止觀輔行傳弘決 6.21

6.21

○次入假緣中，初云「同體哀傷」者，且約出假。見眾生苦同於己苦，名為同體，非謂無緣同實體也。「憶本誓」者，本擬利生，策發令憶，故引二乘以勵先志。「利智」者，應知住空有棄他過、不習法過。「善巧」者，既出假已不為假污，令假智牢彊。「精進」者，誓填本願，無使一念生畏憚想。次引《淨名》三慰喻者，此是大師判釋《淨名．問疾品》中為三慰喻。所言三者，亦名三觀亦名三教。言「入空」者，彼經云「說身有苦」等，此約通教，亦以三藏助成於通。於兩教中但在菩薩，二乘無悲將何慰喻？於彼文中，初約果、次約因。初約果中，謂苦下四行，說身無常，不同凡夫計之為常。不說厭離，不同二乘自謂滿足，於身生厭。說身有苦，不說樂於涅槃。說身無我，而說教導眾生。說身空寂，不說畢竟寂滅，並如初釋。次約因者，即約集諦。說悔先罪者，菩薩為他理須悔罪。二乘抵債不同凡夫，順罪不悔；不同有部，計於罪性從現入過。故云不說入於過去。令諸眾生觀此因果，並是三假，俱順入空。下入中文云「今我病者非真非有，眾生病亦非真非有。」入假文在空中中間，故云中間即是入假慰喻，亦名別教慰喻。彼入假文五意具足，故引別教證次第假。彼文三觀並約利他，是故三觀皆云慰喻。今入空即屬自行，雖不引彼，意亦大同。言入假五意者，經云「以己之疾憫於彼疾」。證今文中「同體大悲」等者，自悲悲他。我昔有惑生死輪迴、是故起悲利彼含識。同體義者、具如前釋。若以文旨釋同體者，見諸眾生體性同己，與十方佛體性無殊。我既知已，眾生不知，非誓而誓。觀己利彼下之四意，準此應知。問：以己之疾，憫於彼疾。自既有疾，何能利他？既先入空，復不應有。如其無者，以己憫彼義云何通？答：有二意。一四住已斷，猶有無明，故生念云：我無明尚爾，況眾生見思。四輕憫重，是故出假。二者無明輕四住重，何得以輕而憫於重？但以昔苦憫彼今苦。故第二意引經云「當識宿世無數劫苦」。第二意者，如布衣登極，知人苦樂，憶昔四弘以饒益彼。故第二意正當今義。次引經云「當念饒益諸眾生」者，入空則棄他，人假則念彼。次引經云「憶所修福念淨命」者，此語明具福慧二嚴，福是福嚴、淨命是慧。言淨命者，無四邪五邪，乃至不見中理，皆名邪命。故以慧嚴判屬淨命，當念於慧，憶福利生。次引經云「勿生憂惱」等者，勸起勇健心也。應如經云「菩薩於生死而有勇，若有憂惱或墮二地。」故勸勿憂，常起精進。若無精進則生退沒。「從空」下，料簡也。有法、譬、合。初法中云利根鈍根、住空出假等，四句不同。譬與法文，前後互列。法中利鈍兩根，入空在前、入假在後；譬中入假在前、入空在後。又法說中入空入假，並利前鈍後；譬中入空利前鈍後，入假鈍前利後。隨文語便，應無別意。又法說中，乃以利根對於住空而料簡五事者，利根即是利智，住空即無四事，故將利根以對四事而為料簡。有闕四事未必鈍根，具四事者未必利根。次譬中，身力譬利智，膽勇譬精進。餘之三事並須有進，故且舉進以攝餘三。亦可膽勇總譬四事，以對身力，五譬具足。「何能有功」者，秖是鈍根聲聞，五事都無，何能有利他之功？「今住空」下，合五緣也，還牒向譬來此帖合。初文總云住空出假各兩種者，具如法譬，即以利智對四事說。次「具五緣者」，釋第二句五事具足，若對前五少不次第。「有親」，如天性，即同體也。「有約」謂要約，即本誓也。「有策」謂奇謀，即善巧也。「有力」謂勇健，即利智也。「有膽」謂勇捍，即精進也。

Next, regarding the conditions for entering the provisional: first, where it says "grief of identical substance," this is tentatively explained in terms of emerging into the provisional. Seeing that the suffering of sentient beings is identical with one's own suffering is called "identical substance"; it does not mean the identical real substance that is without condition. "Recalling the original vows": originally one intended to benefit sentient beings; one is spurred on and made to remember this, hence the two vehicles are cited to encourage one's former resolve. "Sharp wisdom": one should know that abiding in emptiness has the fault of abandoning others and the fault of not studying the Dharma. "Skillful means": once having emerged into the provisional, one is not defiled by the provisional, making provisional wisdom firm and strong. "Vigor": one vows to fulfill the original aspiration, not allowing fear or dread to arise for even a single thought. Next, citing the three consolations from the Vimalakīrti: this is the Great Master's classification and interpretation of the "Inquiring about Illness" chapter of the Vimalakīrti as three consolations. The so-called "three" are also termed the three contemplations and also termed the three teachings. Where it says "entering emptiness," that sūtra says: "expounding that the body has suffering," and so forth; this is in terms of the shared teaching, and also employs the Tripiṭaka [teaching] to assist and complete the shared [teaching]. Within both teachings, this pertains only to bodhisattvas; how could the two vehicles, lacking compassion, offer consolation? In that text, first it is explained in terms of the effect, and next in terms of the cause. First, regarding the effect, it refers to the four aspects of suffering: expounding that the body is impermanent, unlike ordinary people who deem it permanent; not expounding revulsion and detachment, unlike the two vehicles who deem themselves satisfied and give rise to revulsion toward the body; expounding that the body has suffering, but not expounding delighting in nirvāṇa; expounding that the body is devoid of self, while expounding the instruction and guidance of sentient beings; expounding that the body is empty and quiescent, but not expounding ultimate quiescence—all are as explained at the outset. Next, regarding the cause, this