止觀輔行傳弘決 6.29

6.29

○次明入假位者，釋中先明位意。若專用前三教下根破假之位，則使凡夫望崕自絕。入空之時先見後思，位行長遠，如七生思盡若一往來，乃至如上破見破思重數無量，則入空之位尚不可至，何況入假？故云「迢遞」，是故須識諸教明位。權位下根入假未期，實位上根一生可到，一思一見尚即法界，況出假耶？「崖」者，岸也。《爾雅》云「水濱也。」又云「崖重者曰岸。」「今當」下，正釋。初明三藏，於中先二乘、次菩薩。初文，先法，如文。「譬如」等者，譬二乘人。故《大經》二十六，師子吼難云：「眾生若有佛性，何故有退有不退耶？」佛以喻答：「譬如二人俱聞他方有七寶山，山有清泉其味甘美，若有能到永斷貧苦，飲服其水增益壽命，唯路嶮難。其二人者，一則莊嚴、一則空往。路值一人多齎七寶，二人便問：『彼方審有七寶山耶？』答言：『實有，我已獲得。唯患路嶮，多有賊盜、砂礫荊棘，乏於水草。往者千萬，達者甚少。』聞是事已，一人即悔。一人復言：『有人能到，我亦能到。如其不達，以死為期。』於彼多獲，如願服水。多齎所有，還其所止，供養父母、供給親族。時悔還者見彼心熱：『彼達已還，我何為住？』便涉路去。」「行人」下，合。涅槃之山有佛性水。二人者，如二菩薩行行不同。生死如嶮，逢人如佛，賊如四魔，沙如煩惱，乏於水草如不修道，還喻退轉，往喻不退。退者，二乘人是。退大已後鹿苑取小，至方等中見諸菩薩不思議事，皆應號泣聲振三千，於此大乘已如敗種。至法華中方生憂悔，悔不對前、悔不待後，怱怱取證，今方得聞。若依此義，《法華》已前無出假事，但於般若義似出假。次明菩薩中，云「心又一轉」者，不待經歷漸教座席，本習所熏即能修習。次明通教中，破他解云「一途之說」者，於諸經中有此一往隨機之說，未可遍該通方之意，古人不達是故偏執。「但佛」下，正釋也。謂二乘人、鈍根菩薩至法華中方開入實，入實已後方運大悲，名為出假。若不來至法華座席，如是之人多取滅度，唯識所計即是其流，而於彼土求佛智慧，則非彼論之所修也。若復有人謂此《法華》偏被下根，判為漸教。若爾，《法華玄》文釋用中云「迹門正為生身未入者入，旁為生法兩身已入者進。本門正為生法兩身已入者入，旁為生身未入者入。」又本門增道損生文後，有八世界微塵數人初始發心。既未遊漸，此即頓人。豈從數千二乘之人及鈍菩薩而判妙教？況兩門得益數倍餘經，何不推尋經之本文「正直捨方便，但說無上道。無二亦無三，除佛方便說。已今當說最為第一，不聞此經不名善行。開方便門示真實相。等賜諸子各一大車。草木皆依一地一雨。」如是等文不可具述，何不凭茲為頓教耶？「若七地」下，引經斥下根人。《大品》所訶，何必思盡方始出假？思盡即與第七地齊。故引《大品》「若入七地已墮二乘，故為諸佛菩薩所訶。」「有大鳥」下，舉譬也。《大論》七十二「問云：行空無相願，何以一人作佛、一作羅漢？答：所謂薩婆若心行於空等，是故作佛。自度心修，故成羅漢。」言大鳥者，金翅鳥也，能從一須彌至一須彌。在於諸天，如人間孔雀。所以不來人間者，翅有毒風令人失眼。是鳥初出兩翅未成，意欲飛去墮閻浮提，若死若死等苦，中道心悔：「我欲還天奢摩黎樹。以身大故，翅翼未成，不能自舉。」論合云「鳥身者，菩薩也。身大者，多習六度。無翅者，無方便智。須彌山者，三界也。虛空者，無量佛法也。未應飛而飛者，功德未滿，欲從菩薩三解脫門，遊於無量佛法空中而欲退沒，雖欲作佛而不能得。若死者，羅漢果也。死等苦者，支佛也。痛惱者，失菩薩本功德也。」今文兩釋並是大師隨義轉用。謂苦等於死名為死。名為死等，而猶未死故名為等。故以方便及斷見位名為死等，以初果之人思惟全在，義同未死。「是鳥」下，借譬帖合。「如人」下，重舉譬以顯《法華》之功。先序所治病重。言「不能五欲」者，以不能男者通為不能五欲，用譬二乘根敗心死。「閹」者，揜也。「揜」，閉門也。亦曰黃門。黃者主中，中謂聖人居天下中而通理萬民。主黃家之門，故曰黃門。亦曰黃昏閉門，故曰黃門。「華嚴」下，欲顯《法華》，先序餘經。《華》嚴已來至於《大品》，如世間藥，不能治於被閹之人。諸大乘經融通諸法，菩薩觀門願行該括，而不能令二乘發心。等是融通，何不融令二乘作佛？但云在座如聾如瘂，乃至自悲敗種渴仰上乘。而不為我說斯真要，唯至法華得記生喜。遍尋《法華》已前諸教，實無二乘作佛之文，及明如來文成之說，故知並由帶方便故。若不爾者，豈部圓妙獨隔二乘？問：若言方等不記二乘，何故《楞伽》第二〈變化品〉中「大慧問佛：『如來何故授聲聞記？』佛言：『三意故記。一為入無餘界者，密勸修菩薩行故。二為此界他土菩薩樂求聲聞涅槃者，勸捨此心修大行故。三變化佛授聲聞記，非法性佛。大慧！授聲聞記是祕密說。』」判曰：今聞《法華》是顯露記，不同《方等》隱密與記。若據斯理，《淨名》、《大品》皆應有之，何獨《楞伽》？故《方等》云「第二第三授我等記」，初意自為已入滅者，次第二義但為斥於鈍根菩薩。對彼說記，何關二乘？第三判非法性佛者，此是以實而隔於權。未若《法華》顯久遠本，我土不毀而眾見燒。況法性之佛尚不記菩薩，何獨聲聞？故知三義並異《法華》。當知大慧發起密說，是故發問授記之事，故知彼經義屬方等，與《法華》異豈待固論，數數斥奪二乘等故。故《法華》中，三周授記偏語聲聞者，為顯餘經所不說故，是故委授劫國之名。菩薩授記處處有文，故但通途云當作佛，乃至本門某生當得。《法華》稱妙，斯言可凭。「又闡提」下，更將《涅槃》對法華教。彼亦能治斷善闡提，而但名大不名妙者，一有心易治、無心難治，難治能治，所以稱妙。二者《法華》已開，功非彼得，大陣既破，餘黨不難。雖同醍醐，非無斯別。然復《涅槃》偏被末代，帶方便說，故復稍殊。別教可見。圓教六根名下根者，出假名同，功逾十向。此是相似圓融三諦，不同次第出假之位。「又五品」下，中根也。「又初心」下，上根也，初心即是五品之初。「大品」下，引《大品》文證上根者，且約通說。五品之初亦約觀行論坐道場度眾生等，更約六即良由於此。「上來」下，結判，如文。

Next, to explain the stages of entering the provisional: within the commentary, [the master] first explains the import of stages. If one exclusively follows the stages of breaking through the provisional for inferior capacities in the previous three teachings, that causes ordinary beings to gaze at the precipice and give up on their own. When entering emptiness, [one abandons] views first and thought later, and the stages of practice are lengthy and far-reaching: as in taking seven lives to exhaust thought, or one return, and even as above where the refutations of views and refutations of thought are boundlessly manifold, so that even the stage of entering emptiness cannot yet be attained—how much less entering the provisional! Thus it is said to be "far and distant"; for this reason one must know the stages explained across the various teachings. For the inferior capacities of the provisional stages, entering the provisional cannot be expected [any time soon]; for the superior capacities of the real stages, it can be attained in a single lifetime. Even a single thought and a single view are nothing other than the dharma-dhātu—how much more so emerging into the provisional? "Yá" (崖) means a steep bank (岸). The Erya says: "The water's edge." It also says: "A steep bank that is layered is called a cliff." From "Now we shall" onwards, [the master] directly explains it. First he explains the Tripiṭaka [teaching], wherein first come the two vehicles and next the