止觀輔行傳弘決 3.6

3.6

「絕待止觀」等者，次明利他。先明說意。自既證絕，能隨四機，無說而說故云「可說」。若爾，何但三悉是化他法，第一義悉亦為化他，故以四章對於四悉。「若有」下，正釋。問：今明說絕應但明絕，而以四章對於四悉，其義何耶？答：自行唯絕，他宜不同，故以絕待離為四說。故《玄》文中簡示用云「宗是自行故須簡他，用是益他是故雙取。」不思議用尚取方便，況圓絕待不得作圓四悉說耶？故《玄》文第六卷末明開四悉云「開麁世界成妙世界，乃至開麁第一義同成妙第一義，故無說而已，說必四悉。何者？異是隔別，會成圓異，不異而異故對世界。通是生義，名能通理，故以理善而對為人。對有能所，絕無能所，亦寄能所為圓對治。絕待約理，理雖無說，亦約絕理說第一義。說為止觀者，如是四章莫非止觀，無不皆至絕待之理。」又約化儀以明絕者，如《淨名》中三十二菩薩各自說己所入之門，門皆通理，理故名絕。故諸菩薩說已，語文殊言：「仁者當說。」文殊言：「乃至無有言說文字是真入不二法門。」得名滅絕。淨名杜口無言，得名絕滅。問：同得絕待，何故不同？答：兼有所表，故示異途。諸菩薩表能詮不同，文殊表所詮不異，淨名表所詮無說。又諸菩薩但表化他，文殊表自行化他，淨名但表自行，各舉一邊共成妙事。四悉絕待，準此可知。又《大經》不可說、《大集》無言、《般若》清淨、《法華》止歎、《涅槃》不生，皆絕待之異名也。然又須知諸教絕異、開顯無外，方稱今文。「此之」下，結此絕待以成二空。初立；次「是字」下，釋。初明性空。「亦不在」下，次明相空。既破橫竪，復赴四機，絕理如何？所謂實相。實相之體具足二空，永異於前從假入空之二空也。「是字不可得」下，結名。「亦名」下，明絕待異名。「故如此」下，釋絕待相。絕體既遍，無所可對，故不因小名為大也。「譬如」下，舉譬，可知。「止觀亦爾」下，合譬。不因愚故名之為觀，不因亂故名之為止。「世人」下，破謬也。初總破世人依世心說，以語破語，語不可絕，釋絕不成，是故當知須識絕理。「何以故」下，釋世人語不成絕意，語隨想變故語非絕。是故雖云悟不悟等，不免惑染。互待無已，故名「輪轉」。悟約智證，心約惑境，有心非悟，悟乃絕心，不秖是無。無九界心，故名「不心」。順想虛譚，絕復成待，無理可依，故云「無寄」。「若得意」下，出絕待正體。既達絕理，誰復分別？雖緣絕理，分別不亡，皆名為待，是則唯證名「真慧開」。又「得意」去，明絕不可議。「心行」去，明絕不可思。「隨智」去，重出絕位。「亦不」下，翻前世人謬解也。「等」者，等取輪迴等也。「種種」下，重斥也。「真慧」下，重舉位功能。「如前」下，又舉譬譬絕。前者進也，謂進火杖。杖進火已，亦復自燒，絕諸待竟，絕還自絕。故《大論》「問曰：不應言無相。何以故？若言無相，即是於相。若無無相，不應復能破諸法相。若有無相，則不應言一切無相。答：以無相破諸相。若有無相相，則墮諸法中。無相滅諸相，亦自滅無相。如前火木然諸薪已，亦復自然。是故聖人修無相無相三昧以破無相，空空三昧、無作無作三昧亦復如是。」絕已復絕，意亦同之。「若爾」，下釋疑。疑云：真慧開發方名絕者，乃被初住，何益初心？「今以」下，釋也。初心即是，故無所失。聖在極位，不可濫初。

