止觀輔行傳弘決 7.30

7.30

次「又復當」下，無我觀也。「忽聞讚罵」等者，如人持瓶，聞罵持者、或讚持者，攬他彼說云讚罵己。一切事業亦復如是，況復罵己全是罵他，以身屬他四大造故（云云）。心性如手，執如塗膠，取境名為「隨執隨著」。「酷」者，虐也。「赫」者，盛貌。「隆」者，如前。「如彼夜房」等者，《大論》九十三云「瞋者本無，一切皆虛妄事。故生嗔恚如於逆害，乃至奪命起重罪業，因茲重業必墮三惡。慎勿無事受大苦惱。如一山中有一佛圖，中有別房常有鬼來，故諸道人皆捨此房。有客比丘暮投其宿，維那處分令住此房，而謂之言：『此房有鬼喜來惱人。能住不耶？』此客比丘自恃戒力及多聞力而不畏之，謂此小鬼有何所能，我能伏之。即便入房。至暮，復有一客比丘求覓住處，維那亦令住此鬼房，亦如前說，客僧亦復如前人說。先住比丘閉門端坐伺待鬼來，後來比丘夜已黑闇打門求入。先者謂鬼，不為開門。後者復以極力打門，內者復以極力拒之。外者得勝，排門得入，內者以極力打外者，外者亦以極力打之。如是相打以至明旦，相見乃是故舊同學，各相愧謝。眾人聚而怪之。眾生亦爾，五陰本來無人無我，空取其相生於鬪諍。若披在地但有骨肉，無復人我，當爾之時誰論彼此？是故菩薩語眾生言：『汝慎勿於本空之中起鬪諍罪。』」「二鬼爭屍」等者，《大論》十三云「如人遠行，獨宿空亭。夜中有鬼擔一死屍來著其前，復有一鬼從後而來，瞋罵前鬼云：『是我屍，何以擔來？』前鬼復言：『本是我物，我自擔來。』二鬼各以一手爭之。前鬼語曰：『可問此人。』後鬼即問：『是誰死人？誰擔將來？』是人思惟：『此之二鬼皆有大力，實語虛語皆不免死，我今不應妄語答鬼。』便答後鬼：『前鬼擔來。』後鬼大瞋，拔其手足出著地上。前鬼愧之，取屍補之，補之便著。臂手足等舉身皆易。於是二鬼共食所易活人之身，各各拭口分首而去。其人思惟：『父母生身眼見食盡，我今此身盡是他肉，為有身耶？為無身耶？』如是思惟，心懷迷亂不知所措，猶如狂人。天既明矣尋路而去，至前國土見有佛塔，凡見眾僧不論餘事，但問己身為有為無。諸比丘問：『汝何人耶？』答曰：『我亦不知是人非人。』即為眾僧廣說上事。眾僧皆云：『此人自知己身無我，易可化度。』即語之言：『汝身本來恒自無我，但以四大和合聚集計為本身，如汝本身與今無異。』時諸比丘度為沙門，斷煩惱盡，得阿羅漢。」是故有時於他人身亦計為我，以無我故，有時於我謂為他人。故《文殊問經》云「有老人夜臥，手捉兩膝，而便問云：『那得有此兩小兒耶？』」身若有我，云何不識，謂為小兒？故知橫計皆無定實。「若修」下，結成三乘行異。初聲聞。先法中云「如為怨逐」等者，四倒如怨，逼心如逐，身如怨國，觀如叛出。不出五陰而於中行，若至見道方有出路。「麞聞」下，譬。三乘之人雖復觀於諦緣度別，通而言之俱觀念處。雖同念處，自行化他、有悲無悲、宿福不同，故分三別，故於此後分出三乘。初文譬者，聲聞觀法義之如麞，生老病死猶如「獵圍」，三界五欲猶如「水草」，不遑視聽如「不暇飲噉」，希離二縛如志在「免脫」。次支佛行相中，支佛觀法義之如「鹿」，觀因緣智猶如「透圍」，斷結侵習如「小免難」，自智如「馳」，愍他如「顧」。悲智兼行，故名為「並」。部行說法名為「悲鳴」，但讚出苦名為「呦咽」，呦呦鹿鳴也。「咽」字應作「噎」，飲食不下也。悲心愍物，如食不進。自厭有餘名之為「痛」，亦悲他人名人為「戀」，昔同彼苦名為「本群」，欲去念住恐非永益，名「雖踟蹰」。言踟蹰者，行不前貌。有少悲心似住生死，利物事微名為「何益」，說已入般名為「茹氣」，教法不住名為「吞聲」。茹者，飲也。雖愍而逝，如銜悲前進。從「自出」下，合譬，文略。「悼」者，哀也、矜也。次明菩薩者，譬文可知。次合譬中，文相皆是事助之益，是故當須事理合行。故下文「若全無」下更說合行之意。若不見之，如何進行？前聲聞中，先法、次喻。次支佛中，先喻、次合。此二合文，文相並略，不委對合，是故於喻扶文委銷。今菩薩中合喻文足，故直合之不復別釋。「大象」合菩薩。從「無常去至水火」者，合「雖聞圍合」。從「又起慈悲去至獨去」者，合「不忍獨去」。從「安耐生死」，合「自知力大」等。從「以智去至俱安」者，合「令群安隱」。事度為「功德」，五分為「法身」，伏道為「慧命」，後後為「增長」。三祇為大象。從「若小象子」去，抑揚也。小不及大，抑也。初心可歎，揚也。初僧祇初名小菩薩，雖未免退，實異凡小，故可稱歎。次引證中「不住不調」等者，初心菩薩事度誓願異凡夫故，名不住不調。異二乘故，名不住調。「雖知」已去三句例此。而不取證，故並云雖。但以伏道為無我等，不同通別二種菩薩。「多修」下，結行成也。「狼」者獸也，似犬而狼。此三藏中三乘之智，同觀無常苦空無我，為三乘行異，並可以為助道事智。「自行」下，正請加。蒙如、結益，並如文。「若全」下，明合行之意，先斥失、次辯得。「佛印」者，印謂印可，可謂稱可。事理相稱故可聖心，為聖冥印障去理顯。既具眾失又迷理觀，印無是處。

Next, from "Further, one should..." down is the contemplation of non-self. As for "suddenly hearing praise or blame" and so forth, it is like a person carrying a vase who hears someone blame the bearer or praise the bearer, and appropriates another's words, saying that they praise or blame himself. All activities are also like this; how much more so when blaming oneself is entirely blaming another, because the body belongs to another, being made of the four great elements (and so forth). The nature of the mind is like a hand; grasping is like being smeared with glue; taking hold of objects is called "adhering according to grasping." "Cruel" (ku) means harsh. "Blazing" (he) means flourishing. "Majestic" (long) is as before. As for "like that dark room" and so forth, the Dazhidulun, scroll ninety-three, says: "Anger fundamentally does not exist; all are false and deceptive matters. Thus producing anger is like committing treason and harm, even taking life and raising grave sinful karma; because of this grave karma, one must fall into the three evil paths. Be careful not to endure great suffering and distress for nothing. For example, in a mountain there was a Buddhist monastery where there was a separate room into which ghosts regularly came; thus all the practitioners avoided this room. A guest bhikṣu arrived at dusk to seek lodging; the karmadāna assigned him to stay in this room, saying to him: 'This room has ghosts that like to come and disturb people. Can you stay here?' Relying on his own power of precepts and power of extensive learning, this guest bhikṣu was not afraid of them, thinking: 'What can this little ghost