止觀輔行傳弘決 10.26

10.26

○「若作宗」等者，比決宗途。今之見境有一百四十宗，且依佛法內門亦有一百一十二宗，比《地》、《攝》等論，彼論但是當教一門。如《中論》中雖具大小兩乘觀法，委論其門，門則不足。言「邪正途轍」等者，今家所辨若邪若正，邪是見、正是觀，邪正各有一百四十，如是途轍與彼諸論優降天殊，故云「幾何」。「夫佛」下，引佛化為例。「兩說」等者，謂攝及折，攝謂養見研心，折謂破無遺芥，故引二經以證折攝。「大經執持刀仗」等者，第三云「善男子！護正法者，不受五戒、不修威儀，應持刀劍弓箭矛槊，護於清淨持戒比丘。」文中廣說覺德比丘昔緣，於過去歡喜如來滅後，此比丘廣說九部制諸比丘，不許畜八不淨物，為破戒者執持刀劍之所逼切。爾時有王名曰有德，往說法所，共破戒者極生鬪戰，命終生於阿閦佛國。覺德亦同生於彼國，而為彼佛聲聞弟子。下文又云「護法優婆塞應持刀仗，擁護如是持戒比丘。若有受持五戒，不得名為大乘人也。不受五戒，執持刀仗為護正法，乃名大乘。」乃至下文仙豫國王等文。又新醫禁乳，云：「若有更為，當斷其首。」如是等文並是折伏破法之人，一切經論不出此二。見心亦爾。如前進退二種解者，亦是折伏、攝受二義。又一切聖教不出四悉，故四悉中世界為人即攝受意，對治即是折伏意也。藥珠二身破法立法二種方便，如是等例即此二義。「若諸見」下，次以今文破見例之。「約多」下，明見不俱起。「唯一事實」者，空見既成，謂已為實。「約一一見」等下，今家分別見相。如上百四十見，一一各作十乘觀法，種種巧說皆可經夏。次束成觀門。一一見等者，束向百四十見，共作一番十乘觀法亦不可盡。「諸見」下，正示觀境。次正明修觀自具十法。境中，初思議境。先標空見為十界因，次引二論，次以見境例論。「今此空見亦具二義」者，亦似《成實》、《毘曇》兩門意也。何者？通論秖是不善，義同《成論》。別論亦得名為因等起心，一切善惡因之而起，能生十界，義同《毘曇》。由空造惡即三途界，義同《成論》。「由空」下，正示境中十界。地獄中云「闡提尚存」等者，猶有憐妻愛子之善，不同空見逆父慢母，故知空見不及闡提。尚不及極惡闡提，況《大經》通明一闡名信、提名不具等。「慳貪破齋」等者，因無淨命，果時噉穢。因時破齋，果常饑餓。次聲聞界中，初總斥空見，云「其實不識」等者，先舉不識以顯於識。凡夫於見增長流轉，非唯不識道滅二諦，亦乃不識苦集二諦。「所以者何」下，釋出四諦相也。初文先明苦諦，五陰具足故名為苦。初文是色，納受是受，取空是想，緣空起行是行，分別空心是識。次從「空見是瞋處」等下，是集諦，先明五鈍。五鈍闕癡，應云不了空見因果名癡。次明五利。「非雞狗等戒」者，簡戒取不同。謂空為道，豈同噉糞等？次結成八十八使。「集迷」下，舉過勸識。次道諦文中，四念為四。初身念，如文。次受念文中，云「受第二句」者，依《大品》中受有四句，謂受、不受、亦受亦不受、非受非不受。既受不受，即是受於四句之中第二句也。「但諸」下，總明念處。從「勤破」下，略明餘品。小乘亦得通約觀行而論道品，如第七卷初相生相攝等文是也。滅諦中，先滅五鈍，次滅五利，次滅八十八，次滅果縛。「若於」下，結成功能。云「單複」等者，此見若破，第五卷中諸見皆破。緣覺文中，初略明十二支滅，言「畢故不造新」者，以不造新，能所故畢，若造新者新還為故。「中論云：云何聲聞觀十二緣乃至不相應」等者，彼《中論》觀十二緣中，初文設問，即問十二因緣。至答文中，即答六十二見。何故問答殆不相應？殆者，濫也。此問意者，問彼論文。論文初〈十二因緣品〉及下文〈觀因緣品〉，並指云如毘曇中廣說者，廣說破六十二見。故〈邪見品〉屬觀因緣。一往觀之似不相應，是故問出令知不別。令云「秖此是答」者，正以邪見答觀因緣非不相應，即破三世二世並是邪見。故《淨名》云「深入緣起，斷諸邪見。」故因緣觀正為破邪，故非不相應。從「又觀剎那空見」去，正明起於十二緣觀。先明十二緣生中，初推現三因。有支中云「有能含果」等者，且約初迦毘羅等說，亦應遍約附佛法起，乃至佛法一十六門隨所計者皆是有支。次推現五果，次推往二因。「無明」下，推往至現。「若知」下，推滅。初明滅十二支，次例滅諸見。「若於」下明得失，先得、次失。「鼻隔」者，無深觀行，唯止心鼻隔，因此觀故發得空見。此人尚不識小乘真諦，豈能觀於空見之心令成妙境，但隨見轉墮於見網。散心法師置而不論。「暗證」等者，《爾雅》云「龜有十種：一神，最神明故。二靈，邊如玳瑁，可卜者是。三攝，腹下折，食蛇者是。四寶。五文，甲有文，負河圖。六筮，在蓍叢下。七山。八澤。九水。十火，其猶火鼠。」故知攝山水澤等皆凡龜也。暗證無智其猶凡龜，散心不了其猶盲吠。故知散心尚自不能善分別空見相狀，及空所起苦集無明，豈論發得？故云「穭吠」。穭者，野也。菩薩界中，初三藏文。先明起誓之由。誓即願也。既識空見諦緣，即知病識藥。識苦集是知病，識道滅是知藥。因緣六度，準此可知。雖自欣識藥，愍彼有病，然須入三昧修習令知。「既識空見諦緣」者，牒前二乘所觀之境，以為起誓之由。即以此由，用為誓境。次明四諦誓境。「如一空見」等下，正約空見而起弘誓。文自為四。此中四弘，義兼內外。內即內心，約一空見剎那之心名為五陰，五陰即是眾生故也。一人一生凡幾剎那，此約內也。「一人尚爾」去，約一有情以為況釋。別別有情眾生尚多，況復剎那為一眾生，即是約外。若內若外，眾生無量。下三弘誓，準說可知。煩惱為因眾生為果，因果無量，對治法門理須無量。一一剎那，一一無不開佛知見，成無上道。問：因之與果既約剎那，如何分於二弘誓別？答：空見依色、領納、取像、行空、了別，攬此五法以成眾生。一人既爾，多人亦然。還約多念，論此眾生而為弘誓。有空見故違瞋順喜等，乃至生於八十八使、六十二見，名為煩惱。此則因中一人尚爾，多人亦然，還約多人辨此弘誓。此則自成兩弘誓別。「若眾生」下，明誓願之意。

On "If one establishes doctrines..." and so forth: This is a comparison and determination of the doctrinal paths. The present object of views contains one hundred and forty doctrines; moreover, relying only on the internal gates of the Buddhadharma, there are one hundred and twelve doctrines. Compared with treatises such as the Daśabhūmika and Mahāyānasaṃgraha, those treatises represent only a single gate of their respective teachings. Even though the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā contains the contemplation methods of both the Great and Lesser Vehicles, when one examines its gates in detail, the gates are insufficient. As for "the paths of the wrong and the correct," what our tradition distinguishes as wrong or correct—the wrong being views, and the correct being contemplation—has one hundred and forty for each of the wrong and the correct; between paths like these and those treatises, the difference in superiority and inferiority is vast as heaven, which is why it says, "How could they compare?" On "Now, the Buddha's..." and so forth: This cites the Buddha's conversions as an example. "Two explanations" and so forth refers to gathering in and subduing: gathering in means nurturing views to examine the mind, while subduing means crushing them without leaving a mustard seed behind; thus two sūtras are cited to confirm subduing and gathering