Flower ADORNMENT SUTRA
THE SEA OF TEACHINGS POURS OUT PROFOUNDLY. THE CLOUD Of DHARMA EXTENSIVELY UNFURLS. THE LIGHT OF WISDOM HAS NO BOUNDS. THE WONDROUS ELOQUENCE IS INEXHAUSTIBLE.
THE SEA OF TEACHINGS POURS OUT PROFOUNDLY. "The Teachings" means the Dharma handed down that was spoken by the Buddha; And it means the Buddhist Teachings which are as vast as the sea, and so are called "the sea of Teachings." This is a sea that has no bounds to it, no banks, and in the same way the Buddhist Teachings have no bounds. The sea of teachings is so deep that no one can determine its depth. The great sea and the Buddha's Teachings are both that way. The great ocean does not reject small streams. All rivers, lakes, streams and pools, mighty currents as well as tiny creeks flow into the sea; and once having flowed into the sea, they don't flow out of it again. Therefore it is said:
The thousand streams all
return to the sea,
That is, all
be they side-doors or outside ways, eventually will
return and take refuge with
Buddhism; yet Buddhism will
not go on to take refuge with some other religion.
The reason is that other religions are too 1imited--their
doctrines are too
THE LIGHT OF WISDOM HAS NO BOUNDS,
What is the size of the light of
wisdom? It is so
1. Unobstructed eloquence of
With unobstructed eloquence of phrasing, what one says is both well-stated and pleasing to hear. With unobstructed eloquence of dharmas, one dharma calls up limitless dharmas, yet those limitless dharmas all come back to a single dharma. The one is the limitless, and the limitless are also the one. They are infinitely limitless, one and yet not one. From a single dharma infinite dharmas are produced, yet they are not many. Limitless dharmas also return to a single dharma, yet they are not few. With the unobstructed eloquence of meanings, one can also discuss principles in an unobstructed way; and with the unobstructed eloquence of delight in speech, one enjoys speaking the Dharma. Why does a given person speak Dharma so well? It's because he likes to speak the Dharma. Why does another person not speak the Dharma very well? It's because he doesn't like to speak the Dharma, so when you suggest he speaks he says, "I'm not going to talk." When you encourage him to practice, he says, "I can't speak Dharma," making a face. You don't know if he wants to laugh or cry. Maybe he actually does want to talk, and is just saying he doesn't want to. Or he was intending to speak, but once you tell him he's supposed to, he refuses. That's not unobstructed eloquence of delight of speech. When one does have those four kinds of unobstructed eloquence, there is no way to exhaust the principles expressed, and no way to come to any end or boundary of the light of wisdom. They are inexhaustible.
BY VERBALIZING WHAT IS WORDLESS, THERE IS EXPLANATION OF PRINCIPLE CUT OFF FROM WORDS. BY TRANSFORMING WHAT IS CHANGELESS, THERE IS RESPONSE TO INFINITE POTENTIALS.
Basically true and actual principle is such that nothing can be said. Anything which is spoken is not true and actual, because for it to be spoken, it has to become something expressible in words. However, if you simply don't talk about that which words cannot express, no one will ever understand it. Therefore, one has to resort to using words and language, so THERE IS EXPLANATION OF PRINCIPLE CUT OFF FROM WORDS. Then one can describe the principle of there being nothing which can be said. What principle is that? It 1s the principle and substance of real mark, the principle of real mark which has no mark. There is no way to express that principle in words, but does that mean one doesn't talk? No. You still have to speak a little principle in order to reveal it. This is also like the bright pearl concealed within your clothing. Basically it does not need to be talked about-- you should simply know about it. But due to your confusion and lack of awareness, someone else has to tell you, "You have a priceless pearl within your clothes, so why don't you use it?" After they tell you about it, you are able to use the precious pearl. The pearl itself doesn't do any talking. It would never say, "I'm a precious pearl inside your clothes" why don't you use me?" It can't do that. Someone else has to talk about it. The principle cut off from words is that way too-someone has to point it out to you and say, "Your inherent Buddha nature is not different from that of the Buddha. If you cultivate, you are certain to become a Buddha." Why is that? It's because you are endowed with the Buddha nature for becoming a Buddha, which is also to be endowed with the seeds of the Buddhanature.
