止觀輔行傳弘決 3.48

3.48

次攝惑中，亦約向理以辨於惑，故約迷於權實二理以辨惑體通別不同。迷理之本所謂無明，無明以為因緣之首，故通別惑並約因緣。初釋迷於權理。十二緣中言「獨頭」者，《婆沙》云「不共無明不與使俱。問：亦有不共掉纏等耶？答：無也。」人謂既有不共無明，亦應合有不共掉等。一切染等盡有無明，唯有無明獨有不共。故《法華》中以蜈蚣等用喻獨頭，以𮙩貍等喻於相應。此等但喻二癡不同，不見更有獨頭掉等。「受所喜樂」者，樂字（五孝切）。「是十二」下，束十二緣以為三道。十二因緣輪轉相生，是故三道亦輪轉相生。《大論》第二、《十二因緣論》、《婆沙》、《十地經》等並同。《俱舍》云「三煩惱二業，七事亦名果，略果及略因，由中可比二。從惑生惑業，從業生於事，從事事惑生，有支理唯此。」初四句是以略攝廣，故論云「應知緣起雖有十二，而二三為性。三謂惑業事，二謂因果。就中又二：初兩句正明相攝，下兩句釋妨。妨曰：何故過未略而現在廣？釋曰：由中可以比知現在名中故也。」次從惑生惑，謂愛生取；從惑生業，謂取生有及無明生行；從業生事，謂行生識及有生生；從事事惑生者，謂從事生事，即識生名色乃至生受；從事生惑，謂受生愛。「成論云」下，次引論證三道相。問：三障三道但苦與報，二名則別；業與煩惱二則同者何耶？答：苦是報家之苦。亦報即是苦，故知名異義同。問：三名既同，障之與道二名不同者何？答：能蔽聖道故名為障，展轉互通故名為道，並從過患功能立名。今十二輪為三道者，能通與輪轉義同故。又與《成論》同也，論名業道，業必以煩惱為能通，必以當苦為所通。文雖舉業，義已具三，故得引證。故論〈十不善業道品〉「問：云何名業道？答：意即是業於中行故，故名業道。前行後三中，後行前七中，三是業非道，七亦業亦道。」此是具錄論文。人未見論，秖見續在十二緣後，便作十二因緣釋之，甚不可也。今先銷論文，次會三道。論品雖題名〈業道品〉，今文引，用意通三道。意即是業者，意地思也。於中行者，行身等也。故知身等為意所行，名為業道。業之道故，業即道故，名為業道。前行等者，辨起先後。將教所列對起先後，文列次第，身口居先、意三居後。起之次第，意三在先、身口居後。先起意地，故云前行；文列在後，故云後三。後動身口，故云後行；文列在前，故云前七。中字但是助句而已，云在此七及三中耳。亦如五陰，文列與起，麁細更互，四諦因果亦復如是。然論文意，三是業非道者，非身口故。亦業亦道者，身口二業為意業所行故，復名為道。今文義立意為能通，亦得名道。是故後三通至身口，故云而能通七。前七是業，復為意行，是故論云亦業亦道。今文前七復立二義：一是所行，如論文意，故云是業復是道。二是能通，通至後世，故復名道。意三即煩惱道，行於身口即煩惱通業，業至後世即業通苦。故知正用《成論》三業以釋三道。引論釋成，其意在此。「牽連」等者，《增一》第四十「佛自看比丘病，因責諸比丘言：『汝為何事而出家耶？為畏王等？為欲捨於十二牽連？』」三世繫續故名牽連。「十二論」等，並《大瓔珞》文。展轉不窮，猶如車輪。「束縛」下釋名，「三世」下，結成攝法。「若迷實理」下，次明界外十二因緣。先對小辨異。界外亦有相應獨頭，而與界內其體永異，即障中道相應獨頭。亦是與界外見思諸使合者，名為「相應」。直爾障理，名為獨頭。言相應者，如云自此已前皆名邪見。又等覺已來修離見禪，此即界外同體見也。方便實報二土五塵為界外思，如此見思必有無明，名為相應。次依論釋相，故今文中引《寶性論》「顛倒即是無明獨頭」，顛倒是相應，即二無明也。「三種意生身」中，三種俱名意生身者，《楞伽》「大慧問佛：『何名意生？』佛言：『譬如意去，速疾無礙，名為意生。』」此即從譬，故彼生身譬如意去。彼經兩義而釋通名。初云：如十萬由旬外憶先所見，念念相續疾至於彼。次云：如幻三昧力憶本願故，生諸聖中。初云憶處、次云憶願，二義並是意憶生故，名為意生。今山門家作意生故，名為意生。經即云憶，憶即作意，是故義同。次第四卷釋三別名。初〈無常品〉云：意生三種。一入三昧樂意成身，亦云正受，即三四五地心寂不動故也。二覺法自性意成身，即八地中普入佛剎，故以法為自性。三種類俱生無作意成身，謂了佛證法，成之與生並從果說。此約通教及以別接竪判次位。今家《玄》文並云在前三教者，以通諸教釋義故也。既云八地是覺法自性，驗知初文雖云五地，亦兼七地，即入空位也。八地，即當入假位也。種類俱生云了佛證法，即是入中。屬佛種類未必自證。若接入別，七地已前入別十住，八地已去接入十行。知佛證法是入迴向，並非證道，故名意生。仍本為名兼不接者共結此位，故並云地。三昧樂意尚攝三藏二乘之人，況通二乘？今家《玄》文判《楞伽經》意生之位，以劣而攝於勝，故指二乘等以攝通別。若對別位未攝證道，是故但從地前判位。故知今判與經意同，經文未攝別位為異。言「五種」者，約開合耳。名唯有三，義開成五。於三昧正受，開出三藏二乘，於覺法中開出別教十行。若作七種，兩教二乘各開為二，別教十住義仍同於通教入空。故下文云「凡有多種」。若論九人生方便中，則取圓教六根淨位攝入三種意生身中，亦應可解，以並未斷無明、未生實報。《玄》文不云攝入三者，以觀勝故，且置不論。又意生之名宜在教道。「三種意因移」等者，因移果易、從下生上。「束此」下，依論束為三道。「此十」下，辨同異。「此惑」下結成攝法。並如文。

Next, in subsuming delusions, one also determines delusions in terms of the aforementioned principles; therefore, one determines the shared and distinctive differences in the substance of delusions in terms of delusion regarding the two principles of the provisional and the real. The root of delusion regarding principle is so-called ignorance, and ignorance is the foremost of causes and conditions; therefore, both shared and distinctive delusions are treated in terms of causes and conditions. First, explaining delusion regarding the provisional principle: in the twelve links of conditionality, regarding the term 'independent' (dútóu), the *Vibhāṣā* states: 'Unshared ignorance does not coexist with the underlying tendencies (anuśaya). Question: Are there also unshared restlessness (auddhatya), entanglements, and the like? Answer: No.' People say that since there is unshared ignorance, there should also be unshared restlessness and the like. [However,] while all defilements and the like completely possess ignorance, only ignorance alone has the unshared form. Therefore, in the *Lotus Sūtra*, centipedes and the like are used as metaphors for the independent [ignorance], while mangy badgers and the like are metaphors for the associated [ignorance]. These merely illustrate the difference between the two kinds of delusion; one does not find that there is further independent restlessness and the like. Regarding 'receiving what is delighted in' (受所喜樂), the character 樂 is pronounced [as a falling tone]. From 'These twelve...' onward, the twelve links of conditionality are bundled into the three paths. The twelve causes and conditions rotate and give rise to one another; therefore, the three paths also rotate and give rise to one another. Fascicle Two of the *Dazhidulun*, the *Dvādaśāṅgapratītyasamutpāda-śāstra*, the *Vibhāṣā*, the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra*, and others are all identical on this. The *Abhidharmakośa* states: 'Three are afflictions and two are karma; seven matters are also named fruition. Briefly stating fruition and briefly stating cause, from the middle one can infer both. From affliction arise affliction and karma; from karma arises matter; from matter arise matter and affliction—the principle of the links of existence is only