止觀輔行傳弘決 4.15

4.15

○第二衣食具足中，先來意者，以此衣食親為道緣。言「及道」者，自有蔽形支命而不為道。為道支蔽必先形命，形命若立道本則存，故云及也。就二緣中，衣疎食親，故引證云食已成道。「此雖小緣」等者，然此衣食本為色身報命之緣，故云小緣。託此復能辦道法事，故云「大事」。無衣故裸、闕食故餒，如此豈能專修止觀？焉字（若作助聲，應云矣連切。今從訓釋，應云於連切，何也）。《大經》二十云「菩薩摩訶薩若須衣等即便取之，不為身故；雖受飲食，常為正法，不為膚體、不為怨害。如人瘉病，以酥[麩-夫+少]塗，為九孔漏，以衣覆之。」「衣者」下，正釋。「遮醜陋」等者，《大經》云「所受衣者，不為嚴身，為遮羞恥寒暑蚊虻。」今云飾者，蔽醜惡身名之為飾，非為瑩飾順已貪情。「衣有三」者，且分三品。復有天須菩提面王比丘及許畜重物，重物合在畜長中辨。故今不別論者，為同下文一例三品故也。合百一畜長等以為下根，雪山為上者，如《大經》釋迦先世曾為大士，居於雪山，唯被鹿皮。時雪山中復有多種香根藕根、青木香根，我於爾時獨在其中唯食諸果。食已繫念思惟坐禪，堪忍力成，不遊人世。如是乃可忘於說淨受持等事。「十二頭陀」等者，新云杜多，此云抖擻。律論不同，律有隨坐、不作餘食及一摶食，《大論》則無。論有節量、中後不飲及次第乞，律文則無。又律云納衣，論云糞掃；律但云乞食，論云常乞食。此二名異意同，餘十俱同。諸部《阿含》及《十住論》亦有不同之相，大體無殊。今依《大論》六十八略出相狀。一蘭若者，在家多惱，故捨眷屬。而師徒同學還相結著，復相惱亂，故住蘭若令身遠離。最近三里，能遠彌善。身遠離已，亦當心離五欲五蓋。二常乞食者，具如第二方等中說（云云）。三糞掃衣者，若四方馳求，或著邪命。若受他衣，於好於惡而生憂喜。僧中得衣，過略如食（云云），或憂賊盜等。四一坐食者，自念一食尚有所妨，況小食中食後食，廢半日之功，不得一心行道，如養馬猪等。五節量食者，飽噉腹脹氣塞妨道，故應三分留一。如舍利弗食五六口，於秦人十口許，足之以水。六中後不飲漿者，心生樂著求種種漿不能一心，猶養馬著勒，其意則息。七塚間者，易悟無常，易得道果。八樹下坐者，以得道事辦，捨至樹下。如佛說法轉法輪入涅槃，皆在樹下。九露坐者，或謂樹下猶如半舍，尚生著故。又樹下坐有二種過：一天雨濕、二鳥糞毒蟲。十常坐者，著衣脫衣隨意快樂，四儀之中坐為第一，食易銷化氣力調和，求道大事大辦功力。諸賊常伺人便，不宜安臥，若行若立心亦易攝。十一次第乞者，不著不味不輕眾生，等心憐愍不擇貧富。十二三衣者，白衣多求，是故多畜。外道苦行，是故裸形。不多不少，故畜三衣。今文以十二頭陀中糞掃三衣合為中士。言三衣者，但三衣也。今畜長者，三衣同納，或著之營務，或異界經宿。良由暗於教旨自樹迷情，倚此自高翻為陷溺。今此文中判為中者，上則不及唯被鹿皮，下則高於百一畜長。如何畜長復謂三衣？今言三衣，不同一衣之少，不同畜長等多。出聚落則著僧伽梨加二衣上，入大眾則著欝多羅僧加五條上，入山林則唯著安陀會，為慚愧故、為多寒故，許其重著。皆威儀整肅，長物善根，故云被服齊整。嗟夫世人共許儀服狼狽者稱為頭陀，容止檢攝者呼為執相。俗流未曉，恕而可矜；緇徒無甄，悲而可愍。下根者，此土多寒根性又薄，大聖一許三品通開，若畜百一記憶而已。有云：加法。若畜長說淨，則加法受持。今二品合論，故云「百一要當說淨」。皆為助道以療形苦，如斯之類仍為下根。不說淨人三品不攝，濫引上品大士行事，深不可也。然說淨之法，附近大乘。故《地持》中菩薩所畜，即於十方諸佛菩薩而為淨施，乃以聲聞淨施而為譬云。譬如比丘以己衣物，於和尚闍梨捨作淨施。若達一實，即此淨施成菩薩法。且小乘中若準行之，亦薄己貪情順佛聽制。如斯之理，何損曠懷？我物屬他彌符祛滯，況受食受藥禁性重之由，持鉢持衣杜譏嫌之本。譏嫌性重等護無偏，迹混聲聞，真菩薩也。但為元期出苦判屬小宗，豈以背彼受持稱為大道？又有人云：凡諸所有非己物想，有益便用，說淨何為？今問：等非己財，何不任於四海？有益便用，何不直付兩田？而閉之深房、封於藏篋，實懷他想，用必招愆。忽謂己財，仍違說淨。說淨而施，於理何妨？順己執心，後生倣效。又《大經》云「出家之人有四種病，不得涅槃。一者衣欲、二者食欲、三臥具欲、四者為有因。」若不能於衣食修觀，誰能受之不為有因？「觀行衣」者，疏中攝此十二為衣食處三，約此三事而論理觀，即三德也，具如疏釋迦葉緣中。今則不爾，於衣食處各立觀行，亦分三等。「大經」等者，彼經斥三修云「汝等比丘雖復剃頭，未為正法陰諸結使。雖著袈裟，心猶未染大乘法服。」故知心染大乘，方稱所表寂滅之服。故引《法華》，即其意也。捨二覺觀，新名尋伺，《俱舍》云「尋伺心麁細」。今觀心亦爾，生死者動麁如覺，空亂意細如觀。蚊細虻麁，二邊皆有麁細故也。「故云深達」等者，圓中如鏡故能遍照，名為深達，以深達故具一切相。空假不爾，如磨瓦礫。「寂忍」下，合譬可知。以中道觀萬德莊嚴，故非世間割截衣也。舉理異事，故云非也。三衣觀者，文中兩重。初總約三諦。一一諦上皆有愛見，愛如熟、見如寒。「三覺」者，《大經》三覺謂欲、恚、害。今借譬見思等三。故《大經》二十云「菩薩摩訶薩知是三覺有種種患，為三乘怨，能令三乘不見佛性，常為諸佛菩薩之所訶責。」經文既云能令眾生不見佛性，故將三覺可對三惑。三觀觀三諦，如衣覆身，身亦三也。「又起見」下，別約三諦。一一諦上各各立於能治所治、能嚴所嚴。初觀廣、餘二略，亦可準知。故知一一諦上皆有見愛。福慧二嚴，止屬福、觀屬慧故也。百一觀者，長衣助身，通為助義，故三諦上各須助也。歷一切行亦復如是，何但正行不動，助亦無非寂滅。具如助道中正助合行之相。上根唯約一理，中根義開通別，下根義立助道，故約一理通別正助共成一意。

Concerning the second [prerequisite], "Sufficiency of Clothing and Food": First, as to the purpose of its inclusion: clothing and food are directly proximate conditions for the Path. As for the words "reaching to the Path," there are those who cover the body and sustain life, yet do not do so for the sake of the Path. To sustain life and cover the body for the Path, one must first have bodily life; if bodily life is preserved, the root of the Path is maintained—hence it says "reaching to." Between the two conditions, clothing is distant while food is immediate; therefore, scripture is cited to confirm that [the Buddha] attained the Path after eating. As for the passage beginning "Although these are minor conditions": these clothes and food are originally conditions for the physical body and karmic life, and are thus called "minor conditions." Yet, relying on these, one is able to accomplish the affairs of the Dharma and the Path, and so they are called "great affairs." Lacking clothes, one is naked; lacking food, one starves. In such conditions, how could one single-mindedly cultivate calming and contemplation? As for the word "how" (yan): (If used as an auxiliary particle, its fanqie spelling should be yi + lian. Here, following the glossed meaning, its pronunciation is yu + lian, meaning "how"). Chapter 20 of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "When a bodhisattva-mahāsattva requires clothing and the like, he immediately takes them, yet not for the sake of the body; though he accepts food and drink, it is always