止觀輔行傳弘決 7.2.1

7.2.1

次釋通塞中，先列異名； 次明來意，有法、譬、合。 就初法中，先正明來意，亦是結前生後。 前「破法遍」者，結前也。 「應入」等者，生後也。 俱用三名以為生後，故云應入不入。 「當尋得失必滯是非」，得失秖是有著無著。 若同外道名著名失，當用此門檢校除失； 若無失者，但依前門破塞存通。 是故今門意在檢校，恐於通中翻起於塞。 次「不得」下，誡勸也。 若一向作解唯用破遍，恐於通起塞、於塞無通，所以立此通塞一門。 檢彼破遍令塞得通，使彼破門於通無塞。 次「何者」下，正明來意。 於能生著，同彼外道，宜用通塞四句遍破。 故知前破遍中但用能破破於所破，猶未悟者必於能所心生塞著。 於能生著，觀法雖正，著心同邪，是故須破，故云「愛著觀空智慧」，是故須以四句三假破能著心使無立處。 破能著智如所破惑，故云「能破如所破」也。 雖不愛著能破之觀，而猶愛著所破之惑，故云若不愛著觀空智慧，則「能破不如所破」，是故但用破遍破惑。 是故須以二句分別，則使此文與前永異：一者通途通塞則以所破為塞、能破為通； 二者別相通塞則以於能起著為塞、破塞無著為通。 故下文云「法相淺深任有通塞，況復於中起苦集等。 」上句即是通途通塞，下句即以別相況之。 然今此中總有四義：一橫通塞、二竪通塞、三橫別通塞、四一心通塞。 文四義二。 前三為成一心故也，一一皆須四句檢校。 若於四通而起塞著，皆須破塞以存於通，如是展轉以破為期。 故下文云「於一一能、一一所、一一心皆悉檢校，為是義故立通塞門。 」所以復須四句分別：一者塞中得通、二者通中有塞、三者塞自是塞、四者通自是通。 初之二句即是今文別相通塞，後之二句若塞已破即屬破遍、若塞未破度入今文成前二句。 又第一句兼於兩句，謂通相別相兩意故也。 次舉譬中，先譬。 「除膜養珠」但成分喻，若「破賊護將」便成遍喻。 何者？ 除膜養珠不可珠復為膜，即濫第三第四兩句，是故更喻破賊護將。 將若為賊，此賊亦破； 賊若為將，此將亦護。 如是展轉，將皆為賊，節節破之。 即是此文之正意也。 所言膜者，皮間薄膜，此膜覆眼名為眼膜。 「若爾」下，合譬。 若能如是，方能導人至於寶所。 於中先正合譬，次通五百由旬義也。 亦通塞之正意也。 破塞存通至寶所故，是故路經五百由旬。 經云「導師善知通塞」，故用《法華》將導譬也。 是故須破古今諸釋，方了今文一心通塞。 於中總有六師不同。 破初家云「二乘之道非七八地」者，問：二乘正當七地八地，云何言非？ 答：此中用釋論意以破彼計。 彼釋既云「六地見思盡以為三百，七地八地以為四百。 」是故今文以論破之。 論以二乘而對四百，汝以六地對見思盡，正當二乘不為四百，却以七八二地而為四百，故汝所釋與彼大論通教義違。 此師用通義而不識通意，是故還引《大論》破之。 《大論》通意至後更釋。 後之二家皆約煩惱為五百者，而前家不數塵沙、後家不數於見，是故並失。 後辨失中略不更破也。 「此之名義」下，通今經也。 先正通經。 經具三義，故知諸師不與經會。 「諸師」下，次辨失也，先總、次別。 初言總者，用別如太方、用通如太圓，二乘擅行如太動、界內立城如太靜。 又約煩惱而不數見及塵沙，約生死而不數有後無後為太靜。 故知諸師各隨一見，或得通而失二、或用別而違圓、或至三百而不立化城、或有擅行於四百五百、或約煩惱而攝或不盡、或約生死而取捨不周，欲判圓經恐未可也。 「如持一孔」等者，不可以一師偏解，能釋兼三之文。 「初家」下別判，但判四師不判第五第六師者，略無易見。 判初家云四百立城者，若約通義，七八二地正屬二乘，彼師七八對於四百，故成四百以立化城。

Next, in explaining pass and blockage: first, different names are listed; second, the purpose of its occurrence is explained, comprising the doctrine, the simile, and the application. In the first part on the doctrine, first the purpose of its occurrence is directly explained, which also concludes the preceding and introduces the following. "Universal refutation of dharmas" concludes the preceding. "Ought to enter" and so forth introduces the following. All three designations are used to introduce the following; therefore it says, "ought to enter but does not enter." "One should search for gain and loss, which must be bogged down in right and wrong"; "gain" and "loss" simply refer to having attachment and lacking attachment. If one is like the non-Buddhists, who are called attached and called errant, one should use this gate to examine and eliminate the errancy; if there is no errancy, one merely relies on the preceding gate to refute blockage and preserve the pass. Therefore, the intention of the present gate lies in examination, fearing that within what is a pass, a blockage might conversely arise. Next, "may not" and so forth gives admonition and exhortation. If one solely adheres to an understanding that exclusively employs universal refutation, one fears that blockages will arise within the pass and that there will be no pass within blockage; for this reason, this single gate of pass and blockage is established. It examines that universal refutation so that blockage yields a pass, causing that gate of refutation to have no blockage within the pass. Next, "why so?" and so forth directly explains the purpose of its occurrence. As for generating attachment in that which can [refute], being identical with those non-Buddhists, one ought to use the four propositions of pass and blockage to refute it universally. Thus we know that in the preceding universal refutation, one only used the refuting agent to refute what was refuted; those who have not yet awakened will inevitably generate a blocking attachment in the minds of the refuting agent and the refuted. When attachment arises in the refuting agent, even though the method of contemplation is correct, the attached mind is identical with error, and therefore it must be refuted; hence it says, "clinging attached to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness." For this reason, one must use the four propositions and the three provisionalities