[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [請觀音經疏闡義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801) › 4.31 # 請觀音經疏闡義鈔 4.31 請觀音經疏闡義鈔 4.31 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801.4.31) 經「諸顛倒想」等者，亦約意根也。想，即想數也。其耳等五根，皆有三種相應攝住，例眼可知，故疏不說。「今言」下，釋身根。「五根微細」者，對身，即身根麁大故。「意根若領」等者，釋五根皆寄身根法塵也。意根懸思五塵，即是領納法塵也。「已虛有諸觸」者，非實對色等境，但心思色等時則眼等已虛，有色等諸觸也。文剩「備至」二字。不然，則「虛有」下闕「領受」二字。「故言」下，牒經。故知經舉五塵，皆是心意懸思，乃屬法塵耳。與細滑相應，即是心思時虛受諸觸也。故經即云「而此識賊乃至遍緣諸法也。」傷害真性，名之為賊。攀緣不停，故云如猨猴走。遍緣諸法，即是懸思五塵時，身已虛受諸觸也。故此一段經文，但是明身根耳。「通別圓意」者，通了根塵即空，別了假名，圓了中道，皆名攝住，此則十種行人俱論攝住也。前約事解，即屬苦報人及修世間善法人。「如實故言無堅」者，體地本虛，入如實際，即無堅也。「通教」下，示觀法也。通通別圓，故示通義餘亦可了。「有堅」應云「無堅」，字之誤也。「又四」下，破四見，示無堅義。謂若依三藏四門所見，俱成堅執，豈得無堅？「隣虛」者，極細之塵，隣於虛空，名隣虛塵。《毘曇》析色不滅隣虛，即有門也。「見空即是無見」者，《成論》析色，隣虛亦滅，即空門也。「乃至四句」者，兩亦如《昆勒論》，雙非如《迦旃延經》。「深著」等者，謂析地至隣虛，即地是有，有即實，實是堅義。若謂地是無，兩亦、俱非是事實，餘皆妄語。此之邪執，並是堅義，故云「深著不可捨」等。既離四過，故求不可得，即無堅性也。然此地大本非四句無堅名字，因情謂堅，故四句寄堅破執。「水不住四句」者，謂水為有，有即是住。乃至謂水是非有非無，亦即是住。今不住有四句，亦不住無四句中，亦不住不可說中，故言水性無住。「風無礙」等者，觀風為有，有是礙，乃至謂風雙非，皆是礙也。故云「豈無四句質礙」。今觀無四句故，故云風性無礙。不言火大者，文略也。應云火不從自生，乃至不從無因生，本無自性，賴緣而有，故云火性不實。此明四大本虛，即色陰入如實際也。餘之四陰，經文存略，但例色陰而已，故云受想行識等。若欲推之，應云受無領納性不可得。若謂受是有，有是領納。乃至謂受是非有非無，亦是領納。乃至識是了別，亦復如是。 > Regarding the sūtra's \[words\] 'all inverted thoughts' and so forth: this is also explained in terms of the mind sense organ. Thought is the mental factor of ideation. The five sense organs such as the ear all have three kinds of associated containment, which can be understood by analogy with the eye; therefore, the commentary does not discuss them. Regarding 'it is now said' below, this explains the body sense organ. As for 'the five sense organs are subtle', in contrast with the body, the body sense organ is coarse and great. Regarding 'if the mind sense organ receives' and so forth, this explains that the five sense organs are all lodged in the mental phenomena of the body sense organ. The mind sense organ reflecting in advance on the five sense objects is just the receiving of mental phenomena. As for 'already falsely having various contacts', one does not actually encounter objects such as form, but merely when the mind contemplates form and so forth, the eyes and the like already falsely have the various contacts of form and the like. The text has the two surplus characters \*bei zhi\* ('fully reaches'); otherwise, the two characters \*ling shou\* ('receive') are missing below 'falsely having'. Regarding 'therefore it says' below, this cites the sūtra. Thus we know that the five objects cited in the sūtra are all the imaginative reflection of the mind, and merely belong to mental phenomena. Associating with fine smoothness is precisely the false reception of various contacts when the mind contemplates. Therefore the sūtra says: 'And this consciousness-thief even universally conditions all dharmas.' Harming the true nature is called a thief. Climbing and grasping unceasingly, it is therefore said to be like a monkey running. Universally conditioning all dharmas means that when imaginatively reflecting on the five objects, the body has already falsely received the various contacts. Therefore, this section of the sūtra text only explains the body sense organ. As for 'the intentions of the shared, distinct, and perfect \[teachings\]', the shared understands sense organs and objects as being identical to emptiness, the distinct understands them as nominal, and the perfect understands them as the middle way; all are called containment. Here, containment is discussed with respect to practitioners of all ten kinds. The previous literal explanation pertained to people suffering retributions and people cultivating worldly wholesome dharmas. As for 'because it is in accordance with true reality, it is said to have no solidity', realizing that earth is fundamentally empty and entering the limit of true reality means having no solidity. Regarding 'the shared teaching' below, this demonstrates the contemplation method. The shared connects to the distinct and the perfect; thus, by showing the shared meaning, the rest can also be understood. 