止觀輔行傳弘決 5.32

5.32

「天親」下，重申二論本意。先明失。論主逗機各演一門，論師各執偏弘成諍，致使後學情見不同。「矢石」者，如箭矢射石，義非相入。以各計故不入圓理，如彼矢石。次「若得」下，明得。若約二論論主元意，及得今文悉檀之意，四俱可說。據理，俱不可說；雖不可說，如前一十六番，並是隨宜而說。「若隨」下，教門大體。逗物雖用適時之變，佛出世意教門大體皆是因緣和合乃生諸法，是則若自、若他、若無因等皆屬於共，故今復依大體而說，故云「無明法法性」。無明是暗法，來法於法性。如丹是藥法，來法於銅等，因緣和合有成金用。是則無明為緣、法性為因，明暗和合能生諸法。自行猶觀染因緣生，化他則以淨因緣生，自他相對則以染淨和合因緣而生。又自行染有內有外，內謂無明、外謂他境，以內具故他境能熏，故觀所熏唯見理具。若觀理具，則識真如常熏內具。諸論教道不見此實，雖內外熏以立種義，不了新熏本有之意。是故種子但同冥初，故是教道非真實說。今觀此等染淨雖殊、即理無別，秖約此因緣而推多種自他共等，其理不殊。故知凡推四句之法，皆推諸法已和合性。所以推一至理染淨緣起，因邊緣邊各不能生，二不生合故無生理。和合尚無，離二焉有，不有而有，三諦宛然。「一性」下，釋和合性。「一性雖少而不無」者，為緣成法生一切故。「無明雖多而不有」者，推此性故一法亦無。不少不多，妙理斯在。「何者」下，重釋上句。指法性為無明則「多非多」，指無明為法性則「一非少」。「故名」下，結化他妙境。

From "Vasubandhu" below, this restates the original intent of the two treatises. First, it clarifies the error. The treatise masters, accommodating capacities, each expounded one gate; treatise teachers, each clinging to a one-sided propagation, formed disputes, causing later students to hold differing subjective views. "Arrows and stone" is like arrows shot at stone: their meanings do not penetrate each other. Because each made a distinct calculation, they did not enter the perfect principle, just like those arrows and stone. Next, from "If one grasps" below, it clarifies the correct understanding. If considered according to the original intent of the masters of the two treatises, and if one grasps the intent of the siddhāntas in the present text, all four can be spoken. According to principle, none can be spoken; although they cannot be spoken, as in the previous sixteen rounds, all are spoken according to what is suitable. From "If according to" below, this is the general framework of the teaching. Although accommodating beings employs adaptations appropriate to the time, the general framework of the teaching representing the Buddha's purpose in appearing in the world is that all phenomena arise only through the combination of causes and conditions. Thus, whether self, other, or without cause, all belong to "both". Therefore, it is now spoken again according to the general framework, hence stating: "Ignorance patterns dharma-nature." Ignorance is a dark phenomenon, coming to pattern dharma-nature. Just as cinnabar is a medicinal substance, coming to pattern copper and the like, through the combination of causes and conditions it has the function of becoming gold. Thus, ignorance is the condition and dharma-nature is the cause; the combination of light and darkness is able to produce all phenomena. Self-practice still contemplates arising from defiled causes and conditions; converting others employs arising from pure causes and conditions; contrasting self and other, they arise through the causes and conditions of the combination of defilement and purity. Furthermore, the defilement of self-practice has internal and external aspects: the internal is ignorance, and the external is the other object. Because it is internally endowed, the external object can perfume it; therefore, contemplating what is perfumed, one sees only what is endowed in principle. If one contemplates what is endowed in principle, one realizes that true suchness constantly perfumes what is internally endowed. The teaching methods of the various treatises do not see this reality; although they establish the meaning of seeds through internal and external perfuming, they do not understand the meaning of newly perfumed being inherently existing. Therefore, their seeds are merely identical to the primal darkness; thus it is a teaching method, not the true exposition. Now, contemplating that although these defilements and purities differ, in identity with principle they are not distinct: merely based on these causes and conditions, one examines multiple varieties of self, other, both, and so on, and their principle does not differ. Therefore, one should know that whenever one examines the phenomena of the four propositions, one always examines the already combined nature of all phenomena. For this reason, in examining the conditioned arising of defilement and purity of the single ultimate principle, neither the cause side nor the condition side can produce on its own, and since two non-producers combine, there is no principle of arising. If combination does not exist, how could transcendence of both exist? Yet, non-existent and yet existing, the three truths are vividly present. From "The one nature" below, this explains the combined nature. "Although the one nature is few, it is not non-existent" means that by acting as conditions to form dharmas, it produces everything. "Although ignorance is manifold, it is not existent" means that examining this nature, not even a single phenomenon exists. Neither few nor manifold, the wondrous principle resides here. From "Why is this so?" below, it re-explains the preceding line. Pointing to dharma-nature as ignorance, "the manifold is not manifold"; pointing to ignorance as dharma-nature, "the one is not few". From "Therefore it is called" below, it concludes the wondrous object of converting others.