[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) › 2.40.1 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.40.1 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.40.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.40.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.40.1) 次諸惡中，初明觀境中，云「夫善惡無定」等者，先明通相善惡也。 此則未可盡為觀境。 何者？ 展轉相望得善惡名，是則人誰無善？ 誰不有惡？ 是故不以為今觀境。 言「寧起」等者，心凶為「惡」，身病曰「癩」。 乍起三途之心，不生二乘之念。 「毒器」者，《大論》斥三藏菩薩云「具足三毒，云何能集無量功德？ 譬如毒瓶，雖貯甘露，皆不中食。 菩薩修諸純淨功德乃得作佛。 若雜三毒，云何能具清淨法門？ 」菩薩之身猶如毒器，具足煩惱名為有毒。 修習佛法如貯甘露。 此法教他，令他失於常住之命。 「大經云自此」等者，引證別教。 故〈四相品〉中迦葉序云「自我未聞四德之前，皆是邪見。 」此是迦葉謙退自斥義同於邪，豈此已前頓同三外？ 今亦如是，未稱理故，義云邪見。 邪即是惡，是故當知唯圓為善。 復有二意：一者以順為善、以背為惡，相待意也。 次「若達」下，以著為惡、以達為善。 相待絕待俱須離惡。 圓著尚惡，況復餘耶？ 「如此」下，結成通相。 「今就」下，別明極惡方為觀境。 於中初出惡體，即六蔽也。 「善法」下，結前生後。 「前雖」下，明觀惡意。 以純惡故不可不觀，若不觀者唯惡無善。 自他俱然，故須修觀。 「縱不」下，縱釋也。 他人縱不全起不善，偏惡不無。 「出家離世」下，況釋偏起。 出家不備，理當偏惡。 白衣純惡，況復偏耶？ 羅漢殘習，亦仍偏惡。 「凡夫」下，明用觀所以。 聖猶殘習，凡何可縱？ 「如佛世」下，先舉佛世用觀有益，引人為證。 前觀惡意中言「不可樂想」者，《大論》十想中釋一切世間不可樂想云「世間有二種：一眾生、二國土。 言眾生不可樂者，三惡、八苦、十四等惡（云云）。 或貧而好施、多財而慳（約六蔽互說），或貧妍富醜，或憍高不下，或接物欺誑。 如是無量不可稱說。 國土不可樂者，或多衰無告，飢渴寒熱、惡疫毒氣如是種種，乃至上界亦生大惱甚於下界，如極高墜下苦不可說。 」文云「無好人」者，略語眾生以他望己唯純不偏，是故不可不觀於惡。 次縱釋中云「多慳」等者，略舉六蔽以釋偏起。 前四如文。 酒為亂原，即亂意蔽。 「根性易奪」，即愚癡蔽。 若有慧者，不為惡易。 能生為根，數習成性。 數數改換，故云易奪。 又隨境而轉為易，惑彊失真為奪。 又以愚替智為易，智被真掣為奪。 次況釋中云「羅漢殘習」者，身子瞋習，以過去世從蛇中來。 畢陵慢習，宿世曾為婆羅門來。 如佛在世有一比丘，而常以鏡自照，世世從女人中來。 有一比丘常好跳染，以世世從獼猴中來。 引人證中，「在家」等者，即且通舉有惡之人。 「央掘」下，別舉惡人，先明惡人有道。 「央掘」等者，《央掘經》云「舍衛城北村名薩那，有貧婆羅門女名跋陀。 有一子，名一切世間現。 少失其父。 厥年十二，色力人相悉皆具足，聰明善說。 有異村名破訶私，有婆羅門師名摩尼跋陀，善四韋陀，一切世間現從其受學。 師受王請，留世間現守舍而去。 婆羅門婦見世間現端正，而生染心，前執其衣。 時世間現而白之言：『汝是我母。 我豈於尊而生不善？ 』內心懷愧，捨衣遠避。 婦人不遂，以爪自獲、以繩自繫，足不離地。 夫既還已，恐世間現露其不善，便以惡事誣世間現：『汝行已後，世間現於我有不如事。 』師言：『其初生時有大瑞相，必無是過。 』然語之言：『汝殺千人，可得免罪。 』世間現尊師教故，即白師言：『嗚呼和尚！ 殺害千人，非我所應。 』師云：『汝是惡人，不樂生作婆羅門耶？ 』答言：『善哉！ 奉命。 』便禮師足。 師聞見已生希有心：『汝大惡人，故不死耶。 當令殺一一人，取指為鬘，冠首乃成婆羅門耳（以是緣故名央握摩）。 』『善哉！ 受教。 』」《增一》云「如是次第殺千人已，取指為鬘。 > Next, in the section on various evils, first, in clarifying the object of contemplation, the words "Now, good and evil are not fixed..." and so forth first clarify good and evil in their general characteristics. These cannot yet entirely serve as objects of contemplation. Why? It is by viewing them in relative comparison that the names 'good' and 'evil' are acquired; this being so, who among humans lacks good? Who does not possess evil? For this reason, they are not taken as the present object of contemplation. As for the words "Rather arouse..." and so forth, ferocity in mind is 'evil' and disease of the body is called 'leprosy.' One would rather temporarily arouse the mind of the three destinies than give rise to the thought of the two vehicles. Regarding the 'vessel of poison,' the Dazhidulun rebukes the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka teaching, saying: "Fully endowed with the three poisons, how could you accumulate immeasurable merits? It is like a poisoned vase: though it stores sweet dew (amṛta), none of it is fit to consume. A bodhisattva cultivates all purely clean merits and only then attains buddhahood. If mixed with the three poisons, how could you be endowed with the pure dharma-gates?" A bodhisattva's body is like a vessel of poison: being fully endowed with afflictions is called being poisonous. Practicing and learning the Buddha-Dharma is like storing sweet dew. Teaching this Dharma to others causes them to lose their life of eternal presence. The words "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'From this \[time forward\]...'" and so forth cite proof for the distinctive teaching. Thus, in the "Chapter on the Four Marks," Kāśyapa's introductory words state: "Before I had heard the four virtues, all was false views." This was Kāśyapa humbly rebuking himself, \[his views\] being equivalent in meaning to false ones; how could he have suddenly become identical to the three outer paths prior to this? The present case is also like this: because it does not accord with the principle, it is called a false view in meaning. The