[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) › [止觀輔行傳弘決](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912) › 1.68 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 1.68 止觀輔行傳弘決 1.68 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.1.68) 次「疑者」去，立難釋疑。先難中舉不可說，以難示人。理本無說，何須示三？言通別者，不分大小但語諸法，故名為通。引「生生」等四句不同，對教差別，故名為別。身子對天女，藏不可說也。無說無示，圓不可說也。略舉初後，中二比知，即通別也。通之與別皆不可說，何故而以三文示人？從「然但引」下，答也。文通二意，何故但以不說難說？今此三文即是說也，不許執文即不可說，如何偏謂三文為說？故總斥云「但見一邊不見其二」。初引《大經》，正以可說對酬前難，此通明可說。次引《法華》無數方便即大可說，為五比丘即小可說，此別明可說也。亦舉初後，中二例知。次引《大經》十二文者，乳於生盲實不可說，而亦可以貝粖等示；真如之理實不可說，而亦可以常等四說。今三止觀亦復如是，總持即是不思議俗，此俗亦非文字可說，雖不可說亦假俗諦文字說之，是則二諦俱可說也。真理無說尚因說悟，何況俗諦而言無說？是故有說必依二諦。已引說文酬於不說，引《淨名》等融通二途。初文明說無說體性相即，文字是色法，色法即實相，實相既無別說，即是無說。次引《大經》者，如來本無說，逗物名多聞；多聞不離理，無說即是說。次引《思益》亦融二途，故云「常行」。次「引法華至見佛」者，重明可說，以翻前難。導謂示導，《論語》云「導謂為之正教也。」次引《大經》空中雲雷等，明說之意莫非感應。前明因緣其義尚通，今重別以譬顯感應。第八云「譬如空中震雷起雲，一切象牙上皆生華。」無雷不生，亦無名字。經合譬云「聞常住教則見佛性」。故今結云「何時一向無說」也。說者是應、聞者是感，形聲二輪俱有感應，今為酬難故且云說。言「象牙」等者，疏有三解：一云草名象牙；二云是畜生象牙上生華文；三云象牙之上生於草華。雖三不同，莫不皆堪譬感應意。象牙與雷天懸地殊，尚因天雷而生於華，況聖說被物與機相稱而無益耶？虛空，法身也。震雷，說法也。起雲，現身也。象牙，機緣也。生華，益得也，謂有觀行等四益不同。 > Next, from 'The doubter...' onward raises an objection to resolve doubt. In the first objection, it adduces ineffability to challenge showing \[the teachings\] to people: Principle originally has no exposition; why must one show three? Regarding 'shared and distinctive': not distinguishing between the great and small but simply speaking of all dharmas is called 'shared'. Adducing the four different phrases such as 'arising of arising' in correlation to the distinctions among teachings is called 'distinctive'. Śāriputra facing the goddess represents the ineffability of the Tripiṭaka \[teaching\]. 'No exposition and no showing' represents the ineffability of the perfect \[teaching\]. Briefly raising the first and the last, the middle two are known by comparison; they are the shared and distinctive. Both the shared and the distinctive are ineffable; why then show three texts to people? From 'However, merely citing...' downward is the reply. The text encompasses both meanings; why only use non-exposition to challenge exposition? Now, these three texts are themselves exposition; not permitting attachment to the text is itself ineffability. How can one biasedly claim that the three texts are exposition? Therefore, it thoroughly reprimands them, saying: 'Seeing only one side and not seeing the two.' First, citing the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, it directly matches exposition to respond to the previous objection; this generally clarifies exposition. Next, citing the Lotus Sūtra's 'innumerable expedients' is great exposition, while 'for the five monks' is small exposition; this distinctively clarifies exposition. It also raises the first and the last; the middle two are known by analogy. Next, citing the text from fascicle twelve of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: milk is truly ineffable to one born blind, yet it can also be demonstrated by shell-powder and the like; the principle of suchness is truly ineffable, yet it can also be explained through the four \[virtues\] such as permanence. Now the three types of calming and contemplation are also like this: dhāraṇī is the inconceivable conventional truth, and this conventional truth is also not expressible in words; although ineffable, it is also expressed through the words of conventional truth. Thus both truths are expressible. If the true principle, having no exposition, is still awakened to by means of exposition, how much more so conventional truth—how could it be said to have no exposition? Therefore, any exposition must rely on the two truths. Having already cited texts on exposition to answer non-exposition, it cites Vimalakīrti and others to harmoniously merge the two paths. The first text clarifies that the essence-nature of exposition and non-exposition are mutually identical: written words are form-dharmas, form-dharmas are the true mark, and since the true mark has no separate exposition, this is non-exposition. Next, citing the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: the Tathāgata originally has no exposition, but catering to beings is called 'great hearing'; great hearing does not depart from principle, so non-exposition is itself exposition. Next, citing the Viśeṣacintābrahma-paripṛcchā Sūtra, it also harmonizes the two paths, hence it says 'always practicing'. Next, from 'citing the Lotus up to seeing the Buddha', it re-clarifies exposition to overturn the previous objection. 'Guiding' means showing and directing; the Analects says: 'To guide means to make correct instruction for them.' Next, citing the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra on clouds and thunder in the sky and so forth, it clarifies that the intention of exposition is nothing other than stimulus and response. Earlier, clarifying causes and conditions, the meaning was still general; now it again distinctively uses a simile to reveal stimulus and response. Fascicle eight says: 'For example, when thunder claps and clouds arise in the sky, flowers bloom on all elephant tusks.' Without thunder they do not bloom, nor do they even have names. The sūtra matches the simile, saying: 'Hearing the teaching of permanence, one sees the buddha-nature.' Therefore it now concludes: 'When is it ever entirely without exposition?' The one who expounds is the response; the one who hears is the stimulus. Both the bodily and vocal wheels possess stimulus and response; now, to answer the objection, it provisionally speaks of exposition. Regarding 'elephant tusks' and so forth, the commentary has three explanations: one says it is the name of a plant called elephant-tusk; the second says flower-patterns bloom upon animal elephant tusks; the third says grassy flowers bloom on top of elephant tusks. Although the three differ, each is capable of illustrating the meaning of stimulus and response. Elephant tusks and thunder are as far apart as heaven and earth, yet relying on celestial thunder, flowers still bloom; how much more so when the sacred exposition is applied to beings and matches their capacity—could it be without benefit? Empty space is the dharma-body. Clapping thunder is expounding the Dharma. Arising clouds is manifesting the body. Elephant tusks are the capacities and conditions. The blooming of flowers is the attainment of benefit, referring to the four different benefits of contemplation-practice and so forth. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.1.67) - [Next: 1.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.1.69) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.1.68) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.1.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.1.68) · Pramāṇa