止觀輔行傳弘決 6.19

6.19

次明圓四門中，初辨同異。「云何」下，總徵起。「觀見思」下，正釋也。初明有門，即指見思為不思議因緣生法。生法即假，假是有門，以無空中而不假故。故云「乃至第一義亦是因緣」。「大經」下，引證也。三菩提法尚是因緣，故知一切無非有也。次空門中，云「三諦」者，亦是三諦皆空故也，亦是假中皆空故也。言「我及涅槃此二皆空」者，我即是俗、涅槃即真，二諦俱空唯有中空，中空亦空故云「空病亦空」，此即三諦俱空故也。次亦空亦有門者，「一中一切中」，約雙照說名第三門，無有真實亦空也，分別不盡亦有也。次引多文以為證也。「一微塵中」亦空也，「大千卷」亦有也。「第一義」亦空也，「善分別」亦有也。「大地一」亦空也，「種種芽」亦有也。「無名相」亦空也，「假名相」亦有也。「乃至佛」亦空也，「但有字」亦有也。既約中道雙照二諦，一切無非亦空亦有。次非空非有門者，亦是一中一切中，約雙非說名第四門。空、有乃至非空非有餘三門中皆云一有一切有等，唯第三門言雖稍隱，意實周具。「云何」下，明門互融。且寄四門別說其相，三諦之理一一無虧。「所以者何」下，釋也。何以故？一門即是三門故也。初舉因緣，因緣即空，空即是假，假即法界。今論行相，四悉隨便根性各別，隨依一門。初依教門途轍大體，一切且以無生為首。今明教旨辨十六門俱斷見思，故料簡之，出其元意，意在圓門，故通列四。又教教雖四，隨教曲論，一一教中初入復別。故《四念處》云「藏多用有，通多用空，別教多用亦空亦有，圓教多用非空非有。又但以空有相對說者，藏別兩教多依有門，通圓兩教多依空門，但須分別界內界外。」偏用雖爾，復順大途，是故今文無生為首。文中復須具足列四，為偏簡故是故通列。「如上」下，結成無生。「若爾」下，開權也，先徵起、次正開、三引證。若爾，秖應引《法華》文以證顯實，何須復引《大品》、《淨名》？答：彼部中實，不殊《法華》，所顯實同，故得為證。既引《法華》開諸權已，《淨名》、《大品》何權不開？故開彼權還入彼實，即是《法華》權意本實。他人不說此十六門，將何以為能通之路？破假不同，混然難曉，將何以簡諸空諸有，乃至諸教非空非有？如上所說，且寄一法以之為式，若覩諸教準例可從。又此十六門藏通圓三，隨所列門即可為觀，唯別聞門稍異前後。如今所列，但是且論初心斷見思異。若論遠理直在教道，期心極果緣理生信，即以所信立為四門。眾生理具為惑所纏，初心頓聞而修漸行，至十行後方始造修。向末地初薄證少分，信後習觀初斷見思，具如藏通，故云次第不殊三藏。從初至後歷十六門，自行化他或橫或竪。「若得」下，開說即理，以結門意。引證如文。「上無生」下，總結用門本意。此言依無生門者，即前《大經》圓無生門竪破見思，即竪而非橫竪皆攝一切。若秖竪破，未涉餘惑。若得元意本在圓融，故於此中具列諸門破見思位。先簡後會，故圓四門皆達見思，即是法界，並具三諦。恐人迷旨，故於此中即示門意。若得意者，終日次第意非次第，故云「非方便門」。此即第三示文旨歸。若銷文勢，不可於一一句見、一一品思頻論文旨。若修觀者及尋文旨，不可一句迷於妙體。故《四念處》中「問曰：若爾，應直說大，何故先小？答：經具二意。若先大者，如照高山純被於大，仍兼利鈍二機不同。若先小者，如初鹿苑。」然今先小，其意有十：一為用故，亦如《淨名》中先為俗眾。二為破故，先弟子之砧，後淨名之椎。三為攝故，如淨名室內先說無常。四為會故，《大品》會宗皆摩訶衍。五為開故，如《法華》中決了諸法。六為學者識內外典，離邪曲誤。七為知故，知佛方便，不應輒破。八示末代坐禪內證，邪正空別。九為學者識於內外孟浪行說。十為學者識大小門，成遍習故。今約自行似闕前三，兼於利他全須十意，為此意故應遍立門。應以此意該通上下。

Next, in explaining the four gates of the perfect teaching, first the similarities and differences are distinguished. From "How?" down, the question is raised as a whole. From "contemplating view and thought" down, there is the direct explanation. First, explaining the gate of existence, this directly points to view and thought as phenomena arisen from inconceivable causes and conditions. Phenomena arisen [from causes and conditions] are provisionality, and provisionality is the gate of existence, because there is no emptiness or middle that is not provisional. Therefore it says, "Even the supreme truth is also causes and conditions." From "the Great Sūtra" down, citations provide proof. Even the dharma of sambodhi is still causes and conditions; thus we know that there is nothing that is not existence. Next, in the gate of emptiness, the mention of the "three truths" means that all three truths are empty, and it also means that both provisionality and the middle are empty. The statement "Both I and nirvāṇa are empty": "I" is the conventional, and "nirvāṇa" is the ultimate. When both truths are empty, there is only the emptiness of the middle, and the emptiness of the middle is also empty; hence it says "the illness of emptiness is also empty." This is because all three truths are empty. Next, regarding the gate of both emptiness and existence: "when one is middle, all are middle"; speaking in terms of illuminating both, this is called the third gate. Having no true reality is also emptiness; having inexhaustible distinctions is also existence. Next, many passages are cited as proof. "Within a single fine particle of dust" is also emptiness; "the scroll containing a great trichiliocosm" is also existence. "The supreme truth" is also emptiness; "good distinguishing" is also existence. "The single great earth" is also emptiness; "manifold sprouts" is also existence. "Without names and marks" is also emptiness; "provisional names and marks" is also existence. "Even the Buddha" is also emptiness; "there are only words" is also existence. Since this double illumination of the two truths is based on the Middle Way, there is nothing that is not both empty and existent. Next, regarding the gate of neither emptiness nor existence: this too is "when one is middle, all are middle"; speaking in terms of negating both, this is called the fourth gate. In the other three gates—emptiness, existence, and even neither emptiness nor existence—it always says "when one is