[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) › 2.63 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.63 止觀輔行傳弘決 2.63 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.63) 今文引經安隱渡處，渡處即津濟也，即渡水處也。此即兼於自行化他。自行有難，故聽從險。如王事等令於惡修，無難惡息必須從善，他機例然應須詳審。「復次」下，故以水火現事驗之。「夷」，平也。「蹈」，踐也。「躡」，履也、踰也。「又不」下，責其差機純令用惡。「淨名」下，引證，舉二乘以況凡師。「自是」下，傷歎。「則戒海」等者，譬此等人於佛法中名之為死。律云「譬如彼死屍，大海不容受，為疾風所吹，置之於岸上。」犯重如屍，眾海不受。作法擯棄，如疾風吹。甄出眾外，如置岸上。兼斥自他，故云「行說」。若未行唯說，則同梨吒違僧屏諫，但結提吉，謂於惡證墮過人法，自行口說；又云證得，則兩夷一提。文據重夷，故云「擯棄」。若但自行教他，則一夷一提。「無令毒樹」者，引譬擯棄。「大經」第三云「譬如長者所居之處，田宅屋舍生諸毒樹。長者知已，即便斫伐悉令永盡。」長者宅者，清眾所居。毒樹者，犯重比丘。生必伐者，犯必擯也。經有三喻：初隣國相攻、中毒樹生宅、後首生白髮，章安二釋正用後意。初對三惑釋。隣國相攻，譬除四住惑智相傾。除剪毒樹，譬除塵沙體外之惑。拔棄白髮，譬除無明同體之惑。次對擯棄釋。隣國譬治各住各學而行非者，毒樹譬治同住各學而行非者，白髮譬治同住同學而行非者。文雖引一，意亦該三，同住各住、若行若說，俱須擯棄。復次「檢其惡行」下，斥師自行，行偏違心。初以事難，難其行偏。「譬如」下，譬其行偏而穢清眾。「難其」下，難其違心。「所以」下，明此料簡誡勸之意。入惡似易尚須誡忌，豈得於此而更勸修？「如服黃湯」下，譬誡忌意。入惡稱病如服黃湯，指惡為道名為過度，須備律教而補止之。問者，正觀如水、理性如珠，諸行如風風多浪鼓、事儀動役令觀混濁、何須用此四三昧耶？鼓者，動也。答中二番，各有譬、合。初譬貧人，責其不具。「若一」下合。若於一種三昧觀心即足，心若樂行及餘儀等，如何悅此樂欲之心？「若用」下，化他。自行既然，化他準此。自行則初後不同，他機則彼彼非一。「譬如」下，重譬。且許自行一種為得，若以化他專一則失。「煩惱」下，合。初約一人。若化他者應具四悉，乃成四番四種三昧，何但四耶？次約多人。初總約四三昧。若為多人彼彼相望，復須四四。「又約」下，何但如向四種三昧相望為四，一一三昧尚具四悉，況復四耶？「若樂行」等者，「樂行」下，世界。「若善根」下，為人。「若坐時」下，對治。「若行時」下，第一義。初約常行，借坐對說。若不對說，不可但云樂行即行不樂不行，此則反開懈怠之門，何名具須四種三昧。故初標云「一種具四」，下復結云「餘三例然」。常行既然，若云常坐，故應還對行等說之。「問善扶」下，簡根遮善，謂上三及隨自意中諸經及善，此善順理可修止觀。如《起信》云「已知法性體無慳貪，隨順修行檀波羅蜜」等。惡既乖理，何不棄惡於善修習，而令於惡修止觀耶？答：約四句故，故須觀惡。《大論》二十四云「世尊智力知諸眾生上中下根，是人根利為結所遮，猶如央掘。是人根利不為結遮，猶如身子。是人根鈍而無結遮，猶如槃特。是人根鈍而為結遮，謂諸凡夫。」論寄小乘故引此四，通論四教例應有之。又復論文通明如來善知諸根，不以根利無遮為首。今明修行，是故別以根利無遮而為上品。初身子者，一聞三諦而得初果，見勇墮負證阿羅漢，至法華會先獲記莂。「行人」下，舉今以例。準今識昔，引現知當。故知今文善惡二修，即是有遮無遮不同，為破遮故俱須修習。「昔無二義」者，昔既不曾於善修習，是故闕於根利無遮。次句如「闍王央掘」等者，論既寄小故無闍王，今辨有遮是故並列。闍王造逆罪深纏厚，法華座席障未發故，為凡夫眾聞茲妙經。涅槃會中機發障動，心生悔熱遍體生瘡，世無良醫治身心者。六臣雖引六師之言，未審能治我之重患。家兄耆婆引至佛所，蒙佛召命慚愧悚慄，聞說陰幻知罪無生，如從伊蘭生栴檀樹。障除機熟無根信成，發菩提心述己弘願。無根信者，小乘即是初果位也，大乘即是別住圓信。央掘者，若《央掘經》得無生忍，《阿含經》中，初聞佛偈即得初果，匿王去後得阿羅漢。障雖不如闍王造逆，已成害佛及母方便，兼殺九百九十餘人。如是重遮不障證法，良由根利故使爾也　「鞭」者，策進也。「今時行人」下，舉今以例，正當酬前於惡修觀之問。善自斟量察其可不，儻宜入惡專善復失，宿種難知不可率爾。次第三句如槃特者，《法句經》第一云「佛在舍衛，有比丘名槃特，新作出家稟性頑塞。佛令五百羅漢日日教之，三年始獲一偈。」今文依《阿含》、《大論》，故云「九十日」。佛知愍傷，即呼著前，授與一偈。偈云：「守口攝意身莫犯，如是行者得度世。」槃特感佛恩深，誦得上口。佛告槃特：「汝今年老，唯誦一偈。人皆知之，不足為奇，須解其義。所謂身三口四意三，觀其所起、察其所滅，由之生天、由之墜淵、由之得道泥洹自然。」分別乃至無量妙法，心開意解得阿羅漢。由無遮故，其根雖鈍易得道果。得道果已，五百比丘尼請教誡說法，次當槃特，至彼食訖諸尼皆笑，升座已自慚鄙曰：「自幸薄德得為沙門，最為頑鈍。所學一偈粗識其義，當為敷說。」諸少年尼先知其偈，欲預前誦，口不能開，驚怖悔過。槃特於是依於佛說次第敷演，諸尼皆得阿羅漢果。後匿王請佛及諸比丘於正殿坐，佛欲試其神力令其取鉢。來至王門，守門者不許其前，其於門外申手送鉢。王驚問佛：「此誰手耶？」佛言：「槃特。」王問：「但誦一偈，云何乃爾？」佛言：「雖誦千章，不義何益？不如一要，聞可滅意。雖誦千章，不義何益？不如一要，聞行得度。雖誦千章，不解何益？解一句法，聞可得道。」二百比丘聞之得阿羅漢，王及夫人方乃不疑。此偈乃對極鈍者說，豈可例於「多聞增智慧，廣讀諸異論，則知智者意」等耶？然各有意，勿妄去取。若《增一》第六云「兄見弟誦法句，難語言：『汝若不能誦法句偈，還作白衣。』弟聞之，詣祇桓門泣。佛見問之，具答兄言。佛言：『成菩提可由汝兄。』佛手牽詣靜室，令誦掃帚，復名除垢。槃特思念，灰土瓦石除即清淨，結縛是垢、智慧是除，今以智帚掃除諸垢。」今文所引偈文，即《大論》及《大經》二十四。經云「四事為涅槃因。若言勤修苦行是涅槃因者，無有是處。」是故槃特思惟一偈得第四果。言「鳩摩羅」者，此云童真，亦曰毫童，亦曰名童，即童真無染偈也。三業無染，得無染果。若據得果，過去亦非全不習觀，觀力薄故其根仍鈍，以無遮故聞易得道。次第四句者，可知。 > Now, the text cites the sūtra regarding the 'secure ford'; a 'ford' is a ferry-crossing, that is, a place where one crosses the water. This pertains both to one's own practice and to converting others. When one's own practice encounters difficulties, proceeding along the perilous \[path\] is permitted. For example, if compelled to practice amidst evil due to royal affairs and the like, but when free of difficulties and evil ceases, one must follow the good; the capacities of others are likewise \[various\], and should be carefully examined. Below, under 'Furthermore', it therefore verifies this using the visible phenomena of water and fire. 'Yi' means level or smooth. 'Dao' means to tread upon. 'Nie' means to step upon or to leap over. Below, under 'Furthermore, \[he does\] not...', it reproaches him for mistaking people's capacities and exclusively having them engage in evil. Below, under 'Vimalakīrti...', it adduces proof, citing the two vehicles to draw an analogy to an ordinary master. Below, under 'Naturally...', it laments. 