止觀輔行傳弘決 8.2

8.2

釋煩惱境者，自此以下現文六境及略三境咸是發得，此九境外所起煩惱乃至四弘但屬陰境三陰所攝，是故尋常非無煩惱，乃至發心亦並須觀，非不名境。今文謂辯觀陰發得，故須辯異。讀者行者無惛本宗。如前七隻分別中，云「此之十境是三障攝」，非即現在所起三障。現三障者，如《大經》第十云「菩薩摩訶薩求種智者，為除眾生三種障故。煩惱障者，所謂三毒纏蓋、八慢四邪等。業障者，謂五無間。報障者，謂三惡道，誹謗正法及一闡提。」故知舉惡能障故名為障，今以流類攝彼後兩。初總明來意中，先結前生後，「上陰」下結前，「而觀察」下生後。次「前訶欲」下正明來意，先且與上諸文辯異，有法、譬、合。初明與上方便中訶欲棄蓋辯異，次與上陰境辯異。上之欲蓋及陰入中，雖有惑相，未過增盛非煩惱境，故訶欲中且知五塵是生行者貪欲之緣，生欲是過，因過生罪，是故須訶。蓋中但是緣落謝塵妨於入觀，應須捨棄。又此二五若訶若棄，但成方便，未正用觀。前觀陰入觀於報陰，報陰無記，於彼陰上求於妙解，故彼陰境未名煩惱。又前別歷一心文中，雖觀貪瞋，非今境意。但是現起善惡諸惑，皆陰入攝，是以因陰所起煩惱皆名陰境。今境必須因觀陰發，發重貪等，方名今境。從「今觀」去，正舉今境異陰蓋等，故云「起重貪瞋」。從「如鐵」下，舉譬也。鐵如陰、火如觀，陰未遇觀宿惑冥伏，故云「但黑」；因觀陰境，陰解未生，習起異前，故曰「赫然」。又「報法」下，次辯難易。更牒欲蓋及以陰入，與今煩惱總辯難易。故欲蓋之體通屬陰入，故與陰入通名「尋常」。「何者」下，別釋也。與前三法對辯難易。初正明相對中，先法、次譬。法中出前三毒與今對辯。前是報法及現煩惱，是故易息；今發既重，是故難制。「倒想」是癡。貪者可見。言「死馬」者，《十誦》初戒，天魔欲壞難提，變為女人誘至馬所，便隱形去，是人欲盛乃至不簡。「此惑」下，更辯助緣。所發煩惱已過於常，復加外緣致令狂逸。「譬如」下，舉譬也。「流水」如陰法，「用觀」如概木，「動習」如𭱯起。「漣漪」等者，風行而流水成文。今以木概，彼風行急，流蹙水𭱯起。又漣漪者，重波也。波上又波，故曰重波。𭱯者，本音豹字，即豹變也。今是水起，借從水作。「健人」譬意與水大同。「煩惱」下，合譬也。「如觸臥師子」下，更重以譬釋成前譬。「若不」下，結勸令識。「非唯」下，明因境起過，如第五卷云「隨之牽人向惡」，即此意也。次正釋中，初釋相者，先釋名中有二解：初合字釋者，三毒是能煩，心神是所煩；次分字解，煩為能煩，惱為所惱。當知通名通於見思。「此一往分」下，明鈍中有利。如蟲獸凡夫亦能起我，我即是利，雖利屬鈍，故云「實不推理乃至自大」。「蠕」者小蟲，有識能動者也。「舉螫」等者，蟹類也。《埤蒼》云「其一螫遍大，名為擁劍，亦名執火，以螯赤故。」亦如螳蜋拒轍等是。「鬐」者，項毛也。《說文》云「馬鬐鬣也。」如狼等瞋，必張鬐怒曰。此舉蟲等劣類以況於人，此尚計我，何況人耶？「底下凡劣」下，舉鈍使凡夫而亦有利。「五利至何嘗」等者，次明利中有鈍，如諸外道依於諸見而起瞋恚。「若未發禪來」等者，問：如佛弟子次第修人亦未發禪，何故名為須陀洹人所斷見惑？答：今判利鈍，約現發見，見所起惑。如未得禪來，縱起宿習所有煩惱，及因現陰起於我見，仍屬鈍使。初果所斷，凡夫共有，冥伏在身障真無漏；若見諦理，此惑自除，故名此惑以之為見，故不同於禪後所起。若諸外道，由未見諦，得禪定已雖斷鈍使，仍未曾斷一毫見惑。見惑現行，故不同於未發禪來所有見惑及冥伏者，是故不以八十八使中見惑為例。故八十八使義屬陰境所攝，對簡利鈍方受見名，復異禪後見惑之相。今但對禪後見簡，故云若得禪起見，縱有貪瞋同屬於利。「如兩學人」下，舉例也。得語如鈍、得意如利。二俱得語得意諍強，二俱計我得禪見盛。「若發」下，簡示境體。身中雖具八十八使，然所起者但屬鈍使而在今境。「若利中」下，次判根條。先且徵起也。若利中有鈍，斷見惑人但名斷利，利中之鈍此惑應在。若不爾者，利中有鈍不名為鈍。故次引《毘曇》釋云：利雖有鈍，此鈍屬利，從於利使背上而起。底下之人雖起於利，此利屬鈍，從於鈍使背上而起。故云「思惟亦如是」。

Regarding the explanation of the object of afflictions: From here down, the six objects in the present text and the three abbreviated objects are all manifestations obtained [through practice]. The afflictions arising outside of these nine objects, up to the four universal vows, merely belong to the aggregate object and are subsumed under the three aggregates. Therefore, in ordinary times, one is not without afflictions, and up to the arousing of the aspiration [for awakening], all must equally be contemplated; it is not that they are not called objects. The present text speaks of distinguishing what is manifested and obtained through contemplating the aggregates, hence the distinction must be made. Let readers and practitioners not be confused about the fundamental principle. As stated in the earlier discrimination of the seven pairs: "These ten objects are subsumed under the three obstacles," which does not mean the three obstacles that arise in the present. As for the present three obstacles, as the tenth fascicle of the Great Scripture states: "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who seeks the knowledge of all aspects does so to eradicate the three kinds of obstacles for sentient beings. As for the obstacle of affliction, it refers to the entanglements and covers of the three poisons, the eight forms of arrogance, the four perversions, and so forth. As for the obstacle of karma, it refers to the five acts of immediate retribution. As for the obstacle of retribution, it refers to the three evil destinies, slandering the true Dharma, and being an icchantika." Thus we know that pointing out evil as capable of obstructing is why it is called an obstacle; here, by extension of type, those latter two are subsumed. First, in the general explanation of the reason for its occurrence, he first concludes the preceding and introduces what follows; from "the aggregates above" down concludes the preceding, and from "yet when examining" down introduces what follows. Next, from "previously admonishing desires" down directly explains the reason for its occurrence, first distinguishing it from the various passages above, which contains the Dharma, a simile, and their combination. First, he explains the distinction from the admonishing of desires and discarding of covers among the expedients above; next, the distinction from the aggregate object above. Although the covers of desire above and [the phenomena] in the aggregates and bases possess marks of delusion, they have not become excessively intensified and are not the object of afflictions. Therefore, in admonishing desires, one merely knows that the five dusts are conditions for generating the practitioner's covetous desire; generating desire is a fault, and due to the fault, sin arises; therefore they must be admonished. Among the covers, it is merely that