止觀輔行傳弘決 5.64.1

5.64.1

「今當」下，次明竪破者，以竪法責，故云「竪破」。 言竪法者，有淺深故，始自三藏五停、終訖圓教妙覺，此等位發名之為生。 汝若言生，為何等生？ 又此竪破不同次第三諦之竪，次第三諦依諦破惑，前後不同故名為竪。 此中但以竪法往責，責其成見，見故須破，故云竪破。 如前釋假，還約佛法四教明假，假皆須破。 今明破假，還約佛法四教辨位，責其見心。 諸教全無，非見何謂？ 定屬有見，終非位生。 「為是五停」下，三藏位生。 言「苦忍」等者，無漏十六心此居其首，乃至道比第十六也。 「為是乾慧」下，通教位生。 「為是三賢」下，別教位生。 「為是鐵輪」下，圓教位生。 別無信位、圓無五品者，秖是略耳。 言「重慮」者，慮謂思慮。 見道觀真已發無漏，今復重觀，故云重慮。 言「神通」等者，入位菩薩道種智明，遊戲神通淨佛國土。 《大論》九十三「問云：神通所作，何名遊戲？ 答：猶如幻師種種變現。 菩薩亦爾，故名為戲。 復次三三昧中，空名為上，諸餘行法皆名為下。 下如兒戲，故名為戲。 」論第七「又問云：菩薩但當出生三昧，何須遊戲？ 答：菩薩心已出生三昧，欣樂出入，亦名遊戲。 」既不同於結使遊樂，欣樂出入即是出假。 言「誓扶習」者，《大品》云「留餘殘習以誓願力，及扶餘習而生三界利樂有情。 」「若計」下，竪破無生。 初文正約無生以破。 次從「有人」下，難中論師寄非辨異。 初文徵起。 「為是」下，正責也。 於中初約三障以明不生。 見思等三屬煩惱障。 「為行」下，約事理破。 為破三障須約行理，是故次明行窮理滿名為不生。 「世人」下，約三佛破。 於中先破世人誤釋，言不生者即是法佛。 雖甚會理，若唯法佛未是通方。 然此中不生不生，不得作重語讀之，應須間書。 上不生字為上句末，下不生字為下句頭。 「今解」下，正釋，文存四解。 初約事理隱顯釋。 法身本有名之為隱，報應二身破惑方顯，故以三惑併對二身。 破無明盡究竟智滿，故名報身。 塵沙障法門、見思障化道，此惑俱為應身家障，故二惑不生名為應身。 二者對治三惑釋，故將三身以對三惑。 無明障中理，中顯法身現； 見思障空理，空顯報身現； 塵沙障俗理，俗顯能垂化。 三約能治所顯釋，業行位智以為能治，真如實相以為所顯。 復由業行及位智故三煩惱盡，煩惱盡故報應成就，報應成故本有理顯。 此則法身本有、報應修成。 四者別對三因釋，修性皆爾，故用對之。 此之四解義通圓別，意唯在圓，故初三兩解義扶於別，二四兩解義扶於圓，以別助圓共成責義。 又初之三解皆約諸法不生而三佛生，第四一釋約諸法生而三佛生。 「三佛」下約理結。 當知四釋總論諸法不生而三佛生，故總結云「生即無生，無生即生」。 他解不生唯在法佛，尚不見法佛不生即生，況見四重三佛生無生耶？ 然今文意本責無生，解三佛義因破他解，故論相即，故知三佛生則俱生，若也無生悉皆無生，是故須立相即義也。 「若聞阿字」下，引證也。 聞一不生，解一切義，如聞不生即知三佛皆生無生，乃至四解三佛無生，云何秖作法身一解？ 若如今解三佛體遍，不生亦遍。 「將諸」下，結責。 責汝執心並不入此諸不生中，非見是何？ 「有人」下，約中論師被破之義而廣辨非。 初述他人破中論師。 論師轉釋不生不滅，雖作多意而不明破深淺分齊，故被他人約破惑責，但成入空。 言「秖不」者，不者破也、非也。 「中論」下，論師不曉被他破已，便加不字令使會中。 若爾，非向煩惱之生、非向遷滅之滅，似顯中道，何殊見真？ 「此解」下，正破。 初略斥。 今且與其不不生邊，故云「此解扶中」； 責其不周，故云「傷文失義」。 「何者」下，釋也。 先釋失義、次釋傷文。 初言失義者，謂失兼通含別之義。

From "Now we should" below, it next clarifies vertical refutation. Because it challenges them with vertical dharmas, it is called "vertical refutation." What is meant by "vertical dharmas" is that there are shallows and depths, beginning from the five stops [of the mind] of the Tripiṭaka [teaching] and culminating in the wondrous awakening of the perfect teaching; the manifestation of these stages is termed "arising." If you speak of arising, what kind of arising is it? Furthermore, this vertical refutation is not the same as the verticality of the gradual three truths: the gradual three truths rely on the truths to refute afflictions, and because the sequence of before and after is different, it is called "vertical." Here, it simply brings vertical dharmas to challenge them, challenging them on forming views; since it is a view, it must be refuted, hence it is called "vertical refutation." Just as when provisionality was explained earlier, it still clarified provisionality in terms of the four teachings of the Buddha-dharma, and all provisionalities must be refuted; now, in clarifying the refutation of provisionality, it still distinguishes stages in terms of the four teachings of the Buddha-dharma to challenge their viewing mind. Since it is entirely absent in all teachings, what could it be if not a view? It definitely belongs to a view of existence and is by no means the arising of a stage. From "Is it the five stops" below, it is arising in the stages of the Tripiṭaka. What is meant by "forbearance of suffering" and so forth refers to the first among the sixteen minds of the outflow-free, up to the sixteenth, which is the subsequent cognition of the path. From "Is it dry wisdom" below, it is arising in the stages of the shared teaching. From "Is it the three worthies" below, it is arising in the stages of the distinctive teaching. From "Is it the iron wheel" below, it is arising in the stages of the perfect teaching. That the faith stages are missing in the distinctive [teaching] and the five ranks are missing in the perfect [teaching] is merely an abbreviation. What is termed "repeated contemplation" means contemplation through deliberation: in the path of seeing, having contemplated the real and already produced the outflow-free, one now contemplates it again, hence it is called "repeated contemplation." What is termed "supernormal powers" and so forth means that the bodhisattva who has entered the stages has clear cognition of the kinds of paths, playfully disporting in supernormal powers to