BY TRANSFORMING WHAT IS CHANGELESS, THERE IS RESPONSE TO INFINITE POTENTIALS. Basically in the substance and principle of true mark, the real mark of true suchness, nothing can be said--and it doesn't change.
According to conditions it does not change,
It constantly accords with conditions, yet it constantly never changes. It never changes, and yet it always accords with conditions. It's that way. And so it uses changes of non-change, the changes and transformations of changelessness, the movement of non-movement-- which is nothing other than stillness. That is, you see it as if moving, but its basic substance does not move. For cultivators, this means that upon seeing a state, you are not moved by that state--then that's the change of what has no change. You're not moved. It may look as if the person moves, but he doesn't, because his skill in samadhi is thick and deep. That's why according to conditions he doesn't change. He accords with conditions without changing, and THERE IS RESPONSE TO INFINITE POTENTIALS. There is intertwining of response and the Way. As it says:
Prayers issue forth from a thousand places,
There is response to potentials. In a thousand places someone calls out to Kuan Shin Yin Bodhisattva, and Kuan Yin Bodhisattva comes to the aid of those thousand people. If ten thousand people call out to Kuan Shih Yin, then Kuan Yin Bodhisattva helps ten thousand people solve their problems. But you have to have faith. If you don't, you won't have any response. If you do believe, the response will come. The response is like an electric lamp--if it's plugged in and you turn on the switch, the light will I go on. If you haven't plugged in the cord, and just turn on the switch, it won't go on because it's not in contact with the electric current. The light in that case has no place it comes from, and no place it goes to. But plug it in, and it will come or go as you will. That's an intertwining of response and the Way. That analogy may not fit the case exactly, but forced as it is, if you think about it, you'll see that response operates in about the same way.
WHAT THE ULTIMATE POSITION CONTAINS IS HARD FOR ORDINARY SENTIENTS TO MEASURE OUT.
WHAT THE ULTIMATE POSITION CONTAINS IS HARD FOR ORDINARY SENTIENTS TO MEASURE OUT. The ultimate position, the utmost rank, is the position of the Tenth Ground. Such a Bodhisattva is able to take in the Dharma of the Flower Adornment Sutra completely. He can totally accept those principles, whereas the Ninth Ground Bodhisattva is not completely able to. There is a further analogy for this. It's like the rain made to descend by the great Dragon King Sagara--only the great sea can hold it. No other place can take that rain, because there's just too much of it. The Flower Adornment Sutra is like the sea in being able to receive all the lesser streams. And only a Bodhisattva of the Tenth Ground --the ultimate position—can contain the Flower Adornment Sutra. Again, a Tenth Ground Bodhisattva himself is like the great sea in being able to take in all small streams. So when you lecture the Flower Adornment Sutra, however you lecture it, it has principle to it. Don't lecture it in a stiff and rigid way-- make it come alive. Lecture it whatever way makes sense to you. You can lecture it one way and then another, and in each case it will make sense. It just has to match up. We now are lecturing the Flower Adornment Sutra, but 11 doesn't really count as lecturing it. If it is truly lectured, then every single word, if discussed in detail, contains infinite and inexhaustible esoteric and wonderful principles. There's no way to speak them all, so we just talk about the meaning in general. We're not Tenth Ground Bodhisattvas, so how could we lecture it completely? I'm lecturing it, and I'm not a Tenth Ground Bodhisattva, and those of you listening to it aren't Tenth Ground Bodhisattvas either, so we can only know a little bit of it. It's as when you drink your fill of the water of the ocean and assuage your thirst—afterwards there's still just as much water in the sea. It didn't decrease. It's not that you and I each drink a belly full of sea water, and then the ocean is several gallons less. It doesn't work like that. It doesn't decrease at all. So when we lecture the Flower Adornment Sutra, we can lecture it and lecture it, yet I still haven't spoken it, and you still haven't heard it. That's because it you had heard it, you would have been enlightened long ago. And if I had spoken it, I would have long ago become enlightened. Neither you nor I have become enlightened, but today we understand a little bit of it, tomorrow a little more, and the next day a little more than that. We keep adding up those understandings, and in the future, one day we'll become enlightened. Just wait—you have to have perseverance and patience. Don't get anxious and say, "He's been lecturing it so long!" If you live to the age of sixty, you don't think it's a long time, so why do you think a six-year lecture series on the Flower Adornment Sutra is long—especially in the west where senior citizens "think young" and jog and dance. Why don't you instead like listening to the Flower Adornment Sutra more and more, the more you hear it? When I lecture it, the more I lecture, the more I like to. So I keep lecturing and lecturing.
