止觀輔行傳弘決 6.7

6.7

Next, in explaining the stages of the shared [teaching], the sutra is first cited to set out the correct determination. Regarding the phrase "shared with the śrāvakas" and so forth: in the shared teaching, the [practitioners of the] two vehicles and [bodhisattvas] prior to the seventh stage are shared with bodhisattvas, which is termed "shared with the śrāvakas." If so, then since the eighth stage and above surpass the stages of the two vehicles, why are they also termed "shared with bodhisattvas"? The answer is: the later [stages] are named from the initial [ones], establishing the designation from the root. This is not like the distinctive and perfect [teachings], which are distinct from beginning to end. Although there are the two vehicles within the Tripiṭaka teaching, the bodhisattva's practice is far-reaching, subduing defilements from beginning to end, eternally distinct from the two vehicles; hence they are not termed "shared." Yet as they do not hear the distinctive principle, they are also not unshared. Question: Thought [defilements] are exhausted at the seventh stage; why is the sixth stage termed "shared with the śrāvakas"? The eighth is named the pratyekabuddha stage; why is the seventh stage termed "shared with the pratyekabuddhas"? Answer: The shared stages are flexible and accommodating, fully as discriminated below. From "Regarding what is said" downward, this is a brief explanation. The main point here is: in the stages shared by the three vehicles, why do the various teachings determine higher and lower distinctions in the stages of severing defilements? Why are the three vehicles' order of severing defilements, their wisdom, and their practices different? And though different, how do they traverse the shared stages? It is because of this that they obtain the designation "shared." From "Dry Wisdom" downward is the correct explanation. First, within the explanation of the śrāvakas, the five methods of stilling the mind and four stations of mindfulness are briefly as cited in the text of the Profound Meaning and the Expository Notes. Both, looking toward the Tripiṭaka, establish the internal and external ordinary stages. If we discuss the contemplation practice, though skillful and unskillful differ, what is to prevent the general and specific characteristics from being slightly the same? Because the water of principle is not yet present, it is called "dry"; because there is a slight understanding of principle, it is called "nature." "Patience" means cause. "Seeing" refers to seeing the truths. The defilements of desire are somewhat lightened, hence called "thin." The defilements of desire are completely eliminated, hence called "free." The work of wisdom and severing is finished, hence called "accomplished." Under "third, using the distinctive designations to name the shared stages": first, the old traditions of setting up prefaces are refuted, which explained that the stages of severing views and thought were all different. From "Now, examining..." downward, their view that the stages of severing views are disparate is first generally refuted, [showing that] they simply did not understand the meaning of the shared teaching. From "Why?" downward, they are specifically rebuked. In the shared stages, the severing of views differs across two stages; furthermore, the severing of views should not entail entering and emerging from meditative contemplation. From "Human masters..." downward: human masters, failing to understand, shifted the blame onto the sutras; hence they are now broken down by saying that they do not understand the intention of the sutras. From "Now we say..." downward, this is briefly indicated. From "Distinctive views..." downward, this is briefly explained. From "However, the designations..." downward, this is a determination. From "By analogy..." downward, an analogy is adduced. These sixteen minds belong to the same single stage, yet two paths are still determined for them; what is to prevent the severing of views from differing across two stages? Question: In the shared teaching itself, the stages of severing views are intrinsically divided into two stages; why must one refute others, establish the borrowing of the distinctive on one's own, and establish that the stages of severing views are still the same as the shared teaching? Answer: Merely because they are the same as the shared [teaching], they can be named "shared." Although the shared spans two stages, the time of severing is still brief. Because they are shared by the three vehicles, though brief, it is also long; therefore, it must be divided into the third and fourth stages. Or at times, borrowing from the distinctive, the distinctive views are even longer, yet there are two meanings: if spoken of in terms of principle, it extends up to the Buddha stage; if spoken of in terms of the pedagogical path, it refers to the third and fourth stages. Although the two meanings are each distinct, their senses of "view" are both long. Because the distinctive is long, borrowing the pedagogical path to