十不二門指要鈔 1.28

1.28

初、指妙歸心。三千妙體為教所歸，故一期之內五味傳傳相生故縱，四教各各趣理故橫，而所詮法雖有顯覆，準今經意，未嘗暫離三千妙法。又雖諸法皆具三千，今為易成妙解妙觀故，的指一念即三法，妙中特取心法也。應知心法就迷就事而辨，故《釋籤》云，眾生法，一往通因果，二往唯局因，佛法定在果，心法定在因。若約迷悟分之，佛唯屬悟，二皆在迷。復就迷中眾生屬他，通一切故，心法屬己，別指自心故。四念處節節皆云觀一念無明心，止觀初觀陰入心九境，亦約事中明心，故云煩惱心、病心乃至禪見心等。及隨自意中四運心等，豈非就迷就事辨所觀心。有人解今一念云是真性，恐未稱文旨。何者？若論真性，諸法皆是，何獨一念！又諸文多云觀於己心，豈可真理有於己他？更有人全不許立陰、界、入等為所觀境，唯云不思議境，此之二師灼然違教，唯《摩訶止觀》先於六章廣示妙解，豈不論諸法本真皆不思議？然欲立行造修，須揀入理之門、起觀之處，故於三科揀却界、入復於五陰，又除前四的取識陰，《輔行》又揀能招報心，及以發得屬於下境，此是去丈就尺，去尺就寸，如炙得穴也。乃依此心觀不思議，顯三千法乃至貪瞋等心，及諸根塵，皆云觀陰、入、界及下九境，文中揀判毫末不差，豈是直云真性及不思議？

First, pointing out the subtleties and returning them to the mind. The subtle essence of the three thousand realms is that to which the teaching returns; thus within a single period, the five flavors generating one another in succession are the vertical, and the four teachings each heading toward principle are the horizontal; and although the dharmas explained have concealment and revelation, according to the intent of the present sutra, they have never for a moment departed from the three thousand subtle dharmas. Moreover, although all dharmas possess the three thousand, now, in order to easily accomplish subtle understanding and subtle contemplation, [the text] specifically points to a single thought-moment as identical to the three dharmas, taking mind among the subtleties in particular. One should know that the mental dharma is identified in terms of delusion and phenomena. Thus the Shiqian says: 'The dharma of sentient beings, in the first approach, pervades cause and effect; in the second approach, is confined only to cause. The dharma of buddhas is definitively in the effect; the mental dharma is definitively in the cause.' If distinguished in terms of delusion and awakening: buddha belongs solely to awakening, while the [other] two both reside in delusion. Furthermore, within delusion, sentient beings belong to other, pervading all; the mental dharma belongs to oneself, specifically pointing to one's own mind. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness repeatedly says at every juncture to contemplate the single thought-moment of the mind of fundamental ignorance. The initial contemplation of the mind of aggregates and sense bases among the nine objects in the Zhiguan also clarifies the mind within phenomena; thus it speaks of the mind of defilements, the mind of illness, and up to the mind of meditative views and so forth; as well as the mind of the four movements in [the samādhi of] following one's own inclination and so forth. How are these not identifying the contemplated mind in terms of delusion and phenomena? Some explain the present 'single thought-moment' as the true nature; I fear this does not accord with the purport of the text. Why so? If one speaks of the true nature, all dharmas are it; why only a single thought-moment! Furthermore, various texts often say to contemplate one's own mind; how could the true principle have self and other? There are others who do not permit the establishment of the aggregates, elements, and sense bases as the contemplated object at all, saying only that it is the inconceivable object. These two teachers clearly violate the teaching. Does not only the Mohe zhiguan first broadly show subtle understanding in the six chapters, discussing how all dharmas in their fundamental truth are all inconceivable? Yet when wishing to establish practice and undertake cultivation, one must select the gate for entering the principle and the locus for generating contemplation. Therefore, among the three categories [of dharmas] one selects out elements and sense bases, and further among the five aggregates, one eliminates the former four and specifically takes the aggregate of consciousness; the Fuxing further selects out the mind capable of incurring retribution and that which arises to belong to the lower objects. This is discarding the rod to take the foot, and discarding the foot to take the inch, like moxibustion hitting the acupoint. It is relying on this mind to contemplate the inconceivable, revealing the three thousand dharmas; and even with minds of greed and anger and so forth, as well as the sense faculties and dusts, it always speaks of contemplating the aggregates, sense bases, and elements and the nine lower objects. The selections and discriminations in the text do not err by a hair's breadth; how could it directly speak of the true nature and the inconceivable?