四教義 8.21

8.21

第四料簡者，問曰：從初地至七地對四果，出何經論耶？答曰：經論非不對當，但高下不同，末代法師對當亦多殊異。所以然者，或云：「見地止對初地」，此如今所用。或取三地併對見地，《仁王經》明四地併對見地，此則難可定依。但通教見地本是無間之道，不出觀證須陀洹，豈得從初地斷見乃至三地或云四地也？若斷別惑，不共二乘，如此明義或當有之。又或言「六地斷結羅漢齊」，或言「七地名阿羅漢」，此難定執。前後兩果經論對既不定，其間二果以意可知。既不可定依，今用義推，作比對位，雖一往少便，終不可定執也。

Fourth, regarding analytic differentiation: Question: From the first ground to the seventh ground matching the four fruitions, from which sūtra or treatise does this derive? Answer: It is not that sūtras and treatises do not make correspondences, but their elevations differ, and later-generation Dharma masters' correspondences also vary greatly. As to why this is: some say, 'The stage of seeing only corresponds to the first ground,' as is used here now. Others take three grounds together to correspond to the stage of seeing; the Benevolent Kings Sūtra explains four grounds together corresponding to the stage of seeing, which is difficult to rely upon definitively. However, the stage of seeing in the shared teaching is fundamentally the path of uninterruptedness: without emerging from contemplation, one realizes the srotaāpanna; how could it be that from the first ground one severs views up through the third ground or even the fourth ground? If one severs distinctive delusions unshared with the two vehicles, explaining the meaning in this way might perhaps obtain. Furthermore, some say 'at the sixth ground, severing fetters equals the arhat,' while others say 'the seventh ground is called arhat'; this is difficult to grasp definitively. Since sūtras and treatises do not definitively match the preceding and succeeding two fruitions, the two fruitions in between can be understood by deduction. Since they cannot be definitively relied upon, using doctrinal inference now to draw comparative stages—though temporarily convenient—can never be definitively grasped.