止觀輔行傳弘決 7.2.1

7.2.1

Next, in explaining pass and blockage: first, different names are listed; second, the purpose of its occurrence is explained, comprising the doctrine, the simile, and the application. In the first part on the doctrine, first the purpose of its occurrence is directly explained, which also concludes the preceding and introduces the following. "Universal refutation of dharmas" concludes the preceding. "Ought to enter" and so forth introduces the following. All three designations are used to introduce the following; therefore it says, "ought to enter but does not enter." "One should search for gain and loss, which must be bogged down in right and wrong"; "gain" and "loss" simply refer to having attachment and lacking attachment. If one is like the non-Buddhists, who are called attached and called errant, one should use this gate to examine and eliminate the errancy; if there is no errancy, one merely relies on the preceding gate to refute blockage and preserve the pass. Therefore, the intention of the present gate lies in examination, fearing that within what is a pass, a blockage might conversely arise. Next, "may not" and so forth gives admonition and exhortation. If one solely adheres to an understanding that exclusively employs universal refutation, one fears that blockages will arise within the pass and that there will be no pass within blockage; for this reason, this single gate of pass and blockage is established. It examines that universal refutation so that blockage yields a pass, causing that gate of refutation to have no blockage within the pass. Next, "why so?" and so forth directly explains the purpose of its occurrence. As for generating attachment in that which can [refute], being identical with those non-Buddhists, one ought to use the four propositions of pass and blockage to refute it universally. Thus we know that in the preceding universal refutation, one only used the refuting agent to refute what was refuted; those who have not yet awakened will inevitably generate a blocking attachment in the minds of the refuting agent and the refuted. When attachment arises in the refuting agent, even though the method of contemplation is correct, the attached mind is identical with error, and therefore it must be refuted; hence it says, "clinging attached to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness." For this reason, one must use the four propositions and the three provisionalities to refute the mind capable of attachment, causing it to have no place to stand. Refuting the wisdom capable of attachment is just like [refuting] the afflictions that are refuted; hence it says, "the refuting agent is like what is refuted." Even if one does not cling to the contemplation that is the refuting agent, but still clings to the afflictions that are what is refuted, it says that if one does not cling to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness, then "the refuting agent is not like what is refuted"; therefore, one only uses universal refutation to refute afflictions. For this reason, one must differentiate with two propositions, which makes this text permanently distinct from the preceding: first, the general pass and blockage takes what is refuted as blockage and the refuting agent as the pass; second, the specific pass and blockage takes giving rise to attachment in the refuting agent as blockage, and refuting blockage without attachment as the pass. Hence the text below says: "The shallow and deep marks of dharmas naturally have pass and blockage; how much more so when giving rise to suffering, accumulation, and so forth within them!" The upper line is the general pass and blockage; the lower line uses the specific to draw an analogy to it. However, now within this there are four meanings in total: first, horizontal pass and blockage; second, vertical pass and blockage; third, horizontal-distinctive pass and blockage; and fourth, single-mind pass and blockage. The text has four, but the meanings are two. The first three are for the sake of accomplishing the single mind; each and every one requires examination through the four propositions. If blocking attachment arises regarding the four passes, all must refute blockage to preserve the pass, proceeding progressively in this way with refutation as the goal. Hence the text below says: "One examines each and every refuting agent, each and every refuted object, and each and every mind; for this reason, the gate of pass and blockage is established." For this reason, one also must differentiate through four propositions: first, attaining the pass within blockage; second, having blockage within the pass; third, blockage of itself being blockage; and fourth, the pass of itself being the pass. The first two propositions are the specific pass and blockage of the present text; the latter two propositions, if the blockage has already been refuted, belong to universal refutation, and if the blockage has not yet been refuted, they pass over into the present text to form the first two propositions. Moreover, the first proposition combines the two propositions, meaning the two senses of the general