止觀輔行傳弘決 1.89

1.89

次會果報。「與跋致同」者，言果報者即止依土，依必有正、報必有習，是故果報即兼二雙。若云跋致，跋致秖是習果一隻，習必招報、正必有依，現雖云隻，當必具雙。二文雖殊，共成無生一位意耳。「除經論疑」等者，經論是處、弟子是人，人起惡邪必依經論，處有疑滯必由邪人，拔除邪疑更無前後，故成一意。「本末究竟」等者，發心為本、同歸為末，故第三卷云「自他初後皆得修入」。修即初發、入即後證，與第一義名異義同。故論復次與五緣義更無差別，一一文下皆云異耳者，會義已同，文猶異耳。「又聖說」等者，三止觀結。感應文多，須以三結。文義若狹但以一結，如下四弘六即；或但以三結，具如下文顯是四諦及四三昧；或時三一並略，如下三略；或時三一俱用，即如今文。一則是通、三則是別，通謂通三、別謂各一，不見此意多生異端。問：何故須以止觀結之？答：此之三法通冠一切，今此五略其文遍通，故處處文以三一結。又復此部通名止觀，凡諸文義莫非止觀。不可見此結止觀名，咸謂並是修行之法，如六即中理及名字皆止觀結，及今文中但結感應，豈更別判三外之一？是知理教行果、發心感應無非止觀故也。又此部雖復通名止觀，從釋名去文相區分，不復更用三文結之。今三結中，有列、有釋。初之五字標應也；從「或次」下，列應也。次即是漸，具即是頓，雜即不定，不次即是不定及頓，相對來耳。不具不雜亦復如是。「眾生得益不同」，標感也。從「或次」下，列感也。類應說之，可以意得。從「或四悉」下，釋也。次釋感應中，初二句漸也，次二句是不定，後二句是頓。四悉五緣一一相對故名為漸，或一或四多少雜亂故名不定，隨舉一法皆具一切故名為頓，故但結文成三止觀，何得即以修行釋之？「如是等」下，例諸法相，准前可知。向但結前五緣四悉，復次四隨一切例然。

Next it harmonises the retribution fruit. Regarding "identical with [avaivartika] bhūmi": speaking of retribution fruit refers to the dependent land; the dependent necessarily entails the direct, and the retribution necessarily entails the habit [fruit]; therefore, retribution fruit combines the two pairs. If one speaks of the bhūmi, the bhūmi is only one single item, the habit fruit; yet habit necessarily incurs retribution, and the direct necessarily entails the dependent; though spoken of presently as a single item, in the future it will certainly possess the pair. Although the two texts differ, together they establish the meaning of the single stage of non-arising. Regarding "dispelling doubts about sūtras and treatises," etc.: sūtras and treatises are the places, and disciples are the persons; when persons give rise to pernicious falsehood, they necessarily rely on sūtras and treatises, and when places contain doubts and blockages, it is necessarily due to false persons; uprooting falsehood and doubts admits no before and after, so they form a single meaning. Regarding "the root and the trace are ultimate," etc.: arousing the aspiration is the root, and common return is the trace; hence the third fascicle states: "Both self and other, from beginning to end, can cultivate and enter." Cultivation is the initial arousing, and entering is the subsequent realization; it differs in name from the supreme truth, but is identical in meaning. Thus the repetitions of the treatise and the meaning of the five conditions show no difference whatsoever; under each section of the text it says "they differ only [in expression]," which means that while their meanings have been harmonised as identical, the texts remain distinct. Regarding "Furthermore, the holy preaching..." etc.: this concludes with the three types of calming and contemplation. Because the passages on stimulus and response are numerous, they must be concluded with the three. If the textual meaning is narrow, it is concluded only with the one, as in the four universal vows and the six identities below; or it is concluded only with the three, as fully seen in the passages below illuminating the four noble truths and the four types of samādhi; or sometimes both the three and the one are omitted, as in the three summaries below; or sometimes both the three and the one are used together, as in the present passage. The one is general, and the three are specific: "general" means permeating the three; "specific" means each being one; failing to see this intention leads many to generate divergent views. Question: Why must it be concluded with calming and contemplation? Answer: These three dharmas universally crown everything; now, in these five summaries, their text is universally pervasive, so at point after point the text is concluded with the three and the one. Moreover, this entire work is generally named *Calming and Contemplation*; none of its various textual meanings fail to be calming and contemplation. One must not see this conclusion under the name of calming and contemplation and claim that all of them are methods of practice; just as within the six identities both the principle and the name-and-character are concluded with calming and contemplation, and as the present passage concludes only with stimulus and response, how could there be a separate designation of a single one outside the three? Thus it is known that principle, teaching, practice, and fruit, as well as arousing the aspiration, stimulus, and response, are all calming and contemplation. Furthermore, although this work is generally named *Calming and Contemplation*, from the explanation of the name onward the textual divisions are distinct, and it no longer repeatedly employs the three passages to conclude them. Now, within the conclusion with the three, there is an enumeration and an explanation. The initial five characters mark the response; from "or sequentially" downward, it enumerates the response. "Sequentially" means gradual, "fully" means sudden, and "mixed" means indeterminate; "non-sequential" means indeterminate and sudden, standing in mutual contrast. "Not full" and "not mixed" are also like this. "Sentient beings obtain diverse benefits" marks the stimulus. From "or sequentially" downward, it enumerates the stimulus. By categorising it alongside the response, its sense can be grasped. From "or four siddhāntas" downward, it explains. In explaining stimulus and response, the first two lines are the gradual, the next two lines are the indeterminate, and the final two lines are the sudden. When the four siddhāntas and the five conditions correspond one by one, it is called gradual; when one or four are irregularly mixed in varying numbers, it is called indeterminate; when mentioning any single dharma it is fully endowed with all, it is called sudden; hence the text simply concludes to form the three types of calming and contemplation—how could it be directly interpreted as practice? From "Such as these..." downward, it provides examples of various dharmas, which can be understood according to the preceding. Formerly it only concluded the preceding five conditions and four siddhāntas; the repetitions and four adaptations are all likewise.