十不二門指要鈔 1.30

1.30

答：「此等諸文皆是能觀觀法，復是所顯法門，豈不讀《輔行》中分科之文，先重明境，即去尺就寸文也，次明修觀，即觀不思議境等十乘文也。況《輔行》委示二境之相非不分明，豈得直以一念名真理及不思議邪！應知不思議境對觀智邊不分而分名所觀境，若對所破陰等諸境，故不思議境之與觀皆名能觀。故《止觀》云：『譬如賊有三重，一人器械鈍、身力羸、智謀少，先破二重，更整人物方破第三，所以遲迴日月；有人身壯、兵利、權多，一日之中即破三重。』《輔行》釋云：『約用兵以譬能所』，『今以身壯譬圓三諦，兵利譬圓三止，權多譬圓三觀，械等並依身力故也。』上皆《輔行》文也，豈非諦觀俱為能觀邪！今更自立一譬，雙明兩重能所如器，諸淳朴豈單用槌而無砧邪？故知槌砧自分能所，若望淳朴皆屬能也。智者以喻得解，幸可詳之。皆為不辯兩重所觀，故迷斯旨。又若不立陰等為境，妙觀就何處用？妙境於何處顯？故知若離三道即無三德，如煩惱即菩提、生死即涅槃，玄文略列十乘，皆約此立。又《止觀大意》以此二句為發心立行之體格，豈有圓頓更過於此？若如二師所立，合云菩提即菩提、涅槃即涅槃也。又引常坐中起對俱法界者，今問法界因何有起對邪？須知約根、塵、識故方云起對法界，故《義例》釋此文云，體達（修觀）若起若對（陰入）不出法界（成不思議）。彼有約理、約觀、約果三義，此文正約觀行辨也。又安心文云，唯信法性者，未審信何法為法性邪？而不知此文正是於陰修乎止觀，故《起信論》云：『一切眾生從本已來未曾離念。』又下文云『濁成本有』，若不觀三道即妙，便同偏觀清淨真如。荊谿還許不？故《輔行》解安住世諦云『以止觀安故世諦方成不思議』，又云『安即觀也』。故談圓妙，不違現文方為正說。今釋一念，乃是趣舉根塵和合一剎那心，若陰若惑、若善若惡皆具三千，皆即三諦，乃十妙之大體，故云咸爾。斯之一念為成觀故，今文專約明乎不二，不可不曉，故茲委辨。」

Answer: 'All these texts refer to the contemplating contemplation method, and also to the dharma-gate that is revealed. Have you not read the rubric-division text in the Fuxing? It first re-clarifies the object, which is the text on discarding the foot to take the inch; next it clarifies cultivating contemplation, which is the text on the ten vehicles [such as] contemplating the inconceivable object and so forth. Moreover, the Fuxing details the characteristics of the two objects with complete clarity; how can one directly take a single thought-moment to be the true principle and the inconceivable? One should know that the inconceivable object, in relation to contemplating wisdom, is undivided yet divided and named the contemplated object; but in relation to the objects to be destroyed, such as the aggregates and so forth, the inconceivable object together with the contemplation are both called the active contemplator. Thus the Zhiguan says: "For example, there are three tiers of bandits. One person has blunt weapons, weak physical strength, and little strategy; he first destroys two tiers, then reassembles his men and materiel before destroying the third, which is why he delays for days and months. Another person has a robust body, sharp weapons, and many stratagems; in a single day he destroys the three tiers." The Fuxing explains: "It uses military deployment to illustrate the active and passive"; "Now, the robust body illustrates the perfect three truths, the sharp weapons illustrate the perfect three cessations, and the many stratagems illustrate the perfect three contemplations; weapons and so forth all depend on physical strength." The above is all from the text of the Fuxing; are not both the truth and the contemplation the active contemplator? Now I shall further establish an analogy of my own to clarify both tiers of active and passive: as when forging an implement, would one use only the hammer without the anvil for raw iron? Thus we know the hammer and anvil naturally divide into active and passive, yet looking toward the raw iron, they both belong to the active. The wise will understand through analogy; I hope you examine this carefully. It is all because they do not discern the two tiers of what is contemplated that they are deluded about this purport. Furthermore, if one does not establish the aggregates and so forth as the object, where would the subtle contemplation be applied? Where would the subtle object be revealed? Thus we know that if one departs from the three paths, there are no three virtues, as in defilement is identical to bodhi, and birth-and-death is identical to nirvāṇa. The Xuanwen briefly lists the ten vehicles, all established with reference to this. Furthermore, the Zhiguan dayi takes these two phrases as the fundamental framework for giving rise to the mind and establishing practice; how could there be a perfect and sudden [teaching] that surpasses this? If it were as the two teachers establish, one ought to say that bodhi is identical to bodhi and nirvāṇa is identical to nirvāṇa. Moreover, you cited from constant sitting that arising and confronting are both the dharma-realm. Now I ask: due to what does the dharma-realm have arising and confronting? One must know that it is in reference to faculties, dusts, and consciousness that it says arising and confronting the dharma-realm. Thus the Yili explains this passage: "Realizing (cultivating contemplation) whether arising or confronting (the aggregates and sense bases) does not go outside the dharma-realm (accomplishing the inconceivable)." That text has three meanings—in terms of principle, in terms of contemplation, and in terms of effect; this text identifies it precisely in terms of contemplative practice. Furthermore, the passage on settling the mind says, "only believe in the dharma-nature"—may I ask what dharma is believed to be the dharma-nature? Yet you do not know that this passage refers precisely to cultivating cessation and contemplation upon the aggregates. Thus the Awakening of Faith says: "All sentient beings from the beginningless past have never been free of thoughts." Furthermore, a later passage says, "defilement is fundamentally inherent." If one does not contemplate the three paths as subtle, it becomes equivalent to contemplating only pure true suchness. Would Jingxi have permitted that? Therefore the Fuxing, explaining "dwelling peacefully in worldly truth," says: "Because it is settled by cessation and contemplation, worldly truth then becomes inconceivable"; and it also says: "Settling is contemplation." Therefore, in discussing the perfect and subtle, only that which does not violate the existing text is the correct exposition. Now, explaining the single thought-moment is merely pointing to a single momentary mind of the combination of faculties and dusts; whether it is aggregates or delusions, good or evil, it fully possesses the three thousand and is identical to the three truths, which is the great substance of the ten subtleties; hence it says "all alike." This single thought-moment is for accomplishing contemplation; the present text specifically clarifies nonduality with reference to it; one must not fail to understand this, and therefore I have detailed it here.'