bodhisattvas. In the first passage, first is the doctrine, as in the text. As for "By analogy with...", it provides an analogy for people of the two vehicles. Thus in chapter twenty-six of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Lion's Roar raises an objection, saying: "If sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, why is there retrogression and non-retrogression?" The Buddha answered with an analogy: "By analogy, suppose two persons both hear that in another realm there is a mountain of seven jewels, and on the mountain there is a pure spring whose flavour is sweet and delicious; if anyone can reach it, they will forever end poverty and suffering, and drinking its water will increase longevity, but the road is perilous and difficult. Of those two persons, one prepared provisions, while the other went empty-handed. On the road they met a person carrying many of the seven jewels. The two then asked: 'Is there truly a mountain of seven jewels in that realm?' He replied: 'Indeed there is; I have already obtained them. The only trouble is that the road is perilous, with many thieves and bandits, gravel and thorns, and a lack of water and grass. Those who set out are tens of thousands, but those who arrive are very few.' Having heard this matter, one of them immediately regretted it. The other person further said: 'If someone can reach it, I too can reach it. If I do not reach it, my deadline will be death.' There he obtained much, and drank the water as he wished. Carrying much of what was there, he returned to his dwelling to support his parents and supply his relatives. Then the one who had regretted and returned, seeing him, felt burning in his heart: 'He has arrived and returned; why should I stay behind?' He then embarked on the road and went forth." From "The practitioner" onwards, the analogy is matched to the Dharma. The mountain of nirvāṇa has the water of the Buddha-nature. The two persons are like two bodhisattvas whose conduct of practice differs. Cyclic existence is like the perilous [road]; meeting the person is like [meeting] the Buddha; the thieves are like the four Māras; the gravel is like the afflictions; the lack of water and grass is like not cultivating the path; returning is an analogy for retrogression; and going on is an analogy for non-retrogression. The retrogressing one is a person of the two vehicles. After retrogressing from the Great, they took up the small in the Deer Park; arriving in the Vaipulya [assemblies], they saw the inconceivable affairs of the bodhisattvas and should all have wept and wailed, their voices shaking the three-thousandfold [world], having already become like ruined seeds regarding this Great Vehicle. Only upon reaching the Lotus [assembly] did they generate anxiety and regret—regretting that they had not faced what came before, and regretting that they had not waited for what came after, having hastily grasped realization, so that only now did they get to hear it. If one relies on this meaning, prior to the Lotus there was no such thing as emerging into the provisional; only in the Prajñā [teachings] did the meaning resemble emerging into the provisional. Next, in explaining bodhisattvas, where it says "the mind undergoes yet another turn", [it means] they do not wait to pass through the seats of the gradual teachings; perfumed by their fundamental habituation, they are immediately able to cultivate and practice. Next, in explaining the shared teaching, where he refutes other interpretations by saying "a discourse of a single course", [this means] that in various sūtras there is this preliminary discourse suited to particular capacities, but it cannot comprehensively cover the pervasive and versatile meaning; the ancients did not fathom this and therefore held one-sided clingings. From "Only when the Buddha" onwards, it directly explains this. It means that persons of the two vehicles