[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) › 3.59 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.59 止觀輔行傳弘決 3.59 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.59) 次明偏圓中，初明來意者，先牒前章，正指前來體所攝法。指前六番，一一番中攝一切法，及一一法更互相攝，故云「無法不收」。「收法既多」下，正明來意。收法既多，故一一法應須識知大小乃至不思議意。「大小」即是略標初二兩門。「共不共」明用三四二門。半滿既與大小義同，故不別列。故知圓頓實三一向不共，偏漸權三有共不共，藏通是共，別是不共也。權實雖與前四義同，須將權實以簡前四。小半一向是權，大滿有權有實，圓頓二種一向是實，偏漸二種一向是權。以思議不思議更簡五雙，例此可解。故此五章，文五義三。半滿同大小，漸頓同偏圓，權實判前四意唯在於開。「夫至理」下，明說章意。意者秖是無說而說，無說即是自行，為他故說。說必不出此之五雙。問：此是判前攝法顯體，云何乃言為他故說？答：判即是說，乃至果成以此五雙為他而說，說不出五。「以小」下，明用章意。言「須識所以」者，豈以方便名同而令大小理一？況復大中仍須簡擇，乃至權實亦復如是。是故方便種種不同，如三藏教一向是小、全是方便，況三藏教復有初入名為方便，故有體外體內等別。具如疏文釋方便品。不與《淨名．報恩方便品》同。如《華嚴經》有〈壽量品〉。不與《法華．壽量品》同。「小者」下，次正釋中，先釋於小。初即小乘觀法之相。「如釋論」下，示邪析相以顯於正。初二句立定。次「若下」二句釋責。次「若析」下破。言「方分」者，無塵而已，有必是色。色必在方，方必有分，有十方分。次破其更析極微，析故則盡。若一塵可盡，則諸塵皆可盡。若可盡者，如何和合而成於身？故盡不可。若不盡者，若一塵是常，諸皆是常。若是常者，身應不滅，故非佛法正析相也。析心亦爾，若一剎那心不可盡者，如何復有後剎那生？後剎那生，前心必滅。若永滅者，如何復有後剎那生？故知剎那念念生滅，非斷非常。「論文」下，示正析相。三藏析法非論本宗，故云「仍明」。亦先觀色，次觀於心。觀色心時，但觀麁細無常無我，不須云盡及以不盡。言「從無明生」者，從於過去一念無明而生諸行，復由諸行至中陰時，我之一念無明之心復與父母一念無明心合生於色身，依報亦由共無明業同感石砂，是故依正莫不皆從無明而生。無明之體從因緣有，故使造色亦從因緣。當知因果皆從無常，如何計之為盡不盡？觀心亦爾，過去剎那感今剎那，況今剎那復對外境因緣故有，是故念念皆悉無常。如是推時，何但識於色心無常，進推心念本來非有，乃見法性真如常住，如前所明。不定教相若觀無常，又觀無常即見佛性，即此意也。若觀幻化，又觀幻化及以假等亦復如是。作是觀者，乃是究竟三道本壞，何但界內無明壞耶？「析名」下，得名之由。此之析名本在外道，觀極微色及一剎那若盡不盡；今觀無常等亦名析者，對破外道，汝析非正。「何但」下，明此析法所破功能，乃至圓教四門生著亦能破盡。佛法如甘露，見著如多服，失理如早夭，於外生計如鐵鎖，於內生計如金鎖。計由內心，故名為自所起。我人與外不別，皆悉能為生死作因。「故大論」下，明用破意，謂破能計。能計是著，不破所計，所計是教。乃至未得涅槃而生計著，豈破涅槃？此明敵對破見功能。若復有人忽宜修於餘觀而破見者，如第十卷用四種觀破見不同。「凡有」下，依門修觀，觀即十法。世人亦云修習觀法，言不涉十，乘壞驢車正南而遊。「故知」下，正判在小。 > Next, in clarifying the skewed and the perfect, first, in clarifying the purpose \[of this section\], it first rehearses the preceding chapter, directly indicating the dharmas subsumed by the substance discussed before. Indicating the preceding six rounds, each round includes all dharmas, and each single dharma mutually includes one another; therefore it says: "there are no dharmas that are not gathered in." From "since the gathered dharmas are numerous" downward, it directly clarifies the purpose. Since the gathered dharmas are numerous, in each single dharma one must recognize the meanings of the small and great, down to the inconceivable. "Small and great" briefly designates the first two portals. "Shared and unshared" clarifies the application of the third and fourth portals. Since half and full share the same meaning with small and great, they are not listed separately. Thus we know that the perfect, the sudden, and the real—these three—are solely unshared, while the skewed, the gradual, and the provisional—these three—have shared and unshared: the Tripiṭaka and the shared are shared, while the distinctive is unshared. Although provisional and real share the same meaning with the preceding four, one must use provisional and real to categorize the preceding four. The small and the half are solely provisional; the great and the full contain both provisional and real; the perfect and the sudden are solely real; the skewed and the gradual are solely provisional. By using the conceivable and inconceivable to further categorize the five pairs, by analogy with this it can be understood. Therefore, regarding these five chapters, the texts are five and the meanings are three. Half and full are identical to small and great; gradual and sudden are identical to skewed and perfect; and the intent of evaluating the preceding four by provisional and real lies solely in opening \[them\]. From "Now, ultimate principle" downward, it clarifies the intent of expounding the chapters. The intent is simply expounding without exposition; without exposition is one's own practice, while expounding is for the sake of others. Exposition necessarily does not go beyond these five pairs. Question: This is evaluating the preceding included dharmas to reveal the substance; why do you say it is expounded for the sake of others? Answer: Evaluating is precisely expounding; down to the attainment of the fruit, one expounds for the sake of others by means of these five pairs, and exposition does not go beyond the five. From "With the small" downward, it clarifies the intent of applying the chapters. As for the words "one must recognize the reasons": how could identity in the name of skillful means cause the principles of the small and great to be one? How much more so when within the great one must still make selections, down to the provisional and real being likewise! Therefore, skillful means are of various kinds: for instance, the Tripiṭaka teaching is solely small and entirely skillful means; moreover, within the Tripiṭaka teaching there is also that which is called skillful means upon initial entry, hence there are distinctions such as external to the substance and internal to the substance. It is fully as explained in the commentary on the Chapter on Expedient Means. It is not the same as the Chapter on Expedient Means of Repaying Kindness in the \*Vimalakīrti\*. Just as the \*Avataṃsaka Sūtra\* has a Chapter on the Measure of Life, it is not the same as the Chapter on the Measure of Life in the \*Lotus\*. From "As for the small" downward, next in directly explaining, it first explains the small. The beginning is the mark of the contemplation methods of the Small Vehicle. From "As the commentary states" downward, it demonstrates the marks of heterodox analysis to reveal the correct. The first two lines establish the proposition. Next, the two lines beginning with "If..." explain and rebuke it. Next, from "If analyzing" downward, it refutes it. As for "spatial divisions": it is