do? I can subdue him.' He immediately entered the room. At nightfall, another guest bhikṣu came seeking a place to stay; the karmadāna also had him stay in this ghost room, speaking as before, and the guest monk also spoke as the previous person had. The bhikṣu who dwelt there first closed the door, sat upright, and waited for the ghost to come. The bhikṣu who came later, the night already being dark, beat on the door seeking to enter. The first one thought it was a ghost and would not open the door for him. The latter again beat on the door with all his might, and the one inside again resisted him with all his might. The one outside prevailed, pushed open the door, and got in; the one inside struck the one outside with all his might, and the one outside also struck him with all his might. In this way they beat each other until morning; when they saw each other, they were old classmates from the past, and each apologized to the other in shame. The crowd gathered and marvelled at it. Sentient beings are also like this: the five aggregates are fundamentally devoid of person and devoid of self, yet in vain they grasp their characteristics and give rise to strife. If laid out on the ground, there is only bone and flesh, no longer person or self; at that time, who argues about this or that? Therefore the bodhisattva speaks to sentient beings, saying: 'You must be careful not to give rise to the sin of strife within what is fundamentally empty.'" As for "two ghosts fighting over a corpse" and so forth, the Dazhidulun, scroll thirteen, says: "It is like a person travelling far who lodged alone in an empty pavilion. In the night, a ghost came carrying a corpse and placed it in front of him. Another ghost came from behind and angrily scolded the previous ghost, saying: 'It is my corpse, why did you carry it here?' The previous ghost further said: 'It was originally my thing; I carried it myself.' The two ghosts fought over it, each with one hand. The previous ghost said: 'You can ask this man.' The latter ghost immediately asked: 'Whose dead body is it? Who brought it carrying it?' This man reflected: 'These two ghosts both have great strength; whether I speak the truth or falsehood, I will not escape death. I should not answer the ghost with a lie now.' He then answered the latter ghost: 'The previous ghost brought it carrying it.' The latter ghost was greatly enraged, pulled out his hands and feet, and placed them on the ground. The previous ghost felt ashamed for him, took the corpse's [limbs] to patch him, and as he patched him, they adhered. Arms, hands, feet, and so forth—his whole body was replaced. Thereupon the two ghosts together ate the body of the living person that had been replaced, each wiped his mouth, and they went their separate ways. That man reflected: 'The body born of my parents was seen with my own eyes to be eaten up; this body of mine now is entirely another's flesh. Is there a body, or is there no body?' Reflecting in this way, his mind became bewildered and did not know what to do, like a madman. When daylight came, he followed the road and went along; reaching a country ahead, he saw a Buddhist stūpa. Whenever he saw the assembly of monks, he spoke of nothing else, only asking whether his own body existed or did not exist. The bhikṣus asked: 'What kind of person are you?' He answered, saying: 'I also do not know whether I am a human or a non-human.' He then related the above matter extensively to the assembly of monks. The monks all said: 'This man knows for himself that his own body has no self; he can easily be converted.' They immediately spoke to him, saying: 'Your body fundamentally has always