and dull-witted bodhisattvas, only upon reaching the Lotus, have [their vehicle] opened to enter the real; and only after entering the real do they bring forth great compassion, which is called emerging into the provisional. If they did not come to the seat of the Lotus assembly, such persons would mostly seize upon extinction. What is posited by Mere-Consciousness belongs to this very current; seeking the Buddha's wisdom in that land is not what is cultivated in their treatise. If someone further says that this Lotus exclusively caters to inferior capacities and judges it to be a gradual teaching—if so, the text of the Lotus Profound Meaning, in explaining its function, says: "The trace gate primarily causes those of the physical body who have not entered to enter, and secondarily causes those of both physical and Dharma bodies who have entered to advance. The origin gate primarily causes those of both physical and Dharma bodies who have entered to enter, and secondarily causes those of the physical body who have not entered to enter." Furthermore, after the passage in the origin gate on increasing the path and reducing births, there are persons numbering as many as the dust motes of eight worlds who first arouse the aspiration for awakening. Since they have not traversed the gradual, these are sudden persons. How could one judge this wondrous teaching based merely on several thousand persons of the two vehicles and dull bodhisattvas? Moreover, the benefits gained through the two gates are many times those of other sūtras. Why not investigate the original text of the sūtra: "Directly casting aside expedients, / I teach only the unsurpassed path. / There are no two and no three, / except for the Buddha's expedient teachings. / What was taught, is taught, and will be taught is foremost. / Not hearing this sūtra is not called good conduct. / Opening the door of expedients to reveal the true mark. / Equally bestowing on all sons a single great cart. / Grasses and trees all depend on a single earth and a single rain"? Passages such as these cannot be detailed fully. Why not rely on these to take it as a sudden teaching? From "If on the seventh ground" onwards, [the master] cites a sūtra to reprimand those of inferior capacity. Being rebuked by the Dapin, why must one exhaust thought before emerging into the provisional? To exhaust thought is to be equal to the seventh ground. Thus he cites the Dapin: "If one enters the seventh ground, one has already fallen into the two vehicles; therefore one is rebuked by the buddhas and bodhisattvas." From "There is a great bird" onwards, he introduces an analogy. Dazhidulun chapter seventy-two states: "Question: Practising emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness, why does one person become a buddha while another becomes an arhat? Answer: It is because, with a mind directed to sarvajña, one practises emptiness and so forth, and therefore becomes a buddha; whereas cultivating with a mind to deliver oneself, one therefore becomes an arhat." As for "great bird", it refers to the garuḍa bird, which can fly from one Mount Sumeru to another Mount Sumeru. In the heavens it is like a peacock in the human realm. The reason it does not come to the human realm is that its wings carry a venomous wind that causes humans to lose their sight. When this bird has newly hatched and its two wings are not yet formed, intending to fly off, it falls into Jambudvīpa and experiences either death or suffering equal to death; midway its heart feels regret: 'I wish to return to the celestial śālmali tree. Because my body is large, my wings are not yet formed and I cannot lift myself.' The treatise's matching passage says: 'The bird's body represents the bodhisattva. The large body represents extensive practice of the six perfections. Having no wings represents lacking expedient wisdom. Mount Sumeru represents the three realms. Empty