conditions [arising from] departing dusts hinder entry into contemplation, and so they must be discarded. Furthermore, whether these two sets of five are admonished or discarded, they only constitute expedients and are not yet the primary application of contemplation. Previously, contemplating the aggregates and bases was contemplating the retribution aggregates; the retribution aggregates are indeterminate, and upon those aggregates one seeks wondrous understanding; therefore that aggregate object was not yet termed affliction. Furthermore, although the earlier passage on separately traversing the single mind contemplated greed and anger, that was not the import of the present object. It is merely that all the good and bad delusions arising in the present are subsumed under the aggregates and bases; therefore the afflictions arising on account of the aggregates are all called the aggregate object. The present object must manifest on account of contemplating the aggregates; when severe greed and so forth manifest, only then is it called the present object. From "now contemplating" onwards directly presents the present object as distinct from the aggregates, covers, and so forth; thus it says, "arousing severe greed and anger." From "like iron" down provides a simile. The iron is like the aggregates, and the fire is like contemplation. When the aggregates have not met with contemplation, past delusions remain submerged; therefore it says, "it is merely black." On account of contemplating the aggregate object, before understanding of the aggregates is born, latent habits arise differently from before; therefore it is said to be "blazing red." Furthermore, from "retribution dharma" down next discriminates the difficult and the easy. He reiterates the covers of desire as well as the aggregates and bases, and together discriminates the difficult and the easy in comparison with the present afflictions. Thus, the essence of the covers of desire generally belongs to the aggregates and bases, and so together with the aggregates and bases they are generally called "ordinary." From "Why is this?" down, he explains separately. He discriminates the difficult and the easy in contrast with the preceding three dharmas. First, in the direct explanation of the contrast, there is first the Dharma, followed by a simile. In the Dharma, he sets out the previous three poisons in contrast with the present. The former are retribution dharmas and presently active afflictions, and are therefore easy to quell; the present manifestation is already severe, and is therefore difficult to restrain. "Inverted thinking" is ignorance. Greed is obvious. As for the "dead horse," the first precept in the Ten Recitations tells of a heavenly māra who, wishing to ruin Nanda, transformed into a woman and lured him to the location of a horse, then vanished; that person's desire was so intense that he did not even discriminate. From "this delusion" down, he further discriminates supporting conditions. The afflictions that have manifested have already exceeded the ordinary, and with the addition of external conditions, they cause one to run wild. From "just as" down presents a simile. The "flowing water" is like the dharma of the aggregates; "applying contemplation" is like the wooden dam; "stirring up habits" is like surging waves. As for "ripples" and so forth, when the wind moves, the flowing water forms patterns. Now, being dammed by wood, that wind moves swiftly, and the stream compresses so that the water surges up. Furthermore, ripples are doubled waves; waves atop waves, hence called doubled waves. The character for "surging" originally has the sound bào, as in "the leopard changes" (bàobiàn); here it is the rising of water, borrowing the character with the water radical. The simile of the "strong man" has broadly the same meaning as that of the water. From "afflictions" down combines the similes. From "like touching a sleeping lion" down further reinforces and clarifies the previous simile with an analogy. From "if not" down concludes with an exhortation to recognize it. From "not only" down explains the faults arising on account of the object, as the fifth fascicle states: "Following along with it drags a person toward evil"; this is what it means. Next, within the direct explanation, first, in explaining the characteristics, there are two explanations in interpreting the name: First, interpreting the characters together, the three poisons are that which disturbs (fan), and the mind-spirit is that which