觀音玄義記 2.32

2.32

九、簡緣了，二：初、約當宗問答，四：初、明善惡法門性德皆具，二：初、問。緣能資了，了顯正因，正因究顯則成果佛。今明性具緣了二因，乃是性德具於成佛之善。若造九界亦須因緣，九界望佛皆名為惡，此等諸惡性本具不。二、答。只一具字，彌顯今宗。以性具善，諸師亦知；具惡緣了，他皆莫測。故《摩訶止觀》明性三千。《妙玄》、《文句》皆示千法徹乎修性。其文既廣且義難彰，是故此中略談善惡，明性本具不可改易。名言既略，學者易尋。若知善惡皆是性具，性無不融，則十界百界一千三千。故得意者以此所談，望《止觀》文不多不少。二、明提佛但斷修中善惡，二：初、問。「一闡提」者，此翻無欲，以於涅槃無樂欲故。又翻信不具，以其不信善惡因果故。既無欲無信，名斷善盡。佛已永離五住二死，名斷惡盡。善惡既是理性本具則不可斷，是何善惡提佛斷盡？二、答。夫一切法不出善惡，皆性本具非適今有，故云法住法位世間相常。若因修有，安得常住？《大經》云「十二因緣，非佛修羅人天等造。」不是性具，何得非造？《起信》云「一切法真，不可遣故。」若非正具，那得皆真？以皆本具，故得名為性善性惡。復以性具染淨因緣，起作修中染淨因緣乃有所生世出世法。若具言者，本具三千為性善惡，緣起三千為修善惡。修既善惡，乃論染淨逆順之事。闡提是染逆之極，故云斷修善盡。佛是淨順之極，故云斷修惡盡。若其性具三千善惡，闡提與佛莫斷纖毫。三、明性中善惡不斷所以，二：初、問。二、答，二：初約理答。善惡是性，性不可改，安可斷邪？既不可改，但是善惡之法門也。法名可軌，軌持自體不失不壞，復能軌物而生於解。門者能通，可出可入。諸佛向門而入，則修善滿足、修惡斷盡。闡提背門而出，則修惡滿足、修善斷盡。人有向背，門終不改。二、「譬如」下，舉譬類。魔燒佛經，如提斷修善，性善不盡，以法合也。佛燒惡譜，如斷修惡，惡法門存，即是合也。焚典坑儒，雙喻二人，斷修善惡豈能等合也。四、明提佛迷達起不起異，二：初、問。二人善惡既皆斷修而存於性，何故闡提後起修善？如來何故不起修惡？二、答，二：初、以了達故不起實惡。提以邪癡斷於修善，既不能達性善本空，故為善染，修善得起。佛以空慧斷於修惡，了達性惡本來清淨，惡不能染，故泯修惡。二、「以自」下，以自在故，能起權惡。佛能達惡，於惡自在，現惡攝生不染不起。闡提若爾，則名佛矣。二、「若依」下，破他義顯正，二：初、敘他非義，二：初、明他得修失性。他即陳梁已前相州北道弘地論師也，又有攝大乘師亦同地人之解。他明梨耶是無記無明，善惡所依，能持一切善惡種子。闡提但斷現行之善，後為種子熏起於善。佛斷此識，無惡種熏，永不起惡。仍釋伏難：佛斷惡種，如何現惡化諸眾生？故釋云：但以神變現惡化眾生耳。二、「問若」下，難他作意同外。斷惡既盡，神變現惡，全是作意，非同明鑑無念而形。雖相州南道弘地論者以法性為依持，然不明性具諸惡法門，現惡度生亦未能逃作意之咎。二、「今明」下，明今妙旨，二：初、正明由性具善惡起權實善惡，二：初、正示今義。闡提成佛、諸佛現惡，若非不斷性善性惡，則義不成。二、「以有」下，結成妙旨。斷常名通別人，緣理斷九。以定斷九，故昧性惡，名為斷見；不能忘緣，是存修惡，名為常見。涅槃已前皆名邪見，斯之謂歟。斷修存性既離斷常，乃絕一切邊邪之義及種種思。斯是妙旨，庶去滯情。二、「如來」下，重明由達不達故自在不自在。現惡達惡，豈能染惡，惡際實際、縛相脫相、非道佛道，以了達故無有罣礙。闡提不爾，故永異也。

Ninth, distinguishing the conditional and the revealing [causes], in two parts: first, questions and answers based on our own school, in four parts: first, clarifying that the Dharma-gates of good and evil are both inherently possessed as inherent virtues, in two parts: first, the question. The conditional can assist the revealing, and the revealing discloses the direct cause; when the direct cause is fully disclosed, it results in the fruition-Buddha. Now, explaining that the nature inherently includes the two causes of the conditional and the revealing means that the inherent virtues possess the good that brings about Buddhahood. If creating the nine realms also requires causes and conditions, and with respect to the Buddha the nine realms are all called evil, are these evils fundamentally included in the nature or not? Second, the answer. Just the single word 'included' all the more makes our school's tenet evident. That the nature inherently includes good is known to other masters as well; but that it inherently includes the conditional and revealing causes of evil is unfathomable to all others. Therefore the Mohe zhiguan explains the inherent three thousand. The Miaoxuan and the Wenju both show that the thousand dharmas penetrate both cultivation and nature. As those texts are broad and the meaning is difficult to make evident, a brief discussion of good and evil is presented here, clarifying that the nature fundamentally includes them, unalterable. Because the terminology is concise, it is easy for students to study. If one knows that both good and evil are inherently included in the nature, and that the nature does not fail to interpenetrate, then the ten realms, the hundred realms, the one thousand, and the three thousand [are all comprehended]. Therefore, for one who grasps the essential idea, what is discussed here is neither more nor less when compared to the text of the Zhiguan. Second, clarifying that the icchantika and the Buddha sever only cultivated good and evil, in two parts: first, the question. 