purify Buddha-lands. Fascicle 93 of the Dazhidulun asks, "Why is that which is performed by supernormal powers called playful disporting? The answer is: It is just like a phantom illusionist producing various transformations. The bodhisattva is also like this, therefore it is called playful disporting. Furthermore, among the three samādhis, emptiness is the highest, while all other practices and dharmas are the lower. What is lower is like child's play, therefore it is called playful disporting." Fascicle 7 of the treatise also asks, "The bodhisattva should only generate samādhis; why is there need for playful disporting? The answer is: The bodhisattva's mind has already generated samādhis, and taking delight in entering and exiting them is also called playful disporting." Since this is not the same as the amusements and pleasures of afflictive fetters, taking delight in entering and exiting is precisely entering provisionality. What is termed "vow to support habit-energy" is as the Dapin says: "Leaving behind remaining habit-energy through the power of vows, and supporting the remaining habit-energy to be born in the three realms to benefit and delight sentient beings." From "If one posits" below, it vertically refutes unarising. The opening passage directly refutes in terms of unarising. Next, from "someone" below, it addresses the masters of the Madhyamaka treatise, pointing out their errors to distinguish differences. The first passage raises the inquiry. From "Is it" below, it directly challenges. Therein, first, it clarifies non-arising in terms of the three obstacles. The three including [the afflictions of] view and thought belong to the obstacle of afflictions. From "Is it that practice" below, it refutes in terms of phenomena and principle: to refute the three obstacles, one must rely on practice and principle, and therefore it next clarifies that the exhaustion of practice and the perfection of principle are called non-arising. From "Worldly people" below, it refutes in terms of the three Buddhas. Therein, it first refutes the erroneous explanation of worldly people who say that non-arising is precisely the Dharma Buddha. Although this accords well with principle, if it were only the Dharma Buddha, it would not be universally applicable. However, this "non-arising non-arising" must not be read as a reduplicated term; there must be a pause between them. The upper "non-arising" is the end of the preceding phrase, and the lower "non-arising" is the head of the following phrase. From "Now explained" below, it directly explains; the text presents four explanations. First, it explains in terms of the latency and manifestation of phenomena and principle: the Dharma body is fundamentally existent and is termed latent; the reward and response bodies only become manifest when afflictions are refuted; therefore, the three afflictions are paired with the two bodies. When ignorance is exhausted and ultimate wisdom is perfected, it is termed the reward body. Afflictions numerous as dust and sand obstruct the Dharma gates, and afflictions of view and thought obstruct the ways of conversion; both of these afflictions are obstacles to the response body; thus, the non-arising of these two afflictions is termed the response body. Second, it explains in terms of the antidotes to the three afflictions, thus matching the three bodies against the three afflictions: ignorance obstructs the middle principle, and when the middle manifests, the Dharma body appears; view and thought obstruct the principle of emptiness, and when emptiness manifests, the reward body appears; dust and sand obstruct the conventional principle, and when the conventional manifests, it can bestow conversion. Third, it explains in terms of that which remedies and that which is revealed: karmic practices and the wisdom of the stages are that which remedies, and true suchness and true mark are that which is revealed. Furthermore, by means of karmic practices and the wisdom of the stages, the three afflictions are exhausted; because the