is distressed (nao); next, interpreting the characters separately, fan is that which disturbs, and nao is that which is distressed. One should know that the common name applies to both views and thoughts. From "this preliminary division" down explains that within the blunt there is the sharp. Just as bugs, beasts, and common people can also arouse [the view of] self, and self is precisely sharp; although sharp, it belongs to the blunt; thus it says, "truly not inferring principles, up to being conceited." "Wriggling things" refers to tiny insects that have consciousness and the ability to move. "Raising their pincers" and so forth refers to the crab family. The Picang says: "One of its pincers is entirely large, named 'gripping the sword,' also named 'holding fire,' because the claw is red." It is also like the praying mantis resisting the carriage rut, and the like. "Mane" (qi) refers to the hair on the neck. The Shuowen says: "Qi is a horse's mane." When wolves and the like grow angry, they invariably bristle their manes in fury. This brings up inferior classes such as insects to illustrate humans: if even these grasp at a self, how much more so humans? From "inferior, common, and base" down brings up blunt-affliction commoners who also possess the sharp. From "the five sharp, up to how could it ever..." down next explains that within the sharp there is the blunt, just as the various non-Buddhists rely on various views to arouse anger. From "if before dhyāna has manifested" down: Question: If, like the disciples of the Buddha, people practicing sequentially have also not yet manifested dhyāna, why are these called the delusions of view severed by the srotāpanna? Answer: Here, determining the sharp and the blunt is done in terms of presently manifested views and the delusions generated by views. If before one has attained dhyāna, even if all afflictions from past habits arise, along with the view of self arising on account of the present aggregates, they still belong to the blunt entanglements. What is severed at the first fruit is shared by common people, remaining latently submerged in the body to obstruct true taintlessness; if one sees the principle of the truths, this delusion is naturally eliminated; therefore this delusion is designated as "views," and is thus not the same as what arises after dhyāna. As for the various non-Buddhists, because they have not seen the truths, even after obtaining dhyāna and severing the blunt entanglements, they have still not severed a single hair of the delusions of view. Since their delusions of view are actively operating, they are not the same as all delusions of view before dhyāna has manifested or those that are latently submerged; therefore they are not taken as analogous to the delusions of view among the eighty-eight entanglements. Thus, the eighty-eight entanglements conceptually belong to what is subsumed under the aggregate object; only when distinguished against the sharp and blunt do they receive the name of "views," which again differs from the marks of the delusions of view after dhyāna. Here, they are merely distinguished in contrast to views after dhyāna; therefore it says that if views arise after attaining dhyāna, even if there is greed and anger, they equally belong to the sharp. From "like two scholars" down gives an example. Attaining the words is like the blunt; attaining the meaning is like the sharp. When both attain the words and meaning, their disputes are fierce; when both grasp at a self and attain dhyāna, their views are intense. From "if it manifests" down selectively reveals the substance of the object. Although the eighty-eight entanglements are completely present in the body, what arises merely belongs to the blunt entanglements and constitutes the present object. From "if within the sharp" down next judges the root and branches. First, he raises an interrogation: If within the sharp there is the blunt, then when a person severs the delusions of view, this is merely called severing the sharp, and this delusion of the blunt within the sharp ought to remain. If not, then the blunt within the sharp would not be called blunt. Therefore, he next cites the Abhidharma's explanation, saying: Although the sharp contains the blunt, this blunt belongs to the sharp, arising upon the back of the sharp entanglements. Although an inferior person arouses the sharp, this sharp belongs to the blunt, arising upon the back of the blunt entanglements. Therefore it says, "the thinking [delusions] are also like this."