止觀輔行傳弘決 1.111

1.111

次明圓教無作弘誓者，四諦之體秖是三諦，故以三諦總標誓境。一念心起與前不別，能觀觀智與前永異，即此一念即是三諦，不復更論迷解之本。若根若塵並是法界，法界秖是三諦異名。次「並是」下，三諦互融故云並是。藏具諸法即是俗也，空中名同不須別釋。「云何」下，重釋也。「並緣生」者，謂一念心並具百界千如等也。如是緣生悉皆無主，無主故空，即此千如名為妙假，即是法性名為妙中。結歸如文。「非三而三」下，復疎三諦還成三諦。「非三而三」，假也。「三而不三」，空也。亦應更云非三非不三中也，文無者略。「非合非散」，中道雙非，「而合」即空，「而散」即假。「非非合非非散」，非上雙非即是雙照，先明雙非、後明雙照。二文中間論二諦者，以此圓文無前後故，不可一異即中也。「而一」空也，「而異」假也，如此三諦在根在塵，「如來藏」者即當假也。豈如來藏而無佛性？聞此圓頓不宗重者，良由近代習大乘者雜濫故也。況像末情澆、信心寡薄，圓頓教法溢藏盈函，不暫思惟便至冥目，徒生徒死一何痛哉。有人云：聞而不行，於汝何預。此未深知久遠之益。如《善住天子經》文殊告舍利弗：「聞法生謗墮於地獄，勝於供養恒沙佛者。雖墮地獄，從地獄出還得聞法。」此以供佛不聞法者而為校量，聞而生謗尚為遠種，況聞思惟勤修習耶？「譬如」下，舉喻也。夫以事喻法皆是分喻，於中鏡喻其意最親。何者？遍鏡是明、遍明是像，非並非別、不縱不橫，有異伊字天目故也。「不合散」下，重複疎喻，如前可知。「不一二三」者，雖次第增，秖是三諦。三法非有，名不一二三。「二三無妨」者，此逐語便，故略一字。智者因喻，斯言有徵。「此一念心」下，合譬。欲明理等，復云生佛亦復如是。今問：世人云觀真如。如何觀於眾生身內等佛等生之真如耶（云云）？「華嚴」下，引證理齊。故《華嚴》歎初住心云「如心佛亦爾，如佛眾生然。心佛及眾生，是三無差別。諸佛悉了知，一切從心轉。若能如是解，彼人真見佛。身亦非是心，心亦非是身，作一切佛事，自在未曾有。若人欲求知，三世一切佛，應作如是觀，心造諸如來。」若無今家諸圓文意，彼經偈旨理實難銷。引《思益》者，不了陰界等於生佛，體即法界，故名為「愚」。引《淨名》者，三種解脫、三種菩提、三德涅槃，不離眾生，不可別求。是故重引顯成《思益》。引《普賢觀》者，毘盧遮那此翻遍一切處。煩惱體淨、眾德悉備、身土相稱，遍一切處。顯前兩經眾生理遍，不了之者尚隔無情。「當知」下，總結無外。「若爾」下，釋疑。此先疑云：若具三諦，《華嚴》云何但言如空，及《大品》中云畢竟空？「此舉」下，釋疑也。文偏意圓，不應偏難。《華嚴》第三普賢菩薩欲令眾喜而說偈言：「遊心法界如虛空，是人所知佛境界。」既云佛界，必具三諦，故今申云舉空為端。空即具三，故云空即不空等。何但空爾，假中亦然，故引微塵及以中道皆悉具三。言「微塵有大千經卷」者，《寶性論》云「有神通人見佛法滅，以大千經卷藏一塵中，後有人破塵出卷。」《華嚴．如來性品》云「佛子！譬如有一經卷，如大千界所有一切無不記錄。二千小千須彌山王，乃至色欲天宮等大皆記其事。文廣。時有一人出興於世，具足天眼，見此經卷在一塵內，作是念言：『云何經卷在一塵內，而不饒益一切眾生？我勤方便破塵出卷。』彼人即以方便出卷。佛子！如來智慧具足在於眾生身中，為惑所覆不見不知。如來天眼觀已言曰：『善哉善哉！云何如來在於身中而不覺知？我當教彼覺悟聖道，令離顛倒、見如來性。』即時令彼修八聖道見如來性。」一地多種、一丸多氣並喻於有。「勿守語」等者，誡勸也。勿守偏語以害圓融。《玉篇》云「加言曰誣。亦掩也、欺也。」誷義大同。「若得此解」下，明四諦境，八萬四千不出一心。言「八萬四千」者，小乘經論如薩婆多云：佛為眾生始終說法以為一藏，如是至八萬。有云：一坐說法以為一藏。有云：半月說戒以為一藏。有云：佛自說六萬六千偈為一藏。有云：塵勞有八萬，說八萬法藥。且舉不數故云八萬，具足應云八萬四千。如《俱舍》初文云「牟尼說法蘊，數有八十千。」後引《婆沙》，約隨眠等成八萬四千。此小乘門，非今正意。又《報恩》第六亦有多解。一云：四十二字以為一藏，餘同多論。若《賢劫經》，佛初發心至分舍利，凡有三百五十度門，一一皆有六度合二千一百，又對四分合八千四百，一變為十合八萬四千。彼經第二結一一名，名度無極。結名唯有一百九十六，如三十七道品之流但結為一數，若各開之即三百五十，亦不別云對於六度。但初文列有二十法，並以六為名，古來例釋皆應具六。若《法華疏》云「佛地三百五十，一一皆有十善，對四分六根故成八萬四千。」《婆沙》、《楞伽》等其意大同。總攢一切大小乘教，則有眾多八萬四千，合而言之不出四諦，法藏即苦、塵勞即集、對治即道、波羅蜜即滅。《大論》二十六「問：三昧與陀羅尼何別？答云：陀羅尼慧性，三昧定性。」故將定慧似屬道諦。八萬四千其數不殊，但以所治及以能治所治滅等得四諦名。初云「佛法界」等者，「佛法界」根也，「對法界」塵也，「起法界」識也。仍本迷說，故曰根等同名法界更無差別。故知八萬無非生死咸即涅槃，集道亦然，故皆法界。「無明轉」等者，總結四諦。苦集二諦俱是無明，即是法界、即是菩提，名「轉為明」。水水之喻，妙契玄理。如意珠喻，妙符水水。「眾生於此」下，結責。於此融妙一法界中，分別謂有凡聖真俗、有情無情，故云「思想」。此文亦名起誓之由，由思想故。「是故」下，正發誓。「故名」下，顯是。「前三」下，辨異示相。前三教文直云四諦，今一一諦八萬四千，故知此文是圓明矣，故曰「宛然」。邊高中下、邊下中高，名之為宛，顯了可見故也。此四四弘，一一皆云觀一念心者，秖是根塵相對所起之心。分四別者，前之二教巧拙雖殊皆為滅心以為極果，別人乃為迷解之本，圓人即知心是法界。緣此發心宛然可見，世人何事固執一途？

Next, in explaining the unconditioned vast vows of the perfect teaching, the substance of the four truths is simply the three truths; therefore, the three truths are used to generally mark the object of the vows. The arising of a single thought-moment of the mind is no different from before, but the contemplating wisdom that can contemplate is eternally different from before: this very single thought-moment is itself the three truths, and one no longer discusses the root of delusion and understanding. Both sense-faculties and sense-objects are alike the dharma-dhātu, and the dharma-dhātu is simply a different name for the three truths. Next, from "are alike" downward, because the three truths are mutually interfused, it says "are alike." That the storehouse possesses all dharmas is precisely the conventional; their names are the same in the empty and the middle, so they need not be explained separately. From "how so?" downward, it explains again. "Alike conditioned arisings" means that a single thought-moment of the mind fully possesses the hundred realms, thousand suchnesses, and so forth. Such conditioned arisings are all without a master; being without a master, they are empty. These very thousand suchnesses are called