止觀輔行傳弘決 2.66

2.66

「問」下，料簡也。問意者，《次第禪門》中，大章第七明修證。因修獲證故名修證，證即是果，與此果報有何同異？答中意者，修之與證雖似因果，但是習因習果，故云修名習行即是習因，證名發得即是習果，並在現世。今論果報等者，果報既在來世，故與禪門不同。「二乘但有習果」等者，判大小乘也。果報之名言不涉小，雖得羅漢但名習果，習果謝已不云有生，故小乘教不說二乘。更有處言方便土者，出自大教耳。

From "Question" downward, it provides an analytical examination. The intention of the question is: in the Cidi chanmen, the seventh major section clarifies cultivation and realization. Because one obtains realization by virtue of cultivation, it is called cultivation-and-realization; realization is itself the fruit. What are the points of identity and difference between that and this retributive fruit? The intention in the answer is: although cultivation and realization seem like cause and effect, they are merely the cause of habituation and the fruit of habituation. Therefore it is said that cultivation is termed habituated practice, which is the cause of habituation, and realization is termed manifest attainment, which is the fruit of habituation; both are in the present lifetime. As for the present discussion of retributive fruit and so forth: since retributive fruit is in future lifetimes, it is not the same as in the Chanmen. As for "The two vehicles have only the fruit of habituation" and so forth, it distinguishes the Mahāyāna from the Hīnayāna. The name "retributive fruit" does not pertain to the Hīnayāna; although an arhat is attained, it is only called the fruit of habituation. Once the fruit of habituation has passed, they do not speak of having rebirth; therefore, the Hīnayāna teaching does not speak of the two vehicles [having further birth]. Where it is further stated elsewhere that there is a land of expedient means, that comes from the Great Teaching.