to refute the mind capable of attachment, causing it to have no place to stand. Refuting the wisdom capable of attachment is just like [refuting] the afflictions that are refuted; hence it says, "the refuting agent is like what is refuted." Even if one does not cling to the contemplation that is the refuting agent, but still clings to the afflictions that are what is refuted, it says that if one does not cling to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness, then "the refuting agent is not like what is refuted"; therefore, one only uses universal refutation to refute afflictions. For this reason, one must differentiate with two propositions, which makes this text permanently distinct from the preceding: first, the general pass and blockage takes what is refuted as blockage and the refuting agent as the pass; second, the specific pass and blockage takes giving rise to attachment in the refuting agent as blockage, and refuting blockage without attachment as the pass. Hence the text below says: "The shallow and deep marks of dharmas naturally have pass and blockage; how much more so when giving rise to suffering, accumulation, and so forth within them!" The upper line is the general pass and blockage; the lower line uses the specific to draw an analogy to it. However, now within this there are four meanings in total: first, horizontal pass and blockage; second, vertical pass and blockage; third, horizontal-distinctive pass and blockage; and fourth, single-mind pass and blockage. The text has four, but the meanings are two. The first three are for the sake of accomplishing the single mind; each and every one requires examination through the four propositions. If blocking attachment arises regarding the four passes, all must refute blockage to preserve the pass, proceeding progressively in this way with refutation as the goal. Hence the text below says: "One examines each and every refuting agent, each and every refuted object, and each and every mind; for this reason, the gate of pass and blockage is established." For this reason, one also must differentiate through four propositions: first, attaining the pass within blockage; second, having blockage within the pass; third, blockage of itself being blockage; and fourth, the pass of itself being the pass. The first two propositions are the specific pass and blockage of the present text; the latter two propositions, if the blockage has already been refuted, belong to universal refutation, and if the blockage has not yet been refuted, they pass over into the present text to form the first two propositions. Moreover, the first proposition combines the two propositions, meaning the two senses of the general mark and the specific mark. Next, in presenting the simile, the simile comes first. "Removing the film to nurture the pearl" only constitutes a partial simile; whereas "defeating the bandits to protect the general" constitutes an all-inclusive simile. Why is that? In removing the film to nurture the pearl, the pearl cannot turn back into a film, which would conflate with the third and fourth propositions; for this reason, one further uses the simile of defeating bandits to protect the general. If the general acts as a bandit, this bandit is also defeated; if the bandit acts as a general, this general is also protected. Proceeding progressively like this, whenever generals all turn into bandits, they are refuted step by step. This is the primary intention of this text. What is called a "film" is a thin membrane between the skin; this film covers the eye and is called an ocular film. Next, "if so" and so forth applies the simile. If one can be like this, only then can one guide people to reach the place of jewels. Within this, it first directly applies the simile, and next explains the meaning of the five hundred yojanas. This is also the primary intention of pass and blockage. Because one refutes blockage and