止觀輔行傳弘決 3.21.3

3.21.3

今初且對文中四句，破謂破假，入謂入空，不破而入即體法無學，破入即是析法無學，破不入謂得禪外道，不破不入即一切凡夫。 破與不破俱名從假亦俱入空，即前二句，謂破不破俱名從假，而不入空即後二句。 次單釋第二觀中，「異時相望稱平等」者，此第二觀得名平等，非獨從此第二觀得。 初觀用真而破於俗，此復用俗而破於真，兼前乃成雙用雙破，前後相望名為異時，至今第二方名平等。 次「今當」下，有兩重譬、合。 初譬入空，次顯入假。 凡夫生盲真俗俱瞑，慧眼開已，見真諦空亦見俗色。 「從假」下，合入空譬。 雖見二諦但能用真，未能分別不能用俗，故譬中云「不能分別種種」等也。 四種四諦，名為種種。 卉是草之都名，都標三草。 木是樹之總稱，總舉二木。 根莖枝葉，疏中譬於信戒定慧，四教各具此四法故。 四種道滅名之為藥，四種苦集名之為毒，四教區分故種類各別。 故初入空未能分別，是故名為不能用假。 次重譬者，慧眼開後即入假時，亦見二諦名見空色。 分別前來所破之色，洞見諸法根等不同，了四四諦名識種類，達於藥病因起不同，名「解因緣」。 展轉相望，互論麁細。 治苦集邊名之為「藥」，藥資法身故名為「食」。 識藥識病名為「皆識」，善能授藥名為「皆用」。 遍四四諦，故並云「皆」。 所被九界名為「益他」。 「此譬」下，合也。 前後二觀俱觀真俗，此能分別望前故等。 次釋中道者，初正鎖《瓔珞》經文。 經中釋前二觀竟，即云「因是二空觀為方便道，得入中道雙照二諦。 心心寂滅，自然進入初地。 」今初釋方便者，有二種：一者雙亡、二者雙照。 初言二空者，空假、空空。 空即是遮，遮即是亡。 由前異時雙亡方便，今入中道任運雙亡。 亡即是中，故云「心心寂滅」。 「又初觀」下，次釋雙照。 初二觀時用空用假，由前異時雙用方便，用即是照、照即是中，故引經云「心若在定」等也。 生即是俗、滅即是真，故住中道能知生滅。 知秖是照，意在於此。 以皆中故，故得任運。 此之任運由前作意，更互亡照而為方便，入中道時故能爾也。 次問者，引經釋妨，以證今文。 入初地時方乃名等，是故先問偏相云何。 答中意者，所言偏多不見性者，約次第義。 次問者，難向答文。 向答兩觀屬偏定慧故不見性，復引《大經》以難前答。 慧眼在於法眼之前，尚得云見，但言不了； 云何而言兩全不見？ 此文是「大經」佛答師子吼云：「慧眼見故而不了了，佛以佛眼見則了了。 菩薩行故見不了了，若無行故見則了了。 住十住故見不了了，不住不去見則了了。 」云何而言行向等位亦不見耶？ 答意者，所言兩眼俱不見者，約次第義。 兩觀既屬偏假偏空，則慧法眼俱不見性。 汝所引經慧眼見者，慧眼雖為十住之位，借別名圓，故云十住及慧眼見。 依圓為語，初住已去實是佛眼。 故知此借圓住名為慧眼，非謂慧眼十住能見。 次引《法華》以證慧眼。 世尊究竟尚名慧眼，豈況十住不得名慧？ 佛慧眼者，見畢竟空，空即是中，慧眼即是佛眼故也。 言如斯者，指前住中慧眼不了，不及世尊慧眼究竟。 如無明夜見中道色，餘無明在故見不了。 空中鵝雁亦復如是，有餘無明與眼作障，故令見中鵝雁不了。 故《大經》第八云「譬如遠觀空中鵝雁，為是虛空？ 為是鵝雁？ 諦觀不已，髣髴見之。 十住菩薩於如來性少分知見，亦復如是。 空如無明，鵝等如性。 」不了之言在彼十住慧眼菩薩，何關二乘偏空慧眼？ 是則別教地前皆悉不見，況通菩薩及兩二乘。 復引《法華》穿鑿等喻，證第三觀圓住方見。 《法華疏》中為鎖經文，觀約四教，教約五時，當知教觀俱成約教，方顯彼部稱為獨妙。

Now, first, to match the four phrases in the text: 'Refuting' refers to refuting provisionality; 'entering' refers to entering emptiness. Not refuting and entering is the learner who embodies phenomena [to realise emptiness]; refuting and entering is the learner who analyzes phenomena [to realise emptiness]; refuting without entering refers to non-Buddhists who have attained dhyāna; neither refuting nor entering refers to all ordinary people. Both refuting and not refuting are called 'proceeding from the provisional' and both 'enter emptiness'—these are the first two phrases, meaning that both refuting and not refuting are called 'proceeding from the provisional', while not entering emptiness constitutes the latter two phrases. Next, in interpreting the second contemplation alone, regarding 'looking across different times, it is called equal': the reason this second contemplation receives the name 'equal' does not derive from this second contemplation alone. The first contemplation employs the true and refutes the conventional, while this one again employs the conventional and refutes the true. Combining it with the preceding one then forms a dual employment and dual refutation; looking across before and after is called 'different times', and only upon arriving at this second contemplation is it named 'equal'. Next, under 'Now we shall…', there are two sets of analogies and applications. The first analogises entering emptiness; next, it clarifies entering provisionality. The ordinary person, born blind, is obscure to both the true and conventional; once the wisdom eye opens, one sees the emptiness of the true truth and also sees the forms of the conventional. Under 'From the provisional…', it applies the analogy of entering emptiness. Although one sees the two truths, one can only employ the true, unable yet to discriminate and unable to employ the conventional; hence the analogy says, 'unable to discriminate the various…' and so forth. The four kinds of four truths are called 'various'. 'Herbs' (hui) is a general name for grass, generally designating the three grasses. 