止觀輔行傳弘決 4.33

4.33

「呵棄」下，明破蓋入空。且結初果者，且從破利使為名故也。「從初果」下，復約初果為鈍使五蓋之相，為後三果之所破也，例初果蓋相以辨二三果上蓋相。「復次依空」下，明出假上蓋而依空起。言「五種鹽」者，《大論》二十四云「六師不聽食五種鹽。」未審彼土五鹽如何？若此土五鹽，謂顆鹽、綠鹽、赤鹽、白鹽、印鹽，鹽有多類大略五耳。西方準此亦應可見。有阿羅漢為他所問，何名赤鹽？不識所從，而問三藏。三藏云：「鹽是味，赤是色。」未曉小事者，由未有出假智故。既是不了，義當於睡。依中起蓋中云「大樹折枝」等者，《大論》三十云「譬如空澤有樹名奢摩黎，枝觚廣大，眾鳥集宿。一鴿後至住一枝上，枝觚即時為之而折。澤神問言：『鷳鷲皆能任持，何至小鳥便不自勝？』樹神答云：『此鳥從我怨家樹來，食彼尼俱類樹子來棲我上，或當放糞，子墮地者惡樹復生，為害必大。是故懷憂，寧捨一枝，所全者大。』菩薩摩訶薩亦復如是，於諸外道天魔諸使及惡業等無如是畏，而畏二乘。二乘於菩薩摩訶薩邊亦如彼鳥，壞彼大乘心，永滅佛乘心。」論中明三乘共位，以大斥小故對二乘心。今借彼文，亦且依彼云二乘心。若準今文意，應云不喜二邊心，如不宿冤鳥。以不喜故，義當於瞋。「大論云」等者，證地地中皆有無明，有無明故即有五蓋。故《大論》釋《大品》云「經前後文何故處處說破無明三昧耶？答：法愛難斷，故處處說破無明三昧。此即真道法愛，不同似愛。是則初住雖破一品，品品須破。」若暗證家，謂纔知真理即是佛者，不曉教相故也。是故今云菩薩比佛猶有漏失。是則等覺比佛猶有一品漏失，況復下地？「地持云第九」等者，論文以等覺當第九禪，第九禪名離一切見，故知等覺猶修離見，故見義不近，故云唯佛究竟。乃至八萬四千秖是四分，四分秖是五蓋，所以佛地方盡五蓋。「復次」下，約一心棄蓋。前雖三諦，以次第故，非是一心。於中，初文先斥次第，故云「後不關前」。況復分屬三人不同，以凡夫有利鈍，乃至菩薩有俗蓋，故云凡夫時所棄，乃至菩薩時所棄等。「地攝」下，引二論明次第之計。「圓釋」下，引佛化儀以證圓教。然圓頓教本被凡夫，若不擬益凡夫，佛何不自住法性土，以法性身為諸菩薩說此圓頓，何須與諸法身菩薩示於凡身現此三界耶？