the wonderful provisional; being the dharma-nature, it is called the wonderful middle. The concluding attribution is as in the text. From "not three yet three" downward, it again unpacks the three truths and returns them to the three truths. "Not three yet three" is the provisional. "Three yet not three" is emptiness. It should also say "neither three nor not three," which is the middle; its absence in the text is an abbreviation. "Neither joined nor scattered" is the middle path's double negation: "yet joined" is emptiness, and "yet scattered" is the provisional. "Neither not joined nor not scattered" negates the double negation above, which is double illumination: first it explains double negation, and afterward it explains double illumination. The discussion of the two truths in between the two texts is because in this perfect text there is no before and after; being neither identical nor different is precisely the middle. "Yet identical" is emptiness, "yet different" is the provisional. Such three truths exist in the sense-faculties and in the sense-objects; the "Tathāgata-garbha" corresponds to the provisional. How could the Tathāgata-garbha be devoid of Buddha-nature? That those who hear this perfect and sudden [teaching] do not honor and esteem it is truly because in recent times practitioners of the Mahāyāna are confused and disorderly. How much more so as the semblance and final [Dharma ages] see sentiments turn shallow and faithful mind become scarce and weak: the perfect and sudden teachings overflow the canon and fill the boxes, yet without contemplating them for a moment, people straightaway close their eyes [in death]; living in vain and dying in vain, how painful it is! Someone said: "If you hear it but do not practice it, what concern is it of yours?" Such a person does not yet deeply know the benefit across the distant past. As Mañjuśrī told Śāriputra in the Susthitamati-devaputra-sūtra: "Hearing the Dharma and giving rise to slander, thereby falling into hell, surpasses making offerings to Buddhas [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges. Although one falls into hell, upon emerging from hell one will still get to hear the Dharma." This is a comparative appraisal against those who make offerings to Buddhas but do not hear the Dharma: hearing and giving rise to slander is still a seed for the distant future, so how much more so hearing, contemplating, and diligently practicing? From "for example" downward, it adduces a metaphor. In using phenomena to illustrate the Dharma, all are partial metaphors; among them, the metaphor of the mirror has the closest meaning. Why so? Pervading the mirror is clarity, and pervading clarity is the reflection: neither combined nor separate, neither vertical nor horizontal, because it differs from the [shape of the] letter 'i' and the eye of heaven. From "not joined or scattered" downward, it repeats the unpacking of the metaphor, which can be known as before. "Not one, two, or three": although they increase in sequence, they are simply the three truths. Because the three dharmas are non-existent, it is called "not one, two, or three." In "two and three are without impediment," it follows linguistic convenience and thus omits one character. Zhizhe based it on the metaphor, and these words have evidence. From "this single thought-moment of the mind" downward, it matches the metaphor. Wishing to clarify that the principle is equal, it again says that sentient beings and Buddhas are also like this. Now I ask: people of the world speak of contemplating True Suchness; how do they contemplate the True Suchness inside the bodies of sentient beings that is equal to Buddhas and equal to sentient beings (and so forth)? From "Avataṃsaka" downward, it cites evidence that the principle is equal. Thus the Avataṃsaka, in praising the mind of the first abode, says: "As with the mind, so is the Buddha; as with the Buddha, so are sentient beings. Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings: these three are without distinction. All Buddhas fully know that everything turns from the mind. If one can understand like this, that person truly sees the Buddha. The body is not the mind, and the mind is not the body, yet they perform all Buddha-works, with unheralded sovereignty. If a person wishes to know all Buddhas of the three periods of time, they should contemplate thus: the mind creates all Tathāgatas." If not for the meaning of our school's various perfect texts, the principle of that sūtra's verse would truly be difficult to untie. Citing the Viśeṣacinti: not understanding that the aggregates and realms are equal to sentient beings and Buddhas, their substance being precisely the dharma-dhātu, is therefore called "stupidity." Citing the Vimalakīrti: the three kinds of liberation, the three kinds of bodhi, and the three virtues of nirvāṇa are not separate from sentient beings and cannot be sought elsewhere. Therefore it is cited again to make clear and complete the Viśeṣacinti. Citing the Samantabhadra Contemplation: Vairocana is translated here as "pervading all places." The substance of afflictions is pure, the manifold virtues are fully equipped, and body and land correspond to each other, pervading all places. This reveals that the principle of sentient beings in the previous two sūtras is pervasive; those who do not understand it still separate [it from] insentient things. From "one should know" downward, it concludes generally that there is nothing outside. From "if so" downward, it resolves doubts. This first doubts: if it possesses the three truths, why does the Avataṃsaka only speak of being like space, and why does the Dapin speak of ultimate emptiness? From "this brings up" downward, it resolves the doubt. The text is biased but the meaning is perfect; one should not pose a one-sided challenge. In the third fascicle of the Avataṃsaka, Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, wishing to make the assembly rejoice, spoke a verse saying: "Roaminng the mind in the dharma-dhātu like empty space: this is the Buddha-realm known by that person." Since it says "the Buddha-realm," it necessarily possesses the three truths; therefore it is now explained that bringing up emptiness is just an introduction. Emptiness itself possesses the three; hence it says emptiness is precisely not empty, and so forth. How could it be only emptiness? The provisional and the middle are also like this; hence it cites the dust particle and the middle path as both possessing the three. As for the statement "a dust particle contains a great-thousand scroll of scripture," the Ratnagotravibhāga says: "A person with supernormal powers saw the Buddha's Dharma perish, and concealed a great-thousand scroll of scripture within a single dust particle; later, a person split the dust particle and brought out the scroll." The Tathāgatatva chapter of the Avataṃsaka says: "Disciples of the Buddha! For example, there is a scroll of scripture that records everything that exists in the great-thousand realm, leaving nothing out. The two-thousand, small-thousand, Mount Sumeru king, and even the size of the palaces of the gods of desire and