'Trees' (mu) is a collective term for trees, collectively indicating the two trees. Roots, stalks, branches, and leaves: in the commentary, they are analogised to faith, precepts, concentration, and wisdom, because each of the four teachings possesses these four dharmas. The four kinds of path and cessation are termed 'medicine'; the four kinds of suffering and origin are termed 'poison'; since the four teachings are distinguished, their kinds and varieties are each different. Thus, when first entering emptiness, one cannot yet discriminate; for this reason, it is called being unable to employ the provisional. Next, regarding the second analogy: after the wisdom eye opens, precisely at the time of entering the provisional, one also sees the two truths, which is called seeing emptiness and form. Discriminating the forms previously refuted, clearly perceiving that the roots and other parts of all dharmas are different, and comprehending the four kinds of four truths is called 'recognising the kinds and varieties'. Penetrating the different arisings of the causes of medicines and illnesses is called 'understanding cause and condition'. Interdependently looking across, they mutually discuss the coarse and subtle. Healing the aspect of suffering and origin is termed 'medicine'; medicine assisting the dharma-body is therefore called 'food'. Recognising medicine and recognising illness is termed 'recognising all'; being skilled in administering medicine is termed 'employing all'. Because it pervades the four kinds of four truths, it repeatedly says 'all'. Benefiting the nine realms is termed 'benefiting others'. Under 'This analogy…', it applies it. Both the preceding and subsequent contemplations contemplate the true and conventional; because this one is able to discriminate, when looked at in relation to the former, they are equal. Next, in interpreting the middle way: first, it directly links the text of the Yingluo jing. In the sūtra, after finishing explaining the preceding two contemplations, it states: 'Relying on these two emptiness contemplations as the path of expedients, one is able to enter the middle way and doubly illuminate the two truths. Mind after mind is tranquil and ceased, naturally advancing into the first stage.' Now, in first explaining the expedients, there are two kinds: first, doubly extinguishing; second, doubly illuminating. First, regarding the 'two emptinesses', it means emptiness of the provisional and emptiness of emptiness. Emptiness is precisely negation; negation is precisely extinguishing. Due to the preceding expedient of doubly extinguishing at different times, now entering the middle way, they are naturally doubly extinguished. Extinction is precisely the middle; hence it says 'mind after mind is tranquil and ceased'. Under 'Also in the first contemplation…', it next explains double illumination. During the first two contemplations, one employed emptiness and employed provisionality; due to the preceding expedient of doubly employing them at different times, employment is precisely illumination, and illumination is precisely the middle; therefore it cites the sūtra saying: 'If the mind is in concentration…' and so forth. Arising is precisely the conventional; ceasing is precisely the true; therefore, abiding in the middle way, one is able to know arising and ceasing. Knowing is merely illuminating; the intention lies here. Because all are the middle, one attains spontaneity. This spontaneity is due to the previous deliberate cultivation—alternating extinction and illumination as an expedient—so that upon entering the middle way, one can be thus. Next, the question cites sūtras to resolve difficulties in order to verify the present text. Only upon entering the first stage is it called equal; therefore, it first asks what the characteristic of bias is like. The meaning in the reply is: saying that bias is prevalent and one does not see the nature is said according to the