"scolding and abandoning" onward, he explains shattering the hindrances to enter emptiness. He provisionally concludes with the first fruit because it is provisionally named after shattering sharp drives. From "from the first fruit" onward, he again takes the first fruit as the marks of the five hindrances of dull drives, which are shattered by the subsequent three fruits; using the hindrance-marks of the first fruit as an analogy, he distinguishes the hindrance-marks in the second and third fruits. From "furthermore, relying on emptiness" onward, he explains the hindrances upon emerging into provisionality, which arise relying on emptiness. As for "five kinds of salt," fascicle 24 of the Dazhidulun says, "The six masters do not allow eating the five kinds of salt." It is not yet clear what the five salts of that land are. If it is the five salts of this land, they refer to granular salt, green salt, red salt, white salt, and stamped salt; there are many types of salt, but roughly five. The Western regions may also be understood in accordance with this. There was an arhat who was asked by another, "What is called red salt?" Not knowing where it came from, he asked the Tripiṭaka [master]. The Tripiṭaka [master] said, "Salt is a taste; red is a colour." That he did not understand small matters was because he did not yet have the wisdom of emerging into provisionality. Since it is lack of comprehension, in meaning it corresponds to sleepiness. In the hindrances arising relying on the middle, where it says "a large tree breaks a branch" and so on, fascicle 30 of the Dazhidulun says, "For example, in an empty marsh there is a tree named Śālmali with vast branches and boughs where many birds roost together. A dove came later and perched on one branch; the branch immediately snapped under it. The marsh spirit asked, 'Pheasants and vultures can all be supported; why could you not even bear a little bird?' The tree spirit replied, 'This bird came from the tree of my enemy, having eaten the fruit of that nyagrodha tree, and came to roost upon me. It might drop dung, and if the seeds fall to the earth, the evil tree will grow again, and the harm will certainly be immense. Therefore, harbouring worry, I would rather surrender one branch, for what is preserved is great.' The bodhisattva-mahāsattva is also like this: toward the non-Buddhists, heavenly māras, various drives, evil karma, and so forth, he has no such fear; but he fears the two vehicles. In relation to the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, the two vehicles are just like that bird: they ruin his Great Vehicle mind and extinguish forever the Buddha-vehicle mind." The treatise explains the shared stages of the three vehicles, using the great to reprimand the small, and thus contrasts it with the mind of the two vehicles. Now, borrowing that text, it also provisionally relies on it to speak of the mind of the two vehicles. If one accords with the intention of the present text, one should speak of not delighting in the mind of the two extremes, like the bird of the enemy not roosting. Because of not delighting, in meaning it corresponds to anger. Where it says "the Dazhidulun says" and so on, it proves that in stage after stage there is ignorance, and because there is ignorance, there are the five hindrances. Therefore, the Dazhidulun's commentary on the Dapin says, "Why does the scripture speak everywhere, before and after, of the samādhi that shatters ignorance? Answer: Attachment to the Dharma is difficult to sever, so it speaks everywhere of the samādhi that shatters ignorance. This is the attachment to the Dharma of the true path, not like illusory attachment. Thus, although the first abide shatters one grade, every grade must be shattered." Those who rely on dark realisation claim that as soon as one knows the true principle one is a Buddha; this is because they do not understand the doctrinal characteristics. Therefore it is now said that bodhisattvas, compared to Buddhas, still have leakages. Thus, equal awakening, compared to a Buddha, still has one grade of leakage, to say nothing of the lower stages. Where it says "the Di chi says the ninth" and so on, the text of the treatise takes equal awakening to correspond to the ninth dhyāna, and the ninth dhyāna is named "leaving all views"; thus we know that equal awakening still cultivates the leaving of views, so the meaning of views is not proximate; thus it says "only the Buddha is ultimate." Even the eighty-four thousand are just four divisions, and the four divisions are just the five hindrances; therefore only at the Buddha-stage are the five hindrances exhausted. From "furthermore" onward, he treats abandoning the hindrances in terms of a single mind. Although previously there were the three truths, because they were sequential, they were not a single mind. Therein, the first text first refutes the sequential, and thus says "the later does not concern the earlier." How much more so when dividing them among three different persons: because ordinary persons have the sharp and dull, up to bodhisattvas who have mundane hindrances, it therefore says "what is abandoned at the time of an ordinary person," up to "what is abandoned at the time of a bodhisattva," and so on. From "Di and She" onward, he cites the two treatises to clarify the sequential view. From "perfect explanation" onward, he cites the Buddha's ritual of conversion to prove the perfect teaching. Indeed, the perfect and sudden teaching is fundamentally meant for ordinary persons. If it were not intended to benefit ordinary persons, why would the Buddha not remain himself in the land of dharma-nature and, with the body of dharma-nature, preach this perfect and sudden [teaching] for the bodhisattvas? Why would he need, together with the dharma-body bodhisattvas, to manifest ordinary bodies and appear in these three realms?