[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) › 3.56 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.56 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.56 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.56) 此攝一切位者，初來意中，先明無位。欲明於有，先辨無者，夫次位之來出自聖心，聖心本寂，次位何施？逗物根緣階級同異，自非絕位極聖焉能判於諸下，是故先明無位之理，次方約事說於諸位。又無故約真、有即寄俗，真俗不二故先辨真。故《楞伽》第四〈佛語心品〉云「第一義中無復次第」，今文從義，故云「寂滅真如」。又下文偈中云「十地則為初，初地則為八，第九則為七，七亦復為八，第二為第三，第四為第五，第三為第六，無所有何次。」唯此是四卷經文，餘所引者並是七卷經文。經云無位唯此一文，上下諸文盡明次位，然多辨通別、少明藏圓。若論智行，通具四教，以方等部多斥三藏、位義復少。當知《楞伽》約圓理邊明無次位，約事非無；縱明圓事，多是界外相即法門，是故經中圓位又少。故彼經別序中，世尊受請入楞伽城時，以神通力作無量寶山，山皆有佛，一一佛前皆有羅剎及以眾會，十方國土皆於中現。此與《淨名》合蓋現變何殊？尚未及《般若》，十方請者皆名釋提桓因，加說者皆名善現、身子，驗知彼部方等明矣。次位既爾，所論法相亦應備四亦少三藏，意如向說。即如羅剎王本宮思佛，佛說幻化等法，即通教也。發得善根，離心意識入如來藏，即別圓也。若準此意，例餘可知。別序之文序圓尚少，驗知正說圓義不多。故正宗中大慧問曰：「淨一切眾生自心現流，為漸為頓？」佛言：「是漸非頓。」下文雖說「佛淨眾生自心現流頓現一切」，此語漸極稱之為頓，即別妙覺位耳。況復文立五種種性，謂佛、菩薩、聲聞、不定、無性，以未開權諸性尚隔，豈同《法華》敗種得記？況復五法及三自性、八識二無我全是別義，豈得執一言無次位耶？「又大乘」下，明有次位。向明無位亦是大乘，今復明有，故云又也。「良以」下，和會有無。如前所說，非證無位不能辨位，復防愚夫偏執無位，是故結云「次位何嫌」。「若析」下，正明諸教次位。初三藏。云「七賢七聖」者，七賢謂七方便，七聖謂信行、法行、信解、見得、身證、時解脫、不時解脫。二十七賢聖者，開初果向為三，謂信行、法行、無相行，及初果為四，五第二果向，六第二果，七第三果向，八第三果。於此果中又開為十一，謂中、生、行、不行、樂定、樂慧、轉世、現、信解、見得、身證，并前七為學人十八。開無學為九，謂退、護、住、思、死、不退、慧解脫、俱解脫、不壞法。《俱舍》云「世尊說學人十八，謂四向、三果、信、法行、信解、見得、家家、一間、五含，謂中生、行、不行、上流。無學九，謂退、護、思、住、達、不動、不退、慧解脫、俱解脫。此二十七名為福田。」問：何緣身證不預其數？答：無漏三學是聖者因，擇滅涅槃是聖者果。滅定有漏不是依因，故不預數。欲委悉知，請尋本論。《中含》四十，長者問佛：「福田有幾？」佛答同《俱舍》。餘之二門既各有論，亦應有位，今闕不論。三乘共位，如下次位中辨。通教之中既無四門論部之異，故但依經列共十地。次別位者，亦如《楞伽》初地菩薩為佛所加，百千萬劫集諸善根漸入諸地，至法雲地坐大蓮華。今文正用《瓔珞》所列諸位。「不得意成三十心」等者，事不獲已施設教道，權接物機非佛本意。意在初地中道實相，猶居地前伏惑之位，名不得意。得意即入破無明位，是故即在第二觀後。「或純假觀」者，一者辨於失意之人；二者初地既同初住，是故此教但成假觀。圓位中開示悟入，且證因位。等覺或在十地中明。開合四句以判圓位，如前所說，具在《玄》文。「十四般若」者，問：「仁王」釋修行五忍中，文列十四忍，無般若之名。今何故云十四般若？答：忍因、智果。忍伏、智斷。伏必有斷，故從斷說。「問」下，料簡者，為不曉者更重立疑。執前《楞伽》及諸大乘明空蕩相，何須明位而云止觀攝次位耶？答中還以前來所明諸大乘經皆明次位。「雖說」下，牒前良以已下諸文。汝避有入無，意偏文局，況同外人邪無等耶？「中論」下，引論斥於執無位人。位即因果，汝言無位即無因果，似同外人撥無世間及以出世三種四果。「無何等」下，重徵執者，汝為無於何等因果？「見既」下，判執無者既未證入，凡見灼然，執云無位則破生滅。「尚不」下，況也。拙度尚有三藏因果，汝尚無之，況能有後三教因果？「此斥」下，結。言「此斥外道」者，意在斥執無位之人，汝云都無，同彼外道。「若斥」下，破小。一往與之。汝若欲以大乘斥小，謂小唯有三藏因果，無後三番因果位者，汝能破者仍須有後三番因果；汝但破他全無諸位，故知即同外人邪破。「如我」下，正明今家用破之式。但以智破惑，名之為破。如汝所破，以惑破智稱之為破，不同外道，推與誰乎？「問」下，引論偈，一一位中及以料簡，皆云破三道者何耶？答：前初明理，理全是惑，故次破惑。翻惑為智，惑為所破。智破惑時，業苦俱破。破必前後淺深位別，是故明位還須寄於所破三道。「點此一語」者，結要。直言曰言，詮義曰語，亦是所引論序，名為一語。今且從直言，謂一言者即是破也。以大破小為治內，以小破邪為治外。此引叡公《中論．序》也。序云「《百論》破外以閑邪，斯文祛內之留滯。」今通用彼序兩論意以成一家破立之式。《廣雅》云「閑者，正也。」破外故去有邊之邪，治內故去無邊之小，此存漸法，大小邪正以論相破。準大乘經，復應更云以圓破偏。準法華意，開偏顯圓。「今但」下，憑教。還依前來二諦釋義，是故不可偏執有無，有無並皆憑教故也。無句是菩薩句，及點空論位等，並是二諦之文。次引《中論》者，論有四句，且以三句對於三觀。觀觀於惑，惑落不俱，故使三觀各有諸位。當知論偈是略辦位，云何言無？此中不以初句對位者，已從能破而立次位。因緣但是所觀之境、所破之惑，故不對之。餘文對於三藏教者，一往從義，且借對初，非論本意。此論前文正明衍門，是故偈意正在三教三觀意也。若用三觀攝四教位者，三藏攝在初觀之中。初空句中但云破三道成菩薩者，舉勝兼劣，故云須陀洹智斷是菩薩無生。復但云「六地」等者，以通菩薩明位不同，具如第六卷中。今亦且略舉六地一邊，義實通於七地，齊二乘也。若云七地齊二乘者，即應云八地為方便。方便者具有二義，若未被接，即以出假為方便；若被接者，即以修中為方便。故下文云「八地聞中，九地修觀破無明。」此語極下根者為言，今言七地此據中根。言「為如佛」者，此亦二義，若別為菩薩立忍位者，則第十佛地邊有菩薩位，故云如佛；若被接者，至此既破一品無明，亦能入相如彼八相，故云如佛。六地已前破界內三道，至此則破界外三道。假名句中言破界外三道者，且據前句未被接者說，則前二句但斷界內三道。中道句中同異此說。 > Regarding "this subsumes all stages": in the initial presentation of intent, first the absence of stages is clarified. If one wishes to clarify existence, one must first distinguish non-existence; for the emergence of stages and ranks comes from the holy mind, and since the holy mind is fundamentally tranquil, how could stages and ranks be applied? To adapt to the faculties and conditions of sentient beings with their graduations of sameness and difference, unless one were an ultimate sage who transcends all stages, how could one determine the various lower \[ranks\]? Therefore, the principle of the absence of stages is clarified first, and subsequently stages are explained in terms of phenomenal matters. Moreover, non-existence pertains to the ultimate truth, while existence is framed in terms of the conventional truth; because ultimate and conventional are non-dual, the ultimate is distinguished first. Thus, Chapter Four of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, the "Chapter on the Heart of the Buddha's Words," states: "In the foremost truth there is no sequence." The present text follows this meaning, hence it says "quiescent true suchness." Furthermore, a verse below states: "The tenth ground is then the first; the first ground is then the eighth; the ninth is then the seventh, and the seventh is again the eighth; the second is the third; the fourth is the fifth; the third is the sixth—where nothing exists, what sequence is there?" This alone is from the