[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) › 2.35 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.35 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.35 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.35) 「次觀」下約六作者，莊周亦云「出處語默」，出處即行住坐臥，然莊周不云以為觀境。今具三觀，空觀准前，意亦可見。「而由」下，假觀也。由心動役為十界由，謂由此心為何事故而行住等，故諸為字皆去聲呼。「毀戒」，獄也。「誑他」，鬼也。「眷屬」，畜也。「勝他」，修也。「義讓」，人也。「善」即十善欲天也，「禪」即四禪色天也。略無無色。「涅槃」，二乘也。「慈悲」去，六度菩薩也。「方便」去，通菩薩也。「怳𭝏」者，無形不實貌也。舉足下足與空相應，故亡能所及以近遠。凡有所作若有一念不應於空，名為唐喪。「如此」下，別教也。空心入假故云「如此」。攝空成假故云「恒沙」。文相既狹，義亦兼於通教出假。向明通教但云空觀，不分三乘空假之別。又別教人指前九界，故云如此。九界既空、空即九界，故成別教恒沙佛法。「又觀一運」下，中道觀也。非一非十，准前說之。「故法華」下，引證也。問：那引捨衣以證六作？答：文勢相從，總引捨服證作受檀，及引佛道以證圓中。「前約」下，約十二事各論六者，先標同異。前十二事並且論檀，是故云「共」。今一一事並具論六，是故云「各」。又前共論檀，於十二事，一一皆明十界檀相。今各論中，准例亦應具足如前列十二事，一一皆明十界六度，文從略故。或時九界或但佛界，廣略互形共成圓意。又何但十二一一具六，六中一一各具於六，故一一度以五莊嚴，即是以五嚴檀乃至以五嚴智，能所合說皆名具六。諸大乘經《首楞嚴》、《大論》、《大品》等六度皆爾，故今准彼以明度相，今文所用即《首楞嚴》。亦如《大品．相攝品》云「富樓那白佛：『我今欲說菩薩之行。』佛言：『隨汝意說。』乃廣說六度更互相顯，乃成六六三十六度，故云或以施為名說諸波羅蜜，乃至或以般若為名說諸波羅蜜。」五度入一，從一為名。又《攝大乘》論互顯章、《大瓔珞．無斷品》，並與《楞嚴》意同。《大論》八十二「問云：若皆互嚴，何故但以檀為首耶？答：攝生便故。貴賤乃至畜生，檀能攝之，乃至宛轉為親。諸佛相好皆從施生。」如此說者仍屬教道，若證道說無非法界，攝無前後誰論次第？初文以行中具六，檀與能嚴文相次第，不假別說能嚴所嚴。初文云「大悲眼」等者，如《勝天王》云「菩薩行時視前六尺，雙犁扼地不左右視。不惱眾生，見諸眾生同一子想，視之無偏名大悲眼。」故知菩薩視諸眾生，常欲與其一實之樂、拔其二苦。眼視既爾，五根例之。「於菩薩得無畏」者，正當無財運於六作，施無畏故名之為檀。「於眾生無所傷損」者，稱理而觀，不偏空假、不壞實相，故云無損。損，猶減也，即是《央掘》無減修也。見罪福法界，名「無罪福」。不為空假所攝，名「心想不起」。想不起故，名「無動搖」。遍一切處，名為「無住」。陰即法界，故亦不動。「心無前思」等者，念念稱理無橫計思，後方覺了。故《起信》云「覺知前念起惡，能止後念令其不起，雖復名覺即是不覺。思即法界，能覺者誰？雖是不覺，即名為覺。」「一切法中」等者，念念法界，是故不為生滅所間。「不得身心」等者，不得二邊，邊即中故。禪中既爾，前後例然。語異意同，善須思擇。「無受」等者，不領受邊，不念著中，不味涅槃，不亂生死。「行時頭等六分」者，行時如影，不謂更有二手、二足、身及頭異也。「如雲如影」，如下十喻中說。雖俱法界而有去來，去來無實名如影等，不同通教幻化即空，無生死之生、涅槃之滅。二乘空斷，凡夫計常。五陰即是畢竟空舍，是故無復二邊縛脫。「具如」下，正指《楞嚴》，以是互嚴之式。彼經佛告堅意：「云何於一念中行於六度？」答曰：「是菩薩一切悉捨，心無貪著，名檀；心善寂滅，畢竟無惡，名尸；知法盡相，於諸塵中而無所傷，名羼提；勤觀擇心，能知離相，名毘梨耶；畢竟善寂，調伏其心，名禪那；知心無心，通達心相，名般若。」今文博附彼經文意，是故與彼大同小異。問：文語既通，如何得知彼文在圓而引來證圓？答：經中佛為堅意廣明次第文竟，佛問堅意：「云何一念具行六度？」堅意乃以此文答佛，故知次第之後釋圓明矣。不見經意，便謂此釋而為臆斷，是故近代釋義全棄此文，使後學者圓行靡託。今文准彼，歷一切法無非無作六度相也。故《法華》云「仁者受是法施珍寶瓔珞」，瓔珞是財，財即法故。「又行中」下，重辨禪慧二波羅蜜，皆先舉過、後明其德。初文即是舉禪過也。雖曰《楞嚴》，於法起著故云生染。「今觀」下，明德。觀前能著心尚無心，豈復更計楞嚴定處？「當知」下，重判也。言「有定」者，從顛倒生。「如是」下，結也。有定亂相，豈復見空及與不空？即破於定生染之相。即離貪著禪味之縛，體同法界遍應一切，名「方便生」。「行者」下，次舉慧過。有能計者己自為麁，況復自高豈名為慧？著心障智，名為智障。一切外道各自謂是，今既自高反同外道，豈唯失於中智而已？《大論》云「若有菩薩於餘菩薩作是念言：『汝無此事，我獨有之。』以是因緣故還失道。」故《大品》云「有餘菩薩輕餘菩薩經一念頃，經於一劫遠於佛道，還經一劫更修佛道。故不自高亦不下他。」「即反」下，次明德也。反觀能著中智之心，「觀者」是我，「及非觀者」謂散心人，中智之心無彼二待。「觀者既無」下，了計者無所觀亦破。「不得」下，重破能計。是此正意，故重言之。「大論」下，引證破於能觀之想。計有中智名為戲論，念想在意、戲論通口，說必假心，名「戲論心」。今滅其本，故念想除，名戲論滅。由戲論故而生眾罪，故戲論滅名「眾罪除」。本修中智，由著妨中，故眾罪除復本常一。「如是」等者，此無著人方見妙智。「大集觀於心心」者，謂所觀心及能觀想名觀心心。若不俱觀，復生戲論；能如是照，亦名常一，故云「即此意也」。「如是」下，結成前文成三三昧。道品之後既開三脫，六度道品名異義同，故六度後結成三脫。六度道品同異之相，至第七卷助道中說。今此六度既是無作，故三三昧應從圓釋，亦如第七卷道品後釋。「又破」下，結成諸波羅蜜者，破倒故毒滅，毒滅故越有，越有故降魔，降魔故波羅蜜滿。「三倒」者，謂心、想、見，此屬見惑。「三毒」者，謂貪、瞋、癡，此屬修惑。「三有流」者，謂欲、色、無色。因果不住，故名為流。漂沒行者，故復名流。四魔者，謂煩惱等在下魔境。魔為佛怨，故云「魔怨」。此三倒等，文近義遠，須分二意。若麁惑者，即是圓人麁惑先除。若細惑者，即須並約界外以釋。同體見修變易三界，界外四魔乃至麁細體一，方名圓波羅蜜。「攝受」下，況釋。尚成一切，況復如上所破三倒及破四魔成三三昧等。 > Regarding the section below 'Next, contemplate' in terms of the six actions: Zhuang Zhou also said 'appearing, dwelling, speaking, and staying silent', where 'appearing and dwelling' are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down; yet Zhuang Zhou did not consider them objects of contemplation. Now, all three contemplations are provided; the contemplation of emptiness accords with what came before, and its meaning can also be known. Below 'And due to...', it is the contemplation of provisionality. Through the mind's mobilization, it becomes the cause of the ten realms—meaning, due to this mind, for what purpose one walks, stands, and so on; hence all instances of the character wei (為) are pronounced in the falling tone. 'Violating the precepts' is the hells. 'Deceiving others' is the hungry ghosts. 'Family and kin' is animals. 'Overcoming others' is asuras. 'Righteousness and yielding' is humans. 'Virtue' is the ten virtuous actions of the desire-realm heavens; 'dhyāna' is the four dhyānas of the form-realm heavens. The formless realm is omitted. 'Nirvāṇa' is the two vehicles. From 'kindness and compassion' onwards is the bodhisattvas of the six perfections. From 'skillful means' onwards is the shared bodhisattvas. 