止觀輔行傳弘決 9.32

9.32

○次明觀者，若此十禪別別修觀，則始自根本終訖神通，一一皆論十乘觀法。若通總作者，即後所列者是。今於因緣禪後別立觀者，異九禪故。九禪唯待發方可觀，因緣一禪義雖須發，亦可即觀。況因緣門所攝寬廣，若偏若圓、若正若助、若因若果、若自若地，無不攝在因緣觀中，是故於此別立觀法。於中初「龍樹」下，引龍樹明用觀意也。龍樹《中論》通申大小，論意亦觀因緣為宗。「論師」下，明諸師謬解，但以二諦為中論宗。「今言」下，破古諸師。言論宗者，應明此論別顯宗致，若言二諦，此屬通途。言「何品」者，且指此論品品無非二諦意也。況復二諦遍諸教門，故不可二諦為中論宗。言「而皆破盡」者，論諸品題皆破為名，如云〈破六情品〉、〈破染染品〉等，品內觀法破皆盡淨。六情是俗，破盡是真，故二諦破，非論別宗。「論初」下，正示論宗。若通若別皆觀因緣，是故此論因緣為宗。故論初文名〈因緣品〉。通觀下文，故名為通。下諸品中雖隨義別，而實不出觀於因緣。「此師」下，重斥舊解。北師雖以因緣為宗，不了一部通別之意，而却指後品小乘救義。小乘非正、救義又旁，如何用此而為論宗？故論後文立〈因緣品〉及〈邪見品〉，申於三藏二乘觀法，故立六因四緣用救小宗。論云「已聞摩訶衍，今明二乘義」，是故次列〈因緣〉等品，況取品內救義為宗。論雖明小，小是所破，如何即用所破義為宗？故不可也。「佛去世」下正出《中論》用觀之意。若佛在世，利根之人聞即得益，是故不須廣明觀法。佛去世後，若聞因緣，反計三世定有輪轉，是故龍樹廣作觀法，但破因緣，不事分別因緣之相。「今既」下，次明今文用《中論》意，廣立觀法十乘入道，廣破發得、修得之相，故知論語通總不出十乘。

Next, to explain contemplation: if one cultivates contemplation separately for each of these ten dhyānas, then from the fundamental at the beginning to the supernormal powers at the end, each and every one would be discussed in terms of the tenfold vehicle contemplation methods. If one treats them comprehensively and generally, it is what is listed below. Now, separately establishing contemplation after the dhyāna of conditions is because it differs from the other nine dhyānas. The nine dhyānas can only be contemplated after they have manifested; although the single dhyāna of conditions in principle requires manifestation, it can also be contemplated immediately. Furthermore, the gate of conditions encompasses broadly: whether biased or perfect, direct or auxiliary, cause or fruit, oneself or the stage, there is nothing that is not subsumed within the contemplation of conditions; therefore, contemplation methods are separately established here. Therein, first from "Nāgārjuna" downward, it cites Nāgārjuna to clarify the intention of employing contemplation. Nāgārjuna's *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* broadly expounds both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and the treatise's intention also takes contemplating conditions as its central thesis. From "the treatise masters" downward, it explains the erroneous interpretations of various masters, who merely took the two truths as the central thesis of the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*. From "now it is said" downward, it refutes the ancient masters. As for the treatise's central thesis, one should clarify this treatise's distinct manifestation of its central purpose; if one says the two truths, this pertains to a common pathway. Saying "which chapter" points for the moment to the fact that not a single chapter in this treatise is without the purport of the two truths. Moreover, the two truths pervade all doctrinal gates; therefore, the two truths cannot be the central thesis of the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*. Saying "and all are utterly refuted" means that the chapter titles of the treatise all take "refutation" as their name, as in "Examination of the Six Sense Faculties," "Examination of Passion and the Impassioned," and so forth; the contemplation methods within the chapters utterly and purely refute them. The six faculties are conventional, and their complete refutation is ultimate; thus the refutation of the two truths is not the treatise's distinct central thesis. From "the beginning of the treatise" downward, it directly points out the central thesis of the treatise. Whether general or specific, all contemplate conditions; therefore, this treatise takes conditions as its central thesis. Thus the initial text of the treatise is named "Examination of Conditions." It generally contemplates the texts below, hence it is called general. Although the various chapters below differ according to their topics, they in fact do not go beyond contemplating conditions. From "this master" downward, it again rebukes the old interpretations. Although the northern masters took conditions as the central thesis, they failed to comprehend the treatise's overall sense of general and specific, and instead pointed to the Hīnayāna rescue arguments in the later chapters. The Hīnayāna is not primary, and the rescue arguments are moreover secondary; how could this be taken as the treatise's central thesis? Thus the later text of the treatise establishes the chapter "Examination of Conditions" and the chapter "Examination of Erroneous Views" to expound the contemplation methods of the Tripiṭaka and the two vehicles, thereby establishing the six causes and four conditions to rescue the Hīnayāna tenets. The treatise states: "Having already heard the Mahāyāna, we will now explain the meaning of the two vehicles"; for this reason, chapters such as "Conditions" are listed subsequently, let alone taking the rescue arguments within the chapters as the central thesis! Although the treatise explains the small, the small is what is refuted; how could one take the refuted meaning as the central thesis? Therefore, this is unacceptable. From "after the Buddha's decease" downward, it directly brings out the intention of employing contemplation in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*. If when the Buddha was in the world people of sharp faculties immediately benefited upon hearing, there was no need to explain contemplation methods extensively. After the Buddha's decease, if people heard of conditions, they would conversely fabricate that there is definitively transmigration across the three times; therefore Nāgārjuna extensively composed contemplation methods merely to refute conditions, not troubling himself with distinguishing the marks of conditions. From "now since" downward, it next explains the intention of using the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* in the present text, extensively establishing contemplation methods to enter the path via the tenfold vehicle, extensively refuting the marks of what is attained through manifestation and attained through cultivation; thus we know that the treatise's words, generally speaking, do not go beyond the tenfold vehicle.