法華玄義釋籤 7.18

7.18

次明智照境者為三：先敘意，次料簡，三正釋。初文破性計成不思議，又二：先明破計，次明立法。初文先立性計，次略不出破，但注「云云」。初文「四句墮性」者，如《止觀》第三及《淨名玄》等說。若離性過皆不可說，故云「如別記」。次明為他隨機遍立四悉因緣可作四說，如《止觀》第五記。次料簡中先問中「智能照境如常所論，境亦能照智不」者，為顯不可思議，故有此問。次答中三：先正答，次引證，三舉譬。初文者，還依不思議答，故能相照。何者？智既是心，境亦是心，既俱是心、俱是法界，心心相照有何不可？故引《仁王》證成相照，智處是境，當知境智俱名般若，故得說境及境照俱名實相。次譬中，鏡面如文，地生芽如境生智，芽生地如智照境，此譬猶分，未是境智體一而展轉相照相發，故說不可盡，恐妨後義是故且置。次正明智照境中，取向類智照前諸境。前智類中三藏有七、通教有五、別圓各四。文云「七智照二乘十如」者，三藏四：謂一五停四念，二四善根，三四果，四支佛。通教三：謂聲聞、支佛、入空菩薩。藏通菩薩及別教四十心智皆云「兩屬」者，上求未極仍屬菩薩。十地亦言「兩屬」者，約教證道以分二義，又此二義謂次不次。又此二義復有上求下化二義。「總略如此細捒（云云）」者，「捒」字音數，謂莊捒也。今謂安置，對當如莊捒也。如五停去大分有七，委細而言如五停自緣五境不同，如治貪欲但緣六道中可愛十如，治瞋恚但緣六道中可憎十如，餘三例說。四念但緣自身心陰六道無常，從煖頂去至世第一或遍上下、或捨上緣下。四果但緣聲聞法界，緣覺但緣支佛法界，亦應分四果所照不同，支佛又分別聞法不聞法等，餘例可知。如是七智皆求拙度，故云「總略」。六度細作，例此可知。次照因緣四諦中，但以當教智照當教諦文相最顯。次照七二諦中云「八智照顯中」者，且以別四照別，圓四照圓。若論相入，應以通真照通真及圓別兩真，別俗照圓真，若接通教必須聖位，若接別者但接賢位，賢位屬教故云也。故云「可以意得」。次照五三諦中，言「前七智照無中之二諦」者，前三藏二諦既無中道不成三諦。今以二十智照於三諦，不可棄七而全不論，故便列之。通雖無中，以含中故則或二或三，亦且從二為第二句，故云「屬真」。次「以八智照顯中」者，通約當教始終言之，故云「假中」。若論二接，應言通真照別中、通真照圓中、別俗照圓中，各對本智及以本境合成三諦，此中便對中論四句結成，故云「即空」等。次明「照一實」者，此亦置別從通，非但通於四悉，亦乃通四四諦，故云「生滅」等。先列四實，次對四教。言「前後諸實（云云）」者，文但分別四實不同，應更分判諸實麁妙及開權等。次明「照無諦」者，先通序意，次正明照境。初文者，亦且置別存通如前說（云云）。次「前無諦」下判，次「若就」下開上諸智，通論開者非不須悟，此明無諦故斥通無。以從別無，別又約證者，防語見故，故須言悟。無名近證，故須言之。乃至以此一無遍開前來一切諸智，同入此無，共成實智，即是今經之正意也。當知二十並是空拳，雖復空拳，漸誘方便皆不唐捐，況復開時即權而實。今從勝說故曰雙非，故權即是非權非實。

