that the two of cultivation are like waves and the one of nature is like water; being two yet nondual, waves and water can be understood. Cultivation and nature being so, the two dharmas within cultivation are likewise two yet nondual, identical to waves and water.

2.23

Question: "The two of cultivation and the one of nature are already identical to waves and water, and cultivation is moreover identical to nature. Why would the two dharmas within cultivation further require an analogy to harmonize them?"

2.24

Answer: "Just as the two arms of a body, though connected to the body, are not merged with each other, to guard against this notion [the text] says, 'likewise like waves and water.' A certain version reads, 'likewise without waves and water'; since that fails to form an analogy, it is definitely an error."

2.25

Second, from "One should know..." downward, directly showing nonduality through the perish-together of both cultivation and nature. As for 'nature points to the three obstacles' and so forth: since the principle completely becomes phenomena, the obstacles are directly called the principle; therefore, nature is established as three. Since nature is not three yet established as three, cultivation following nature to completion is also not three yet established as three. How could it merely be that each is definitively without three? Moreover, the essences of cultivation and nature are identical. When one understands this thoroughly, then without moving one travels, wandering in the four directions directly to the bodhimaṇḍa—this is called the One Wondrous Vehicle.

2.26

Question: "The three of nature are originally inherent; why say that they are named 'three' in opposition to the obstacles?"

2.27

Answer: "If the originally inherent wondrous principle were definitively three, it could not make one or the immeasurable. Hence one knows that when established, the one and the many are clearly apparent, but when extinguished, cultivation and nature are quiescent. Now it is spoken in terms of extinction; how could one use establishment to raise an objection against it!"

2.28

Third, concluding the gate. This can be understood from the preceding.

2.29

Fourth, the gate of the nonduality of cause and effect has three parts:

2.30

First, the heading. The names 'cause' and 'effect' are general; here, with respect to opening and revealing, it is discussed solely in terms of the perfect [teaching]. Cause extends from the stage of ordinary beings up to equal enlightenment; effect is solely wondrous enlightenment. Although established successively throughout, it is strongest when considered in terms of the ultimate meaning. The three thousand realms of the true mark, when not yet manifest, are called cause; when manifest, they are called effect. Although concealment and manifestation differ, beginning and end are constantly identical; therefore it is called nondual. The meaning of 'gate' is as before.

2.31

Second, from "Sentient beings..." downward, the explanation has three parts:

2.32

First, explaining that cause and effect temporarily exist based on the perfect principle has three parts:

2.33

First, explaining that the principle of beginning and end is one. 'Sentient beings', broadly speaking, applies to both cause and effect, because the Buddha is called the unsurpassed sentient being; narrowly speaking, it is restricted, because sentient beings are established in contrast to the Buddha. Although sentient beings pertain to the cause, they further encompass everything. Taking solely the mind-cause as the essence of contemplation here, this essence inherently possesses the three tracks and is the nature of the effect; therefore it is named cause. When this nature is manifest, it is called the three nirvāṇas; the essence of the three dharmas is eternal, and the principle of beginning and end is one.

2.34

Second, from "If so..." downward, the phenomenal difference between enlightenment and delusion has two parts:

2.35

First, the intent of the question: seeking to realize the stage of effect is for the sake of accomplishing virtues. Since the causal virtues are already complete, why is it necessary to seek the effect?

2.36

Second, from "Only due to..." downward, the intent of the answer: although the causal virtues are complete, it is merely because one is in delusion. All dharmas are originally interfused, yet one grasps them as real; beginning from Avīci and ending at the Vajra stage, this thought exists in all. If they were not deemed real, the iron bed would not be suffering, and transformation [birth and death] would not be transition. When this thought is exhausted, that is precisely wondrous enlightenment; hence it is said, 'each deems them real.' If one understands the nature of what is deluded, what Buddha-effect could be produced separately? One returns to realizing the causal virtues; hence it says 'abiding in the cause,' and where the causal virtues become manifest, they naturally receive the name of effect. Therefore, phenomenal differences are distinguished according to delusion and enlightenment.

