止觀輔行傳弘決 1.115.1

1.115.1

次「約六即」者，世有講者皆以初住為果佛者，亦由失於六即之意。 講者尚爾，況暗禪耶？ 初明六即所以，故先問云「為初心是？ 為後心是？ 」初即是理，後即究竟，問今發心為約理具名為顯是？ 為約究竟方名顯是？ 「答」下，約《大論》為答。 《大品》「須菩提問佛：『為用初心得菩提？ 為用後心得菩提？ 』」論七十五釋云「須菩提何故作此問耶？ 答：須菩提聞上諸法不增不減，心自生疑。 若法不增減，云何得菩提？ 唯佛能爾，何關菩薩？ 佛以深因緣答，謂不但初心、不離初心。 所以者何？ 若但初心，菩薩初心便應是佛。 若無初心，云何得有第二二心？ 後以初為本、初以後為期。 佛以現喻喻此初後，譬如焦炷非初不離初、非後不離後。 燈喻菩薩道，炷喻無明。 焰如初地相應智慧，乃至金剛三昧相應智慧焦無明惑，非初智不離初智、非後智不離後智。 」論通三教故約斷位，今專約圓故通凡聖。 理性尚乃得名菩提及以止觀，況復名字乃至究竟。 今明發心在名字位，此名依理、期心果頭，果頭之理初後無殊，約事差分六位階降，名六名即不即不離，思之可知。 是故菩提非初不離初、非後不離後，經論約斷，今文通理。 理不能發名為非理，發必依理名不離理； 發心在因名為非後，期心後果名不離後。 故此發心須知六即。 初但名理是故非初，理即是故故不離初； 後名居極是故非後，至後方極名不離後。 此與斷位其義雖殊，不即不離其意雅合。 「若智信」下，釋意也。 信初心具，不謗言無； 智極方滿，不懼無分，則初後俱是。 謂極在佛，凡夫永無，名為後非； 謂凡有理，理即是佛，名為初非，離初後非須知六即。 初心雖即但名為理，故離初非； 極果雖遙即故有分，故離後非。 此六即義起自一家，深符圓旨永無眾過。 暗禪者多增上慢，文字者推功上人，並由不曉六而復即。 「謂理」下，列名。 「此六」下，釋名離過。 即故凡亦必具，六故極唯在佛，是故始凡理具而不疑，無趣求、無怯終； 聖在佛，而無上慢以生自大。 凡者常也，亦非一也，庶品多故。 聖者，《風俗通》云「聖者，聲也。 以其聞聲知情，通天地、暢萬物故也。 」《易》曰「聖人者，與天地合德、與日月合明、與四時合序、與鬼神合其吉凶。 」今出世聖不聞其聲，知九界情，通諦理、暢眾機，與法界合德、與二智合明、與四機合節、與眾聖合其冥顯。 「理即」下，正釋六即。 初釋理即。 約如來藏理釋三諦者，一切眾生具如來藏，三諦無缺，如上圓教四諦四弘中說。 無始理具未曾聞名，此理與佛無毫差也。 次「亦是」下，會異名。 次「即寂」下，以一止觀結。 下文大同。 「名字」下，釋名字即。 以有理故，故有生死。 生死用理，不知生死即是理故，名「日用不知」。 如世人用日而不知光之恩，《周易》意（云云）。 未聞名故，不知理性具三諦也，故全不識凡中佛法。 「如牛羊」下，舉譬不知。 四方曰方、四維曰隅，牛羊雖見而無了別，故知凡小不了諸法實相方隅，實中之實如方、實中之權如隅。 此舉不知為顯於知。 次「或從」下，因聞故知。 知上所說實相之理，若不聞名從何能了？ 世人蔑教尚理觀者，誤哉誤哉。 「觀行」下，釋觀行即。 初以勝斥劣，故行勝聞。 聞意在行非徒口說。 故舉譬云「如蟲蝕木」。 即《大經》第二「客醫語王：『汝今不應作如是說，如蟲蝕木，偶得成字，此蟲不知是字非字。 智人終不唱言是蟲解字，亦不驚怪。 』外道之徒得常樂名，終不能解常樂之義。 」今亦如是，聞不修行，不曉文旨，如彼蟲道； 是故應令聞行具足。 「必須」下，重誡勸也。 心觀明了，勸解必先於理起行； 理慧相應，勸行必先於理生解。 則此心觀與理相應，所行是依理起觀，所言是依行而說。

Next, as for "in terms of the six identities": the lecturers in the world all take the first abidance to be the fruit-Buddha, which also stems from missing the meaning of the six identities. If even lecturers are like this, how much more so the blind meditators? First, to explain the reason for the six identities, [the text] therefore first asks: "Is the initial mind correct? Or is the final mind correct?" "Initial" is the principle, and "final" is the ultimate. It asks: in terms of the present arousing of the aspiration, is it named 'manifesting correctness' in terms of being endowed in principle? Or is it only named 'manifesting correctness' in terms of the ultimate? From "Answer" below, it answers based on the Dazhidulun. In the Dapin, "Subhūti asked the Buddha: 'Does one attain bodhi by means of the initial mind? Or does one attain bodhi by means of the final mind?'" Fascicle seventy-five of the treatise explains: "Why did Subhūti ask this question? Answer: Subhūti heard that the above dharmas neither increase nor decrease, and doubt arose naturally in his mind. If dharmas neither increase nor decrease, how can one attain bodhi? Only the Buddha can be like this; what does it have to do with a bodhisattva? The Buddha answered with profound causes and conditions, saying that it is neither merely the initial mind nor apart from the initial mind. Why is this? If it were merely the initial mind, a bodhisattva's initial mind would immediately be a Buddha. If there were no initial mind, how could there be a second or a second-to-last mind? The final takes the initial as its root; the initial takes the final as its expected end. The Buddha used a visible metaphor to illustrate this initial and final: it is like the burning of a wick, which is neither [done by] the first [flame alone] nor apart from the first, neither [by] the last nor apart from the last. The lamp illustrates the bodhisattva path, and the wick illustrates ignorance. The flame is like the wisdom corresponding to the first bhūmi, up to the wisdom corresponding to the vajrasamādhi burning the affliction of ignorance; it is neither [done by] the initial wisdom nor apart from the initial wisdom, neither [by] the final wisdom nor apart from the final wisdom." Because the treatise covers the three teachings, it is discussed in terms of the stages of eradication; here, because it is exclusively focused on the perfect [teaching], it covers both ordinary people and sages. The nature