in. On "The Great Sūtra says, 'holding knives and staves'" and so forth: Fascicle Three says, "Good sons, those who protect the True Dharma do not receive the five precepts and do not cultivate dignified deportment; they should hold knives, swords, bows, arrows, halberds, and lances to protect pure bhikṣus who keep the precepts." In that text, it relates at length the past circumstances of the bhikṣu Jñānaprabha: after the parinirvāṇa of the past Buddha Ānanda (Joyful), this bhikṣu broadly taught the nine classes of scriptures and restrained all the bhikṣus, not allowing them to keep the eight impure things, and was pressed hard by precept-breakers holding knives and swords. At that time there was a king named Guṇavān (Virtuous), who went to the place of Dharma-teaching and fought fiercely against the precept-breakers; when his life ended, he was born in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha. Jñānaprabha was likewise born in that land as a śrāvaka disciple of that Buddha. Later the text also says, "Upāsakas who protect the Dharma should hold knives and staves to protect such precept-keeping bhikṣus. If someone receives and keeps the five precepts, they cannot be called a person of the Great Vehicle; not receiving the five precepts and holding knives and staves to protect the True Dharma is what is called the Great Vehicle"—up to the subsequent text on King Seniya, and so forth. Furthermore, the new physician prohibited milk, saying, "If anyone consumes it again, their head shall be severed." Passages such as these all serve to subdue those who destroy the Dharma. All scriptures and treatises do not go beyond these two. The mind of views is also like this: the two kinds of understanding—advancing and retreating—explained previously also carry the two senses of subduing and gathering in. Moreover, all holy teachings do not go beyond the four siddhāntas; hence, among the four siddhāntas, the mundane and individual adaptation have the sense of gathering in, whereas the counteractive has the sense of subduing. The two bodies of medicine and jewel, and the two kinds of skillful means of destroying dharmas and establishing dharmas—analogies such as these are precisely these two senses. On "If the various views..." and so forth: Next, this is compared with the refutation of views in the present text. On "In terms of multiplicity..." and so forth: This clarifies that views do not arise simultaneously. "Only one fact is true": Once the view of emptiness is formed, one considers it to already be real. On "In terms of each individual view..." and so forth: Here our tradition differentiates the characteristics of views. For the one hundred and forty views mentioned above, if one performs the tenfold contemplation method for each and every one, the various skillful explanations could all take a whole summer retreat. Next, they are bundled into contemplation gates: on "each and every view" and so forth, bundling the aforementioned one hundred and forty views together into a single performance of the tenfold contemplation method could likewise never be exhausted. On "The various views..." and so forth: This directly shows the object of contemplation. Next, it directly clarifies that the cultivation of contemplation itself possesses the ten dharmas. Within the objects, first is the conceivable object. First, it identifies the view of emptiness as the cause of the ten realms; next, it cites two treatises; next, it illustrates the treatise with the object of views. On "Now this view of emptiness also possesses two senses": This also resembles the intents of the two approaches of the Tattvasiddhi and the Abhidharma. Why? Considered broadly, it is simply unwholesome, matching the meaning of the Tattvasiddhi. Considered