2.37

Third, from "Simply because..." downward, explaining that when phenomena reach their culmination, the principle perishes. As for 'the principle becomes manifest' and so forth: in contrast to concealment it is called cause, and matching manifestation it is called effect; once manifestation has no opposite, how could the name of effect remain? The effect can correspond to the real, yet its name does not even remain. Since the cause pertains to the expedient, both should properly be discarded. Furthermore, based on cause and effect, phenomena are established and the principle harmonizes them; once what is matched is obliterated, that which harmonizes naturally perishes.

2.38

Second, from "Simply due to..." downward, explaining non-attainment in cultivation and realization based on perfect understanding has two parts. First, explaining that the essence of delusion and wisdom is fundamentally empty based on the Dharma. As for 'perishing wisdom': it is precisely the wisdom that suddenly eradicates both phenomena and principle mentioned above that can effect the perfect severance; hence it says 'simply due to.' A person of the perfect [teaching] from beginning to end uses absolute wisdom to suddenly eradicate all dharmas; when even the principle and the effect perish, what sequence could there be for delusions? It is simply because the power of this wisdom is subtle or prominent that it becomes distant or close; because of being distant or close, delusions fall away earlier or later, which is termed delusion being thick or thin. When wisdom is distant, delusion is thick; when wisdom is close, delusion is thin. This is clarified sequentially; this is distinguishing delusion according to wisdom. Since there is the sense of thickness and thinness, one forcefully distinguishes the three delusions, and moreover conceptually opens the six identities, naming the shallowness or depth of that perishing wisdom. If one considers perishing wisdom's understanding of the principle of identity, there is not a single virtue that can be cultivated, nor a single delusion that can be broken; one merely forcefully designates them as thick and thin, shallow and deep.

2.39

Second, from "Therefore like..." downward, explaining that the effort of cultivation and realization is unestablished based on analogies has two parts:

2.40

First, explaining that the effort of cultivation and realization perishes. Others say: 'Dream, space, phantom, and image—all four are analogies, matching wisdom, severance, cause, and effect.' Although their explanatory intent is not apparent, matching the dharmas seems somewhat fitting. They also say: 'Below "space", this character [míng] must be written [as "dark" / "unseen"]; its meaning is very convenient.' That is to say, the essence of delusion is like space, possessing only a name; therefore the fourth of the ten Mahāyāna analogies says that empty space has only a name without reality, and so forth. Although there are many who explain it with this character míng [dark], I fear it is ultimately not intimate. Now I only intend to reveal the principle; how would I dare to harbor bias? As for my view, if the various characters in the old texts have even a little reason, I follow them immediately; the holy eyes must see through my mind. If my wisdom is short and my words crude, failing to accord with the principle, I request all master scholars to point them out and reprove them. However, adducing these four analogies is to reveal the wondrous understanding of the person of the perfect [teaching]: all virtues are originally complete, and myriad delusions are fundamentally empty; although realization and cultivation are established, each and every one is uncreated. Therefore, diligently cultivating the practice of wisdom is like acting in a dream, accomplishing nothing whatsoever. Delusion has only a name, like space without reality; knowing it to be non-existent, it immediately ceases. Furthermore, cause and effect are explained in terms of the beginning and end of wisdom and severance: because the cause lacks that which can evoke, it is like a phantom; because the effect is not what is attained, it is like an image. Since understanding accords with reality, all four are uncreated. Cause and effect being so, how could there be duality?

2.41

Second, from "Space and image..." downward, explaining the difference in essence between virtue and obstacle. Although the non-reality of the space of delusion and the image of effect is the same, space has only a name, and once known to be non-existent, it is forever severed; whereas an image, though lacking own-nature, has visible form clearly apparent. Hence it says, 'space is vacuous and the image is real.' As for 'the image is real' and so forth, it explains the difference in essence. The three thousand realms of the effect-virtue are not newly obtained today; hence it is argued not to be an effect. Yet realizing it in accordance with the origin, it cannot be obliterated; hence it says, 'accords with the principle and originally exists.' Delusion is ignorance; because ignorance turns, it immediately transforms into illumination. The name of delusion is forever lost, turning into natural illumination; hence it says, 'delusion turns to become the nature.' Others say it must be written as 'nature completes [it]'; if one says 'becomes the nature,' it would make the effect become the cause. If so, when the later text says 'understanding present ignorance to be the Dharma-nature,' would that also be the effect becoming the cause?

