止觀輔行傳弘決 3.65

3.65

「復次四種止觀」下，約漸圓等料簡同異。先立四教，各以因位名之為漸，各以極果名之為圓，以此圓漸二名濫故。從「圓圓」下，二句互簡。「故知」下，結也。雖復簡之，二義仍在，是故圓果非三教果，名為「圓圓」，非漸圓也。圓因不同前三教因，故云「圓漸」，非漸漸也。亦應更云漸圓非圓圓，漸漸非圓漸。下文釋義，四句即足。「法華疏」者，指《玄》文中彼亦具明兩種圓漸，及賢聖等四句料簡。「然漸漸」下，料簡開通。則有可開、不可開故，故須簡之。三教佛人不可開故，開前三教因位之人並皆入圓，漸漸開之並成圓漸。「何者」下，釋也。前三權果本是圓果，垂為三迹，豈可更開今成圓佛？「例」下，例餘四章，開通亦爾。大小兼得半滿漸頓復兼偏圓，是故但云大小權實，故云「不煩文也」。然大小半滿先須分別。通途言之，如大大者，或指衍中三教因人，或指衍中二乘之人。大小者，或指三教果頭之人，或指圓教因位之人，或唯指圓極果之人。小大者，或指三藏菩薩之人，或唯指於三藏佛果。大小既然，半滿亦爾，是故不同權實等三。今若開通，準例說者，亦望餘三分齊而說。言小大者，謂三藏佛。小小者，謂三藏因人。大大者，即指三教佛果。大小者，謂三教因人。半滿例說，亦應可解。開通進否，例前可知。「觀心往推」等者，諸佛契心如契而說，大師亦是推觀而說。心與法合，故觀心推不違法相。為不信者，復引證成頓漸等義。四教之文當分漸圓，第六撿文未見，恐是文誤。文中不云菩薩者，以不斷惑同凡夫故。二十二文具如所引，第九文同。經最後云「善男子！如牛新生，血乳未別。」今迴在前，取義便故，以和血乳在淨乳前。雪山等文在二十七，經云「雪山有草名曰忍辱，牛若食者即得醍醐。」第八又云「雪山有草名曰肥膩，牛若食者鈍出醍醐。醍醐無有青黃赤白，水草因緣令其色異。是諸眾生亦以無明業因緣故生於二相，若無明轉即變為明。」次文又云「雪山有草名曰肥膩，牛若食者即得醍醐。眾生薄福，不見是草。佛性亦爾，煩惱覆故不見佛性。」三文同有醍醐之名，合文少別。前文修八正道，次云轉即為名，並是圓意，正當今文。後云煩惱覆故，即別意也。經語意密，善須明鑒。次第八文證不定者，亦恐文誤，應在二十七經「師子吼難云：『眾生之身六道差別，云何而言佛性是一？』佛言：『譬如有人置毒乳中，乃至醍醐皆悉有毒。乳不名酪乃至醍醐，名字雖變毒味不失，若服醍醐亦能殺人，實不置毒於醍醐中。佛性亦爾，雖遍五道受別異身，而是佛性常一不變。』」問：經譬五道，今譬五味，云何得同？答：人必約法。《大經》約人，遍五道身宿種不斷，於五道中毒發不定。今以五道聞法歷味，義不相違。既約聞教必歷五味，即諸經初八部等是，《方等》亦有地獄眾來，故經一五以譬二五，於理無傷。「今約」下，引例。以此一科例前後文，皆應作此料簡引證。雖可例此，不無小異，如向分別開通文意，觀之可知。

From "Furthermore, with respect to the four kinds of calming and contemplation" onward, the similarities and differences are examined in terms of gradual, round, and so on. First, the four teachings are established, each taking the causal stages as "gradual" and each taking the ultimate fruit as "round"; this is done because these two terms, "round" and "gradual," easily lead to confusion. From "round-round" onward, two propositions mutually distinguish them. From "Hence it is known" onward is the conclusion. Although they are thus distinguished, both meanings are still retained. Therefore, the round fruit is not the fruit of the [other] three teachings, and is named "round-round," not gradual-round. The round cause is not identical to the causes of the preceding three teachings, and is thus called "round-gradual," not gradual-gradual. One should also further state that the gradual-round is not the round-round, and the gradual-gradual is not the round-gradual. In the explanation of the meaning below, four propositions are sufficient. "Lotus Commentary" refers to the text of the Profound Meaning (Fahua xuanyi), where both types of round and gradual, as well as the four propositions concerning worthies and sages, are also fully explained. From "Yet the gradual-gradual" onward, opening and penetration are examined. Since there are those that can be opened and those that cannot be opened, they must be distinguished. The persons of the Buddhas of the three teachings cannot be opened; thus, the persons at the causal stages of the preceding three teachings are opened and all enter into the round—opening the gradual-gradual, all become the round-gradual. From "Why so?" onward is the explanation. The preceding three provisional fruits were originally the round fruit, manifested down as three traces; how could they be opened again to now become round Buddhas? From "By analogy" onward, this applies analogously to the other four chapters, where opening and penetration are likewise. Great and small encompass half and full, and gradual and sudden also encompass biased and round; therefore, it merely speaks of great, small, provisional, and real, which is why it says "without burdening the text." Yet great, small, half, and full must first be distinguished. Generally speaking, as for the "great-great," it refers either to persons of the cause in the three teachings within the Mahāyāna, or to persons of the two vehicles within the Mahāyāna. The "great-small" refers either to persons at the fruit-stage of the three teachings, or to persons at the causal stages of the perfect teaching, or exclusively to the person of the ultimate fruit of the round [teaching]. The "small-great" refers either to the person of the Bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka [teaching], or exclusively to the Buddha-fruit of the Tripiṭaka. Great and small being so, half and full are also like this; hence they are not the same as the three such as provisional and real. Now, if they are opened and penetrated, explained by following the pattern, they are also explained with reference to the limits of the other three. As for the "small-great," it refers to the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka. The "small-small" refers to the persons of the cause in the Tripiṭaka. The "great-great" refers directly to the Buddha-fruit of the three teachings. The "great-small" refers to the persons of the cause in the three teachings. Applying this analogously to half and full should likewise be understandable. Whether opening and penetration proceed or not can be known by analogy with the preceding. "Inferring through contemplating the mind" and so on means that the Buddhas accord with the mind and teach as they accord, and the Great Master also inferred contemplation and spoke. Mind and phenomena are united; hence inferring through contemplating the mind does not contradict the characteristics of phenomena. For those who lack faith, passages are further cited to confirm and establish the meanings of sudden, gradual, and so forth. In the text of the four teachings, gradual and round are appropriately differentiated. In checking the text of the sixth [fascicle], it was not found, which is feared to be a scribal error. That the text does not speak of bodhisattvas is because, not yet having severed delusions, they are identical to ordinary beings. The text of the twenty-second [fascicle] is fully as cited, and the text of the ninth is identical. At the very end of the sūtra it says: "Good son! Just as when a cow has newly given birth, the blood and the milk are not yet differentiated." Here it is moved to the front to facilitate the sense, because milk mixed with blood precedes pure milk. The text concerning the Snowy Mountains and so forth is in the twenty-seventh [fascicle]; the sūtra says: "In the Snowy Mountains there is a grass named Endurance; if a cow eats it, it immediately yields clarified butter." The eighth [fascicle] also says: "In the Snowy Mountains there is a grass named Rich and Glossy; if a cow eats it, it directly yields clarified butter. Clarified butter has no blue, yellow, red, or white; causes and conditions of water and grass cause its color to differ. All these sentient beings, also due to the causes and conditions of ignorant karma, produce the two characteristics; if ignorance is transformed, it immediately turns into clarity." The next passage also says: "In the Snowy Mountains there is a grass named Rich and Glossy; if a cow eats it, it immediately yields clarified butter. Sentient beings with meager merit do not see this grass. The Buddha-nature is also like this; covered by afflictions, they do not see the Buddha-nature." All three passages share the term "clarified butter," but their synthesis is slightly different. The former text practices the eightfold noble path, and next it says that transforming it immediately becomes clarity; both are of the round meaning, precisely corresponding to the present text. Later it says that it is covered by afflictions, which is the distinctive meaning. The words of the sūtra have an esoteric purport; one must discern them well. Next, that the text of the eighth [fascicle] verifies the indeterminate is also feared to be a scribal error; it should be in the twenty-seventh fascicle of the sūtra where "Siṃhanāda objects: 'The bodies of sentient beings differ across the six paths; why do you say that the Buddha-nature is one?' The Buddha said: 'Suppose someone puts poison into milk; even up to clarified butter, all of it will contain poison. Milk is not called curds, up to clarified butter; though their names change, the poisonous taste is not lost. If one ingests the clarified butter, it can still kill a person, yet poison was not truly put into the clarified butter. The Buddha-nature is also like this: though it traverses the five paths and receives different bodies, this Buddha-nature is always one and unchanging.'" Question: The sūtra uses the five paths as an analogy, while here the five flavors are used as an analogy; how can they be the same? Answer: Persons must be understood in terms of Dharma. The Great Sūtra is framed in terms of persons: throughout the bodies of the five paths, their past seeds are unbroken, and in the five paths the manifestation of the poison is indeterminate. Here, in terms of hearing the Dharma and passing through the flavors across the five paths, the meanings do not conflict. Since hearing the teaching necessarily involves passing through the five flavors, this refers to the eight classes [of beings] and so on at the beginning of the various sūtras, and the Vaipulya also has assemblies from the hells attending; thus the sūtra using one set of five to illustrate two sets of five does no harm to the principle. From "Now in terms of" onward, an analogy is drawn. Using this one section to analogize the texts before and after, all should be subjected to this kind of examination, citation, and verification. Although it can be analogized to this, there are non-negligible minor differences, as seen in the distinction of the meaning of the text of opening and penetration above; observing it, this can be known.