北山錄 2.4.4

2.4.4

When Great Master Zhiyi dwelt on Mount Tiantai), his "threefold contemplation in a single mind" (referring to mahāprajñā, the mahā-dharmakāya, and mahānirvāṇa. First, entering emptiness from the provisional: contemplating form as immediately empty, and thus manifesting the dharmakāya; second, entering the provisional from emptiness: contemplating emptiness as immediately form, and thus manifesting prajñā; third, the equality of emptiness and the provisional: stating that form and emptiness are not different, and this is therefore nirvāṇa) accomplished the three virtues of the perfect letter *i* (these three aforementioned dharmas are mutually requisite and fulfilled; they are called the "three virtues," and also called the "perfect letter *i*". The three dots of the Sanskrit letter *i* are like the three eyes upon the face of Maheśvara), which he derived from Nāgārjuna. Jiaxiang's dual practice of the provisional and the real accomplished the full endowment of compassion and wisdom (Hui[ji] was a monk of Jiaxiang Monastery in Kuaiji, whose learning traversed the inner and outer [teachings], who excelled in the sūtras, vinaya, and treatises, and who composed commentaries on the *Brahmā Net Sūtra*, *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, etc. Because of great compassion, he delighted in liberating sentient beings; because of great wisdom, he delighted in severing [delusions] and realizing [the fruit]. They rely upon each other like a person's two feet), which he derived from the *Avataṃsaka* (this is attaining the purport of true nature). Bodhidharma focused his thought on wuwei without thinking or worrying, which he derived from nature-emptiness (he arrived here during the Tianjian reign era of the Liang). Yet in recent times, people do not know that emptiness is not separate from the provisional; discarding existence to seek emptiness, deviant teachings have arisen from this (because true emptiness is not separate from provisional existence). How can it be that those who tread the conventional know that the provisional is not separate from emptiness (those who tread phenomenal things must know that phenomenal things rely upon emptiness), and thus realize that what I do is not called conventional (although conventional, if one can realize one's person, how could it be called conventional)? Those who dwell in the ultimate know that the ultimate is not separate from the provisional, and thus illuminate that my non-doing is not called the ultimate (those who dwell in the ultimate, if able to know that the ultimate is revealed through the conventional, then do not grasp at the ultimate and stagnate themselves). Therefore, the Great Sage preserved the triple realm as non-arising; the two vehicles annihilated the triple realm as non-arising (the Mahāyāna speaks of the ultimate by directly identifying with the conventional; the Hīnayāna speaks of the ultimate by annihilating the conventional). The partial and the perfect are superior and inferior in this regard (the Mahāyāna attains liberation through perfect penetration; the Hīnayāna stagnates itself through partial clinging). A sūtra says: "Although knowing that all buddha-realms and sentient beings are empty, one constantly cultivates the pure land to teach and transform all living beings" (although knowing that characterized phenomena are empty, one does not abandon liberating sentient beings). This is called walking the Middle Way. Thus, when casting gold or painting silk, who could call it existence? When crossing the legs and closing the eyes, who could call it emptiness (when one understands within intentional activity, who could say that the marks of intentional activity fall into existence? When one realizes within non-activity, who could say that non-activity falls into the emptiness of non-activity)? Only those who can embody and realize practicing along the non-path to penetrate and join the Buddha path can begin to be spoken to of the ultimate (only those who can embody and realize the non-path and can penetrate and join the Buddha path may discuss the utmost principle). What can those of narrow and solitary views say of this (how could those who are confused about emptiness and attached to existence know this path)? There was [a monk named] Zhibao who was scrupulous about his reputation and integrity, standing solitary and aloof; he was able to win renown for upholding the vinaya, but could not empty his mind to accord with the Dao (merely clinging firmly to minor moral codes, he was blind to the way of perfect penetration). In cold, he would enter the water; in heat, he would approach the fire; when thirsty, he would eat salt. His death