止觀輔行傳弘決 2.59.1

2.59.1

「復次四種」下，料簡也。 初文略判行異理同，以隨自意對三辨別。 何者？ 以明所發動障不同而理觀不別。 問：常坐觀於三道等，常行觀佛三十二相等，方等觀於摩訶袒持尊容道具等，法華觀於六牙白象等，隨自意觀於善惡及無記等。 四觀各別，何名為同？ 答：此並約於所歷事說，若能觀觀無非一心，所緣之理莫非三諦，是故得云「理觀同」也。 「若但」下，明必須理，以達事行。 「又不得理觀意」下，明必用理，為事所依。 「若事相」下，以此對三辨間無間。 「方法局三」等者，對三以判理事通別。 此中依經非無方法，況三三昧所不攝者並屬此中，非謂此中不須方法，但此三昧不必方法，是故方法局在前三。 「問」下，簡四三昧有勸無勸。 問意可見。 答意者，此三昧中雖通諸經及以諸善，以許於惡修止觀故，防護鈍根不曉文旨，故直說觀不明勸修。 若據前文而起而照，亦是於起而勸修觀，不得彰言顯了獎勸，是故望前名無勸修。 若據諸經能滅重罪，以有重過彌須勸修。 故《請觀音》云「蕩除糞穢令得清淨」等。 諸經例之，故非全無。 「淮河」下，明師有自行之失。 淮北河北，邪空之人濫稱大乘，入惡無觀，故以「無禁捉蛇」喻之。 禁者制也，術法制物故也。 貪欲如蛇，觀法如禁，以觀觀欲如捉蛇，不善四句如無禁。 如《阿梨吒經》云「佛在給孤獨。 何梨吒伽陀婆利生是惡見：『我知世尊說行婬欲不障於道。 』比丘三諫不止，來白佛。 佛言：『喚來。 』來已佛問。 答言：『如是。 』佛喚諸比丘問，諸比丘皆言：『佛但言欲如火如蛇如毒（云云）。 』佛言：『彼倒解故。 如人欲得捉蛇，通行求蛇。 於靜林間見極大蛇，便捉蛇腰，蛇迴舉頭螫其手足及餘支分。 以不善得捉蛇法故，但受極苦。 顛倒解義，亦復如是。 欲善捉蛇，手捉鐵杖，見極大蛇，先以鐵杖壓其蛇頭，手捉其項。 蛇雖反尾，但纏手足及餘支分，不能復損捉蛇之人，彼以善解捉蛇法故。 』」今無觀法入惡亦爾，言惡不障，反為惡害。 若以妙觀杖入六塵林，遇貪欲蛇，按四運頭，以觀捉項，不令毒害至成身業，失於清淨常住法身。 彼阿梨者無正觀杖，而但說於貪欲不障。 義稍欲同，故借喻此。 「今當」下，即其先師說於無禁捉蛇之相。 其先師者，鈍根障重、善修不成，暫放入惡想似空觀，謂此空解以為深證，即自行之失也。 「不識」下，教他失也。 自善不生故棄善從惡，純將入惡空解教他。 他亦時有生空解者便以為據，謂唯惡是實。 自此已後空解亦忘，唯遍造惡。 「盲無眼」下，弟子謬受之失。 無教相眼名之曰盲，善修不成名為根鈍，數起貪欲為煩惱重，如此等人更聞師說純令入惡，順欲順情遍造眾惡。 「遂令百姓」下，明自他失。 忽，輕也、棄也。 自他失故，民輕王滅。 今時吳越餘風尚存，將孤介為小乘、以合雜為無礙，隋朝猶有，故云未改。 「史記」下，引事類失。 初引《史記》以類其師有妄授之失。 周是國號，姓姬氏。 〈帝王世紀〉曰「帝嚳妃姜嫄，履神人之迹而孕。 以為不祥，棄之陋巷，牛羊不踐； 置之寒水，鳥覆翼之。 嫄以為神，收而養之。 童齓好於稼穡，及長仰伺房星以為農候。 舜進之於堯，以掌農正而為稷官，故謂之后稷，賜姓姬氏。 」始武終赧三十七王，頌曰：武成康昭穆恭懿，孝夷厲宣幽携平，桓莊僖惠襄項匡，定簡靈景悼敬元，貞哀思哲威安列，顯順赧王三十七。 携不經年，或云三十八。 《左傳》曰「初平王之東遷也，辛有適伊川，見被髮而祭於野者曰：『不及百年，此其戎乎？ 其禮先亡矣。 』」言周末者，但是微末之末，非謂最後。 言犬戎者，即六戎是。 初名六渾，今時其地置六渾縣。

From "Furthermore, the four kinds" below is the analytical distinction. The opening text briefly classifies that their practices differ while their principle is identical, distinguishing "following one's own thought" against the [other] three. Why is this? It is because while the active hindrances they trigger differ, their contemplation of principle is not distinct. Question: Constantly sitting contemplates the three paths, and so forth; constantly walking contemplates the Buddha's thirty-two marks, and so forth; the Vaipulya contemplates the venerable form of the Mahāpratisarā, ritual implements, and so forth; the Lotus contemplates the six-tusked white elephant, and so forth; following one's own thought contemplates good, evil, indeterminate [phenomena], and so forth. Since the four contemplations are each distinct, how can they be called identical? Answer: These are all stated with reference to the specific activities engaged. If we consider the contemplation that can contemplate, it is none other than the single mind; the principle that is cognised is none other than the three truths. Therefore it can be said that "the contemplation of principle is identical." From "If only" below, it is clarified that one must rely on principle to achieve the practice of specific activities. From "Furthermore, if one does not grasp the intent of the contemplation of principle" below, it is clarified that one must use principle as the basis for specific activities. From "If the forms of specific activities" below, this is used to distinguish uninterruptedness and interruptedness with respect to the [other] three. As for "Method is restricted to the three" and so forth, this distinguishes the universality and particularity of principle and specific activities with respect to the [other] three. In this [fourth samādhi], relying on the sūtras, it is not without methods; moreover, all that is not subsumed by the [former] three samādhis belongs here. It is not that methods are unnecessary here; it is merely that this samādhi does not strictly require methods. Therefore, methods are restricted to the former three. From "Question" below, he distinguishes whether the four samādhis include exhortation or lack exhortation. The intent