of principle may still be named bodhi as well as calming and contemplation; how much more so verbal [identity] up to ultimate [identity]! Now it is explained that arousing the aspiration is at the stage of verbal identity: this name is based on principle, and the mind aspires to the ultimate fruit. The principle of the ultimate fruit does not differ between initial and final; in terms of phenomena, it is differentiated into six stages of gradations. They are called "six" and they are called "identities"—neither identical nor separate; you can understand this by reflecting upon it. Therefore bodhi is neither the initial nor apart from the initial, neither the final nor apart from the final. The sūtras and treatises discuss this in terms of eradication; the present text applies it to principle. That which principle cannot arouse is termed "not principle"; that which is aroused must be based on principle, so it is termed "not apart from principle." Arousing the aspiration lies in the cause, so it is termed "not the final"; aspiring in mind to the final fruit is termed "not apart from the final." Therefore, with regard to this arousing of the aspiration, one must understand the six identities. The initial is merely called principle, therefore it is not the initial; because principle is identity, it is not apart from the initial. The final has its name dwelling at the culmination, therefore it is not the final; because it only culminates when reaching the final, it is not apart from the final. Although its meaning is different from the stages of eradication, its sense of being neither identical nor separate is in elegant accord. From "If wisdom and faith" below, it explains the meaning. Faith that the initial mind is endowed [with it] prevents one from slandering and saying it does not exist; wisdom reaching the culmination before it is perfected prevents one from fearing that one has no share. Then both the initial and the final are correct. Believing that the culmination lies only in the Buddha and that ordinary people are forever devoid of it is called "error regarding the final"; believing that ordinary people have the principle and that principle is itself the Buddha is called "error regarding the initial." To be free from the errors regarding the initial and the final, one must understand the six identities. Although the initial mind is identity, it is merely called "principle," hence one is free from the error regarding the initial; although the ultimate fruit is distant, because it is identity one has a share in it, hence one is free from the error regarding the final. This doctrine of the six identities originated from our single tradition; it accords deeply with the perfect import and is forever free of manifold faults. The blind meditators are mostly arrogant; the literalists push the merit onto superior persons; both stem from not understanding that they are six yet also identical. From "Namely, principle" below, the names are listed. From "These six" below, it explains the names to avoid errors. Because of "identity," an ordinary person must also be fully endowed with it; because of "six," the culmination lies only in the Buddha. Therefore, from the beginning, the ordinary person is endowed with principle and does not doubt, having no eager pursuit and no fear of the end; the sage lies in the Buddha, without arrogance to give rise to conceit. "Ordinary" means common, and it is also not single, because the multitudes of kinds are numerous. As for "sage," the Fengsu Tong says: "A sage (sheng) is sound (sheng). It is because by hearing sounds one knows dispositions, penetrating Heaven and Earth and expressing all things." The Book of Changes says: "The sage harmonizes virtue with Heaven and Earth, harmonizes brightness with the sun and moon, harmonizes order with the four seasons, and harmonizes good and bad fortune with ghosts and spirits." Now, the transmundane sage does not merely hear sounds, but knows the