space represents the boundless Buddha-Dharma. Flying when one should not yet fly represents that merits are not yet full, yet wishing to depart from the bodhisattva's three gates of liberation and roam in the empty space of boundless Buddha-Dharma, one comes to retrogression and drowning; though wishing to become a buddha, one cannot achieve it. Death represents the fruit of the arhat. Suffering equal to death represents the pratyekabuddha. Pain and distress represent the loss of the bodhisattva's fundamental merits.' In the present text, both explanations are the master's adapted applications according to the meaning. That is, suffering equal to death is called 'death'; being called 'equal to death' means that one is not yet dead, and hence it is called 'equal'. Therefore, the stage of expedients and of severing views is called 'equal to death', because in a person of the first fruit, thought [afflictions] fully remain, so in meaning it is identical to not being dead. From "This bird" onwards, [the master] applies the analogy to match [the Dharma]. From "Like a person" onwards, he brings up an analogy again to manifest the efficacy of the Lotus. First he describes the severity of the illness being treated. In saying "incapable of the five desires", he treats the sexually incapacitated across the board as being incapable of the five desires, using this as an analogy for the damaged faculties and dead minds of the two vehicles. "Yān" (閹, castrated) means hidden (揜). "Yǎn" (揜) means shutting the gate. It is also called "yellow gate" (huángmén, eunuch). "Yellow" presides over the center; the center refers to the sage dwelling in the center of the world to govern the myriad people. Being in charge of the gate of the yellow house, they are therefore called "yellow gate". It is also said that closing the gate at yellow dusk (twilight) is why they are called "yellow gate". From "Avataṃsaka" onwards, wishing to manifest the Lotus, he first describes the other sūtras. From the Avataṃsaka up to the Dapin, they are like worldly medicines, unable to cure a person who has been castrated. The various Mahāyāna sūtras integrate all phenomena, and the bodhisattva's contemplations, vows, and practices encompass everything, yet they cannot cause the two vehicles to arouse the aspiration for awakening. If they are equally integrative, why do they not integrate the two vehicles so as to cause them to become buddhas? They merely say that, being in the assembly, they were like the deaf and mute, and even grieved over their ruined seeds while yearning for the Supreme Vehicle. Yet [those sūtras] did not expound this true essential for me; only upon reaching the Lotus did they receive predictions and give rise to joy. If one searches thoroughly throughout all the teachings prior to the Lotus, there is truly no text predicting that the two vehicles will become buddhas, nor any expounding of the Tathāgata's attainment in the distant past; thus we know that all of them were due to their carrying expedients. If it were not so, how could the perfect and wondrous nature of the assembly alone exclude the two vehicles? Question: If you say the Vaipulya does not confer predictions on the two vehicles, why does the Laṅkāvatāra, in its second chapter, the 'Transformation Chapter', say: 'Mahāmati asked the Buddha: "For what reason does the Tathāgata confer predictions on the śrāvakas?" The Buddha said: "I confer predictions for three reasons. First, for those who have entered the realm without remainder, to secretly encourage them to cultivate the bodhisattva practices. Second, for bodhisattvas in this world or other lands who take pleasure in seeking the nirvāṇa of the śrāvakas, to encourage them to cast aside this mind and cultivate the great practice. Third, it is the transformation Buddha who confers predictions on the śrāvakas, not the dharma-nature Buddha. Mahāmati! Conferring predictions