RIDING ON THE POWER OF THE
TEACHINGS OF PRINCIPLE, IN GENERAL THERE
OPEN UP FOUR DOORS: ONE, THE GREAT INTENTION
PUT TOGETHER ANY TAKEN APART. TWO, ANCIENT
AND PRESENT DISAGREEMENTS ANY CONCURRENCES.
THREE, DIVISIONS INTO SCHOOLS ANY
NOW RIDING ON THE POWER OF THE TEACHINGS OF PRINCIPLE. To ride--like riding a horse, or taking a boat ride-means availing oneself of what you could call the power of the teachings of principle of the Great Vehicle, not the small one, but what actually means to be directly mounted upon the power of those teachings of principle. In so doing, IN GENERAL THERE OPEN UP FOUR DOORS. The power of the teachings of principle, when explained in a summary fashion, turns out to have four doors. Of them, ONE, the first, is THE GREAT INTENTION PUT TOGETHER ANY TAKEN APART. The first door tells how the great intention underlying the teachings of principle is divided up and put back together. TWO, the second, is ANCIENT AND PRESENT DISAGREEMENTS AND CONCURRENCES. "Ancient" means what's past, and "present" is talking about right now--the "right now" of the T'ang Dynasty, however, not the right now of today. The "present" for them is the past for us, for this is an old tape recording made during the T'ang period, and we have to count their "present" as ancient, not contemporary. Our "now" will turn into the past for those of the future. Here, ancient and present are considered in the light of what is not agreeable and what is -- meaning whether the opinions of those who commented on the Flower Adornment Sutra were right or not. THREE, DIVISIONS INTO SCHOOLS AND ESTABLISHMENTS OF TEACHINGS. This means what Schools were differentiated, and which Teachings were set up. FOUR, MUTUAL UNION IN FUSED INTERCONNECTION. The fourth door unites them all, fusing and connecting them, something like forging steel, making them into one.
NOW THE FIRST, FOR IN THE FLOW OF PROPAGATION AND EXPLANATION BY BOTH THE WESTERN REGION AND IN THE EASTERN EXPANSE, THEY TOOK THE SAGELY SPEECH OF ONE GENERATION AND EITHER OPENED IT INTO SCHOOLS AND DIVIDED TEACHINGS, OR ELSE EXPLAINED THE TEXTS OF SUTRAS, AND IN ALL OF THAT THERE WERE GAINS AND LOSSES.
This is the beginning, and so it
says NOW THE FIRST, the first door of
taking apart and putting together, FOR IN THE
FLOW OF PROPAGATION AND EXPLANATION BY BOTH
THE WESTERN REGION AND THE EASTERN
EXPANSE... "The Western Region" is India, and the
"Eastern Expanse" is China--since India lies west
of China, and China is to India's east.
China is also called the "Floral
Expanse." In the propagation of the Buddhadharma and
explanation of the Proper Teaching by the Dharma
Masters who constituted that flow--because
this is not talking about water flowing east
or west, or about the Buddhadharma flowing
from India to China, but the Dharma Masters--THEY
TOOK THE SAGELY SPEECH OF ONE
GENERATION, the Buddha's one life. The Buddha spoke
the Dharma for 49 years in over 300
assemblies, and the Sagely words that flowed forth
during that single lifetime are called the
Buddha's one generation of teachings of
principle in the sutras. "Sagely speech"
means what was said by the Sage--the Buddha--not what
some ordinary person said; but this also
includes some things that Bodhisattvas said,
and Arhats and gods. Yet when you come
right down to it, they had been sealed and
certified by the Buddha so that what they
said could be considered a Sutra or Shastra. They
took the Sagely Speech of one generation,
which basically was one. The Dharma Flower
Sutra and the Flower Adornment Sutra discuss Consciousness only, Dharma
Marks, yet the
T'ien T'ai School is based upon the Dharma
Flower Sutra, and the Hua Yen School is based
upon the Flower Adornment Sutra. Each Dharma
Master set up a little School of his own.