afflictions are exhausted, the reward and response [bodies] are accomplished; because the reward and response [bodies] are accomplished, the fundamentally existent principle manifests. Thus the Dharma body is fundamentally existent, while the reward and response [bodies] are perfected through cultivation. Fourth, it explains in terms of distinct pairings with the three causes: both cultivation and nature are like this, hence they are used in pairing. These four explanations have meanings applicable to both the perfect and the distinctive [teachings], but the intention lies solely in the perfect; hence, the first and third explanations support the distinctive in meaning, while the second and fourth explanations support the perfect in meaning, using the distinctive to assist the perfect so that together they accomplish the challenge. Furthermore, the first three explanations are all based on all dharmas not arising while the three Buddhas arise; the fourth explanation is based on all dharmas arising while the three Buddhas arise. From "Three Buddhas" below, it concludes in terms of principle. One should know that the four explanations comprehensively discuss that all dharmas do not arise while the three Buddhas arise; hence it concludes generally: "arising is unarising, unarising is arising." Other explanations confine non-arising solely to the Dharma Buddha, failing even to see that the Dharma Buddha's non-arising is arising; how much less could they see the arising and unarising of the fourfold three Buddhas? However, the intention of the present text is fundamentally to challenge unarising; explaining the meaning of the three Buddhas is done in the course of refuting other explanations, and hence identity is discussed. Therefore, one knows that if the three Buddhas arise, all arise; if there is unarising, all are unarising; for this reason, the meaning of identity must be established. From "If one hears the syllable A" below, it cites testimony. Hearing the single [syllable meaning] unarising, one understands all meanings: just as hearing unarising, one immediately knows that the three Buddhas both arise and are unarising, up to the four explanations of the three Buddhas' unarising; why make only the single explanation of the Dharma body? If it is as explained now, the essence of the three Buddhas is all-pervading, and unarising is also all-pervading. From "Taking the various" below, it concludes with a challenge. It challenges: Your adhering mind does not enter into any of these unarisings; what is it if not a view? From "Someone" below, it broadly distinguishes errors in terms of the meaning by which the masters of the Madhyamaka treatise are refuted. First, it recounts how another person refuted the masters of the Madhyamaka treatise. The treatise masters further interpreted "neither arising nor ceasing"; although they devised multiple senses, they did not clarify the depth and degree of the refutation, and thus they were challenged by the other person in terms of refuting afflictions, which merely amounted to entering emptiness. What is meant by "merely not" is that "not" means refuting or negating. From "The Madhyamaka treatise" below, because the treatise masters did not understand after being refuted by the other, they simply added the word "not" to make it accord with the middle. If so, negating the aforementioned arising of afflictions and negating the aforementioned ceasing of transience seems to reveal the middle way, but how does this differ from seeing the real? From "This explanation" below, it directly refutes. First, it briefly criticises. For now, granting them the aspect of "not non-arising," it therefore says: "This explanation supports the middle"; challenging it for being incomplete, it therefore says: "It damages the text and loses the meaning." From "Why?" below, it explains. First, it explains losing the meaning; next, it explains damaging the text. First, what is termed losing the meaning means losing the meaning of encompassing the shared and containing the distinctive.