止觀輔行傳弘決 10.15

10.15

次明見發中，有標、有雙釋兩因、有開釋兩緣、有譬有合。初雙譬兩因。「決却」下，雙譬兩緣。「濬」者深也。「暗障」下，合。不合兩因，但合兩緣。「如是」下，明見發之由。次明見發之勢，舉譬，次明見成不。「從此」下，正明見發。外等六人并三藏四門及結，並如文。「駿」者，馬之美稱，亦速疾也。「何但」下衍門中，初生起引同，「今於」下正釋。初通教見真四門，初釋、次結。次「若於」下，明入中四門。正門既有利根見中，今明發見亦有利根生於中見。此見起時，亦謂障中幻化，從障中無明眠法而生，此之無明亦即法性。「或言」下別教，初正明四門、次結。初圓發中，初正明四門、次明互融。「所破」下，重明見發之相以簡濫，云「謂是無生忍」者。得未到定尚謂無生，況圓門起見而生謬解？是知時代罕有識者。次結，如文。「大乘」下，總結成內邪。「實語是虛語」等者，大乘實教本是實語，以其依語各生見故，故成虛語。「涅槃是生死」等者，舉例以釋語見之相。生死之法本是涅槃，今成生死者，由生著故。「多服甘露」等者，舉譬重釋語見之相。佛教如甘露，起見如多服，失理如夭命。「夫四見為諸見本」等者，明破立枝本。如單四見，並為複具無言等本。但破於單，複等自破。如單四句中有見若破，餘三自破。故第五破見中云「此見破已，一切皆除。」「自他復為共無因本」者，然自等四句，亦與有等四句義同，亦與因中有果等同，是故今文彼此互用。如計泥中有瓶，亦名為有，亦得名為因中有果，亦名計自。初句既爾，餘句亦然。是故今文約自等四而為破立。既識自等四句枝本，餘二四句準此可知。何故自他為共等本？由自他合，故得有共。由破共故，故立無因，故知自他為共等本。次引龍樹證者，但廣破自他。共生既以自他為本，若破共生，是故但云「若言共生，俱有自他二過。」是故不可復計自他。無因既以共生為本，若破無因，是故但云從因緣生尚不可，況無因緣而有生，所以但云「無因則不可」。當知單四但破自他，共、無因見隨例而破。本傾枝折，即此意也。

Next, in explaining the manifestation of views, there are the presentation, the dual explanation of the two causes, the unpacked explanation of the two conditions, the metaphors, and the application. First are the paired metaphors for the two causes. From 'dredging away' downward are the paired metaphors for the two conditions. 'Jun' means deep. From 'dark hindrances' downward is the application. It does not apply the two causes, but only applies the two conditions. From 'like this' downward explains the reason for the manifestation of views. Next, it explains the momentum of the manifestation of views, raising a metaphor, and then explains whether the views are formed or not. From 'from this' downward directly explains the manifestation of views. The six kinds of people, including non-Buddhists, along with the four gates of the Tripiṭaka and the conclusion, are all as in the text. 'Jun' is a fine designation for a horse, and also means swift. From 'not only' downward within the Mahāyāna gates, it first introduces and cites similarities; from 'now regarding' downward directly explains it. First are the four gates of seeing truth in the shared teaching, first explaining and then concluding. Next, from 'if regarding' downward explains the four gates of entering the middle. Since the orthodox gate has those of sharp faculties who see the middle, here it explains that among the manifestation of views there are also those of sharp faculties who generate views of the middle. When this view arises, it also regards the middle as illusory within obstructions, arising from the state of sleeping ignorance within obstructions; this ignorance is itself dharma-nature. From 'or saying' downward is the distinctive teaching, first directly explaining the four gates and then concluding. In the initial manifestation in the perfect teaching, it first directly explains the four gates and then explains their mutual integration. From 'what is refuted' downward re-explains the characteristics of the manifestation of views to distinguish confusion, saying 'regarding it as the patience of non-arising.' When someone attaining not-yet-arrived concentration already regards it as non-arising, how much more so when generating views and giving rise to erroneous understanding at the perfect gate? From this we know that in this age, rarely does anyone recognize it. The conclusion that follows is as in the text. From 'Mahāyāna' downward, it concludes generally by establishing internal heresy. In 'true words are false words' and so forth: the true teaching of the Mahāyāna is originally true words, but because people generate respective views based on words, they become false words. In 'nirvāṇa is saṃsāra' and so forth, examples are raised to explain the marks of words and views. The phenomenon of saṃsāra is fundamentally nirvāṇa, but now becomes saṃsāra because of giving rise to attachment. In 'consuming too much amṛta' and so forth, metaphors are raised to re-explain the marks of words and views. The Buddha's teaching is like amṛta; generating views is like consuming too much; losing the principle is like premature death. In 'Now, the four views are the root of all views' and so forth, it explains the branches and roots of refutation and establishment. Just as the single four views are the root of compound, possessing, and ineffable views, by merely refuting the single views, the compound and others are naturally refuted. Just as if the view of existence within the single four phrases is refuted, the remaining three are naturally refuted. Therefore, in the fifth refutation of views, it says: 'Once this view is refuted, all are eliminated.' In 'self and other are again the root of both and uncaused': however, the four phrases of self and so forth share the same meaning with the four phrases of existence and so forth, and are also identical to having effects within the cause and so forth; therefore, the present text uses them interchangeably. For example, clinging that a jar exists within clay is called 'existence', can also be called 'having an effect within the cause', and can also be called 'clinging to self.' The first phrase being so, the remaining phrases are likewise. Therefore, the present text undertakes refutation and establishment in terms of the four of self and so forth. Once the branches and roots of the four phrases of self and so forth are understood, the other two sets of four phrases can be known by analogy to this. Why are self and other the root of both and the rest? Because through the combination of self and other, there can be 'both'. Because 'both' is refuted, 'uncaused' is established; therefore we know that self and other are the root of both and the rest. Next, citing Nāgārjuna as proof: he merely broadly refutes self and other. Since arising from both takes self and other as its root, in refuting arising from both, it therefore only says: 'If one says there is arising from both, there are both errors of self and other.' Therefore, one cannot cling to self and other again. Since being uncaused takes arising from both as its root, in refuting being uncaused, it therefore only says that arising from causes and conditions is not even permissible, how much less could there be arising without causes and conditions; thus it only says 'uncaused is impossible.' One should know that the single four only refutes self and other, and the views of both and uncaused are refuted by following the pattern. When the root falls, the branches break: this is precisely the meaning.