止觀輔行傳弘決 5.64.3

5.64.3

言「第五不可說藏」者，《大論》第一云「佛法中亦有犢子道人，說四大和合故有眼，五眾和合故有人。 」如《犢子阿毘曇》中說「五眾不離人，人不離五眾。 五眾不是人，人不是五眾。 人在第五不可說藏中所攝。 故一切有道人皆言：一切種、一切時、一切法門中求不可得，如龜毛兔角其體常無，陰界入等無有自性。 」此是一不生。 犢子所計猶違小宗，故此不生猶更須破，故云「不生亦不生」。 次意中，三藏菩薩未得不生，是故不論。 緣覺侵習，習未都盡，非不不生，故亦不論。 言「體不見思」者，巧智所觀，故云體不。 通教菩薩，空同二乘、假同別教，故今文中亦不說之。 別人兩不，不通不別，而上地猶生者，別惑未窮故也。 別佛約教，且云究竟。 故《大論》第九云「小小因緣能惑大果。 況聞般若波羅蜜實相，不生不滅，不不生不不滅。 」言小小因緣者，謂如少施少戒之流，遠願導之尚感大果，況聞圓中不不生等。 第三意及結斥，如文。 竪破第三第四句，如上菩提心中者。 第一卷發大心中，非九縛故非有，非一脫故非無。 若爾，第三句云何？ 答：雙非即第四，雙照即第三。 若歷推理乃至起過聞法開四，是則五十六重雙非雙照，更加四弘六即，是則六十六重雙非雙照。 況復通教八地已上，及以別圓地住已上，位位無不雙非雙照故也。 我今將諸第三四句，勘汝執心，汝是何等第三第四耶？ 「釋名絕待」者，先破橫竪中各有第三第四句，及絕待與絕體，體是雙非雙照句也。 雖即略指，復更歷教一一委釋。 二文各三，初徵起、次正釋、三結。 「塵妙不生通用生」者，破一一惑即得無量俗諦三昧，利物自在，名通用生。 「內外業報」者，秖是約界論內外也。 「析斷常」者，二乘亦得，不名雙非。 雙非之義具如第三卷中。 通教三乘亦離斷常，意如三藏。 通教菩薩八地已上，「道」謂化道、「觀」謂空觀，帶空出假，故曰「雙流」； 入空非有、入假非空，故名雙非。 別圓地住，妙中雙非。 初地去是別，文中應剩得字。 雙遮之言順第四句，理不異時。 次竪破絕者，初列外外等六絕責之。 言「婆羅門受瘂法」者，彼外道中有計瘂法，不共言說以為至道。 「三藏」去，復以佛法多絕責之。 初正責。 四教皆以四門通理，得理方絕。 「杜」者，如前解。 「不可說眾多」下，況責。 「為此」下，明過患。 「更重」下，復以十種四句外責。 初標也。 「十種者」下，列句也。 「一往者」下，釋也。 直立四句，故云一往。 四上復四，故曰「無窮」。 如前四見一一見上，復以三假四句破之，見各十二成四十八。 見復起見，乃至複具無言等見，皆以四句三假破之，故曰無窮。 從門得悟，門有四故，名「得悟四句」。 言「攝屬」者，如諸四門皆名有等，隨人修習為入何法，若真若中以法攝門，門屬於法。 問：攝屬與襵褻何別？ 答：襵褻則攝法入句，攝屬則攝句入法。 「權實」者，權實各四，為是何等四句外耶？ 「開顯」者，一切皆實，汝為出此實四句耶？ 若實若開，句外無法，云何言出？ 一期佛教畢於《法華》，故云「齊此」，今依《法華》亦但齊此。 滅後起諍，是故「失意」。 作論通經，故云「得意」。 「若不」下，結責。 「愜」者，伏也。 「前橫破」等者，判橫竪文，具如前廣約外外及附佛法乃至佛法，一往成十。 既從外外至佛滅後，故名為竪。 「今世多有」下，斥偽釋疑。 初邪人邪教邪正相濫。 初約人釋，以正濫邪。 言「惡魔比丘」者，謂曾出家，還家破戒，復作道士破滅佛法者是。 又何但比丘越濟名為惡魔，如《大品》十六，天魔波旬亦作比丘，為菩薩說相似道所謂骨想，乃至亦說阿羅漢法。 語菩薩言：「汝用此道盡苦，何用於生死受種種諸苦？ 今四大身尚不欲受，況當來身？