is in terms of the truth of origination. Expounding the repentance of former transgressions: for the sake of others, the bodhisattva in principle must repent transgressions. The two vehicles pay their debts, unlike ordinary people who comply with transgressions and do not repent; and unlike the Sarvāstivāda, who posit that the nature of transgressions passes from the present into the past—hence it says "does not expound entering the past." It causes sentient beings to contemplate these causes and effects as all being threefold provisionality, all harmoniously entering emptiness. Below, the text on entering the middle says: "My illness now is neither real nor existent, and the illnesses of sentient beings are also neither real nor existent." The text on entering the provisional lies between emptiness and the middle; hence it says that what is in between is the consolation of entering the provisional, also named the consolation of the distinctive teaching. That text on entering the provisional is fully endowed with the five meanings, hence the distinctive teaching is cited to verify the sequential provisional. The three contemplations in that text all concern benefiting others; therefore all three contemplations are termed consolations. Now, entering emptiness belongs to one's own practice; although that [passage] is not cited, the meaning is largely the same. Regarding the five meanings of entering the provisional: the sūtra says, "Through one's own sickness, one pities their sickness." Verifying what is in the present text as "great compassion of identical substance" and so forth: one grieves for oneself and grieves for others. In the past I had delusions and transmigrated through birth and death; therefore I arouse compassion to benefit those sentient beings. The meaning of identical substance has been fully explained as before. If one explains "identical substance" according to the purports of the text, it is seeing that the essential nature of all sentient beings is identical with one's own, and not different from the essential nature of the Buddhas of the ten directions. Having known this myself while sentient beings do not know it, though not a formal vow, it is a vow. Regarding contemplating oneself and benefiting others, the four meanings below should be understood accordingly. Question: "Through one's own sickness, one pities their sickness." If one is sick oneself, how can one benefit others? Furthermore, since one has already entered emptiness, one should not have [sickness]. If one does not have it, how can the meaning of pitying them through oneself be consistent? Answer: There are two meanings. First, the four dwellings of delusion are already severed, but ignorance still remains; hence the thought arises: "Even my ignorance is like this, how much more so the views and desires of sentient beings?" The four are light, while pitying is profound; therefore one emerges into the provisional. Second, ignorance is light while the four dwellings are heavy; how could one, through the light, pity the heavy? It is simply pitying their present suffering through one's past suffering. Hence, for the second meaning, the sūtra is cited: "One should recognize the suffering of countless kalpas in previous lives." As for the second meaning, it is like a commoner ascending the imperial throne: he knows the suffering and joy of the people, and recalls the four universal vows of the past to benefit them. Therefore, the second meaning precisely fits the present purport. Next, citing the sūtra where it says "one should be mindful of benefiting all sentient beings": entering emptiness abandons others, while entering the provisional is being mindful of them. Next, citing the sūtra where it says "recalling the