[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) › 2.31 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.31 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.31 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.31) 次歷諸善中，先分別「四運」者，運者動也，從未至欲、從欲至正、從正至已，故通云動也。又《國語》云「陸載曰運，水載曰漕。」漕字。常為九界四心所載，故名為運。今攝九運令入佛運，仍觀佛運不出九運。佛運之體體性本無，是故應須分別四運。此分別門冠下作受，若不先辨觀心無託，故云「心識無形以四相分別」。又為世人多謂生心為妄，須觀滅心非妄。都不觀之，謂為無生，謬之甚也。世習禪者皆觀無生，不知無生為在何處，為先有耶？為先無耶？先有則已證無生，先無如何名觀？若知九界而為觀境，則菩薩界已起未起尚須觀察，況復餘耶。今言已未，約緣內外有心無心。有心無心從來有漏，豈容據此判生無生？如人防火一切俱防，若但防發不防未防，必為未發之火所燒。觀已未心實為防於欲生正生，無生觀人但知觀於正起之心令心不起，不知觀於未起之心。心體本無，無既本無，起亦非起。此對人間六塵起滅生無生心，如此滅心尚不自識，況識欲色無色等心，況復析體及偏小等。圓無生心尚須觀察，況復餘耶？又觀四運者是隨自意中從未從事而修觀法，如常坐等或唯觀理，謂一切法無非法性，是故當知修三昧者，於此二途一不可廢。故《占察經》云「觀有二種：一者唯識，謂一切唯心；二者實觀，謂觀真如。」唯識歷事，真如觀理。今文觀於十界四運，義當《占察》一切唯心。故今文云「能了此四即入無相」。若也次第觀十四運，名思議境。能達九界即佛法界，名不思議。仍須發心乃至離愛，方成一家入道之相。故傅大士獨自詩云「獨自作問我，心中何所著？巡檢四運併無生，千端萬緒何能縛。」當知無垢大士亦以四運而為心要。大士雖即不云十界，既云萬緒，意亦兼諸。如下六十四句展轉推尋，是故大士亦云巡檢。言「一相無相」者，九界四相皆不可得名為一相，一相自無名為無相。「問」下，料簡已未二心。問意者，正斥他人但觀正起，故先問云：此二無心，云何可觀？答中二番：先答未念、次答已念，二番皆有法譬合也。初法者，但是未起名之為無，既非永無是故須觀。「如人」下，譬者，作與不作自約前事，事雖有無，人不可滅。「心亦」下，合也。念與未念自約前緣，緣雖有無，心不可滅。心既不滅，因茲廣能起一切心，是故觀之不令緣惑，惑即九界觀入佛心。作作兩字俱在祖餓反，作所作事名為作作。次「念已」下第二番答。望事為己，心不可無。「如人」下，譬。「念已」下，合。次問者，引《金剛經》三世之心皆不可得。已即過去，未即未來，現在尚無，云何乃云觀三世心？答中，先總非之。「若過去」下別答也，先牒前難、次「云何」下正答。如汝所問不觀三世，云何聖人觀三世心？「鬼神」下，舉劣顯勝。「云何」下，反斥也。鬼神下類尚知三世，豈佛法中令無三世？問：鬼神云何知三世耶？答：如《婆沙》中有鬼入女人身中，呪師問云：「何故惱他？」答：「是女人五百生中與我為怨，常斷我命。我亦常斷其命（知過去也）。若捨怨心，我亦捨之。」時人語女：「可捨怨心。」女言：「已捨。」鬼觀女心口雖言捨、心中不捨，即斷女命（知現在也）。既知自他過現未來，准此應知防未來怨故殺現在。又如地獄其類更下，亦知過去。如云「昔為婆羅門國王，為我說法不肯信受，致受斯苦。」又知由造其罪入地獄等。鬼及地獄尚知因果隔生三世，云何行人不識剎那生滅三世？「龜毛兔角見」者，以此二物喻於斷見。汝引三世俱不可得，即謂無心，如彼二物一向全無，此名斷見。故《成論》云「兔角、龜毛、鹽香、蛇足及風色等，是名為無。」此取走兔水龜為喻，若飛兔陸龜容有毛角。故《大經》云「如水龜毛、如走兔角。」「當知」，下結也。此三世心為觀境者，非斷非常。何者？不常故無實，不斷故可觀。不以不實而云永無，以不實故可為觀境。故引偈者，凡佛所說皆非斷常，如何起於斷滅見耶？「若起」下，結斥。起斷滅見無所觀境，觀境既無，一切因果萬行俱失，是故須觀已未二心。故知汝所引經不閑教旨，所言三世不可得者，但言無實，誰謂永無？是故當知佛法二諦，俗諦故有、真諦故無，不可以無而難於有。是故《金剛》觀其俗諦，俗體不實，名不可得。 > Next, among the \[sections on\] passing through various good \[actions\], first distinguishing the 'four phases': 'Phase' (yun) means movement; moving from 'not yet' to 'about to', from 'about to' to 'presently', and from 'presently' to 'already'—hence it is generally spoken of as movement. Furthermore, the Guoyu states: 'Conveyance on land is called yun; conveyance on water is called cao.' Conveyance: it is constantly conveyed by the four minds of the nine realms, hence it is named a 'phase' (yun). Now, one subsumes the nine phases and brings them into the Buddha-phase, yet still contemplates that the Buddha-phase does not go beyond the nine phases. The substance of the Buddha-phase is intrinsically devoid of self-nature; therefore, one must distinguish the four phases. This gate of distinguishing heads the subsequent 'acting' and 'experiencing'; if one does not first discern it, the contemplation of mind will have nothing to rely upon; hence it is said, 'Consciousness is formless; it is distinguished through the four marks.' Furthermore, because worldly people mostly regard the arising mind as delusive, one must contemplate that the ceased mind is not delusive. To not contemplate it at all, deeming it to be 'non-arising', is an extreme error. Worldly practitioners of dhyāna all contemplate non-arising, without knowing where non-arising is located. Does it exist beforehand? Or is it non-existent beforehand? If it exists beforehand, one has already realized non-arising; if it is non-existent beforehand, how can it be called contemplation? If one knows that the nine realms serve as the objects of contemplation, then even the already arisen and not-yet-arisen of the bodhisattva realm must still be observed, not to mention the rest! Now, speaking of 'already' and 'not yet' is according to the presence or absence of mind regarding internal and external conditions. The presence or absence of mind has always been contaminated; how could one judge arising or non-arising based on this? Just as someone guarding against fire guards against all of it: if one only guards against what has broken out and does not guard against what has not yet broken out, one will surely be burned by the fire that has not yet broken out. Contemplating the already arisen and not-yet-arisen minds is truly guarding against what is about to arise and presently arising. Practitioners of the contemplation of non-arising only know how to contemplate the presently arisen mind to make the mind not arise; they do not know how to contemplate the