four-fascicle translation of the sūtra; the others cited are all from the seven-fascicle translation. The statement in the sūtra regarding the absence of stages is found only in this single passage; all the texts above and below clarify stages and ranks, yet they mostly distinguish the shared and distinctive \[teachings\] and rarely clarify the Tripiṭaka and perfect \[teachings\]. If one discusses wisdom and practice, all four teachings are fully present, but because the Vaipulya section mostly rebukes the Tripiṭaka, its discussion of stages is also sparse. One should know that the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra clarifies the absence of stages and ranks from the side of the perfect principle, but in terms of phenomenal matters they are not absent; even when it clarifies phenomenal matters of the perfect teaching, they mostly concern the dharma-gates of mutual identity beyond the triple realm, and for this reason the stages of the perfect teaching in that sūtra are also few. Therefore, in the specific preface of that sūtra, when the World-Honoured One was invited and entered the city of Laṅkā, he used his supernormal powers to manifest countless jewelled mountains, all with buddhas on the mountains, and before each and every buddha there were rākṣasas and assemblies, with the lands of the ten directions all appearing therein. How is this different from the transformation of the unified parasols appearing in the Vimalakīrti? It does not yet equal the Prajñā, where all those requesting in the ten directions were called Śakra Devānām Indra, and those empowered to speak were all called Subhūti and Śāriputra—this clearly proves that that section belongs to the Vaipulya. Since the stages and ranks are such, the dharma characteristics discussed should also comprise all four \[teachings\] with little of the Tripiṭaka, in accordance with the intent explained above. For instance, when the rākṣasa king in his original palace thought of the Buddha, and the Buddha preached dharmas such as illusions and transformations, that was the shared teaching. Developing good roots, leaving behind mind, intellect, and consciousness, and entering the tathāgata-garbha is the distinctive and perfect teachings. If one uses this as a guideline, the rest may be known by analogy. The specific preface contains so little that introduces the perfect teaching, which proves that the main teaching does not have much of the meaning of the perfect teaching. Therefore, in the main teaching, Mahāmati asked: "Is the purification of the self-manifest flow of mind of all sentient beings gradual or sudden?" The Buddha said: "It is gradual, not sudden." Although the text below says that "the Buddha's purification of the self-manifest flow of mind of sentient beings suddenly manifests everything," this refers to the culmination of the gradual being designated as sudden, which is simply the marvellous awakening stage of the distinctive teaching. How much more so when the text establishes five lineages—namely the buddha, bodhisattva, śrāvaka, indeterminate, and lineage-less—because the provisional has not yet been opened, the various lineages remain separated; how could this be identical to the ruined seeds receiving prediction in the Lotus? How much more so when the five dharmas, three intrinsic natures, eight consciousnesses, and two forms of selflessness are entirely the meaning of the distinctive teaching; how could one cling to a single phrase and assert that there are no stages and ranks? From "Furthermore, the Mahāyāna..." downward, the presence of stages and ranks is clarified. Previously, the absence of stages was clarified as also being Mahāyāna; now the presence is clarified again, hence it says "furthermore." From "Indeed, because..." downward, existence and non-existence are reconciled. As stated previously, unless one has verified the absence of stages, one cannot distinguish stages; and to prevent fools from one-sidedly clinging to the absence of stages, it concludes: "Why should one object to stages and ranks?" From "If one analyses..." downward, the stages and ranks of the various teachings are properly clarified. First is the Tripiṭaka. Regarding the "seven worthies and seven sages": the seven worthies refer to the seven expedient means; the seven sages