止觀輔行傳弘決 7.51

7.51

「次位者」下，正示十乘次位一意。即彼十中次位之一，為明別教次位難會，故演十意指一通之。若是十乘，何不但云此之十法是十乘耶？至此但指十中之一。次釋圓教次位者，先明五悔為入位之方。他人圓修都無此意，將何以為造行之始？但云一念即是如來，空譚舉心無非法界，委撿心行全無毫微。「若修四種三昧至重作方便」者，明方便來意。四種三昧通用二十五法，為通方便。若行法華，別加五悔，不通餘行，故云「唯」也。若方等中，以求夢王為別方便，常行、常坐及隨自意直爾行之，逆順十心一切通具。「先知」下，明五悔意為入觀之方，是故重牒前文觀法。「但心理」下，明用向觀法不能發真，是故應須更加五悔。此之五悔為圓位初因，若復悠悠，道法安剋？「懺名」下，次正明五悔。雖有勸請等四不同，莫非悔罪，故名五悔。具如下文，明悔意中各有所治。今僧常儀，前四出《十住婆沙》，願文在《大涅槃》，若《占察經》亦但列四。南山云：「《占察》不須更加發願，以其四悔皆是願故。」若爾，經論皆四，今何故五？答：如《彌勒問經》云「晝夜六時勤行五悔，不假苦行能得菩提。」故必須願。此五次第者，若皆名悔，莫非治罪應無次第？若準《婆沙》、《占察》，次第並同。若如是等長悔之文，亦五悔義足。初「如是」下，即懺悔也。次「今諸佛」下，即迴向也。次「眾罪」去一偈，即重舉懺悔，略例餘三。次一偈重舉世尊以為歸禮，故無次第。且依次第為生起者，若舊罪不除，徒施勸請。既勸請已，覩相聞教依教修行。若嫉妬不除，自善微劣，尚不喜他，何能迴向？四法具足，以願導之。如此五法尚能入位，況滅罪耶？比來行人都無介意，徒勞讚者急誦，未與耳識相應。一生若斯，枉招信施，業不他受，試為思之。

From "As for the stages..." downward, it directly points out the single idea of stages among the ten methods. This is precisely the one [concerning] stages among those ten: in order to clarify that the stages of the distinctive teaching are difficult to harmonize, he expounded the ten ideas and designated this single one to resolve it. If it were the ten vehicles, why would he not simply say that these ten dharmas are the ten vehicles? Reaching this point, he only indicates one among the ten. Next, in explaining the stages of the perfect teaching, he first clarifies that the fivefold repentance serves as the method for entering the stages. Others who cultivate the perfect [teaching] entirely lack this intention; what then would they take as the beginning of undertaking practice? They merely say that a single thought is itself the Tathāgata, idly discoursing that whenever a thought arises there is nothing that is not the dharma-dhātu, while an exacting examination of their mental activity shows not the slightest trace [of realization]. As for "If one cultivates the four kinds of samādhi... to formulate expedients once more," it clarifies the purpose of the expedients' introduction. The four kinds of samādhi generally make use of the twenty-five dharmas as common expedients. If one practices the Lotus [samādhi], one separately adds the fivefold repentance, which does not apply commonly to the other practices; hence it says "only." If it is in the Vaipulya [samādhi], seeking a dream king is the distinct expedient; whereas the constantly walking, constantly sitting, and following one's own intention [samādhis] are practiced directly, all having the ten minds in forward and reverse sequence in common. From "First knowing..." downward, it clarifies that the purpose of the fivefold repentance is to serve as the method for entering contemplation; therefore, it restates the contemplative methods of the preceding text. From "Only the mind-principle..." downward, it clarifies that using the aforementioned contemplative method cannot manifest the truth, and therefore one must additionally apply the fivefold repentance. This fivefold repentance is the initial cause for the stages of the perfect [teaching]; if one is again lax and negligent, how can the Dharma of the path be attained? From "The name repentance..." downward, it next directly clarifies the fivefold repentance. Although there are four different [parts], such as entreaty, none is not the repentance of transgressions, and hence they are called the "fivefold repentance." It is fully explained in the text below, clarifying what each cures within the intention of repentance. In the ordinary ritual of the saṅgha today, the first four come from the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā, while the text of the vow is in the Mahāparinirvāṇa[-sūtra]; the Zhancha jing also lists only four. Nanshan says: "The Zhancha does not need to add the making of vows, because its four repentances are all vows." If so, since the sūtras and treatises all have four, why are there five here? We answer: As the Maitreya-paripṛcchā-sūtra says, "Diligent practice of the fivefold repentance through the six periods of day and night enables one to attain bodhi without relying on austerities." Therefore, vows are definitely required. As for the sequence of these five: if all are named "repentance" and none is not the remedying of transgression, should there be no sequence? If based on the Vibhāṣā and the Zhancha, the sequences are identical. Texts of extensive repentance like this also possess the full meaning of the fivefold repentance. First, from "Like this..." downward is repentance. Next, from "Now the Buddhas..." downward is dedication [of merit]. Next, the single verse beginning with "All sins..." restates repentance, briefly exemplifying the remaining three. The next verse restates the World-Honoured One as the object of refuge and obeisance; hence there is no sequence. Yet, relying on the sequence as a pedagogical arising: if old sins are not eliminated, making entreaties is futile. Once entreaty has been made, one beholds the marks, hears the teaching, and practices according to the teaching. If jealousy is not eliminated, one's own good is slight and inferior, and one cannot even rejoice in others—how could one dedicate [merit]? When these four methods are complete, one guides them with vows. If these five methods can even enable entry into the stages, how much more so the extinction of transgressions? Practitioners of recent times have not paid any heed to this; they futilely tire the chanters into reciting at speed without it ever engaging their auditory consciousness. Spending an entire lifetime like this, they vainly incur the offerings of the faithful; and karma is not borne by others—let them reflect upon this!