止觀輔行傳弘決 5.56.1

5.56.1

次正明破法遍中，初列三章，一一章門皆云「從始至終盡其源底」者，標中探說章中之意。 盡源故橫周，盡底故竪窮。 竪破灼然有始有終，於一一見一一品思無非法界故也； 橫門一一亦各復有從始至終； 不二門中不無橫竪，如是皆悉橫竪不二。 若欲且從三章各說者，三惑各遍名為橫周，通至實相名為深窮。 一一惑智理非橫竪，橫中一一亦復如是。 又橫攝一切名為橫周，一一至極名為竪深。 不二門中具攝諸橫名為橫周，無不圓極故云竪深。 雖有三文，但成二義，謂次、不次，橫竪但成次第故也。 雖有二義共成一心，當知竪中具足有橫及以不二，餘二類之，故云「竪則論高乃至無竪而不廣」也。 《法華》大車意亦如是，當知秖是高廣大車，故知橫竪但論相入，不得不二，未免縱橫。 雖橫竪皆遍，須識不二，故次釋云「非橫非竪」。 隨文見者，奈何迷深。 故一家釋義，前總、次別、後還結撮歸於元意。 意雖若是為顯不二，還依章門橫竪解釋，則於一中橫竪甄分、淺深不亂。 「一無生門」下，先列竪章。 亦先列竟、次「如此」下述竪章意。 此文分明寄三顯一，如何棄此漫指偏文？ 「大論」下，引論證於寄三顯一意也。 是故此中文三義三，意在度入歸於不二一心中破。 故知下文句句之中皆有一文一義一意，不煩文故且立六處。 「華嚴」下，重引《華嚴》意以顯今文。 彼經二根而分兩意者，此亦先次、後論不次，故似於彼。 彼說次者，意亦為成圓頓不次，與今似同。 若論今文，約觀但是借別顯總，全非別教，意復成異； 「法華唯一」則開鈍成利，人無不開、法亦無二，正當今意。 「今欲」下，顯文元意。 諸教既爾，今亦依之。 故示讀者，預於文前遙點六處結撮要意：一破見位後、二破思位後、三四門料簡中、四出假利益位、五結破法遍文後、六修中觀文初。 頻此六文，殷懃指的顯露彰灼，讀者尚昏，儻沈密隱映，如何取解？ 故逆提綱領至文重示。 此仍不論標章指意等，直指文內有此六重。 初釋從見假入空中，先明從解得名，次釋當體受稱。 初文中且通釋云「見惑」等者，明見所從而生，及以能障功能。 「如焰」下，舉譬。 焰夢者，見惑也。 空覺者，真體也。 「此惑」下，合。 「然見則見理」下，釋從解得名。 「見惑」下，列釋。 單四見中，亦先列四見。 「於一」下，先明有見中利鈍十使。 初利中「謂有於我」者，外人計我，或如麻豆及母指等，或計遍身神身四句及一異等。 計我不忘名為「我見」，計我斷常名為「邊見」。 由計斷常不信因果，復計此我以為自然、冥初、世性，世性即是二十五諦及六諦等。 或計從於父母微塵梵天等生，皆名「邪見」。 執邪為道名非因計因，名「戒取」見。 謂因此見通至非想，信此非餘，名為「見取」。 「是己法者愛」下，明因見惑起於鈍使。 「如是」下，歷三界四諦結八十八使，如文可見。 三界合有五十二鈍、三十六利。 鈍五十二者，謂欲界二十，四諦各五。 上界無瞋，但一十六，上二界合成三十二。 并欲二十，合五十二。 利三十六者，三界各十二故也。 如欲界中，苦下具五，道下有三除身邊，集滅各二除身、邊、戒取，合十二也。 上二界亦然。 三十六及五十二，合八十八。 問：四諦下惑，依何理教，減不同耶？ 答：依《阿毘曇》上界不行恚。 問：何故身邊唯在苦耶？ 答：此見依身故名身見，依於身見而起邊見。 餘三非身，故無此見。 又見苦斷故，故在苦下。 問：戒取何故唯在苦道？ 答：唯彼所起。 問：戒取計因，苦諦是果，何故在苦？ 答：計多苦行望為實因，故在苦下。 非出道故妄謂出道，是故復於道處能起。 集滅異此，故無身見，無身見故亦無邊見。 集滅非道，不生戒取。 又復戒取在於苦道二諦下者，本是內道見苦能斷，本外道者見道能斷，故唯在二。

Next, in directly clarifying universal refutation of phenomena: First, three chapters are listed. The statement in each chapter heading, "from beginning to end, exhausting its source and bottom," pre-states within the heading the meaning of the chapter. Because it exhausts the source, it is horizontally pervasive; because it exhausts the bottom, it is vertically deep. Vertical refutation clearly has a beginning and an end, because in each view and each grade of thought [affliction], there is nothing that is not the dharma-dhātu. Within horizontal gates, each likewise has [its progression] from beginning to end. In the gate of non-duality, horizontal and vertical are not absent; thus, all are mutually non-dual, both horizontal and vertical. If one wishes provisionally to speak in terms of the three chapters separately: the three afflictions, being each pervasive, are called "horizontally pervasive"; penetrating through to the true mark is called "deeply exhaustive." In each affliction and wisdom, the principle is neither horizontal nor vertical, and within the horizontal each is also like this. Furthermore, horizontally encompassing all is called "horizontally pervasive"; each reaching the ultimate is called "vertically deep." In the gate of non-duality, fully encompassing all horizontals is called "horizontally pervasive"; because there is nothing that is not completely and perfectly ultimate, it is called "vertically deep." Although there are three passages of text, they constitute only two meanings—namely, gradual and non-gradual—because horizontal and vertical merely constitute the gradual sequence. Although there are two meanings, together they form a single mind. One should know that within the vertical, the horizontal and non-duality are fully present; the remaining two are to be inferred accordingly. Hence it says, "Vertically, it discusses height [...] down to there being no vertical that is not broad." The intention of the great carriage in the Lotus [Sūtra] is also like this: one should know that it is simply the high and broad great carriage. Hence we know that horizontal and vertical merely discuss mutual inclusion; without non-duality, one cannot avoid vertical and horizontal [dispersion]. Although both horizontal and vertical are pervasive, one must recognise non-duality; therefore it is next explained as "neither horizontal nor vertical." Those