of the question is evident. As for the intent of the answer: although this samādhi encompasses all sūtras and all good deeds, because it permits cultivating calming and contemplation on evil, in order to guard dull roots who do not comprehend the textual purport, it straightforwardly explains the contemplation without explicitly exhorting practice. If evaluated according to the earlier text where [affliction] arises and is illuminated, this too is an exhortation to cultivate contemplation upon arising; yet one must not openly declare or clearly encourage it, and therefore, in comparison to the former [three], it is designated as lacking exhortation to cultivate. If evaluated according to various sūtras that can eradicate grave sins, because there are grave transgressions, exhortation to cultivate is all the more necessary. Hence the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara states: "Washing away the excrement and filth, causing one to attain purity," and so forth. The other sūtras follow this model, and so it is not entirely absent. From "The Huai River" below, it clarifies the error in the master's own practice. In the regions north of the Huai and north of the Yellow River, people of erroneous emptiness falsely claimed Mahāyāna, entering evil without contemplation; hence this is illustrated by the metaphor of "catching a snake without a charm." "Charm" means restraint, because an incantational technique restrains creatures. Greed is like a snake, the method of contemplation is like a charm, contemplating desire with contemplation is like catching a snake, and lack of skill in the four phrases is like lacking a charm. As the Ariṭṭha Sūtra states: "The Buddha was at Anāthapiṇḍada's park. Ariṭṭha Gādhābādhipubba produced this evil view: 'I know that the World-Honoured One taught that engaging in sexual desire does not obstruct the Path.' The monks admonished him three times without his stopping, and came to inform the Buddha. The Buddha said: 'Call him here.' Once he arrived, the Buddha questioned him. He replied: 'It is so.' The Buddha called the monks and asked them, and all the monks said: 'The Buddha only said that desire is like fire, like a snake, like poison (and so forth).' The Buddha said: 'That is because he understands inversely. Just like a person wishing to catch a snake, walking along searching for a snake. In a quiet forest he sees an extremely large snake, and then grabs the snake by the waist. The snake turns its head around and bites his hands, feet, and other limbs. Because he was not skilled in the method of catching snakes, he only experiences extreme suffering. Inverse understanding of the meaning is also like this. If one wishes to be skilled in catching snakes, one holds an iron staff in hand, and upon seeing an extremely large snake, first presses down on the snake's head with the iron staff, and takes hold of its neck with one's hand. Although the snake twists its tail, it only wraps around the hands, feet, and other limbs, and cannot harm the person who caught the snake, because he is skilled in understanding the method of catching snakes.'" Now, entering evil without the method of contemplation is also like this: claiming that evil is non-obstructive, one is instead harmed by evil. If one enters the forest of the six sense-objects with the staff of wondrous contemplation, encounters the snake of greed, pins down the head of the four phases of mind, and seizes the neck with contemplation, one does not allow the virulent harm to culminate in bodily action and cause the loss of the pure, eternally abiding dharma-body. That Ariṭṭha lacked the staff of right contemplation and merely said that greed is non-obstructive. The