this.' The first four lines subsume the expansive with the brief; thus the treatise states: 'It should be known that although dependent origination has twelve [links], its nature consists of two and three. "Three" refers to affliction, karma, and matter; "two" refers to cause and fruition. Within this there are again two: the first two lines directly elucidate the mutual subsumption; the latter two lines resolve an objection. The objection says: Why are past and future brief while the present is expansive? The explanation says: Because from the middle one can comparatively know [both], the present being called the middle.' Next, 'from affliction arises affliction' means that craving gives rise to grasping; 'from affliction arises karma' means that grasping gives rise to existence, and ignorance gives rise to conditioning forces; 'from karma arises matter' means that conditioning forces give rise to consciousness, and existence gives rise to birth; 'from matter arise matter and affliction' means that from matter arises matter, which is consciousness giving rise to name-and-form up to giving rise to sensation; and 'from matter arises affliction' means that sensation gives rise to craving. From 'The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says...' onward, the treatise is next cited to verify the characteristics of the three paths. Question: As for the three obstacles and the three paths, suffering and retribution are merely two different names, while karma and affliction are the same; why is this? Answer: Suffering is the suffering belonging to retribution. Also, retribution is suffering itself; hence we know that although the names differ, their meaning is the same. Question: Since the three names are the same, why are the two names 'obstacle' and 'path' different? Answer: Because they can obstruct the noble path, they are called obstacles; because they mutually lead through one another in turn, they are called paths. Both are designated from their faults and functions. Now, that the twelvefold wheel is made into the three paths is because 'leading through' has the same meaning as 'turning like a wheel'. Moreover, it agrees with the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*. The treatise calls them 'paths of karma'; karma must take affliction as that which can lead through, and must take future suffering as that to which it leads through. Although the text only mentions karma, in meaning the three are already complete; thus it can be cited as proof. Hence the treatise's chapter 'Ten Unwholesome Paths of Action' asks: 'Why are they called paths of karma? Answer: Mind is karma; because it courses in them, they are called paths of karma. The prior courses in the latter three; the latter courses in the former seven. The three are karma and not paths; the seven are both karma and paths.' This is a full record of the treatise's text. Those who have not seen the treatise, seeing only that it follows after the twelve links, immediately explain it as the twelve causes and conditions, which is utterly unacceptable. Now I first unpack the treatise's text, and next harmonize it with the three paths. Although the treatise's chapter is titled 'Chapter on the Paths of Action', the intention of citing it in the present text extends through to the three paths. 'Mind is karma' refers to the volition (cetanā) of the mental ground. 'Coursing in them' refers to coursing in bodily [and verbal actions], etc. Thus we know that bodily [and verbal actions], etc., being coursed in by the mind, are called the paths of karma. Being the path of karma and karma itself being the path, they are called paths of karma. Regarding 'the prior courses...', this distinguishes the sequence of arising. Setting the sequence of enumeration in the teaching against the sequence of arising: in the textual enumeration, body and speech are placed first and the three mental ones last; in the sequence of arising, the three mental ones are first and body and speech are last. The mental ground arises first, hence it says 'the prior courses'; because they are enumerated last in the text, it says 'the latter three'. Body and speech are activated later, hence it says 'the latter courses'; because they are enumerated first in the text, it says 'the former seven'. The character 'in' (中) is merely an auxiliary phrase, meaning within these seven and three. It is also like the five aggregates, where the textual enumeration and their arising alternate