金光明經文句記 1.104

1.104

二、觀行釋。上諸觀解皆是附法，以如是等不借事義表觀法故。此之城山是託事觀也，如今王舍，借覆蓋義表於五陰，託自在義表善惡王。故妙樂云：「以善惡王對無記舍，應知無記遍該八識。」若善惡王唯第六識，以此第六通三性故，謂善性、惡性、無記性也，此無記性同餘四陰為所觀境，取善惡性為能觀觀，初心修觀莫不用此第六心也。以由此心能起忻厭，分別名義、作善惡因故。所言善者，對惡得名，非究竟善。以此王數本由見愛熏習所成。圓名字人全未能伏，縱起善念，不離見愛，故十境心皆名魔障，不思議觀方曰善淨。若直以此心觀實相理，如用藕絲懸須彌也，徒增分別絕念無由。若體此心是性惡者，性惡融通無法不趣，自然攝得七八九識同為妙觀，故得名為境即是觀。能所既泯思議乃忘，圓妙之觀初心可修。故妙樂云：「忽都未聞性惡之名，安能信有性德之行？須聞性惡者，以知性惡故，則修惡本虛。三觀十乘無惑可破、無理可顯，修德功寂是無作行，故以性德召此行也。」此意若昧，徒說心王為能觀觀，終非圓觀。豈前三教非善惡王為能觀耶？又須了知非獨城山以陰為境，諸事法觀皆須觀陰。故妙樂云：「又諸觀境不出五陰。今此山等約陰便故，以諸文中直云境智。」《記》文既云「諸觀之境不出五陰」，則知記事附法無不觀陰。言此山等約陰便者，蓋此山城表陰義便，故明言陰。諸文不便，故直云境智。雖為不便不言五陰，而所觀境無不是陰，故上句云不出五陰。直云境智，即諸文云「觀一念心即空假中也」。雖不云陰，且一念心非陰是何？有人據此執諸觀境不觀陰者，違文背義過莫大焉。又僻執云：唯止觀中從行觀法得簡陰境，諸事法觀不得簡陰。斯是胸情自立規矩。諸文觀法既不出陰，簡有何妨？況妙樂中觀陰，須明方便正修、簡境及心。簡境豈非去尺就寸？簡心豈非去其思議取不思議耶？安得固違執不簡陰。此人又執諸文託事附法觀心不可修習，唯止觀約行觀法方可修之，乃引《義例》諭邪師文為據。彼文云「十二部觀寄事立名，雖有三觀之名，十境十乘不列，一部名下唯施一句，豈此一句能伸觀門？」今人謂事法觀心便可修習不假止觀者，豈不全同往代邪師耶？今評《義例》驗此人說，全昧荊谿破立意也。何者？《義例》諭疑本為邪師錯謂止觀十境十乘是漸圓觀，唯頂法師十二部經觀心之文為頓頓觀，修之即得。是故荊谿如上諭之，其意但是破彼邪師，將頂法師十二部下觀心一句具足伸於頓頓觀門也。邪師既以止觀十境十乘自是漸圓，終不肯用入十二部事觀中修。豈得同於正解之師，講至城山等觀之時，學者欲修即敘止觀方便正修揀境等文成其法行？若然，豈是十境十乘一向不列耶？豈是獨將一句伸觀門耶？又何甞云事法觀心不假止觀便可修習？又不云城山等觀是頓頓法，那斥全同往代邪師耶？又《法華玄義》示諸文觀心，令即聞即修。《釋籤》云「隨聞一句攝事成理，不待觀境方名修觀。」先祖垂範昭然可鑑，如何固執事法觀門不可修習？此人又全不許得法之師敘於私記教人修觀，須自深諳止觀法門方可修於諸文觀心。若其然者，修觀行人則全不藉教授知識，五緣之中善知識緣全無用也。四緣寧闕？善知識緣最不可捨，故大師云「自能決了，可得獨行。妨難未諳，不宜捨也。」經云「隨順善師學，得見河沙佛。」又備諳止觀十乘等法是大法師、是大禪師。豈諸文中事法觀心皆須此人方得修耶？作此謬說，障傳法者宣示觀門、障初心人依師進行，所損彌大，學者知之。

Second, the interpretation in terms of contemplative practice. The various contemplative explanations above are all [interpretations that] adhere to the Dharma, because things like these do not borrow phenomenal senses to represent the methods of contemplation. This 'city' and 'mountain' are contemplations that entrust themselves to phenomena. As with Rājagṛha ('King's Abode') now, by borrowing the sense of covering over, it represents the five skandhas; by entrusting itself to the sense of sovereignty, it represents the king of wholesome and unwholesome [mental states]. Therefore Miaole states: 'Matching the king of wholesome and unwholesome [mental states] against the indeterminate abode, one should know that the indeterminate universally encompasses the eight consciousnesses.' If the king of wholesome and unwholesome is only the sixth consciousness, it is because this sixth [consciousness] permeates the three natures, namely the wholesome nature, the unwholesome nature, and the indeterminate nature. This indeterminate nature, together with the remaining four skandhas, constitutes the object contemplated, while taking the wholesome and unwholesome natures as the contemplation that contemplates. For beginners practicing contemplation, none do not employ this mind of the sixth [consciousness], because it is through this mind that one can produce aspiration and revulsion, discriminate names and meanings, and create wholesome and unwholesome causes. That which is called wholesome is named in contrast to the unwholesome; it is not the ultimate good. Because this king and its mental factors are fundamentally formed through the perfuming of [erroneous] views and craving, persons of the level of names in the perfect teaching are completely unable to subdue them. Even if they produce wholesome thoughts, they do not transcend views and craving; therefore, the minds of the ten objects are all called demonic obstacles, and only the inconceivable contemplation is called wholesome and pure. If one directly uses this mind to contemplate the principle of the true mark, it is like using a lotus fiber to suspend Mount Sumeru: it merely increases discrimination, leaving no way to cut off thoughts. If one realizes that this mind is inherent evil, inherent evil is completely interpenetrating and there is no phenomenon to which it does not tend; it naturally integrates the seventh, eighth, and ninth consciousnesses to be equally the wonderful contemplation, and thus it can be called 'the object is itself the contemplation.' When the subjective and objective are extinguished, the conceivable is forgotten, and this perfect and wonderful contemplation can be practiced by beginners. Therefore Miaole