'Then the sea of precepts...', etc., uses an analogy to state that such persons are termed 'dead' within the Buddhadharma. The Vinaya says: 'Just as a corpse is not harboured by the great ocean, but is blown by a swift wind and cast upon the shore.' Committing a grave offense is like being a corpse, not harboured by the ocean of the Saṅgha. Performing the rite of expulsion is like being blown by a swift wind. Casting them outside the community is like depositing them on the shore. Because both self and other are reproached, it says 'practicing and preaching'. If one has not practiced it but only preaches it, one is like Ariṭṭha, who defied the Saṅgha's secluded admonitions, incurring only a duṣkṛta; but if one claims to have realized \[the path\] amidst evil, falling into the offense of claiming superhuman states, and both practices it oneself and professes it orally, or additionally claims realization, then it entails two pārājikas and one sthūlātyaya. The text relies on the grave pārājika, hence it says 'expulsion'. If one merely practices it oneself and teaches it to others, it entails one pārājika and one sthūlātyaya. 'Do not allow a poisonous tree...', etc., quotes an analogy for expulsion. Fascicle 3 of the Great \[Nirvāṇa\] Sūtra says: 'For example, in the place where an elder resides, poisonous trees grow in his fields, estates, and houses. When the elder learns of this, he immediately cuts them down and eradicates them utterly.' The elder's residence is the dwelling of the pure assembly. The poisonous tree is a monk who has committed a grave offense. Growing and necessarily being cut down means that having committed an offense, he must be expelled. The sūtra has three analogies: first, neighbouring states attacking each other; second, a poisonous tree growing in a dwelling; third, white hair growing on one's head. Zhang'an's two explanations properly apply the latter meaning. First, he explains them in correspondence to the three delusions. Neighbouring states attacking each other is an analogy for eliminating the delusions of the four abodes through the mutual subduing of wisdom \[and delusion\]. Cutting down the poisonous tree is an analogy for eliminating the delusions like dust and sand, which are external to the essence. Plucking out and discarding the white hair is an analogy for eliminating the delusions of ignorance, which share the same essence. Next, he explains them in correspondence to expulsion. The neighbouring states are an analogy for rectifying those who dwell separately and study separately, yet whose conduct is improper; the poisonous tree is an analogy for rectifying those who dwell together and study separately, yet whose conduct is improper; the white hair is an analogy for rectifying those who dwell together and study together, yet whose conduct is improper. Although the text quotes only one, the intent encompasses all three: whether dwelling together or separately, whether practicing or preaching, all must be expelled. Furthermore, below, under 'Investigating his evil conduct...', it rebukes the master's own practice, in that his practice is biased and violates his mind. First, it challenges him with facts, challenging the bias of his practice. Below, under 'For example...', it illustrates how his biased practice defiles the pure assembly. Below, under 'Challenging his...', it challenges the violation of his mind. Below, under 'The reason why...', it clarifies the intention behind this discrimination, admonition, and encouragement. Entering evil appears easy, so it still requires warning and caution; how could one possibly further encourage practice therein? Below, under 'Like taking rhubarb decoction...', it illustrates the intent of warning and caution. Entering evil and claiming sickness is like taking rhubarb decoction; pointing to evil as the path is termed excess; one must equip oneself with the teachings of the Vinaya to mend and halt it. The questioner asks: Correct contemplation is like water, and the rational nature is like a jewel; various practices are like the wind—when wind is abundant, the waves surge; bodily actions and movement agitate and disturb, making the contemplation turbid; why must one employ these four samādhis? 