止觀輔行傳弘決 2.52

2.52

「如是」下，中觀也。初辨觀相。還撮前來空假二觀，即邊而中方名妙中。是故初云「如是觀時」，指前二觀，並於作受推成空假。今於空假而見即中，故云「分明」。「幻化」即前十法界假，「與空」即前性相二空，空假與性三法相即，故無妨礙，故知此中雙照之名與前永別。傅大士獨自詩云「獨自精，其實離聲名。三觀一心融萬品，荊棘叢林皆自平。」故知大士亦於作受以修三觀。「所以者何」下，重釋三觀相即之相。前空觀中但云起照，不及見等。此中法性與蔽相即，是故中觀永異於空。貪欲極麁尚即法性，況復餘法而非三諦？「若蔽礙法性」等者，法性與蔽不相礙者，約理而說，如水與波不相妨礙。乃至法性與蔽起息相即者，正明令觀蔽中法性。法性無起亦復無息，蔽起息故，故云起息。若爾，性無起息、蔽有起息，其性天殊，何名體一？答：秖以蔽性其體不二，故云法性無復起息。是則從理俱無起息；從事說者，蔽有起息、性無起息；若絕待者，無蔽無性亦無起息。若得此意，但觀貪欲即是法性，法性無性，是故名為世諦破性，即是性空。此性即法，法體即空，名為相空。「無行經云」下，引證也。經云「貪欲即是道，恚癡亦復然，如是三法中，無量諸佛法。若有人分別，婬怒癡及道，是人去佛遠，譬如天與地。」經意正明蔽性不二，是故誡之不許分別。「淨名」下，復引《淨名》者，非道即蔽，佛道即性。眾生即菩提涅槃者，具存應云一切眾生即是菩提，不可復得。一切眾生即涅槃相，不可復滅。菩提乃是證得之道，既即眾生，故無所得。涅槃即是寂滅之果，既即眾生，亦無別滅。菩提涅槃是果上法，尚即眾生，豈令法性離於貪欲？「為增上」下，斷疑也。疑云：若爾，何故經中令斷貪欲？故為斷云：為增上慢說斷貪欲。凡夫謂證、二乘謂極，為此二人說離婬怒。何者？凡夫癡慢是故令斷，二乘機近宜為說斷。若無此二純諸菩薩，即應為說婬怒癡性即是解脫。故今觀蔽，不謂此二上慢之人。「一切塵勞是如來種」者，後經具明三種種性：塵勞即是了因種也，五無間等緣因種也，六入七識正因種也，故知欲蔽即法性種。經文別對，今文從通，是故但云蔽即法性。「山海色味」等者，舉譬，如須彌色、如大海味。《毘曇》、《俱舍》並云「妙高四面各有一色，東黃金、南瑠璃、西白銀、北玻瓈，隨其方面水同山色，眾生入中盡同水色。」《大論》一百云「外書說此山純黃金色，眾生投中其色無二」，故云山色。海味者，《大經》云「眾流入海，同一鹹味」，故云海味。文隔字對，故云山海色味。法性亦爾，諸法入中同一理味，故法性外更無餘法，故云「無二無別」等也。

From 'Like this' downward is the middle contemplation. First, it distinguishes the characteristics of the contemplation. It gathers together the preceding two contemplations of emptiness and provisionality; only by being identical to the extremes and thereby the middle is it named the wonderful middle. Therefore, it first says, 'When contemplating like this,' pointing to the previous two contemplations, both of which investigated action and experience to accomplish emptiness and provisionality. Now, within emptiness and provisionality one sees identity with the middle; hence it says 'clearly and distinctly'. 'Illusory transformations' refers to the preceding provisionality of the ten dharma-dhātus; 'and emptiness' refers to the preceding two emptinesses of nature and characteristics. Emptiness, provisionality, and nature—these three dharmas are mutually identical and thus without obstruction; hence we know that the term 'illuminating both' here is forever different from the former. Mahāsattva Fu's 'Poem on Solitude' says: 'Solitary essence is truly free from sound and name. / The three contemplations in a single mind fuse the myriad kinds; / Thorns and dense groves all naturally level out.' Thus we know that the Mahāsattva also practiced the three contemplations with respect to action and experience.