mark and the specific mark. Next, in presenting the simile, the simile comes first. "Removing the film to nurture the pearl" only constitutes a partial simile; whereas "defeating the bandits to protect the general" constitutes an all-inclusive simile. Why is that? In removing the film to nurture the pearl, the pearl cannot turn back into a film, which would conflate with the third and fourth propositions; for this reason, one further uses the simile of defeating bandits to protect the general. If the general acts as a bandit, this bandit is also defeated; if the bandit acts as a general, this general is also protected. Proceeding progressively like this, whenever generals all turn into bandits, they are refuted step by step. This is the primary intention of this text. What is called a "film" is a thin membrane between the skin; this film covers the eye and is called an ocular film. Next, "if so" and so forth applies the simile. If one can be like this, only then can one guide people to reach the place of jewels. Within this, it first directly applies the simile, and next explains the meaning of the five hundred yojanas. This is also the primary intention of pass and blockage. Because one refutes blockage and preserves the pass to reach the place of jewels, the road passes through five hundred yojanas. The sūtra says: "The guide knows well the passes and blockages"; hence the simile of the guiding leader from the Lotus Sūtra is employed. Therefore, one must refute the various interpretations of past and present before one can understand the single-mind pass and blockage of the present text. Within this, there are six different teachers in total. Refuting the first master's claim that "the path of the two vehicles is not the seventh and eighth grounds": Question: Since the two vehicles precisely correspond to the seventh and eighth grounds, why say they are not? Answer: Here the intention of the Treatise is employed to refute his position. Since his explanation said, "Taking the exhaustion of [the delusions of] views and thoughts on the sixth ground as the three hundred [yojanas], and taking the seventh and eighth grounds as the four hundred [yojanas]," therefore the present text refutes him using the Treatise. The Treatise matches the two vehicles with the four hundred, but you match the sixth ground with the exhaustion of views and thoughts; while precisely corresponding to the two vehicles, you do not take it as four hundred, but instead take the seventh and eighth grounds as four hundred; therefore your explanation contradicts the shared teaching's meaning in the Dazhidulun. This master used the shared meaning without understanding the shared intent; therefore we quote the Dazhidulun in turn to refute him. The shared intent of the Dazhidulun will be further explained below. The latter two masters both interpret the five hundred in terms of afflictions; however, the former master does not count [the delusions like] dust and sand, and the latter master does not count [delusive] views; therefore both are deficient. In the subsequent identification of errors, they are omitted without further refutation. Next, "this name and meaning" and so forth explains the present sūtra. First it directly explains the sūtra. The sūtra possesses three meanings; thus we know the various masters did not accord with the sūtra. Next, "the various masters" and so forth identifies the errors, first generally and then specifically. First, regarding the general statement: using the distinctive is like being too square, and using the shared is like being too round; the two vehicles acting presumptuously is like being too active, and establishing the city within the realms is like being too still. Furthermore, interpreting in terms of afflictions without counting views and dust-and-sand, and interpreting in terms of birth-and-death without counting "with remainder" and "without remainder," constitutes being too still. Thus we know that the various masters each followed a single view: either grasping the shared while missing the two, or using the distinctive while contradicting the perfect, or reaching three hundred without establishing the conjured city, or presumptuously walking to four hundred or five hundred, or interpreting in terms of afflictions without subsuming them completely, or interpreting in terms of birth-and-death while accepting and rejecting incompletely; to attempt to judge the perfect sūtra [with such views], one fears it is impermissible. "Like holding to a single aperture" and so forth: one cannot use a single master's one-sided interpretation to explain a text that combines the three. Next, "the first master" and so forth makes specific judgments; as for only judging four masters and not judging the fifth and sixth masters, they are omitted because [their errors] are easy to see. Judging the first master's statement that the four hundred establishes the city: if according to the shared meaning, the seventh and eighth grounds precisely belong to the two vehicles; that master matched the seventh and eighth with the four hundred, and thus established the conjured city at four hundred.