止觀輔行傳弘決 5.28

5.28

○「夫一心」下，結成理境。如前所釋本在一心，圓融三諦既已開釋，恐人生迷，故重結之令入一念。當知身土一念三千，故成道時稱此本理，一身一念遍於法界。言「無心而已」者，顯心不無。言「介爾」者，謂剎那心。無間相續未曾斷絕，纔一剎那三千具足。準八相喻，思之可知。若具三千即具三德，故《金光明》第一云「依於法身，初發心時顯現不退心、金剛心、如來心。」不退即解脫心也，金剛即般若心也，如來即法身心也，故知因心果體具足。「又介爾者」，介者弱也。《詩》云「介爾景福」，謂細念也。但異無心，三千具足。故大師於覺意三昧、觀心食法，及誦經法、小止觀等諸心觀文，但以自他等觀推於三假，並未云一念三千具足。乃至《觀心論》中亦秖以三十六問責於四心，亦不涉於一念三千。唯《四念處》中略云觀心十界而已。故至《止觀》正明觀法，並以三千而為指南，乃是終窮究竟極說。故序中云「說己心中所行法門」，良有以也。請尋讀者心無異緣。問：此三千為初心觀？後心亦觀？答：初後不二。問：凡夫心中具有諸佛菩薩等性，容可俱觀；中心後心界如漸減，乃至成佛唯一佛界，如何後心猶具三千？答：一家圓義言法界者，須云十界即空假中、初後不二，方異諸教。若見《觀音玄》文意者，則事理、凡聖、自他、始終、修性等意，一切可見。彼文料簡緣了中云「如來不斷性惡，闡提不斷性善」，點此一意眾滯自銷。以不斷性善故，緣因本有。彼文云「了是顯了智慧莊嚴、緣是資助福德莊嚴，由二為因，佛具二果。元此因果本是性德，性德緣了本自有之。」今三千即空，性了因也；三千即假，性緣因也；三千即中，性正因也。是故他解唯知闡提不斷正因，不知不斷性德緣了。故知善惡不出三千。彼「又問云：既有性德善，亦有性德惡不？答：具有。問：闡提與佛斷何等善惡？答：闡提斷修善，但有性善在。如來斷修惡，但有性惡在。問：性德善惡何以不斷？答：性德但是善惡法門，故不可斷，一切世間無能毀者。如魔燒經卷，豈能令於性法門盡？縱燒惡譜，亦不能令惡法門盡。問：闡提不斷性善故，後時還起善；如來不斷性惡故，應當後時還起惡？答：闡提不達性惡故，後時還起於修惡；不了於性善故，後時還為修善染，是故修善還得起。即以修善治修惡，則令修惡不得起。佛雖不斷於性惡，而能了達於性惡，而於惡法得自在，不為修惡之所染，是故修惡不得起。故佛永無於修惡，自在用於惡法門。闡提若能達修惡，則與如來無差別。故知於善於惡，善達修性，於修照性、以性了修。能知此者，方可與論性德三因、生死涅槃、煩惱菩提、十二因緣即是三德，如是無量理無不通。」彼文「又問：闡提斷善盡，為黎耶所持。一切諸種子，為內外所熏，更能起善者。此識既無記，與真如何別？又此種子住在何處而不早熏？故知權說非為了義。若有說言佛起神通現惡化物，此作意通，同彼外道及二乘通，不同明鏡任運現像。若《大經》三十二云『或有佛性，闡提人有、善根人無。』古師謂是惡境界性。『或有佛性，善根人有、闡提人無。』古師謂為緣因性也。『復有佛性，二人俱有。』古師謂為正因性也。『復有佛性，二人俱無。』古師謂為了因性也。如此釋者，亦別教意，不了義說。若了義者，應云闡提善人俱有性德，而闡提無修善、善根人有，闡提有修惡、善根人無。二人俱無，無不退性，未入似位故也。」舉例云「如八相遷物」者，相為能遷、物為所遷。《俱舍》頌云「此謂生生等，於八一有能，謂本四相及隨四相名之為八。大相名本，小相名隨。以此八故，令一切法成有為相。言生生者，所謂小生生大生等。等謂等於餘之三相，謂小住住大住、小異異大異、小滅滅大滅。於八一有能者，通無窮難。所謂小相於一有能，能相大相。大相於八有能，謂一大相起時必與三大相及四小相俱起，并一本法故云於八。餘三大相各亦如是。故此八相望於本法不前不後。」心具三千亦復如是，三千如八相，一心如本法。「今心」下，合譬。一念尚無，誰論橫竪？當知一念心中此三千法實非橫竪。「非識」是不思，「非言」是不議。故《大經》三十三云「佛性者，不名一法、不名十法、不名百法、不名千法、不名萬法。未得菩提時，一切善惡無記皆名佛性。」經文既云非一乃至非萬，復云善惡無記即是佛性，善惡無記即三千也。故知三千非三千，具足三佛性也。下文結成三諦等義，並依理境。若無理境，約誰論諦？問：此不思議還秖次第以釋十界，與思議何別？答：其實無別。思議乃作從心生說，不思議作一心具說。以生顯具，何須更問。

From "Now a single mind..." onward, [the text] concludes by establishing the object as principle. What was explained before is fundamentally rooted in a single mind. Since the perfectly integrated three truths have already been revealed and explained, lest people fall into confusion, [the author] concludes again to bring them into a single thought-moment. One should know that body and land are the three thousand in a single thought-moment; therefore, when attaining the Way, in accord with this fundamental principle, a single body and a single thought pervade the dharma-dhātu. The statement "[it is] merely not being devoid of mind" indicates that the mind is not nonexistent. The term "slightest" (jie'er) refers to a kṣaṇa mind: continuing without gap, never interrupted; in merely a single kṣaṇa, the three thousand are complete. Analogous to the eight-characteristics metaphor, by pondering it one can understand this. If it possesses the three thousand, it possesses the three virtues. Thus the first fascicle of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa states: "Relying on the dharma-body, when first arousing the mind [for awakening], the non-retrogressing mind, the vajra mind, and the Tathāgata mind are manifested." The non-retrogressing [mind] is the mind of liberation; the vajra [mind] is the mind of prajñā; and the Tathāgata [mind] is the mind of the dharma-body. Hence we know that the causal mind fully possesses the fruitional substance. "Again, as for 'the slightest' (jie'er)": jie means weak. The Book of Odes says: "Assisting (jie) your vast fortune" (jie'er jingfu); this refers to a subtle thought. As long as it is distinguished from non-mind, the three thousand are complete. Therefore, in the Great Master's texts on mind contemplation—such as the Samādhi of Awoken Awareness, the Method for Contemplating the Mind during Eating, the Method for Reciting the Sūtras, and the Xiao zhiguan—he only investigated the three provisionalities by means of contemplating self and other, and nowhere stated that a single thought possesses the three thousand. Even in the Guanxin lun, he merely reproached the four [types of] mind with thirty-six questions, without touching upon the three thousand in a single thought. Only in the Four Stations of Mindfulness did he briefly mention contemplating the ten realms in the mind. Thus, arriving at the Zhiguan to directly clarify the contemplation method, he uniformly took the three thousand as the guiding compass—this is the ultimate, exhaustive, and consummate teaching. Therefore the preface says, "preaching the dharma-gate practiced in his own mind"; indeed there is good reason for this. Let the inquiring reader have no distracted mind! Question: Is this [contemplation of] the three thousand for the initial mind's contemplation, or is it also contemplated by the subsequent mind? Answer: The initial and subsequent are not two. Question: In the ordinary person's mind the natures of all buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth are fully present, so they may well be contemplated together. In the intermediate and subsequent minds, the realms and suchnesses gradually decrease, until, upon attaining buddhahood, there is only the single realm of the Buddha. How, then, does the subsequent mind still possess the three thousand? Answer: In our lineage's perfect doctrine, when speaking of the dharma-dhātu, one must state that the ten realms are identical to emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, and that the initial and subsequent are not two; only then does it differ from other teachings. If one grasps the textual meaning of the Guanyin xuan[yi], then the meanings of phenomena and principle, ordinary and holy, self and other, beginning and end, cultivation and nature, and so forth, can all be seen. In its analysis of the conditioning and revealing [causes], it says: "The Tathāgata does not cut off inherent evil; the icchantika does not cut off inherent good." Pointing to this single principle, all blockages naturally dissolve. Because inherent good is not cut off, the conditioning cause is originally present. That text says: "The revealing [cause] is the adornment of manifest wisdom; the conditioning [cause] is the adornment of assisting merit. Due to these two as causes, the Buddha possesses the two fruits. Originally these causes and fruits are inherently present virtues; the inherent virtues of conditioning and revealing are inherently possessed." Now, the three thousand are identical to emptiness—this is the revealing inherent cause; the three thousand are identical to provisionality—this is the conditioning inherent cause; the three thousand are identical to the middle—this is the primary inherent cause. Therefore, other interpretations only know that the icchantika does not cut off the primary cause, but do not know that they do not cut off the conditioning and revealing of inherent virtue. Hence we know that good and evil do not go beyond the three thousand. That text further asks: "Since there is inherently virtuous good, is there also inherently virtuous evil?" Answer: "It fully possesses it." Question: "What kinds of good and evil are cut off by the icchantika and the Buddha?" Answer: "The icchantika cuts off cultivated good, but inherent good remains. The Tathāgata cuts off cultivated evil, but inherent evil remains." Question: "Why are inherent good and evil not cut off?" Answer: "Inherent virtues are merely dharma-gates of good and evil, so they cannot be cut off; nothing in all the worlds can destroy them. Just as when Māra burns scripture scrolls, how could that exhaust the inherent dharma-gates? Even if one burns registers of evil, that also cannot exhaust the dharma-gates of evil." Question: "Because the icchantika does not cut off inherent good, does good arise again later? Because the Tathāgata does not cut off inherent evil, should evil arise again later?" Answer: "Because the icchantika does not penetrate inherent evil, cultivated evil arises again later; because he does not understand inherent good, he is later still defiled by cultivated good, and therefore cultivated good can still arise. Using cultivated good to cure cultivated evil, cultivated evil is prevented from arising. Although the Buddha does not cut off inherent evil, he thoroughly penetrates inherent evil; being master of evil dharmas, he is not defiled by cultivated evil, and therefore cultivated evil cannot arise. Thus the Buddha is forever free from cultivated evil and freely employs the dharma-gates of evil. If an icchantika can penetrate cultivated evil, he is no different from the Tathāgata. Hence we know that regarding good and evil, one must skillfully penetrate cultivation and nature: illuminating nature through cultivation, and understanding cultivation through nature. Only one who knows this can discuss the three inherent causes, birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, afflictions and bodhi, and the twelve links of dependent origination being identical to the three virtues—in this way, there is no limitless principle that is not penetrated." That text further asks: "If the icchantika cuts off good completely, it is held by the ālaya[vijñāna]. All seeds are perfumed by the internal and external, enabling good to arise again. Since this consciousness is morally neutral (avyākṛta), how does it differ from suchness? Moreover, where do these seeds reside such that they are not perfumed earlier? Therefore we know that provisional explanations are not definitive teachings. If someone says that the Buddha arouses supernatural powers to manifest evil in order to transform beings, this is deliberate supernormal power, identical to the powers of non-Buddhists and the two vehicles, and not like a bright mirror spontaneously manifesting reflections. As the thirty-second fascicle of the Great Sūtra [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra] says: 'There is a buddha-nature that icchantikas have and those with good roots do not.' Ancient masters took this to be the nature of evil objects. 