止觀輔行傳弘決 1.104

1.104

次從「問」下，料簡也。初問者，問前推理。集既有四苦果，何以但有分段及變易二？因果應等，何故四因但感二果？答中意者，先正答、次舉例。先正答中，以義言之，何但果二，集亦但二。今言四者，約破迷生解。二集各有巧拙二破以成四別，此惑隨人所解不同，故云「惑隨於解」。若隨順生死，四集但感二種苦果，故云「解隨於惑」。今以解問迷，故云四集而感二果。以實而言，解則俱四，如四四諦則有四苦。迷則俱二，如通別惑但成二因。何須但約解因而問迷果？次「例如」下，舉例答者。如界內惑隨於小乘二解別故，名為見思。若諸凡夫隨順迷情，界內二因但感界內一分段果。此例未切。隨迷但感一分段果，此則可然；若例於解而生二集，其意未等。前於一集而生二解，今乃於集開為見思。又前文意，於一苦諦解亦應二；此中縱分為見思二，苦果不可分為二種。若切說者，破見惑故離四趣惡，破思惑故離三界生，各更從解以分二別。次「問苦集可是因緣」等者，問前論偈結中，以論初句對於三藏四諦俱屬因緣生法。苦集是迷，容可從緣；道滅破迷，何故亦言從因緣生？次答意者，所破苦集體是緣生，若無苦集則無道滅，名從他得，故亦從緣，所以三藏四俱生滅。「故大經」下，引大為例。無明是集、菩提是道，因滅集故方得有道，別圓意也。別圓道滅尚從緣生，何況三藏。舉深例淺以酬前難。次問者，問前文中法性一法，何故分為權實二理，復分即離以為四耶？答意者，開權顯實唯一法性，為實施權故分權實。於權實中取解根別，故使權實各具利鈍。次從「若見此意」下，舉例餘九。推理既有三止觀結，及以三番問答料簡，餘九準例皆亦應然。次名四弘者，弘者廣也，誓約也。《釋名》云「誓，制也。」今以四法要制初心使上求下化，故云「發僧那於始心，終大悲以赴難。」僧那西音，此云弘誓。起行填願，故云赴難。初云「前推理」去至「四弘」者，結前生後。「其義已顯」，結前也。「為未了」去，生後也。前雖約諦廣明發心，未了之徒不了四諦秖是四弘之境，是故更作弘誓說之。「又四諦中」下，次辨同異。四諦是境，從境生解，故云「約解」。四弘依解而生於願，故云「約願」。又諦有因果故通三世，願皆在當故屬未來。又四諦約理，理通三世；四弘是願，願未來成。弘之與諦皆須上求，有上求故方有下化。上求之中，有佛道故方有法門，是故一一皆須云「佛」。又此應約九世言之，故三世上皆有因果，故皆云佛。又四諦有苦集，苦集具六根；弘誓約期心，期心但在意。又四諦通三業，三業通六根；願不必身口，是故但在意。此據大分。若委論者亦應具三，心緣誓境、口宣誓言、身現敬相。又三番之中非無餘義，一往且爾，故並云「多」。問：縱有斯異，約諦起願前已兼之，何須更說？答：誓名為大，諦通大小。滅苦自度其名在小，悲濟於他名則兼大，諦名有濫故說四弘。又弘通偏圓，即名唯圓，故四弘後更明六即。從廣之狹，方乃顯是，故下文云「展轉深細」。「如此」下，結來意也。問：前明十科，今此何故但對諦簡？答：四諦是通、十科約別，故釋十科諦居其首。十科無理，事同魔說，故但約諦，義該餘十。

