觀心論疏 5.2

5.2

第三明中道觀破法遍者，亦明五意。何者？一為學無緣慈。前從假入空破眾生緣慈，次從空出假破法緣慈，今修中道離二邊慈故名無緣慈也。經云「緣如來者，名曰無緣」，與實相同體，無緣普覆法界拔苦與樂，故名無緣同體慈悲也。二滿本弘誓者，經云「我本立誓願，令一切眾生咸令得佛道」也。三為求佛智慧。佛眼橫竪覺了，究竟窮源盡數也。四為學大方便。無謀善權，住首楞嚴種種示現。五修大精進力。《法華》云「如有勇健，能為難事，求王頂上之珠」。有此事修第三觀也，此觀正破無明。但無明無有相貌，云何可觀？今還觀前二觀之智。何者？望前則二觀是智，望後復為智障。問：何以名智障？答：夫中道智和融不二。前二智未能融一，故名智障。融一者，空而常假，假而常空。寂則未始不照，照則未始不寂，是則空假寂照雙遊而不二，即是中道不二而二，即是雙遊，是則三觀名雖異而體同。雖同未嘗一、雖異未嘗三，非三而三名為三德，非一而一名大涅槃。故經云「三德成一涅槃，非三非一、非縱非橫，不可思議」，是則三觀智圓融玄妙，非相無相皆不可得，名為中道觀智，故破前二相不融之智也。今正明次第三觀，云何圓融不二？是則與圓觀何殊？答：次第三觀若入中道，與圓則不異，故如是說也。今更約三法檢破。何者？一觀無明，二觀法性，三觀真緣。初觀無明者，觀前二智是智障，即是無明。今問：此智障為從何生？若謂從無明生，即是自生過；又無明無實，云何能生？若謂從法性生，即是他生；又且法性無生，云何能生耶？若謂無明法性合，即是共生；若離，即是無因生。四句皆不可，例前破也。二約法性破者，前檢無明不可得，仍謂無明即法性。今問：為無明滅法性生？為不滅法性生？為亦滅亦不滅法性生？為非滅非不滅法性生？四句皆不可也。三約真緣破者，此無明為從緣修生？為從真修生？若共、若無因生耶？若緣修生，緣修無常，云何能生？若真修生，真云何生？共、無因皆不可也。兩釋不同：一云緣修顯真，二云緣修滅真。自顯即是自生；若緣修顯真，修即是他生。四句皆不可，並如前破也。齊此次第三觀竪破法遍略竟，餘廣如《止觀》中辯也。第二明非竪破者，前已明圓門，今更略出者，明圓觀心十界六道即有門，是生生句，二乘；即空門，是生不生句，菩薩；即亦空亦有門，是不生生句；佛界，即非空非有門，是不生不生句。今既觀一念圓具十界，豈非一界即十界、一句即四句、一門即四門，名為圓門耶？今約此圓門修觀者，門既圓通，觀亦圓融，圓觀入圓門也。何者？今圓觀心六道界約生法即具十界者，假即未嘗不空不中，即是圓伏五住惑也；觀心二乘界即具十界者，即是空觀，空未嘗不假不中，圓伏五住；觀心佛界具十界者，觀中未嘗不空不假，而常雙照也。又觀假而未嘗不空不中者，斯則假非有相非無相，即圓伏五住也；觀空而未嘗不假不中者，斯空非無相非有相，即圓伏五住；觀中而未嘗不空不假，斯則相無相而雙遊，雙遊而未嘗相無相也。斯則一假一切假、一空一切空、一中一切中，非一非一切也。