'Icchantika' is translated here as 'without desire', because they have no joyful desire for nirvāṇa. It is also translated as 'lacking faith', because they do not believe in the causes and fruits of good and evil. Since they lack desire and lack faith, this is called completely severing good. The Buddha has forever departed from the five dwellings and two kinds of death; this is called completely severing evil. Since good and evil are fundamentally included in the principle-nature and therefore cannot be severed, what good and evil are completely severed by the icchantika and the Buddha? Second, the answer. All dharmas do not go beyond good and evil; all are inherently included in the nature and do not newly exist now. Therefore it is said: 'Dharmas abide in the Dharma-position; the marks of the world are eternal.' If they existed through cultivation, how could they be eternal? The Mahā[parinirvāṇa]-sūtra says: 'The twelve links of dependent origination are not made by Buddhas, asuras, humans, gods, and so forth.' If not inherently included, how could they be unmade? The Qixin [lun] says: 'All dharmas are true and cannot be discarded.' If not inherently included, how could they all be true? Because they are all fundamentally included, they can be called inherent good and inherent evil. Furthermore, because the nature inherently includes defiled and pure causes and conditions, when defiled and pure causes and conditions are activated in cultivation, worldly and transmundane dharmas are produced. To state it fully, the fundamentally included three thousand constitute inherent good and evil, while the dependently originated three thousand constitute cultivated good and evil. Since cultivation involves good and evil, there is discussion of defiled and pure, adverse and conforming matters. The icchantika is the utmost of defilement and adversity, and is therefore said to sever cultivated good completely. The Buddha is the utmost of purity and conformity, and is therefore said to sever cultivated evil completely. If it comes to the inherently included three thousand goods and evils, neither the icchantika nor the Buddha severs even the slightest particle. Third, clarifying the reason why good and evil in the nature are not severed, in two parts: first, the question. Second, the answer, in two parts: first, answering in terms of principle. Good and evil are the nature; the nature cannot be changed, so how could it be severed? Since it cannot be changed, they are simply the Dharma-gates of good and evil. 'Dharma' means that which can serve as a standard: it holds to its own entity without losing or breaking it, and can also guide things to give rise to understanding. 'Gate' means that which connects, allowing exit and entry. When Buddhas head toward the gate and enter, cultivated good is perfected and cultivated evil is completely severed. When an icchantika turns their back on the gate and exits, cultivated evil is perfected and cultivated good is completely severed. People may face it or turn their backs on it, but the gate in the end never changes. Second, from 'For example' onward, giving analogies to classify them. Māra burning the Buddhist scriptures is like the icchantika severing cultivated good while inherent good is not exhausted; this matches with the Dharma. The Buddha burning the evil genealogies is like severing cultivated evil while the evil Dharma-gate remains; this is the match. Burning the books and burying the scholars is an analogy for both persons; how could severing cultivated good and evil not correspond? Fourth, clarifying the difference between delusion and comprehension in the icchantika and the Buddha regarding whether [good and evil] arise or do not arise, in two parts: first, the question. Since both individuals sever what is cultivated while it remains in the nature, why does the icchantika later give rise to cultivated good? Why does the Tathāgata not give rise to cultivated evil? Second, the answer, in two parts: first, because of thorough comprehension, real evil does not arise. The icchantika severs cultivated good through perverse folly; since they cannot comprehend that inherent good is fundamentally empty, they are defiled by good, and cultivated good is able to arise. The Buddha severs cultivated evil through the