simply that where there are no particles \[there are no divisions\], but what exists is necessarily form. Form necessarily exists in space, and space necessarily has divisions—having divisions of the ten directions. Next it refutes their further analyzing the infinitesimal atom, so that by analysis it is exhausted. If one particle can be exhausted, then all particles can be exhausted. If they can be exhausted, how could they combine to form a body? Therefore being exhausted is impossible. If they are not exhausted, then if one particle is eternal, all are eternal. If they are eternal, the body should not perish; hence this is not the correct mark of analysis in the Buddha's Dharma. Analyzing the mind is also like this: if the mind of a single kṣaṇa cannot be exhausted, how could a subsequent kṣaṇa be produced? When the subsequent kṣaṇa is produced, the preceding mind must perish. If it were permanently extinguished, how could a subsequent kṣaṇa be produced? Therefore one knows that kṣaṇa by kṣaṇa, thought-moment by thought-moment, there is arising and ceasing, neither annihilation nor permanence. From "The text of the commentary" downward, it shows the correct mark of analysis. Analyzing dharmas in the Tripiṭaka is not the fundamental tenet of the treatise, hence it says "still clarifies." It also first contemplates form, and next contemplates the mind. When contemplating form and mind, one merely contemplates coarse and subtle, impermanence and non-self, without needing to speak of exhausted or unexhausted. As for "arising from ignorance": from a single thought of ignorance in the past, all formations are produced; further, due to all formations, when reaching the intermediate existence, one's own single thought of an ignorant mind further unites with the single thought of the ignorant mind of the parents to give birth to the physical body. The objective environment also, due to shared karma of ignorance, collectively induces rocks and sand; therefore, subjective and objective without exception arise from ignorance. The substance of ignorance exists from causes and conditions; hence caused form also arises from causes and conditions. One should know that cause and effect both arise from impermanence; how could one calculate them as exhausted or unexhausted? Contemplating the mind is also like this: the past kṣaṇa induces the present kṣaṇa; how much more so when the present kṣaṇa further exists due to the causes and conditions of external objects! Therefore thought-moment by thought-moment all are impermanent. When examining like this, not only does one recognize that form and mind are impermanent, but advancing to examine thought-moments as originally non-existent, one then sees the permanent abiding of the true suchness of dharma-nature, as clarified previously. If the indefinite teaching contemplates impermanence, and contemplating impermanence one immediately sees the Buddha-nature, this is precisely this meaning. If one contemplates illusion and transformation, and further contemplates illusion, transformation, provisionality, and so forth, it is also like this. For one who performs this contemplation, the three paths are fundamentally destroyed to the ultimate; how could it merely destroy the ignorance within the realms? From "The name analysis" downward, \[gives\] the reason for obtaining the name. This name "analysis" was originally among non-Buddhists, who contemplated whether infinitesimal form and a single kṣaṇa are exhausted or unexhausted; now calling the contemplation of impermanence and so forth "analysis" is to refute non-Buddhists: "Your analysis is not correct." From "How merely" downward, it clarifies the function of what this method of analysis refutes, down to completely destroying attachment when it arises toward the four portals of the perfect teaching. The Buddha's Dharma is like nectar: clinging to views is like drinking too much; losing the principle is like dying prematurely. Generating calculations toward the external is like an iron chain; generating calculations toward the internal is like a golden chain. Because calculations arise from the inner mind, they are called self-originated. Self and person are not distinct from the external; all are able to serve as causes for saṃsāra. From "Therefore the Great Treatise" downward, it clarifies the intent of employing refutation, which means refuting the calculating \[mind\]. The calculating \[mind\] is attachment; it does not refute what is calculated, for what is calculated is the teaching. Down to generating attachment before attaining nirvāṇa, how could that refute nirvāṇa? This clarifies the function of directly refuting views. If there is another person who suddenly ought to cultivate other contemplations to refute views, it is as in the tenth fascicle where the four kinds of contemplation are used differently to refute views. From "Wherever there are" downward, one cultivates contemplation according to the portal, contemplation being precisely the ten dharmas. People of the world also speak of practicing contemplation methods, but their words do not touch upon the ten, riding a broken donkey cart traveling straight south. From "Therefore we know" downward, it properly judges it as belonging to the small. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.58) - [Next: 3.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.60) - [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.3.59) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.3.59) · Pramāṇa