[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) › 3.21.4 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.21.4 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.21.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.21.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.21.4) 彼寄四教以釋觀者，初三藏教，以眾生為高原、習觀為穿鑿、證理為清水、通觀以乾慧為乾土、性地為濕土、見真為清水。 別觀以空觀為乾土、假觀為濕土、見中為清水。 圓觀以五品為乾土、六根為濕、初住為清水。 彼約教中，通約漸中四時教也。 三藏為乾土、方等般若為濕土、法華為泥、見中為水。 二義並以初住為水，令約修觀但修頓觀。 圓教初心並名清水，不同彼疏剋取初住方名清水。 判位雖殊初後不二，故令即是依經起觀。 「二教」下，結前約教。 言二教者，藏、通也。 故彼二教如乾濕土，全未有水。 別教如泥，教道雜故，不名清水。 初心知中，是故但云「二教不詮、二行不到」者，行即是觀，結前約觀即空假二觀。 謂兩二乘通別入空，空行所攝。 三藏菩薩通別出假，假行所攝。 是故總云「二觀不到」。 次第觀中，中道雖非今文所用，證道同故，是故但云「二行不到」。 權教尚爾，況復餘耶？ 故云「遍空乃至無有是處」。 次「此三觀」下，與前釋名三觀辨異。 準釋三止，意亦可知。 「此依摩訶衍」等者，判前巧度次第三觀，雖有空假俱屬衍門，故此三觀用昔教中相待名義以為總詮，次第教相以為能顯，次第三諦以為所顯，為是義故非圓頓相。 雖非圓頓本為顯圓，復非別教，但云依衍，故下結人位通大小。 「以義」等者，此依《大品》摩訶衍門釋三觀相，既未被會但成次第，以次第義隨次第相，三觀條然一一各別。 此總標別相。 「若論」下，約觀智人以釋別相。 義即是教，教隨相別顯體不同，故使觀等未能融即，前二觀權、中道觀實，三觀展轉遞為淺深。 觀因智果，因既差別，果亦如之，故使三智展轉優劣有前有後。 觀法雖通，行人各別，故使三觀攝於大小，一切諸位咸入其中。 通含二教，故云諸位。 旁挾聲聞，故通於小。 是故若言次第則唯在於大，若論其人則通收大小，故觀智後更論於人。 故知空觀二乘唯小，通教菩薩義通於大，別雖入空一向在大。 通別並有入假菩薩，亦一向大。 通教利根後心有分，謂被接者。 別人初地方乃現前，是故諸位大小不同。 若論權門唯應廢藏，且從次第故亦置圓。 次明圓頓，用絕待名以為能詮，一諦三諦以為所顯，上下文相對當分明。 於中，初止、次觀、後明同時。 初明止中，有法、喻、合。 初法文中，止為能緣、諦為所繫，是故經云「繫緣法界，法界不異，能所一故。 」次譬中，雙譬止諦三一不二。 「止諦」下，合。 初法說中止之與諦並即一而三，譬中通譬三一不二，合中諦則即一而三、止則即三而一。 文似不同，意顯止諦三一不二、不二而二。 「以觀」下，明觀也。 觀之與境雖復互作觀發之名，以觀故發、以發故觀，同時體遍，能所皆悉即一而三。 次譬中，亦譬三一不二。 合止約諦即一而三，觀之與境亦即一而三。 所觀是境、所發是觀，合觀與止文翻倒者，亦秖明於三一體等。 然止觀既一，緣照不殊。 諦境名異，本是一法。 法於止觀使無差別，仍分能所而一而三，是故不須前後定執。 譬中言「摩醯首羅」者，色頂天主，一面三目嚴彼天顏而照大千。 嚴天顏者，譬眾德備。 照大千者，譬於遍見。 「不權不實」下，顯妙斥麁。 不權不實斥前三觀權實淺深，「不優不劣」斥前三智優劣前後，「不並不別」寄伊字譬總斥觀智，「不大不小」斥前三人諸位大小。 次引《中論》者，證三觀三止相即互融。 次引《金剛》，譬止觀與境其體不二。 「眼喻」下，合譬，可見。 然止觀諦境不二而二，義意似同，不無差別。 止觀二法雖即不二寂照宛然，諦境二法雖對止觀分於二名，然實無有二體之別。 故此喻文分於止觀以喻日眼，諦境一名同喻一色，眼日色三無前無後。 「若見」下，結勸，勸曉文旨。 > Where that \[commentary\] relies on the four teachings to explain contemplation: first, in the Tripiṭaka teaching, it takes sentient beings as the high plateau, the practice of contemplation as digging, and the realization of principle as clear water. In the shared contemplation, it takes the stage of dry wisdom as dry earth, the stage of nature as moist earth, and seeing the truth as clear water. In the distinctive contemplation, it takes the contemplation of emptiness as dry earth, the contemplation of provisionality as moist earth, and seeing the middle as clear water. In the perfect contemplation, it takes the five grades as dry earth, the six sense-faculties as moist \[earth\], and the initial abode as clear water. In its \[discussion\] regarding the teachings, it generally draws on the gradual teachings of the four periods: the Tripiṭaka is dry earth; the Vaipulya and Prajñā are moist earth; the Lotus is mud; and seeing the middle is water. Both senses take the initial abode as water. This causes one, in practicing contemplation, to cultivate only the sudden contemplation. In the perfect teaching, the initial mind is already called clear water, which differs from that commentary's strict determination that it is called clear water only upon reaching the initial abode. Although the determination of stages differs, the beginning and the end are non-dual; hence, one is caused right here to generate contemplation on the basis of the sūtra. From "the two teachings" onward, it concludes the preceding \[discussion\] regarding the teachings. The "two teachings" are the Tripiṭaka and the shared \[teachings\]. Therefore, those two teachings are like dry and moist earth, completely lacking water. The distinctive teaching is like mud: because the doctrinal path is mixed, it is not called clear water. The initial mind knows the middle; therefore, it merely says: "The two teachings do not expound it, and the two practices do not reach it." "Practice" is contemplation; concluding the preceding \[discussion\] regarding contemplation, these are the two contemplations of emptiness and provisionality. That is, the two vehicles of both \[teachings\] enter into emptiness through the shared and distinctive \[ways\], which are subsumed under the practice of emptiness. The bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka \[teaching\] emerge into provisionality through the shared and distinctive \[ways\], which are subsumed under the practice of provisionality. Therefore, it states generally: "The two contemplations do not reach it." In the gradual contemplation, although the middle way is not what the present text employs, because the path of realization