止觀輔行傳弘決 7.3

7.3

Next, in explaining the "horizontal distinctiveness," first is the doctrine, and next the analogies. In the initial explanation of the doctrine, it first draws upon three kinds of persons to illuminate the aspects of contemplation; each passage first sets forth the aspects of contemplation, and next explains the examination. These three contemplations are based on the text of the *Dapin*. The sūtra states: "There is a bodhisattva mahāsattva who, upon first generating the aspiration, practices the six pāramitās, ascends to the bodhisattva stage, and attains the stage of non-retrogression (avaivartika). There is a bodhisattva mahāsattva who, upon first generating the aspiration, forthwith realizes anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, turns the wheel of the Dharma, and after bringing vast and profound benefit to boundless sentient beings, enters nirvāṇa. There is a bodhisattva mahāsattva who, from the time of first generating the aspiration, is in accord with all-knowledge (sarvajña), and with immeasurable hundreds, thousands, myriads, and kotis [of beings] goes from one Buddha-realm to another Buddha-realm, purifying the Buddha-worlds." What the present text cites splits that third passage into the first and second, and takes the second as the third. Furthermore, the sūtra lists them from deep to shallow, whereas the present text lists them from shallow to deep; following what is conceptually convenient, there is no error in principle. The first passage mentions the six pāramitās, which is citing practice. The second passage mentions forthwith realizing bodhi, which is citing the stage. Although practice and stage differ, they equally reveal a single meaning; hence the present text omits the first. In the third passage, it first mentions sarvajña and also mentions purifying the Buddha-lands; although it is a single passage, since it already possesses two meanings, it is therefore split into the first and the second. What the rest of the text cites is entirely intended for the initial generating of the aspiration in the three teachings. Although the shared teaching possesses provisionality, its focus is largely on emptiness; although the distinctive teaching possesses the middle, its text is largely on provisionality; although the perfect teaching has three contemplations, it contemplates the middle from the very beginning. Hence they are cited now to correspond to the three contemplations: being alike in first generating the aspiration, it is called "horizontal"; being apportioned among three persons, it is called "distinctive." From "Such..." downwards, it rebukes the provisional as differing from the real. Although it says that within the perfect one cultivates [the middle] from the initial mind, that Prajñā section still carries the provisionality of the two teachings and has not yet been opened and revealed; therefore it rebukes it, saying, "the three dharmas are each distinct." From "*Dazhidulun*..." downwards, it next cites the three analogies of the treatise's text, which also verify the horizontal distinctiveness. Therein, first are the analogies, and next their application. Thus fascicle 43 of the *Dazhidulun* states: "Before these three bodhisattvas had generated the aspiration, they heard the Buddha teach the Great [Vehicle] and generated the bodhicitta. It is like traveling on a road: some go riding a sheep, some go riding a horse, and some go riding supernatural powers; therefore their arrival there has slowness and swiftness. The first has dull faculties, the next progresses gradually, and the latter arrives immediately." It also states: "The first has much sin and little merit; the next has much merit and little sin; the latter has no sin and is purely clean." In the present text, replacing the sheep with walking on foot is because a sheep is slow and thus no different from walking on foot. Hence we know the present text adopts the intent of the *Lotus*, and is thereby able to refute the vertical and horizontal of those provisional sections. Fascicle 56 of the treatise also states: "It is like three people walking: one flees to avoid danger, one seeks wealth, and one follows the king." The intent of the refutation is also like this; the meaning of horizontal distinctiveness is as explained above. Next, in explaining the single mind, it first rebukes the horizontal and vertical, and next directly explains the functional capacity of the single mind to refute the provisional. In first rebuking the horizontal and vertical, it first lists once again the general-aspect pass and blockage: namely, the two contemplations of emptiness and provisionality are able to break view-and-thought and dust-and-sand [afflictions], and within their respective stages they may be considered passes, yet looking toward the contemplation of the middle they still possess ignorance, and are thus called blockages. If the subsequent contemplation of the middle surpasses the lower two contemplations, though it may be called a pass, it is separated from emptiness and provisionality, and is thus called a blockage. The passes and blockages in the horizontal can be known by examining the text. From "Dharma-aspects..." downwards, it illustrates by comparison the blockage within the pass of the specific aspects of the horizontal and vertical in the present text. If the horizontal and vertical dharma-aspects already have pass and blockage, how much more so when attachment arises toward the pass, turning it into a blockage! One should know that the horizontal and vertical, general and specific, are all blockages; hence it says, "all are blockages, and there is no longer any pass." Intending to bring forth the aspect of the pass, taking the single mind as the pass, it therefore first distinguishes the blockages of the horizontal and vertical. From "If in a single mind..." downwards, it directly explains the single mind. That is, examining the single mind's universal refutation. In the preceding universal refutation, having already concluded and revealed its original intent, one need only establish the single mind's examination for the meaning to be sufficient. Furthermore, in order to complete the preceding horizontal and vertical gates, it therefore discusses examination section by section. Again, it cites the *Lotus* on "well knowing pass and blockage" to show that the present examination must refute the various masters. Discussing its true intent, it lies solely in a single thought-moment; hence the preceding three kinds were to reveal the single mind by citing the universal refutation and so on, which can be seen by analogy. Furthermore, looking at the preceding three kinds in relation to universal refutation, they only form the vertical; only when arriving at the entry through pāramitā below does one begin to use the vertical to enter the horizontal. It is like the truths, conditions, and pāramitās being horizontally woven and vertically completed; as for the three [bodhisattvas] of the horizontal distinctiveness of vertical and horizontal, all three are at the initial aspiration, and though called horizontal, looking at the three contemplations they are ultimately termed vertical. Now the functional capacity of refuting the provisional directly reveals the single mind. First, among refuting the horizontal and vertical, refuting the vertical: the vertical pass is entered gradually; although belonging to one person, its earlier and later sequence in the three times are each distinct. Because they are each distinct, they are not "one and three." Now, the single mind possessing the three refutes the sequential three; hence it says that the threefold contemplation in a single mind refutes the vertical pass and blockage. That the three contemplations in a single mind can refute the horizontal: those horizontal three contemplations separately belong to three persons, all at the initial mind, and thus the three do not unite into one. Now, taking the three as being merely one, it refutes those dispersed three; hence it says, "the three contemplations in a single mind refute the horizontal pass and blockage." One should know that "threefold contemplation in a single mind" and "three contemplations in a single mind" differ in phrasing but are identical in principle, being stated in inverse correspondence to refute the horizontal and vertical. In such horizontal and vertical, each single truth possesses truths, conditions, and pāramitās, whether passes or blockages. If the horizontal and vertical are refuted, the passes and blockages in the truths, conditions, and pāramitās are refuted accordingly; hence there is no need to trouble oneself with refuting the passes and blockages of the truths and so forth. Therefore the preceding text says, "How much more so when therein there arise the suffering, accumulation, ignorance, and hindrances, etc.," illustrating this blockage by comparison so as to refute it perfectly. Someone says: "Refuting the horizontal of the truths, conditions, and pāramitās is called refuting the horizontal." He deeply fails to see the text's aim. Therefore, in the preceding text, having first explained the vertical, it next horizontally wove it, with each possessing the three—truths, conditions, and pāramitās—how much more so when, in relation to the pass, there arise again the blockages of suffering, accumulation, ignorance, and so forth! Hence we know that when the vertical is refuted, suffering and the rest are naturally refuted; there is no need further to point to suffering and the rest as the horizontal.