on the śrāvakas is a secret teaching."' Judgement: Now we hear that the Lotus is an explicit prediction, unlike the concealed and secret bestowing of predictions in the Vaipulya. According to this principle, the Vimalakīrti and Dapin should also have it; why only the Laṅkāvatāra? Therefore the Vaipulya says, 'In the second and third, they will confer predictions upon us.' The first intention is naturally for those who have already entered extinction; the second meaning is merely to reprimand dull-witted bodhisattvas. Bestowing predictions toward them—what has it to do with the two vehicles? As for the third, judging it to be not the dharma-nature Buddha, this is separating the provisional by means of the real. It does not measure up to the Lotus revealing the fundamental origin of the remote past: 'My land is not destroyed, yet the multitudes see it burning.' Furthermore, the dharma-nature Buddha does not even confer predictions on bodhisattvas, so why only śrāvakas? Thus we know that all three meanings differ from the Lotus. One should know that Mahāmati initiated the secret teaching and therefore raised the question about the matter of conferring predictions; thus we know that the meaning of that sūtra belongs to the Vaipulya, and that it differs from the Lotus—how could this require stubborn dispute?—because it repeatedly reprimands and dismisses the two vehicles and the like. Therefore, in the Lotus, the conferring of predictions in the three cycles specifically focuses on the śrāvakas in order to reveal what was not expounded in the other sūtras; this is why it confers in full detail the names of their kalpas and lands. Predictions for bodhisattvas have passages everywhere; thus it merely states in a general way that they will become buddhas, or up to [predicting] in the origin gate that in a certain lifetime they will attain it. The Lotus is called wondrous; these words can be relied upon. From "Furthermore, icchantikas" onwards, [the master] further contrasts the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] with the teaching of the Lotus. That [sūtra] is also able to cure icchantikas whose wholesome roots are severed, yet it is only called 'Great' and not called 'Wondrous': first, those with mind are easy to cure, while those without mind are difficult to cure; being able to cure what is difficult to cure, it is therefore called wondrous. Second, the Lotus had already opened [the path], so the merit was not gained by that [sūtra]; once the great army is defeated, the remaining remnants pose no difficulty. Although both are like clarified butter, they are not without this distinction. Moreover, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] specifically caters to the final age and is expounded carrying expedients, so it is again slightly different. The distinctive teaching can be seen [from the context]. In the perfect teaching, the six sense faculties are termed 'inferior capacities': although the name 'emerging into the provisional' is the same, its merit surpasses the ten directions of dedication. This is the stage of mutual integration of the three truths in resemblance [awakening], not the sequential stage of emerging into the provisional. From "Furthermore, the five grades" onwards, it refers to intermediate capacities. From "Furthermore, the initial mind" onwards, it refers to superior capacities; the initial mind is precisely the beginning of the five grades. From "The Dapin" onwards, citing the passage of the Dapin to verify those of superior capacity is said provisionally in terms of a general explanation. The beginning of the five grades is also discussed in terms of the practice of contemplation regarding sitting on the site of awakening and delivering sentient beings, etc.; furthermore, that it is discussed in terms of the six identities is truly due to this. From "The above" onwards, he concludes and judges, as in the text.