止觀輔行傳弘決 10.16

10.16

「今大小乘」下，次以佛法例釋。內外雖殊，枝本義一。若欲推破，但破根本，枝條自去。此但通例。次「若三藏」下，約教釋相。於中先明藏通、次明別圓。初藏通中，先明兩教、次判自他界內外別。若通而言之，四教各有四性義也。若別論者，如第三卷即以四句各對一教，三藏為自，乃至圓教以為無因。今此文中復非通別，即以四句中之二句約枝本說，故以四教但對界內界外自他根本，根本若破界內外破，共及無因例亦可知。故搜前後諸文，不出此之三意。然知所對雖即不同，名下之意各有所以。次釋別圓，先正釋、次判君臣。言「彊弱」等者，君者可以理天下，亦尊也，即是教主，可理萬機。臣者助也、下也。今言互有彊弱者，藏別兩教方便道中主未有功，故云「君弱」。主既無功，功歸於臣，故云「臣彊」。通圓兩教，生之與滅並由法性，法性是君，故云「君彊」。生之與滅非關方便，方便是臣，故云「臣弱」。此中且判別圓二教。前謂別教，別教人謂生之與滅，既由黎耶及緣修智。緣修黎耶既非正主，名之為臣。雖非正主，生滅由彼，故云臣彊。真即是君，既不由真，故云君弱。今即圓教，圓教人謂迷悟由理，不關黎耶及緣修智，故云臣弱。生滅由真，故云君彊。言「餘二」者，謂藏通兩教雖不見中，以真為君。三藏生滅既不由真，故云臣彊。通教君彊，比圓可見。君臣彊弱雖即若是，判自他性意則少殊。由界內外對惑對真自他翻倒，故使所對自他交互。次從「夫因聞」下，略明多少。次明發異所伏。結前生後，如文。

From "Now the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna" below, it next uses the Buddhadharma to illustrate and explain by analogy. Although inner and outer are distinct, the meaning of branches and roots is one. If one wishes to examine and refute, one merely refutes the root, and the branches depart on their own. This is merely a general analogy. Next, from "If the Tripiṭaka" below, it explains the aspects with reference to the teachings. Therein it first clarifies the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings], and next clarifies the distinctive and perfect [teachings]. First, in [the section on] the Tripiṭaka and shared, it first clarifies the two teachings, and next distinguishes self and other as being within or outside the realms. If spoken of generally, each of the four teachings has the meaning of the four natures. If discussed distinctively, as in the third fascicle, the four phrases are each correlated with one teaching: the Tripiṭaka is self, and so on up to the perfect teaching being causelessness. Now in this text, it is neither general nor distinctive, but takes two phrases among the four phrases and speaks in terms of branches and roots; thus the four teachings are merely correlated with the roots of self and other within and outside the realms. If the root is refuted, what is within and outside the realms is refuted; the cases of both and causelessness can also be known by analogy. Thus, examining the various passages before and after, it does not go beyond these three meanings. Yet know that although what they correlate with is not the same, the meanings beneath the terms each have their justification. Next, it explains the distinctive and perfect: first it explains directly, and next it distinguishes ruler and minister. As for the statement about "strong and weak" and so forth: the ruler can govern all under heaven and is also exalted; that is, the lord of the teaching, who can govern the myriad affairs. The minister assists and is subordinate. Now to say that they are mutually strong and weak means: in the path of expedient means of the two teachings of Tripiṭaka and distinctive, the lord has not yet accomplished merit, hence it is said that "the ruler is weak." Since the lord is without merit, the merit returns to the minister, hence it is said that "the minister is strong." In the two teachings of shared and perfect, arising and cessation both depend on the dharma-nature; the dharma-nature is the ruler, hence it is said that "the ruler is strong." Arising and cessation do not pertain to expedient means; expedient means are the minister, hence it is said that "the minister is weak." Here it temporarily determines the two teachings of distinctive and perfect. Previously it meant the distinctive teaching: people of the distinctive teaching consider that arising and cessation depend on both the ālayavijñāna and conditionally cultivated wisdom. Since conditionally cultivated [wisdom] and the ālayavijñāna are not the true lord, they are named "minister." Although not the true lord, arising and cessation depend on them, hence it is said that the minister is strong. The true is the ruler; since it does not depend on the true, it is said that the ruler is weak. Now, regarding the perfect teaching: people of the perfect teaching consider delusion and awakening to depend on principle, having nothing to do with the ālayavijñāna and conditionally cultivated wisdom; hence it is said that the minister is weak. Arising and cessation depend on the true, hence it is said that the ruler is strong. As for the phrase "the remaining two": it means that although the two teachings of Tripiṭaka and shared do not see the middle, they take the true as the ruler. In the Tripiṭaka, since arising and cessation do not depend on the true, it is said that the minister is strong. In the shared teaching the ruler is strong, which can be seen by comparison with the perfect. Although ruler and minister being strong or weak are indeed like this, the intention in determining the self-nature and other-nature is slightly different. Because delusion and the true are contrasted within and outside the realms, self and other are inverted, which causes what they correlate with in terms of self and other to alternate. Next, from "Now, because of hearing" below, it briefly clarifies quantity. Next it clarifies what is subdued by the different manifestations. The conclusion of what precedes and the generation of what follows are as in the text.