'Trance-like and elusive' describes a state that is formless and non-substantial. Lifting a foot and lowering a foot correspond with emptiness; therefore subject and object, as well as near and far, are annihilated. Whatever is done, if even a single thought does not correspond with emptiness, it is termed in vain. Below 'In this way...', it is the distinctive teaching. Entering provisionality from an empty mind is why it says 'in this way'. Gathering emptiness to constitute provisionality is why it says 'Ganges sands'. Since the textual phrasing is narrow, the meaning also includes the shared teaching emerging into provisionality. Previously, when explaining the shared teaching, it spoke only of the contemplation of emptiness, not distinguishing the difference between emptiness and provisionality across the three vehicles. Furthermore, a person of the distinctive teaching points to the preceding nine realms; hence it says 'in this way'. The nine realms being already empty, emptiness is identical to the nine realms; therefore it establishes the distinctive teaching's Buddha-dharma of the Ganges sands. Below 'Furthermore, contemplate one movement...', it is the contemplation of the Middle Way. Neither one nor ten; explain it in accordance with what preceded. Below 'Therefore the Lotus \[Sūtra\]...', it adduces proof. Question: Why cite relinquishing robes to substantiate the six actions? Answer: Following the momentum of the text, it cites relinquishing clothes as a general proof for practicing and receiving charity, and cites the Buddha-path to substantiate the perfect middle. Below 'Previously in terms of...', regarding discussing the six \[perfections\] for each of the twelve matters: first, similarities and differences are indicated. The previous twelve matters all together discussed charity; hence it says 'together'. Now, each single matter fully discusses all six; hence it says 'each'. Furthermore, previously when discussing charity together, for each of the twelve matters the charity-characteristics of the ten realms were illuminated. Now, within the individual discussion, according to the rule, it should also completely set forth the twelve matters as before, and for each elucidate the six perfections of the ten realms, but the text follows brevity. At times it mentions nine realms, or only the Buddha realm; the expanded and condensed mutually balance to jointly achieve the perfect meaning. Furthermore, not only do the twelve each possess the six, but within the six each also possesses the six; therefore each single perfection is adorned with the other five—that is, using five to adorn charity, down to using five to adorn wisdom. Subject and object spoken together are both called possessing the six. The various Mahāyāna sūtras—Śūraṅgama, Dazhidulun, Dapin, and so on—are all like this regarding the six perfections; thus now, following them, the characteristics of the perfections are explained; what is used in the present text is indeed the Śūraṅgama. It is also as the 'Mutual Inclusion Chapter' of the Dapin says: 'Pūrṇa addressed the Buddha: "I now wish to expound the bodhisattva's practice." The Buddha said: "Speak as you please." Thereupon he broadly expounded the six perfections mutually illuminating each other, thereby forming six times six, thirty-six perfections; hence it says: sometimes taking giving as the name to speak of the various pāramitās, down to sometimes taking prajñā as the name to speak of the various pāramitās.' Five perfections enter into one, taking their name from the one. Moreover, the 'Mutual Illumination Chapter' of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the 'Unbroken Chapter' of the Dayingluo both share the same meaning as the Śūraṅgama. Fascicle 82 of the Dazhidulun asks: 'If all mutually adorn, why is charity alone made the first? Answer: Because it is expedient for gathering sentient beings. From noble and base down to animals, charity