摩訶止觀 1.121

1.121

法性是所解，道滅是能解，所解有「即」、「離」，能解有「巧」、「拙」。界內鈍人所解「離」，能解則「拙」；利人所解「即」，能解亦「巧」。界外利鈍，即、離、巧、拙，亦如是。所以者何？事理既殊，昏惑亦甚。譬如父子，兩謂路人，瞋打俱重。瞋以譬集，打以譬苦。若謂煩惱即法性，事理相即，苦集則輕；實非骨肉，兩謂父子，瞋打則薄。麁細、枝本、通別、遍不遍、難易等，亦如是。或云界內苦集底滯為重；界外升出為輕。或界內皮惑故為淺；界外肉惑故為深。或言界內隨他意故為拙；界外隨自意故為巧。或言界內稱機故為巧；界外不稱機故為拙。或言界內有能所故為麁；界外無能所故為細。或言界內小道極在化城故為細；界外大道極在寶所故為麁。或言界內客塵故為枝；界外同體故為本。或言界內在初故為本；界外在後故為枝。或言界內小、大共故為通；界外獨在大故為別。或言界內偏故為小、淺，故為別；界外圓故為大，無隔故為通。或言界內短故為不遍；界外周法界故為遍。或言界內在一切賢聖共故為遍；界外獨在大緣故為不遍。或言界內用二乘方便故為難斷；界外但依無礙慧故為易斷。

Dharmatā is that which is understood, and the path and cessation are that which understand; that which is understood has "identity" and "separation," and that which understands has "skillfulness" and "clumsiness." For dull persons within the realms, that which is understood is "separated," and that which understands is "clumsy"; for keen persons, that which is understood is "identical," and that which understands is also "skillful." For keen and dull beyond the realms, identity and separation, skillfulness and clumsiness are also likewise. Why is this? When phenomena and principle are disparate, stupor and delusion are also severe. For example, when father and son both take each other to be strangers, anger and beatings are both heavy: anger exemplifies accumulation, and beatings exemplify suffering. If one says that afflictions are themselves the dharmatā, so that phenomena and principle are mutually identical, then suffering and accumulation are light; if they are not truly kin yet both take each other to be father and son, anger and beatings are slight. Coarse and subtle, branches and root, shared and distinctive, pervasive and non-pervasive, difficult and easy, and so forth, are also likewise. Or some say that suffering and accumulation within the realms are heavy because of sinking and stagnating at the bottom, while beyond the realms they are light because of ascending and transcending. Or within the realms they are shallow because of being delusions of the skin, while beyond the realms they are deep because of being delusions of the flesh. Or it is said that within the realms it is clumsy because it accords with the intentions of others, while beyond the realms it is skillful because it accords with one's own intention. Or it is said that within the realms it is skillful because it matches capacities, while beyond the realms it is clumsy because it does not match capacities. Or it is said that within the realms it is coarse because there is subject and object, while beyond the realms it is subtle because there is no subject and object. Or it is said that within the realms it is subtle because the culmination of the small path is in the transformed city, while beyond the realms it is coarse because the culmination of the great path is in the place of jewels. Or it is said that within the realms they are branches because they are adventitious defilements, while beyond the realms they are the root because they share the same substance. Or it is said that within the realms they are the root because they come first, while beyond the realms they are branches because they come later. Or it is said that within the realms it is shared because small and great share it, while beyond the realms it is distinctive because it exists solely in the great. Or it is said that within the realms it is distinctive because it is biased and therefore small and shallow, while beyond the realms it is shared because it is perfect and therefore great and unobstructed. Or it is said that within the realms it is non-pervasive because it is brief, while beyond the realms it is pervasive because it spans the dharmadhātu. Or it is said that within the realms it is pervasive because it is shared among all worthies and sages, while beyond the realms it is non-pervasive because it exists solely in the great conditions. Or it is said that within the realms they are difficult to sever because one employs the expedients of the two vehicles, while beyond the realms they are easy to sever because one merely relies on unobstructed wisdom.