determine the severing of views in two stages has no error. If one relies on the shared meaning, it says one does not emerge from meditative contemplation; if one relies on the distinctive meaning, it simply says stage by stage can each break views. This is the difference. Because the distinctive is long, the latter two turns both generally use the four stages as stages of severing views. Many people fail to see this, thinking the shared meaning is sufficient, and asking why one must borrow the distinctive. This is the Great Master's comprehensive elucidation of the sutras and treatises. Those with this determination belong to "using the distinctive designations to name the shared stages." Why? If it definitely belonged to the shared, one should not establish stages of subduing prior to the stages; if it definitely belonged to the distinctive, the practices and dedications should not belong to the four wholesome roots, and the joint severing of the defilement of views up to the fourth stage would also be likewise. Therefore, the northern formula was established to show later students, making the disparate doctrines of past and present clearly discernable. From "borrowing the distinctive" downward correctly clarifies borrowing stages. First, borrowing the distinctive teaching from beginning to end to name the shared. Prior to the stages of the shared teaching, there are no stages that can be discussed; hence, borrowing the internal and external ordinary stages of the distinctive teaching, they are simply named the first and second stages of the shared teaching. After the stages of the shared teaching, there are also no further stages; hence, using only the Dharma Cloud and Buddha stages of the distinctive teaching, they name the ninth and tenth stages of the shared teaching. Because it is flexible and unfixed, there is the word "perhaps." Since the Dapin states that the tenth stage is like a buddha, one should know that this is using distinctive names to name the shared. Thus the seventh chapter, the "Gāthā Chapter" of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, states: "The Far-Reaching, Good Wisdom, and Dharma Cloud stages are the Buddha-gotra; the others are all the gotras of the two vehicles." This is also using distinctive names to name the shared stages. If these were distinctive stages, could those prior to the Far-Reaching belong to the two vehicles? The recent interpretations of stages, where defilements are subdued prior to the stages, are precisely an example of this. From "If borrowing..." downward, next, purely borrowing the distinctive ten stages to name the shared ten stages means that, on both sides, prior to the stages is generally the subduing of defilements. Although the shared has no stages, since defilements are not yet severed, one does not enter the stages. Regarding "fourth, using the distinctive designations to name the stages of the shared bodhisattva": this is purely in terms of the bodhisattva, hence cultivating contemplation and severing views are not fixed. From "Such as..." downward, briefly using the stages where bodhisattvas sever views, it rejects the former old masters' doctrine of severing views at the third and fourth stages. From "Thinning means..." onward are the bodhisattva's stages of severing thought [defilements]. From "The old say..." downward, it reiterates the old masters' view that the sixth and seventh stages are the stages of severing thought. From "Only at the sixth stage..." downward is our school's objection. First, objecting to the sixth stage: at the sixth stage, one is free from desire, but merely free from the defilements of desire; how can one immediately say that this is equal to an arhat? Next, conceding, it says that even conceding that it includes the third fruit and the practice toward the fourth fruit, with one remaining grade it is still called "approaching [the fruit]"; how could it again be equal to an arhat? From "If at the seventh stage..." downward, next, objecting to the seventh stage: if the exhaustion of the final grade is called the seventh, this would then be acceptable. Since the preceding sixth stage is merely called "freeing," you wish to subsume the approach into the fruit. The first grade of the first dhyāna would also belong to "already accomplished"; but having severed only the first grade, it is truly not yet accomplished, and hence it also cannot be equal to an arhat. From "If we now..." downward, now elucidating this, we do not take the designations of the shared ten stages, but merely use the ten perfections to match the fruits, which is convenient. Because the doctrine of the distinctive teaching mostly matches the ten perfections to the ten stages, we also rely on this to elucidate our present intention. Establishing this intention is also out of concern that later people will not understand how sutras and treatises match the fruits as higher or lower, and will not recognize the intention of using the distinctive teaching to name the shared. Next, from "All these..." downward, he modestly defers and attributes