can gather them, even gradually turning them into relatives. All the marks and characteristics of the Buddhas are born from giving.' Explanations such as this still belong to the doctrinal path; if explained according to the realized path, there is nothing that is not the dharma-dhātu; when inclusion lacks before and after, who would speak of a sequence? The initial text, because within practice the six are complete, presents the text of charity and that which adorns in sequence, without needing to separately explain what adorns and what is adorned. The initial text says 'the eye of great compassion' and so on: as the Śrīkaṇṭha states, 'When a bodhisattva walks, he looks ahead six feet, with double yokes furrowing the ground, looking neither left nor right. Not distressing sentient beings, seeing all sentient beings with the thought of an only son, looking at them without partiality is called the eye of great compassion.' Thus we know that when a bodhisattva looks upon sentient beings, he always wishes to give them the single real bliss and extract their twofold suffering. Since the eye's seeing is like this, the five sense-faculties follow by analogy. 'Gaining fearlessness toward bodhisattvas': precisely when, lacking wealth, one mobilizes the six actions, bestowing fearlessness is called charity. 'Having nothing that causes injury or harm to sentient beings': contemplating in accord with principle, leaning neither to emptiness nor provisionality, not destroying the true mark; hence it says 'without harm'. Harm (sun) is like decrease; that is, the cultivate without decrease of the Aṅgulimāla. Seeing guilt and merit as the dharma-dhātu is called 'neither guilt nor merit'. Not being subsumed by emptiness or provisionality is called 'thoughts of the mind do not arise'. Because thoughts do not arise, it is called 'unshakeable'. Pervading all places is called 'non-abiding'. The aggregates are identical to the dharma-dhātu, and hence also unmoving. 'The mind without prior reflection' and so on: thought after thought in accord with principle, without false calculation and reflection, which is only realized later. Thus the Awakening of Faith says: 'Awakening to the previous thought giving rise to evil and being able to stop the subsequent thought from arising, though called awakening, is in fact non-awakening. Reflection is identical to the dharma-dhātu; who is the one capable of awakening? Though it is non-awakening, it is named awakening.' In 'among all dharmas' and so on, thought after thought is the dharma-dhātu; therefore one is not interrupted by arising and ceasing. In 'cannot attain body and mind' and so on, one cannot attain the two extremes, because the extremes are identical to the middle. Since it is like this within dhyāna, the before and after follow by analogy. The words differ but the meaning is the same; one must carefully contemplate and discern. In 'without receiving' and so on, one does not experience the extremes, does not ponder or cling to the middle, does not taste nirvāṇa, and does not confuse saṃsāra. 'When walking, the head and the other six parts': when walking one is like a shadow, not thinking that there are distinctly two hands, two feet, a trunk, and a head. 'Like clouds, like shadows': as explained below in the ten similes. Although all are the dharma-dhātu, there is coming and going; coming and going have no reality, which is called 'like shadows' and so forth, unlike the shared teaching's illusion being identical to emptiness, having no birth in saṃsāra and no extinction in nirvāṇa. The two vehicles are severed by emptiness; ordinary people reckon permanence. The five aggregates are indeed the house of ultimate emptiness; therefore there is no longer the bondage and release of the two extremes. Below 'Fully as in...', it directly points to the Śūraṅgama, taking it as the model for mutual adornment. In that sūtra, the Buddha asked Dṛḍhamati: 'How does one practice the six perfections in a single thought?' He