for the sake of the True Dharma, not for nourishing the flesh or for causing harm. Just as when a person treats an illness, they rub ghee and parched grain flour upon it, and cover the nine orifices with clothes." From "Clothing refers to" onward: the main explanation. As for "covering ugliness": the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states, "The clothing one accepts is not for adorning the body, but to ward off shame, cold, heat, mosquitoes, and gadflies." In the present text, "adornment" means that concealing an ugly and evil body is termed adornment; it is not for superficial beautification to indulge one's own desires. As for "Clothing has three grades": they are provisionally classified into three grades. There are also heavenly Subhūti, King Face bhikṣu, and the permission to keep heavy items; heavy items properly belong to the discussion of keeping extra belongings. The reason they are not separately discussed here is to align with the text below, presenting three uniform grades. Combining the hundred-and-one items and extra possessions to constitute the lowest capacity, and taking the Snowy Mountains as the highest: as recorded in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Śākyamuni in a past life was once a Great Being residing in the Snowy Mountains, wearing only deerskin. At that time, in the Snowy Mountains, there were also various fragrant roots, lotus roots, and costus roots; "at that time, I dwelt alone among them, consuming only various fruits. Having eaten, I focused my mindfulness, contemplated, and sat in meditation; having perfected the power of forbearance, I did not wander into the human world." Only in such a manner can one leave behind matters such as purifying donations and ritual reception and retention. As for "the twelve dhūtas": in the new translation they are called dhūta, rendered here as "shaking off [defilements]." The Vinaya and the treatises differ: the Vinaya lists "sitting in any available seat," "not eating after finishing meals," and "taking meals in one sitting," which are not in the Dazhidulun. The treatise lists "regulating the amount of food," "not drinking liquids after midday," and "begging in proper sequence," which are absent in the Vinaya text. Furthermore, the Vinaya says "patched robes," while the treatise says "refuse-rag robes"; the Vinaya simply says "begging for food," while the treatise says "always begging for food." These two vary in phrasing but share the same meaning, while the remaining ten are identical. The various Āgamas and the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā also have differing presentations, but in general they do not diverge. We now briefly outline their characteristics according to Chapter 68 of the Dazhidulun: 1. Dwelling in an araṇya: Household life involves many afflictions, so one leaves one's relatives. However, teachers, disciples, and fellow practitioners still form attachments and cause turmoil to one another; thus one dwells in an araṇya so that the physical body is secluded. The nearest distance is three li; the farther, the better. Having secluded the physical body, the mind should also be secluded from the five desires and five hindrances. 2. Always begging for food: This is explained in full in the second section on the Vaipulya (and so forth). 3. Refuse-rag robes: If one wanders seeking in all four directions, one may indulge in wrong livelihood. If one accepts robes offered by others, joy or sorrow may arise over whether they are good or bad. Robes received from within the saṃgha involve faults similar to food (and so forth), or one worries about thieves. 