meaning is nearly identical, and therefore this metaphor is borrowed. From "Now I shall" below, these are the characteristics of the former master catching a snake without a charm. As for that former master, of dull roots and heavy obstacles, his good cultivation failed; temporarily letting himself enter evil, he imagined something resembling contemplation of emptiness, and regarding this understanding of emptiness as profound realization, this was the error in his own practice. From "Not recognizing" below is the error of teaching others. Because wholesome [roots] did not arise in himself, he abandoned good to pursue evil, and solely took this understanding of emptiness from entering evil to teach others. When others also occasionally produced an understanding of emptiness, they immediately took it as proof, claiming that evil alone is real. From then on, even the understanding of emptiness was forgotten, and they only committed evil comprehensively. From "Blind without eyes" below is the error of disciples erroneously receiving it. Lacking the eye of doctrinal characteristics is called being blind; wholesome cultivation failing is called having dull roots; frequently arousing greed is having heavy afflictions. When such persons further hear their master's teaching instructing them purely to enter evil, they indulge desires and passions, comprehensively committing all kinds of evil. From "Consequently causing the common people" below clarifies the errors of oneself and others. Hu means to disparage and abandon. Because of the errors of oneself and others, the populace was disparaged and the kings perished. In present times, the lingering customs of Wu and Yue still remain: taking aloof rectitude to be the Hīnayāna, and taking promiscuous disorder to be unobstructedness. This still existed in the Sui dynasty, hence it is said that it has not yet changed. From "Records of the Grand Historian" below, he cites historical events to analogize the errors. First, he cites the Records of the Grand Historian to analogize the master's error of erroneous transmission. Zhou is the name of a state, with the surname of the Ji clan. The Annals of Emperors and Kings states: "The consort of Emperor Ku, Jiang Yuan, trod upon the footprint of a divine being and became pregnant. Thinking it inauspicious, she abandoned it in a narrow alley, but cattle and sheep did not trample it; she placed it upon cold ice, and birds covered it with their wings. Yuan regarded it as divine, retrieved it, and raised it. In childhood he was fond of agriculture, and when grown up, looked up to observe the Room constellation to gauge the farming seasons. Shun presented him to Yao to oversee agricultural governance as the agricultural minister; therefore he was called Lord Millet (Houji), and was granted the surname Ji." Beginning with Wu and ending with Nan, there were thirty-seven kings. The verse says: Wu, Cheng, Kang, Zhao, Mu, Gong, Yi, / Xiao, Yi, Li, Xuan, You, Xie, Ping, / Huan, Zhuang, Xi, Hui, Xiang, Qing, Kuang, / Ding, Jian, Ling, Jing, Dao, Jing, Yuan, / Zhen, Ai, Si, Zhe, Wei, An, Lie, / Xian, Shen, Nan: thirty-seven kings. / Xie did not rule for a full year; some say thirty-eight. The Zuo Commentary states: "Early on, when King Ping moved east, Xin You went to Yichuan, and seeing a person with disheveled hair making offerings in the wild, said: 'Before a hundred years pass, will this not belong to the Rong? Its rituals have perished first.'" When he speaks of the end of the Zhou, this only refers to the waning end, not to the very last. As for the Quanrong, they are precisely the Six Rong. Originally they were named Liuhun; at present, Liuhun County is established in that territory.