'Gu' means to move or agitate. In the reply, there are two sets \[of explanations\], each having an analogy and an application. First, an analogy of a poor person rebukes his lack of completeness. Below, under 'If one...', is the application. If contemplating the mind in a single kind of samādhi were sufficient, yet if the mind delighted in walking and other postures, how could one gratify this desire? Below, under 'If one uses...', pertains to converting others. Since one's own practice is thus, converting others follows this standard. For one's own practice, the beginning and the end differ; for the capacities of others, they are not uniform. Below, under 'For example...', is a reiterated analogy. Granting provisionally that a single kind is effective for one's own practice, if one relies exclusively on one kind for converting others, it will fail. Below, under 'Afflictions...', is the application. First, in terms of a single person: if converting others, one should possess the four siddhāntas, which then constitute four turns of the four kinds of samādhi—how could there only be four? Next, in terms of multiple persons: first, generally in terms of the four samādhis; if for multiple persons, mutually considered, there must again be four times four. Below, under 'Furthermore, in terms of...', how could there only be four when mutually considering the four kinds of samādhis as above? Each single samādhi already contains the four siddhāntas, how much more so for the four? 'If one delights in walking...', etc.: below 'delights in walking' is the mundane \[siddhānta\]; below 'if good roots...' is the individual \[siddhānta\]; below 'if while sitting...' is the therapeutic \[siddhānta\]; below 'if while walking...' is the supreme truth \[siddhānta\]. First, in terms of constantly walking, sitting is borrowed as a contrast in the explanation. If not explained in contrast, one cannot merely say 'if one delights in walking, one walks; if not, one does not walk', for this would contrarily open the door to indolence, and how could this be called requiring all four kinds of samādhi? Hence it was initially stated that 'one kind possesses all four', and below it again concludes that 'the other three are likewise'. Since constant walking is thus, if one speaks of constant sitting, it should also be explained in contrast with walking and the like. Below, under 'Question: Good supports...', it discriminates capacities and obstacles to good, meaning the above three and the various sūtras and goods within 'following one's own mind'; this good accords with principle and allows the practice of calming and contemplation. As the Awakening of Faith says: 'Having known that the essence of dharma-nature is free from stinginess and greed, one accords with it to practice the dāna-pāramitā', and so forth. Since evil runs contrary to principle, why not abandon evil to cultivate within good, rather than having one cultivate calming and contemplation amidst evil? Answer: Because of the four propositions, one must contemplate evil. Fascicle 24 of the Dazhidulun says: 'The World-Honoured One, through the power of his wisdom, knows the superior, middling, and inferior capacities of sentient beings. A person whose faculties are sharp yet obstructed by fetters is like Aṅgulimāla. A person whose faculties are sharp and not obstructed by fetters is like Śāriputra. A person whose faculties are dull and not obstructed by fetters is like Panthaka. A person whose faculties are dull and obstructed by fetters refers to ordinary persons.' The treatise lodges this in the Hīnayāna, and hence cites these four; discussing generally across the four teachings, it should analogously apply to all. Moreover, the treatise generally clarifies that the Tathāgata skillfully knows all faculties, without taking sharp faculties free of obstruction as primary. Now, in clarifying practice, sharp faculties free of obstruction are distinctively taken as the superior rank. First, Śāriputra: upon hearing the three truths once, he attained the first fruit; seeing that \[Dīrghanakha's\] debate was defeated, he realized arhatship; at the Lotus assembly, he was the first to receive prophecy. Below, under 'Practitioners...', it cites the present as an analogy. By the present, one recognizes the past; citing the visible, one knows the future. Thus we know that the two practices of good and evil in the present text represent the difference between having obstacles and being free of obstacles; in order to shatter obstacles, both must be practiced. 