4. Eating in one sitting: One reflects that even a single meal is an impediment, not to mention morning meals, midday meals, and meals after, which waste half a day's labor and prevent single-minded practice of the Path, like rearing horses or pigs. 5. Regulating the amount of food: Gorging oneself causes abdominal distension and obstructed breath, impeding the Path; hence, one should leave one-third of the stomach empty. Just as Śāriputra would eat only five or six mouthfuls—equivalent to about ten mouthfuls for people of the Qin—and fill the rest with water. 6. Not drinking syrups after midday: If longing arises in the mind to seek various kinds of syrups, one cannot be single-minded; just as putting a bridle on a horse calms its intention. 7. Dwelling in charnel grounds: It is easy to awaken to impermanence and easy to attain the fruits of the Path. 8. Sitting under a tree: Because the task of attaining the Path is achieved thereby, one departs to sit under a tree. Just as the Buddha's preaching, turning the Wheel of the Dharma, and entering nirvāṇa all took place beneath a tree. 9. Sitting in the open: Some might view dwelling under a tree as being half-sheltered in a house, still generating attachment. Furthermore, sitting under a tree has two faults: rain and dampness, and bird droppings and venomous insects. 10. Constant sitting: Putting on and taking off clothes at will is pleasurable, but among the four postures, sitting is foremost; food digests easily, vital energy is harmonized, and great effort can be applied to accomplish the great enterprise of seeking the Path. Bandits are always watching for an opening, so lying down at ease is improper; when walking or standing, the mind is also difficult to collect. 11. Begging in proper sequence: Without attachment, without craving flavors, and without scorning sentient beings, one maintains an impartial mind of compassion without selecting between the poor and the rich. 12. Possessing only three robes: White-robed laypeople have many desires, and therefore accumulate many possessions. Non-Buddhist ascetics practice severe penances, and therefore go naked. Possessing neither too much nor too little, one therefore keeps only three robes. The present text combines the refuse-rag garments and the three robes from among the twelve dhūtas to constitute the intermediate capacity. When it speaks of "three robes," it means strictly three robes. Nowadays, those who keep extra items combine them into patched robes, wear them while managing secular tasks, or stay overnight outside the boundary with them. This is truly because they are ignorant of the doctrinal purport, arbitrarily constructing deluded sentiments, relying on this to elevate themselves, and in turn becoming submerged [in delusion]. In the present text, classifying them as intermediate is because they fall short of wearing only deerskin above, yet are higher than the hundred-and-one items and extra possessions below. How could keeping extra possessions still be called three robes? Now, the three robes spoken of here are not as meager as possessing a single robe, nor as abundant as possessing extra belongings. When going into settlements, one wears the saṃghāṭī over the other two robes; when entering the grand assembly, one wears the uttarāsaṅga over the five-strip robe; when entering mountain forests, one wears only the antarvāsaka. Out of modesty, or because of severe cold, one is permitted to wear them layered. In all respects, comportment is dignified and solemn, nurturing wholesome roots through external things; hence it is said that "garments are neat and orderly." Alas! People of the world universally acclaim those whose clothes and comportment are unkempt as practitioners of the dhūtas, while denouncing those whose deportment is disciplined and restrained as clinging to appearances. That the worldly commoners do not understand this may be pardoned and pitied; but that the monastic sangha lacks discernment is truly lamentable and distressing. Regarding those of the lowest capacity: this land has much cold and capacities are shallow; the Great Sage once permitted all three grades to be open to everyone. If