specifically, it can also be called the mind arisen from equal causes, from which all good and evil arise and which can generate the ten realms, matching the meaning of the Abhidharma. Committing evil because of emptiness is the realm of the three bad destinies, matching the meaning of the Tattvasiddhi. On "Because of emptiness..." and so forth: This directly reveals the ten realms within the object. In the hell realm, on "An icchantika still retains..." and so forth: they still have the goodness of pitying their wife and loving their child, unlike the view of emptiness which rebels against the father and disdains the mother; thus we know the view of emptiness does not even measure up to an icchantika. It does not even measure up to the most evil icchantika, to say nothing of the Great Sūtra generally explaining that 'icchan' means faith and 'tika' means lacking, and so forth. On "Miserly greed and breaking the fast" and so forth: Because the cause lacks pure livelihood, the result is eating filth; because at the time of the cause one broke the fast, at the time of the result one is constantly starving. Next, in the śrāvaka realm, first there is a general censure of the view of emptiness: on "In reality, they do not recognize..." and so forth, it first cites not recognizing in order to reveal recognizing. Worldly people increase their transmigration through views; not only do they fail to recognize the two truths of the path and cessation, but they also fail to recognize the two truths of suffering and origination. On "Why is this?" and so forth: This explains the marks of the four noble truths. The first passage first clarifies the truth of suffering: being complete with the five aggregates, it is therefore called suffering. The first text is form; receiving is sensation; grasping emptiness is perception; forming activities conditioned on emptiness is formations; and discerning the empty mind is consciousness. Next, from "The view of emptiness is a locus of anger..." onward is the truth of origination, first clarifying the five dull [afflictions]. The five dull ones lack delusion, which should be said to be: not understanding the causes and fruits of the view of emptiness is called delusion. Next, it clarifies the five sharp [afflictions]. On "It is not the precepts of chickens, dogs, and the like": This distinguishes it from adherence to wrong precepts and prohibitions. Thinking emptiness to be the path, how could it be the same as eating excrement and so forth? Next, it concludes into the eighty-eight anusayas. On "Delusion regarding origination..." and so forth: It raises the faults and urges recognition. Next, in the text on the truth of the path, the four stations of mindfulness are four: first, mindfulness of the body, as in the text; next, in the text on mindfulness of feelings, on "Receives the second phrase": according to the Dapin, receiving has four phrases, namely receiving, non-receiving, both receiving and non-receiving, and neither receiving nor non-receiving. Since one receives non-receiving, that is receiving the second phrase among the four phrases. On "Merely all..." and so forth: This generally clarifies the stations of mindfulness. From "diligently refutes..." onward, it briefly clarifies the remaining aids [to awakening]. The Lesser Vehicle can also broadly discuss the aids to the path in terms of contemplative practice, as seen in the passages on mutual generation and mutual inclusion at the beginning of Fascicle Seven. Within the truth of cessation, first it eliminates the five dull ones, next eliminates the five sharp ones, next eliminates the eighty-eight, and next eliminates the bondage of fruition. On "If regarding..." and so forth: It concludes the functionality. On "single and compound" and