who only see according to the literal text—alas, how they are confused by the depth! Therefore, in our school's interpretation of meaning, first comes the general, next the specific, and finally it is summarised and returned to the original intention. Although the intention is such as to reveal non-duality, by still following the chapter headings to explain horizontal and vertical, within the single [mind] horizontal and vertical are distinguished, and shallow and deep are not disordered. Under "First, the gate of non-arising," the vertical chapter is first listed. Having first listed it, next, under "Like this," it expounds the intention of the vertical chapter. This passage clearly lodges in the three to reveal the one; how could one discard this and vaguely point to one-sided texts? Under "The Dazhidulun," it cites the treatise to verify the intention of lodging in the three to reveal the one. Therefore, in this text, the passages are three and the meanings are three, but the intention lies in guiding one into and returning to refutation within the non-dual single mind. Hence one knows that in the text below, within every phrase there is a text, a meaning, and an intention; to avoid cluttering the text, six places are provisionally established. Under "The Avataṃsaka," it re-cites the intention of the Avataṃsaka to illuminate the present text. In that sūtra, two faculties are divided into two intentions; here too, it first treats the gradual and later discusses the non-gradual, so it resembles that [sūtra]. When that [sūtra] speaks of the gradual, its intention is also to establish the perfect and sudden non-gradual, resembling the present [text]. If one discusses the present text, in terms of contemplation it merely borrows the distinctive to reveal the general, being entirely not the distinctive teaching; thus the intention again becomes different. "In the Lotus [Sūtra] there is only one": this opens the dull into the sharp; there is no person who is not opened, and phenomena are also non-dual, directly matching the present intention. Under "Now wishing to," the original intention of the text is revealed. Since the various teachings are like this, the present [text] also relies upon it. Therefore, to instruct the reader, in advance of the text it points distantly to six places to summarise the essential intention: first, after the stage of refuting views; second, after the stage of refuting thought [afflictions]; third, within the analysis of the four gates; fourth, at the stage of the benefit of emerging into the provisional; fifth, after the text on concluding the universal refutation of phenomena; and sixth, at the beginning of the text on cultivating the middle contemplation. These six passages occur repeatedly, earnestly and specifically indicating, revealing, and making manifest [the intention]; yet readers are still benighted. Were it obscure, deep, hidden, and screened, how could they gain understanding? Therefore, it anticipates and raises the main guidelines, re-presenting them when arriving at the text. This is still without discussing the marking of chapters and pointing out of intentions; it directly indicates that within the text there are these six layers. In the initial explanation of entering emptiness from the provisionality of views, it first clarifies deriving its name from understanding, and next explains receiving its title from its intrinsic nature. In the initial passage, it provisionally explains in general terms "view afflictions," etc., clarifying that from which views arise and their capacity to obstruct. Under "Like a mirage," it gives an analogy. The mirage and dream are the view afflictions; the empty sky and awakening are the true essence. Under "These afflictions," it applies the analogy. Under "Yet viewing means viewing the principle," it explains deriving its name from understanding. Under "View afflictions," it