Third, regarding the explanation of the contemplation of the Middle Way thoroughly refuting phenomena, it also clarifies five intents. What are they? First, to cultivate compassion free of conditions. Previously, entering emptiness from the provisional refuted compassion conditioned by sentient beings; next, coming forth from emptiness into the provisional refuted compassion conditioned by dharmas; now, practicing the Middle Way departs from compassion of the two extremes, and therefore it is called compassion free of conditions. A sūtra says: "Taking the Tathāgata as condition is called being free of conditions"; being of the same essence as the true mark, it is free of conditions, universally pervading the Dharma realm to eliminate suffering and bestow joy, and therefore it is called unconditioned, identical-essence benevolence and compassion. Second, fulfilling the original great vow: a sūtra says, "I originally made a vow that I would cause all sentient beings to attain the Buddha Way." Third, to seek the Buddha's wisdom: the Buddha eye comprehends both horizontally and vertically, definitively exhausting the source and reaching the utmost number. Fourth, to cultivate great skillful means: non-deliberative skillful expedience, abiding in the Śūraṅgama [samādhi] and manifesting in various ways. Fifth, cultivating great power of vigor: the Lotus Sūtra says, "Like a brave and robust person who can accomplish difficult deeds and seeks the jewel in the king's topknot." Because of these matters, one practices the third contemplation; this contemplation directly refutes ignorance. However, ignorance has no [perceptible] marks—how can it be contemplated? Now one turns back to contemplate the wisdom of the preceding two contemplations. Why? Viewed in relation to what came before, the two contemplations are wisdom; viewed in relation to what comes after, they are again obstacles of wisdom. Question: Why are they called obstacles of wisdom? Answer: Wisdom of the Middle Way is harmonious and non-dual. Because the previous two wisdoms were not yet able to harmonize into one, they are called obstacles of wisdom. Harmonizing into one means being empty and yet ever provisional, provisional and yet ever empty. Being quiescent, it is never without illumination; illuminating, it is never without quiescence. Thus, the empty and the provisional, quiescence and illumination, roam together in non-duality; this is the Middle Way's non-duality that is dual, which is precisely roaming together. Thus, though the names of the three contemplations are different, their essence is the same. Though identical, they have never been one; though different, they have never been three. Not three and yet three, they are called the three virtues; not one and yet one, they are called the Great Nirvāṇa. Therefore a sūtra says: "The three virtues constitute one nirvāṇa, neither three nor one, neither vertical nor horizontal, inconceivable." Thus the wisdom of the three contemplations is perfectly integrated, profound and wondrous; neither marked nor markless, neither can be apprehended—this is called the wisdom of contemplating the Middle Way, which refutes the wisdom of the previous two marks that are not integrated. Now, as for explicitly explaining the gradual three contemplations, how are they perfectly integrated and non-dual? If so, how do they differ from the perfect contemplation? Answer: If the gradual three contemplations enter the Middle Way, they do not differ from the perfect [contemplation]; therefore it is stated in this way. Now we further examine and refute them in terms of three phenomena. What are they? First, contemplating ignorance; second, contemplating dharma-nature; third, contemplating the real and the conditioned. First, contemplating ignorance: one contemplates that the previous two wisdoms are obstacles of wisdom, which is precisely ignorance. Now we ask: From what does this obstacle of wisdom arise? If it is said to arise from ignorance, this is the fault of self-arising; furthermore, ignorance lacks substantiality, so how could it produce anything? If it is said to arise from dharma-nature, that is other-arising; moreover, dharma-nature is non-arising, so how could it produce anything? If it is said that ignorance and dharma-nature combine, that is combined arising; if they are separate, that is uncaused arising. All four propositions are untenable; they are refuted analogously to the previous [analysis]. Second, refuting in terms of dharma-nature: having previously examined ignorance and found it cannot be apprehended, one might still claim that ignorance is identical to dharma-nature. Now we ask: Does dharma-nature arise with the cessation of ignorance? Does dharma-nature arise without its cessation? Does dharma-nature arise with both its cessation and non-cessation? Does dharma-nature arise with neither its cessation nor non-cessation? All four propositions are untenable. Third, refuting in terms of the real and the conditioned: Does this ignorance arise from conditioned cultivation? Does it arise from real cultivation? Or does it arise from both combined, or without a cause? If it arises from conditioned cultivation, conditioned cultivation is impermanent—how could it produce [anything]? If it arises from real cultivation, how could the real produce [it]? Combined and uncaused [arising] are likewise untenable. Two explanations differ: one says that conditioned cultivation manifests the real; the other says that conditioned cultivation extinguishes the real. If it manifests by itself, that is self-arising; if conditioned cultivation manifests the real, [since] cultivation [is separate], that is other-arising. All four propositions are untenable, all refuted as before. At this point, the gradual three contemplations vertically refuting phenomena thoroughly is briefly concluded; the rest is extensively discerned in Śamatha and Vipaśyanā. Second, explaining non-vertical refutation: the perfect gate has already been explained previously; now it is briefly set forth again. Explaining the perfect contemplation of mind: the ten realms and six destinies are precisely the gate of existence, which is the phrase "arising from arising," for the two vehicles; they are precisely the gate of emptiness, which is the phrase "non-arising from arising," for bodhisattvas; they are precisely the gate of both emptiness and existence, which is the phrase "arising from non-arising"; and the Buddha realm is precisely the gate of neither emptiness nor existence, which is the phrase "neither arising nor non-arising." Now, having contemplated that a single thought-moment perfectly contains the ten realms, is it not the case that one realm is precisely ten realms, one phrase is precisely four phrases, and one gate is precisely four gates, which is called the perfect gate? Now, practicing contemplation based on this perfect gate: since the gate is perfectly penetrating, the contemplation is also perfectly integrated; perfect contemplation enters the perfect gate. Why? Now, when perfectly contemplating the mind, the realm of the six destinies, with respect to arisen phenomena, contains the ten realms; the provisional has never not been empty and the Middle, which is to say it perfectly suppresses the five entrenchments of afflictions. Contemplating the mind's realm of the two vehicles contains the ten realms: this is the contemplation of emptiness, and emptiness has never not been the provisional and the Middle, perfectly suppressing the five entrenchments. Contemplating the mind's Buddha realm contains the ten realms: contemplating the Middle has never not been empty and provisional, ever doubly illuminating. Furthermore, contemplating the provisional while it has never not been empty and the Middle: this provisional has neither an existing mark nor a non-existing mark, which perfectly suppresses the five entrenchments. Contemplating emptiness while it has never not been provisional and the Middle: this emptiness has neither a non-existing mark nor an existing mark, which perfectly suppresses the five entrenchments. Contemplating the Middle while it has never not been empty and provisional: this is for marks and marklessness to roam together, and roaming together, there has never been mark or marklessness. This means one provisional is all provisional, one empty is all empty, and one Middle is all Middle, neither one nor all.