止觀輔行傳弘決 3.38

3.38

「次三乘人」下，明通教離合。雖即同斷，以菩薩中有利根故，離真出中，故云真異。次引《大論》等者，「智者」即是利根見中，名「見不空」，不空祇是不但空也。三德具足，名「大涅槃」。「二乘」下，引《大品》文。如日之智，即照中也。鈍者始終但見於空。法華被會，即非此中開合義也。「既空異」下，正明開合。但不但空名為空異。一切智照但空，一切種智照不但空，名為「智別」。真既含二，智亦二別。於真諦中開出中道，故云「則有兩諦之殊」。而今合者，且據通教，故云而今作二諦說，但名「真諦」。「二乘」下，開出二乘利鈍菩薩觀諦差別，別故得有含中之義。言「淨佛國土」者，通教出假菩薩亦為眾生作淨土因，處處結緣，眾生機熟斷習成佛，名淨佛土。結緣之時名淨土行，故《淨名》云「菩薩取於淨土，皆為饒益諸眾生故。故云布施是菩薩淨土，菩薩成佛時，一切能捨眾生來生其國。」結緣之時以布施攝，成佛之時地多珍寶，諸能捨者同生其土，而受五種布施化益，由攝生時有五差故，所謂人天及以四教。一切諸行無非菩薩淨土之行，故有四土橫竪攝物。此依跨節，是則淨土義通諸教。今文且依通教菩薩斷餘殘習為淨土果，但是異於二乘而已。若《大經》二十二明淨土義，但云願攝，其義則通。諸教觀別，攝生皆然。「上根菩薩」下，明利根菩薩開真出中。「昔莊嚴」下，破古也。莊嚴云出，開善云不出，此由三乘共學菩薩有但不但。古人不曉利鈍兩根，但諍佛果出與不出，終未見今開合之意，故使二家各朋己計。今文並破，是故皆云「作義不成」。故知二家各得今文利鈍一邊，故云片意。仍不能知出外別照中道之境，用中道智進破無明，故云片意。若不能知鈍根依教與二乘人同證真諦，是亦但得今文片意。若全得今意，出與不出義皆悉成。「古來名此」等者，任二家所說各謂幽深，是非難分、古來無判，是故古人雙美二說，名此二諦名曰「風流」。言風流者，動止合儀，故許二家出入無失。於今被破，出入俱非、舉措失儀，風流何在？若依今用含中二諦，進退咸美、風流有餘。如《僧傳》中，有乘法師，先與一法師住開泰寺，此師中途離開泰寺。後時乘於本寺開講，序此佛果出二諦義。此師難云：「為佛果出二諦？為二諦出佛果？」乘反質云：「為法師出開泰？為開泰出法師？」答曰：「如鴛鴦鳥不住圊廁。」乘曰：「釋提桓因不與鬼住。」答曰：「鳩翅羅鳥不棲枯樹。」乘曰：「猶如大海不宿死屍。」往復雖佳，理竟未顯。且如《大經》三十六文末，佛說觀因緣智四種不同，得菩提異。說是語時，十千菩薩得一生實相，五千菩薩得二生法界。章安云：「三乘同觀第一義諦，智解不同。一生二生乃是破無明一品二品。實相是別理、法界是圓理，即是利根接入別圓。破無明已八相作佛，是為佛果出外義也。但觀諸經會未得道，即識所說共別之意。」「但空」下，辨異。「是為」下結，如文。