Next, from "Question" onward, it is an analysis. The first question asks about the preceding deduction through reason: Since origination has four, why are there only two fruits of suffering, namely fragmented and change? Cause and effect should correspond; why do four causes bring about only two fruits? The gist of the answer first answers directly, and then adduces an analogy. First, in answering directly: in terms of the meaning, not only are there two fruits, origination is also only two. Now speaking of four is in terms of shattering delusion and giving rise to understanding. The two originations each have two types of shattering—skillful and clumsy—thus forming four differences; these confusions vary according to people's different understandings, hence it says "confusion follows understanding." If conforming to saṃsāra, the four originations bring about only two kinds of suffering fruits, hence it says "understanding follows confusion." Now, asking about delusion in terms of understanding, one therefore says that four originations bring about two fruits. In reality, in terms of understanding, both are four, just as the four types of four noble truths have four sufferings; in terms of delusion, both are two, just as shared and distinctive confusions only form two causes. Why must one only ask about the fruit of delusion in terms of the cause of understanding? Next, from "For example" onward, it answers by adducing an analogy: just as confusion within the realms is distinguished according to the two understandings of the Small Vehicle, it is termed views and thoughts. If ordinary beings conform to deluded feelings, the two causes within the realms only bring about the one fragmented fruit within the realms. This analogy is not precise. Conforming to delusion and bringing about only one fragmented fruit—this is indeed so; but if analogized to understanding giving rise to two originations, the meaning does not balance. Previously, two understandings arose from one origination, but now origination is split into views and thoughts. Moreover, in the sense of the preceding text, understanding of the one truth of suffering should also be two; here, even if divided into views and thoughts, the fruit of suffering cannot be divided into two kinds. If spoken precisely: by shattering the confusion of views, one leaves the evil of the four destinies; by shattering the confusion of thoughts, one leaves birth in the three realms; each is further divided into two based on understanding. Next, to "Question: suffering and origination may indeed be causes and conditions..." and so forth: this asks about the concluding verse from the treatise above, where the first line of the treatise was correlated with the Tripiṭaka's four noble truths as all belonging to phenomena produced by causes and conditions. Suffering and origination are delusion, so they may well follow conditions; the path and cessation shatter delusion, so why are they also said to be produced from causes and conditions? The gist of the subsequent answer is: the suffering and origination to be shattered are themselves conditioned in substance; without suffering and origination, there would be no path and cessation; their names are derived from the other, so they also follow conditions; this is why in the Tripiṭaka all four are subject to arising and ceasing. From "Therefore the Great Sūtra" onward, it cites the Great [Sūtra] as an example. Ignorance is origination and bodhi is the path; only because of ceasing origination can one attain the path—this is the intention of the distinctive and perfect teachings. If even the path and cessation of the distinctive and perfect teachings are produced from conditions, how much more so those of the Tripiṭaka. It adduces the profound to serve as an example for the shallow so as to resolve the previous objection. The next question asks: regarding the single phenomenon of dharma-nature in the preceding text, why is it divided into the two principles of provisional and real, and further divided into identity and separation to make four? The gist of the answer is: opening the provisional to reveal the real, there is only the single dharma-nature; applying the provisional for the sake of the real, provisional and real are therefore distinguished. Within the provisional and real, faculties that grasp understanding differ, which is why provisional and real each possess the sharp and the dull. Next, from "If one sees this meaning" onward, it takes the remaining nine as analogous. Since deducing through reason has the conclusion with the three types of calming and contemplation, as well as the three rounds of questions and answers for analysis, the remaining nine are likewise understood by analogy. Next, named the four universal [vows]: "universal" (hong) means broad, and "vow" (shi) means a commitment. The Shiming says: "A vow is a regulation." Now, by using the four dharmas as a summary regulation for the initial mind, causing one to seek above and transform below, it therefore says: "Arousing the samnāha in the initial mind, and finally plunging into hardship through great compassion." Samnāha is a Western sound, which translates here as "universal vow." Undertaking practice to fulfill the vow is therefore called "plunging into hardship." From the initial "previously deducing through reason" down to "four universal vows," it concludes the preceding and introduces the following. "Its meaning is already apparent" concludes the preceding. From "for those who do not yet understand" onward introduces the following. Although arousing the aspiration was extensively clarified previously in terms of the truths, those who do not yet understand fail to comprehend that the four noble truths are merely the objects of the four universal vows; therefore, it is expounded again in terms of the universal vows. Next, from "Moreover, in the four noble truths" onward, it distinguishes similarities and differences. The four noble truths are the object; understanding arises from the object, hence it says "in terms of understanding." The four universal vows give rise to aspiration based on understanding, hence it says "in terms of vows." Furthermore, the truths have cause and effect, hence they pervade the three times; vows all pertain to what is to come, hence they belong to the future. Furthermore, the four noble truths are in terms of principle, and principle pervades the three times; the four universal vows are aspirations, and aspirations are fulfilled in the future. Both the universal vows and the truths require seeking above; only when there is seeking above can there be transforming below. Within seeking above, only because there is the Buddha-path are there Dharma gates; therefore, each and every one must say "Buddha." Furthermore, this should be stated in terms of the nine time-periods; therefore, all three times have cause and effect, hence all say "Buddha." Furthermore, the four noble truths have suffering and origination, and suffering and origination possess the six sense faculties; universal vows are in terms of determined intent, and determined intent resides only in the mind. Furthermore, the four noble truths pervade the three karmas, and the three karmas pervade the six sense faculties; vows do not necessarily involve body and speech, hence they reside only in the mind. This is stated according to the primary division. If discussed in detail, they should also possess all three: the mind focuses on the object of the vow, the mouth recites the words of the vow, and the body displays marks of reverence. Furthermore, among the three rounds there are not lacking other meanings; for the time being it is just thus, hence it repeatedly says "mostly." Question: Even granting these differences, giving rise to vows in terms of the truths was already included previously; why state it again? Answer: A vow is termed "great"; the truths pervade both the great and the small. Ceasing suffering to liberate oneself has its designation in the small; compassionately aiding others has its designation encompassing the great; since the designation of the truths can be confounded, the four universal vows are expounded. Furthermore, the universal vows pervade the biased and the perfect, whereas the designation of identity is uniquely perfect; therefore, after the four universal vows, the six identities are further clarified. Only by moving from the broad to the narrow does the truth become evident; hence the text below states: "progressively deeper and more subtle." From "Like this" onward concludes the reason for coming. Question: Previously ten headings were clarified; why does this now only analyze against the truths? Answer: The four noble truths are general, while the ten headings are specific; therefore, in explaining the ten headings, the truths rank first. If the ten headings lack principle, they become identical to demonic teachings; therefore, it is only analyzed in terms of the truths, and its meaning covers the remaining ten.