止觀輔行傳弘決 2.7

2.7

次假觀中，文舉六喻。三夢、一寶、一骨、一像，其意大同，但重說耳。今並略合。夢者，心性如境、觀如緣想、觀成如夢，此純約行者合也。又法身如境、報身如想、應身如夢，此純約佛境合也。又彼佛如境、行人如想、見佛如夢，此約感應合論也。三夢皆爾，故凡起觀想、想成見相，皆具三意。畢竟空中求佛叵得，故知前後二夢明見而不可得，中間一夢明不可得而見，故初夢云「覺已追念不知在何處」，最後夢云「覺已腹空」，中間夢云「不來不往而樂事宛然」。故《大論》第七云「如佛在世，三人為伴，聞毘舍離有婬女名菴羅婆利、舍衛國有婬女名須曼那、王舍城有婬女名優鉢羅盤那，端正無比。三人各聞，長念心著，便於夢中與彼從事。覺已心念：彼不來、我不往，而婬事得辦。因是即悟諸法亦爾，於是共至跋陀婆羅菩薩所而問其事。菩薩答言：『諸法實爾，皆從念生。』菩薩為其方便說法，得不退地。」此文但引三中之一，《般舟》文同。寶等三者與夢大同，寶如能緣心、瑠璃如所緣境、影現如夢事。觀骨鏡像各具三義亦復如是。若作異者，所謂依空而現於假，瑠璃如空、影現如假，無骨如空、起光如假，淨鏡如空、現像如假。前三亦具空假二義，以帶空心出假故也。「行人」下，經中略合也。「鏡」喻起觀。行者名「行人色」，色即身也。由念相現，名為「所有」。見已即問，佛答所問，聞佛所說心大歡喜。雖在三昧，說者是佛，故曰「聞經」。次中觀者，初文即是彼經菩薩得三昧已起思惟文。今文存略及隨義便，語猶難見。先對錄彼文，令此文可解，次更釋今文。今云「自念至無所至」，彼經云「菩薩思惟云：佛從何所來，我亦無所至。即知諸佛無所從來，我無所至。」今云「我所念即見」，彼經云「作是念時，三界皆無所有，皆心所作。何以故？隨心所念皆悉得見。」今云「心作佛心自見心見佛心」，彼經云「以心見佛、心作佛。」今云「是佛心是我心見佛」，彼經云「心即是佛，心即我身。」今云「心不自知心，心不自見心」，彼經云「心不自知心，亦不自見心。」若取心相皆悉無智，皆從無明出。因是心相即入諸法實相，得是三昧智慧。以二力故，隨意二願、定慧二力。次釋今文。初句準經可知。次「我所念」等諸句中所言佛者，皆具二意：一自心三昧所見佛、二西方從因感果佛。今具含二義共為一境，為順理故從初義釋。三昧既成隨念即見，見是心性，名心作佛。佛既心作，故見佛時名見自心。若見自心即見佛心，以彼佛心是我心故。「是佛心至見佛」者，明所見佛不異我心。「心不自知心至見心」者，明雖見佛，求能見者及意緣知畢竟叵得。故此中意，但觀自心及所見佛不出法性，故見佛心即見己心。己心佛心即是中道，不須更置雙非等言。從「心有想至泥洹」者，釋上叵得之心即是涅槃。「是法不可示」者，明非說所知。「皆念至空耳」者，明涅槃離念，假使有念亦了能所皆悉空寂。次五言偈，即頌前文，對之可見。次「諸佛」下七言偈者，更轉釋向五言偈也。初句者。一切諸佛由觀己心不異佛心故得成佛。次句者，釋初句中所觀之心心如佛心，佛心無垢己心亦無。次句者，五道由心，心體本淨，雖遍五道不受彼色。如病眼者遍空見華，華雖遍空，空無所受。水波水濕，亦復如是。次句者，總結觀意，作此解者成圓融道。「佛印」者，釋前所觀既是實相，故名佛印。「無所貪」下，釋出觀相。不貪於有、不著於空、不求於中，無三想故，所有所欲皆悉言盡。有謂觀境、欲謂觀智，能所皆亡，亡故無生故無從生，以無生故亦無有滅。被壞名滅、自滅名壞，體其本無，名為無滅。本滅自無，名無壞敗。能趣之道必藉此理，名為「道要」。從始至終此理為本，名為「道本」。「是印」等者，挫小況迷。小乘斷惑，義如壞印。二乘自謂生滅度想，而彼所行本是佛道。二乘永滅尚不能壞，況復魔界順於生死，生死之體即涅槃故，豈有涅槃更壞涅槃？「婆沙云」下，引論校量。論寄次第故先念色，還寄教相辨相體等。藏通修得、別圓發得，別存教道所依少別。又若用所依，藏依福德、通依空慧、別依緣修、圓依實相，此即四種相因不同。寄教雖爾，論文多依後二教義，且為初行令觀色相。又三藏因文亦不定，或一因一相，如《大經》三十六師子吼問：「云何得佛三十二相？」佛因廣答，因各不同。若《大論》第五有共有別，具如《法界次第》。《報恩》第七、《天王》第七，所言因者即是相業，言相果者即三十二。束為頌曰：

Next, in the contemplation of the provisional, the text adduces six similes: three of dreams, one of a jewel, one of bones, and one of an image. Their essential purport is largely identical; they are merely repeated explanations. Now they will all be briefly correlated [with practice]. As for the dreams: the mind-nature is like the object, contemplation is like the mental focus on conditions, and the completion of contemplation is like the dream. This is an application made purely in terms of the practitioner. Furthermore, the dharma-body is like the object, the reward-body is like the mental focus, and the response-body is like the dream. This is an application made purely in terms of the sphere of the Buddha. Furthermore, that Buddha is like the object, the practitioner is like the mental focus, and seeing the Buddha is like the dream. This is an application discussed in terms of stimulus and response. All three dreams are like this; thus, whenever one arouses the contemplation's mental focus and the mental focus is completed so that the marks are seen, all three imports are completely present. In ultimate emptiness, searching for a Buddha cannot be attained; therefore, we know that the earlier and later two dreams clarify that although seen, they cannot be attained, while the middle dream clarifies that although unattainable, they are seen. Hence the first dream says, 'Having awakened, pursuing the thought, one knows not where it is'; the last dream says, 'Having awakened, the belly is empty'; and the middle dream says, 'Without coming or going, yet the pleasant events are distinctly manifest.' Therefore, the seventh fascicle of the Dazhidulun states: 'When the Buddha was in the world, three men who were companions heard that in Vaiśālī there was a courtesan named Āmrapālī, in the country of Śrāvastī there was a courtesan named Sumanā, and in the city of Rājagṛha there was a courtesan named Utpalavarṇā, all incomparably beautiful. The three men, each having heard of them, constantly thought of them with attached minds, and immediately engaged in affairs with them in their dreams. Having awakened, each reflected: "She did not come, and I did not go, yet the amorous affair was accomplished!" Because of this, they immediately awakened to the fact that all phenomena are also like this. Thereupon they went together to the place of the bodhisattva Bhadrapāla and questioned him about this matter. The bodhisattva answered, saying: "All phenomena are truly like this; they are all born from thought." The bodhisattva expounded the Dharma to them by expedient means, and they attained the stage of non-retrogression.' This text merely cites one of the three; the text of the Pratyutpanna [Samādhi Sūtra] is identical. The three things, beginning with the jewel, are largely identical to the dreams: the jewel is like the mind capable of cognizing, the vaiḍūrya is like the object cognized, and the