one keeps the hundred-and-one items, one need only keep them in mind. Some say: perform a formal rite. If one keeps extra belongings and performs the purification of donations, then one formally receives and retains them with a rite. Here, treating the two grades together, it states: "For the hundred-and-one items, purification of donations must be performed." All of these serve to aid the Path and remedy bodily suffering; such types are still regarded as the lowest capacity. Those who do not perform purification of donations are not included within any of the three grades; to falsely cite the practices of the Great Beings of the highest grade is profoundly unacceptable. Moreover, the practice of purification of donations is close to the Mahāyāna. Hence, in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the possessions of a bodhisattva are ritually relinquished as pure gifts before the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions, drawing upon the pure gifts of the śrāvakas as an analogy: just as a bhikṣu relinquishes his own robes and items as a pure gift before his preceptor or ācārya. If one penetrates the One Reality, this very pure gift becomes the dharma of a bodhisattva. Moreover, if one practices according to this within the Hīnayāna, one also attenuates one's own greedy desires and accords with the Buddha's allowances and precepts. How could such a principle harm a vast and open mind? The fact that one's belongings belong to another aligns even more with dispelling stagnation; what is more, accepting food and medicine curtails the causes of heavy primary transgressions, and holding the bowl and robes cuts off the root of suspicion and reproach. Impartially guarding against suspicion, reproach, and primary transgressions without bias—though outwardly mingling in the tracks of the śrāvakas, one is a true bodhisattva. It is solely because the original aim was escape from suffering that it is classified under the Lesser Tradition; how could turning one's back on that practice of retention be called the Great Path? Furthermore, someone said: "Regard all possessions as not belonging to oneself; when beneficial, use them—what is the point of performing the purification of donations?" We now ask: If they are equally not one's own property, why not leave them open to the whole world? If one uses them whenever beneficial, why not surrender them directly to the two fields [of merit]? Instead, you lock them in deep rooms and seal them in storage chests; while harbouring thoughts of another owner, using them inevitably incurs offense. If you suddenly regard them as your own property, you still violate the purification of donations. Performing the purification of donations and then giving them away—how does that obstruct principle? Following one's own clinging mind will cause later generations to imitate it. Moreover, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "Renunciants have four illnesses that prevent them from attaining nirvāṇa: first, desire for clothing; second, desire for food; third, desire for bedding; fourth, [acting] for the cause of existence." If one cannot cultivate contemplation regarding clothing and food, who can receive them without making them a cause for existence? As for "contemplating the practice of clothing": in the Commentary, these twelve are subsumed under three categories: clothing, food, and dwelling; examining the contemplation of principle across these three items corresponds to the three virtues, as explained in full in the Commentary's passage on Mahākāśyapa's conditions. Here it is not so: contemplation practice is established for each of clothing, food, and dwelling, and is likewise divided into three grades. As for the citation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra: that sūtra criticizes the practitioners of the three disciplines, saying: "Though you bhikṣus have shaved