'In the past there were not the two meanings' means that since in the past one had not practiced amidst good, one consequently lacked sharp faculties free of obstruction. In the next proposition, 'like King Ajātaśatru, Aṅgulimāla', and so forth: since the treatise lodges this in the small \[vehicle\], King Ajātaśatru was not present; now, in distinguishing those with obstacles, they are listed together. King Ajātaśatru committed heinous crimes, his offenses deeply and heavily entangling him; at the seat of the Lotus assembly, his obstacles had not yet manifested, so he heard this wondrous sūtra as one among the ordinary crowd. At the Nirvāṇa assembly, his capacity was stirred and his obstacles flared up; his mind generated burning remorse, and sores broke out over his entire body, with no skilled physician in the world capable of treating his body and mind. Although his six ministers cited the words of the six masters, it was uncertain whether they could cure his severe affliction. His elder brother Jīvaka led him to the Buddha's presence; receiving the Buddha's summons, he was ashamed and terrified; hearing the explanation of the illusory nature of the aggregates, he realized that offenses are unarisen, just as a sandalwood tree grows from an eraṇḍa tree. His obstacles eliminated and his capacity ripened, rootless faith was established; he aroused the aspiration for awakening and declared his vast vows. 'Rootless faith' is the stage of the first fruit in the Hīnayāna, and in the Mahāyāna it corresponds to the abodes of the distinctive \[teaching\] and faith in the perfect \[teaching\]. As for Aṅgulimāla: according to the Aṅgulimāla Sūtra, he attained the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas; in the Āgamas, upon first hearing the Buddha's verse, he attained the first fruit, and after King Prasenajit departed, he attained arhatship. Although his obstacles were not like King Ajātaśatru's heinous crimes, he had already formed the expedients to harm the Buddha and his mother, and had also killed more than nine hundred and ninety people. Such heavy obstacles did not impede his realization of the Dharma, truly because his faculties were sharp that it was so. 'Whip' means to spur forward. Below, under 'Practitioners of the present time...', it cites the present as an analogy, directly answering the previous question regarding contemplating amidst evil. One should carefully weigh and examine whether it is appropriate or not; if it happens that one should enter evil, but exclusively adheres to good, one fails; past seeds are difficult to know, so one must not act rashly. Next, the third proposition, 'like Panthaka': Fascicle 1 of the Dharmapada says: 'When the Buddha was in Śrāvastī, there was a monk named Panthaka who had newly gone forth, and his nature was obstinate and blocked. The Buddha ordered five hundred arhats to instruct him daily, and only after three years did he master a single verse.' The present text relies on the Āgamas and the Dazhidulun, hence it says 'ninety days'. The Buddha, knowing this, felt pity; he called him before him and bestowed a verse upon him. The verse said: 'Guard your mouth, restrain your mind, let your body commit no offense; a practitioner such as this can cross over the world.' Panthaka felt deep gratitude toward the Buddha and was able to recite it smoothly. The Buddha said to Panthaka: 'You are now advanced in years, yet recite only a single verse. Everyone knows it; it is nothing extraordinary; you must understand its meaning. That is: the three of the body, the four of the mouth, the three of the mind—contemplate where they arise and examine where they cease; through them one is born in heaven, through them one falls into the abyss, and through them one attains the path and naturally enters nirvāṇa.' Analyzing up to immeasurable wondrous teachings, his mind opened and his thoughts were unlocked, and he attained arhatship. Because he was free of obstacles, although his faculties were dull, he easily attained the fruit of the path. Having attained the fruit of the path, five hundred bhikṣuṇīs