[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) › 3.49 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.49 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.49 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.49) 料簡中云「及通菩薩」等者，等取別教十住。「塵沙雖不潤生」等者，釋疑。疑云：界外潤生正由無明。既不由塵沙，何須先斷？釋曰：障化道故，故須先斷。為真化方便，故先斷此惑，斷已方能進修中觀。破實報中相應獨頭，塵沙為枝、無明為本，探說後位，故云「皆去」。「故知假觀正攝得塵沙」等者，三種生身中，初人既於彼界能斷塵沙，故云「正攝」。破塵沙已必能進破無明，故名「亦攝」。若別論者，無明始終自為中觀所攝。言「若別圓二人」等者，約相攝說，故取圓人。此中正意，論於覺法種類二人。別惑之名義兼無明，故云「被伏」。若單論塵沙，界內已斷，何須論伏？故於界外但修中觀破彼無明，故云「三道」；從斷位說，故云「初地」。既但云地，故知意生且論權位。若不爾者，豈圓六根更入別地？ > In the analysis, 'and shared bodhisattvas', etc., the 'etc.' includes the ten abodes of the distinctive teaching. Regarding 'although \[delusions like\] dust and sand do not moisturize rebirth...', this resolves a doubt. The doubt says: Moisturizing rebirth beyond the realms is due precisely to ignorance. Since it is not due to dust and sand, why must it be severed first? The explanation says: Because it obstructs the path of transformation, it must be severed first. For the sake of the expedients of real transformation, one first severs this delusion; only after severing it can one advance to cultivate the contemplation of the middle. In breaking the associated and independent \[ignorance\] within Real Retribution, dust and sand are the branches and ignorance is the root; speaking proactively of the subsequent stages, it therefore says 'all are removed'. Regarding 'Therefore we know that the contemplation of provisionality directly subsumes dust and sand...', among the three kinds of generated bodies, since the first person can sever dust and sand in that realm, it says 'directly subsumes'. Having broken dust and sand, they can surely advance to break ignorance; hence it is named 'also subsumes'. If discussed distinctively, ignorance from beginning to end is naturally subsumed by the contemplation of the middle. As for 'if the two persons of the distinctive and perfect...', this is spoken in terms of mutual subsumption, hence taking the person of the perfect \[teaching\]. The primary intent here is to discuss the two persons of awakening to dharmas and of the kind. The designation of distinctive delusion in meaning encompasses ignorance, hence it says 'subdued'. If discussing dust and sand alone, it has already been severed within the realms; why discuss subduing it? Therefore, beyond the realms one only cultivates the contemplation of the middle to break that ignorance, hence it speaks of 'three paths'; speaking from the stage of severance, it says 'first bhūmi'. Since it only says bhūmi, we know that the mind-made bodies are spoken of provisionally for the time being. Were it not so, could the six purified sense faculties of the perfect \[teaching\] enter into a distinctive bhūmi? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.48) - [Next: 3.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.50) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.3.49) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.49) · Pramāṇa