preserves the pass to reach the place of jewels, the road passes through five hundred yojanas. The sūtra says: "The guide knows well the passes and blockages"; hence the simile of the guiding leader from the Lotus Sūtra is employed. Therefore, one must refute the various interpretations of past and present before one can understand the single-mind pass and blockage of the present text. Within this, there are six different teachers in total. Refuting the first master's claim that "the path of the two vehicles is not the seventh and eighth grounds": Question: Since the two vehicles precisely correspond to the seventh and eighth grounds, why say they are not? Answer: Here the intention of the Treatise is employed to refute his position. Since his explanation said, "Taking the exhaustion of [the delusions of] views and thoughts on the sixth ground as the three hundred [yojanas], and taking the seventh and eighth grounds as the four hundred [yojanas]," therefore the present text refutes him using the Treatise. The Treatise matches the two vehicles with the four hundred, but you match the sixth ground with the exhaustion of views and thoughts; while precisely corresponding to the two vehicles, you do not take it as four hundred, but instead take the seventh and eighth grounds as four hundred; therefore your explanation contradicts the shared teaching's meaning in the Dazhidulun. This master used the shared meaning without understanding the shared intent; therefore we quote the Dazhidulun in turn to refute him. The shared intent of the Dazhidulun will be further explained below. The latter two masters both interpret the five hundred in terms of afflictions; however, the former master does not count [the delusions like] dust and sand, and the latter master does not count [delusive] views; therefore both are deficient. In the subsequent identification of errors, they are omitted without further refutation. Next, "this name and meaning" and so forth explains the present sūtra. First it directly explains the sūtra. The sūtra possesses three meanings; thus we know the various masters did not accord with the sūtra. Next, "the various masters" and so forth identifies the errors, first generally and then specifically. First, regarding the general statement: using the distinctive is like being too square, and using the shared is like being too round; the two vehicles acting presumptuously is like being too active, and establishing the city within the realms is like being too still. Furthermore, interpreting in terms of afflictions without counting views and dust-and-sand, and interpreting in terms of birth-and-death without counting "with remainder" and "without remainder," constitutes being too still. Thus we know that the various masters each followed a single view: either grasping the shared while missing the two, or using the distinctive while contradicting the perfect, or reaching three hundred without establishing the conjured city, or presumptuously walking to four hundred or five hundred, or interpreting in terms of afflictions without subsuming them completely, or interpreting in terms of birth-and-death while accepting and rejecting incompletely; to attempt to judge the perfect sūtra [with such views], one fears it is impermissible. "Like holding to a single aperture" and so forth: one cannot use a single master's one-sided interpretation to explain a text that combines the three. Next, "the first master" and so forth makes specific judgments; as for only judging four masters and not judging the fifth and sixth masters, they are omitted because [their errors] are easy to see. Judging the first master's statement that the four hundred establishes the city: if according to the shared meaning, the seventh and eighth grounds precisely belong to the two vehicles; that master matched the seventh and eighth with the four hundred, and thus established the conjured city at four hundred.