But you shouldn't think, "Ah, in the
future I'll set one up too. I'll become a
School." Just your having that thought right now
is a false thought. It's when you truly reach
the level that you can start a School that
you start one. When you haven't gotten to that
point, you can't have that kind of false
thinking. You say, "Well, then I won't start
a School." It also won't work not to set up a
School. You still have to establish one--but
only when you reach that level, not
before. When is that? It's when you give God an
order and God agrees. When you say,
"God," and God says, "Yes," and when you
call on earth and earth also consents, is the time
when you can do it. It's when the gods, dragons,
and others of the eightfold division
aid and support you, and run your publicity
campaign saying, "This is a Patriarch
who is establishing a School." They send the
faithful disciples dreams or visions of you,
or all manner of responses. The eightfold
division may tell them, "Hurry up and
go listen to the Sutra lecture." The people may
not have intended to go hear a Sutra lecture
at all, but in a dream someone says,
"How come you aren't going to hear the Sutra?
Such and such a person is lecturing
MOREOVER, THE UNDIVIDEDNESS OF THE INTENTION IN GENERAL HAS FIVE REASONS: ONE, BECAUSE PRINCIPLE BASICALLY HAS ONE FLAVOR, AND DIFFERENT PATHS RETURN TO THE SAME PLACE, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE DIVIDED, TWO, BECAUSE ONE SOUND UNIVERSALLY RESPONDS, AND ONE RAIN UNIVERSALLY NOURISHES. THREE, BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THE SAGE'S BASIC INTENTION WAS FOR THE SAKE OF A SINGLE MATTER, FOUR, BECAUSE WITH REGARD TO EACH AND EVERY TEXT, THE MULTITUDES OF UNDERSTANDINGS ARE NUT THE SAME, FIVE, BECAUSE THE MANY MODES OF SPEAKING DHARMA FORM TRIBUTARY STREAMS.
MOREOVER, THE UNDIVIDEDNESS OF THE INTENTION IN GENERAL HAS FIVE REASONS, In the previous section of text it began to discuss the first door. The Great Intention Put Together and taken apart, and said there were those who opened it up into Schools and divided it into Teachings, while others explained the texts of Sutras and how in all those various interpretations there were gains and there were losses. Now it talks about why the Great Meaning is undivided, there being in general five reasons. ONE, BECAUSE PRINCIPLE BASICALLY HAS ONE FLAVOR, AND DIFFERENT PATHS RETURN TO THE SAME PLACE. The first way it is not divided is from the point of view of its principle. There is only one true principle, and so it is said to be of a single flavor--the one flavor of truth. Also, "different paths return to the same place." There are different roads, but they all lead back to true principle. This is just:
A single root
divides into ten thousand
It's as in America there can be lots of people wanting to go to Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. standing for the principle and substance of ultimate reality. To reach it, one can take any one of many roads starting from any spot in each of the four directions and eight intermediate points. One doesn't necessarily have to begin the trip from San Francisco, or start out from New York City or Chicago. You can take any of a number of roads located in any direction, and reach Washington, D.C. That illustrates how principle is of a single flavor, and in this example Washington, D.C. is the single-flavored principle, while all other cities are the starting points of different roads which return to the same place. They go from Washington, D.C. to different places, but they all lead one back to that one same city. "Therefore it cannot be divided." That's the first reason there isn't any division into this one and that one.