existent, all are existent," and so forth; only in the third gate, though the wording is somewhat obscure, the meaning is indeed fully present. From "How?" down, the mutual integration of the gates is explained. For the time being, relying on the four gates, their aspects are explained separately, yet the principle of the three truths is not deficient in any of them. From "Why is this?" down, it is explained. Why is it? Because one gate is precisely three gates. First, causes and conditions are brought up: causes and conditions are emptiness, emptiness is provisionality, and provisionality is the dharma-dhātu. Now, discussing the aspects of practice: the four siddhāntas correspond to convenience, and individual faculties differ; one relies on whichever gate. First, following the general path of the doctrinal gates, all [practices] take non-arising as foremost for the time being. Now, explaining the doctrinal purport, it distinguishes that all sixteen gates equally sever view and thought; hence, sorting them out reveals the original intention: the intention lies in the perfect gate, so all four are listed in full. Furthermore, although each teaching has four [gates], examining each teaching in detail reveals that the initial entry within each teaching also differs. Thus the Four Stations of Mindfulness says: "The Tripiṭaka [teaching] mostly uses existence; the shared [teaching] mostly uses emptiness; the distinctive teaching mostly uses both emptiness and existence; the perfect teaching mostly uses neither emptiness nor existence. Moreover, if spoken merely in terms of the opposition between emptiness and existence: the Tripiṭaka and distinctive teachings mostly rely on the gate of existence, while the shared and perfect teachings mostly rely on the gate of emptiness; one merely needs to distinguish between within the realms and beyond the realms." Although the specific applications are thus, they still accord with the general path; therefore, the present text places non-arising as foremost. Within the text, it is also necessary to list all four in full; because it sorts out the specific, it lists them comprehensively. From "As above" down, non-arising is concluded. From "If so" down, there is the opening of the provisional: first the question is raised, next it is directly opened, and third citations are provided as proof. If so, one should only cite the text of the Lotus to prove and reveal the real; why is it also necessary to cite the Dapin and Vimalakīrti? Answer: The real within those sections does not differ from the Lotus; what they reveal as real is identical, so they can serve as proof. Since the Lotus has already been cited to open all provisionals, what provisional in the Vimalakīrti or Dapin is not opened? Therefore, opening those provisionals returns them into that real, which is precisely the Lotus's provisional intent being fundamentally real. If others do not explain these sixteen gates, what will they take as the path that can lead through? When refutations of provisionality are different and blended indistinguishably, how will they distinguish between the various types of emptiness and existence, or even the neither emptiness nor existence of the various teachings? As explained above, for the time being one dharma is taken as a model; if one looks at the various teachings, following this analogy they can be comprehended. Furthermore, among these sixteen gates, in the three—Tripiṭaka, shared, and perfect—whatever gate is listed can serve as contemplation; only the gates heard in the distinctive teaching differ somewhat from before and after. What is listed now merely discusses the differences in severing view and thought by beginners. If one discusses the distant principle directly within the doctrinal path, aspiring toward the ultimate fruit, faith arises in dependence on the principle, and based on what is believed, the four gates are established. Sentient beings inherently possess the principle yet are bound by afflictions; the beginner suddenly