is identical, it merely says: "The two practices do not reach it." If even the provisional teachings are like this, how much more so for the rest? Therefore it says: "\[Even\] universally \[seeking\] throughout space... there is no such place." Next, from "these three contemplations" onward, it distinguishes the differences from the three contemplations in the earlier explanation of names. By following the explanation of the three calms, the meaning may also be known. In the passage "These rely on the Mahāyāna...", it judges the earlier skillful gradual three contemplations: although they contain emptiness and provisionality, both belong to the Mahāyāna gate; hence, these three contemplations use the relative names and meanings from the past teachings as the general exposition, the gradual doctrinal characteristics as that which reveals, and the gradual three truths as that which is revealed. For this reason, they are not the characteristics of the perfect and sudden. Although they are not the perfect and sudden, fundamentally they serve to reveal the perfect; nor are they merely the distinctive teaching, but are simply said to rely on the Mahāyāna. Therefore, the conclusion below concerning persons and stages extends across both the great and the small. In the passage "According to the meaning...", it explains the characteristics of the three contemplations based on the Mahāyāna gate of the Dapin: since they have not yet been unified, they merely form a gradual progression; because the gradual meaning accords with gradual characteristics, the three contemplations are distinct and separate from one another. This generally marks the distinct characteristics. From "If we discuss..." onward, it explains the distinct characteristics in terms of contemplation, wisdom, and persons. "Meaning" is the teaching. The teaching accords with distinct characteristics to reveal that the essence is not identical; hence, contemplation and the like cannot yet be harmoniously integrated: the first two contemplations are provisional, while the contemplation of the middle way is real, and the three contemplations turn progressively shallower or deeper. Contemplation is the cause and wisdom is the fruit. Since the causes are differentiated, the fruits are likewise; hence, the three wisdoms progressively differ in superiority and inferiority, with an earlier and a later. Although the method of contemplation is broad, the practitioners are distinct; hence, the three contemplations encompass both the great and the small, and all the various stages are included within them. Because it broadly contains the two teachings, it says "various stages." Because it incidentally embraces the śrāvakas, it extends to the small \[vehicle\]. Therefore, if we speak of the gradual progression, it resides solely in the great; if we discuss the persons, it broadly gathers both the great and the small. Thus, after contemplation and wisdom, it further discusses persons. Hence we know that the contemplation of emptiness for the two vehicles is solely of the small; for the bodhisattvas of the shared teaching, the meaning extends to the great; although the distinctive \[teaching\] enters into emptiness, it belongs purely to the great. Both the shared and distinctive \[teachings\] have bodhisattvas who enter into provisionality, which also belongs purely to the great. Those of sharp faculties in the shared teaching have a share in the final mind—namely, those who are received \[into the higher teachings\]. For persons of the distinctive \[teaching\], it becomes manifest only at the initial bhūmi. Therefore, among the various stages, the great and the small differ. If we discuss the provisional gates, only the Tripiṭaka should be set aside; but proceeding for the moment from the gradual progression, the perfect is also set aside. Next, to clarify the perfect and sudden, it uses non-relative names as that which expounds, and the single truth \[which is\] the three truths as that which is revealed; the correspondence between the earlier and later passages is quite clear. Therein, first is calm, next is contemplation, and finally it clarifies their simultaneity. In the first part clarifying calm, there are the doctrinal statement, the simile, and the application. In the initial doctrinal statement, calm is that which observes, and the truth is that which is focused upon; therefore the sūtra says: "Focus the mind on the