釋淨土群疑論 2.5

2.5

I explain: Both the Prajñāpāramitā and the Guan jing are sacred teachings. The contemplation of forms and the contemplation of formlessness are neither of them mundane words; each stating that the other is deviant has profound intent. One must not rely on that Prajñāpāramitā to disparage that Guan jing. Not only would harbouring faith and slander together naturally bring about grave sin, but one would also have failed to comprehend the mutual harmony in the Buddha's sacred teachings. Why is this? These two sūtras speak in this way based on differences in persons, in training, and in understanding. As for being based on persons: those of shallow faculties are not yet able to contemplate the principle, so for them form-contemplation is provided, contemplating the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. Those of deep faculties are able to contemplate the true mark, so for them formlessness is spoken, contemplating the dharmakāya. When shallow persons study the profound, the profound Dharma is not medicine; amṛta cuts life short—the sūtras have explicit passages [on this]. When deep persons study the shallow, it does not constitute advancing along the path, and is thus called deteriorating practice—how could they advance in cultivation? Therefore, the Buddha taught these two instructions for the two types of faculties. As for being based on training: when beginners first enter the path, their contemplative practice is still dim and they cannot yet study the profound, so they must not be taught to practice this contemplation of the true mark. They are temporarily taught to contemplate forms to train their minds; only after later study is accomplished do they advance to cultivate formlessness. It is like entering the ocean, going from shallow to deep. Persons of long training are capable of advancing to study that contemplation of formlessness, yet if they cling to the form of that beginner's training, then in order to advance their practice, the former is denounced as deviant; it does not mean this is subsumed under wrong views. Just as a stingy person learns giving: once the obstacle of stinginess is removed, if he remains attached to cultivating the first pāramitā, the Buddha wishes to exhort him to advance to study śīla. If he did not disparage the former, there would be no way to practice the latter; thus he disparages giving and praises the practice of upholding the precepts. This is the Great Sage skilfully according with the capacities of living beings; foolish people do not know this, clinging to the text and losing the meaning. What is now called a 'deviant path' is of the same principle. As for being based on understanding: if one knows that form is emptiness, contemplating form is not deviant; if one is confused and thinks form is not empty, contemplating form is deviant. If one knows that emptiness is form, contemplating emptiness is not deviant; if one thinks emptiness is different from form, contemplating emptiness is deviant. This is an error in understanding leading to different paths, distinguishing itself as fine or flawed—how does it pertain to distinguishing correctness from deviance merely on the basis of the two objects of form and emptiness? If you understand this fundamental path, then contemplating form will always be correct; if you are confused about this intent, even contemplating emptiness will always be deviant. Splendid is this wondrous purport; I pray you examine its reasoning.