states: 'If one has never heard even the name of inherent evil, how could one believe there is the practice of inherent virtue? The reason one must hear of inherent evil is that by knowing inherent evil, the cultivated evil is fundamentally empty. In the threefold contemplation and the ten vehicles, there is no delusion to be shattered and no principle to be revealed; the effort of cultivated virtue is tranquil, which is unconditioned practice—therefore this practice is called inherent virtue.' If one is dim regarding this intention, merely stating that the mind-king is the contemplation that contemplates will never be the perfect contemplation. How could it be that the previous three teachings do not take the king of wholesome and unwholesome to be the contemplator? Furthermore, one must realize that it is not only the city and the mountain that take the skandhas as their object; all contemplations of phenomenal Dharmas must contemplate the skandhas. Therefore Miaole states: 'Moreover, the objects of all contemplations do not go beyond the five skandhas. The present mountain and so forth are expediently explained in terms of the skandhas, whereas other texts simply speak of object and wisdom.' Since the Record states, 'the objects of all contemplations do not go beyond the five skandhas,' one knows that in both recording phenomena and adhering to the Dharma, there is none that does not contemplate the skandhas. Saying that this mountain and so forth are expediently explained in terms of the skandhas means that because this mountain and city conveniently represent the meaning of the skandhas, they explicitly speak of the skandhas. In other texts it is inconvenient, so they simply speak of object and wisdom. Although for the sake of inconvenience they do not speak of the five skandhas, the contemplated object is never anything other than the skandhas; therefore the preceding sentence says they do not go beyond the five skandhas. Directly speaking of object and wisdom is just what various texts call 'contemplating a single thought of the mind as empty, provisional, and middle.' Although they do not say 'skandhas', what is a single thought of the mind if not a skandha? Some people rely on this to cling to the view that the objects of various contemplations do not contemplate the skandhas, which contradicts the text and betrays the principle—no fault is greater than this. Furthermore, they errantly cling to the view that: 'Only in the Great Calming and Contemplation, where the Dharma is contemplated in terms of practice, can the object of the skandhas be selected; the various contemplations of phenomenal Dharmas cannot select the skandhas.' This is setting up rules out of one's own subjective whims. Since the contemplative methods in the various texts do not go beyond the skandhas, what harm is there in selecting them? Moreover, in Miaole's contemplation of the skandhas, one must clarify the expedients and the main cultivation, and select the object and the mind. Is selecting the object not 'leaving the foot to approach the inch'? Is selecting the mind not 'leaving the conceivable and taking the inconceivable'? How can they obstinately contradict this and cling to not selecting the skandhas? This person also clings to the view that the mind-contemplations in various texts that entrust themselves to phenomena and adhere to the Dharma cannot be cultivated, and that only the contemplative methods according to practice in the Calming and Contemplation can be cultivated, citing the passage in the Exemplary Principles (Yili) admonishing the heterodox teachers as proof. That text states: 'The contemplations on the twelve divisions of scriptures formulate names based on phenomena; although they contain the names of the threefold contemplation, the ten objects and ten vehicles are not listed, and under the title of a single division only a single phrase is applied—how could this single phrase unfold the gate of contemplation?' When people today claim that the contemplation of the mind based on phenomenal Dharmas can be cultivated right