been without self; it is merely that the assemblage of the four great elements was reckoned as your original body; your original body is no different from now.' Then the bhikṣus ordained him as a śramaṇa; his defilements were cut off completely, and he attained arhatship." Therefore, at times one also reckons another person's body as oneself; because there is no self, at times one refers to oneself as another person. Therefore the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra says: "There was an old man who lay down at night, held both knees with his hands, and then asked, saying: 'How is it that there are these two little boys here?'" If the body possessed a self, how could he not recognise it, calling them little boys? Thus we know that perverse reckonings are all without fixed reality. From "If cultivating..." down, it concludes by establishing the differences in practice among the three vehicles. First, the śrāvaka. First, in the doctrinal explanation, saying "as if pursued by an enemy" and so forth: the four inversions are like enemies; pressing upon the mind is like being pursued; the body is like an enemy country; contemplation is like rebelling and escaping. Not leaving the five aggregates, one practices within them; only upon reaching the path of seeing is there a way out. From "The roe deer hears..." down is the metaphor. Although people of the three vehicles contemplate distinctions of truths, conditions, and perfections, speaking generally, they all contemplate the stations of mindfulness. Although they share the stations of mindfulness, their own practice and conversion of others, possessing compassion or lacking compassion, and past merit are different; therefore they are divided into three distinctions, and therefore after this the three vehicles are divided. In the first text's metaphor: the śrāvaka's contemplation of dharma is compared to a roe deer; birth, aging, illness, and death are like the "hunting cordon"; the five desires of the three realms are like "water and grass"; not having leisure to look or listen is like "having no time to drink or eat"; hoping to leave the two bondages is like the aim of "escaping and becoming free." Next, among the practical characteristics of the pratyekabuddha: the pratyekabuddha's contemplation of dharma is compared to a "deer"; the wisdom contemplating causes and conditions is like "breaking through the cordon"; cutting off fetters and eroding residual habits is like "briefly escaping distress"; his own wisdom is like "running swiftly"; pitying others is like "looking back." Compassion and wisdom are practiced concurrently, so it is called "alongside." Group-dwelling and expounding the Dharma is called "plaintive crying"; merely praising escaping suffering is called "sobbing and choking"—this is the deer calling "you-you." The character yan ("choking") should be written ye, meaning food and drink do not go down. The mind of compassion pitying creatures is like being unable to eat food. Self-disgust with remainder is called "grief"; also pitying other people is called "longing"; having formerly shared that suffering is called the "original herd"; wishing to depart yet abiding in mindfulness, fearing it will not be of permanent benefit, is called "though hesitating." Saying "hesitating" is the appearance of not advancing. Possessing a little compassion, appearing to remain in birth and death, while the matter of benefiting creatures is slight, is called "what benefit?"; having spoken and entering parinirvāṇa is called "swallowing one's breath"; the teaching and Dharma not remaining is called "holding back one's voice." Ru means to swallow. Although