二諦義 3.22

3.22

第二節明並觀者，明地前三十心未得並觀，初地菩薩始得並觀。地前非不並，將初地格之，明地前淺故云未並、初地深故並。地前是凡夫位、初地是聖位，地前伏道、初地斷道，就此等義判並不並也。然前節對聲聞明菩薩並觀，今就菩薩中自論並不並也。然此義具出經論。《大論》云「初地得真無生。七地得無生，七地定慧等。初地得無生，初地定慧等」也。《仁王經》、《瓔珞經》皆明初地二諦並觀。故《仁王經》云「善覺菩薩四天王，雙照二諦平等道」也。第三節明七地菩薩並觀。《大論》云「七地菩薩。得無生忍」，《大品》云「等定慧地」也。所以七地並觀者，攝前六地並為順忍故未並，七地得無生忍故並也。十地皆無生，前無生淺，故為順忍；七地無生深，故為無生忍也。又約行論。初地檀波羅蜜，六地般若波羅蜜，未得方便；七地得方便，慧無方便縛、方便無慧縛。七地得方便，慧有方便解、方便有慧解，具二慧故並觀。前六地非不並觀，但二慧一慧[苟*苟]。如兩輪一輪[苟*苟]，故未得好並。若七地二慧皆勝，二輪並強故並也。第四節者，從初心訖至七地未得並觀，至八地始並觀。此就功用無功用判之。初心至七地未得無功用道，八地得無功用道，故七地已前未得無功用道未並觀，八地得無功用道故得並觀。此約功用無功用道判並觀不並觀也。今明並觀有此四節，並出經論，若偏執者則成失也。前問未釋。何者？汝雖明並觀有此四節，若為得並觀耶？汝無有二理、唯有一理，云何得出入觀？復若為得並觀耶？今反難：汝二諦二體、二諦一體亦無並觀，何遑問我耶？汝明有二諦理。理何時有二？一切經論何處道有二理？諸大乘經明無有二理，皆云空即色、色即空，世諦即第一義諦，若言有二理即乖經。故龍樹呵迦旃延子不讀不誦摩訶衍經，迦旃延子自說耳。今亦爾也。設使得明並觀者，師詺為簫管並、伏鼈出鼻，並有兩境，在中而雙照為並觀。是事不然。經明照有即是空、照空即是有。何時有兩境，凝然在中雙照為並觀耶？又二諦一體亦不得並觀。汝難我云：一體不得並觀。汝家一體，云何得並觀及出入觀耶？出入觀從此入；彼既無二，云何得並耶？彼云：我有即不即義，常即常不即，不即故有並及出入觀也。難：俗不即真者，為當在真外、在真內耶？若在真內，則與真一，還著前難。若不在真內則出真，出真則出法性外，佛說法性外無復有法，故不得出真外也。彼又解云：體即義異。還責；義為即真不即真？即真即一、不即真則出真外。難二諦一體異體既不成，則無二諦。既無二諦，論何物即不即？故彼二諦一體無並觀。汝今明不二中道一體，云何得並及出入耶？今明有三種並，如《涅槃經》文殊問無二諦，佛答有十種二諦。今亦爾，汝言無並，我有三種並。且明出入觀。出入觀者，大師云「心常在正觀中行名為入，纔生心動念即名為出。」起斷常心為出，在正觀為入也。次明三種並。然此三並，即三出入。言三並者，一者即橫論二諦教並。如前所說。假說有，非有為有；假說無，非無為無。非有為有，指無為有；非無為無，指有為無。指無為有，照有即照無；指有為無，照無即照有。詺此為並觀也。