answered: 'When this bodhisattva relinquishes everything and the mind has no greedy attachment, that is dāna; when the mind is thoroughly tranquil and ultimately free of evil, that is śīla; knowing the exhaustiveness of dharmas and remaining uninjured amid all sensory dusts, that is kṣānti; zealously investigating the mind and being able to know freedom from marks, that is vīrya; being ultimately tranquil and taming one's mind, that is dhyāna; knowing that the mind has no mind and penetrating the characteristics of the mind, that is prajñā.' The present text broadly adheres to the meaning of that sūtra's text, and is therefore largely the same with minor differences. Question: Since the wording is broad, how does one know that passage pertains to the perfect teaching, so as to cite it to verify the perfect? Answer: In the sūtra, when the Buddha finished extensively explaining the sequence to Dṛḍhamati, the Buddha asked Dṛḍhamati: 'How does one fully practice the six perfections in a single thought?' Dṛḍhamati then answered the Buddha with this passage; hence it is clear that what explains the perfect comes after the sequential. Failing to see the sūtra's intention, people claim that this interpretation is a subjective conjecture; therefore, modern commentators entirely discard this passage, leaving later students of the perfect practice with nothing to rely on. The present text follows it: traversing all dharmas, there is none that is not the characteristic of the non-active six perfections. Thus the Lotus \[Sūtra\] says: 'Benevolent one, receive this Dharma-gift of precious jewels and necklaces.' The necklace is material wealth; material wealth is identical to the Dharma. Below 'Furthermore, within practice...', it re-examines the two pāramitās of dhyāna and prajñā, both first citing their faults, then clarifying their virtues. The initial passage cites the fault of dhyāna. Although termed 'Śūraṅgama', giving rise to attachment toward dharmas is why it says 'generating defilement'. Below 'Now contemplating...', it explains the virtues. Contemplating that the aforementioned mind capable of attachment is itself without mind, how could one further reckon a locus for Śūraṅgama concentration? Below 'One should know...', it re-judges. Saying 'there is concentration' arises from inversion. Below 'Thus...', it concludes. Having the marks of concentration and distraction, how could one still see emptiness and non-emptiness? This refutes the mark of generating defilement in concentration. Immediately free from the bondage of craving the taste of dhyāna, its essence is identical to the dharma-dhātu and responds universally to all; this is called 'skillful means arisen'. Below 'The practitioner...', next it cites the fault of prajñā. One who has that which reckons is already crude; how much more so if one elevates oneself—how could this be called wisdom? The clinging mind obstructing wisdom is called the cognitive obstacle. All non-Buddhists each consider themselves right; now, elevating oneself turns out to be identical to non-Buddhists, so how could it merely be losing the wisdom of the middle? The Dazhidulun says: 'If there is a bodhisattva who, regarding other bodhisattvas, has this thought: "You do not have this matter, I alone have it," by this cause and condition he turns back and loses the path.' Thus the Dapin says: 'If another bodhisattva slight other bodhisattvas for the duration of a single thought, for an eon he will be far from the Buddha-path, and will take another eon to cultivate the Buddha-path again. Therefore, neither elevate oneself nor belittle others.' Below 'Immediately turns back...', next it clarifies virtue. Turning back to contemplate the mind that is capable of clinging to the wisdom of the middle: the 'contemplator' is the self, and 'non-contemplators' refers to scattered-minded persons; the mind of the wisdom of the middle is free from the duality of those two. Below 'Since the contemplator does not exist...', realizing