dispositions of the nine realms, penetrates the principle of the truths, expresses the capacities of all beings, harmonizes virtue with the dharma-dhātu, harmonizes brightness with the two wisdoms, harmonizes rhythm with the four capacities, and harmonizes the obscure and the manifest with all the sages. From "Identity in principle" below, it directly explains the six identities. First, it explains identity in principle. To explain the three truths in terms of the principle of the tathāgatagarbha: all sentient beings are endowed with the tathāgatagarbha, and the three truths are not lacking, as explained above under the four truths and four universal vows of the perfect teaching. Beginninglessly endowed with principle, one has never heard its name; this principle does not differ from the Buddha by a hair's breadth. Next, from "is also" below, it brings together different names. Next, from "which is quiescent" below, it concludes with a single calming and contemplation. The text below is largely the same. From "Verbal" below, it explains verbal identity. Because principle exists, there is birth-and-death. Birth-and-death makes use of principle, but not knowing that birth-and-death is itself principle is called "using it daily without knowing it." Just as worldly people use the sun daily without knowing the grace of its light, which is the meaning in the Zhouyi (and so on). Because one has not heard the name, one does not know that the nature of principle is endowed with the three truths; therefore, one entirely fails to recognize the Buddhadharma within the ordinary. From "Like oxen and sheep" below, it cites an analogy for not knowing. The four cardinal directions are called "directions" (fang), and the four intercardinal directions are called "corners" (yu). Although oxen and sheep see them, they have no discernment; thus we know that ordinary persons and adherents of the lesser [vehicle] do not understand the directions and corners of the true mark of all dharmas: the real within the real is like the cardinal directions, and the provisional within the real is like the corners. This adducing of not knowing is to manifest knowing. Next, from "or from" below, it is knowing due to hearing. One knows the principle of the true mark explained above; if one does not hear the name, from where could one understand it? Those in the world who slight the teaching and esteem the contemplation of principle are mistaken indeed! From "Contemplative practice" below, it explains the identity in contemplative practice. First, it reproves the inferior by means of the superior, hence practice is superior to hearing. The intent of hearing lies in practice; it is not mere oral recitation. Thus it cites the analogy, saying: "like an insect eating wood." This is from fascicle two of the Great Sūtra: "The traveling physician told the king: 'You should not now speak like this. It is like an insect eating wood and happening to form a character; this insect does not know whether it is a character or not. A wise person would never proclaim that this insect understands characters, nor would he be astonished.' The followers of the non-Buddhists obtain the names 'eternal' and 'blissful', yet they are ultimately unable to understand the meaning of eternal and blissful." It is also like this now: if one hears but does not practice, not understanding the import of the text, it is like the path of that insect. Therefore, one should make hearing and practice fully complete. From "Must" below, it repeats the admonition and exhortation. The mind's contemplation must be clear and distinct, exhorting that understanding must first give rise to practice based on principle; principle and wisdom must correspond, exhorting that practice must first generate understanding based on principle. Then this contemplation of the mind corresponds with principle: what is practiced is the contemplation aroused based on principle, and what is spoken is spoken based on practice.