止觀輔行傳弘決 9.34

9.34

「若最後」下，次明果位，於中先明三德、次三涅槃。「淨名云」下，證前善惡成方便淨。善惡是縛，即縛以論不縛不脫。惡中舉極，故云五逆。極惡之理，理是極善，是故名為即縛論脫。「復次」下，對不思議十如十境等，及問答料簡，即是顯前因緣三德不可思議。初對十如。文中兩番對者，以十二緣兩重因果故也。次對十境者，若通論者，境境無非十如之理，今從名便故復別對。文雖別對，正在一念十二因緣攝於十境。問：若爾，十界陰等屬苦煩惱，及業魔禪屬行有者，此可然。如何十界行有亦攝二乘菩薩境耶？答：若通論者，二乘菩薩具有三道。今從別義，故二乘菩薩不屬苦等。問：若從別義，四聖亦應不屬苦及煩惱，何故從通？答：雖俱通通別、二乘菩薩從別義便、故一往且然。夫對當義、不可盡理。

Next, from "if the ultimate" onward, the fruit stage is clarified, within which the three virtues are first clarified, followed by the three nirvāṇas. From "Vimalakīrti says" onward, it proves that the preceding good and evil constitute expedient purity. Good and evil are bonds; discussing non-bondage and non-liberation relies precisely on these bonds. Citing the extreme among evils, it mentions the five deadly sins. The principle of extreme evil is in principle extreme good; hence it is called discussing liberation directly from bondage. Next, from "furthermore" onward, matching with the inconceivable ten thusnesses and ten objects, along with questions, answers, and analytical distinctions, explicitly reveals that the preceding causes and conditions and three virtues are inconceivable. First, matching with the ten thusnesses: the text presents two rounds of matching because of the two layers of cause and effect in the twelve links. Next, matching with the ten objects: if discussed broadly, every object is nothing other than the principle of the ten thusnesses; now, following nominal convenience, they are also matched specifically. Although the text matches them specifically, the essential focus is that the twelve links of causes and conditions in a single moment of thought subsume the ten objects. Question: If so, it is tenable that the aggregates of the ten realms belong to suffering and afflictions, and karma, demons, and dhyāna belong to karmic formations and existence. But how do karmic formations and existence of the ten realms also subsume the objects of the two vehicles and bodhisattvas? Answer: If discussed broadly, the two vehicles and bodhisattvas fully possess the three paths. Now, according to the specific meaning, the two vehicles and bodhisattvas do not belong to suffering and so on. Question: If according to the specific meaning, the four noble ones should also not belong to suffering and afflictions; why follow the broad meaning? Answer: Although both broad and specific are comprehensive, following the specific meaning is convenient for the two vehicles and bodhisattvas; thus it is provisionally so for the moment. Matching meanings can never be entirely exhaustive of the principle.