refer to those who practice by faith, practice by Dharma, are liberated by faith, attain views, are bodily witnesses, are liberated in due time, and are liberated not in due time. Regarding the twenty-seven worthies and sages: opening the candidate for the first fruit into three—namely those who practice by faith, practice by Dharma, and practice signlessness—together with the first fruit makes four; fifth is the candidate for the second fruit; sixth is the second fruit; seventh is the candidate for the third fruit; eighth is the third fruit. Within this \[third\] fruit, it is further opened into eleven—namely intermediate, arising, with effort, without effort, delighting in samādhi, delighting in wisdom, changing realms, present, liberated by faith, attaining views, and bodily witness—which, combined with the previous seven, make the eighteen learners. Opening the non-learners into nine—namely those subject to falling away, guarding, maintaining, thinking, dying, non-falling away, liberated by wisdom, liberated both ways, and of indestructible Dharma. The Abhidharmakośa states: "The World-Honoured One taught eighteen learners: the four candidates, three fruits, practice by faith, practice by Dharma, liberated by faith, attaining views, from family to family, one interval, and the five kinds of non-returners—namely intermediate, arising, with effort, without effort, and going upstream. There are nine non-learners: falling away, guarding, thinking, maintaining, mastery, unshakeable, non-falling away, liberated by wisdom, and liberated both ways. These twenty-seven are called fields of merit." Question: For what reason is the bodily witness not included among the number? Answer: The three outflows-free trainings are the causes of the sage, and nirvāṇa through analytical cessation is the fruit of the sage. The cessation absorption has outflows and is not the relying cause, so it is not included in the number. If one wishes to know the details, please consult the original treatise. In Madhyama-āgama 40, an elder asked the Buddha: "How many fields of merit are there?" The Buddha's answer was the same as the Abhidharmakośa. Since the other two gates each have treatises, they should also have stages, but they are omitted and not discussed here. The common stages of the three vehicles will be distinguished below under the stages and ranks. Since within the shared teaching there is no distinction among treatises of the four gates, it merely lists the ten common grounds based on the sūtra. Next, regarding the distinctive stages: just as in the Laṅkāvatāra, where the first-ground bodhisattva is empowered by the Buddha, accumulates all good roots over hundreds of thousands of myriads of kalpas, gradually enters the various grounds, and arrives at the Dharma-Cloud Ground to sit upon a great lotus flower. The present text properly uses the stages listed in the Yingluo jing. Regarding "not grasping the intent, one constitutes the thirty minds," etc.: out of unavoidable necessity the instructional path was devised, provisionally accommodating beings' capacities, which was not the Buddha's original intent. His intent was in the middle-way true mark of the first ground; still dwelling in the stages prior to the grounds where afflictions are suppressed is called "not grasping the intent." Grasping the intent means entering the stage of breaking through ignorance, which is why it comes immediately after the second contemplation. Regarding "or solely the contemplation of provisionality": first, this distinguishes those who have missed the intent; second, since the first ground is identical to the first abode, this teaching merely accomplishes the contemplation of provisionality. In the stages of the perfect teaching, opening, demonstrating, awakening, and entering provisionally verify the causal stage. Equal awakening is sometimes clarified within the ten grounds. The four propositions of opening and combining to determine the stages of the perfect teaching, as explained before, are fully presented in the text of the Xuan\[yi\]. Regarding the "fourteen prajñās": Question: The Renwang explains the five patiences of practice, in which the text lists fourteen patiences, but there is no name of prajñā. Why does it now say "fourteen prajñās"? Answer: Patience is the cause, wisdom