止觀輔行傳弘決 5.12

5.12

益不益者，問：何故善惡俱論損益？答：以隨宿習諸境輕重，及現觀力純雜不同，是故各有損益差別。於中應須先判善惡、次辨損益。如陰入境，體是無記，不論善惡。因觀無記發於善惡，用觀不同則有損益。若煩惱慢病通皆是惡，禪及後二通皆是善。業魔見境通善不善，如業中六度為善、六蔽為惡，魔現惡相及令墮惡即是惡攝，若現善相及令墮善并二乘等即是善也。見中外外以惡為本，亦能起善。附佛法起以善為本，亦有於惡。次明損益者，照即是觀，靜即是止，雖具善惡，然由觀力，若觀善惡如眾流入海、風益求羅，則一向為益；隨境而轉妨修止觀，則一向為損。故卷初云「隨之牽人向惡道」等。雖損止觀，復宜以觀照其昏障，或宜以止寂其散障，故前文云「以觀觀昏、以止止散」等。此則諸境損復名益，障而非障即此意也。若諸境起不復修觀，但倚此境以為自得，此則益復名損。例之可知。後之二境雖有損義，觀道易正。互損互益及俱損益，例此可知。難易中亦言善惡者，如損益中說，但須更辨難易相耳。「莫謬去取」者，即初文云「不可隨、不可畏」也。「皆以止觀研之」者，即初文云「以觀觀昏」等也，乃至十法出沒研覈。次明三障中云「二乘等是業障」者，有出世業且屬業攝，又思力勝故亦得名業，又二乘亦是無漏業成。菩薩境者，三人不同，三藏有漏；通初二地同於三藏，三地已上同於學人，八地已上同無學人，成漏無漏業；別教住行望通教說，十向非漏非無漏業，登地證同不名為境。分別雖爾，若據為障並在初心，義通於後故此分別。若爾，前五是有漏，應是有漏業，亦是業障攝。答：通論十境者，無不具三障，今且隨名便及隨增勝說。若以餘境望自，名為報陰及以煩惱等，是故今別以二乘及菩薩名為業障攝。又此無漏等並據宿因，若先已證則應出界，那更於今方復論發？況復望圓名之為障，故云不至五品六根。

Regarding beneficial and unbeneficial: Question: Why are harm and benefit discussed for both good and evil? Answer: Because they correspond to the lightness or heaviness of the various objects from past habituation, as well as the differences in purity and mixture of the present contemplative power; therefore each has distinctions of harm and benefit. Therein, one must first determine good and evil, and next discern harm and benefit. As for the object of the aggregates and sense-fields, its essence is indeterminate, neither good nor evil. Through contemplating the indeterminate, good and evil are manifested; differences in applying contemplation result in harm or benefit. Afflictions, pride, and illness are all entirely evil; dhyāna and the latter two are all entirely good. Karma, demons, and views encompass both the good and the non-good. For example, in karma, the six pāramitās are good, and the six hindrances are evil. When demons display evil aspects and cause one to fall into evil, this is subsumed under evil; if they display good aspects and cause one to fall into good or into the two vehicles and so forth, this is good. In views, external [views] take evil as their root, but can also give rise to good. Those arising in attachment to the Buddha-dharma take good as their root, but also contain evil. Next, clarifying harm and benefit: illuminating is contemplation, and quieting is calming. Although both good and evil are present, yet through the power of contemplation, if one contemplates good and evil as the many streams entering the ocean or the wind aiding a garuḍa, then it is wholly beneficial; if one turns in pursuit of the object and hinders the practice of calming and contemplation, then it is wholly harmful. Therefore the beginning of the fascicle states: 'Pursuing it pulls a person toward the evil destinies', and so forth. Although it harms calming and contemplation, one should further use contemplation to illuminate its dulling obstacles, or use calming to quiet its distracting obstacles; hence the earlier text states: 'Use contemplation to contemplate dullness, use calming to calm distraction', and so forth. In this case, harm from the objects is again called benefit, and an obstacle is not an obstacle—this is precisely the meaning. If when the objects arise one no longer cultivates contemplation, but merely leans on these objects, considering oneself to have attained [the goal], then benefit is again called harm. The rest can be known by analogy. Although the latter two objects have the sense of harm, their contemplative path is easily rectified. Mutual harm and mutual benefit, as well as both harm and benefit, can be known by analogy to this. The mention of good and evil under difficulty and ease is as explained under harm and benefit; one need only further discern the characteristics of difficulty and ease. 'Do not mistakenly reject or adopt' corresponds to the initial statement: 'Do not follow, do not fear.' 'Examine all of them with calming and contemplation' corresponds to the initial statement: 'Use contemplation to contemplate dullness', and so forth, through to examining and investigating the appearance and disappearance of the ten methods. Next, in clarifying the three obstacles, the statement 'the two vehicles and so forth are karmic obstacles' means: having mundane and supramundane karma, it is provisionally subsumed under karma; moreover, because the power of intention is predominant, it can also be named karma; furthermore, the two vehicles are also accomplished through undefiled karma. As for the bodhisattva object: the three persons are not the same; in the Tripiṭaka [teaching], it is defiled; in the shared [teaching], the first two stages are the same as the Tripiṭaka, the third stage and above are the same as those in training, and the eighth stage and above are the same as those beyond training, accomplishing defiled and undefiled karma; in the distinctive teaching, the [ten] abodes and [ten] practices are spoken of in relation to the shared teaching, the ten directions are neither defiled nor undefiled karma, and upon ascending the stages the realization is identical [to the fruit] and is not called an object. Although the distinctions are thus, if taken as obstacles, they are all in the initial mind; since the meaning extends to the later, this distinction is made here. If so, the first five are defiled, so they should be defiled karma and also subsumed under karmic obstacles. Answer: Generally speaking of the ten objects, none lacks the three obstacles; here they are explained according to convenience of nomenclature and relative predominance. If the other objects are viewed from oneself, they are called retributive aggregates and afflictions, etc.; therefore now the two vehicles and bodhisattva are specifically named as subsumed under karmic obstacles. Furthermore, these undefiled [dharmas] and so forth are all based on past causes; if one had already realized them previously, one would have transcended the realms; why would there now be further discussion of their manifestation? How much more so, viewed from the perfect [teaching], they are called obstacles; hence it says they do not reach the five grades and the six sense faculties.