2.42

Third, from "Therefore..." downward, explaining nonduality from beginning to end based on the perfect vehicle has two parts:

2.43

First, matching and raising them reversely to explain that their essence is one. This can be understood.

2.44

Second, from "Therefore..." downward, explaining nonduality through height and breadth without diminution. Cause and effect of the Mahāyāna are both the true mark; the three thousand realms are all clearly the characteristics of the true mark. When the true mark resides in principle, it serves as the cause for defilement; even though it possesses the Buddha-dharmas, because they are not yet manifest, they are collectively called ignorance. When the three thousand realms are free from obstacles and the eight inversions do not arise, each and every dharma-gate becomes the four virtues; hence all are permanent and blissful. The three thousand realms of the true mark are all of unchanging nature; principle is one in delusion and enlightenment, just as Yajñadatta's losing his head and finding his head—his head was never different; hence it is said, 'ignorance is illumination.' The three thousand realms of the world are each and every one eternally abiding; the three thousand realms inherent in principle are all called essence, and the three thousand realms transformed and created are all called function; hence it says 'both essence and both function.' Among these four lines, the first two clarify that cause and effect each possess the three thousand realms; the third clarifies that the three thousand realms of cause and effect are just one single three thousand realms, because there is no alteration; the fourth clarifies that the essence of the three thousand realms of both cause and effect can give rise to function: then the three thousand in the cause give rise to defiled function, and the three thousand upon the effect give rise to pure function. This fourth line clarifies the perfect [teaching] most clearly. Why? The terms 'essence' and 'function' are fundamentally the meaning of mutual identity; therefore, whenever it is said that all dharmas are identical to principle, only when function in its entirety is identical to essence can it be called identical. The Fuxing states: 'As for "identical" (ji), the Guangya says it means "conjoined" (he). If one relies on this explanation, it still resembles two things coming together, and its principle is still crude. Now seeking it through meaning, because their essence is nondual, it is called identical' (all the above is text from the Fuxing). Now I say that only the function of the whole essence is called nondual. Other schools explain that one principle accords with conditions to produce differentiated dharmas: differentiation is the characteristic of ignorance, while pure unity is the characteristic of tathatā; when according with conditions there is differentiation, and when not according with conditions there is no differentiation. Hence one knows that only when one nature conjoins with ignorance is there differentiation—this is precisely the meaning of 'conjoining,' not the nonduality of essence, because once ignorance is eliminated there is no differentiation. Our school explains that the essence of the three thousand realms accords with conditions to give rise to the function of the three thousand realms; when not according with conditions, the three thousand realms are clearly present. Thus the differentiated dharmas and the essence are nondual, because even when ignorance is eliminated, differentiation exists. Examining the other schools' explanation of identity, the meaning of identity is not established, because their Buddha-effect is solely one tathatā, requiring the destruction of the differentiation of the nine realms to return to the single nature of the Buddha realm. Our school distinguishes the perfect and distinct [teachings] by identity and separation, which is not easy to investigate thoroughly. One should know that not speaking of inherent principle and merely speaking of tathatā according with conditions is still the meaning of separation. Therefore, the first fascicle of the Notes states: 'Because in the distinct teaching there are no nine realms of natural virtue, both oneself and others sever the nine.' If the three thousand realms of the world are natural virtue, then the nine realms have nothing to be destroyed, being directly the Buddha-dharma; only then is the meaning of identity established and the perfect principle revealed. Therefore, the Jinbi states: 'The meaning of transformation is twofold, which is precisely solely perfect.' Hence one knows that only when inherence and transformation are both clarified is it called 'identical'; if either is lacking, it is not the ultimate of the perfect. Jingxi said: 'Other traditions do not clarify cultivation and nature.' If one took the single principle of tathatā as nature, and differentiation according with conditions as cultivation, then when Jingxi appeared, there were many who spoke thus. Hence one knows that what other schools consider the ultimate perfect teaching merely speaks of 'arising from nature' (xingqi), and does not speak of 'inherent in nature' (xingju). This is deeply worth pondering! Furthermore, without speaking of the hundred realms inherent in nature, and only discussing transforming and creating all dharmas, how could it be called 'uncreated'? When people of the world see that I establish that the principle of the distinct teaching has the meaning of according with conditions, their ears are deluded and their minds startled, simply because they are unable to deeply fathom Jingxi's intent. Take, for instance, when the text of the Notes explains the Ājñāta passage, it says: 'The distinct teaching may also be said to establish all dharmas based on non-abiding root; ignorance veiling principle, both the veiler and the veiled are called non-abiding, yet the teachings are distinguished as different based on identity and non-identity.' Since it allows that the veiled is non-abiding, how could tathatā not accord with conditions? That according with conditions is still not identical is because it is not according with conditions of what is inherent in principle. It also says: 'Tathatā in delusion can produce the nine realms.' If it did not accord with conditions, how could it produce the nine? Moreover, when the Fuxing explains that a single thought-moment of sense-faculties and sense-objects in the distinct teaching is the root of delusion and liberation, it cites the Laṅkāvatāra: 'The Tathāgata is the cause of good and non-good.' It comments itself: 'That is the Tathāgata of principle-nature.' This sentence of the Laṅkāvatāra is precisely the authority for other schools' according with conditions. To explain this meaning, the Fuxing cites the Dazhidulun: 'Like the water of a great pond, when an elephant enters it becomes turbid, and when a jewel enters it becomes clear. One should know that the water is the basis of purity and turbidity, and the jewel and elephant are the conditions for purity and turbidity.' According to these various passages, how could the principle of the distinct teaching not accord with conditions? Therefore one knows that if one does not speak of inherent essence, both according with conditions and not according with conditions belong to the distinct teaching. Why? As when it is said that the ālaya produces all dharmas, or it is said that the Dharma-nature produces all dharmas—are these not two meanings of the distinct teaching?

