止觀輔行傳弘決 1.52

1.52

「疑者云」去，料簡前文。初疑問中言「教境」等者，同是大乘教、同緣實相境、同名為止觀，此三既同，何故三種行相頓是差別？次從「然」下，答。先總答。云「同不同」等者，行相各別，何妨三同？雖曰三同，何妨行別？「漸次中」去，別答中應名漸次，與不定相對於圓頓以辨同異。今文但釋漸次行相，漸後結云故言不定者，以不定法無階位故，故寄漸後而結不定。漸中即有十二不同，如前分別。兩教二乘是無漏四，而今乃云無漏總中三者，何耶？別而言之，離為四人。若總名無漏，則合却三人但存一位。今舉總合開、一中兼三，故名無漏總中三也。若沒本位離開為四，并善惡各三及以禪定慈悲各一，故成十二。若准無漏離為四別，慈悲亦應有三不同，文無者略。言「從多」者，以漸不定十二不同，行相多故，名漸不定。約理則非多非少，約相則頓少二多。漸中實相及以圓頓，其相是同，不須別說。故但結二不同於圓，而用釋向同不同等。次從「此章同大乘」去，重問者，向雖明漸不定不同，復重更問三番差別，故更將同問三差別，故結難云何名辨差。又初問者，許有三異，將同問異，故結文云相頓爾異。後問意者，由前答異，將異問同，是故結云何故名為辨差。二問雖並三同居先，文意實以二義互舉，是故二答並云同與不同等也。又由前答中但出漸相以對於頓，不定行相寄漸明之，今欲具辨三種相別，故更還以三同問起，故下答中具出二相。言此章者，此中舊名辨差章故。既曰三同，何故此章辨三差別？章名雖廢，問亦何傷。「然」下，重答。同義如前。「九不同」者，於前十二，合三無漏依總為一，故但有九。并不定四，故有十三。將此漸次及以不定對頓，即成三差別也。理而言之，漸不定中所緣實相與頓理同，為答來問，故對二說俱名不同，故云從多。次「一切」下，證同不同。以無為法證不同而同，而有差別證同而不同。良由諸聖證無為法，用此無為而能分別，故云差別。如諸羅漢得小無為尚分別小，故諸菩薩得大無為能分別大，所以分別是無為用，故云「以無為法」。依第二本，答云漸次中十二不同，不定中有四不同，總有十三不同。若無第三重修本文，第二本文何由可解？十二與四乃有十六，而云十三。標乃從開、會數從合，應知十二約開無漏，十三約合無漏對不定說。問：無漏開四，慈悲不開？答：開亦不違。玄漸觀中列四慈悲，開合隨便不可一准。有人云：無漏總中三者，即三觀也。無漏空也，總假中中。自濫參聽眾有逾一紀，實未曾聞有斯異釋。中即實相，實相是同，如何數為不同之限？一不可也。一宗教門，文無說假以為總者，二不可也。漸次九中已有無漏，慈悲與假其義又同，不應重數以三足九，三不可也。借使以三足善惡六，但應成九，今云十二，四不可也。縱兼實相但成一十，今云十二，五不可也。又第二本文無無漏總中之言亦云十二，今以此三配於三觀，復含漸次亦但十二，六不可也。或云：諸番達即是觀、止即是止者，三途何故但止無觀？常住何故但觀無止？借使以此為止觀者，中間四番四止四觀，初後二番一止一觀，則但有十。若開善惡各立止觀，則九不同十八止觀；若數常住復為現文，文云漸九，七不可也。復應思擇漸初雖復知圓，不同但中及十行中時長行遠。略知此二已異別教，故知此三知圓理同而行相小別。當知南岳唯授天台圓頓之理，約行須以漸不定助。問：南岳大師知四教不？答：南岳委知而不細判。何者：如智者釋位而引南岳用《大品》文四十二字以為圓位，歡喜等地以為別位，乾慧等地以為通位。又南岳自釋四十二字門兼申《大品經》文，亦作三教義釋。既知三教《大品》文中處處以衍對藏為小，故知南岳亦知四教。又此四教非始南岳，慧文禪師既依《大論》，《大論》釋經經明三教，當知此教傳來久矣，至天台來分別始盛。有云：四教神僧授與。此語無憑，神僧但云：「自今已去，自行化他，吾常影響。」三昧既天機秀發，四教何待神僧？承躡有由，深符聖旨，是故三觀總攝四教。又此三止觀名字雖似八教中三，其相永別。彼八教中指《華嚴》為頓，鹿苑去為漸，不定寄在前四味中。下料簡中但是借名，以將祕密對三為難，非正意也。

From "The doubter says" onward, the previous text is analyzed. In the initial doubt, where it says "the teaching, object," and so forth: [they] share the same Mahāyāna teaching, share the same object of the true mark, and share the same name of calming and contemplation; since these three are identical, why are their three types of practice-aspects abruptly distinct? Next, from "However" onward, it replies. First, a general reply. The phrase "identical yet not identical" and so on means: their practice-aspects are distinct, so what prevents the three from being identical? Although said to be three identicals, what prevents their practices from being distinct? From "In the gradual" onward, in the specific reply, it should name the gradual and contrast it and the indeterminate with the perfect and sudden to distinguish identity and difference. The present text merely explains the gradual practice-aspect, and after the gradual concludes by saying "therefore it is called indeterminate"; because indeterminate dharmas have no stages, it is appended after the gradual to conclude the indeterminate. Within the gradual there are twelve differences, as distinguished above. The two vehicles of the two teachings are the four of the undefiled, yet why does it now say "three within the undefiled in general"? Speaking specifically, they are divided into four persons. If one designates them generally as undefiled, one combines the other three and preserves only one position. Now, mentioning the general combines what is divided, so that within the one, three are subsumed; therefore it is called "three within the undefiled in general." If one subsumes the fundamental position and divides it into four, together with three each for good and evil as well as one each for dhyāna-concentration and compassion, they make twelve. If, following the division of the undefiled into four distinctions, compassion should also have three differences, its absence in the text is an abbreviation. The phrase "following the majority" means: because the gradual and indeterminate have twelve differences and their practice-aspects are numerous, they are called gradual and indeterminate. In terms of principle, there is neither many nor few; in terms of marks, the sudden is few and the other two are many. The true mark within the gradual and [that of] the perfect and sudden are identical in mark and need not be stated separately. Hence it merely concludes that the two differ from the perfect, using this to explain the earlier "identical yet not identical" and so forth. Next, from "This section shares the Mahāyāna" onward, there is a second question: although the differences between the gradual and indeterminate were just clarified, it asks again about the distinction among the three turns; thus it brings up the identities again to inquire about the three distinctions, concluding with the challenge: "Why is it called 'distinguishing differences'?" Furthermore, the first question admits that there are three differences, bringing up identities to ask about differences, hence concluding with "why are their marks abruptly distinct?" The intent of the latter question is that, due to the previous reply regarding differences, it brings up differences to ask about identities, hence concluding with "why is it called 'distinguishing differences'?" Although both questions place the three identities first, the textual intent actually presents the two meanings reciprocally; therefore both replies say "identical and not identical" and so forth. Moreover, because the previous reply only presented the gradual marks in contrast to the sudden, and the indeterminate practice-aspect was explained by appending it to the gradual, now, wishing to fully distinguish the marks of all three, it again raises the inquiry using the three identities, so the reply below fully sets forth both marks. As for "this section": this was formerly titled the "Section on Distinguishing Differences." Since it is said to have three identities, why does this section distinguish three differences? Even if the section title is abandoned, what harm is there in the question? From "However" onward, it replies again. The meaning of identity is as before. The "nine differences" refers to taking the former twelve and combining the three undefiled based on the general into one, so there are only nine. Adding the four of the indeterminate, there are thirteen. Comparing this gradual and indeterminate with the sudden, they constitute the three distinctions. Speaking in terms of principle, the true mark that is the object cognized in the gradual and indeterminate is identical with the sudden principle; in order to answer the incoming question, both are spoken of in contrast to the sudden as "not identical," hence it is said to "follow the majority." Next, from "All [noble persons]" onward, it proves identity and non-identity. It uses the unconditioned dharma to prove identity amidst non-identity, and "having distinctions" to prove non-identity amidst identity. Truly, because all noble ones realize the unconditioned dharma, by using this unconditioned they are able to discriminate; hence it says "distinctions." Just as the arhats, having attained the lesser unconditioned, still discriminate the lesser, so the bodhisattvas, having attained the great unconditioned, are able to discriminate the great; therefore discrimination is the function of the unconditioned, which is why it says "by the unconditioned dharma." According to the second edition, the answer states that there are twelve differences in the gradual and four differences in the indeterminate, making thirteen differences in total. If there were no third reedited base text, how could the second base text be understood? Twelve and four make sixteen, yet it says thirteen. The designation follows the divided, while the tally of numbers follows the combined; one should know that twelve refers to dividing the undefiled, while thirteen refers to combining the undefiled when speaking in contrast to the indeterminate. Question: If the undefiled is divided into four, why is compassion not divided? Answer: To divide it is also not contradictory. In the gradual contemplation of the Xuanwen, four compassions are listed; dividing or combining depends on convenience and cannot be restricted to a single rule. Someone says: "The three within the undefiled in general are the three contemplations: the undefiled is emptiness, the general is provisionality, and within is the middle." Since I began attending lectures over twelve years ago, I have truly never heard of such an unusual interpretation. The middle is the true mark, and the true mark is identical; how could it be counted within the limits of differences? This is the first impossibility. In the teaching of our school, no