摩訶止觀 6.183

6.183

二、約法性破無明者：上四句觀於智障，求無明生，決定叵得。或生一種解，或發一定，決謂無明即是法性。如此計者非是悟心，但發觀解。如闇見塵杌，決謂塵杌。即當移觀，觀於法性。為當無明心滅，法性心生？為當不滅法性心生？為當亦滅不滅法性心生？為當非滅非不滅法性心生？若無明滅而法性生者，滅何能生？不滅生者，明、無明並。共生者，即有二過。離則不可。不自、不他、不共、不無因。如是四句，一一句中信、法、迴轉，四悉善巧，即能得悟，通四門池。雖未得悟，決定謂此中道觀智能破無明，常如是學，更不餘修也。

Second, concerning refuting avidyā with respect to dharmatā: When the above four propositions contemplate cognitive hindrances, seeking the arising of avidyā, it is decidedly unobtainable. One may generate a kind of understanding, or give rise to a certain concentration, resolutely claiming that avidyā is identical to dharmatā. One who calculates in this way does not have an awakened mind, but merely gives rise to a contemplative understanding—just as seeing a dust-covered tree stump in the dark, one resolutely insists it is a dust-covered stump. One should then shift contemplation to contemplate dharmatā: Does the mind of dharmatā arise when the mind of avidyā ceases? Does the mind of dharmatā arise without it ceasing? Does the mind of dharmatā arise both ceasing and not ceasing? Or does the mind of dharmatā arise neither ceasing nor not ceasing? If avidyā ceases and dharmatā arises, how can what has ceased give rise [to anything]? If it arises without [avidyā] ceasing, light and avidyā would coexist. If they arise together, there would be two faults. Separation is impossible. [It is] neither from self, nor from other, nor from both, nor without a cause. With such four propositions, when within each and every proposition one skillfully applies faith-directed, Dharma-directed, rotation, and the four siddhāntas, one is then able to attain awakening and penetrate the reservoir of the four gateways. Even if one has not yet attained awakening, one resolutely considers that this middle way contemplative wisdom is able to refute avidyā, always studying in this manner without cultivating anything else.