between coarse and subtle, and the causes and fruitions of the four truths are also like this. However, the meaning of the treatise is: the three are karma and not paths, because they are not body and speech. Those that are both karma and paths are the two karmas of body and speech, because they are coursed in by mental karma; hence they are also called paths. Now, our text interprets the mind as that which can lead through, so it may also be called a path. Therefore, the latter three lead through to body and speech, hence it is said that they 'can lead through to the seven'. The former seven are karma and are also coursed in by the mind; therefore the treatise states that they are both karma and paths. In the present text, two meanings are further established for the former seven: first, they are what is coursed in, conforming to the meaning of the treatise; thus it is said that they are karma and also paths. Second, they are what can lead through, leading through to future lifetimes; thus they are again called paths. The three mental ones are the path of affliction; coursing in body and speech means affliction leads through to karma; karma arriving at future lifetimes means karma leads through to suffering. Therefore we know that it precisely uses the three karmas of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* to explain the three paths. The intention in citing the treatise for proof lies in this. Regarding 'entanglement' (牽連) and so forth, fascicle forty of the *Ekottarika-āgama* says: 'The Buddha personally tended to a sick monk, and thereupon admonished the monks, saying: "For what reason did you go forth? Was it out of fear of kings and the like, or was it desiring to renounce the twelve entanglements?"' Being bound and continuous across the three periods of time, they are called entanglements. 'Twelve treatises' and so forth are all texts of the *Great Garland Sūtra* (Pusa yingluo benye jing). Rolling on without end, they are like the wheel of a cart. From 'shackled and bound' downward explains the name; from 'three periods of time' downward concludes by establishing the subsumption of dharmas. From 'If one is deluded about the real principle...' downward, next elucidates the twelve causes and conditions beyond the realms. First, distinguishing differences by contrasting with the small [vehicle]. Beyond the realms there are also the associated and independent forms, yet their substances are forever different from those within the realms: they are the associated and independent forms that obstruct the Middle Way. Also, those that join with the underlying tendencies of views and thoughts beyond the realms are called 'associated'. That which directly obstructs principle is called 'independent'. 'Associated' is like saying that prior to this, all are called wrong views. Furthermore, from the stage of virtual awakening onward, one cultivates the dhyāna of abandoning views; this is the view of identical substance beyond the realms. The five dusts of the two lands of expedience and real retribution are the thoughts beyond the realms. Such views and thoughts must have ignorance, which is called 'associated'. Next, explaining their characteristics based on the treatise: therefore the present text cites the *Ratnagotravibhāga*, where 'inversion is independent ignorance'; inversion is the associated, which are the two forms of ignorance. In 'three kinds of mind-made bodies', regarding why all three are called mind-made bodies: the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* states, 'Mahāmati asked the Buddha: "What is called mind-made?" The Buddha said: "Just as the mind moves swiftly and without obstruction, so it is called mind-made."' This is derived from a simile; hence those generated bodies are likened to the movement of the mind. That sūtra explains the general name with two meanings. First it says: just as someone who, remembering what was previously seen a hundred thousand yojanas away, rapidly arrives there with thought continuing thought. Next it says: through the power of illusory samādhi, remembering their original vows, they are born among the various noble ones. The first speaks of remembering the place, and the second speaks of remembering the vows; both meanings are generated from the mind's remembrance, hence called mind-made. Now our mountain school holds that because they are produced by intention (zuòyì), they are called mind-made. The sūtra says 'remembering', and remembering