text speaks of provisionality as "the general"; this is the second impossibility. Among the nine of the gradual, there is already the undefiled, and the meanings of compassion and provisionality are the same, so one should not recount them to make nine by adding three; this is the third impossibility. Even if one were to add three to the six of good and evil, it should only make nine, whereas it now says twelve; this is the fourth impossibility. Even if one included the true mark, it would only make ten, whereas it now says twelve; this is the fifth impossibility. Furthermore, the second base text lacks the phrase "three within the undefiled in general" and also says twelve; if one now matches these three to the three contemplations, again subsuming the gradual, it would also be only twelve; this is the sixth impossibility. Or someone says: "In all the turns, reaching is contemplation and stopping is calming"; why then do the three miserable realms have only calming and no contemplation? Why does the eternal abide only in contemplation and have no calming? Even if one were to take these as calming and contemplation, the middle four turns would have four calmings and four contemplations, and the first and last two turns would have one calming and one contemplation, which would only make ten. If one divides good and evil to establish calming and contemplation for each, then the nine differences would yield eighteen calmings and contemplations; if one counts the eternal, it contradicts the present text, for the text says "gradual has nine"; this is the seventh impossibility. Furthermore, one should reflect and discern: although the beginning of the gradual also knows the perfect, it is unlike the mere middle and the long time and distant practice of the ten practices. Merely knowing these two already differs from the distinctive teaching; therefore one knows that these three share the same knowledge of the perfect principle, while their practice-aspects differ slightly. One should know that Nanyue transmitted to Tiantai only the principle of the perfect and sudden, while in terms of practice it must be aided by the gradual and the indeterminate. Question: Did Great Master Nanyue know the four teachings? Answer: Nanyue knew them thoroughly, but did not classify them in detail. Why? Just as Zhizhe, when explaining the stages, quoted Nanyue as using the text of forty-two letters from the Dapin as the perfect stages, the stage of Joy and so forth as the distinctive stages, and the stage of Dry Wisdom and so forth as the shared stages. Moreover, Nanyue himself, in explaining the gate of forty-two letters while expanding on the text of the Dapin Sūtra, also explained them according to the meaning of the three teachings. Having known the three teachings, and since the Dapin text everywhere contrasts the Great Vehicle with the Tripiṭaka as the lesser, one knows that Nanyue also knew the four teachings. Furthermore, these four teachings did not originate with Nanyue; Dhyāna Master Huiwen relied on the Dazhidulun, and the Dazhidulun in explaining the sūtra clarifies the three teachings; one should know that this teaching has been transmitted for a long time, and only with Tiantai did its detailed analysis flourish. Some say: "The four teachings were transmitted by a divine monk." This statement lacks evidence. The divine monk merely said: "From now on, whether in your own practice or transforming others, I will always be your shadow and echo." Since the samādhi was spontaneously inspired by heavenly endowment, why would the four teachings depend on a divine monk? The lineage has its source and deeply accords with the holy intention; therefore the three contemplations completely subsume the four teachings. Furthermore, although the names of these three types of calming and contemplation resemble three among the eight teachings, their characteristics are forever distinct. Among those eight teachings, Avataṃsaka is designated as sudden, Deer Park onward as gradual, and indeterminate is appended within the first four flavors. In the analysis below, it merely borrows the names to challenge the three by contrasting them with the secret [teaching]; it is not the primary intention.