止觀輔行傳弘決 2.40.1

2.40.1

Next, in the section on various evils, first, in clarifying the object of contemplation, the words "Now, good and evil are not fixed..." and so forth first clarify good and evil in their general characteristics. These cannot yet entirely serve as objects of contemplation. Why? It is by viewing them in relative comparison that the names 'good' and 'evil' are acquired; this being so, who among humans lacks good? Who does not possess evil? For this reason, they are not taken as the present object of contemplation. As for the words "Rather arouse..." and so forth, ferocity in mind is 'evil' and disease of the body is called 'leprosy.' One would rather temporarily arouse the mind of the three destinies than give rise to the thought of the two vehicles. Regarding the 'vessel of poison,' the Dazhidulun rebukes the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka teaching, saying: "Fully endowed with the three poisons, how could you accumulate immeasurable merits? It is like a poisoned vase: though it stores sweet dew (amṛta), none of it is fit to consume. A bodhisattva cultivates all purely clean merits and only then attains buddhahood. If mixed with the three poisons, how could you be endowed with the pure dharma-gates?" A bodhisattva's body is like a vessel of poison: being fully endowed with afflictions is called being poisonous. Practicing and learning the Buddha-Dharma is like storing sweet dew. Teaching this Dharma to others causes them to lose their life of eternal presence. The words "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'From this [time forward]...'" and so forth cite proof for the distinctive teaching. Thus, in the "Chapter on the Four Marks," Kāśyapa's introductory words state: "Before I had heard the four virtues, all was false views." This was Kāśyapa humbly rebuking himself, [his views] being equivalent in meaning to false ones; how could he have suddenly become identical to the three outer paths prior to this? The present case is also like this: because it does not accord with the principle, it is called a false view in meaning. The false is precisely the evil; therefore, one should know that only the perfect [teaching] is good. Furthermore, there are two senses: first, taking compliance as good and defiance as evil—this is the sense of relative comparison. Next, from the words "If one penetrates..." downward, attachment is taken as evil and penetration is taken as good. In both relative comparison and absolute transcendence, one must abandon evil. Even attachment to the perfect is still evil, how much more so the rest? From the words "Like this..." downward, the general characteristics are concluded. From the words "Now with regard to..." downward, it specifically clarifies that only extreme evil becomes the object of contemplation. Therein, it first sets forth the substance of evil, namely the six coverings. From the words "Wholesome dharmas..." downward, it concludes the preceding and introduces what follows. From the words "Although previously..." downward, it clarifies the intention of contemplating evil. Because it is pure evil, one cannot fail to contemplate it; if one does not contemplate it, there is only evil and no good. Since this is so for both oneself and others, one must cultivate contemplation. From the words "Even if not..." downward, it is an explanation by concession. Even if others do not give rise exclusively to the unwholesome, partial evil is not absent. From the words "Renouncing the household and leaving the world..." downward, it explains the partial arising by way of comparison. If those who have left the household are not complete, in principle they must have partial evil. In the white-robed (laity) there is pure evil, so how much more must there be partial evil? The residual habit-energies of arhats are also still partial evil. From the words "Ordinary persons..." downward, it clarifies the reason for applying contemplation. If even sages still have residual habit-energies, how could ordinary persons indulge themselves? From the words "Like in the time of the Buddha..." downward, it first cites the benefit of applying contemplation in the time of the Buddha, quoting individuals as proof. In the preceding [explanation of] the intention of contemplating evil, the words "the notion of displeasure" refer to the Dazhidulun's explanation of the notion of displeasure regarding all the world among the ten notions: "There are two kinds of worlds: first, sentient beings; second, lands. To say that sentient beings are unpleasant refers to the three evils, the eight sufferings, the fourteen evils, and so forth (and so on). Some are poor yet fond of giving; some have much wealth yet are stingy (spoken