manifestation of the reflection is like the events of the dream. Contemplating the bones and the mirror image each having three meanings is also like this. If one distinguishes them, it is what is called manifesting the provisional in reliance upon emptiness: the vaiḍūrya is like emptiness and the manifestation of the reflection is like the provisional; the absence of bones is like emptiness and the arising of light is like the provisional; the clean mirror is like emptiness and the manifestation of the image is like the provisional. The preceding three also possess both the meanings of emptiness and the provisional, because one emerges into the provisional bearing the mind of emptiness. From 'the practitioner' onwards, the sūtra briefly correlates them. 'Mirror' is a simile for arousing contemplation. The practitioner is called 'the practitioner's form'—form is indeed the body. Because marks manifest due to mindfulness, it is called 'all that is'. Having seen, one immediately asks; the Buddha answers what was asked; hearing what the Buddha has spoken, the mind is filled with great joy. Although within samādhi, the speaker is the Buddha, hence it is called 'hearing the sūtra'. Next, regarding the contemplation of the middle: the initial text is indeed the text of that sūtra where the bodhisattva, having attained samādhi, aroused reflection. The present text is abridged and follows the convenience of the meaning, so the wording is still difficult to see. First, I will record that text in comparison so that this text can be understood, and next, I will further explain the present text. The present text says, 'Contemplates oneself [...] to having nowhere to reach.' That sūtra says: 'The bodhisattva reflects, saying: "Where has the Buddha come from? I too have gone nowhere." One immediately knows that the Buddhas have nowhere from which they come, and I have nowhere to which I go.' The present text says, 'What I think of is immediately seen.' That sūtra says: 'When one makes this thought, the three realms are all non-existent; they are all made by the mind. Why? Following whatever is thought by the mind, all is seen.' The present text says, 'The mind makes the Buddha; the mind itself sees the mind; the mind sees the Buddha-mind.' That sūtra says: 'By means of the mind, one sees the Buddha; the mind makes the Buddha.' The present text says, 'This Buddha-mind is my mind seeing the Buddha.' That sūtra says: 'The mind is indeed the Buddha; the mind is indeed my body.' The present text says, 'The mind does not know itself, the mind does not see itself.' That sūtra says: 'The mind does not know the mind itself, nor does the mind see the mind itself.' If one grasps at the marks of the mind, all are devoid of wisdom and all emerge from ignorance. By relying on these marks of the mind, one directly enters the true mark of all phenomena and attains the wisdom of this samādhi. Because of the two powers, there are the two vows according with one's intention and the two powers of concentration and wisdom. Next, explaining the present text. The first phrase can be understood by referring to the sūtra. Next, in the phrases such as 'what I think of', where the 'Buddha' is spoken of, all possess two meanings: first, the Buddha seen by one's own mind in samādhi; second, the Buddha of the Western [pure land] responding as the fruit from causes. Now both meanings are completely contained together as one object; to accord with principle, it is explained from the first meaning. When samādhi is already achieved, following thought [the Buddha] is immediately seen; seeing this mind-nature is called 'the mind makes the Buddha'. Since the Buddha is made by the mind, when seeing the Buddha, it is called 'seeing one's own mind'. If one sees one's own mind, one immediately sees the Buddha-mind, because that Buddha-mind is my mind. 'This Buddha-mind [...] seeing the Buddha' clarifies that the Buddha seen is not different from my mind. 'The mind does not know itself [...] see the mind' clarifies that although one sees the Buddha, seeking that which is capable of seeing and what the consciousness cognizes can never be attained. Therefore, the intention here is simply to contemplate that one's own mind and the Buddha seen do not go beyond the dharma-nature; hence seeing the Buddha-mind is seeing one's own mind. One's own mind and the Buddha-mind are indeed the middle way; there is no need to add further words such as 'double negation'. From 'the mind has thoughts [...] to nirvāṇa' explains that the aforementioned unattainable mind is indeed nirvāṇa. 'This phenomenon cannot be demonstrated' clarifies that it is not something known through speech. 