止觀輔行傳弘決 1.74

1.74

次從「若修觀者」去，約所化者論得、不得。先明不得，故云發所修顯。顯，謂頓等三止觀也。稟教之人不合修密，故云「不發不修」者。況復密教所詮同顯，則無別立修密觀義，故云不修。次「發宿習」去，約所化者義立於得。如修生滅而發無作，顯露不定似密不定，義立密觀，故云得論。問：初淺後深是漸者，通總而論。善惡乃至達常住來。通得名漸？答：是不定者。理深事淺約四悉說，亦可約漸展轉相望互為深淺。問：小乘亦是等者，重難前答。小乘亦是如來初說，何意言非？此中有兩重難意：一難大小俱是佛說，何故獨云三是小非？二難小乘為大之漸，三既云是，小何獨非？答意者，小有二義：若約教道猶為大隔，是故云非。法在漸初，人元知大。從微至著尚攝人天，約斥奪說以小為非，據未開權不知實者，是故漸中乃至毫善咸屬於大，故得名為「從微至著」。「問示三文者」等者，問示處中許示三文，此三文者為是何等？先雙定之，色為是門？色為非門。若是門者，下雙難也。先難是門。門名能通，實相成所，何名為門？「若非門者」下，次難非門。色名中道，道名能通。能通即門，何名非門？次答中意者，文是色法，色亦實相。文若是門，門為法界，法界即實，故云「並是」。從「眾生多顛倒」去，釋門所以。以文為色作能通門者，但為眾生迷於實理，故名文為門。於文見理，文即實相，有何能所？是故却照文之與門無非三諦，文即俗諦、非文即真、雙非即是第一義諦。觀門為三，例亦可見。如是觀時，文門豈別？俱名能通，並是所至。言顛倒者，顛即頂也，頂墜於下，故名顛倒。《廣雅》云「顛，倒也。」《論語》注云「顛沛，僵仆也。」

Next, from "If the practitioner of contemplation" onward, he discusses attainment and non-attainment in terms of those being transformed. First, clarifying non-attainment, he therefore says that what they cultivate and manifest is the manifest. "Manifest" refers to the three types of calming and contemplation, sudden and so forth. Those who receive the teaching are not fit to cultivate the esoteric, hence he says "they neither manifest nor cultivate." Furthermore, since what the esoteric teaching explains is identical to the manifest, there is no meaning of separately establishing the cultivation of esoteric contemplation, hence he says "they do not cultivate." Next, from "manifesting past habits" onward, he conceptually establishes attainment in terms of those being transformed. For example, cultivating arising and cessation while manifesting the uncreated, an explicit indeterminacy resembling an esoteric indeterminacy, conceptually establishes esoteric contemplation, hence he says it can be discussed. Question: If from initial shallow to later deep is gradual, speaking comprehensively, from good and evil up to reaching the permanent, can it all be generally named gradual? Answer: It is indeterminate. Principle is deep and phenomena are shallow when spoken of in terms of the four siddhāntas; it can also be regarded in terms of the gradual, mutually viewing each other as deep and shallow in turn. Question: If the Hinayana is also [the initial preaching] and so forth, he repeats the challenge against the previous answer. The Hinayana is also the initial preaching of the Tathāgata; for what reason do you say it is not? Here there are two levels to the objection: First, an objection that both Mahayana and Hinayana are spoken by the Buddha, so why say uniquely that the three are [gradual] while the Hinayana is not? Second, an objection that the Hinayana is the gradual [path leading] to the Mahayana; since the three are said to be so, why uniquely is the Hinayana not? The intent of the answer is that the Hinayana has two meanings: if in terms of the path of teaching, it is still separated from the Great [Vehicle], therefore it says "not." The Dharma is at the beginning of the gradual; people originally know the Great. Extending from subtle to prominent, it even subsumes humans and devas; speaking in terms of rebuking and stripping away, it takes the Hinayana to be not [gradual]; this is based on those who have not opened the provisional and do not know the real. Therefore, within the gradual, even a hair's breadth of good all belongs to the Great, hence it can be named "from subtle to prominent." In "Questioning and pointing out the three texts" and so forth, in questioning and pointing out the locus, he promises to point out three texts; what kind are these three texts? First, he determines both: Is form a gate? Or is form not a gate? If it is a gate, below he objects on both sides. First, he objects to it being a gate: A gate is named as that which is able to lead through, while the true mark constitutes that which is reached—why call it a gate? Under "If it is not a gate," he next objects to it not being a gate: Form is named the Middle Way, and the Way is named that which is able to lead through. That which is able to lead through is precisely a gate—why call it not a gate? Next, the intent in the answer: Text is the dharma of form, and form is also the true mark. If text is a gate, the gate is the dharma-dhātu, and the dharma-dhātu is precisely the real, hence it says "both are." From "Sentient beings are mostly inverted" onward, he explains the reason for the gate. Taking text as form to act as the gate that is able to lead through is merely because sentient beings are confused about the real principle, hence text is called a gate. Seeing principle in text, text is precisely the true mark—what is there of that which can lead through and that which is reached? Therefore, reflecting back upon text and gate, they are nothing other than the three truths: text is the conventional truth, not-text is the truth of emptiness, and the negation of both is precisely the ultimate truth. Contemplating the gate as threefold can also be understood by analogy. When contemplating like this, how are text and gate different? Both are named that which can lead through, and both are that which is reached. As for "inverted" (diandao): dian means the crown [of the head]; the crown falling downward is therefore called inverted. The *Guangya* states: "Dian means dao (inverted)." The commentary to the *Analects* states: "Dianpei means falling prone."