止觀輔行傳弘決 3.3

3.3

○次釋絕待者，先總標文意、次破橫竪、次正明絕。初文意者，以橫法破，破令成橫，令知橫待不名為絕；以竪法破，破令成竪，令知竪待不名為絕。所言橫者，四句相望未有淺深，故名為橫。生生等四，四句相望有深淺故，故名為竪。初破橫中，前之兩句皆云「照境為正除惑為旁」者，旁即是他、正即是自，欲判性過，先立旁正。旁正者何？秖是一止，得名處殊。約破惑邊即名為息，約依智邊即名為停，約依體性名不止止，故使得名旁正等別。何者？凡論入道，正為用智、旁為除惑。若從除惑而立名者，名從旁立；若從照境而立名者，名從正生。所破是惑，惑望於智，惑即是他，故止息止從所破立，即墮他性。能破之止復從能照，照望於惑照即是自，故停止止從能照立，即墮自性。此中所言「照境」等者，隨語便故。據理應云依諦為正、息惑為旁，至下釋觀方可云照。從「若非」下，若雙取自他即墮共性。文似雙非，意實雙取，故云「智斷因緣故止」。不偏用一，故似雙非。不止止義墮無因性，正是雙非，秖是俱離自他故也。非止是離自、非不止是離他，離他是離所破、離自是離能依，故第三止墮無因性。觀亦如是，可以比知。然能詮名實不出此三止三觀，故絕待中及顯體中亦約此名而以辨頓，為除情計故須破性，故引龍樹不自生等證離性過。「無生」下，結也。絕待無生，不從相待四句立名。「四句立名」下，斥成待義。互相因依、待對而立，可思可說即可思議。執性未斷，名為結惑。由結惑故未證無生，名結惑生。被橫法破，名為可破。二空義成，相待義壞，名為可壞。「起滅」去，別約三止三觀破也。略舉中間一止一觀，具足應明三止三觀皆悉不成。中例前後，故略不說。

Next, in explaining the absolute: first, a general indication of the text's intention; second, refuting the horizontal and vertical; third, directly clarifying the absolute. Regarding the first, the text's intention: refuting by means of horizontal dharmas, refuting so as to make them horizontal, makes one know that horizontal relativity is not called the absolute; refuting by means of vertical dharmas, refuting so as to make them vertical, makes one know that vertical relativity is not called the absolute. What is called 'horizontal' means that looking among the four propositions, there is not yet shallow or deep, hence it is termed horizontal. In the four, such as 'production of production', looking among the four propositions, there is depth and shallowness, hence it is termed vertical. First, in refuting the horizontal, as for the previous two propositions both stating 'illuminating the object is primary, eliminating defilement is secondary': secondary is the other, primary is the self; wishing to judge the fault of self-nature, one first establishes the secondary and the primary. What are the secondary and primary? It is merely a single calming, differing in the basis for receiving its name. In terms of breaking defilement, it is named halting; in terms of relying on wisdom, it is named stopping; in terms of relying on the essential nature, it is named neither-stopping-nor-non-stopping. Thus it causes the reception of distinctions such as primary and secondary. Why is this? Generally speaking, in entering the path, the primary is employing wisdom, and the secondary is eliminating defilement. If the name is established from eliminating defilement, the name is established from the secondary; if the name is established from illuminating the object, the name is generated from the primary. What is refuted is defilement; defilement in relation to wisdom is the other, hence the calming of halting is established from what is refuted, and falls into 'other-nature'. The calming that can refute is again from what can illuminate; illuminating in relation to defilement is the self, hence the calming of stopping is established from what can illuminate, and falls into 'self-nature'. Here, stating 'illuminating the object' and so forth is done for convenience of phrasing. According to the principle, it should say relying on the truth is primary, halting defilement is secondary; only when arriving below at explaining contemplation can one speak of illuminating. From 'if neither' below, if grasping both self and other, one falls into 'common nature'. The text seems like a double negation, but the intent is actually a double affirmation, hence it says 'calming through the causes and conditions of wisdom and severance'. Not using one exclusively, it therefore seems like a double negation. The meaning of the calming of neither-stopping-nor-non-stopping falls into 'uncaused nature', which is precisely the double negation, simply because it is free of both self and other. 'Non-calming' is being free of self; 'neither non-calming' is being free of the other. Being free of the other is being free of what is refuted; being free of self is being free of what can be relied upon. Hence the third calming falls into uncaused nature. Contemplation is also like this, and can be known by analogy. However, the names that can express [it] in fact do not exceed these three calmings and three contemplations; therefore, in the absolute and in revealing the essence, it is also in terms of these names that the sudden is distinguished. To eliminate emotional reckonings, it is necessary to refute natures; therefore, Nāgārjuna's [statement that dharmas are] not produced from self and so forth is cited to verify freedom from the faults of nature. From 'unproduced' downward, it concludes. The absolute is unproduced; it does not establish its name from the four propositions of mutual relativity. Below 'establishing names from the four propositions', it reproves forming the meaning of relativity. Being mutually dependent and established in opposition, being thinkable and speakable, it is then conceivable. Not yet having severed grasping to natures is called bound defilement. Due to bound defilement, not yet realizing the unproduced is called the production of bound defilement. Being refuted by horizontal dharmas is called being refutable. The meaning of twofold emptiness being established, the meaning of mutual relativity is broken, which is called destructible. From 'arising and perishing' onward, it refutes specifically in terms of the three calmings and three contemplations. It briefly adduces the middle calming and middle contemplation; fully, it should explain that all three calmings and three contemplations are not established. The middle exemplifies the preceding and succeeding, hence it is briefly omitted.