wisdom of emptiness; having thoroughly comprehended that inherent evil is fundamentally pure, evil cannot defile him, and therefore cultivated evil is extinguished. Second, from 'Because of mastery' onward, that because of mastery he can give rise to provisional evil. The Buddha can comprehend evil and has mastery over evil; he manifests evil to gather living beings without being defiled and without it arising [as real karmic action]. If the icchantika were like this, he would be called a Buddha. Second, from 'If based on' onward, refuting other theories and revealing the correct [teaching], in two parts: first, narrating other improper doctrines, in two parts: first, clarifying that others grasp cultivation and lose the nature. 'Others' refers to the Dilun masters who propagated the treatise along the northern route of Xiangzhou prior to the Chen and Liang dynasties; there are also the masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha who shared the understanding of the Dilun masters. They explained that the ālayavijñāna is indeterminate ignorance, the support for good and evil, capable of holding all seeds of good and evil. The icchantika severs only manifest good, and later is perfumed by the seeds to give rise to good. The Buddha severs this consciousness, so with no seeds of evil to perfume him, evil never arises. They still resolve an implicit objection: if the Buddha has severed the seeds of evil, how can he manifest evil to transform living beings? Hence they explain: he manifests evil through divine transformations merely to convert living beings. Second, from 'Question: If' onward, refuting their notion of intentional effort as being identical to non-Buddhists. If evil has been severed completely, manifesting evil through divine transformations is entirely intentional effort, unlike a bright mirror reflecting without thought. Although the Dilun masters who propagated along the southern route of Xiangzhou took dharmatā as the support, nevertheless they did not clarify that the nature inherently includes all Dharma-gates of evil; hence, manifesting evil to deliver living beings still cannot escape the fault of intentional effort. Second, from 'Now we clarify' onward, clarifying our subtle purport, in two parts: first, directly clarifying that provisional and real good and evil arise due to the nature inherently including good and evil, in two parts: first, directly showing our meaning. The icchantika attaining Buddhahood and Buddhas manifesting evil would not be logically coherent were it not for the unsevered inherent good and inherent evil. Second, from 'Because there is' onward, concluding the subtle purport. Annihilation and permanence refer to the persons of the Common and Distinct Teachings, who take principle as the condition to sever the nine [realms]. Because they determinately sever the nine, they are blind to inherent evil, which is called the view of annihilation; because they cannot forget conditions, they preserve cultivated evil, which is called the view of permanence. Prior to the [teaching of the] Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], all are called wrong views—does it not refer to this? Severing cultivation while preserving the nature leaves behind both annihilation and permanence, and cuts off all extreme and perverse doctrines along with various speculations. This is the subtle purport, which hopefully eliminates clinging sentiments. Second, from 'The Tathāgata' onward, reiterating that mastery and non-mastery are due to comprehension and non-comprehension. Manifesting evil while comprehending evil, how could one be defiled by evil? The limit of evil is the limit of reality; the mark of bondage is the mark of liberation; the non-way is the Buddha-way; because he thoroughly comprehends, there is no hindrance. The icchantika is not like this, and therefore they are forever distinct.