止觀輔行傳弘決 3.45

3.45

「如是」下，約教以判得失，為顯不思議故也。今此初約三藏教也。即教教中皆有四性，從別義也。「何以故」下，釋初三藏教，故對凡夫云有四性。下之三教皆應有之，文無者略。凡有性計即屬凡夫，凡夫有計成自行失，故後三教皆約自行破性論得。又前二教聖，於後同凡。若約化他有四悉者，能有化他故名為得。展轉相望，乃至圓教互為得失。別教執於真緣等四成性過者，諸佛菩薩赴緣利物，若執赴機不同之說，各朋己見故成性過。作此計者皆從初心，至迴向時方漸無執。至圓教中言教證俱實者，前之兩教教證俱權，圓教教證俱皆是實，此並易明。但別教中教權證實意稍難曉，人多迷之，使此別教其義壅隔，是故今家借用《地論》教證二道以消別門。於中應須先知二意：一者約行，則地前為教，登地為證。何者？地前仰信，登地現前，豈有親證復存隔歷？二者約說，為地前說始終屬教。何者？如云：真如為惑所覆，或將十度以對十地，互不相收。或云：須離二邊修真如觀。或云：等覺入重玄門。或云：五地習學世法。或云：八地入無功用，等覺一位或有或無，斷十二品稱為妙覺。如是等例不可具載，悉是權施。為引凡下為入地方便，入地自證權門自開，故云初地即是初住入證道也。又云：初地不知二地菩薩舉足下足。若約理說，名字觀行尚自知圓，豈有初地不知二地？若云下位不測於上，圓亦展轉迭不相知，何但別人教門方便？今文非專判教優劣，但存次第及不次第。迷之尚寬，若讀《玄》文，善須曉此教證二道，則別門可消。若依教修行，彌須善識，是故今文時時略用。若不曉者，初心明理兩說不同，若不識之，措心無地。如云：初心，知理即是。或云：理具，萬德待行。或云：解圓，行須漸次。或云：理有，不用諸法。如此說者，非別非圓非通非藏，教相不說推與何耶？「何故」下，釋教證。「無思念」下，正明圓教自他之相，以明今文無失顯體。

From "Thus" below, [the text] distinguishes gain and loss in terms of the teachings in order to reveal the inconceivable. Here, this first treats the Tripiṭaka teaching. That is, within every teaching there are four natures, in accordance with the specific meanings. From "Why?" below, it explains the first, the Tripiṭaka teaching, and therefore speaks of the existence of the four natures in contrast to ordinary people. The three teachings below should all possess them as well; that the text omits them is an abbreviation. Wherever there are attachments to intrinsic nature, they belong to ordinary people; when ordinary people have such attachments, this constitutes a loss in personal practice. Therefore, the subsequent three teachings all discuss gain in terms of refuting intrinsic nature through personal practice. Furthermore, the sages of the former two teachings are equivalent to ordinary people in relation to the latter [teachings]. If we speak in terms of transforming others through the four siddhāntas, being able to transform others is called "gain." Viewing them in succession, even up to the perfect teaching, they mutually constitute gain and loss. Regarding the fact that grasping at the four [views] such as the true and the conditioned in the distinctive teaching constitutes the fault of intrinsic nature: when the buddhas and bodhisattvas respond to conditions to benefit beings, if one grasps at the differing teachings given in response to capacities and each clings to their own view, this constitutes the fault of intrinsic nature. Those who form such attachments all proceed from the initial mind, and only upon reaching the stage of dedicating [merit] (pariṇāmanā) do they gradually become free from clinging. When it says in the perfect teaching that both teaching and realization are real: in the former two teachings both teaching and realization are provisional, while in the perfect teaching both teaching and realization are real; these are both easy to understand. But the meaning in the distinctive teaching—where the teaching is provisional yet realization is real—is somewhat difficult to comprehend; many people are confused by it, causing the doctrine of this distinctive teaching to be blocked and obstructed. Therefore, our school borrows the two paths of teaching and realization from the Daśabhūmika-śāstra to resolve the distinctive approach. In this, one should first understand two meanings: First, in terms of practice, before the stages (bhūmi) is the teaching, and ascending the stages is realization. Why? Before the stages, one has admiring faith; upon ascending the stages, it is manifest right before one. How could there still be separation and gradation once one has personally realized it? Second, in terms of exposition: what is spoken for those before the stages from beginning to end belongs to the teaching. Why? For example, it says that true suchness is covered by defilements; or it pairs the ten perfections with the ten stages as mutually exclusive; or it says that one must abandon the two extremes to cultivate the contemplation of true suchness; or it says that the stage of virtual awakening enters the profound gateway; or it says that on the fifth stage one learns worldly phenomena; or it says that on the eighth stage one enters effortless action; or the single stage of virtual awakening is sometimes posited and sometimes not; or severing twelve grades [of ignorance] is called subtle awakening. Such examples cannot be fully recorded; they are all provisional adaptations. In order to guide ordinary and inferior beings as an expedient for entering the stages, once they enter the stages and realize it for themselves, the provisional approach naturally opens up. Thus it is said that the initial stage is precisely the initial abodement (vihāra) entering the path of realization. It is also said that a bodhisattva of the initial stage does not know the lifting and lowering of the feet of a bodhisattva of the second stage. If spoken in terms of principle, even those at the stages of verbal and contemplative practice spontaneously know the perfect; how could one on the initial stage not know the second stage? If one claims that lower stages cannot fathom the higher, then in the perfect teaching they likewise mutually do not know each other; why would this only be an expedient of the teaching approach for followers of the distinctive [teaching]? The present text does not exclusively judge the superiority or inferiority of the teachings, but simply preserves the sequential and the non-sequential. Being confused about this is still broad [in its consequences]; if one reads the Xuan[yi] (Profound Meaning), one must properly understand these two paths of teaching and realization, and then the distinctive approach can be resolved. If one cultivates practice relying on the teachings, it is all the more necessary to understand this well; therefore, the present text briefly applies it from time to time. If one does not understand it, then regarding the initial mind understanding the principle, two explanations will conflict, and if one does not comprehend them, there will be no ground on which to place one's mind. For instance, some say: "For the initial mind, knowing the principle is just it." Or some say: "The principle is inherently complete, but the myriad virtues await practice." Or some say: "Understanding is perfect, but practice must be gradual." Or some say: "The principle exists, so there is no use for the various phenomena." Such assertions as these are neither distinctive nor perfect, neither shared nor Tripiṭaka; if the characteristics of the teachings do not state them, to what can they be attributed? From "For what reason" below, it explains teaching and realization. From "Without thought" below, it directly clarifies the characteristics of self and other in the perfect teaching, in order to show that the present text is free from faults and reveals the essence.