merits cultivated and being mindful of pure livelihood": this statement clarifies the full endowment with the two adornments of merit and wisdom; merit is the adornment of merit, and pure livelihood is wisdom. Regarding "pure livelihood": being free of the four wrong modes of livelihood and the five wrong modes of livelihood, up to failing to see the principle of the middle, are all called wrong livelihood. Therefore, classifying the adornment of wisdom as belonging to pure livelihood, one should be mindful of wisdom, and recall merit to benefit sentient beings. Next, citing the sūtra where it says "do not give rise to sorrow and distress," and so forth: this encourages arousing a valiant and robust mind. It should be as the sūtra says: "The bodhisattva possesses valor with respect to birth and death; if there is sorrow and distress, one may fall into the two stages." Hence it encourages not to grieve and to constantly arouse vigor. Lacking vigor, one will regress and sink. From "From emptiness..." downward, this is analysis. There are the doctrine, the analogy, and the synthesis. First, in the doctrine, it speaks of sharp faculties and dull faculties, abiding in emptiness and emerging into the provisional, and so forth, with four distinct propositions. The analogy and the doctrinal text are set out in mutual reverse order. In the doctrine, regarding both sharp and dull faculties, entering emptiness comes first and entering the provisional comes second; in the analogy, entering the provisional comes first and entering emptiness comes second. Furthermore, in the doctrinal explanation, for both entering emptiness and entering the provisional, sharp faculties precede dull ones; in the analogy, for entering emptiness sharp faculties precede dull ones, while for entering the provisional dull faculties precede sharp ones. This follows the convenience of the phrasing and should have no distinct meaning. Moreover, in the doctrinal explanation, when sharp faculties are paired against abiding in emptiness to analyze the five factors: sharp faculties are sharp wisdom, whereas abiding in emptiness lacks the four factors; therefore, sharp faculties are set against the four factors for analysis. One who lacks the four factors is not necessarily of dull faculties, and one who possesses the four factors is not necessarily of sharp faculties. Next, in the analogy, bodily strength illustrates sharp wisdom, while bravery and courage illustrate vigor. The remaining three factors all require vigor; hence vigor is provisionally raised to subsume the other three. Alternatively, bravery and courage can holistically illustrate the four factors to contrast with bodily strength, making the five analogies fully present. "How could there be efficacy?": this is simply the dull-facultied śrāvaka who lacks all five factors; how could he have the efficacy of benefiting others? From "Now, abiding in emptiness..." downward, this synthesizes the five conditions, taking up the preceding analogy to map onto this. The initial text states generally that abiding in emptiness and emerging into the provisional each have two kinds; as fully explained in the doctrine and analogy, sharp wisdom is spoken of in contrast to the four factors. Next, "possessing the five conditions" explains the second line where all five factors are complete; when paired against the previous five, the sequence is slightly different. "Having kinship," like family ties, is identical substance. "Having an agreement" means a covenant, which is the original vows. "Having a strategy" means extraordinary schemes, which is skillful means. "Having strength" means being valiant and robust, which is sharp wisdom. "Having bravery" means courage and intrepidity, which is vigor.