The second stage explaining simultaneous contemplation explains that across the thirty states of mind prior to the bhūmis, one has not yet attained simultaneous contemplation; a bodhisattva on the first bhūmi only begins to attain simultaneous contemplation. It is not that prior to the bhūmis there is no simultaneity at all, but measuring it against the first bhūmi, because prior to the bhūmis it is shallow, it is said not to be simultaneous, and because on the first bhūmi it is profound, it is simultaneous. Prior to the bhūmis is the stage of an ordinary person; the first bhūmi is the stage of a noble one. Prior to the bhūmis is the path of subduing; the first bhūmi is the path of severing. In terms of these meanings, one determines whether there is simultaneity or not. However, the previous stage explained the bodhisattva's simultaneous contemplation in contrast to the śrāvaka; now, within the bodhisattvas themselves, it discusses whether there is simultaneity or not. Moreover, this meaning is fully presented in the sūtras and treatises. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'On the first bhūmi one attains true non-arising. On the seventh bhūmi one attains non-arising, and on the seventh bhūmi concentration and wisdom are equal. On the first bhūmi one attains non-arising, and on the first bhūmi concentration and wisdom are equal.' Both the Renwang jing and the Yingluo jing explain simultaneous contemplation of the two truths on the first bhūmi. Therefore, the Renwang jing says: 'Shanjue Bodhisattva and the Four Heavenly Kings simultaneously illuminate the equal path of the two truths.' The third stage explains the simultaneous contemplation of a bodhisattva on the seventh bhūmi. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'A bodhisattva on the seventh bhūmi attains the forbearance of non-arising'; the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā speaks of 'the stage of equal concentration and wisdom.' The reason for simultaneous contemplation on the seventh bhūmi is that, encompassing the preceding six bhūmis together as conformable forbearance, it is not yet simultaneous; on the seventh bhūmi, because one attains the forbearance of non-arising, it is simultaneous. All ten bhūmis possess non-arising, but prior non-arising is shallow, and therefore is conformable forbearance; non-arising on the seventh bhūmi is profound, and therefore is the forbearance of non-arising. Furthermore, it is discussed in terms of practice: on the first bhūmi is the dāna-pāramitā; on the sixth bhūmi is the prajñā-pāramitā, where one has not yet attained expedient means. On the seventh bhūmi one attains expedient means: wisdom is unbound by expedient means, and expedient means are unbound by wisdom. On the seventh bhūmi one attains expedient means: wisdom possesses the liberation of expedient means, and expedient means possess the liberation of wisdom. Because one is endowed with both wisdoms, there is simultaneous contemplation. It is not that the previous six bhūmis lack simultaneous contemplation, but of the two wisdoms, one wisdom is deficient. Like two wheels where one wheel is deficient, they have not yet attained a fine simultaneity. On the seventh bhūmi, both wisdoms are superior; both wheels are equally strong, and therefore it is simultaneous. The fourth stage is: from the initial aspiration up to the seventh bhūmi, one has not yet attained simultaneous contemplation; reaching the eighth bhūmi, one begins simultaneous contemplation. This is judged in terms of effort and effortless. From the initial aspiration to the seventh bhūmi, one has not attained the effortless path; on the eighth bhūmi, one attains the effortless path. Therefore, prior to the seventh bhūmi, having not attained the effortless path, one does not have simultaneous contemplation; on the eighth bhūmi, having attained the effortless path, one therefore attains simultaneous contemplation. This determines simultaneous contemplation or not according to the path of effort and the effortless path. We now explain that simultaneous contemplation has these four stages, all originating in the sūtras and treatises; if one clings exclusively to one, an error results. The earlier question has not yet been resolved. Which one? 'Although you explain that simultaneous contemplation has these four stages, how can simultaneous contemplation be attained? You do not have two principles, but only one principle; how can one enter and emerge from contemplation? And how can one attain simultaneous contemplation?' Now I counter-challenge: In your two truths with two substances, or your two truths with a single substance, there is also no simultaneous contemplation—how do you have the leisure to question me? You explain that there are principles of the two truths. When are there two principles? Where in any sūtra or treatise is it said that there are two principles? The Mahāyāna sūtras all explain that there are not two principles; they all say that emptiness is form and form is emptiness, that conventional truth is ultimate truth. If one says there are two principles, that contradicts the sūtras. Therefore, Nāgārjuna scolded Kātyāyanīputra for not reading and reciting the Mahāyāna sūtras, speaking merely on his own authority. It is the same now. Even if one were to explain simultaneous contemplation, masters have described it as joining two pipes, or a submerged turtle poking out its nose, there being two objects together and illuminating both while standing in the middle being simultaneous contemplation. This is not the case. The sūtras explain that illuminating existence is just emptiness, and illuminating emptiness is just existence. When would there ever be two objects, standing rigidly in the middle to illuminate both, that constitutes simultaneous contemplation? Furthermore, with the two truths having a single substance, one still cannot have simultaneous contemplation. You challenge me, saying: 'With a single substance one cannot have simultaneous contemplation.' For your own single substance, how could one attain simultaneous contemplation or entering and emerging from contemplation? Entering and emerging from contemplation enters from this; since that has no duality, how can there be simultaneity? They say: 'We have the meaning of identity and non-identity; constantly identical and constantly non-identical. Because they are non-identical, there are simultaneity and entering and emerging from contemplation.' Challenge: When the conventional is not identical to the ultimate, is it outside the ultimate, or inside the ultimate? If it is inside the ultimate, then it is one with the ultimate, which falls back into the earlier difficulty. If it is not inside the ultimate, then it exits the ultimate; exiting the ultimate, it then exits the dharmadhātu. The Buddha taught that outside the dharmadhātu there is no other dharma; therefore, it cannot exit outside the ultimate. They further explain: 'The substance is identical, but the senses differ.' I demand again: Does the sense identify with the ultimate or not identify with the ultimate? If it identifies with the ultimate, it is one; if it does not identify with the ultimate, it exits outside the ultimate. When the challenge shows that neither a single substance nor different substances for the two truths is established, then there are no two truths. Since there are no two truths, what thing could be discussed as identical or non-identical? Therefore, with their two truths having a single substance, there is no simultaneous contemplation. You now explain the single substance of the non-dual middle way; how can there be simultaneity as well as entering and emerging? We now explain that there are three kinds of simultaneity, just as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra Mañjuśrī asks about the absence of the two truths, and the Buddha answers with ten kinds of two truths. It is the same now: you say there is no simultaneity, but I have three kinds of simultaneity. First, let us explain entering and emerging from contemplation. As for entering and emerging from contemplation, the Great Master says: 'The mind constantly operating within right contemplation is called entering; the moment a thought arises and movement occurs in mind, it is called emerging.' Giving rise to thoughts of annihilation and eternity is emerging; resting in right contemplation is entering. Next, we explain the three kinds of simultaneity. However, these three simultaneities are just three kinds of entering and emerging. Regarding the three simultaneities: first is horizontal simultaneity of the teaching of the two truths. As explained before, provisionally speaking of existence, non-existence is taken as existence; provisionally speaking of non-existence, non-non-existence is taken as non-existence. Non-existence taken as existence points to non-existence as existence; non-non-existence taken as non-existence points to existence as non-existence. Pointing to non-existence as existence, illuminating existence is illuminating non-existence; pointing to existence as non-existence, illuminating non-existence is illuminating existence. This is termed simultaneous contemplation.