[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) › 10.25 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 10.25 止觀輔行傳弘決 10.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [10.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.25) 次歷教。初三藏及通教中，先明見境助道力大。次引證，先引《大論》。「三惡亦有得道」等者，論第三釋天人教中，如來為度諸道眾生故，亦在餘道中生，何故但云天人師耶？答：餘道少，天人多。如白人黑黶，不名黑人。三惡如白人，得道如黑子。三惡得道良由有慧，見屬慧性，故悟道甚疾。諸經不說三惡道中有慧性者，以少故耳。福德生天不悟道者，良由無慧。故知帶見沈淪，縱墮三惡，聞法易悟，勝於人天。「如諸」下，引佛化儀。「䝖䝤」等者。此則通舉邊鄙無禮教者，尚不解於人間世語，何況出世妙理之教？故佛於此等則未出世。䝖䝤等類亦堪感佛，況復西方本無䝖䝤之名，但是舉此以擬彼耳。今文意者舉於四遠，如前所引。「分形」等者，佛既未出，明如來權巧尚教其見，令諸菩薩先同其見為師為導，後示受破俱入正道。「法華」下，引證權人先同後異，引況如文。「若先」下，約別圓教斷不斷以判。言「過同三外」者，但謂所起之見增長新惑，云同三外，非謂所依別圓之門。言「先世已斷通惑」等者，或是斷見、或侵少思，云同二乘。若見思都盡，亦不生此。既分斷見思，當知起見不同凡下。外外見等尚養，況二乘見耶？「淨名乃至進退解之」等者，引證二乘不可一向名見。挫同諸見為進，依本二乘為退。二乘被斥同諸見者，取其不見中理邊。外見尚以為侍，何況二乘？若撥若取，乃是抑揚之言，是故不可一向名見。「今生」下，明功能，如文。 > Next, going through the teachings. First, in the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings: first, explaining that the object of views possesses great power to assist the path. Next, citing verification: first, citing the Dazhidulun. In "In the three evil destinies there are also those who attain the path...", fascicle three of the treatise, in explaining the teaching to devas and humans, asks: Since the Tathāgata, to deliver sentient beings of all destinies, is also born among the other destinies, why is he only called the teacher of devas and humans? The answer is: In the other destinies they are few, while devas and humans are many. It is like a dark birthmark on a fair-skinned person; one does not call them a dark person. The three evil destinies are like the fair-skinned person; attaining the path is like the black mole. That those in the three evil destinies attain the path is truly because they possess wisdom; views belong to the nature of wisdom, hence they awaken to the path very quickly. That the sūtras do not speak of those in the three evil destinies possessing the nature of wisdom is only because they are few. That those born in heaven through blessed virtue do not awaken to the path is truly because they lack wisdom. Therefore we know that sinking down while bearing views, even if falling into the three evil destinies, upon hearing the Dharma one easily awakens, superior to humans and devas. In "Just as all...", citing the Buddha's modes of conversion. In "The wild Rong and Di barbarians...", this refers generally to those in border regions without ritual propriety or teaching, who do not even understand ordinary worldly speech, how much less the teaching of the subtle supra-mundane truth? Therefore, the Buddha did not appear in the world for them. Yet classes such as the Rong and Di barbarians are also capable of evoking the Buddha; moreover, the Western Regions originally had no such names as Rong and Di, but this is merely brought up by analogy to them. The intention of the present text is to bring up the four distant regions, as cited previously. In "dividing his form...", since the Buddha had not yet appeared, this explains that through skillful expedients the Tathāgata even taught them views, causing various bodhisattvas to first conform to their views to serve as teachers and guides, and later show acceptance and refutation so that all enter the true path. From "Lotus..." onward, citing verification that provisional persons are first the same and later different; the citations and analogies are as in the text. From "If previously..." onward, distinguishing according to severance and non-severance in the distinctive and perfect teachings. The words "their fault is the same as the three external \[teachings\]" merely mean that the views aroused augment new afflictions, which is why it says they are the same as the three external teachings; it does not mean the gates of the distinctive and perfect teachings on which they rely. The words "in a prior lifetime having already severed the shared afflictions..." refer to having either severed view \[affliction\] or encroached slightly upon thought \[affliction\], which is why it says they are the same as the two vehicles. If view and thought \[afflictions\] were completely exhausted, these would not arise either. Since they have partially severed view and thought \[afflictions\], one should know that the views they arouse are not like those of ordinary base persons. If even exterior external views are nourished, how much more so the views of the two vehicles? In "Vimalakīrti even understood them through advancing and retreating...", this cites verification that the two vehicles cannot be exclusively termed "views." Bringing them down to be the same as various views is "advancing"; relying on the fundamental two vehicles is "retreating." That the two vehicles are rebuked as being the same as various views takes the aspect that they do not see the middle principle. If even external views are taken as attendants, how much more so the two vehicles? Whether negating or accepting them, these are words of disparagement and praise; therefore, they cannot be exclusively termed "views." From "In this life..." onward, explaining their functions, as in the text. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 10.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.24) - [Next: 10.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.26) - [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.10.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.10.25) · Pramāṇa