your heads, you have not sheltered your defilements for the sake of the True Dharma. Though you wear kāṣāya robes, your minds are not yet dyed by the Dharma robes of the Mahāyāna." Thus we know that only when the mind is dyed by the Mahāyāna does it correspond to what is symbolized by the robe of extinction. Thus, citing the Lotus Sūtra conveys this very intention. Renouncing the two vitarka and vicāra—in the new translations called enquiry and investigation; the Abhidharmakośa states, "Vitarka and vicāra are coarse and fine states of mind." The contemplating mind at present is also like this: the movement of birth-and-death is coarse, like enquiry; the subtle distractions in emptiness are fine, like investigation. Mosquitoes are fine and gadflies are coarse, because both extremes possess coarseness and fineness. As for "Therefore it is said: profoundly penetrating": the perfect Middle is like a mirror and can therefore illuminate everywhere; this is termed "profoundly penetrating." Because it is profoundly penetrating, it is endowed with all characteristics. Emptiness and provisionality are not like this, resembling the grinding of tiles and rubble. The passage from "the forbearance of tranquility" onward harmonizes the analogy, which can be understood. Because the contemplation of the Middle Way is adorned with myriads of virtues, it is not worldly pieced-together clothing. Highlighting the principle to distinguish it from concrete phenomena, it therefore says "not." As for the contemplation of the three robes: in the text there are two levels. First, it is generally based on the three truths. In each and every truth there are craving and views; craving is like heat, and views are like cold. As for "the three thoughts": the three thoughts in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra refer to sensual desire, ill will, and harmfulness. Here they are borrowed as an analogy for the three defilements such as views and delusions. Thus Chapter 20 of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas know that these three thoughts possess various afflictions, are the enemies of the three vehicles, cause the three vehicles not to see the Buddha-nature, and are constantly rebuked by all Buddhas and bodhisattvas." Since the scriptural text states that they cause sentient beings not to see the Buddha-nature, the three thoughts can thus be matched with the three delusions. The threefold contemplation contemplating the three truths is like clothing covering the body; the body is also threefold. From "Furthermore, generating views" onward: specifically based on the three truths. On each and every truth, that which antidotes and that which is antidoted, that which adorns and that which is adorned, are established respectively. The first contemplation is extensive, and the remaining two are abbreviated, which can also be inferred accordingly. Thus we know that upon each and every truth there are views and craving. In the two adornments of merit and wisdom, calming belongs to merit and contemplation belongs to wisdom. As for the contemplation of the hundred-and-one items: extra clothing supports the body and generally has the sense of being an auxiliary; therefore, on each of the three truths, auxiliaries are needed. Passing through all practices is also like this; not only is the primary practice unmoving, but the auxiliary practices are also nothing other than extinction. This is fully explained in the section on aiding the Path concerning the characteristics of the joint practice of the primary and auxiliary. For the highest capacity, it is based solely on the one principle; for the intermediate capacity, the meaning is opened into the shared and the distinctive; for the lowest capacity, the meaning establishes aiding the Path. Therefore, based on the one principle, shared and distinctive, primary and auxiliary together complete a single meaning.