form are all recorded therein. The text is extensive. At that time, a person arose in the world who was fully endowed with the divine eye; seeing that this scroll of scripture was inside a single dust particle, they had this thought: 'How is it that a scroll of scripture is inside a single dust particle and does not benefit all sentient beings? Through diligent skillful means I will split the dust particle and bring out the scroll.' That person then used skillful means to bring out the scroll. Disciples of the Buddha! The Tathāgata's wisdom is fully present within the bodies of sentient beings, but covered by delusion, they neither see nor know it. After the Tathāgata contemplated with the divine eye, he said: 'Splendid, splendid! How is it that the Tathāgata is within their bodies yet they do not perceive or know it? I shall teach them to awaken to the noble path, cause them to leave behind inverted views, and see the Tathāgata-nature.' He immediately caused them to cultivate the eightfold noble path and see the Tathāgata-nature." One earth having many seeds and one pellet having many vapors are both metaphors for existence. As for "do not cling to the words," etc., this is an admonition and encouragement. Do not cling to biased words so as to harm perfect interfusion. The Yupian says: "Adding words is called wū (slander); it also means covering over, or deceiving." Wǎng has largely the same meaning. From "if one attains this understanding" downward, it clarifies the realm of the four truths: the eighty-four thousand do not go beyond the single mind. As for "eighty-four thousand," Hīnayāna sūtras and treatises, such as the Sarvāstivāda, say: from beginning to end, the Buddha's preaching of the Dharma to sentient beings constitutes one storehouse, and so on up to eighty thousand. Some say: the Dharma preached in a single sitting constitutes one storehouse. Some say: the recitation of the precepts once every half-month constitutes one storehouse. Some say: sixty-six thousand verses spoken by the Buddha himself constitute one storehouse. Some say: there are eighty thousand afflictions, and eighty thousand Dharma-medicines were spoken. Taking a round number, it says eighty thousand; in full, it should be eighty-four thousand. As the initial text of the Kośa says: "The Dharma-heaps spoken by the Muni number eighty thousand." Later, citing the Vibhāṣā, by taking the latent dispositions and so forth, it makes eighty-four thousand. This is the Hīnayāna approach, not the primary meaning here. Furthermore, the sixth fascicle of the Bao'en jing also has many explanations. One says: forty-two syllables constitute one storehouse; the rest are the same as the Sarvāstivāda treatises. In the Bhadrakalpika-sūtra, from the Buddha's initial aspiration to the division of the relics, there are altogether three hundred and fifty gates of deliverance, each of which has the six perfections, making two thousand one hundred; furthermore, paired with the four parts, this makes eight thousand four hundred, and multiplying one into ten makes eighty-four thousand. The second fascicle of that sūtra concludes each name, calling them "deliverance without ultimate." The concluding names number only one hundred and ninety-six, like the class of the thirty-seven aids to the path which are concluded as a single count; if unfolded individually, they are three hundred and fifty, nor does it separately state that they correspond to the six perfections. But the initial text lists twenty dharmas, all named with "six"; following ancient precedent, they are all interpreted as