止觀輔行傳弘決 7.17.1

7.17.1

「若用」下，具辯四隨迴轉治相。 前之對治已用四中一對治竟，忽非其宜，應須轉用，或兼或具、若第一義，是故總云「當依四隨」。 初總舉。 次別示中「如治一慳」者，略於一蔽示四隨相。 問：文中若是已明對治，此中秖應更明三隨，何故約慳具列四耶？ 答：前雖明對，是直爾用治，未辯用治有益以不益，謂惡破善生等也。 今示隨相教其迴轉，是故具列四隨之相。 又於四中若樂不樂以明轉相者，以不樂檀即轉用尸乃至般若。 若善心生乃至開等，是轉兼具及第一義。 又於對中破即是對不破，即是轉兼具等。 故總舉之為轉等式。 所言轉者，或轉用尸乃至般若，或次或超超一至四，逆順間雜病去便止。 五度為頭但越本位，餘同於檀。 此病不轉而治轉也。 一度轉用餘之五度即成五句，六度合有三十句治。 若樂病俱轉，名亦對亦轉，成三十句。 是轉非對，亦三十句。 又是轉是對、是轉非對，一往且立為三十句。 若超雜等，句相不定，行者自知，豈可具記。 又一度轉用至二三四，亦可名轉亦可名兼，若至五度名轉名具。 不得具名者，以轉用故。 若言具者，不得云轉。 但具用六以治一蔽，亦以轉故復失兼名，故雖兼具但名為轉。 故轉至五不名具者，轉則單用、具則兼俱，故不同也。 若病轉藥不轉，不名轉治亦非兼具。 或第一義名一向治，亦有超順逆間等也。 隨其病轉以為五蔽，亦成三十句一向治也。 所言兼者，藥兼一兩乃至三四，至五名具，是故但四。 度別四句成二十四。 一度至五但成六句，正名具治。 今文無具者，但是文略，第八卷有。 此約圓人用事治相。 若藏通別，初心為四念處等，用事治相準此可知。 言「第一義」者，唯觀無相真如寂理。 若約教者，各以當教真理為治，乃至圓人亦用三教理而為對等。 又四教初心皆須事治，如向所說。 若以四教展轉為治以前助後者，還以前六轉望後教六蔽之相為對轉等。 如通教人用三藏六，別人則用藏通兩六，圓人用三並有轉等。 如治一慳，看慳何等，財身及命所慳不同。 既知慳已，用事為治。 別人用二，例此可知。 圓人用三者，如用事治慳，慳雖似破，因茲乃計三捨為實，但增生死無正可論。 轉用即空，治其計實。 實計若破，即應得與法界相應。 破實存空，則應轉用恒沙佛法，捨身命財十界無知。 作此觀時計假為實，但得名為愛見大悲，則應轉用觀身命財悉是法界。 圓教觀法得對治名，良由於此。 此中唯有藥病俱轉，終無病轉而藥不轉。 亦可得有藥轉而病不轉。 何以故？ 計實不轉而亦容用後之三藥，兼具比說思之可知。 又此轉治，始從生滅終至無作，名為漸轉。 若從無作轉至生滅及以互轉，名為不定。 若第一義，名為頓轉。 一蔽既爾，餘蔽亦然。 是則於一病中，轉用藏教五及以三教六，成二十三度，六蔽合有一百三十八治。 俱轉名對及亦名轉，各有一百三十八治。 兼具等相，思之可知。 若見其意，方了此文。 於助六度下，次更總明合行式中，明其治相其事非一。 於一一事皆有合行，非此可具，故指後文相攝中說。 「有人」下，欲明合行，先出異解，然後破異明須合行。 「是故今家」下，文則有四種六度。 初文正出異解者，顯十與六但是開合。 古人不見開合之意，濫用《楞伽》宗教之文。 彼《楞伽》云「二乘菩薩有二種：一者宗趣法相，謂自所證，離分別相，入無漏界； 二者言說，謂說九部，離於四句，令眾生入。 」然彼通舉二乘菩薩所證及說，成共三乘理教之相。 古師不了，謂宗無說為理為大，以屬菩薩； 謂教有說為事為小，以屬二乘。 宗教有無，具如《法華》、《維摩》玄文所破。 次引《大經》、《大品》以證六度攝一切法，故知六外無復餘法。 如前四諦，但云四諦有無量相，不云四外更有餘法，何故云六但在通教？ 次「若得」下，略示文意。

From "If one applies..." below, [the text] explains in full the characteristics of shifting the remedies according to the four siddhāntas (freely according to people's capacities). In the preceding remedies, one of the four [remedies] has already been used; if it is suddenly no longer suitable, one must shift its application, either concurrently, completely, or as the ultimate truth. Therefore, it states generally: "One should rely on the four siddhāntas." First is the general statement. Next, in the specific explanation, "such as curing a single [form of] stinginess" briefly demonstrates the characteristics of the four siddhāntas with regard to a single obscuration. Question: If the text has already explained the remedy [siddhānta], it should only explain the remaining three siddhāntas here. Why does it list all four with respect to stinginess? Answer: Although the remedy was explained before, that was merely the direct application of a cure without yet distinguishing whether using the cure was beneficial or not—that is, whether evil was eliminated and good arose. Now, to show the characteristics of complying with capacities and to teach how to shift [remedies], it therefore fully lists the characteristics of the four siddhāntas. Furthermore, among the four, explaining the characteristics of shifting according to delight or lack of delight means that if one does not delight in dāna (giving), one shifts to using śīla (precepts) or even prajñā. If a wholesome mind arises, or even if [wisdom] opens, these are shifting to concurrent [application], complete [application], and the ultimate truth. Furthermore, within the remedy, if [the obscuration] is eliminated, that is the remedy; if it is not eliminated, that is shifting to concurrent [application], complete [application], and so on. Therefore, it is raised generally as the formula for shifting and so forth. What is called "shifting" means either shifting to śīla or even prajñā, either in sequence or by skipping—skipping from one to four—in reverse, forward, or interspersed; when the illness is gone, one ceases. With the five perfections as the head, they simply bypass their original positions, the rest being identical to dāna. In this case, the illness does not shift, but the remedy shifts. Shifting from one perfection to use the remaining five perfections produces five propositions; with the six perfections, there are thirty propositions of remedies in total. If both the delight and the illness shift, it is called both a direct remedy and a shift, forming thirty propositions. Being a shift and not a direct remedy also forms thirty propositions. Furthermore, being a