so forth: If this view is refuted, then all the views in Fascicle Five are also refuted. In the pratyekabuddha text, first it briefly clarifies the cessation of the twelve links; on "Ending the old and not creating the new": because one does not create the new, both agent and object are ended, but if one creates the new, the new returns to being the old. On "The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'How do śrāvakas contemplate the twelve links... up to not corresponding'" and so forth: in that contemplation of the twelve links in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the initial text poses a question, which asks about the twelve links of dependent origination. Coming to the reply, it responds with the sixty-two views. Why do the question and answer seemingly fail to correspond? 'Seemingly' means improperly mixed. The intent of this question is to question that treatise text. The initial 'Chapter on the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination' and the subsequent 'Chapter on Contemplating Causes and Conditions' both point out that, as extensively explained in the Abhidharma, it extensively explains the refutation of the sixty-two views. Therefore, the 'Chapter on Wrong Views' belongs to the contemplation of causes and conditions. At first glance it seems not to correspond, so it is questioned to make it known that they are not different. Saying "this is precisely the answer" means that answering the contemplation of causes and conditions with wrong views is indeed not non-corresponding, for refuting the three times and two times are all wrong views. Thus the Vimalakīrti says, "Deeply entering dependent origination, one cuts off all wrong views." Therefore, the contemplation of causes and conditions is precisely for refuting the wrong, and hence is not non-corresponding. From "Moreover, contemplating the momentary view of emptiness..." onward, it directly clarifies arising the contemplation of the twelve links. First, in clarifying the origination of the twelve links, it first deduces the three present causes. In the link of existence, on "Existence can contain fruit" and so forth: this is provisionally explained in terms of the initial Kapila and others, but should also broadly include those that arise adhering to the Buddhadharma, up to whatever is conceptualized within the sixteen gates of the Buddhadharma, all of which are the link of existence. Next it deduces the five present fruits, and next it deduces the two past causes. On "Ignorance..." and so forth: It deduces from the past to the present. On "If one knows..." and so forth: It deduces cessation. First it clarifies the cessation of the twelve links, and next by analogy the cessation of the various views. On "If regarding..." and so forth: It clarifies gain and loss, first the gain and next the loss. "Nose septum": having no deep contemplative practice, one merely rests the mind on the septum of the nose, and because of this contemplation, generates the view of emptiness. This person does not even recognize the true truth of the Lesser Vehicle, so how could they contemplate the mind of the view of emptiness to make it a wonderful object? They merely turn according to the view and fall into the net of views. The distracted Dharma master is set aside and not discussed. On "Darkly realizing" and so forth: The Erya says, "There are ten kinds of tortoises: first, the divine, because it is the most spiritually bright; second, the spiritual, whose edges are like tortoiseshell and can be used for divination; third, the folding, whose belly folds underneath and which eats snakes; fourth, the precious; fifth, the patterned, whose shell has markings and carried the River Chart; sixth, the divination, which lives under