the reckon-er does not exist, that which is contemplated is also broken. Below 'Unable to attain...', it again refutes that which is capable of reckoning. This is the primary intention here, hence it is stated again. Below 'Dazhidulun...', it adduces proof to refute the notion of capable of contemplation. Reckoning that there is a wisdom of the middle is called conceptual proliferation; mindfulness and thought reside in the mind, whereas conceptual proliferation extends to the mouth; speaking necessarily relies on the mind, hence it is called the 'mind of conceptual proliferation'. Now, destroying its root, mindfulness and thoughts are removed; this is called conceptual proliferation extinguished. Because of conceptual proliferation all sins are born; therefore conceptual proliferation extinguished is called 'all sins removed'. Originally cultivating the wisdom of the middle, attachment hindered the middle; thus with all sins removed, it returns to the original eternal oneness. 'In this way' and so on: only this unattached person sees wondrous wisdom. In 'the Mahāsaṃnipāta contemplates mind upon mind', it means the contemplated mind and the capable-of-contemplating thought are called contemplating mind upon mind. If one does not contemplate both, conceptual proliferation arises again; being able to illuminate like this is also called eternal oneness; hence it says 'this is precisely the meaning'. Below 'In this way...', it concludes the preceding text, establishing the three samādhis. Since after the aids to the path the three liberations are opened, and the six perfections and aids to the path differ in name but are identical in meaning, therefore after the six perfections it concludes by establishing the three liberations. The characteristics of similarity and difference between the six perfections and the aids to the path will be explained in the seventh fascicle under auxiliary paths. Now, since these six perfections are non-active, the three samādhis should be interpreted according to the perfect, just as explained after the aids to the path in the seventh fascicle. Below 'Furthermore, refuting...', in concluding the various pāramitās: because inversions are broken, poisons are extinguished; because poisons are extinguished, existence is transcended; because existence is transcended, Māra is subdued; because Māra is subdued, the pāramitās are fulfilled. 'Three inversions' refers to mind, thought, and view; these belong to the afflictions of view. 'Three poisons' refers to greed, anger, and delusion; these belong to the afflictions of cultivation. 'Three flows of existence' refers to the desire, form, and formless \[realms\]. Because cause and effect do not abide, they are called flows. Because they drift and drown the practitioner, they are again called flows. The four māras refer to the defilements and so on, treated below under the object of māra. Māra is the Buddha's enemy, hence called the 'māra-enemy'. Regarding these three inversions and so forth, the text is near but the meaning is far; one must divide it into two senses. In terms of crude afflictions, the person of the perfect teaching eliminates crude afflictions first. In terms of subtle afflictions, one must explain them all together in terms of what is beyond the triple realm. The identical essence of view and cultivation, the transformed triple realm, the four māras beyond the triple realm, down to the crude and subtle being of a single essence—only then is it called the perfect pāramitā. Below 'Gathering...', it explains by comparison. If it even accomplishes everything, how much more so the aforementioned breaking of the three inversions, breaking of the four māras, and establishment of the three samādhis? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.34) - [Next: 2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.36) - [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.2.35) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.35) · Pramāṇa