四明尊者教行錄 2.35

2.35

The Yili poses a question: 'The profound text of the Lotus Sūtra states that the object can illuminate wisdom; although scriptural proof is cited and adduced, the principle is also difficult to understand.' The answer states: 'Following the provisional teachings, the principle cannot be grasped. If one proceeds from the ultimate exposition, the principle easily fuses. Taking the mind as the object, the mind can also illuminate; both the subject and the object are mind, and the substance of mind is all-pervasive. Mind and mind mutually illuminating is exceedingly clear in principle. Therefore, at the beginning of the contemplation of the inconceivable object, it says: "The inconceivable object is itself contemplation." On this basis, a fourfold differentiation can be made: object illuminates object; object illuminates wisdom; wisdom illuminates object; wisdom illuminates wisdom. Only one who illuminates can illuminate, yet this cannot be exhausted by explanation. One who illuminates should explain, yet this cannot be fully understood by illumination alone. Only one who explains can explain, yet this cannot be exhausted by illumination. One who explains should illuminate, yet this cannot be fully understood by explanation alone.' (Because a student asked about the eight lines beginning with 'Only one who illuminates,' I have accordingly evaluated them.) Now, if I may venture to evaluate the intention of this text, it is that above, the inconceivable object and wisdom were illuminated through the fourfold propositions. Fearing that a doubter might say: 'Whenever the inconceivable is established, the path of mental activity is cut off and the way of words is severed. Yet you conversely establish a fourfold differentiation, and every single phrase speaks of "illuminating"; is not each phrase an explanation, and is not illuminating a conceptualization? How can this be called the inconceivable object and wisdom?' Therefore, eight lines were further established pairing illumination with explanation, definitely affirming what is right and eliminating what is wrong. The intention is: only one who illuminates while forgetting conceptual attachments can truly illuminate; only one who explains while detached from written words can truly explain. Such an illuminator should explain, and such an explainer should illuminate. Thus, because conceptual attachments are forgotten, the illumination is perfectly interfused, and one can then explain with complete ease. Because written words are transcended, the explanation is itself completely easy, and one can then illuminate with perfect interfusion. Therefore, each of the four propositions manifests its accomplishment: thus, all day long explaining and illuminating, the path of words and conceptualization is severed; this is the noble explanation and noble silence. But if one is hindered by conceptual attachments while illuminating, or clings to words while explaining, then whether explaining or illuminating, it will be neither exhaustive nor fully understood. Why so? Because when one is hindered by conceptual attachments and illuminates, the illumination becomes one-sided; when one clings to words and explains, the explanation must encounter impediments. How could they be mutually interfused as in the four propositions above? Therefore, the four one-sided and foolish propositions all rebuke their faults, thereby supporting the designation of 'inconceivable.' In the text, the reciprocal phrasing of the propositions may seem difficult to perceive at first; but if one resolves them with this intention, then the path of explanation and realization will naturally become clear, and the designation of 'inconceivable' will again be illuminated. Still fearing that this general account might not be understood, I shall further annotate this meaning phrase by phrase.