止觀輔行傳弘決 3.42

3.42

「二明」下，約《智論》開合者，智不自分，還須約諦，故今文中皆云照諦。諦體恒三智有增減者，約教相說增減不同，論其實體亦無增減，且依大體以三為準。又復三法諸文定故，今初且依諸經列智以為問端。釋中，初對一智至三智。「一智者」下，初對三諦智有離合者，初從一智乃至四智以觀三諦，以一對一乃至以四對三，文相可見。文雖可見，如初一智觀於一諦，諦之與智亦各含三，故次釋云「此智觀三諦者」，此智即是向之一智，還引向來一智之文開成三義。既觀三諦，智亦成三。「若二智」下，即是二智觀於二諦。智諦雖二，義已含三。如云「權即一切智」，反以道種智觀於俗中有無兩諦。若離權智以為二智、離於俗諦以為真俗，則智諦俱三。三智觀三，一一主對無開合異，故云「可解」。「四智者」，四智亦是權實二智，對因果等是故成四。開合觀諦不出於三，具如向說。言智慧者，若通途說智秖是慧，俱通權實及以因果，如云般若翻為智慧。如《大論》云「因名般若，果名薩婆若。」及以修習智慧等者，此即智慧俱在於因。如云止觀為因、眼智為果，如來智慧諸佛智慧等，此則智慧俱在於果。若云方便智慧，此則智慧俱在於權。如云智慧甚深，此則智慧俱在於實。今從別義，故分因果。於別義中，而於慧上加道及種，於其智上更加一切及種名者，道是因義。因果二文各加種者，種謂種別，兼顯於權及以事類。因時用權，權智未周，至果智滿，故復名種，果法遍故，故名一切。若得此意，四義可知。問：〈三慧品〉中品名三慧，文中所釋何以至四？答：因二果二開各具三，故云三慧。文從合說，因果共論，故成四別。文中所釋又有四重，並是論文。皆著或言者，善判經文決斷諸釋豈過龍樹？每於一文存於眾解，而亦不決臧否者，以佛意多含，順部類故。今人釋義未閑經旨，故是一非諸。所言「因中理體」者，二諦之理一念具足，果上滿者滿故有用，故加一切。因中道慧理具中道，因中道種理具二諦。若至果時，一切智見於中道，一切種智見於二諦。此一切名不同二乘，對義意別。因中道慧是實，道種是權。若至果時，一切是實，一切種是權。言「總別」者，直語道慧一切智故，故名為總。各加種故，故名為別。直語道慧道種慧，故名為單。轉慧名智各加一切，是故名複。是則一權一切權、一實一切實，是故單複俱通因果。今亦從別，故慧單而智複。「如是等」下，結智照境，若因若果俱三故也。例前可見，故云「秖是」。「若經中」下，舉例也。若得前來一智至四但觀三諦，則曉諸經五至無量咸成三諦，故云「使入」。故知小乘一切諸諦使入三諦，乃至大小俱入於三或二或一。次約「十一智者」，餘諸經論但列十智，唯《大品》中加如實智。言十智者，藏通義同，但分巧拙。通中以有共乘故也，復有不共，故加如實。小乘十智，具如《俱舍．智品》中說，謂世智、他心、苦集滅道、法、比、盡、無生。隨智不同，照十一境。合而言之，亦不出三諦。世及他心以照俗者，且約有漏。苦集等八以照真者，且約前二。如實一智以照中者，共約兩教。「是名」下結歸。已明智開而諦不開，故云「而三諦不動」。次「復次」下，明「俱開者隨其多少」，如十一智照十一境等，乃至如對二三，此則可見。「俱不開者」，唯一佛乘，佛智照實。既唯一實，亦名開權。「若智」去，結歸顯體。今境界意，意在實境，雖有開合，實為所顯。