pitying, yet departing, is like advancing holding back grief. From "himself emerging..." down, the metaphor is matched; the text is abridged. "Lamenting" (dao) means grieving and pitying. Next, clarifying the bodhisattva, the text of the metaphor can be understood. Next, in matching the metaphor, the textual characteristics are all the benefits of phenomenal assistance; therefore, phenomena and principle must be practiced in conjunction. Therefore, the lower text below "If completely lacking..." further explains the intention of practicing in conjunction. If one does not see this, how can one advance? In the previous śrāvaka [section], first came doctrine, next metaphor. In the subsequent pratyekabuddha [section], first came metaphor, next matching. The matching texts of these two are both abridged, without detailed step-by-step matching; therefore, the metaphor was supported by text and explained in detail. Now in the bodhisattva [section], the text matching the metaphor is sufficient, so it is matched directly without separate explanation. The "great elephant" matches the bodhisattva. From "impermanence down to water and fire" matches "though hearing the cordon close in." From "further arousing compassion down to departing alone" matches "not enduring to depart alone." From "patiently enduring birth and death" matches "knowing oneself to have great strength" and so forth. From "with wisdom down to both secure" matches "causing the herd to be secure." Phenomenal perfections are "merit"; the fivefold [dharmakāya] is the "dharma body"; the path of suppression is "wisdom life"; successive stages are "growth." Three asaṃkhyeya kalpas are the great elephant. From "if a small elephant calf" onward is depreciation and praise. The small not reaching the great is depreciation; the initial mind being praiseworthy is praise. At the beginning of the first asaṃkhyeya kalpa one is called a small bodhisattva; although not yet free from regression, he is truly different from ordinary persons and the Hinayana, so he can be praised. Next, in citing proof, "neither abiding nor untamed" and so forth: because the phenomenal perfections and vows of the initial-mind bodhisattva differ from ordinary persons, he is called "neither abiding nor untamed"; because they differ from the two vehicles, he is called "neither abiding nor tamed." The three lines from "though knowing" onward follow this pattern. Yet he does not realise verification, so all say "though." Merely taking the path of suppression as non-self and so forth, he is not the same as the two types of bodhisattvas of the shared and distinctive [teachings]. From "frequently cultivating" down concludes the completion of practice. A "wolf" (lang) is a beast, resembling a dog yet a wolf. The wisdom of the three vehicles within this Tripiṭaka [teaching] equally contemplates impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self; to make the practices of the three vehicles different, they can all be phenomenal wisdom aiding the path. From "one's own practice" down, one directly requests empowerment. Receiving conformity and concluding benefits are both as in the text. From "if completely" down clarifies the intention of practicing in conjunction: first rebuking the loss, next explaining the gain. As for "the Buddha's seal," seal means confirmation; confirmation means matching. When phenomena and principle match each other, they accord with the noble mind, being secretly sealed by the nobles so that obstacles are removed and principle becomes apparent. When one is already replete with all faults and also confused about the contemplation of principle, confirmation is impossible.