[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) › 10.19 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 10.19 止觀輔行傳弘決 10.19 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [10.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.19) ○次明過失中，先釋。初約此方。言「周弘政釋三玄」者，《廣雅》云「玄，黑色，謂幽寂也。」此三似幽，而不出陰陽等道。初《易》中云「易判陰陽」等，「約有明玄」者，如云「太極生兩儀，分而為天地，變而為陰陽，故曰是生兩儀。兩儀既立，變化生乎其中。」又云「天地變化能生能成，君臣變化能安能理，故知君臣父子之道不出於陰陽，八卦六爻亦不出於陰陽變化，變化相易吉凶生焉，吉凶雖生，窮理盡性以至天命。」故知即是約有明玄也。又復《周易》但論帝王君子之道、卜筮陰陽之理，故並不出於有。《老子》守雌保弱、去泰去甚。如云「有生於無不可名焉，復歸於無。」如是等並「約無明玄」。《莊子．內篇》自然為本，如云「雨為雲乎？雲為雨乎？孰降施是，皆其自然。」又言有無者，〈內篇〉明無，〈外篇〉明有。又內篇中，玄極之義皆明有無，如云「夫無形故無不形，無物故無不物，不物者能物物，不形者能形形。故形形物物者，非形非物也。夫非形非物者，求之於形物，不亦惑乎。」以是而言，雖有變非之言，亦似四句，而多在不形而形等，即有無也。又云「有信有情，無為無形。」如此等例其相非一，故知多是「約有無明玄」。「禮制」下，明破果不破因。許有「衛身安國」等，是不破因。「但立德」下，釋不破因。但立德衛身，不言招報，即是亦無；「慶流後世」，即是亦有。次斥行相中，初斥善行。於中初「如云」下，明行相。次「得有」下，斥。斥中，初判屬初禪，次以小涅槃難。「又法」下，大涅槃難。云「妙此」等者，即以此妙，妙此諸欲，唯妙無欲。是欲皆妙，妙不可得，故云皆無。妙謂涅槃，欲即界繫，故證真者欲妙皆無。「不得彰言了義說」者，縱是菩薩，迹在彼教，未得彰灼顯了而說，說彼教主即是大權。世人常云：孔子是儒童菩薩，故三教殊途而同歸。此約釋教開迹而說，方有此言。若開未開，教終是俗。秖緣教法猶是有漏世間之法，是故教主未得彰言，名為殊途。「但息」下，結行相。「詖」者，險也。「佞諂」，不忠也。次明無記中，先明行相。次斥，如文。明惡行中，初明行相略斥，次引例。云「如莊周斥仁義」等者，莊謂孔子為仁義賊，以行仁義雖防小盜，不意大盜。大盜者，謂竭仁義以謀其國。「竭」字非，應作揭（去列切），高舉貌也。如負建鼓而求亡子，詎可得乎？亡者，逃也。負鼓擊之以求逃者，未之得也。謂孔子負仁義而求自然，未可得也。「本以」下，結斥。斥孔子揭仁義為惡，不意莊周揭自然而為惡也。 > Next, in explaining the faults, \[the text\] first explains them. First, \[it discusses them\] in terms of this land (China). Regarding the statement "Zhou Hongzheng explains the three profundities": The Guangya states: "Profundity (xuan) means black; it refers to the quiet and secluded." These three seem quiet and secluded, yet they do not go beyond the Way of yin and yang and so forth. First, in the Zhouyi, where it says "the Yi determines yin and yang" and so on, "explaining the profound in terms of existence" refers to statements such as: "The Great Ultimate generates the Two Modes; dividing, they become heaven and earth; mutating, they become yin and yang; hence it is said that it generates the Two Modes. Once the Two Modes are established, transformations and mutations arise within them." It also says: "The transformations of heaven and earth can generate and complete; the transformations of sovereign and subject can pacify and order. Therefore, know that the way of sovereign and subject, father and son, does not go beyond yin and yang, and the eight trigrams and six lines likewise do not go beyond the transformations of yin and yang. Transformations mutate with one another and good and ill fortune arise therein; though good and ill fortune arise, by plumbing principle and exhausting nature one reaches the heavenly mandate." Thus one knows that this is precisely explaining the profound in terms of existence. Furthermore, the Zhouyi discusses only the way of emperors, kings, and noble men, and the principles of divination, yin, and yang; thus none goes beyond existence. Laozi holds to the feminine, preserves weakness, and gets rid of the excessive and the extreme. Such as saying: "Existence is born from non-existence, which cannot be named, and returns again to non-existence." Such \[teachings\] all "explain the profound in terms of non-existence." The Zhuangzi's "Inner Chapters" take spontaneity (ziran) as the root, as in: "Does rain make clouds? Do clouds make rain? Who pours them forth? All are just their spontaneity." Furthermore, regarding existence and non-existence: the "Inner Chapters" explain non-existence, and the "Outer Chapters" explain existence. In addition, within the "Inner Chapters", the meanings of the ultimate profundity all clarify existence and non-existence, as in: "Because it is formless, there is nothing it does not form; because it is non-material, there is nothing it does not materialize. That which does not materialize things can materialize things; that which does not form things can form things. Therefore, that which forms forms and materializes things is not itself form nor a thing. Is it not delusion to seek that which is neither form nor thing among forms and things?" Speaking in this way, although there are words of mutation and negation, and they resemble the four