is intention; therefore the meaning is identical. Next, the fourth fascicle explains the three distinct names. First, the 'Chapter on Impermanence' states: Mind-made bodies are of three kinds: First, the mind-made body enjoying the bliss of samādhi, also called correct reception, which corresponds to the mind being tranquil and unmoving in the third, fourth, and fifth bhūmis. Second, the mind-made body awakening to the self-nature of dharmas, which corresponds to entering universally into buddha-lands in the eighth bhūmi, hence taking dharmas as self-nature. Third, the mind-made body spontaneously produced along with its kind, non-active, which refers to comprehending the dharma realized by buddhas. Both 'made' and 'produced' are spoken from fruition. This vertically determines the sequential stages according to the shared teaching and the distinctive teaching's adoption [of shared practitioners]. In our school's *Xuan[yi]*, it is consistently said that they belong to the previous three teachings because the meaning is explained by running through the various teachings. Since it says the eighth bhūmi is awakening to the self-nature of dharmas, we verify that although the first text says the fifth bhūmi, it also encompasses up to the seventh bhūmi, which is the stage of entering emptiness. The eighth bhūmi corresponds to the stage of entering provisionality. When 'spontaneously produced along with its kind' says 'comprehending the dharma realized by buddhas', this is entering the middle. Belonging to the kind of buddhas, they have not necessarily realized it themselves. If adopted into the distinctive [teaching], prior to the seventh bhūmi they enter the ten abodes of the distinctive teaching; from the eighth bhūmi onward they are adopted into the ten practices. Knowing the dharma realized by buddhas is entering the dedication of merit; neither is the path of realization, hence they are called mind-made. Still using the original names and including those not adopted, these stages are together concluded; thus all are called bhūmis. The mind-made body enjoying the bliss of samādhi still subsumes persons of the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka [teaching], let alone the two vehicles of the shared [teaching]! When our school's *Xuan[yi]* determines the stages of the mind-made bodies in the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra*, it subsumes the superior by means of the inferior, hence pointing to the two vehicles and the like to subsume the shared and distinctive. In contrast to the stages of the distinctive [teaching], it does not yet subsume the path of realization; therefore it determines the stages only from before the bhūmis. Thus we know that the present determination accords with the intention of the sūtra, differing only in that the sūtra text does not yet subsume the stages of the distinctive [teaching]. Regarding 'five kinds', this is merely in terms of expansion and contraction. The names are only three, but in meaning they expand into five. Within the correct reception of samādhi, the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka are expanded out; within awakening to dharmas, the ten practices of the distinctive teaching are expanded out. If making seven kinds, the two vehicles of the two teachings are each expanded into two, while the ten abodes of the distinctive teaching still correspond in meaning to entering emptiness in the shared teaching. Therefore the text below says 'there are generally many kinds'. If discussing the nine persons born into [the Land of] Expedience, then taking the stage of purity of the six sense faculties of the perfect teaching and subsuming it into the three kinds of mind-made bodies should also be understood, because none of them have yet severed ignorance nor been born into [the Land of] Real Retribution. That the *Xuan[yi]* text does not say they are subsumed into the three is because their contemplation is superior, so they are set aside for the moment. Furthermore, the name 'mind-made' is properly suited to the doctrinal path. Regarding 'the causes of the three minds shifting...', the causes shift and fruitions alter, moving from lower to higher. From 'bundling these...' onward, they are bundled into the three paths according to the treatise. From 'These ten...' onward, similarities and differences are distinguished. From 'These delusions...' downward concludes by establishing the subsumption of dharmas. All are as in the text.