not-yet-arisen mind. The substance of mind is fundamentally non-existent; since non-existence is fundamentally non-existent, arising is also not an arising. This corresponds to the minds of arising and non-arising that arise and cease with regard to the worldly six dusts; failing even to know such a ceased mind oneself, how much less could one know the minds of desire, form, and formlessness, and how much less the analysis of substance and the one-sided small \[vehicles\], etc.! Even the mind of perfect non-arising must still be observed; how much more so the rest! Furthermore, contemplating the four phases is, within \[the samādhi of\] following one's own intention, cultivating contemplation by following what is not yet and following phenomena. Like the constantly sitting \[samādhi\] and so forth, which sometimes only contemplate principle, maintaining that all phenomena are nothing other than dharma-nature; therefore, one should know that cultivators of samādhi must not neglect either of these two paths. Thus the Zhancha jing states: 'There are two kinds of contemplation: first, consciousness-only, meaning that all is mind-only; second, the real contemplation, meaning contemplating thusness.' Consciousness-only passes through phenomena; thusness contemplates principle. In the present text, contemplating the four phases of the ten realms corresponds in meaning to 'all is mind-only' in the Zhancha jing. Hence the present text states: 'Being able to comprehend these four, one then enters the markless.' If one sequentially contemplates the fourteen phases, it is called a conceivable object. Being able to fathom that the nine realms are themselves the Buddha dharma-dhātu is called inconceivable. One must still arouse the aspiration for awakening and so on up to departing from craving; only then does one fulfill the characteristics of entering the path of our school. Therefore, Mahāsattva Fu's poem 'Solitary' says: 'Solitary, I ask myself: / What is attached within my mind? / Examining the four phases, all are non-arising; / How could a thousand threads and ten thousand strands bind me?' One should know that the Flawless Mahāsattva also took the four phases as the essential of mind. Although the Mahāsattva did not mention the ten realms, having spoken of 'ten thousand strands', the meaning also encompasses them. As in the sixty-four phrases below, which are investigated turn by turn, therefore the Mahāsattva also spoke of 'examining'. 'One mark is markless' means that the four marks of the nine realms are all ungraspable, which is called the 'one mark'; the one mark being intrinsically non-existent is called 'markless'. Below 'Question', it analyzes the two minds of 'already' and 'not yet'. The intention of the question is precisely to reprove others who only contemplate what is presently arising; hence it first asks: 'These two are without mind; how can they be contemplated?' In the answer, there are two rounds: first answering the not-yet-thought, next answering the already-thought; both rounds contain dharma, metaphor, and application. First, regarding the dharma: it is merely called non-existent because it has not yet arisen; since it is not permanently non-existent, it must be contemplated. Below 'Like a person', regarding the metaphor: doing and not doing pertain to the preceding matter; although the matter may exist or not exist, the person cannot be annihilated. Below 'The mind also', regarding the application: thinking and not thinking pertain to the preceding conditions; although conditions may exist or not exist, the mind cannot be annihilated. Since the mind is not annihilated, because of this it can extensively give rise to all minds; therefore, one contemplates it without allowing it to condition delusion—delusion being the nine realms—and contemplates entering the Buddha-mind. The two characters zuo and zuo (作作) are both in the pronunciation zu'e (zuò); doing the work that is to be done is called 'doing the doing'. Next, below 'having thought', the second round of answers: in view of the matter having passed, the mind cannot be non-existent. Below 'Like a person', the metaphor. Below 'having thought', the application. Next, the question cites the Diamond Sūtra's statement that the mind of the three times is ungraspable: 'already' is the past, 'not yet' is the future, and even the present is non-existent; how then