法華文句記 8.184

8.184

三明衣意中，文引《中阿含》第五黑齒比丘訴佛者，準彼《中含》第三，明人有五去文相應也。彼經舍利子相應品《水喻經》云：「佛在給孤獨，舍利子告諸比丘：我說五陰惱有五緣。云何為五？」即以五喻喻於三業。更檢第五經，人有五者秖是三業，單善為三，俱善為一，俱惡為一，若更作雙善為三句，即成八句。惡邊定無單雙者，單善即是雙惡，雙善即是單惡，故不得有惡邊句也。經中不作餘三句者，或舉五知八，或是隨機。有文中初云身惡口意善者，恐誤。準合喻中秖有單善，但應云身善口意惡，口善身意惡，意善身口惡。故初喻云「納衣」等者，此是身善口意不善，以合文云「念用身淨棄於口意」。口善中喻者，披草避熱身相不善掬水不稱，即意不善，水得到口且名曰善，文云「若掬若手」者，秖是手掬耳。《切韻》釋「掬」者，手取也。亦有單作匊。雖身口俱醜，但為止渴故名意善。若欲喻三雙善者，準單思之。喻三俱善者，池既寬涼入則身善，不匊口善止渴意善。「婆沙第八云念罵是一語」等者，《論》第十〈雜揵度智品〉中問曰：行時得罵，云何觀察名句身等，令恚心不生？答曰：或有說者，阿拘盧奢秦言罵，拘盧奢秦言喚聲，我今不應念其阿字，若有阿字是名為罵，若無阿字即是喚聲。當知西方有三合聲，阿與拘盧奢合方成名句，乃名為罵。彼方此方卑陋稱讚斯例甚多，如云尸羅、羼提，於此未為端正之辭，彼方乃是二波羅蜜。「又觀此罵字」等者，此方亦有顛倒即成讚罵，如見客去，命云「去早」即名為留，若云「早去」即名發遣，發遣是罵，留即是讚。如正食遇客，若云「來早」即是罵也，若云「早來」即是讚也。世人執覽定有前後，共為讚罵，妄情聚積言聲本無。「又罵是一界少分」等者，屈曲意思行蘊法處，法界少分所攝，此借《婆沙》文為所觀境，乃用四句三假觀之，以聲對於根識及空，推無自性，成就性相方名即空。又罵既是聲，聲界有八，有執受無執受大種為因，各有有情名非有情名、可意不可意。有情身中所發音聲名有執受，眾生語聲有詮表故。拍手等聲非詮表故，風林河等名為執受。無執受中有情名者，所謂化人語聲，雖無執受能詮表故，餘例思知。今此罵聲既是有執受有情名不可意聲，但是八中之一，然由計其初後而成名句。若言聲界是罵，八方是罵，今猶無七云何名罵？況復一中念念不住，聲入少分色陰少分。「罵少」等者，觀我既是所罵之境，若罵色時即不罵心，罵心之時即不罵色，形顯受等準此可知。「成就自彼」等者，彼自攬聲以成名句而謂是罵，我觀因緣念念不住，此觀因緣也。「又罵是一字」去，觀相續也。「又能罵」去，對推相待。「用空」者，通教也。故知借彼《婆沙》因緣之境，一一推之便成即空，語略意廣，具如《止觀》入空無生觀中已說。