BECAUSE ONE SOUND UNIVERSALLY RESPONDS,
AND ONE RAIN UNIVERSALLY NOURISHES. The
second reason is because: The "one
sound is the
Buddha's single sound, and that it
Buddha speaks the Dharma with
a single sound,
One sound universally responds, and "one rain universally nourishes." One kind of rain falls, but it nourishes a11 the myriad things everywhere, making them all delighted and causing them to flourish. In the Medicinal Herbs Chapter of the Dharma Flower Sutra, the analogy is of how Bodhisattvas receive the Bodhisattva Dharma rain, Arhats the Arhat rain of Dharma, and those Enlightened to Conditions obtain the Dharma rain of those Enlightened to Conditions. Ordinary living beings receive ordinary living being rain of Dharma--each receives the Dharma rain that suits it, so one rain universally nourishes, moistens every living being.
THREE, BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THE SAGE'S BASIC INTENTION WAS FOR THE SAKE OF A SINGLE MATTER. Before it talks about one sound universally responding and one rain universally nourishing--both constituting another meaning of undividedness. The third is the basic fundamental intent of the Buddha--what the Buddha originally meant. It was for the sake of a single matter that he appeared in the world. As the Dharma Flower Sutra says:
due to the causes and conditions of one
great matter did he appear in the
It was to cause all living beings to turn back from confusion and take refuge in En1ightenment--that great concern. That's because the Buddha had himself attained perfect great Enlightenment, and so he wanted to cause all living beings to also obtain that perfect, great Enlightenment. Therefore another reason it cannot be divided is because the Sage's original intention was for the sake of a single matter.
FOUR, BECAUSE WITH REGARD TO EACH AND EVERY TEXT, THE MULTITUDES OF UNDERSTANDING ARE NOT THE SAME. The fourth is that even though any given passage will be the same from Sutra to Sutra, it is understood in a multitude of ways. You have your explanation of it, and I have mine. It works the same with written commentaries: your commentary won't be the same as mine. Each has its good points and its bad points, so they are not the same.
FIVE, BECAUSE THE MANY MODES OF SPEAKING DHARMA FORM TRIBUTARY STREAMS. The fifth is that there are all kinds of ways of speaking Dharma--which gets to be really mixed up. In the Dharma Ending Age there are a thousand ways of discussing a single kind of dharma. When the Dharma is coming to its end, Demon Kings speak a thousand kinds of dharmas for one kind of dharma, saying "This is this dharma, and that is this dharma," until they've come up with a thousand different interpretations and you're totally lost and don't know which of the thousand are right. They say they're all right, but not to speak of recognizing them, you can't even remember them clearly. For example, he'll talk about one dharma, such as ignorance, and discuss it a thousand different ways so you can't possibly understand it. These "form tributary streams," that branch off the central flow, run off into dry beds, thus marking the end of the Dharma. The "stream" here doesn't refer to the central flow transmitted by Dharma Masters before; it means run-offs. The Dharma runs away--to where it can't be seen, forming tributary streams that end up at the furthest extremity from the source. How can the demons speak a thousand kinds of dharmas when the basic source is one? It's by running off into tributaries to come up with dharmas. Streams branch off and disappear. Rather than flowing to return to the great sea, they trickle away and dry up. With this last, the many modes of speaking dharma forming tributary streams, we have the five meanings of the undividedness of the intent.
DUE TO THOSE FIVE REASONS, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE DIVIDED. TO DIVIDE IT WOULD BE TO LEAD ONE TO GET EMOTIONALLY CAUGHT UP IN HETERODOX DOCTRINES, AND ENGAGE IN CONTENTIONS OVER RIGHTS AND WRONGS. FOR THAT REASON IT IS BETTER NOT TO DIVIDE IT.
DUE TO THOSE FIVE REASONS given in the previous text, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE DIVIDED. Those five aspects make it indivisible. TO DIVIDE IT WOULD BE TO LEAD ONE TO GET EMOTIONALLY CAUGHT UP IN HETERODOX DOCTRINES. A forced division would not be in accord with basic Buddhadharma. "Emotionally caught up" means one's impressions join with heterodox doctrines, or stir them up. "Heterodox doctrines" are deviant teachings-side doors and externalist ways--dharmas which are not in accord with the Buddhadharma. Confucius said:
To apply oneself to heterodox doctrines is injurious indeed.