Regarding "the fifth, the inexpressible repository": the first fascicle of the Dazhidulun states, "In the Buddha's Dharma there are also the Vātsīputrīya followers of the Way who state that due to the harmonious coming together of the four great elements there is an eye, and due to the harmonious coming together of the five aggregates there is a person." As it is stated in the Vātsīputrīya Abhidharma: "The five aggregates are not separate from the person, and the person is not separate from the five aggregates. The five aggregates are not the person, and the person is not the five aggregates. The person is subsumed within the fifth, the inexpressible repository. Therefore all the Sarvāstivādin followers of the Way state: 'In all modes, at all times, and among all dharma-gates, when sought, [the person] is unattainable; like a turtle's hair or a hare's horn, its substance is permanently non-existent, and the aggregates, realms, and entrances have no self-nature.'" This is one [kind of] non-arising. What the Vātsīputrīyas cling to contradicts even the Hīnayāna; therefore, this non-arising must still be refuted, which is why it says, "non-arising is also non-arising."

In the second meaning, the Tripiṭaka bodhisattvas have not yet attained non-arising, and for this reason they are not discussed. Pratyekabuddhas encroach upon the traces [of defilements], but the traces are not yet completely exhausted; they are not [cases of] not-non-arising, and so they are also not discussed. As for "the essence not [falling into] view and thought [afflictions]," this is what is contemplated by skillful wisdom; therefore it says "the essence not." For bodhisattvas of the shared teaching, emptiness is shared with the two vehicles, and provisionality is shared with the distinctive teaching; thus they are also not spoken of in the present text. For the distinctive person, the two "nots" do not share [with the shared] nor are they the distinctive, yet on the higher stages arising still occurs because the distinctive delusions have not yet been exhausted. The distinctive Buddha is provisionally called "ultimate" according to the teaching. Hence the ninth fascicle of the Dazhidulun states: "Minor causes and conditions can lead to great fruits. How much more so hearing the true mark of prajñāpāramitā: non-arising and non-perishing, neither non-arising nor non-perishing!" "Minor causes and conditions" refers to the likes of slight giving or slight morality; being guided by distant vows, they still bring about great fruits—how much more so hearing the neither non-arising, etc. of the perfect Middle! The third meaning and the concluding reprimand are as in the text.

Vertically refuting the third and fourth lemmas is as explained above in the section on the mind of bodhi. In the first fascicle, under "Arousing the Great Mind": not having the nine bondages, hence not existent; not having the one liberation, hence not non-existent. If so, what is the third lemma? Answer: Double negation is the fourth, and double illumination is the third. If one traces this through the inferences of principle up to generating faults and hearing the Dharma to open the four [gates], there are then fifty-six layers of double negation and double illumination; adding the four universal vows and the six identities, there are then sixty-six layers of double negation and double illumination. How much more so from the eighth stage of the shared teaching on up, and from the stages and abodes of the distinctive and perfect on up, where in each and every position there is none that is not double negation and double illumination! I now take all these third and fourth lemmas to examine your clinging mind: which kind of third and fourth are you?

"Explaining names and the absolute": first, refuting that within the horizontal and vertical there are each third and fourth lemmas, as well as the absolute and the absolute essence; the essence is the lemma of double negation and double illumination. Although this is pointed to briefly, it is further explained in detail through each teaching. The two texts each have three parts: first, raising the question; second, explaining directly; third, concluding. "Dust-like wonders do not arise, while universally functional arising occurs": refuting each and every delusion immediately yields immeasurable worldly-truth samādhis, benefiting living beings with sovereignty; this is called "universally functional arising."