can one speak of contemplating the mind of the three times? In the answer, it first refutes this in general. Below 'If the past', answering specifically: first taking up the preceding objection, next below 'How can it be', answering directly. As in what you ask about not contemplating the three times, how could sages contemplate the mind of the three times? Below 'Ghosts and spirits', bringing up the inferior to manifest the superior. Below 'How can it be', refuting in reverse. If even inferior classes like ghosts and spirits know the three times, how could the Buddha-dharma bring about the non-existence of the three times? Question: How do ghosts and spirits know the three times? Answer: As in the Vibhāṣā, where a ghost entered a woman's body, and the spell-master asked: 'Why do you torment another?' It replied: 'This woman was my enemy across five hundred lifetimes, constantly ending my life. I also constantly ended her life (knowing the past). If she abandons her enmity, I will also abandon mine.' People at the time told the woman: 'You should abandon your enmity.' The woman said: 'I have already abandoned it.' The ghost observed the woman's mind: although her mouth spoke of abandoning, her heart did not abandon it, so it immediately ended the woman's life (knowing the present). Since it knew its own and the other's past, present, and future, one should infer from this that it killed in the present to guard against future enmity. Furthermore, the hells are even lower in class, yet they also know the past, as in the saying: 'Formerly I was a Brahman king; when the Dharma was preached to me, I refused to believe and accept it, leading to the experience of this suffering.' They also know that due to creating such sins, they entered hell, and so forth. If ghosts and hells still know cause and effect across lifetimes in the three times, how could a practitioner fail to recognize the momentary arising and ceasing of the three times? 'Views of turtle hair and rabbit horns' uses these two things as a metaphor for the view of annihilationism. You cite that the three times are all ungraspable, and immediately deem there to be no mind, just like those two things are entirely non-existent—this is called the view of annihilationism. Therefore, the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra states: 'Rabbit horns, turtle hair, salt fragrance, snake feet, and the color of wind, etc., are called non-existent.' This takes the running rabbit and water turtle as metaphors; if it were a flying rabbit or land turtle, there might possibly be hair or horns. Therefore, the Mahā\[parinirvāṇa\]-sūtra states: 'Like water turtle hair, like running rabbit horns.' Below 'One should know', it concludes. Taking this mind of the three times as the object of contemplation is neither annihilated nor permanent. Why? Because it is not permanent, it has no reality; because it is not annihilated, it can be contemplated. One does not say it is permanently non-existent because of its unreality; because it is unreal, it can serve as the object of contemplation. Therefore, citing the verse: everything taught by the Buddha is neither annihilated nor permanent; how could one give rise to the view of annihilation? Below 'If one gives rise to', concluding with a reproof. If one gives rise to the view of annihilation, there is no object of contemplation; when the object of contemplation is non-existent, all causes and effects and myriad practices are lost together; therefore, one must contemplate the two minds of 'already' and 'not yet'. Hence one knows that the sūtra you cite was misunderstood in its doctrinal intent; as for saying that the three times are ungraspable, it merely means they have no reality—who said they are permanently non-existent? Therefore, one should know that in the Buddha-dharma there are two truths: through the conventional truth they exist; through the ultimate truth they are non-existent; one cannot use non-existence to object to existence. Therefore, the Diamond \[Sūtra\] contemplates their conventional truth; the substance of the conventional is unreal, which is termed 'ungraspable'. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.30) - [Next: 2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.32) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.2.31) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.31) · Pramāṇa