clumps of yarrow; seventh, the mountain; eighth, the marsh; ninth, the water; tenth, the fire, which is like the fire-rat." Therefore we know that folding, mountain, water, and marsh tortoises are all ordinary tortoises. Dark realization without wisdom is like an ordinary tortoise; the distracted mind that does not understand is like a blind dog barking. Therefore we know that a distracted mind is not even able to skillfully distinguish the features of the view of emptiness, nor the suffering, origination, and ignorance arisen from emptiness, so how could there be talk of generating [attainment]? Hence it says "wild barking." 'Lu' means wild. In the bodhisattva realm, first is the Tripiṭaka text. First it clarifies the reason for making vows. A vow is an aspiration. Once one recognizes the truths and conditions of the view of emptiness, one knows the illness and knows the medicine. Recognizing suffering and origination is knowing the illness; recognizing the path and cessation is knowing the medicine. Causes and conditions and the six perfections can be understood by following this. Although one rejoices in recognizing the medicine for oneself and pities those who have illness, one must nevertheless enter samādhi and cultivate practice to cause them to know. "Once one recognizes the truths and conditions of the view of emptiness": This repeats the previous object contemplated by the two vehicles to serve as the reason for making vows. It is precisely using this reason as the object of the vows. Next, it clarifies the objects of the vows of the four noble truths. On "Like a single view of emptiness..." and so forth: This directly arises the great vows based on the view of emptiness. The text itself divides into four. The four great vows here encompass both the internal and the external in meaning. The internal is the internal mind: based on the single momentary mind of the view of emptiness, it is called the five aggregates, because the five aggregates are precisely sentient beings. In a single lifetime of a single person, how many moments are there? This is in terms of the internal. From "A single person is already like this..." onward, it explains by analogy with a single sentient being. Different individual sentient beings are already numerous, to say nothing of taking a single moment as a single sentient being, which is in terms of the external. Whether internal or external, sentient beings are measureless. The following three great vows can be understood according to this explanation. Afflictions are the cause and sentient beings are the fruit; causes and fruits are measureless, so the counteractive dharma gates must logically be measureless. In each and every moment, there is none that does not open the Buddha's knowledge and vision and accomplish the unsurpassed path. Question: Since cause and fruit are both explained in terms of moments, how does one distinguish the difference between the two great vows? Answer: The view of emptiness relies on form, receiving, grasping marks, practicing emptiness, and discerning; gathering these five dharmas forms a sentient being. Since this is so for one person, it is also so for many people. Again, in terms of multiple thoughts, one discusses these sentient beings to make the great vow. Because of the view of emptiness, resisting brings anger and according brings joy, and so forth, generating up to the eighty-eight anusayas and sixty-two views, which are called afflictions. This being so for one person in the cause, it is also so for many people; again, based on many people one distinguishes this great vow. Thus the distinction between the two great vows is naturally established. On "If sentient beings..." and so forth: This clarifies the intent of the vows and aspirations.