2.45

Question: "The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, in explaining 'dwelling in ignorance has no basis,' says that stating it is 'dwelling in oneself' is the meaning of the separate teaching, whereas 'dwelling depending on another' is the meaning of the perfect teaching. Furthermore, regarding the meaning of 'according with conditions,' it is precisely when the true and the false unite that they create all phenomena, which is precisely 'depending on another.' Why is this judged as belonging to the separate [teaching]?"

2.46

Answer: "The language in the Commentary is concise and its intent profound; one must rely on the Subcommentary's explanation to reveal the precise purport. Thus, in explaining 'dwelling in oneself,' Dharma-nature and afflictions view each other, both establishing 'self' and 'other.' It concludes: 'Therefore, both of these

2.47

5. The Gate of the Nonduality of Defilement and Purity has three [parts]:

2.48

First, the presentation of the topic. Producing and creating all phenomena with the mind in fetters, wherein the one and the many obstruct each other and there is attachment at every thought-moment, is called defilement. Responding to the multitude of conditions with the mind freed from obstacles, wherein the one and the many are unobstructed and there is relinquishment at every thought-moment, is called purity. Now, opening the single thought-moment of defiled mind in fetters [reveals that] it inherently possesses the three thousand realms; entirely substance and entirely function, it is not different from purity, and hence it is called nondual. Some say that defilement is delusion and purity is response. They do not understand the purport of the text, merely making a parallel contrast. One must realize that this gate points to the pure function after fruition, which the defiled mind of an ordinary person already inherently possesses; it thus causes one to contemplate this defiled mind so as to reveal the pure function. Together with the subsequent environment and body, both reside in the active response; only with the nonduality of self and other does it also encompass the capacity to respond to stimulus.

2.49

Second, from "If one realizes..." down, the explanation has two [parts]:

2.50

First, clarifying the pure dharmas that are revealed has two [parts]:

2.51

First, that in principle the substance and function of defilement and purity have neither increase nor decrease has three [parts]:

2.52

First, the dharmas have two [parts]:

2.53

First, clarifying the substance of defilement and purity: the quiescent substance of the three thousand [realms] is immediately quiescent and yet illuminating. Since there is neither an active illuminator nor an object illuminated, it is named Dharma-nature. Because of fundamental foolishness, one falsely posits self and other; the quiescent clarity of the three thousand realms in its entire substance becomes dark and agitated, which then turns into ignorance. Being fundamentally unawakened, it is called beginningless. If one realizes this, then one illuminates that the substance of ignorance is fundamentally clear and quiescent, which then turns back into Dharma-nature.