'All thoughts [...] are just empty' clarifies that nirvāṇa is free from thought, and even if there are thoughts, one also realizes that both the subject and object are entirely empty and tranquil. Next, the five-character verse eulogizes the preceding text, which can be seen by comparing them. Next, the seven-character verse beginning with 'all Buddhas' further turns to explain the previous five-character verse. As for the first line: all Buddhas attained Buddhahood through contemplating that their own mind is not different from the Buddha-mind. As for the second line: it explains that the mind contemplated in the first line is like the Buddha-mind; the Buddha-mind is free from defilement, and one's own mind is also free [from it]. As for the third line: the five destinies stem from the mind; the essence of the mind is originally pure; although it pervades the five destinies, it does not receive their physical forms. It is like one with diseased eyes seeing flowers everywhere in the sky; although the flowers pervade the sky, the sky receives nothing. Water and waves, water and moisture, are also like this. As for the next line: it summarizes the intent of the contemplation; making this understanding accomplishes the path of perfect integration. 'The seal of the Buddha' explains that since what was contemplated earlier is the true mark, it is called the seal of the Buddha. From 'having no greed' onwards, it explains the marks of emerging from contemplation. Not being greedy for existence, not attaching to emptiness, and not seeking the middle—because there are no three thoughts, all that exists and all desires are completely ended in speech. 'Existence' refers to the object of contemplation; 'desire' refers to the wisdom of contemplation. Both subject and object are eliminated; because they are eliminated, there is no arising, and therefore there is nothing from which they arise; because there is no arising, there is also no cessation. Being destroyed is called cessation; ceasing of itself is called destruction. Realizing that they are originally non-existent is called non-cessation. Being originally ceased and of themselves non-existent is called without destruction and ruin. The path that can be approached necessarily relies on this principle, hence it is called the 'essential of the path'. From beginning to end, this principle is the foundation, hence it is called the 'root of the path'. 'This seal' and so forth humbles the small [vehicle] to illustrate the deluded. In the small vehicle's severing of defilements, the meaning is like breaking the seal. The two vehicles themselves consider that they arouse thoughts of cessation, yet what they practice is originally the Buddha path. Even the eternal cessation of the two vehicles cannot destroy it, how much less the realm of Māra, which accords with birth-and-death? Because the essence of birth-and-death is itself nirvāṇa, how could nirvāṇa further destroy nirvāṇa? From 'The Vibhāṣā says' onwards, the treatise is cited for comparison. The treatise is based on a gradual sequence, so it first contemplates the physical form, and also relies on doctrinal characteristics to distinguish the marks, essence, and so on. In the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings], they are attained through cultivation; in the distinctive and perfect [teachings], they are attained through manifestation. The distinctive teaching maintains the pedagogical path, so that on which it relies is slightly different. Furthermore, if applying that on which they rely: the Tripiṭaka relies on merit, the shared relies on the wisdom of emptiness, the distinctive relies on conditioned cultivation, and the perfect relies on the true mark. These are the differences in the causes of the marks among the four [teachings]. Although this is so in terms of the teachings, the text of the treatise mostly relies on the meaning of the latter two teachings, provisionally causing beginners to contemplate the physical marks. Furthermore, the causal texts of the Tripiṭaka are not fixed; sometimes there is one cause for one mark, as in the thirty-sixth fascicle of the Great Scripture where Lion's Roar asks: 'How does one attain the Buddha's thirty-two marks?' The Buddha extensively answers in response, the causes each being different. As in the fifth fascicle of the Dazhidulun, there are shared and distinct ones, fully as in the Fajie cidi. In the seventh fascicle of the Bao'en and the seventh fascicle of the Tianwang, what is spoken of as causes is indeed the karma of the marks; what is spoken of as the fruits of the marks is indeed the thirty-two. Condensed into verse, it says: