止觀輔行傳弘決 3.66

3.66

○五權實者，初釋名。此權本是諸佛妙體，體內方便故名「權謀」。如不思議權而設於謀，故曰權謀。謀謂謀度，此是不謀而謀，故曰權謀。非藏通等有謀之權，此名謀權。故引《法華》以釋權實，即是體內之權故也。「暫用」等者，暫用《法華》釋名之文，來此以釋權實之名。「問」者，何意用權復用實耶？答意者，初總明用教之意。眾生機薄以權成熟，若機熟已開權廢權。施開廢等，皆約四悉，為是義故具用權實。次明興廢之相。五味判者，若不約五味，無以顯於《法華》實部。「是故」下，結教意。「今更」下，開也。前約四悉展轉興廢，未是約時；約部永廢，故知前文但是判也。故約料簡以明於開，則四教皆實。「又四種」下，以教望理而論權實。則理實教，權教中雖有權實之名，並是為他不獲而說，故名為「彊」。「等是」下，徵難也。教中權實既並彊名，何不將實為權、名權為實？「以有」下，答。今言彊者，約有說邊名為彊說。彊即是權，名說為權直約說邊，不可權實互相混雜。「又此」下，更判教中，若權若實皆非權實。「何以故」下，釋也。以此權實皆非權非實，不可作權實說。「此非權非實」下，示同。雖雙非權實，不得異於如向所明開權之實。「向以」下，重示不異之理。以開權故見於實理，此之實理秖是向來兩重雙非：一者雙非權實二理、二者雙非說權理實，皆是約理不可說故，故知此理即前實理。「若異者」下，遮於異義。若雙非之理異於實理，實理之外應有別理。既無能照別理之慧，又無所照別理之境，故實理外無別雙非。「對權」下，釋無別理所以。對破權教故說實教，是則有權有實，實亦詮理。若廢權實之教，則云非權非實，廢教亦是顯於一實，對破理教亦是顯於一實，是故雙非之理不異一實之理。「即教」下，開教顯理。廢教廢權尚即顯理，況即文字是實相理。當知權實之教亦不當於權實，此之雙非又不異於前雙非故，故云「無二無別」。隨說異故不合，理不殊故不散。「非權非實」下，以一止觀結。「觀故」下，辨異名。「此非但」下，總結也。如向所開權實俱理，理無權實，故皆不當權之與實。「猶屬」等者，恐聞雙非復謂過實，是故結云「祇是顯實」。問：《玄》文諸義並先開後廢，如向所引，何故先廢後開？答：《玄》文約喻，如世蓮華必先開後落；此從法便，故先廢後開。既廢權已實則可見，義之如開。又此廢文與彼稍異，彼約《法華》廢前權部權教，復須開前權部權教；今約諸文展轉相廢，猶似未開，故在開前。今具二義，故廢在前。又廢同於待，開同於絕，待前絕後，未失常規。又楞伽人云：此經開權與《法華》義等。若爾，何故前後諸文皆斥二乘及以外道？故第三云「一切愚夫禪」者，謂二乘，此斥三藏也。二「觀察禪」，謂離自他得人無我，亦離外道，豈非通教？三「真如禪」，謂知念不起，豈非別教？四「如來禪」，謂入佛地，豈非圓教？故知彼經猶存權乘，以大斥小亦與前明位義意同。卷末又云「一乘道者，唯如來得。非外道二乘梵天之所得也。」豈與《法華》邪見嚴王、五逆調達、畜生龍女、敗種二乘皆悉得記作佛耶？「問為實施權」下，更料簡理教接義也。從初至接入何位，總有五問，以一問字該下五文。一問為權為實、二問何意不預四數、三問何故但接於通、四問何位被接、五問接入何位。答中具答五問，仍為兩重，初約教、次約諦。初約教中，答初問者，被別接人不必盡證，是故則有權實不同。「四教」下，答第二問。以別接者但用別教之終，已如前說。「諸教」下，答第三問。《玄》文具明以圓接通、以圓接別，彼約教道。於教道中，或以權教接權、或以實教接權。今但約教所詮理邊，但以權理被實理接，於義略足，是故但云內外交際須立一接，餘如前辨。「若齊」下，答第四問。八地方接，此據下根。「九地」下，答第五問。從下根來多至初地，中上入者此即不定。又案位入則在地前，勝進入者則至初地。言「九地伏十地破」者，仍本立名，名九十地；入別圓教，應云初地及以初住。「若就」下，約諦以答。但答四問，闕答第二。以第二問但問何意，不預四數非正顯理，故略不答。答四問中仍不次第。初答第一問者，空中合論，空即是權、中即是實。「破見思」下，答第四問，即第八地方被接也。問：何故須至第八方接？答：為欲示於真內中故，故待證空方為點示，令深觀空即見不空。若爾，中上二根其義云何？答：中上二根亦見真已方示中空，但前二根真空尚淺，是故說教多附下根。「聞已」下，答第五問。但云別位不語位名者，一以入者不定其位；二者別在初地，以地前位與前教共，故指初地名為別位。猶如圓教始終俱圓，若判圓位則在初住。「三藏菩薩」下，答第三問。菩薩伏惑已如前說。兩教二乘法華方會，亦不論接。問：《法華玄》云「接非會義」，今約《法華》，秖應論會，何故論接？答：前後諸文會義非一。今論修觀，亦可重述《法華》前教以例行人，論於教門通塞之相。是故明之，未妨於會。況接在菩薩，與會不殊。又前後文處處皆明可思議等，但於顯為不思議故。前待後絕，次第應然，何須問言不應論接？

Regarding the fifth [section], on the provisional and the real: First, explaining the names. This 'provisional' is originally the wonderful essence of all Buddhas; expedient means within the essence are therefore named 'provisional stratagems' (quanmou). Setting up stratagems as inconceivable provisionality is why they are called 'provisional stratagems'. 'Stratagem' (mou) means planning and deliberating; this is deliberating without deliberation, and is thus called 'provisional stratagem'. It is not the provisionality with deliberation of the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings]; this is called 'deliberated provisionality' (mouquan). Therefore, the Lotus Sūtra is cited to explain the provisional and the real, because it is precisely the provisionality within the essence. Regarding the words 'temporarily using', and so forth: this means temporarily using the text from the Lotus Sūtra that explains the names, bringing it here to explain the terms 'provisional' and 'real'. As for the 'question': For what reason does one use the provisional and also use the real? The intent of the answer is: First, broadly clarifying the intent of using the teachings. Because the capacities of sentient beings are shallow, they are brought to maturity through the provisional; once their capacities are mature, the provisional is opened and discarded. Setting forth, opening, and discarding are all discussed in terms of the four siddhāntas; it is for this meaning that both the provisional and the real are used. Next, clarifying the marks of rising and discarding. Regarding classification by the five flavors: if one does not rely on the five flavors, there is no way to reveal the real portion of the Lotus Sūtra. From 'Therefore' downward, the intent of the teaching is concluded. From 'Now further' downward, there is the opening. The previous [discussion] of alternating rising and discarding according to the four siddhāntas was not yet in terms of time; in terms of the divisions [of teachings], there is eternal discarding, so we know the previous passage was merely a classification. Thus, by clarifying the opening through critical analysis, all four teachings are real. From 'Furthermore, the four kinds' downward, the provisional and the real are discussed by looking at the principle from the perspective of teaching. Then the principle is real and the teachings are provisional; although there are names of 'provisional' and 'real' within the teachings, they are all stated for others out of inability to do otherwise, and are therefore called 'forced'. From 'Being equally' downward, there is an objection: Since provisional and real within the teachings are both forced designations, why not take the real as provisional and call the provisional real? From 'Because there is' downward, the answer is given: What is now called 'forced' is called 'forced preaching' from the side of having verbal explanation. 'Forced' is precisely 'provisional'; calling the preaching 'provisional' is strictly from the side of verbal explanation, and the provisional and the real cannot be conflated. From 'Furthermore, this' downward, it is further determined that within the teachings, whether provisional or real, both are neither provisional nor real. From 'Why is this?' downward, an explanation is given: Because these provisional and real are both neither provisional nor real, they cannot be spoken of as provisional or real. From 'This neither provisional nor real' downward, identity is shown: Although both provisional and real are negated, it cannot be different from the reality of opening the provisional as explained just now. From 'Previously, because of' downward, the principle of non-difference is restated: Because of opening the provisional, one sees the real principle; this real principle is just the double negation of two levels mentioned earlier: first, negating both the two principles of provisional and real; second, negating both preaching the provisional and the real principle. Both are because the principle cannot be spoken; hence we know this principle is just the previous real principle. From 'If it were different' downward, divergent views are refuted: If the principle of double negation were different from the real principle, there should be another principle outside the real principle. Since there is neither wisdom capable of illuminating another principle, nor an object of another principle to be illuminated, there is no separate double negation outside the real principle. From 'In opposition to the provisional' downward, the reason there is no other principle is explained: The real teaching is spoken in opposition to and refutation of the provisional teaching; thus there is provisional and there is real, and the real also explains the principle. If the teachings of provisional and real are discarded, one speaks of 'neither provisional nor real'; discarding the teachings also reveals the one reality, and refuting principle and teaching in opposition [to each other] also reveals the one reality; therefore, the principle of double negation is not different from the principle of the one reality. From 'Identical to the teaching' downward, the teaching is opened to reveal the principle: If discarding the teaching and discarding the provisional already reveals the principle, how much more so is the written word itself the principle of the true mark! One should know that the teachings of provisional and real also do not correspond to provisional and real; since this double negation is also not different from the previous double negation, it is said: 'There is neither two nor difference.' Because they follow different preachings, they are not combined; because the principle is not different, they are not dispersed. From 'Neither provisional nor real' downward, it concludes with the single calming and contemplation. From 'Because of contemplation' downward, different names are distinguished. From 'This is not only' downward, it is a general conclusion: As opened just now, provisional and real are both the principle, and the principle has neither provisional nor real; therefore, neither corresponds to the provisional or the real. Regarding the words 'It still belongs to', and so forth: fearing that hearing the double negation one might think it exceeds the real, it therefore concludes, 'It merely reveals the real.' Question: All meanings in the Lotus Profound Meaning (Fahua xuan) first open and then discard, as cited just now; why is it that here, discarding comes first and opening comes later? Answer: The Lotus Profound Meaning relies on a metaphor: like a worldly lotus flower, it must first open and then fall; here, it follows the convenience of the doctrine, so discarding comes first and opening comes later. Once the provisional has been discarded, the real can be seen, which has the meaning of opening. Moreover, this passage on discarding is slightly different from that one: that one relies on the Lotus Sūtra to discard the provisional divisions and provisional teachings of the past, and further must open the provisional divisions and provisional teachings of the past; the present text relies on various texts that discard each other alternately, resembling what has not yet been opened, and thus comes before the opening. Now, both meanings are present, so discarding comes first. Furthermore, discarding is equivalent to the relative (dai), and opening is equivalent to the absolute (jue); the relative comes first and the absolute comes after, which does not violate the standard rule. Furthermore, followers of the Laṅkāvatāra say: The opening of the provisional in this sūtra is equivalent in meaning to the Lotus Sūtra. If so, why do the texts before and after all repudiate the two vehicles and non-Buddhists? Thus, the third [chapter] speaks of 'dhyāna of all fools', referring to the two vehicles, which repudiates the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. Second, 'dhyāna of observation', which means leaving behind self and other to attain the non-self of persons, and also leaving behind non-Buddhists—is this not the shared teaching? Third, 'tathatā dhyāna', which means knowing that thoughts do not arise—is this not the distinctive teaching? Fourth, 'Tathāgata dhyāna', which means entering the Buddha stage—is this not the perfect teaching? Thus we know that this sūtra still preserves the provisional vehicles, and using the Mahāyāna to repudiate the Hīnayāna is identical in intent to the stages explained previously. The end of the fascicle also states: 'The Path of the One Vehicle is attained only by the Tathāgata; it is not attained by non-Buddhists, the two vehicles, or Brahmā.' How could this be like the Lotus Sūtra, where the wrong-viewed King Śubhavyūha, the five-rebellions Devadatta, the animal Dragon Girl, and the ruined-seed two vehicles all receive prediction of attaining Buddhahood? From 'Question: Setting forth the provisional for the sake of the real' downward, it further analyzes the meaning of reception (jie) in principle and teaching. From the beginning down to 'into what stage are they received', there are five questions in total, with the single word 'Question' governing the five passages below: first, asking whether it is provisional or real; second, asking for what reason it is not included in the count of the four [teachings]; third, asking why it only receives [practitioners of] the shared [teaching]; fourth, asking at what stage one is received; fifth, asking into what stage one is received. In the answers, all five questions are answered, still in two levels: first in terms of the teachings, next in terms of the truths. First, within [the answers] in terms of the teachings, answering the first question: Those who are received by the distinctive [teaching] do not necessarily all realize [it], and therefore there are differences between provisional and real. From 'The four teachings' downward answers the second question: Because those who receive via the distinctive teaching only use the end of the distinctive teaching, as explained previously. From 'The various teachings' downward answers the third question: The Lotus Profound Meaning fully explains using the perfect to receive the shared, and using the perfect to receive the distinctive; that is in terms of the path of the teachings. In the path of the teachings, one either uses provisional teachings to receive the provisional, or uses real teachings to receive the provisional. Now, strictly in terms of the principle explained by the teaching, merely having the provisional principle be received by the real principle is briefly sufficient in meaning; therefore it only says that at the juncture between internal and external one must establish a reception, and the rest is as distinguished earlier. From 'If according to' downward answers the fourth question: One is only received at the eighth stage; this is based on those of lower capacities. From 'The ninth stage' downward answers the fifth question: Coming from lower capacities, they mostly reach the first stage (bhūmi); for those of intermediate and superior [capacities] who enter, this is not fixed. Furthermore, entering according to the stages, it is before the stages; entering through superior advancement, it reaches the first stage. As for saying 'subduing in the ninth stage and breaking in the tenth stage': names are still established based on the original [teaching], calling them the ninth and tenth stages; entering the distinctive or perfect teachings, one should say the first stage and the first aboding. From 'If with respect to' downward, it answers in terms of the truths. It only answers four questions, omitting the answer to the second. Because the second question only asked for what reason it is not included in the count of the four, which does not directly reveal the principle, it is briefly not answered. Among the answers to the four questions, they are not in order. First, answering the first question: Discussed together in emptiness and the middle, emptiness is precisely the provisional, and the middle is precisely the real. From 'Breaking views and thoughts' downward answers the fourth question, which means one is only received at the eighth stage. Question: Why must one reach the eighth stage before being received? Answer: In order to reveal the middle within the true [emptiness], one waits until emptiness is realized before pointing it out, causing them to deeply contemplate emptiness and immediately see non-emptiness. If so, what is the meaning for the intermediate and superior capacities? Answer: Those of intermediate and superior capacities also see the true [emptiness] before being shown the middle in emptiness; it is just that for the former two capacities, true emptiness is still shallow, so the teaching is mostly stated with reference to the lower capacities. From 'Having heard' downward answers the fifth question: It only speaks of the 'distinctive stage' without naming the stage, firstly because the stage of those who enter is not fixed; secondly, the distinctive [proper] is at the first stage, because the stages prior to the stages are shared with the previous teaching, and so the first stage is referred to as the distinctive stage. Just as the perfect teaching is entirely perfect from beginning to end, if one designates the stage of the perfect, it is at the first aboding. From 'The bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka' downward answers the third question: The bodhisattva's subduing of afflictions is as explained earlier. As for the two vehicles of the two teachings, they are only converged in the Lotus, and reception is not discussed for them. Question: The Lotus Profound Meaning says 'reception is not the meaning of convergence'; now regarding the Lotus, one should only discuss convergence, so why discuss reception? Answer: The meaning of convergence across the texts before and after is not singular. Now, in discussing the practice of contemplation, one may also restate the teachings prior to the Lotus to serve as an example for practitioners, discussing the marks of pass and blockage in the gates of teaching. Therefore, clarifying it does not interfere with convergence. How much more so since reception pertains to the bodhisattva, which is not different from convergence. Furthermore, earlier and later texts everywhere explain the conceivable and so forth, merely to reveal the inconceivable. The relative preceding and the absolute following is the natural sequence; why should one ask that reception ought not to be discussed?