2.54

Second, from "Dharma-nature..." down, clarifying the function of defilement and purity: since the substance is completely turned, the function is also symmetrically overturned. Since Dharma-nature acts as ignorance, it gives rise entirely to the function of ignorance; since the function is bound by attachment, it is called defilement. If ignorance acts as Dharma-nature, it gives rise entirely to the function of Dharma-nature; since the function is unhindered, it is called purity.

2.55

Question: "Others say that the two characters yu (與, 'gives') are absent, and they gloss the two characters zhi (之, 'goes to') as 'proceeding toward': in delusion, Dharma-nature proceeds toward ignorance; in awakening, ignorance proceeds toward Dharma-nature. What is the meaning of this?"

2.56

Answer: "Whether the two yu characters are present or absent, each has its meaning. Glossing the two zhi characters as 'proceeding toward' renders the interpretation somewhat circuitous. Furthermore, the character zhi is a commonly used character that mostly serves as a grammatical particle. Although the Erya glosses it as 'proceeding toward,' that usage has its proper place, and placing it in this text seems awkward. For example, regarding 'pure and impure lands within one principle,' could they all be glossed as 'proceeding toward'? If the old edition lacked the two yu characters, then zhi need not be glossed as 'proceeding toward'; it is merely an auxiliary particle, and its meaning is naturally clear. Why? Simply saying 'the ignorance that is immediately Dharma-nature has a defiled function; the Dharma-nature that is immediately ignorance has a pure function'—the text is both natural and its meaning is rather clear."

2.57

Question: "If the character yu is present, what is its meaning then?"

2.58

Answer: "Since this passage distinguishes the two functions, having [the character yu] makes the meaning even clearer. Why? For yu means 'to lend to,' 'to bestow upon,' and also 'to assist.' Since Dharma-nature and ignorance mutually invert each other to form the two functions, they have the meaning of mutually borrowing power and assisting in accomplishment, wherein the weaker borrows power to assist the stronger. If the internal perfuming of Dharma-nature is powerless while the defiled function of ignorance is strong, then Dharma-nature lends power to ignorance to produce all defiled dharmas. If the grasping sentiment of ignorance is powerless while the internal perfuming of Dharma-nature is powerful, then ignorance lends power to Dharma-nature to give rise to all pure responses. Because although ignorance has the function of bringing things to pass, because its substance is empty it cannot produce and create by itself; it must rely on Dharma-nature lending power to assist it before defiled dharmas are accomplished. Although Dharma-nature inherently possesses the pure function of the three thousand [realms], its manifestation arises from cultivation. Even if true cultivation does not rely on ignorance, how could conditioning cultivation be without longing and aversion? Hence the text below says: 'It must rely on conditioning and revealing causes to serve as the power for benefiting others.' Ignorance lending power to assist Dharma-nature only then accomplishes the pure function. Since Jingxi accepted the meaning of 'according with conditions,' he necessarily accepted that Dharma-nature and ignorance mutually serve as causes and conditions; but clarifying according with conditions in terms of inherent possession in the substance is naturally distinct from the expedient teachings."

2.59

Second, from "turbid water..." down, the metaphor. Turbid water illustrates the defiled mind in delusion; clear water illustrates the pure mind after fruition; waves illustrate the three thousand [realms] as entire function; wetness illustrates the three thousand [realms] as entire substance. One must know that in defilement, although the water is turbid, it is also completely wetness acting as waves; when clear, could there be separate waves and wetness? Therefore it says 'there is no difference,' meaning that both the waves and the wetness have no difference. Those others who claim that only the wetness within the waves has no difference—if the wet nature does not change, how could the wave nature change?

2.60

Question: "The fourth fascicle of the Subcommentary says: 'Just as in clear and turbid waves the wet nature is not different,' does this not mean that the waves are different while the wetness is the same? Why do you now contradict that?"