lists and explains them. Among the simple four views, it also first lists the four views. Under "Regarding one," it first clarifies the ten sharp and dull entanglements within the view of existence. First, among the sharp, "positing that there is a self" means that non-Buddhists posit a self, either like a sesame seed, a bean, or a thumb, or positing it as all-pervading the body, the four propositions of soul and body, or identical and different. Positing a self without forgetting it is called "view of self"; positing that the self is annihilated or eternal is called "extreme view." Due to positing annihilation or eternity, they do not believe in cause and effect, and further posit this self as natural, primordial darkness, or world-nature; world-nature refers to the twenty-five truths and six truths, etc. Or they posit that it arises from parents, atoms, Brahmā, and so forth: all are called "wrong views." Grasping the wrong as the path is called positing a cause where there is no cause, named the view of "attachment to precepts." Positing that through this view one penetrates to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, believing this and not anything else, is called "attachment to views." Under "Attachment to one's own doctrines," it clarifies that due to view afflictions, dull entanglements arise. Under "Like this," it goes through the three realms and the four noble truths to conclude with the eighty-eight entanglements, as can be seen in the text. In the three realms together there are fifty-two dull and thirty-six sharp [entanglements]. As for the fifty-two dull ones: in the desire realm there are twenty, five under each of the four truths. In the higher realms there is no hatred, so there are only sixteen; the two higher realms together make thirty-two. Combined with the twenty of the desire realm, this makes fifty-two in total. As for the thirty-six sharp ones: this is because there are twelve in each of the three realms. For instance, in the desire realm, under suffering all five are present; under the path there are three, excluding identity and extremes; under arising and cessation there are two each, excluding identity, extremes, and attachment to precepts—making twelve in total. The two higher realms are also like this. Thirty-six and fifty-two make eighty-eight in total. Question: Under which principle and teaching do the afflictions under the four truths decrease differently? Answer: According to the Abhidharma, ill-will does not operate in the higher realms. Question: Why are the views of identity and extremes located only under suffering? Answer: This view relies on the body, hence it is called the view of identity; relying on the view of identity, the extreme view arises. The other three [truths] are not the body, so these views do not exist there. Furthermore, because they are severed upon seeing suffering, they are placed under suffering. Question: Why is attachment to precepts located only under suffering and the path? Answer: It arises only from those. Question: Attachment to precepts posits a cause, while the truth of suffering is a fruit; why is it under suffering? Answer: They posit many ascetic practices, regarding them as the real cause, so it is placed under suffering. That which is not the path of departure is falsely considered the path of departure, so it can also arise in relation to the path. Arising and cessation are different from this, so they have no view of identity; having no view of identity, they also have no extreme view. Arising and cessation are not the path, so attachment to precepts does not arise. Furthermore, the reason attachment to precepts is under the two truths of suffering and the path is that those originally within the Buddhist path can sever it upon seeing suffering, while those who were originally non-Buddhists can sever it upon seeing the path; hence it is located only in these two.