is the fruit. Patience suppresses, wisdom severs. Suppression necessarily involves severing, so it is spoken of in terms of severing. From "Question" downward is an analysis: for those who do not understand, a doubt is raised once more. Clinging to the previous passages of the Laṅkāvatāra and various Mahāyāna sūtras that clarify the empty, sweepingly negated characteristics, why must one clarify stages and claim that calming and contemplation subsumes stages and ranks? In the answer, it returns to the previously clarified Mahāyāna sūtras which all clarify stages and ranks. From "Although it is taught..." downward, it repeats the previous text from "Indeed, because..." onward. You avoid existence and enter non-existence; your intent is biased and your text restricted—how much more do you resemble the non-Buddhists' wrong non-existence? From "The Madhyamakaśāstra..." downward, it cites the treatise to rebuke those who cling to the absence of stages. Stages are cause and effect; your assertion of no stages means there is no cause and effect, which resembles the non-Buddhists repudiating the worldly as well as the world-transcending three kinds of four fruits. From "What kind... is absent?" downward, it presses the adherent again: what kind of cause and effect do you claim is absent? From "Since views..." downward, it evaluates: since the adherent has not yet verified and entered, worldly views are blatant; clinging to no stages breaks down arising and perishing. From "Still not..." downward is a comparison. Even the clumsy crossing has the cause and effect of the Tripiṭaka, yet you do not even have that; how could you possess the cause and effect of the latter three teachings? From "This rebukes..." downward is the conclusion. The statement "this rebukes non-Buddhists" aims to rebuke those who cling to the absence of stages: you say there is nothing at all, which is identical to those non-Buddhists. From "If one rebukes..." downward refutes the Hinayāna. It provisionally concedes to them: if you wish to use the Mahāyāna to rebuke the Hinayāna, asserting that the Hinayāna only has the cause and effect of the Tripiṭaka and lacks the subsequent three tiers of causal and fruitional stages, then if you can refute them, you must still possess the subsequent three tiers of cause and effect; but you merely refute others and completely lack any stages, so we know you are identical to the wrong refutations of non-Buddhists. From "As in our..." downward properly clarifies the formula of refutation used by our school. Only using wisdom to break through affliction is called refutation. As for what you refute, using affliction to break through wisdom is termed refutation; if not identical to non-Buddhists, to whom can it be attributed? From "Question" downward, citing the verse of the treatise, why do each and every stage and the analysis all speak of breaking through the three paths? Answer: Earlier, the principle was first clarified; the principle is completely \[covered by\] affliction, so next affliction is broken through. Affliction is overturned into wisdom, and affliction is what is refuted. When wisdom breaks through affliction, karma and suffering are both broken through. The refutation must have distinctions of earlier and later, shallow and deep stages; therefore, clarifying stages must still be framed in terms of the three paths that are broken through. Regarding "pointing to this single word": this concludes the essential point. Plain speech is called speech (yan), explaining meaning is called words (yu); it also refers to the preface of the cited treatise, termed a single word. Now we provisionally follow plain speech, meaning that the single word is precisely "refutation." Using the great to refute the small cures the internal; using the small to refute the deviant cures the external. This cites Sengrui's Preface to the Madhyamakaśāstra. The preface states: "The Śata-śāstra refutes the external to ward off the deviant; this text eliminates the internal stagnation." Now we generally apply the intent of both treatises from that preface to establish our school's formula of refutation and establishment. The Guangya states: "To ward off (xian) means to rectify." Refuting the external eliminates the deviant of the extreme of existence; curing the