If you investigate such off-the-track principles, it's bound to be harmful. You'll find your feelings converging with unorthodox outlooks instead of with the Proper Dharma if you start making discriminations. AND ENGAGE IN CONTENTIONS OVER RIGHTS AND WRONGS. Once you have heterodox doctrines, then you have rights and wrongs. You say yours is right and the other person's is wrong, but he says his is right and yours is wrong. Each speaks from his own point of view, maintaining his own correctness and your error, and no one will admit to being wrong. That's to "engage in contentions"--squabb1es and debates--in which each person makes a case for himself and fights off the opposition. Once that starts, there are rights and wrongs. FOR THAT REASON IT IS BETTER NOT TO DIVIDE IT. Inasmuch as once one divides it up one runs off to heterodox doctrines-- side doors and off-track ways-- and the fighting starts, therefore it's a whole lot better not to divide it up. Discriminations really should not be made, according to these five reasons. The next passage of text is going to match them with five reasons for making divisions.
AND YET THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR DIVISION TEACHINGS. ONE, ALTHOUGH THE PRINCIPLE IS OF ONE FLAVOR, THE EXPLANATIONS HAVE SHALLOWNESS AND PROFUNDITY. THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE DIVIDED, TO MAKE KNOWN PROVISIONAL AND ACTUAL.
I here were five reasons it is better not to divide it, but there will be even more reasons in favor of making divisions. That is why it says AND YET THERE ARE MANY REAS0NS FOR DIVISION INTO TEACHINGS. ONE, ALTHOUGH PRINCIPLE IS OF ONE FLAVOR as was stated before, nonetheless THE EXPLANATIONS of the teachings of that principle HAVE SHALLOWNESS AND PROFUNDITY. There are superficial teachings, and there are ones with depth. You can't consider the shallow ones to be deep, or the deep ones as shallow. The profound ones are profound and the superficial ones are superficial, and so you have make a clear distinction between them so they can be understood. So it says THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE DIVIDED. It follows that you have to let the average person know which are provisional dharmas and which are actual ones.
TWO, EVEN THOUGH THE BUDDHA'S IS A SINGLE SOUND, THE ACCORDINGS WITH POTENTIALS ARE DIFFERENT, SO THE TEACHINGS ARE DISTINCT. THREE, NOT YET DISCLOSING HIS BASIC INTENTION, HE SPOKE ACCORDING TO OTHERS' INTENTS, AND SO THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
TWO, EVEN THOUGH THE BUDDHA'S IS A SINGLE SOUND. ..Although from the point of view of the Buddha he speaks the Dharma with a single sound, THE ACCORDINGS WITH POTENTIALS and conditions of living beings ARE DIFFERENT, SO THE TEACHINGS ARE DISTINCT. Living beings can have keen faculties or dull ones. if sharp, they are intelligent, while the dul1-facultied are stupid. If you look at it from the point of view of the potentials of living beings, the teachings come out different. THREE, NOT YET DISCLOSING HIS BASIC INTENTION, HE SPOKE ACCORDING TO OTHERS' INTENTS, AND SO THEY ARE DIFFERENT. "Not yet disclosing his basic intention..." That is, only due to the causes and conditions of one great matter did the Buddha appear in the world. Yet for forty years, the Buddha never talked about his basic intent, and only after four decades did the Buddha speak the Dharma Flower Sutra, which disclosed the original intention of his heart. During the period when he was not yet disclosing it he spoke the Store Teaching, the Connective Teaching, and the Separate Teaching. They don't mention what the Buddha basically had in mind. At the very end his teaching disclosed the Buddha's basic hope, that is, the hope that the Buddha had cherished from the start. But while he was not yet disclosing his basic intention, he spoke according to others' intents, that is, the intentions of living beings. When he talked according to his own intention, the Buddha talked about what he himself had certified to and obtained in his one lifetime. When he talked according to the intentions of others, he spoke Dharma that suited the potentials of the living beings using expedient devices to gather them in. There is also speech that accords with both his own and others' intentions: half talking of his own certification and half according with the potentialities of beings in speaking Dharma. When it was according to the intentions of others, the teachings were different and his methods of speaking Dharma were not the same.