mutually in terms of the six coverings). Some are poor and attractive, while some are wealthy and ugly; some are arrogant and haughty, refusing to bow, or deal with things deceitfully. Immeasurable instances like this cannot be fully stated. That the lands are unpleasant means that there is much misfortune without recourse, hunger, thirst, cold, heat, malignant epidemics, poisonous vapors, and various things of this kind, and even being born into the higher realms brings great distress exceeding that of the lower realms, just as falling from a supreme height brings suffering beyond words." When the text says "there are no good persons," it speaks briefly of sentient beings: viewing others from oneself, it is solely pure and not partial; therefore, one cannot fail to contemplate evil. Next, in the explanation by concession, the words "great stinginess" and so forth briefly cite the six coverings to explain partial arising. The first four are as in the text. Wine is the source of disorder, which is the covering of a disordered mind. "Root nature easily snatched away" is the covering of foolishness. If one has wisdom, one is not easily changed by evil. That which can generate is the 'root'; repeated habituation becomes the 'nature.' Constantly altering and changing is therefore called 'easily snatched away.' Furthermore, turning in accordance with objects is 'easy [to alter]'; delusion being strong and losing the real is 'snatched away.' Moreover, substituting foolishness for wisdom is 'easy [to alter]'; wisdom being pulled away by the real is 'snatched away.' Next, in the explanation by comparison, the words "residual habit-energies of arhats" mean: Śāriputra's habit of anger was because in a past lifetime he came from among the snakes. Pilindavatsa's habit of conceit was because in past lifetimes he had been a brāhmaṇa. For instance, while the Buddha was in the world, there was a bhikṣu who would constantly look at himself in a mirror, having come from among women lifetime after lifetime. There was a bhikṣu who was always fond of leaping and bounding, having come from among monkeys lifetime after lifetime. In quoting individuals as proof, the words "In the household..." and so forth broadly cite those who have evil. From "Aṅguli..." downward, it specifically cites evil persons, first clarifying that evil persons possess the Path. Regarding "Aṅguli..." and so forth, the Aṅgulimāla-sūtra states: "In a village named Sana north of the city of Śrāvastī, there was a poor brāhmaṇa woman named Bhadrā. She had a son named All-World-Appearance. He lost his father when young. When he was twelve years old, his complexion, strength, and human marks were all fully complete, and he was clever and skilled in speech. In a different village named Pohasi, there was a brāhmaṇa master named Maṇibhadra, well-versed in the four Vedas, under whom All-World-Appearance studied. The master accepted a king's invitation, and left All-World-Appearance to guard the house while he departed. The brāhmaṇa's wife saw that All-World-Appearance was handsome, and giving rise to a lustful mind, went forward and seized his clothes. At that time, All-World-Appearance addressed her, saying: 'You are my mother. How could I give rise to unwholesomeness toward an elder?' Feeling ashamed in his heart, he abandoned his clothes and kept far away from her. The woman, thwarted, scratched herself with her nails, tied herself with ropes, and kept her feet off the ground. After the husband returned, fearing that All-World-Appearance would expose her unwholesomeness, she slandered All-World-Appearance with evil deeds, saying: 'After you left, All-World-Appearance did improper things to me.' The master said: 'When he was first born, there were great auspicious signs; he surely does not have this fault.' Yet he said to him: 'If you kill a thousand people, you may be freed from your guilt.' Because All-World-Appearance respected the master's teachings, he addressed the master, saying: 'Alas, Preceptor! Killing a thousand people is not what I should do.' The master said: 'You are an evil person; do you not delight in being born as a brāhmaṇa?' He replied: 'Excellent! I obey your command.' Thereupon he bowed at the master's feet. Having heard and seen this, the master conceived an extraordinary thought: 'You are a greatly evil person, so why have you not died? You must be made to kill people one by one, take their fingers to make a garland, and crown your head with it; only then will you become a brāhmaṇa (for this reason he was named Aṅgulimāla).' [He replied:] 'Excellent! I receive your instruction.'" The Ekottarika-āgama states: "Having thus killed a thousand people in succession, he took their fingers to make a garland."