'Having solidity' should be 'no solidity', which is a textual error. Regarding 'moreover, the four' below, this refutes the four views and demonstrates the meaning of having no solidity. That is, if based on the views of the four gates of the Tripiṭaka \[teaching\], all turn into rigid graspings; how could there be no solidity? 'Paramāṇu' refers to the most subtle dust particle, bordering on empty space; it is called dust bordering on empty space. The \*Abhidharma\* analyzes form without annihilating the paramāṇu; this is the gate of existence. As for 'seeing emptiness is having no view', the \*Satyasiddhi\* analyzes form so that the paramāṇu is also annihilated; this is the gate of emptiness. As for 'up to the four propositions', both-affirmation is like the \*Peṭakopadeśa\*, and double-negation is like the \*Kātyāyana Sūtra\*. Regarding 'deeply attached' and so forth, analyzing earth down to paramāṇus means that earth is existent; existence is reality, and reality is the meaning of solidity. If one claims that earth is non-existent, or both-affirmation and double-negation are real, with the rest being false speech—these deviant attachments are all the meaning of solidity; hence it says 'deeply attached and unable to relinquish' and so forth. Having parted from the four faults, it cannot be found upon investigation; that is the nature of no solidity. However, this earth element is fundamentally not the words 'four propositions' or 'no solidity'; it is because of delusion that it is called solid, so the four propositions rely on solidity to refute attachment. As for 'water does not abide in the four propositions', claiming water to be existent means existence is abiding; even claiming water to be neither existent nor non-existent is also abiding. Now, it does not abide in the four propositions of existence, nor does it abide in the four propositions of non-existence, nor does it abide in the ineffable; therefore it is said that the nature of water has no abiding. Regarding 'wind is unobstructed' and so forth: contemplating wind as existent means existence is obstruction, up to wind as double-negation, which are all obstruction. Hence it says, 'How could there not be the material obstruction of the four propositions?' Now, because one contemplates the absence of the four propositions, it is said that the nature of wind is unobstructed. That it does not mention the fire element is an abbreviation of the text. It should say that fire does not arise from itself, up to not arising from no cause; fundamentally lacking self-nature, it exists reliant on conditions; hence it is said that the nature of fire is not real. This explains that the four great elements are fundamentally empty, which is the form aggregate entering the limit of true reality. As for the remaining four aggregates, the sūtra text abbreviates them, merely taking the form aggregate as an analogy; hence it says 'feeling, ideation, formation, and consciousness' and so forth. If one wishes to deduce it, one should say that feeling's nature of receiving cannot be found. If one claims feeling is existent, existence is receiving; up to claiming feeling is neither existent nor non-existent is also receiving. Even up to consciousness being discernment, it is likewise so. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801.4.30) - [Next: 4.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801.4.32) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801~en-mt.4.31) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801.4.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1801.4.31) · Pramāṇa