From 'Why is this so?' downward re-explains the characteristics of the mutual identity of the three contemplations. In the preceding contemplation of emptiness, it merely spoke of arising and illuminating, without reaching seeing and so forth. Here, dharma-nature and obstruction are mutually identical; therefore, the middle contemplation is forever distinct from emptiness. Lust, being extremely coarse, is still identical to dharma-nature; how much more so for other dharmas—how could they not be the three truths? Regarding 'If obstruction hinders dharma-nature' and so forth: that dharma-nature and obstruction do not hinder each other is spoken from the perspective of principle, just as water and waves do not obstruct each other. Up to dharma-nature being mutually identical with the arising and cessation of obstruction, this directly clarifies directing contemplation to the dharma-nature within obstruction. Dharma-nature has no arising and no cessation; because obstruction has arising and cessation, it is called arising and cessation. If so, since nature has no arising and cessation while obstruction has arising and cessation, their natures being as far apart as heaven and earth, how can they be called of one essence? Answer: Precisely because the essence of obstruction and nature are non-dual, it says that dharma-nature has no further arising and cessation. Thus, from the perspective of principle, both lack arising and cessation; spoken from the perspective of phenomena, obstruction has arising and cessation while nature has no arising and cessation; if absolute, there is neither obstruction nor nature, nor is there arising and cessation. If one grasps this meaning, merely contemplating lust is itself dharma-nature; dharma-nature has no [own-]nature, and therefore it is called the worldly truth breaking nature, which is nature-emptiness. This nature is itself dharma, and the essence of dharma is empty, which is called characteristic-emptiness.

From 'The Wuxing jing says' downward cites proof. The sūtra says: 'Lust is itself the Path; anger and delusion are likewise. / Within these three dharmas are immeasurable Buddha-dharmas. / If someone discriminates between lust, anger, delusion, and the Path, / that person is far from the Buddha, as distant as heaven and earth.' The intent of the sūtra directly clarifies that obstruction and nature are non-dual; therefore, it admonishes against permitting discrimination.

From 'Jingming' downward again cites the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa*: the non-path is obstruction, and the Buddha-path is nature. That sentient beings are identical to bodhi and nirvāṇa should fully be stated: 'All sentient beings are identical to bodhi and cannot be attained again. All sentient beings are identical to the mark of nirvāṇa and cannot be extinguished again.' Bodhi is the path that is realized; since it is identical to sentient beings, there is nothing to be attained. Nirvāṇa is the fruit of quiescent extinction; since it is identical to sentient beings, there is no separate extinction. Bodhi and nirvāṇa are dharmas of the fruit, yet they are already identical to sentient beings; how could dharma-nature be separated from lust?

From 'For the overbearingly arrogant' downward resolves doubt. The doubt asks: If so, why does the sūtra instruct to sever lust? Therefore, it resolves this by saying: It speaks of severing lust for the sake of the overbearingly arrogant. Ordinary persons claim realization, and the two vehicles claim the ultimate; for these two people, it speaks of parting from lust and anger. Why? Because ordinary persons have foolish arrogance, they are instructed to sever it; the capacities of the two vehicles are shallow, so it is appropriate to speak of severing for them. If these two did not exist and there were purely bodhisattvas, one would directly speak to them of the nature of lust, anger, and delusion being identical to liberation. Hence, in presently contemplating obstruction, it does not mean these two overbearingly arrogant persons.

Regarding 'All afflictions are the seeds of the Tathāgata', later the sūtra fully clarifies the three kinds of seed-natures: afflictions are the seed of the revealing cause, the five inexpiable sins and so forth are the seed of the conditioning cause, and the six sense-bases and seven consciousnesses are the seed of the direct cause; hence we know that the obstruction of lust is the seed of dharma-nature. The sūtra text correlates them separately; the present text follows the general, and therefore merely says that obstruction is identical to dharma-nature.

Regarding 'The color of the mountain and the flavor of the ocean' and so forth, metaphors are adduced, such as the color of Mount Sumeru and the flavor of the great ocean. Both the *Abhidharmakośa* and the *Abhidharma* texts state: 'Mount Sumeru has a distinct color on each of its four sides: gold in the east, lapis lazuli in the south, silver in the west, and crystal in the north. According to the direction, the water shares the color of the mountain, and sentient beings entering into it all take on the color of the water.' Fascicle 100 of the *Dazhidulun* says: 'Non-Buddhist texts say that this mountain is pure gold, and sentient beings plunging into it have colors non-dual with it'; hence it says 'the color of the mountain'. As for 'the flavor of the ocean', the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says: 'When the many streams flow into the sea, they share a single salty flavor'; hence it says 'the flavor of the ocean'. With the text spaced and characters paired, it says 'the color of the mountain and the flavor of the ocean'. Dharma-nature is likewise: when all dharmas enter into it, they share the single flavor of principle; hence outside of dharma-nature there are no further remaining dharmas, which is why it says 'without duality and without difference' and so forth.