shift and a direct remedy, or being a shift and not a direct remedy, are provisionally established as thirty propositions for the time being. If there is skipping, mixing, and the like, the characteristics of the propositions are unfixed; practitioners will know this for themselves, so how could it all be recorded? Furthermore, when one perfection is shifted to use two, three, or four, it can be called a shift and can also be called concurrent; if it reaches five perfections, it is called a shift and called complete. If it cannot be called complete, it is because it is a shifted application. If one calls it complete, it cannot be called shifted. Merely using all six completely to cure one obscuration also loses the name "concurrent" because of shifting; hence, although it is concurrent and complete, it is only called a shift. Thus, shifting to five is not called complete, because shifting is applying single [remedies], while complete is concurrent and simultaneous; therefore they are not the same. If the illness shifts but the medicine does not shift, it is neither called a shifted remedy nor concurrent or complete. Or, the ultimate truth is called an exclusive remedy; it also has skipping, forward, reverse, interspersed, and so forth. As the illness shifts to become the five obscurations, it also forms thirty propositions of exclusive remedies. What is called "concurrent" means that the medicine combines one, two, or even three or four; reaching five is called complete, so there are only four. For each perfection, four propositions make twenty-four. One perfection reaching five makes only six propositions, which is properly called a complete remedy. The reason there is no "complete" in the present text is simply due to brevity; it is found in the eighth fascicle. This is the characteristic of applying phenomenal remedies for a person of the perfect [teaching]. In the cases of the Tripiṭaka, shared, and distinctive [teachings], the initial mind's application of phenomenal remedies for the four stations of mindfulness and so forth can be understood by analogy with this. As for "the ultimate truth," it is exclusively contemplating the quiescent principle of signless true suchness. If considered according to the teachings, each uses the true principle of its respective teaching as the remedy; up to the person of the perfect [teaching], who also uses the principles of the three teachings as remedies, and so forth. Furthermore, the initial minds of the four teachings all require phenomenal remedies, as explained above. If one uses the four teachings successively as remedies, with the earlier assisting the later, one also uses the earlier six to shift toward the characteristics of the six obscurations in the later teachings as remedies, shifts, and so forth. For example, a person of the shared teaching uses the six of the Tripiṭaka; a person of the distinctive teaching uses the two sets of six of the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings]; and a person of the perfect teaching uses all three, each having shifts and so forth. Like curing a single [form of] stinginess, one looks at what kind of stinginess it is; stinginess with wealth, body, or life is different. Having understood the stinginess, one uses phenomenal [practices] as a remedy. The person of the distinctive teaching uses two, which can be understood by analogy. As for the person of the perfect teaching using three: if one uses phenomenal [practice] to cure stinginess, although the stinginess seems to be eliminated, because of this one conceptualizes the three renunciations as real; this merely increases samsāra, and there is no rectitude to speak of. One then shifts to using emptiness to cure this conceptualization of reality. If the conceptualization of reality is eliminated, one should be able to accord with the dharma-dhātu. If the real is eliminated but emptiness is retained, one should then shift to using the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges, renouncing body, life, and wealth without the ten realms knowing it. When practicing this contemplation, conceptualizing the provisional as real can only be called great