The passage from 'Secondly explaining' onward concerns opening and uniting according to the Dazhidulun: wisdom does not divide itself, but must depend on the truths, which is why the text here always says 'illuminating the truths'. That the essence of the truths is always three while wisdom increases or decreases means that according to doctrinal characteristics, increasing and decreasing differ; when discussing its actual essence, there is neither increase nor decrease, and we temporarily follow the general framework taking three as the standard. Moreover, the three dharmas are fixed in various texts, so here at the outset we temporarily list the wisdoms according to various sūtras as points of inquiry. In the explanation, first pairing one wisdom up to three wisdoms: the passage from 'One wisdom' onward first pairs the wisdoms with the three truths according to separation and union. Beginning from one wisdom up to four wisdoms to contemplate the three truths, pairing one with one up to four with three, the textual structure is obvious. Although the text is obvious, just as the initial one wisdom contemplates one truth, the truth and the wisdom each also contain three; therefore the subsequent explanation says, 'This wisdom contemplates the three truths'—this wisdom is just the aforementioned one wisdom, drawing again on the earlier text of one wisdom to open it into three meanings. Since it contemplates the three truths, the wisdom also becomes three. The passage from 'If two wisdoms' onward means that two wisdoms contemplate two truths. Although wisdom and truth are two, their meaning already contains three. As it says, 'the provisional is the all-knowledge', conversely using the wisdom of the paths to contemplate the two truths of existence and non-existence within the conventional. If provisional wisdom is separated into two wisdoms, and the conventional truth is separated into the real and conventional, then both wisdom and truth are three. Three wisdoms contemplating three truths correspond one-to-one without any variation in opening or uniting; thus it says 'this can be understood'. As for 'four wisdoms', the four wisdoms are also the two wisdoms of provisional and real; paired with cause and effect and so forth, they therefore become four. Their opening and uniting to contemplate the truths does not go beyond the three, fully as stated earlier. Speaking of wisdom: in general discourse, 'zhi' is simply 'hui' (prajñā); both pertain equally to provisional and real as well as cause and effect, just as prajñā is translated as 'zhihui'. As the Dazhidulun says, 'In the cause it is called prajñā; in the fruit it is called sarvajñā.' And as for cultivating wisdom and the like, here wisdom pertains entirely to the cause. As in stating that calming and contemplation are the cause, while eye and wisdom are the fruit, the wisdom of the Tathāgatas, the wisdom of the Buddhas, and so forth, here wisdom pertains entirely to the fruit. If one speaks of expedient wisdom, here wisdom pertains entirely to the provisional. As in stating 'wisdom is extremely profound', here wisdom pertains entirely to the real. Now, following a distinctive meaning, cause and effect are divided. Within this distinctive meaning, adding 'path' and 'species' to prajñā (hui), and further adding 'all' and 'species' to wisdom (zhi): 'path' conveys the meaning of cause. Adding 'species' to both causal and fruitional texts is because 'species' means differentiation, additionally revealing the provisional and categories of phenomena. When employing the provisional at the time of the cause, provisional wisdom is not yet complete; upon reaching the fruit, wisdom is perfected, so it is again called 'species', and because fruitional dharmas are pervasive, it is called 'all'. If one grasps this meaning, the four senses can be known. Question: In the 'Chapter on the Three Wisdoms', the chapter name is 'Three Wisdoms'; why does the explanation in the text extend to four? Answer: Two in the cause and two in the fruit, when opened, each possess three; hence they are called 'three wisdoms'. The text speaks in terms of union, discussing cause and effect together, and therefore forms four distinct ones. In the textual explanation there are again four layers, all of which are treatise passages. All use the word 'or': in skillfully judging sūtra texts and definitively resolving various interpretations, who could surpass Nāgārjuna? In every passage he preserves multiple explanations without judging their merits or faults, because the Buddha's intent has manifold implications and accords with textual categories. People today, in explaining meanings, are not versed in the sūtra's purport and therefore affirm one and reject the rest. What is meant by 'the essential principle in the cause' is that the principle of the two truths is complete in a single thought; what is perfected in the fruit has function because of perfection, so 'all' is added. Path-wisdom in the cause in principle possesses the middle way; the species of path in the cause in principle possesses the two truths. When reaching the fruit, all-knowledge sees the middle way, and knowledge of all aspects sees the two truths. This term 'all' is not the same as in the two vehicles, for the paired meaning and purport differ. In the cause, path-wisdom is real and the species of path is provisional. When reaching the fruit, 'all' is real and 'all aspects' is provisional. As for 'general and particular': speaking straightforwardly of path-wisdom and all-knowledge is called 'general'. Because 'species' is added to each, they are called 'particular'. Speaking straightforwardly of path-wisdom and path-species-wisdom is called 'single'. Changing 'prajñā' to 'wisdom' and adding 'all' to each is therefore called 'compound'. Thus, one provisional is all provisional, one real is all real; therefore single and compound both extend across cause and effect. Here, too, following the distinctive meaning, prajñā is single while wisdom is compound. From 'such as these' onward concludes wisdom illuminating the realm: whether cause or fruit, both are three. By analogy with the preceding it can be seen, hence it says 'merely is'. The passage from 'If in the sūtras' onward provides examples: if one understands the preceding one wisdom up to four wisdoms as contemplating merely the three truths, then one understands that in the various sūtras, from five up to immeasurable wisdoms, all form the three truths; hence it says 'causing them to enter'. Therefore one knows that all truths of the Hīnayāna are made to enter the three truths, and even the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna both enter the three, or the two, or the one. Next, regarding the 'eleven wisdoms': the other sūtras and treatises list only ten wisdoms; only in the Dapin is the wisdom of suchness added. As for the ten wisdoms, the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings are identical in meaning, differing only in skillfulness and unskillfulness. Because in the shared teaching there is a shared vehicle as well as an unshared one, the wisdom of suchness is added. The ten wisdoms of the Hīnayāna are fully explained as in the 'Chapter on Wisdom' of the Abhidharmakośa, namely: worldly wisdom, knowledge of other minds, [wisdoms of] suffering, origin, cessation, and path, dharma-wisdom, subsequent wisdom, wisdom of destruction, and wisdom of non-arising. According with the differences in wisdom, they illuminate eleven objects. Taken together, they also do not go beyond the three truths. Worldly wisdom and knowledge of other minds, which illuminate the conventional, are considered in terms of being with outflows. The eight wisdoms of suffering, origin, and so forth, which illuminate the real, are considered in terms of the former two. The single wisdom of suchness, which illuminates the middle, is considered jointly across both teachings. From 'these are named' onward concludes and returns: it has already clarified that wisdom is opened while the truths are not opened, hence it says 'yet the three truths do not move'. Next, from 'Furthermore' onward clarifies that 'both are opened according to their number', as eleven wisdoms illuminate eleven objects and so forth, down to pairing with two or three, which can be seen. 'Both are not opened' refers to the one Buddha vehicle alone, where the Buddha's wisdom illuminates the real. Since there is only the one real, this is also called opening the provisional. From 'If wisdom' onward concludes and returns to manifest the essence. The intention behind the realms here is aimed at the real realm: although there are opening and uniting, the real is what is manifested.