hears it yet cultivates gradual practice, and only after the ten practices does one begin to engage in cultivation. Toward the end of the [ten] directions of dedicating [merit] and at the beginning of the stages, one faintly realizes a small part; after faith, practicing contemplation, one initially severs view and thought, fully as in the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings]; hence it is said that "the sequence does not differ from the Tripiṭaka." From the beginning to the end, one passes through the sixteen gates, whether horizontally or vertically, for self-cultivation or transforming others. From "If one attains" down, explaining that the spoken is precisely the principle concludes the intent of the gates. The cited proof is as in the text. From "The above non-arising" down, the original intent of employing the gates is concluded as a whole. Stating that this relies on the gate of non-arising means that the perfect gate of non-arising in the aforementioned Great Sūtra vertically severs view and thought; being vertical, it is not that horizontal and vertical each subsume everything. If it were merely a vertical refutation, it would not yet touch upon the remaining afflictions. If one grasps the original intent, it fundamentally lies in perfect integration; therefore, here the various gates are fully listed in the stages of severing view and thought. First sorting out and then integrating, all four gates of the perfect teaching fully penetrate view and thought, which are precisely the dharma-dhātu and completely endowed with the three truths. Fearing people might misunderstand the purport, here the intent of the gates is directly shown. If one understands the intent, then though practicing sequence all day, the intent is not sequential; hence it is called "not an expedient gate." This is the third part, which shows the essential destination of the text. If one clarifies the flow of the text, one cannot repeatedly discuss the doctrinal purport at every single phrase of views and every single grade of thought. If one cultivates contemplation and investigates the doctrinal purport, one must not be confused about the wondrous essence at any single phrase. Therefore, in the Four Stations of Mindfulness, it says: "Question: If so, one should speak directly of the Great; why first speak of the Small? Answer: The sūtras have two intentions. If speaking first of the Great, it is like illuminating the high mountains, purely covering the Great, yet still combining the differences of sharp and dull faculties. If speaking first of the Small, it is like the initial Deer Park." However, now speaking first of the Small has ten intentions: First, for the sake of application, just as in the Vimalakīrti it was first for the worldly assembly. Second, for the sake of refutation, first the anvil of the disciples, and later the hammer of Vimalakīrti. Third, for the sake of gathering, just as within Vimalakīrti's room impermanence was spoken of first. Fourth, for the sake of integration, as the Dapin integrates all doctrines into the Mahāyāna. Fifth, for the sake of opening, just as in the Lotus all dharmas are definitively resolved. Sixth, to enable learners to distinguish between internal and external scriptures, leaving behind crooked and wrong errors. Seventh, for the sake of knowing, knowing the Buddha's expedients so as not to rashly refute them. Eighth, to show internal realization in seated meditation in the latter age, distinguishing the crooked from the upright, and emptiness from distinctness. Ninth, to enable learners to recognize careless practice and speech inside and outside. Tenth, to enable learners to recognize the gates of the Great and the Small, thereby achieving universal study. Now, in terms of self-cultivation, it seems to lack the first three; but combined with benefiting others, all ten intentions are fully needed. For this purpose, gates should be universally established. One should apply this intention throughout, above and below.