"Internal and external karmic retributions": this is simply discussing internal and external with respect to the realms. "Analyzing [away] annihilation and permanence": the two vehicles also attain this, so it is not called double negation. The meaning of double negation is detailed in the third fascicle. The three vehicles of the shared teaching also depart from annihilation and permanence, their intent being like that of the Tripiṭaka. For bodhisattvas of the shared teaching on the eighth stage and above: "path" means the path of conversion; "contemplation" means the contemplation of emptiness; bringing emptiness along while emerging into provisionality, it is therefore called "dual flowing." Entering emptiness, it is not existent; entering provisionality, it is not empty; therefore it is called double negation. The abodes and stages of the distinctive and perfect are the double negation of the subtle Middle. From the first bhūmi on belongs to the distinctive; in the text, the character *de* (得) should be superfluous. The phrasing of "double cessation" accords with the fourth lemma; the principle does not occur at a different time.

Next, vertically refuting the absolute: first, listing the six absolutes such as the external-external to rebuke them. "The brahmins who accept the practice of muteness": among those non-Buddhists, there are those who cling to the practice of muteness, considering the absence of speech to be the ultimate path. From "Tripiṭaka" onward, it again rebukes them using the many absolutes of the Buddha's Dharma. First, the direct rebuke. The four teachings all penetrate principle by means of four gates; only when attaining principle is there the absolute. "Stopping": as explained before. From "The inexpressibles are numerous" onward is the rebuke by comparison. From "Due to this" onward explains the faults. From "Furthermore, repeatedly" onward rebukes them using the ten kinds of [being] outside the four lemmas. First, indicating. From "The ten kinds" onward lists the lemmas. From "Directly" onward explains them. Directly positing four lemmas is called "directly." Four on top of four is therefore called "endless." As with the four views before, upon each and every view one further refutes it with the three kinds of provisionality and the four lemmas: each view having twelve yields forty-eight. Views further giving rise to views, up to compound, having, non-verbal, and other views, are all refuted with the four lemmas and three kinds of provisionality; hence it is called "endless."

Attaining awakening through a gate, because the gates are four, is called the "four lemmas of attaining awakening." As for "subsumption": just as the four gates are all called existent and so forth, depending on what dharma a person cultivates to enter—whether the true or the Middle—subsuming the gates by means of the dharma, the gates belong to the dharma. Question: What is the difference between subsumption (*sheshu*) and folding together (*zhexie*)? Answer: Folding together subsumes the dharmas into the lemmas, while subsumption subsumes the lemmas into the dharmas. "Provisional and real": provisional and real each have four; outside of which kind of four lemmas are you? "Opening and revealing": all is real; are you outside of these real four lemmas? Whether real or opened, there are no dharmas outside the lemmas; how can you speak of going outside? The entirety of the Buddha's lifetime teachings concludes with the Lotus; hence it says "limited to this." Now, relying on the Lotus, we are also limited only to this. Generating disputes after [the Buddha's] passing is therefore "losing the meaning." Composing treatises to penetrate the sūtras is therefore called "getting the meaning."

From "If not" onward is the concluding rebuke. "Compliant" means subdued. "Previously horizontally refuting," etc., evaluates the horizontal and vertical texts, fully as detailed before concerning the external-external, adhering to the Buddha's Dharma, up to the Buddha's Dharma, directly making ten. Since it goes from the external-external to after the Buddha's passing, it is called vertical.

From "Nowadays there are many" onward reproaches falsehood and resolves doubts. First, evil people and evil teachings, where evil and correct are confused with each other. First, explaining in terms of persons, using the correct to confuse with the evil. As for "demon-monks": this refers to those who once went forth into the monastic life, then returned to household life, broke the precepts, and again became Daoists to destroy the Buddha's Dharma. Moreover, why should it only be monks who cross over [the line] that are called evil demons? As in the sixteenth fascicle of the Dapin, the heavenly demon Pāpīyān also assumed the form of a monk and preached a semblance path to bodhisattvas—the so-called skeleton contemplation—and even preached the arhat's Dharma. He said to the bodhisattva: "You should exhaust suffering with this path; why undergo all kinds of suffering in samsāra? Even this present body of four great elements one does not wish to endure, how much less a future body?"