was mournful, and with pity he became a temple spirit. Although he exerted his discipline with sincere devotion, he did not know whence the Dao arises. Cold and heat are the constant orders of heaven and earth, yet he was still obstinate and went against them (stubborn and perverse); how much less could he merge his mind with external things and the self (the twentieth patriarch, named Jayata, arrived in the city of Rājagṛha and saw a dhūta monk who prostrated and chanted throughout the six periods of the day, having few desires and knowing contentment, constantly sitting without lying down, and eating only one meal a day. The Venerable One told the assembly, "What do you think of this dhūta?" The assembly said, "He is inconceivable, constantly cultivating pure conduct. Is this the Dao? Indeed, it is as the Venerable One says." [Jayata] said, "Now this dhūta will before long fall, for he is vastly distant from the Dao; because having something to attain in the mind is not called the Dao." The assembly said, "How do you know?" The Venerable One said, "I do not seek the Dao, nor do I fall into inversion; I do not prostrate during the six periods, nor do I show slight or arrogance; I do not constantly sit, nor am I indolent; I do not eat one meal, nor do I eat assorted meals; I do not know contentment, nor am I greedy." When the dhūta heard this, he immediately gave rise to respect. In Tianzhu he was called the all-wandering dhūta, who was Vasubandhu)? Therefore, in life he toiled his body, and in death he sank into ignominy. Yet for the Hīnayāna, compared to the Mahāyāna, upholding the vinaya is breaking precepts (as the *Yogācāra* says: if a bodhisattva sees a sentient being about to commit evil karma, he cuts off that being's life and himself incurs the karma of killing, in order to make that being escape a body of suffering, etc.); energetic diligence is indolence (indulging in and dallying with minor dharmas is indolence); faith is an obstruction to wisdom (having faith in the small fruit and not giving rise to great wisdom): the principle is evident here. Those who grasp at forgetting words as being the Dao are indeed quite similar to this. He who speaks without understanding words speaks rash words; he who does not speak without understanding words speaks cautious words; he who speaks by inheriting words speaks learned words (inheriting the words of others); he who understands words and does not speak speaks quiet words. If one desires to eliminate words but does not succeed in the mind that forgets words, then although the echo is quieted outwardly, the passions remain agitated inwardly; this is indeed not forgetting them (though the mouth suppresses words, if the mind pursues fame and profit, this is not succeeding in the mind that forgets words). One who can realize that words arise from things, that each and every thing transforms of itself, and that the speaker also transforms of himself, speaks all day long and is constantly silent; this is called truly forgetting words (one who, though speaking, has a mind unattached). And in the sūtra, Vimalakīrti's silence followed upon all the previous bodhisattvas having spoken until words were exhausted (not speaking is truly entering the non-dual Dharma gate); what more was there to say? Zhuangzi's "Wuwei did not answer" was addressed to Zhi's northern wandering; because that man could not embody words as directly being the Dao, he did not answer (answering means seeking an answer; one's own verification does not ask for an answer). As the sūtra says: "This Dharma cannot be shown; the characteristics of words are extinguished and quiescent" (text from the *Lotus Sūtra*; this discusses the characteristics of the ultimate truth)—could it be that it is not spoken? Therefore, prajñā and upāya are the two endowments of the Perfect School; if one discards expedient means, prajñā shines in isolation (in Sanskrit, *prajñā*; here it is called wisdom. In Sanskrit, *upāya-kauśalya*; here it is called expedient means. Expedient means and wisdom rely on each other as essence and function. If one discards the function of expedient means, the essence of prajñā shines in isolation). Therefore, the utmost Dao integrates heaven and earth, embraces the myriad things, and sets transformations in motion. One who attains it enters a single dust particle and expands through the dharmadhātu (a single dust particle is not narrow; the dharmadhātu is not broad); one who loses it travels the dharmadhātu and is constricted within a single dust particle (for one who does not attain its Dao, though it be the dharmadhātu, it is narrower than a fine dust particle). Between Mount Tai and the tip of an autumn hair,