possessing the six. In the Fahua shu, it says: "The Buddha-stages are three hundred and fifty, each having the ten good deeds, which paired with the four parts and six sense-faculties make eighty-four thousand." The Vibhāṣā, Laṅkā[vatāra], etc., have largely the same idea. Summing together all the teachings of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, there are numerous eighty-four thousands, but combined, they do not go beyond the four truths: the Dharma-storehouse is suffering, afflictions are origin, antidotes are the path, and pāramitās are cessation. The twenty-sixth fascicle of the Dazhidulun states: "Question: What is the difference between samādhi and dhāraṇī? Answer: Dhāraṇī has the nature of wisdom; samādhi has the nature of concentration." Therefore, concentration and wisdom correspond seemingly to the truth of the path. The eighty-four thousand are not different in their number; it is only by what is countered, what can counter, the cessation of what is countered, and so forth, that they receive the names of the four truths. What was initially said as "Buddha dharma-dhātu" and so forth: "Buddha dharma-dhātu" is the sense-faculties, "facing the dharma-dhātu" is the sense-objects, and "arising the dharma-dhātu" is consciousness. Still speaking on the basis of original delusion, it is said that sense-faculties and so forth are equally called the dharma-dhātu without any difference. Thus we know that among the eighty thousand, there is none that is not saṃsāra, and all are precisely nirvāṇa; origin and path are also like this, and therefore all are the dharma-dhātu. As for "ignorance transforms," etc., it generally concludes the four truths. Both the truths of suffering and origin are ignorance; being precisely the dharma-dhātu and precisely bodhi, it is called "transforming into clarity." The metaphor of water and water wonderfully accords with the profound principle. The metaphor of the wish-fulfilling jewel wonderfully matches that of water and water. From "sentient beings regarding this" downward, it concludes with a rebuke. Within this interfused and wonderful single dharma-dhātu, discriminating that there are ordinary and noble, true and conventional, sentient and insentient, is therefore called "conceptualization." This passage is also called the reason for giving rise to the vows: because of conceptualization. From "therefore" downward, it directly makes the vows. From "therefore it is called" downward, it reveals correctness. From "the previous three" downward, it distinguishes differences and indicates characteristics. The texts of the previous three teachings directly speak of the four truths; now, each individual truth is eighty-four thousand. Thus we know this text is perfect and clear, and hence it says "vividly clear." High on the edges and low in the middle, or low on the edges and high in the middle, is called wan (uneven/distinct), meaning clearly visible. In each of these four sets of four vast [vows], to say that one contemplates a single thought-moment of the mind refers simply to the mind that arises from the confrontation of sense-faculties and sense-objects. In dividing into four differences: although the previous two teachings differ in skillfulness and clumsiness, both take extinguishing the mind as the ultimate fruit; the distinctive [teaching] person takes it as the root of delusion and understanding; the perfect [teaching] person knows that the mind is the dharma-dhātu. Arousing the aspiration on this basis is vividly visible; why do people of the world stubbornly cling to a single track?