止觀輔行傳弘決 2.24

2.24

「經云」下，正明修觀。初約六塵及以五陰而為觀者，初觀六塵。雖引《大集》如空如心，名猶通總。據下觀陰，但離性相成聲聞空，是故次須修於幻化及實觀也。「地無堅」者下，次觀五陰。於中先觀色陰，色即四大。初觀地大，地是事堅因緣所成，有本非有。而情謂有，有即是堅，故於地大起情執堅。今寄事堅以破情堅，故云「有是堅義」。無等二句及餘三大，例之可知。彼經因優波斯那問、身子答，答中云「當觀地大無堅、水大不住、風大無礙，從顛倒生。火大不實，假因緣生。受想行識一一性相同於四大，皆悉入於如實之際。」優波斯那得四大定，通達五陰，得羅漢果。今文準經，以義開拓委作觀法，故於四大各以四性推令如空。末代鈍根不同佛日，故依《中論》觀於二空。如地大中，初句云有是堅義，此則但謂地是定有，為防轉計三句破之。計云：有既是堅，無何得堅？乃至轉入第四句計非有非無亦謂無堅。今並破之，無非計堅。然此地大本非四句，無堅名字因情謂堅，故用四句寄堅破執。三大準地，思之可知。是名破色陰以入性空。如初地大中云「畢竟不可得」，次水大風大中並云「亦不住無四句、亦不住不可說中」，並相空文也，唯火大中相空文略。受等四陰性相準此亦應可見。問：推前三大並用有等四句破之，至火大文乃用自等四句破者，何耶？答：有二義故。一者依經。經云「火大不實從因緣生」，因緣宜作自他名說。二者名異義同。有秖是自、無秖是他，乃至雙非秖是無因。經文存略，餘陰不說。應云受無領納性不可得。若謂受是有，有是領納，乃至謂受是非有非無亦是領納。乃至識是了別，亦復如是。具足應如第五卷中破假四句。如是觀者是聲聞法，即以真諦名為如實。問：若聲聞法，應觀四諦。答：陰是苦諦、性執是集、觀法是道、實際是滅。

From "The sūtra says" downward, it directly explains the practice of contemplation. First, regarding contemplating through the six sense objects and the five aggregates: first, contemplating the six sense objects. Although quoting the Daji [jing] that they are like space and like the mind, the terminology is still general and collective. Relying on the subsequent contemplation of the aggregates, merely separating from nature and marks constitutes śrāvaka emptiness; therefore, next one must practice illusory and real contemplation. From "Earth lacks solidity" downward, next is the contemplation of the five aggregates. Therein, one first contemplates the aggregate of form; form is the four great elements. First, contemplating the earth element: earth is phenomenal solidity produced by causes and conditions; its existence is fundamentally non-existent. Yet sentient grasping deems it existent, and existence is solidity; therefore, with respect to the earth element, one arouses emotionally grasped solidity. Now, relying on phenomenal solidity to shatter emotionally grasped solidity, it is said that "existence is the meaning of solidity." The two phrases of non-existence and so forth, as well as the remaining three elements, may be understood by analogy. In that sūtra, because Upasena asked, Śāriputra replied; in the reply it says: "One should contemplate the earth element as lacking solidity, the water element as not abiding, the wind element as unobstructed, arising from inverted views. The fire element is unreal, arising from provisional causes and conditions. Each of the natures and marks of sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness is identical to the four great elements; all enter into the limit of reality." Upasena attained the concentration of the four great elements, penetrated the five aggregates, and attained the fruit of an arhat. The present text, relying on the sūtra, expands through meaning to detail the method of contemplation; hence, for each of the four elements, it investigates through the four natures to render them like space. The dull-rooted of the final age differ from the time of the Buddha's sun; hence, relying on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, they contemplate the two emptinesses. As in the earth element, the first phrase says "existence is the meaning of solidity"; this merely means that earth is definitively existent; to prevent shifting conjectures, three phrases refute it. One conjectures: since existence is solidity, how can non-existence be solidity? Down to shifting into the fourth phrase conjecturing neither existence nor non-existence, one also deems it to lack solidity. Now all are refuted; none are not conjectures of solidity. However, this earth element is fundamentally not the four phrases; the name "lacking solidity" exists because emotional grasping deems it solid; hence the four phrases are used to rely on solidity to refute grasping. The other three elements are analogous to earth; this can be understood by reflection. This is called shattering the aggregate of form to enter the emptiness of nature. As in the initial earth element where it says "ultimately unobtainable," and next in the water and wind elements where it both says "also not abiding in the four phrases of non-existence, nor abiding in the ineffable," these are both texts on the emptiness of marks; only in the fire element is the text on the emptiness of marks abbreviated. The natures and marks of the four aggregates of sensation and so forth should also be visible by analogy with this. Question: In investigating the previous three elements, all are refuted using the four phrases of existence and so forth; why is it that when reaching the text on the fire element, the four phrases of self and so forth are used to refute it? Answer: Because there are two meanings. First, relying on the sūtra: the sūtra says, "The fire element is unreal, arising from causes and conditions"; causes and conditions are appropriately spoken of in terms of self and other. Second, the names differ but the meaning is the same: existence is merely self, non-existence is merely other, down to both-negation being merely without cause. The sūtra text maintains brevity, leaving the other aggregates unspoken. One should say that sensation lacks the nature of receiving, being unobtainable. If one deems sensation to be existent, existence is receiving, down to deeming sensation to be neither existent nor non-existent also being receiving. Down to consciousness being discernment, it is also likewise. In full, it should be like the four phrases refuting provisionality in the fifth fascicle. Contemplating in this way is the teaching of the śrāvakas, which takes the truth of emptiness as reality. Question: If it is the teaching of the śrāvakas, one should contemplate the four noble truths. Answer: The aggregates are the truth of suffering; clinging to self-nature is accumulation; the method of contemplation is the path; the reality limit is cessation.