FOUR, BECAUSE THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE "CONNECTIVE" AND "SEPARATE" SPOKE ACCORDING TO THE REVEALED. FIVE, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH ONE DIVIDES THE PROVISIONAL AND ACTUAL, ONE MUST WELL UNDERSTAND THE BUDDHA'S INTENT IN HAVING AN OPENING AND DISCLOSING.
FOUR the fourth reason for dividing, is BECAUSE THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE "CONNECTIVE" AND "SEPARATE" SPOKE...Its connective aspect was common to all Sutras, and what was separate was special to a given Sutra. Only that Sutra would talk about that particular principle, and none of the other Sutras would talk about that particular principle. Not one of the other Sutras would discuss it. To consider connection and separateness is to speak ACCORDING TO THE REVEALED, in terms of the Revealed, not the Secret Teaching. All can know of, listen to, and easily understand the revealed. There is nothing secret in it-- secret being what is spoken for one person without another person knowing it, and spoken for that other person without the first person knowing it. When the two people don't know that about each other, it is called secret dharma. Now, what should be divided is not the secret, hidden dharma but the revealed teaching. If one just speaks according to the revealed, one can divide up the principle.
FIVE, the fifth reason for dividing it is BECAUSE ALTHOUGH ONE DIVIDES THE PROVISIONAL AND ACTUAL, the principles of the secret and the revealed teachings not being the same, nonetheless you can't form attachments. ONE MUST WELL UNDERSTAND THE BUDDHA'S INTENT. That means, you need to understand what use the Buddha was making of it when he spoke any given principle. You have to ask yourself, "Why did he speak the provisional Teaching? Oh, he spoke the provisional for the sake to be actual. Why is there an actual teaching? Oh, it's because he opened the provisional to reveal the actual." You have to see the intent behind the Buddha's having spoken a particular Sutra of teaching of principle at a certain time. "Why did he speak that Sutra? He was speaking that kind of Dharma for that kind of living being." For people with acute faculties he spoke the Dharma of Prajna. For people with dull faculties he spoke the Dharma of causes and conditions. If you spoke Prajna for them, they fundamentally wouldn't understand. It would be as if someone said, "If you understand, I won't discuss what you can understand. If you don't understand, even if I talk you won't understand." The person would say, "What kind of talk is that? What's he talking about?" Why wouldn't he understand? It's because he's dull-witted, so he'll say, "That person's trying to put something over on me. Nobody ever said any such thing." That's because he couldn't say it, so he figures everyone else is just the way he is-- unable to talk tike that. If you speak that kind of Dharma for him, he won't understand. If you try to get him to understand, he'll still say you aren't right, that there is no such thing. All you can do is say there 1s no such thing: that in this world there is no such thing, yet there is not not any such thing. If you claim it exists, that's an attachment, and it's even more of an attachment to assert it does not exist. All dharmas are Buddhadharmas, and none can be got at. The Great Master the Sixth Patriarch said, "If I had a hair's worth of dharma to transmit to you, then I would be cheating you." Since that's the case, what do existence and non-existence matter? They don't. So what need is there to be so attached? What need is there for arguments and debates? We say, "I'm right and you're wrong," but there's not a right or wrong. Each and every dharma is the Buddhadharma, and none can be obtained. It's unobtainable Dharma, that is true Dharma.
must well understand the Buddha's intent
IN HAVING AN OPENING AND DISCLOSING.
very last someone asked the Buddha, "The
Buddha spoke so many Sutras, and how should
we propagate them?" The Buddha replied,
"When did I ever speak Sutras? I never
said a single word, so how can you say I spoke
Sutras?" Would you say there was or wasn't
any such thing as that? The Buddha, such a
greatly enlightened One wouldn't admit
having said what he'd said. What's this all
about? It's that in the Dharma that is spoken
there is no dharma which can be said.
It's just to get people free from their attachments.
To assert existence is an attachment,
and so is an assertion of non-existence.
Not to pay any attention to being or
non-being is to have no impediments. Because
there is no impediment, he is not