'There is a buddha-nature that those with good roots have and icchantikas do not.' Ancient masters took this to be the conditioning-cause nature. 'There is also a buddha-nature that both possess.' Ancient masters took this to be the primary-cause nature. 'There is also a buddha-nature that neither possesses.' Ancient masters took this to be the revealing-cause nature. Such an interpretation is also the perspective of the distinctive teaching, an open/non-definitive explanation. If it were the definitive explanation, one should say: both icchantikas and good persons possess inherent virtue; but the icchantika lacks cultivated good while the person with good roots possesses it, and the icchantika has cultivated evil while the person with good roots lacks it. That neither possesses it means they lack the non-retrogressing nature, because they have not yet entered the stage of semblance [awakening]." In citing the analogy, "as the eight characteristics transform things": the characteristics are that which transforms, and things are that which is transformed. The Kośa verse says: "This refers to production-production and so forth; among the eight, each is capable regarding one." This refers to the four primary characteristics and the four secondary characteristics, termed the eight. The major characteristics are termed primary, and the minor characteristics are termed secondary. By means of these eight, all conditioned phenomena are made to possess conditioned characteristics. "Production-production" refers to minor production producing major production, and so on. "And so on" means it is equivalent to the other three characteristics—namely, minor abiding abiding in major abiding, minor change changing major change, and minor cessation ceasing major cessation. "Among the eight, each is capable regarding one" resolves the objection of infinite regress. That is, a minor characteristic is capable regarding one, being able to characterize a major characteristic. A major characteristic is capable regarding eight: when one major characteristic arises, it must arise together with the other three major characteristics, the four minor characteristics, and the one fundamental dharma; thus it is said to be regarding eight. The other three major characteristics are also each like this. Therefore these eight characteristics, in relation to the fundamental dharma, are neither earlier nor later. The mind's possession of the three thousand is also like this: the three thousand are like the eight characteristics, and the single mind is like the fundamental dharma. From "Now, this mind..." downward is the matching of the analogy. A single thought does not even exist—who could speak of horizontal or vertical? One should know that in the single-thought mind, these three thousand dharmas are truly neither horizontal nor vertical. "Not consciousness" means inconceivable (bu si); "not words" means inexpressible (bu yi). Thus the thirty-third fascicle of the Great Sūtra says: "Buddha-nature is not named one dharma, not named ten dharmas, not named a hundred dharmas, not named a thousand dharmas, not named ten thousand dharmas. Prior to attaining bodhi, all good, evil, and neutral [dharmas] are named buddha-nature." Since the sūtra text says it is not one up to not ten thousand, and also says good, evil, and neutral are identical to buddha-nature, good, evil, and neutral are indeed the three thousand. Thus we know the three thousand are not three thousand, but fully possess the three buddha-natures. The subsequent texts that conclude the meanings of the three truths and so on are all based on the object as principle. If there were no object as principle, in reference to what could one discuss the truths? Question: This inconceivable [object] merely explains the ten realms in sequence; how does it differ from the conceivable? Answer: In reality there is no difference. The conceivable is explained as arising from mind; the inconceivable is explained as possessed by a single mind. To reveal inherent possession through arising—why need one ask further?