internal eliminates the smallness of the extreme of non-existence. This preserves the gradual dharma, discussing mutual refutation through great and small, deviant and correct. In accordance with the Mahāyāna sūtras, one should further say: using the perfect to refute the biased. In accordance with the intent of the Lotus: opening the biased and revealing the perfect. From "Now only..." downward relies on the teaching. It still relies on the previous explanation of meaning via the two truths, so one cannot one-sidedly cling to existence or non-existence, because both existence and non-existence rely on the teaching. The proposition of non-existence is the bodhisattva proposition, and discussing stages based on emptiness, etc., are all texts of the two truths. Next, citing the Madhyamakaśāstra: the treatise has four lines, and for now three lines are matched with the three contemplations. Contemplation contemplates affliction; afflictions fall away not all at once, which causes the three contemplations each to have various stages. One should know that the verse of the treatise briefly distinguishes stages; how can one say there are none? That the first line is not matched with a stage here is because stages are established from the perspective of that which can refute. Causes and conditions are merely the object contemplated and the affliction refuted, so they are not matched. The rest of the text matching with the Tripiṭaka teaching provisionally follows the meaning for now, borrowing a match for the beginning, which is not the treatise's original intent. The earlier text of this treatise properly clarifies the Mahāyāna, so the intent of the verse lies precisely in the meaning of the three teachings and three contemplations. If one uses the three contemplations to subsume the stages of the four teachings, the Tripiṭaka is subsumed within the initial contemplation. In the initial line on emptiness, merely stating that breaking through the three paths accomplishes the bodhisattva highlights the superior while subsuming the inferior; hence it says the srotāpanna's wisdom and severing is the bodhisattva's non-arising. Furthermore, merely stating "the sixth ground," etc., is because the bodhisattvas of the shared teaching have differences in clarifying stages, as fully detailed in fascicle six. Here it also provisionally and briefly highlights the side of the sixth ground; its meaning actually extends to the seventh ground, being equal to the two vehicles. If one says that the seventh ground is equal to the two vehicles, then one should say that the eighth ground is the expedient means. Expedient means possesses two meanings: if one has not been received and stimulated, then emerging into provisionality is the expedient means; if one has been received and stimulated, then cultivating the middle is the expedient means. Therefore, the text below says: "On the eighth ground one hears the middle; on the ninth ground one cultivates contemplation to break through ignorance." This statement speaks for those of the lowest faculties; here, speaking of the seventh ground is based on middling faculties. Regarding "being like a buddha": this also has two meanings. If one separately establishes patience stages for bodhisattvas, then adjacent to the tenth buddha ground there is a bodhisattva stage, hence it is said to be like a buddha; if one has been received and stimulated, having broken through one grade of ignorance upon arriving here, one can also enter manifestations like those eight manifestations, hence it is said to be like a buddha. Prior to the sixth ground, the three paths within the realm are broken through; arriving here, the three paths beyond the realm are broken through. The statement in the provisional name line about breaking through the three paths beyond the realm is provisionally spoken based on the previous line concerning those not yet received and stimulated, so the first two lines merely sever the three paths within the realm. The line on the middle way shares and differs from this explanation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.55) - [Next: 3.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.57) - [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.3.56) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.56) · Pramāṇa