false is precisely the evil; therefore, one should know that only the perfect \[teaching\] is good. Furthermore, there are two senses: first, taking compliance as good and defiance as evil—this is the sense of relative comparison. Next, from the words "If one penetrates..." downward, attachment is taken as evil and penetration is taken as good. In both relative comparison and absolute transcendence, one must abandon evil. Even attachment to the perfect is still evil, how much more so the rest? From the words "Like this..." downward, the general characteristics are concluded. From the words "Now with regard to..." downward, it specifically clarifies that only extreme evil becomes the object of contemplation. Therein, it first sets forth the substance of evil, namely the six coverings. From the words "Wholesome dharmas..." downward, it concludes the preceding and introduces what follows. From the words "Although previously..." downward, it clarifies the intention of contemplating evil. Because it is pure evil, one cannot fail to contemplate it; if one does not contemplate it, there is only evil and no good. Since this is so for both oneself and others, one must cultivate contemplation. From the words "Even if not..." downward, it is an explanation by concession. Even if others do not give rise exclusively to the unwholesome, partial evil is not absent. From the words "Renouncing the household and leaving the world..." downward, it explains the partial arising by way of comparison. If those who have left the household are not complete, in principle they must have partial evil. In the white-robed (laity) there is pure evil, so how much more must there be partial evil? The residual habit-energies of arhats are also still partial evil. From the words "Ordinary persons..." downward, it clarifies the reason for applying contemplation. If even sages still have residual habit-energies, how could ordinary persons indulge themselves? From the words "Like in the time of the Buddha..." downward, it first cites the benefit of applying contemplation in the time of the Buddha, quoting individuals as proof. In the preceding \[explanation of\] the intention of contemplating evil, the words "the notion of displeasure" refer to the Dazhidulun's explanation of the notion of displeasure regarding all the world among the ten notions: "There are two kinds of worlds: first, sentient beings; second, lands. To say that sentient beings are unpleasant refers to the three evils, the eight sufferings, the fourteen evils, and so forth (and so on). Some are poor yet fond of giving; some have much wealth yet are stingy (spoken mutually in terms of the six coverings). Some are poor and attractive, while some are wealthy and ugly; some are arrogant and haughty, refusing to bow, or deal with things deceitfully. Immeasurable instances like this cannot be fully stated. That the lands are unpleasant means that there is much misfortune without recourse, hunger, thirst, cold, heat, malignant epidemics, poisonous vapors, and various things of this kind, and even being born into the higher realms brings great distress exceeding that of the lower realms, just as falling from a supreme height brings suffering beyond words." When the text says "there are no good persons," it speaks briefly of sentient beings: viewing others from oneself, it is solely pure and not partial; therefore, one cannot fail to contemplate evil. Next, in the explanation by concession, the words "great stinginess" and so forth briefly cite the six coverings to explain partial arising. The first four are as in the text. Wine is the source of disorder, which is the covering of a disordered mind. "Root nature easily snatched away" is the covering of foolishness. If one has wisdom, one is not easily changed by evil. That which can generate is the 'root'; repeated habituation becomes the 