graduated meaning. Next, the question challenges the previous reply. The previous reply said that both contemplations belong to biased concentration and wisdom and therefore do not see the nature; it again cites the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to challenge the previous reply: The wisdom eye precedes the dharma eye, yet it can still be said to see, only saying it is unclear; why then say that both do not see at all? This text is from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, where the Buddha replied to Siṃhanāda: 'Because one sees with the wisdom eye, it is not clear; when the Buddha sees with the Buddha eye, it is completely clear. Because bodhisattvas engage in practice, their seeing is not clear; if there is no practice, seeing is completely clear. Because they abide in the ten abodes, their seeing is not clear; neither abiding nor departing, seeing is completely clear.' Why say that stages such as the practices and dedications also do not see? The meaning of the reply is: saying that neither eye sees is spoken according to the graduated meaning. Since both contemplations belong to biased provisionality and biased emptiness, both the wisdom eye and dharma eye do not see the nature. Regarding what was cited by you from the sūtra about the wisdom eye seeing: although the wisdom eye is the stage of the ten abodes, borrowing the distinctive to name the perfect, it therefore says the ten abodes and the wisdom eye see. Speaking in accordance with the perfect, from the initial abode onward it is truly the Buddha eye. Therefore, know that this borrows the abodes of the perfect teaching to name them the wisdom eye; it does not mean that the wisdom eye of the ten abodes [of the distinctive teaching] can see. Next, it cites the Lotus Sūtra to verify the wisdom eye. Even the World-Honoured One's culmination is still called the wisdom eye; how much more so could the ten abodes not be called wisdom? The Buddha's wisdom eye sees ultimate emptiness; emptiness is precisely the middle, because the wisdom eye is precisely the Buddha eye. 'Being like this' refers to the wisdom eye in the preceding abodes being unclear, falling short of the World-Honoured One's ultimate wisdom eye. Just as seeing the forms of the middle way in the night of ignorance, because remaining ignorance exists, one's seeing is not clear. Wild geese in the sky are also like this: remaining ignorance acts as an obstacle to the eye, thus causing one's seeing of the geese in the sky to be unclear. Therefore, fascicle eight of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'For example, looking from afar at wild geese in the sky: is it empty sky? Or is it wild geese? Looking closely without pause, one sees them faintly. The bodhisattvas of the ten abodes having partial knowledge and vision of the Tathāgata-nature is also like this. Emptiness is like ignorance, and the geese and so forth are like the nature.' The word 'unclear' resides in the bodhisattvas of the wisdom eye in those ten abodes; how does it concern the wisdom eye of biased emptiness of the two vehicles? Thus, prior to the bhūmis of the distinctive teaching, none see it, let alone the bodhisattvas of the shared teaching and the two vehicles. It further cites the Lotus Sūtra's analogy of drilling and digging to prove that only in the abodes of the perfect teaching in the third contemplation does one see it. In the Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra, in order to link the sūtra text, contemplation is according to the four teachings, and teachings are according to the five periods; one should know that both teachings and contemplations are framed according to the teachings, only then manifesting that this text is called uniquely wonderful.