Chih-i’s interpretation of “Subtle” … discusses in detail the meaning and implications of the term “subtle” in thirty categories, but first he makes a distinction between relative subtlety and absolute subtlety. Relative subtlety refers to that which is subtle only in contrast to that which is crude. For example, the teachings of Mahāyāna in general are complete, great, and subtle in relative contrast to the incomplete, small, and crude Hinayāna teachings. Chih-i criticizes Fa-yün for using the term subtle only in the sense of a relative subtlety. Absolute subtlety, on the other hand, refers to that which is subtle in itself, and not merely in contrast to that which is crude. This is explained with reference to the Fourfold Teachings. In the Tripiṭaka Teaching, the Dharma is taught expediently in accordance with the capacity of the listener, and opposites (such as crude and subtle) are integrated by denying the worldly truth and comprehending the real truth. In the Shared Teaching, the emptiness doctrine is utilized to illuminate the fundamental identity of phenomena and reality. In the Distinct Teaching one “returns” to the conventional world, seeks the absolute as conventional reality which is identical with the real, and realizes that nirvāṇa is this world of saṃsāra. In the Perfect Teaching all of the extremes are integrated, and one realizes that there is nothing which is not the Buddha-dharma. As Chih-i says, “There is nothing which is relative, and nothing which is absolute” (T. 33, 697a7).

Once again we are dealing with something which cannot be adequately verbalized. Nevertheless, as Chih-i points out, since we must use words to describe it, the term “absolute” is the best we can do. The person who can attain insight into this “absoluteness” without recourse to words is like a horse which enters the stable just by catching a glimpse of a whip and does not need to be actually whipped to know where to go. Those of us who must have recourse to words are left with the task of dealing with Chih-i’s detailed verbal explanations and his discussion of the implications of “subtlety.”