away without relying on the Calming and Contemplation, are they not entirely the same as the heterodox teachers of past ages? Now, evaluating the Exemplary Principles and examining this person's assertion, he is completely ignorant of Jingxi's intention in refuting and establishing. Why is that? The admonition of doubt in the Exemplary Principles was originally because heterodox teachers mistakenly considered the ten objects and ten vehicles of the Calming and Contemplation to be the gradual-perfect contemplation, and that only Master Ding's text on the contemplation of mind for the twelve divisions of scriptures was the sudden-sudden contemplation, which one attains upon cultivating it. For this reason, Jingxi admonished them as above. His intention was merely to refute that heterodox teacher who took Master Ding's single phrase of mind-contemplation under the twelve divisions as fully unfolding the sudden-sudden gate of contemplation. Since the heterodox teacher considered the ten objects and ten vehicles of the Calming and Contemplation to naturally be gradual-perfect, he ultimately refused to apply them in cultivation within the phenomenal contemplation of the twelve divisions. How could he be compared to teachers of correct understanding who, when lecturing up to contemplations such as the city and the mountain, explain the passages on expedients, main cultivation, and selecting the object from the Calming and Contemplation to establish their practice of the Dharma whenever students wish to practice? If so, how could the ten objects and ten vehicles be entirely unlisted? How could a single phrase alone unfold the gate of contemplation? Moreover, when did he ever say that the contemplation of mind based on phenomenal Dharmas could be cultivated without relying on the Calming and Contemplation? Nor did he say that contemplations such as the city and the mountain are sudden-sudden Dharmas; why then accuse them of being entirely the same as the heterodox teachers of past ages? Furthermore, the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra illustrates mind-contemplation in various texts, instructing people to cultivate as soon as they hear. The Annotations (Shiqian) states: 'Following whatever single phrase one hears, it subsumes phenomena to realize principle, without waiting for an object of contemplation before it is called cultivating contemplation.' The models handed down by the ancestral masters are clearly visible; how can one obstinately cling to the idea that the phenomenal gates of contemplation cannot be cultivated? This person also completely forbids teachers who have attained the Dharma from setting down private notes to teach people how to cultivate contemplation, requiring that one must personally have a profound mastery of the Dharma-gate of calming and contemplation before one can cultivate the mind-contemplations in the various texts. If that were so, practitioners cultivating contemplation would have no need at all for instructive spiritual friends, and among the five conditions, the condition of the spiritual friend would be completely useless. How could the four conditions be missing? The condition of the spiritual friend is the one that must not be abandoned; thus the Great Master said: 'If one can resolve things for oneself, one may practice alone. But if obstacles and difficulties are not yet understood, it should not be abandoned.' A sūtra says: 'Following a good teacher to learn, one attains the vision of Buddhas numerous as the sands of the Ganges.' Moreover, one who has a comprehensive mastery of the Calming and Contemplation's ten vehicles and other Dharmas is a great Dharma master, a great meditation master. Must all the mind-contemplations of phenomenal Dharmas in the various texts require such a person before they can be cultivated? Formulating such erroneous assertions obstructs transmitters of the Dharma from expounding the contemplative gates and obstructs beginners from progressing in reliance on a teacher; the harm done is exceedingly great, and students should recognize this.