Next, from 'the persons of the three vehicles' onward, it clarifies separation and combination in the shared teaching. Although they sever [defilements] identically, because there are sharp-rooted ones among the bodhisattvas, departing from the real brings forth the middle, which is why it is called 'difference in the real'. Next, where it cites the Dazhidulun and so forth: 'the wise person' refers to the sharp-rooted one who sees the middle, which is called 'seeing the non-empty'; 'non-empty' is simply 'not merely empty'. Possessing the three virtues completely is called 'great nirvāṇa'. Below, where it says 'the two vehicles', it cites the text of the Dapin. Wisdom like the sun is precisely illuminating the middle. The dull-rooted from beginning to end only see emptiness. Being brought together in the Lotus is not the meaning of opening and combining here. Below, where it says 'Since emptiness is different', it directly clarifies opening and combining. Merely empty and not merely empty are called 'difference in emptiness'. The all-knowledge illuminates mere emptiness, and the knowledge of all aspects illuminates non-mere emptiness; this is called 'difference in wisdom'. Since the real contains the two, the wisdom is also twofold. Opening the middle way out from within the truth of the real is why it says 'there is the distinction of two truths'. But as for combining them now: provisionally based on the shared teaching, it is therefore said that they are now stated as two truths, merely called 'the truth of the real'. Below, where it says 'the two vehicles', it opens out the difference in the contemplation of the truths between the two vehicles and the sharp- and dull-rooted bodhisattvas; because of the difference, there can be the meaning of containing the middle. Regarding 'purifying the Buddha-land': a bodhisattva of the shared teaching who emerges into provisionality also creates causes for a pure land for the sake of sentient beings, establishing affinities everywhere; when sentient beings' capacities are ripe, they sever habitual tendencies and achieve Buddhahood, which is called purifying the Buddha-land. The time of establishing affinities is called pure land practice. Therefore the Vimalakīrti says: 'A bodhisattva's taking of a pure land is entirely for the sake of benefiting all sentient beings. Thus giving is the bodhisattva's pure land; when the bodhisattva achieves Buddhahood, sentient beings who are capable of renunciation come to be born in that land.' At the time of establishing affinities, they gather them through giving; at the time of achieving Buddhahood, the ground has many precious jewels, and those capable of renunciation are born together in that land, receiving the five kinds of transformative benefit of giving. This is because when gathering sentient beings there are five differences, namely humans and devas, and the four teachings. None of all the practices is not the practice of a bodhisattva's pure land; thus there are four lands that gather beings horizontally and vertically. This relies on crossing boundaries, so the meaning of pure land runs through all teachings. The present text provisionally relies on the bodhisattva of the shared teaching severing the remaining residual habitual tendencies as the fruition of the pure land, which is merely different from the two vehicles. If fascicle twenty-two of the Great Sūtra clarifies the meaning of pure land, it merely speaks of gathering through vows, and its meaning is universal. While the contemplations of the various teachings differ, their gathering of beings is in all cases like this. Below, where it says 'bodhisattvas of superior faculties', it clarifies that sharp-rooted bodhisattvas open the real to bring forth the middle. Below, where it says 'In the past, Zhuangyan', it refutes the ancients. Zhuangyan said it emerges, while Kaishan said it does not emerge; this is because among the bodhisattvas who study in common with the three vehicles, there are those of the merely [empty] and the not merely [empty]. The ancients did not understand the two faculties of sharp and dull, but only disputed whether the Buddha fruition emerges or does not emerge, never seeing the present meaning of opening and combining; this caused the two houses to each cling to their own calculation. The present text refutes both together, which is why it says in both cases that 'the formulation of the principle is not established'. Therefore we know that the two houses each grasped one side of sharp or dull in the present text, which is why it is called 'a partial idea'. Still unable to know the realm of the middle way that is illuminated separately outside, and using the wisdom of the middle way to advance and sever ignorance, this is why it is called 'a partial idea'. If one does not know that the dull-rooted rely on the teaching to realize the truth of the real together with the people of the two vehicles, this is also merely grasping a partial idea of the present text. If one completely grasps the present intention, the principles of both emerging and not emerging are fully established. Regarding 'From ancient times this has been called...', etc.: as each of the two houses deemed what it stated to be profound, right and wrong were difficult to distinguish, and from ancient times there was no judgment; therefore the ancients praised both theories equally, calling these two truths 'elegant'. Saying 'elegant' means movement and rest conform to propriety, so they granted that the two houses were without fault in emerging or entering. Now being refuted, emerging and entering are both wrong and their actions lack propriety—where is their elegance? If one relies on the present two truths containing the middle, advancing and retreating are both fine, and there is elegance to spare. As in the Biographies of Eminent Monks, there was a Dharma Master Cheng who formerly stayed at Kaitai Monastery with another Dharma master; this master left Kaitai Monastery halfway through. Later, Cheng gave a lecture at the original monastery, introducing this doctrine of the Buddha fruition emerging from the two truths. This master challenged him: 'Does the Buddha fruition emerge from the two truths? Or do the two truths emerge from the Buddha fruition?' Cheng asked in return: 'Did the Dharma master emerge from Kaitai? Or did Kaitai emerge from the Dharma master?' He replied: 'Like the mandarin duck that does not live in a privy.' Cheng said: 'Śakra Devānām Indra does not live with ghosts.' He replied: 'The kokila bird does not perch on a withered tree.' Cheng said: 'Just as the great ocean does not harbor a corpse.' Although the back-and-forth was splendid, the principle in the end was not made clear. Furthermore, as at the end of the text of fascicle thirty-six of the Great Sūtra, the Buddha spoke of the four different kinds of wisdom contemplating causes and conditions, which result in different bodhi. When this was spoken, ten thousand bodhisattvas attained the true mark in one birth, and five thousand bodhisattvas attained the dharma-dhātu in two births. Zhang'an says: 'The three vehicles contemplate the supreme truth together, but their intellectual understanding differs. One birth or two births refers to severing one grade or two grades of ignorance. The true mark is the principle of the distinctive [teaching], and the dharma-dhātu is the principle of the perfect [teaching]; that is, the sharp-rooted are led into the distinctive and perfect [teachings]. Having severed ignorance, they manifest the eight phases to achieve Buddhahood, which is the meaning of the Buddha fruition emerging outside. Merely observe whether they attained the path at the assemblies of the various sūtras, and you will recognize the meaning of the common and the distinctive that was spoken.' Below, where it says 'mere emptiness', it distinguishes the difference. Below, where it says 'This is...', it concludes, as in the text.