2.61

Answer: "Those who read that text do not examine what comes before and after; they merely take a single line to establish their narrow view. Now I will briefly cite that text and offer a preliminary explanation, so that those who wish to rely on it to prove that only the wetness is without difference may hear it and take heed. Why? That text originally explains that 'the marks of the worldly realms are permanent.' But marks are originally flowing and shifting; now, wishing to explain permanence, it must be revealed in terms of their status. The entire status is the mark; the status is permanent, so the mark is also permanent. Therefore the text repeatedly says: 'The mark and status are not two.' It further asks itself: 'The status can be single and suchness-like, but how are the marks equal?' It answers: 'The status is based on principle and nature, which definitely cannot be altered. Marks are discussed in terms of according with conditions; conditions have defilement and purity. Although conditions are defiled or pure, they are equally called conditioned arising. Just as in clear and turbid waves the wet nature is not different: equally taking the wet nature as waves, they therefore all take suchness as their mark; equally taking waves as the wet nature, they therefore all take suchness as their status. Therefore, although the names

2.62

Third, from "clearness and turbidity..." down, the application: the waves and wetness of water constantly have neither increase nor decrease, whereas its clearness and turbidity must each arise from conditions. Although when an elephant enters it becomes turbid, and when a [water-purifying] jewel enters it becomes clear, yet the conditions for turbidity exist together with the water. Because one has never been awakened from the beginning, turbidity comes first; just as a mountain contains jade, or sand contains gold, the ore and the unworked jade fundamentally exist. Although water is fundamentally turbid, turbidity is not the nature of water; therefore its entire substance is clear. Because the two waves of clearness and turbidity share only one moving nature, it says 'the principle pervades'; and both are entirely wetness acting as movement, so it says 'the entire substance is function.' Since after awakening one is no longer deluded, one knows that clearness is the nature of water: what contradicts the nature can be transformed, while what accords with the nature is permanent."

2.63

Second, from "Therefore the three..." down, [showing that] the conditioned arising of realms and suchness is fundamentally perfect and permanent has two [parts]:

2.64

First, directly pointing [to this] in terms of inherent virtues: the conditioned arising of both delusion and awakening is the substance of the three thousand realms giving rise to wondrous function. Since the substance does not fall outside of a single thought-moment, how could the wondrous function be separated from the substance? Therefore, it causes all conditioned arising to converge into a single thought-moment. Since the three thousand realms do not change, the nature of a single thought-moment is fundamentally permanent. Subsuming function within substance, the principle of conditioned arising is one; without dividing, it divides into the ten realms and the hundred realms. In terms of the ten realms, there are six impure and four pure; in terms of the hundred realms, all ten pervade purity and impurity, because within each of the ten there are respectively six and four.

2.65

Second, from "Therefore it is known..." down, counter-demonstrating in terms of cultivation.

2.66

Question: "Earlier you said that in a single thought-moment the hundred realms contain both impure and pure; why are they now said to be all pure?"

2.67

Answer: "The earlier discussion of the dharma-gates of purity and impurity concerned what is fundamentally inherent in principle, pervading delusion and awakening without increase or decrease; this is inherent good and inherent evil. The defilement and purity now spoken of are explained in terms of sentiment and principle. When feelings are attached, both purity and impurity are defiled; in terms of principle and nature, both purity and impurity are pure. Therefore, the defiled sentiment of a single thought-moment inherently possesses the ten realms in its substance; they are mutually interfused and unhindered, hence called 'all pure.' A doubter may ask: 'Since a single thought-moment inherently possesses the three thousand realms, why do I not see them?' Answer: That they are not yet manifested proves that the substance is still deluded, not that they are not inherent in principle; this is doubt within [the stage of] verbal identity. Since they are not yet manifested in contemplative practice either, one thereupon verifies them through semblance [identity]: when semblance is awakened in the physical body born of father and mother, the five eyes, five ears, up to the five minds are all able to illuminate everywhere; since one's own body manifests the ten realms, one verifies that other bodies are also like this. Therefore, a person at the stage of semblance identity knows by inference that the hundred realms reside together in a single mind. When arriving at partial realization of the true, the physical body universally manifested can display the ten realms, and each [realm] again gives rise to the three karmic actions of the ten realms, so [the text] says 'it is also like this.' At the stage of fruition, having plumbed to the end the true mark of all phenomena, it is equal to the hundred realms inherently possessed in that nature. Therefore we know that the hundred realms inherently possessed in the nature are mutually interfused, vast, and all-pervading; the defiled mind merely limits itself, while the turbid substance is fundamentally pure."

First 67 of 150 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

十不二門指要鈔 — Classical Chinese