dharma-dhātu; the dharma-dhātu is not different," because that which observes and that which is focused upon are one. Next, in the simile, it uses a twofold simile for the non-duality of the threefold and the single in calm and truth. From "Calm and truth" onward is the application. In the initial doctrinal exposition, both calm and truth are three precisely as one; in the simile, it broadly illustrates that the threefold and the single are non-dual; in the application, truth is three precisely as one, while calm is one precisely as three. The texts seem different, but the intent is to show that calm and truth are non-dual in their threefold and single nature, non-dual and yet twofold. From "Through contemplation" onward, it clarifies contemplation. Although contemplation and the object mutually assume the names of contemplating and manifesting—because of contemplation, there is manifestation, and because of manifestation, there is contemplation—they are simultaneously pervasive in essence, and both that which observes and that which is observed are three precisely as one. Next, in the simile, it also illustrates that the threefold and the single are non-dual. Applying calm with respect to truth, it is three precisely as one; contemplation and its object are likewise three precisely as one. That which is contemplated is the object, and that which is manifested is contemplation; that the texts of application for contemplation and calm are inverted merely clarifies that the essence of the threefold and the single is identical. Furthermore, since calm and contemplation are one, observing and illuminating do not differ. Although the truth and the object have different names, fundamentally they are a single dharma. It renders the dharma without distinction in calm and contemplation, yet divides into that which observes and that which is observed, being both one and three; therefore, one must not rigidly cling to before and after. When the simile mentions "Maheśvara," this is the sovereign of the summit of the form realm, who with one face and three eyes adorns that heavenly visage and illuminates the great trichiliocosm. Adorning the heavenly visage illustrates the full endowment of all virtues. Illuminating the great trichiliocosm illustrates pervasive vision. From "Neither provisional nor real" onward, it reveals the subtle and reproves the coarse. "Neither provisional nor real" reproves the provisional, real, shallow, and deep of the previous three contemplations; "neither superior nor inferior" reproves the superior, inferior, earlier, and later of the previous three wisdoms; "neither combined nor separate" relies on the simile of the letter i to generally reprove contemplation and wisdom; "neither great nor small" reproves the greatness and smallness of the various stages of the previous three types of persons. Next, citing the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā verifies that the three contemplations and three calms are mutually identical and interfused. Next, citing the Vajracchedikā illustrates that calm, contemplation, and the object are non-dual in essence. From "The eye illustrates..." onward is the application of the simile, which can be understood. However, calm, contemplation, the truth, and the object are non-dual and yet twofold; though their meaning and intent seem identical, they are not without difference. Although the two dharmas of calm and contemplation are non-dual, quiescence and illumination are fully apparent; although the two dharmas of truth and object are divided into two names in contrast to calm and contemplation, in reality there is no difference of two essences. Therefore, this text of the simile divides calm and contemplation to illustrate the sun and the eye, while the single name of truth-and-object together illustrates the single form; eye, sun, and form are three without earlier or later. From "If one sees..." onward, it concludes with an exhortation, urging the understanding of the text's purport. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.21.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.21.3) - [Next: 3.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.22) - [Up: 3.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.21) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.3.21.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.21.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.21.4) · Pramāṇa