compassion tainted by attachment and views; one should then shift to contemplating that body, life, and wealth are all the dharma-dhātu. That the contemplation method of the perfect teaching attains the name of a remedy is truly due to this. Here, there is only the shifting of both medicine and illness; there is never a case where the illness shifts but the medicine does not shift. It can also happen that the medicine shifts while the illness does not shift. Why? The conceptualization of reality does not shift, yet it also admits the application of the latter three medicines; concurrent and complete [applications] can be understood by considering this analogy. Furthermore, this shifting remedy, starting from production and cessation and ending in unconditioned (anabhisamiskāra), is called a gradual shift. If it shifts from unconditioned to production and cessation, or shifts reciprocally, it is called indeterminate. If it is the ultimate truth, it is called a sudden shift. As it is with one obscuration, so it is with the remaining obscurations. Thus, within a single illness, shifting to use the five of the Tripiṭaka teaching and the six of the three teachings results in twenty-three perfections; for the six obscurations, there are one hundred and thirty-eight remedies in total. Both shifting together is called a direct remedy and is also called a shift, each having one hundred and thirty-eight remedies. The characteristics of concurrent, complete, and so forth can be understood by considering this. Only when one grasps this meaning will one understand this text. Next, under "combined practice of the auxiliary six perfections," in further explaining the formula for combined practice generally, it clarifies that the characteristics of the remedies and their phenomenal matters are not singular. In each and every phenomenon there is combined practice, which cannot be detailed here; hence it refers to the later text on mutual subsumption. From "Some say..." below, intending to clarify combined practice, it first presents differing interpretations, and then refutes the differences to clarify the necessity of combined practice. From "Therefore our school..." below, the text contains four kinds of six perfections. In the first passage directly presenting differing interpretations, it reveals that ten and six are merely opening and combining. The ancients did not see the intention of opening and combining, and misapplied the passage on the ultimate tenet and teachings from the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra. That Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra states: "For the two vehicles and bodhisattvas there are two kinds: the first is the dharma-characteristics of the ultimate tenet (siddhānta), which means what is personally realized, free from conceptual characteristics, entering the realm of uncontaminatedness; the second is spoken discourse, which means expounding the nine divisions [of scripture], free from the four propositions, causing sentient beings to enter." However, that [passage] generally brings up what is realized and spoken by the two vehicles and bodhisattvas, forming the characteristics of principle and teaching shared by the three vehicles. Ancient masters did not understand, holding that the ultimate tenet without spoken discourse is principle and is the Great [Vehicle], belonging to bodhisattvas; and holding that teaching with spoken discourse is phenomenal and is the Lesser [Vehicle], belonging to the two vehicles. The presence or absence of tenet and teaching is refuted in full as in the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti-sūtra. Next, it cites the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and the Dapin to prove that the six perfections subsume all dharmas; thus we know that outside the six there are no other dharmas. Just as with the four noble truths earlier, it only says that the four noble truths have immeasurable characteristics, but does not say that outside the four there are other dharmas; why then say that the six belong only to the shared teaching? Next, from "If one grasps..." below, it briefly shows the meaning of the text.