[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) › 2.4 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.4 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.4) 「如此」下，總結苦觀。「觀煩惱」者，於中二番。初約三諦明行相也。「寂靜行」者即真諦行，「無動行」者即俗諦行，「非生死」等即中道行。「不捨」下，約三觀契理。「不捨諸見」即假也，「不捨無為」即空也，「而修佛道」即中也。向云不捨即是雙照，今「非修」下即是雙非。故《淨名》中「不捨諸見而修三十七道品」，彼明見即中道道品，此明邊即中道道品，邊義同見，故用彼意而為此文。次「觀業」者，以極重業而為觀境，故指五逆即是菩提。言「五逆」者，謂殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破僧、出血，三殺、一妄語、一殺生加行。論輕重者，如《優婆塞戒經．業品》中，以後後業重於前前，又心境相對四句分別，及方便等三時不同。非今正意，不委分別。若大乘中，加殺和尚及阿闍黎，以為七逆。此五七逆體性空寂，故《無行經》云「五逆即菩提，菩提即五逆。」若就觀行明五逆者，五法逆世名為五逆，故《楞伽》第三云「殺無明父、害貪愛母、斷隨眠怨、壞陰和合、斷七識身，若有作者現證實法。」此逆即順，非今觀境。約此即是能觀之觀，彼經意兼，此文獨顯。逆與菩提不出心性，故「無二相」。識心性故名為覺者，覺者亦無名「無覺者」。對境名覺、內了名知，知覺體一義意不異。無有分別內外宰主，名「無分別者」。又云：識五逆性名為覺者，照了菩提名為知者，知此二法名分別者，此等皆亡故並云無。逆與實相體既不二，故不可壞，以逆本來無自性故。「一切」下，以輕例重。五逆既爾，諸業例然，故住實際。「不來不去」明逆無生滅，「非因非果」明觀無始終。「法界印」下，又以四魔釋成五逆。先立。隨順三道故魔得便，觀為法界故不能壞。「魔即印」者，苦即實相，陰、死二魔即法界印；煩惱即實相，是煩惱魔即法界印；業即實相，是天子魔即法界印。次釋中魔既即印，印豈壞印？如《大論》云「有菩薩教人修空斷一切念。後時纔起一念有心便為魔動，即便憶念本所修空，魔為之滅。」修空尚爾，況復觀之即法界印。故信禪師元用此經以為心要，後人承用情見不同，致使江表京河禪宗乖互。 > From "In this way" downwards concludes the contemplation of suffering. In "contemplating afflictions", there are two turns within it. First, the aspects of practice are explained in terms of the three truths: "quiet practice" is the practice of the truth of emptiness; "motionless practice" is the practice of the conventional truth; "not saṃsāra" and so forth is the practice of the middle way. From "not discarding" downwards accords with reality in terms of the three contemplations: "not discarding views" is provisionality; "not discarding the unconditioned" is emptiness; "yet practicing the Buddha-path" is the middle. The earlier statement of not discarding is double illumination; now, from "not practicing" downwards, it is double negation. Therefore, in the Vimalakīrti \[it says\], "Without abandoning views, practicing the thirty-seven aids to the path." There, it explains that views are themselves the aids to the path of the middle way; here, it explains that extremes are themselves the aids to the path of the middle way. The meaning of extremes is identical to views, and thus its meaning is employed to compose this text. Next, "contemplating karma" takes extremely heavy karma as the object of contemplation; hence it points out that the five rebellious acts are themselves bodhi. As for the "five rebellious acts", they mean killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an arhat, causing schism in the Saṅgha, and shedding \[the Buddha's\] blood—three kinds of killing, one false speech, and one preliminary act to taking life. In discussing their relative gravity, as in the "Chapter on Karma" in the Upāsakaśīla Sūtra, subsequent karmas are graver than preceding ones; furthermore, there is the fourfold distinction between mind and object, as well as differences among the three periods such as the preliminary expedient. This is not the primary intent here, so it is not differentiated in detail. In the Mahāyāna, killing an upādhyāya and an ācārya are added to make seven rebellious acts. The essential nature of these five or seven rebellious acts is empty and tranquil; hence the Wuxing jing says: "The five rebellious acts are themselves bodhi, and bodhi is itself the five rebellious acts." If one explains the five rebellious acts in terms of contemplative practice, five dharmas that run contrary to the worldly order are called the five rebellious acts. Thus the third fascicle of the Laṅkāvatāra says: "Killing the father of ignorance, slaying the mother of craving, cutting off the enemy of latent defilements, destroying the concord of the aggregates, and cutting off the body of the seven consciousnesses—if anyone does this, he will immediately realize the true Dharma." This rebellion is in fact conformity \[to truth\], and is not the object of contemplation here. In terms of this, it is the contemplation that is capable of contemplating; that sūtra includes both meanings, while this text reveals it alone. Rebellion and bodhi do not transcend the nature of the mind; hence they are "without dual marks". Knowing the nature of the mind is called the "awakened one"; that the awakened one also does not exist is called "having no awakened one". Facing an object is called "awakening"; inner comprehension is called "knowing"—the substance of knowing and awakening is one, and their intended meaning is not different. The absence of a discriminating inner or outer controller is called "having no discriminator". It is also said: knowing the nature of the five rebellious acts is called the "awakened one"; clearly illuminating bodhi is called the "knower"; knowing these two dharmas is called the "discriminator". Because these are all eradicated, all are stated as "none". Since the substance of rebellion and the true mark are non-dual, it cannot be destroyed, for rebellion originally has no intrinsic nature. From "all" downwards, the light is exemplified by the heavy. Since the five rebellious acts are thus, all karmas are likewise; hence one abides in the limit of reality. "Neither coming nor going" clarifies that rebellion has no arising or ceasing; "neither cause nor fruit" clarifies that contemplation has no beginning or end. From "seal of the dharma-dhātu" downwards, the five rebellious acts are further interpreted by means of the four māras. First it is established: conforming to the three paths, the māras gain advantage; contemplating them as the dharma-dhātu, they cannot be destroyed. "Māras are themselves the seal": suffering is itself the true mark, and the two māras of the aggregates and death are themselves the seal of the dharma-dhātu; afflictions are themselves the true mark, and the affliction-māra is itself the seal of the dharma-dhātu; karma is itself the true mark, and the devaputra-māra is itself the seal of the dharma-dhātu. Next, in the explanation, since māras are themselves the seal, how could the seal destroy the seal? As the Dazhidulun says: "A bodhisattva taught someone to cultivate emptiness and cut off all thoughts. Later, as soon as a single thought of existence arose, he was stirred by māras; he immediately recalled the emptiness he originally cultivated, and the māras perished for him." Cultivating emptiness is still like this; how much more so when contemplating that they are themselves the seal of the dharma-dhātu! Therefore, Chan Master \[Daoxiang/Xinxing\] originally used this sūtra as the essential mind-teaching; later people inherited and applied it with differing emotional views, resulting in the Chan traditions south of the Yangzi and along the Yellow River falling into divergence. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.3) - [Next: 2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.5) - [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.2.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.4) · Pramāṇa