propositions, yet for the most part they reside in 'forming without form' and the like, which is just existence and non-existence. It also says: "It has sincerity and essence, non-action and no form." Such instances are not solitary; thus we know that they mostly "explain the profound in terms of existence and non-existence." From "Ritual regulations" downward, it explains refuting the effect without refuting the cause. Allowing that there is "protecting the body and pacifying the state" and so forth is not refuting the cause. From "Merely establishing virtue" downward, it explains not refuting the cause. Merely establishing virtue to protect the body without speaking of incurring recompense is precisely "also non-existence"; "blessings flowing down to later generations" is precisely "also existence." Next, in rebuking the forms of practice: first, it rebukes good practice. Therein, first, from "As it says" downward, it clarifies the forms of practice. Next, from "Can there be" downward, it rebukes them. In the rebuke, it first classifies them as belonging to the first dhyāna, and next challenges them with the lesser nirvāṇa. From "Furthermore, the Dharma" downward, it challenges them with the great nirvāṇa. The statement "wonder-fies these" and so on means that through this wonder, it wonder-fies these desires; there is only wonder and no desires. All these desires are wondrous, yet wonder cannot be attained; hence it says "both are non-existent." 'Wonder' refers to nirvāṇa; 'desires' refer to the bonds of the realm; hence for one who realizes the truth, both desires and wonder are non-existent. "Unable to openly speak the definitive meaning": even if they are bodhisattvas whose traces are in that teaching, they could not openly and clearly speak of it, declaring that the founder of that teaching is a great provisional manifestation. Worldly people often say: "Confucius is the Bodhisattva Mānavaka; therefore the three teachings take different paths but reach the same destination." This statement is only possible when spoken in terms of the Śākya teaching revealing the traces. Before revealing them, the teaching remains mundane after all. It is simply because the doctrinal methods are still contaminated worldly methods that the founder of the teaching was unable to speak openly; hence they are called "different paths." From "Merely halting" downward, it concludes the forms of practice. "Bi" (詖) means crooked or precarious. "Flattery and deceit" means unfaithfulness. Next, in explaining neutral \[practice\], it first explains the forms of practice. Next, it rebukes them, as in the text. In explaining evil practice, it first clarifies the forms of practice and briefly rebukes them; next, it cites examples. The phrase "As Zhuang Zhou rebuked benevolence and righteousness" and so forth: Zhuang considered Confucius a thief of benevolence and righteousness, because although practicing benevolence and righteousness guards against petty thieves, one does not anticipate great thieves. The "great thief" refers to hoisting up benevolence and righteousness to plot for their state. The character jie (竭) is an error and should be jie (揭), which has the appearance of raising high. It is like carrying a martial drum on one's back to search for a runaway son—how could one find him? A "runaway" is one who flees. Carrying a drum and beating it while searching for a fugitive—one has never found him. This means Confucius carrying benevolence and righteousness to seek spontaneity, which is impossible to attain. From "Originally taking" downward, it concludes the rebuke: it rebukes Confucius for hoisting up benevolence and righteousness as evil, without realizing that Zhuang Zhou hoisting up spontaneity is also evil. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 10.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.18) - [Next: 10.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.20) - [Up: 10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.10.19) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.19) · Pramāṇa