Next, the illumination of objects by wisdom is explained in three parts: first, presenting the intention; second, evaluating distinctions; third, the correct explanation. The first part refutes calculations of inherent nature to establish the inconceivable, and it also has two parts: first, explaining the refutation of calculations; second, explaining the establishment of Dharma. In the first part, it first establishes the calculations of inherent nature, and next, it briefly omits the refutation, merely noting 'and so forth.' In the first part, 'the four phrases falling into inherent nature' is as explained in the third fascicle of Zhiguan and the Profound Meaning of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, and so forth. If one is free from the faults of inherent nature, all are ineffable, hence it says 'as in the separate record.' Next, it explains that for the sake of others, according to their capacities, the conditions of the four siddhāntas are universally established and four explanations can be given, as in the fifth fascicle of the Notes on Zhiguan. Next, in the evaluation of distinctions, the initial question—'Wisdom being able to illuminate objects is as commonly discussed, but can objects also illuminate wisdom?'—is asked to manifest the inconceivable. In the reply, there are three parts: first, the correct reply; second, citing proof; third, presenting analogies. In the first part, the reply is still based on the inconceivable, so that they can illuminate each other. Why? Since wisdom is mind and the object is also mind—since both are mind and both are the dharma realm—what objection can there be to mind and mind illuminating each other? Thus the Benevolent Kings Sūtra is cited to substantiate mutual illumination. Where wisdom is, is the object; one should know that both object and wisdom are called prajñā, and therefore both object and the object's illumination can be called the true mark. Next, in the analogy, the mirror's face is as in the text: the ground producing the sprout is like the object producing wisdom, and the sprout producing the ground is like wisdom illuminating the object. This analogy is still partial and does not yet capture the essence of object and wisdom being one and mutually illuminating and activating each other; therefore, it cannot be fully expressed, and fearing it might hinder subsequent meanings, it is set aside for now. Next, in directly explaining wisdom illuminating objects, the previously classified wisdoms are taken to illuminate the aforementioned objects. Among the previous classes of wisdom, the Tripiṭaka Teaching has seven, the Shared Teaching has five, and the Separate and Perfect Teachings each have four. As for the text stating 'Seven wisdoms illuminate the ten suchnesses of the two vehicles,' the Tripiṭaka Teaching has four: first, the five methods for stilling the mind and the four applications of mindfulness; second, the four wholesome roots; third, the four fruits; fourth, pratyekabuddhas. The Shared Teaching has three: namely, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas who enter emptiness. That the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka and Shared Teachings and the wisdom of the forty minds of the Separate Teaching are all said to 'belong to both' is because their upward seeking is not yet ultimate, so they still belong to bodhisattvas. That the ten bhūmis are also said to 'belong to both' distinguishes two meanings in terms of the teaching path and the realization path; furthermore, these two meanings refer to sequential and non-sequential. Moreover, these two meanings again contain the two meanings of seeking above and converting below. 'Such is the general summary; fine sorting (and so forth)': the character shuo is pronounced shu, meaning to arrange or sort out. Here it means placement, corresponding like arranging. For instance, from the five methods for stilling the mind onward, broadly there are seven, but speaking in detail, the five methods for stilling the mind individually focus on five different objects: for curing greed, one focuses only on the ten suchnesses of what is lovable in the six destinies; for curing hatred, one focuses only on the ten suchnesses of what is repulsive in the six destinies; the other three are explained by analogy. The four applications of mindfulness focus only on the impermanence of the six destinies in one's own body, mind, and aggregates. From heat and summit onward to the worldly foremost dharmas, one either encompasses higher and lower universally, or abandons the higher to focus on the lower. The four fruits focus only on the śrāvaka dharma realm, and pratyekabuddhas focus only on the pratyekabuddha dharma realm; one should also distinguish differences in what the four fruits illuminate, and pratyekabuddhas are further distinguished into those who have heard the Dharma and those who have not, and so forth; the rest may be understood by analogy. In this way, all seven wisdoms seek clumsy deliverance, hence it says 'general summary.' The six perfections, treated in detail, can be understood by analogy with this. Next, in illuminating dependent origination and the four noble truths, using the wisdom of a given teaching to illuminate the truths of that same teaching is the most evident textual presentation. Next, in illuminating the seven twofold truths, when it says 'eight wisdoms illuminate the manifested middle,' this tentatively refers to the four of the Separate illuminating the Separate, and the four of the Perfect illuminating the Perfect. If one discusses mutual penetration, one should use the true [truth] of the Shared to illuminate the true of the Shared as well as both true [truths] of the Perfect and Separate, and the conventional of the Separate to illuminate the true of the Perfect; if one connects to the Shared Teaching, it must be at the noble stage; if one connects to the Separate, it connects only to the worthy stage; because the worthy stage belongs to the teaching [path], it is stated thus. Hence it says 'it can be grasped by reflection.' Next, in illuminating the five threefold truths, regarding the statement 'the previous seven wisdoms illuminate the two truths devoid of the middle': since the previous two truths of the Tripiṭaka Teaching lack the middle way, they do not constitute the three truths. Now, using twenty wisdoms to illuminate the three truths, one cannot discard the seven and neglect them entirely, so they are readily listed. Although the Shared lacks the middle, because it contains the middle, it can be either two or three, and tentatively following two as the second phrase, it is said to 'belong to the true.' Next, 'using eight wisdoms to illuminate the manifested middle' speaks generally of the beginning and end of the teaching itself, hence it says 'provisional and middle.' If one discusses the two connections, one should say the true of the Shared illuminates the middle of the Separate, the true of the Shared illuminates the middle of the Perfect, and the conventional of the Separate illuminates the middle of the Perfect, each corresponding to its fundamental wisdom and fundamental object to unite into the three truths; here it is directly concluded against the four lines of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, hence it says 'identically empty,' and so on. Next, explaining 'illuminating the one ultimate': here too, the distinct is set aside to follow the shared; it is not only shared across the four siddhāntas, but also shared across the four fourfold truths, hence it says 'arising and ceasing,' and so on. First it lists the four ultimates, and next pairs them with the four teachings. The phrase 'the preceding and subsequent ultimates (and so forth)' means that the text merely distinguishes differences among the four ultimates, and one should further classify and evaluate whether the various ultimates are crude or wondrous, the opening of the provisional, and so on. Next, explaining 'illuminating the truthless': first it generally introduces the intention, and next directly explains illuminating the object. The first part also tentatively sets aside the distinct to preserve the shared, as explained before (and so forth). Next, under 'the previous truthlessness,' it evaluates; next, under 'if we proceed,' it opens the aforementioned wisdoms. Discussing opening generally, it is not that awakening is not needed, but here, in explaining truthlessness, it rejects the truthlessness of the Shared. In following the truthlessness of the Separate, the Separate is further taken in terms of realization to guard against verbal views, so it is necessary to speak of awakening. Truthlessness is close to realization, hence it must be mentioned. Extending to using this single truthlessness to universally open all the preceding wisdoms so that they enter this truthlessness together and collectively accomplish true wisdom—this is precisely the primary intention of the present sūtra. One should know that all twenty are empty fists; yet although they are empty fists, the expedients of gradual inducement are not in vain, and all the more so when they are opened, the provisional is identical to the real. Now, speaking from the superior, it is called 'neither of the two,' so that the provisional is identical to neither-provisional-nor-real.