Third, in explaining the intention behind the robe, the text cites the fifth [fascicle] of the Madhyama Āgama where the black-toothed bhikṣu complained to the Buddha; according to the third [fascicle] of that Madhyama Āgama, the text explaining that 'people have five paths' corresponds to this. The Water Simile Sūtra in the Śāriputra-saṃyukta of that sūtra states: 'The Buddha was in Anāthapiṇḍada's [park]; Śāriputra addressed the monks: "I say that the annoyance of the five aggregates has five conditions. What are the five?"' That is, using five similes to illustrate the three karmas. Examining further the fifth sūtra, that people have five [types] refers simply to the three karmas: three are single goodness, one is all good, and one is all evil. If one further makes dual goodness into three propositions, it would make eight propositions. There is definitely no single or dual on the side of evil, because a single good is itself dual evil, and a dual good is itself a single evil; thus there cannot be propositions on the side of evil. That the sūtra does not make the other three propositions is either mentioning five to know eight, or adapting to faculties. In some texts, the beginning says 'body evil, speech and mind good,' which is likely an error. According to the matched similes, there is only single good; it should only say: body good, speech and mind evil; speech good, body and mind evil; mind good, body and speech evil. Thus the first simile says 'rag robes,' and so on; this is bodily good while speech and mind are unwholesome, matching the text's 'mindfulness using bodily purity and discarding speech and mind.' In the simile for good speech: parting the grass to escape the heat, the physical appearance is not good; scooping the water inappropriately is mental unwholesomeness; the water reaching the mouth is provisionally called good. When the text says 'whether cupping or with the hands,' it simply means cupping with the hands. The Qieyun explains 'jū' as taking with the hands; it is also written simply as 匊. Although both body and speech are unsightly, simply because it quenches thirst it is called mental goodness. If one wishes to illustrate the three dual goods, deduce it by analogy with the single ones. The simile for the three being entirely good: since the pond is spacious and cool, entering it is bodily goodness; not needing to cup with hands is speech goodness; quenching thirst is mental goodness. As for 'the eighth [fascicle] of the Vibhāṣā says that mindful cursing is a single phrase,' and so forth: in the tenth [fascicle] of the Vibhāṣā, the 'Chapter on Knowledge' in the Miscellaneous Piṭaka, the question asks: 'When walking, one receives cursing; how should one contemplate the bodies of names, phrases, and so forth, so that anger does not arise?' The answer says: 'Some say: ākrośa is rendered in Qin as cursing; krośa is rendered in Qin as the sound of calling out. I now should not be mindful of its letter ā; if there is the letter ā it is called cursing, but if there is no letter ā it is merely the sound of calling out. One should know that in the Western lands there are three combined sounds; only when ā is combined with krośa does it complete a name and phrase, only then is it called cursing.' In that region and this region, instances of low-vulgar terms and praise are very numerous like this, just as with śīla and kṣānti: here they are not elegant words, but in that region they are two pāramitās. As for 'again contemplate this word of cursing,' and so forth: in this region, reversal also constitutes praise or cursing; just as seeing a guest leaving, telling him 'go early' is called detaining him, whereas saying 'leave early' is called expelling him—expelling is cursing, while detaining is praise. Just as when encountering a guest while eating, saying 'come early' is cursing, whereas saying 'early to arrive' is praise. Worldly people, grasping and observing, fix an order of before and after, mutually constituting praise and cursing; this is accumulated through false sentiments, while the sound of the words originally does not exist. As for 'moreover cursing is a minor part of one realm,' and so forth: tortuous intentions are the saṃskāra aggregate and dharma-āyatana, subsumed under a minor part of the dharma-dhātu. This borrows the text of the Vibhāṣā as the object of contemplation, and uses the four propositions and three nominalities to contemplate it; contrasting sound with sense-faculties, consciousness, and emptiness, deducing lack of intrinsic nature, realizing that nature and characteristics are only then called identical to emptiness. Furthermore, since cursing is sound, there are eight categories of the sound-realm: caused by appropriated and non-appropriated great elements, each having sentient-designation and non-sentient-designation, agreeable and disagreeable. Sounds emitted from within the bodies of sentient beings are called appropriated, because the speech-sounds of living beings have expressiveness. Sounds such as clapping hands lack expressiveness, while wind, forests, rivers, and the like are called [non-]appropriated. Among non-appropriated, those with sentient-designation refer to the speech-sounds of magically created beings; although non-appropriated, they can express meaning; the rest can be deduced by analogy. Now this sound of cursing, being an appropriated, sentient-designated, disagreeable sound, is merely one among the eight; yet because of calculating its beginning and end, a name and phrase are formed. If one says the sound-realm is cursing, all eight would have to be cursing; now seven are absent, how can it be called cursing? What is more, within the one, it does not abide from moment to moment; it is a minor part of the sound-sense-base and a minor part of the form aggregate. As for 'cursing a minor part,' and so on: contemplating that I am the object cursed, if form is cursed, mind is not cursed; if mind is cursed, form is not cursed; shape, color, feeling, and so forth can be known by following this. As for 'completed by oneself and the other,' and so forth: the other himself grasps sound to form names and phrases and considers it cursing, while I contemplate causes and conditions as not abiding from moment to moment; this is contemplating causes and conditions. From 'moreover cursing is one letter' onward, it contemplates continuity. From 'moreover the one capable of cursing' onward, it comparatively deduces mutual relativity. 'Employing emptiness' is the shared teaching. Thus one knows that borrowing that object of causes and conditions from the Vibhāṣā, deducing each one, it becomes identical to emptiness; the words are brief but the meaning is vast, fully explained as in the contemplation of entering emptiness and non-arising in the Mohe Zhiguan.