四教義 8.7

8.7

三簡真偽者，問曰：三乘初心信解無生四諦有真偽不？答曰：迦羅迦菓、鎮頭迦菓偽多真少。末世學三乘之人雖知無生四諦，不識正因緣義，即是迦羅迦菓。若無道心、貪著名利，即是迦羅迦菓。不知善巧，修習止觀，即是迦羅迦菓。破法不遍，即是迦羅迦菓。不知通塞，即是迦羅菓。不知道品調適、進極修習，即是迦羅迦菓。不知對治、助開三解脫門，即是迦羅迦菓。不知位次、生增上慢，即是迦羅迦菓。不能安忍內外強軟兩賊，即是迦羅迦菓。是則迦羅迦菓乃有九分。如女人不別，將還家食，眷屬皆死。若能了知畢竟無所有而精解此之得失，發諸順道法門而不愛著，即是鎮頭迦菓，纔有一分也。故《中論》云：「佛去世後，人根轉鈍，聞大乘法中說畢竟空，不知何因緣故空。」即是生見疑：若都畢竟空，云何分別有罪福報應等？如是則無世諦、第一義諦，取此空相而生貪著，於畢竟空中生種種過，龍樹菩薩造論意在此也。《智度論》云：「第三邪見破因緣果報，亦破一切法。」與觀真空何異？龍樹論主八番復次簡別真偽，具出（云云）。問曰：五停心善法有真偽不？答曰：一家次第禪門明發禪覺支，若過若不及有二十種。壞禪邪覺即是迦羅迦菓，十種成禪善覺即是鎮頭迦菓也。問曰：信解無生四諦、智慧辨才即是波若，何須數息五停心觀耶？答曰：《大智論》云：「空、無相、無作雖是智慧，若無定心，即是顛智慧、狂智慧。」豈可說顛狂之人是初賢乾慧地？

Third, in distinguishing the genuine from the spurious, the question is asked: Regarding the initial faith and understanding of the four noble truths of non-arising among practitioners of the three vehicles, are there the genuine and the spurious? The answer is: As with the kālaka fruit and the tinduka fruit, the spurious are many and the genuine are few. If persons of the latter age studying the three vehicles know the four noble truths of non-arising but do not recognize the principle of correct causes and conditions, they are kālaka fruits. If they lack the mind for the Path and greedily cling to fame and gain, they are kālaka fruits. If they do not know skillful means and practice calming and insight [without them], they are kālaka fruits. If their refutation of dharmas is not comprehensive, they are kālaka fruits. If they do not understand opening and obstruction, they are kālaka fruits. If they do not know how to harmonize the factors of the Path and cultivate them to the utmost, they are kālaka fruits. If they do not know antidotes and the assisting openings to the three gates of deliverance, they are kālaka fruits. If they do not understand the sequence of stages and give rise to excessive pride, they are kālaka fruits. If they cannot patiently endure the two thieves of internal and external strong and soft [influences], they are kālaka fruits. Thus, the kālaka fruits constitute nine parts. It is like an undiscriminating woman who took them home to eat, and all her family members died. If one can comprehend ultimate nonexistence and thoroughly understand these gains and losses, giving rise to all Dharma gates that accord with the Path without becoming attached to them, this is the tinduka fruit, which accounts for barely one part. Therefore, the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "After the Buddha passed away, human faculties became progressively duller; hearing that the Mahāyāna teachings speak of ultimate emptiness, they did not know for what causes and conditions it is empty." That is, they gave rise to views and doubts: 'If all is ultimately empty, how can one distinguish karmic retributions of transgression and merit?' In this way, there would be neither worldly truth nor paramārtha-satya. Grasping this mark of emptiness and generating greedy attachment, they produced all kinds of faults regarding ultimate emptiness. This was the intention of Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna in composing his treatise. The Dà zhìdù lùn states: "The third wrong view destroys causes, conditions, and karmic retributions, and also destroys all dharmas." How would this differ from contemplating true emptiness? The treatise master Nāgārjuna makes eight sets of distinctions between the genuine and the spurious, fully detailed [therein] (and so forth). Question: Do the wholesome dharmas of the five methods for stilling the mind have the genuine and the spurious? Answer: One school's sequential contemplation gates explain the factors of awakening that arise in dhyāna, of which there are twenty kinds regarding excess or deficiency. Spurious awakenings that ruin dhyāna are kālaka fruits, whereas the ten kinds of wholesome awakenings that bring dhyāna to completion are tinduka fruits. Question: If faith and understanding in the four noble truths of non-arising, as well as wisdom and eloquence, are themselves prajñā, why is it necessary to contemplate counting the breath and the five methods for stilling the mind? Answer: The Dà zhìdù lùn states: "Although emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness are wisdom, if devoid of a concentrated mind, they are upside-down wisdom and mad wisdom." How could an upside-down, mad person be called an external ordinary being at the stage of dry wisdom?