Regarding the passage from "absolute calming and contemplation" onward: next is explaining benefiting others. First, the intention of explaining is clarified. Having personally realized the absolute, one can adapt to the four kinds of capacities; expounding without exposition, it is therefore called "expoundable." If so, how could only the [first] three siddhāntas be methods for transforming others? The supreme-truth siddhānta is also for transforming others; hence the four chapters are matched to the four siddhāntas. From "If there is..." onward, the correct explanation begins. Question: Now when explaining the absolute, one should only clarify the absolute; why then match the four chapters to the four siddhāntas? Answer: Personal practice is exclusively absolute, but what is suitable for others varies; hence the absolute is divided into four teachings. Therefore, the text of the *Fahua xuanyi* states, when distinguishing and showing function: "The core is personal practice, so it must be distinguished from others; function is benefiting others, so both are adopted." If the inconceivable function still employs provisional devices, how much more so can the perfect absolute not be expounded as the four perfect siddhāntas? Thus, at the end of fascicle six of the *Fahua xuanyi*, in clarifying the opening of the four siddhāntas, it states: "Opening the crude worldly siddhānta perfects the wonderful worldly siddhānta, and so forth up to opening the crude supreme truth identically perfects the wonderful supreme truth. Therefore, either there is no exposition at all, but if there is exposition, it must be the four siddhāntas. Why? Difference means separation; converging them perfects the perfect difference. Differing without being different is thus matched to the worldly. Pervasion is the meaning of production; the name can penetrate principle; hence the goodness of principle is matched to the individual. Countering has that which counters and that which is countered; the absolute lacks that which counters and that which is countered; yet one temporarily relies on countering and countered to form the perfect therapeutic. The absolute pertains to principle; although principle is beyond exposition, based on the absolute principle the supreme truth is also expounded. When expounded as calming and contemplation, none of these four chapters is not calming and contemplation, and there is none that does not arrive at the absolute principle." Furthermore, regarding clarifying the absolute in terms of the manner of conversion: as in the *Vimalakīrti*, the thirty-two bodhisattvas each expounded the gate through which they entered; the gates all penetrated principle, and principle is therefore called absolute. Thus, after the bodhisattvas had spoken, they said to Mañjuśrī: "Virtuous one, you should speak." Mañjuśrī said: "Up to the absence of words and letters is truly entering the Dharma-gate of non-duality." This is named "extinguishing the absolute." Vimalakīrti closed his mouth and spoke not a word; this is named "the absolute extinguished." Question: If both attain the absolute, why are they different? Answer: Because they concurrently symbolize [different things], different avenues are shown. The bodhisattvas symbolize the difference of that which expresses; Mañjuśrī symbolizes the non-difference of that which is expressed; Vimalakīrti symbolizes the inexpressibility of that which is expressed. Furthermore, the bodhisattvas symbolize only transforming others; Mañjuśrī symbolizes both personal practice and transforming others; Vimalakīrti symbolizes only personal practice; each taking up one side, together they accomplish the wonderful matter. The absolute in the four siddhāntas can be understood by analogy to this. Furthermore, the inexpressible of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*, the wordlessness of the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra*, the purity of the *Prajñāpāramitā*, the stopping and praising of the *Lotus Sūtra*, and the non-arising of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* are all different names for the absolute. Yet one must also know that the absolute differences of the various teachings are opened and revealed to have nothing outside them; only then does it match the present text. From "This..." onward, this absolute is concluded to establish the two emptinesses. First it is posited; next, from "This word..." onward, it is explained. First, emptiness of nature is clarified. From "Nor does it reside..." onward, next the emptiness of characteristics is clarified. Having refuted the horizontal and vertical and then responded to the four capacities, what is the absolute principle? It is the so-called true mark. The substance of the true mark fully possesses the two emptinesses, eternally different from the former two emptinesses of entering emptiness from provisionality. From "This word is unobtainable" onward, the name is concluded. From "It is also named..." onward, different names for the absolute are clarified. From "Therefore, like this..." onward, the characteristic of the absolute is explained. Since the substance of the absolute is omnipresent, there is nothing to be opposed to it; thus it is not named great because of the small. From "For example..." onward, an analogy is raised; this is clear. From "Calming and contemplation are also like this" onward, the analogy is matched. It is not named contemplation because of foolishness; it is not named calming because of distraction. From "Worldly people..." onward, the error is refuted. First, it generally refutes worldly people who speak based on the worldly mind, using words to refute words: words cannot be made absolute, and their explanation of the absolute fails to succeed; therefore, one should know that one must recognize the absolute principle. From "Why?" onward, the reason why the words of worldly people do not succeed in being absolute is explained: because words change following thoughts, words are not absolute. Therefore, though they speak of awakening, non-awakening, and so forth, they do not escape affliction and defilement. Mutually opposing endlessly, it is thus called "revolving." Awakening pertains to realization by wisdom; the mind pertains to the object of delusion. Having a mind is not awakening; awakening is cutting off the mind—it is not merely non-existence. Lacking the mind of the nine realms, it is thus called "non-mind." When compliant with thoughts there is empty talk, the absolute turns back into the relative; having no principle to rely upon, it is therefore said to be "without lodgment." From "If one grasps the meaning..." onward, the correct substance of the absolute is brought forth. Once one has penetrated the absolute principle, who discriminates anymore? Although focusing on the absolute principle, if discrimination does not perish, all are termed relative; thus only realization is called "the opening of true wisdom." Furthermore, from "grasps the meaning" onward, it clarifies that the absolute is inconceivable in discussion. From "activity of mind" onward, it clarifies that the absolute is inconceivable in thought. From "following wisdom" onward, it reiterates the stage of the absolute. From "Nor does it..." onward, it overturns the mistaken understanding of worldly people mentioned before. "And so forth" encompasses revolving and the like. From "various kinds..." onward, it reiterates the reprimand. From "true wisdom" onward, it reiterates the functions of the stage. From "As before..." onward, it again raises an analogy to illustrate the absolute. "Before" means moving forward, referring to the fire-poker. Once the poker has stoked the fire, it also burns itself; having made all relatives absolute, the absolute also makes itself absolute. Therefore the *Dazhidulun* says: "Question: One should not speak of signlessness. Why? If one speaks of signlessness, that is itself a sign. If there is no signlessness, it should not be able to refute the signs of all phenomena. If there is signlessness, one should not say that all are signless. Answer: One uses signlessness to refute all signs. If there were a sign of signlessness, one would fall among all phenomena. Signlessness extinguishes all signs, and also extinguishes signlessness itself. Just as the aforementioned fire-wood, having burned all the fuel, also burns itself. Therefore, the sage cultivates the samādhi of signless signlessness to refute signlessness; the samādhi of empty emptiness and the samādhi of unconditioned unconditioned are also like this." To make absolute what is already absolute has the same intention. From "If so..." onward, doubt is resolved. The doubt states: If only when true wisdom opens is it called the absolute, this only applies to the first abodement; what benefit does it have for the initial mind? From "Now with..." onward, it explains. The initial mind is precisely it, so nothing is lost. Sages reside in the ultimate stage and must not be conflated with the initial stage.