merit. Next, regarding the "Question": since the meaning of borrowing for the stages shared by the three vehicles is already established, establishing the bodhisattva separately might lack authentic proof. Next, regarding the intention of the answer: the sutras and treatises each have two explicit texts, both intending to speak exclusively of the bodhisattva's wisdom and severing. First, citing the Dazhidulun's "three places scorching the wick": the intention is to cite "dry wisdom" as being separately in the bodhisattva's stage of severing defilements. If shared with the two vehicles, it is not named the "initial flame," because the initial flame is precisely the stage of severing. Since the treatise separately establishes the bodhisattva, it takes the first stage as the stage of severing. Thus Chapter 78 of the Dazhidulun, "The Lamp-Wick Chapter," states: "There are two kinds of ten stages: first, the bodhisattva's first stage is the initial flame; second, the śrāvaka's stage of seeing is the initial flame. If it is exclusively the bodhisattva stage, then the Joyful Stage is the initial flame." Since the treatise's text takes the bodhisattva's first stage as the initial flame, we now take it to make a comparison and explanation. If even in the shared path of subduing it can be taken as the bodhisattva's initial flame, now merely stepping back to take the shared stage of severing as the exclusive bodhisattva's initial flame, what objection could there be? Therefore, we know that this text separately determines the shared teaching bodhisattva's stages. The text below naturally has the exclusive bodhisattva stages, which are the distinctive bodhisattva stages. The "three kinds of bodhisattvas" mentioned refers to people of medium faculties among the bodhisattvas of the shared stages, who also sever at the third and fourth stages like the two vehicles. From "Furthermore, the Dapin..." downward, it next cites the Dapin to make a comparison and explanation. The tenth Buddha stage is still named "bodhisattva"; how much more could the preceding stages lack bodhisattvas? Hence it says: "How could there be no middle and beginning?" Regarding "neighboring the ultimate": because the distinctive Buddha stage surpasses the ten stages, now borrowing the distinctive designations, it says the tenth stage neighbors the ultimate. From "If there were none..." downward, it again cites the Dapin, where from the first stage onward, all speak of the bodhisattva cultivating and purifying the karmic activities of the stages. Thus the Dapin says: "The first has ten, the second has eight, the third five, the fourth has ten, the fifth twelve, the sixth six, the seventh twenty, the eighth five, the ninth twelve, and the tenth is Buddha (now briefly versified)." That text lists and explains them one by one in detail; you should know that this also exclusively sets apart the bodhisattva. Next, citing the Dazhidulun, in the bodhisattva's case it separately receives the designation "patience," up to designations such as "sporting in supernormal powers"; thus we know these designations belong separately to the bodhisattva. The designations of patience in the Dapin are also like this. From "Such as..." downward, this directly elucidates our present intention. Relying on what was cited above, one can still separately set apart the bodhisattva stages. Following this to borrow the distinctive to name the shared, separately matching them to the bodhisattva, what fault is there? Next, regarding the "Question": in severing the nine grades of desire, why are two fruits instituted? The intention of the answer is: the sage institutes fruit names to rest the weary. Defilements in the realm of distraction are heavy, termed "many difficulties"; fearing that practitioners might retreat because of difficulties, two fruit names are instituted. Next, regarding the "Question": dhyāna in general is to counter distraction; since distraction in desire is manifold, many remedies should be instituted. The intention of the answer is: dhyāna is established according to the plane; concentration and distraction are mutually opposed, so how could many dhyānas be instituted in [the realm of] desire? Next, regarding the intention of the "Question": earlier, the designation "patience" was separately established for bodhisattvas; before the sixth and seventh stages, all wisdom and severing are identical with the two vehicles, so why does the bodhisattva separately receive the appellation "patience"? In the answer there are three reasons why the bodhisattva is called "patience." First, citing the analogy of the fifteen and sixteen minds: as in the fifteen minds, although there are already seven wisdoms and eight patiences, one has not yet entered the fruit stage; hence the path, compared to patience, is still termed a cause. Although the bodhisattva severs the views and thought of the various planes, because latent habit-energies are not yet exhausted and the stages are not yet completed, it is merely named "patience." The remaining two intentions are readily apparent.