止觀輔行傳弘決 1.82

1.82

次明用十心意中，先標意。「舉一種為語端」等者，直言曰言，論議曰語，今評得失故名為語。端謂端首，首謂從強得名。從強非無餘念，臨終受報復從強牽，故起一心非無餘九。十中隨一，故云一種。次「如論」下，引證墮必從強。「或先起去至混和」者，對是簡非，先法、次譬。法中言「先起」等者，若未發心名為先非，後始發心乃為後是。此則正當顯是之體，何得譬中名為並濁？今此通簡發心已後起非起是，故判屬非。餘之二心，理屬非攝。又既云先是，必有後非。若無後非，亦是一向顯是之相，亦非簡限。又並起者，豈有二心並緣境耶？但約細念前後俱緣，名為並起。若麁久者，判屬前後。次「譬象」下，先譬、次合。合中二重，初以內外合前三譬。內是外非。內外俱緣名為並起。次直以非心合前內等。謂內非外非及以俱非。九縛一脫即是二邊。為二邊動故名為非。問：二文何別？答：前雖內外，但譬內心；後云內外，心境相對。故知前謂內心是非相對，今一向非內外相對。此並一往從強偏說，究而言之，必假和合方成非相。象字不應從人。

Next, in explaining the intent of employing the ten minds, he first indicates the intent. Regarding "raising one kind as the beginning of discourse," etc., speaking directly is called "speech" (yan), while dialectical discussion is called "discourse" (yu); here, assessing merit and fault is therefore called discourse. "Beginning" (duan) means the head, and "head" means taking its designation from what is predominant. Taking it from what is predominant does not mean that other thoughts are absent; when receiving retribution at the brink of death, one is again drawn by what is predominant; hence, when a single mind arises, it is not without the other nine. Taking any one among the ten is why he says "one kind." Next, from "as the treatise states" onwards, he cites evidence that falling must follow what is predominant. Regarding "sometimes arising first... up to... mixed together," this sifts error in contrast to correctness, first in terms of doctrine and next by analogy. In the doctrine, regarding "arising first," etc., if one has not yet aroused the aspiration for awakening, that is called "first error," and subsequently beginning to arouse the aspiration is "subsequent correctness." This would then be properly revealing the substance of correctness; how could it be termed "both turbid" in the analogy? Here, this broadly sifts the arising of error and the arising of correctness after having already aroused the aspiration; hence it is judged as belonging to error. The remaining two minds are rationally subsumed under error. Moreover, since it says "first correct," there must be a "subsequent error." If there were no subsequent error, it would also be an exclusively revealing aspect of correctness, and not a demarcation to be sifted. Furthermore, as for "arising together," how could two minds concurrently take an object as condition? It is merely in terms of subtle thoughts sequentially taking conditions that it is termed "arising together." If they are coarse and lasting, they are judged as belonging to before and after. Next, from "analogous to an elephant" onwards, first comes the analogy, followed by the application. In the application there are two levels: first, applying the inner and the outer to the preceding three analogies—the inner is correct and the outer is erroneous; both inner and outer concurrently taking conditions is termed "arising together." Next, directly using the erroneous mind to apply to the preceding inner, etc.—namely, inner error, outer error, and both being error. The nine as bondage and the one as liberation are simply the two extremes. Because of being moved by the two extremes, it is termed "error." Question: What is the difference between the two texts? Answer: Although the former mentions inner and outer, it only analogizes the internal mind; the latter's mention of inner and outer sets mind and object in opposition. Hence we know that the former refers to correctness and error being opposed within the internal mind, whereas the present exclusively refers to error being opposed between inner and outer. These are all tentative, biased statements following what is predominant; thoroughly investigating it, it must rely on combination to constitute the mark of error. The character xiang [image/elephant] should not have the human radical.