requested instruction and teaching of the Dharma; it was Panthaka's turn; when he arrived there and finished eating, all the nuns laughed. Ascending the high seat, he felt ashamed of his own lowliness and said: 'By good fortune of meager virtue, I have become a śramaṇa, being the most obstinate and dull. Having learned a single verse, I roughly understand its meaning, and shall expound it for you.' The young nuns already knew this verse and wished to recite it beforehand, but their mouths could not open; terrified, they repented their faults. Thereupon, Panthaka expounded it in sequence according to what the Buddha had taught, and all the nuns attained the fruit of arhatship. Later, King Prasenajit invited the Buddha and the monks to sit in the main palace hall; the Buddha, wishing to test his supernatural power, ordered him to fetch the alms-bowl. Arriving at the palace gate, the gatekeeper would not allow him forward; from outside the gate, he extended his arm to deliver the bowl. The king, astonished, asked the Buddha: 'Whose hand is this?' The Buddha said: 'Panthaka's.' The king asked: 'He recited only a single verse; how could he achieve such a thing?' The Buddha said: 'Though one recites a thousand passages, of what benefit are they without their meaning? It is not as good as a single essential point which, when heard, can extinguish mental afflictions. Though one recites a thousand passages, of what benefit are they without their meaning? It is not as good as a single essential point which, when heard and practiced, brings deliverance. Though one recites a thousand passages, of what benefit are they without understanding? Understanding a single phrase of the Dharma, one can attain the path upon hearing it.' Two hundred monks heard this and attained arhatship, and only then did the king and his queen dispel their doubts. This verse was spoken for the extremely dull; how could it be equated with 'Much learning increases wisdom; broadly reading various diverse treatises allows one to know the mind of the wise', and so forth? Yet each has its intent; do not carelessly choose between them. As the Ekottarika-āgama, fascicle 6, states: 'The elder brother saw the younger brother reciting the Dharmapada, and rebuked him, saying: "If you cannot recite the verses of the Dharmapada, return to being a layperson." Hearing this, the younger brother went to the gate of Jetavana and wept. The Buddha saw him, asked him, and he fully related his brother's words. The Buddha said: "Can attaining bodhi depend on your brother?" The Buddha took him by the hand to a quiet room and had him recite "broom", also called "removing defilement". Panthaka contemplated: dust, dirt, tiles, and stones, when removed, leave purity; fetters are defilement, and wisdom is removal; now with the broom of wisdom, I sweep away all defilements.' The verse cited in the present text is from the Dazhidulun and fascicle 24 of the Great \[Nirvāṇa\] Sūtra. The sūtra says: 'Four matters are the causes of nirvāṇa. If one says that diligently practicing austerities is the cause of nirvāṇa, that is impossible.' Therefore, Panthaka reflected upon a single verse and attained the fourth fruit. The term 'kumāra' is translated here as 'pure youth' (tongzhen), also called 'hairy youth' (haotong), or 'named youth' (mingtong); that is, the verse of unpolluted pure youth. With the three karmic activities unpolluted, one attains the unpolluted fruit. In terms of attaining the fruit, in the past he had not entirely neglected the practice of contemplation; because his contemplative power was weak, his faculties remained dull; because he was free of obstacles, he easily attained the path upon hearing \[the teaching\]. As for the fourth proposition, it is evident. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.62) - [Next: 2.64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.64) - [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.2.63) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大般涅槃經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.mahaparinirvana-mahayana*zh-t375.3.25) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.2.63) · Pramāṇa