'nature.' Constantly altering and changing is therefore called 'easily snatched away.' Furthermore, turning in accordance with objects is 'easy \[to alter\]'; delusion being strong and losing the real is 'snatched away.' Moreover, substituting foolishness for wisdom is 'easy \[to alter\]'; wisdom being pulled away by the real is 'snatched away.' Next, in the explanation by comparison, the words "residual habit-energies of arhats" mean: Śāriputra's habit of anger was because in a past lifetime he came from among the snakes. Pilindavatsa's habit of conceit was because in past lifetimes he had been a brāhmaṇa. For instance, while the Buddha was in the world, there was a bhikṣu who would constantly look at himself in a mirror, having come from among women lifetime after lifetime. There was a bhikṣu who was always fond of leaping and bounding, having come from among monkeys lifetime after lifetime. In quoting individuals as proof, the words "In the household..." and so forth broadly cite those who have evil. From "Aṅguli..." downward, it specifically cites evil persons, first clarifying that evil persons possess the Path. Regarding "Aṅguli..." and so forth, the Aṅgulimāla-sūtra states: "In a village named Sana north of the city of Śrāvastī, there was a poor brāhmaṇa woman named Bhadrā. She had a son named All-World-Appearance. He lost his father when young. When he was twelve years old, his complexion, strength, and human marks were all fully complete, and he was clever and skilled in speech. In a different village named Pohasi, there was a brāhmaṇa master named Maṇibhadra, well-versed in the four Vedas, under whom All-World-Appearance studied. The master accepted a king's invitation, and left All-World-Appearance to guard the house while he departed. The brāhmaṇa's wife saw that All-World-Appearance was handsome, and giving rise to a lustful mind, went forward and seized his clothes. At that time, All-World-Appearance addressed her, saying: 'You are my mother. How could I give rise to unwholesomeness toward an elder?' Feeling ashamed in his heart, he abandoned his clothes and kept far away from her. The woman, thwarted, scratched herself with her nails, tied herself with ropes, and kept her feet off the ground. After the husband returned, fearing that All-World-Appearance would expose her unwholesomeness, she slandered All-World-Appearance with evil deeds, saying: 'After you left, All-World-Appearance did improper things to me.' The master said: 'When he was first born, there were great auspicious signs; he surely does not have this fault.' Yet he said to him: 'If you kill a thousand people, you may be freed from your guilt.' Because All-World-Appearance respected the master's teachings, he addressed the master, saying: 'Alas, Preceptor! Killing a thousand people is not what I should do.' The master said: 'You are an evil person; do you not delight in being born as a brāhmaṇa?' He replied: 'Excellent! I obey your command.' Thereupon he bowed at the master's feet. Having heard and seen this, the master conceived an extraordinary thought: 'You are a greatly evil person, so why have you not died? You must be made to kill people one by one, take their fingers to make a garland, and crown your head with it; only then will you become a brāhmaṇa (for this reason he was named Aṅgulimāla).' \[He replied:\] 'Excellent! I receive your instruction.'" The Ekottarika-āgama states: "Having thus killed a thousand people in succession, he took their fingers to make a garland." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.39) - [Next: 2.40.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.40.2) - [Up: 2.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.40) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.2.40.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.40.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.40.1) · Pramāṇa