[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) › 4.14 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 4.14 止觀輔行傳弘決 4.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.4.14) 次懺見罪者，「以見」下，指前順流十心。前順流心愛見共列，故今懺見重牒順流，還指前列。「向運」下，簡異愛心。愛心逆流並是附事，愛屬鈍使名鈍使罪，非謂罪滅鈍使已盡。以彼愛罪託事生故，故附事懺。見違理起，懺亦附理。若懺重罪亦須合行，故云起重煩惱應旁用事助。補藥如推理、事助如已豆，是則事理各有旁正。「一翻破」下，正釋，亦從麁至細。言「不信者」，即一闡提心也。闡提之心由身見起，故點示之令識苦集。何者？由身見故具八十八，以集成故則能招苦，具如第五卷釋。「如欝頭」等者，《大論》十九云「得非想定有五神通，日日飛入王宮中食。其王夫人依其國法接足而禮，由觸足故欲發失通，求車而出。還本山中更修五通，一心專志垂當得定。所依林池為諸魚鳥之所喧鬧，因發惡誓噉諸魚鳥。後還如初得非想定生非想處，報盡却為先誓所牽墮飛貍身。」《婆沙》云「飛貍身廣五十由旬，兩翅相去各五十由旬，身量五百由旬，殺害眾生水陸空行無得免者。」發惡願故即是集，墮飛貍身即是苦。須跂得非想定者，先得此定，涅槃會未來至佛所，為佛所責，雖無麁想而有細想。歸心受道，得阿羅漢。今文所引，未得道前。長爪亦爾，起計佛責，得阿羅漢，至第五卷略出緣起。「高著」等者，謂藍弗、須跂等。於外道中高出學著者也。著字（陟據切）。「尚不逮」等者，此斥近代著見之人及諸外道中劣者，尚不逮藍弗，言是真道耶？既不識苦集，明無四諦。從「是人」下，明無十二緣滅，但有無明乃至老死，故云「豈有寂滅」。「若謂」下，反斥其但有無明。無無明滅等身邊邪見，其事可知。前五利已列戒見二使，餘三比說亦應可見。何者？起見依色即色陰，領納於見，取見像貌，讚喜毀瞋，了別於見，五陰具足，故名身見。所執之見非斷即常，名為邊見。以見為正撥無因果，名為邪見。五見具足即八十八，名為集諦。集招於苦，即苦諦也。「尚非三藏」下，舉況斥其大小俱無。「若能如是至破不信」者，昔來諸見廣造諸惡，皆由迷理而順生死。今深識過患，達偏圓理，見根本壞，依見所起一切皆壞。若別論破見，但識三藏見惑之相，諸見自息。今欲遍知為圓方便顯於圓理，委論深淺廣辨諸教，故云遍破諸教不信。「且約理觀論人天」者，託事論理，今不論事，故云且約。理觀人天，但取聖位，自然進道名之為天，賢位作意名之為人。據理亦應合列三藏七方便人四果之天，文無者略。又且約衍門，未論三藏。又且成於三諦義足，故略三藏。所以須約理觀論人天者，為破迷理無慚愧故。理具三諦應須翻故，三諦之上無慚愧盡，故遍三諦以論人天。「若說果報」等者，《大品．信謗品》云「毀般若者即是毀訾三世諸佛，無量億劫墮於地獄。從於一獄墮於一獄，遍至十方大地獄中。或得人身而復生盲，或復生於旃陀羅家、除糞擔死人家，若無一目無舌無耳無手，或畜生中受多種苦。身子問：『是人以五逆罪相似耶？』佛言：『過五逆罪。若聽其言、信其語亦受是苦，若死等苦，故不須問。』」《大論》六十七釋云「佛何故不說？有二因緣故佛不說。一上已說其過逆受苦，今復說其身大醜惡。或信不信，不信者當受劇苦。二者若信佛語則大憂怖，憂怖故風發吐熱血死等，若不信者更受重苦。」「翻破不畏惡道」者，釋此一條，準上下文，闕理觀義。依例應云昔依見起過破壞正理，不畏三途。今欣諦理，尚畏小乘三空惡道三無為坑，乃至畏前三教惡道，況地獄等三途惡道。今且從於謗三諦邊，墮惡道義。「以八正道」等者，以無作八道方破三惑。「有無邊故」等者，有即有漏業也，罪即漏業所招果也，乃至無漏、亦漏亦無漏、非漏非無漏等所招二土之罪。故知昔迷三諦，業遍三惑，苦遍三土。今緣法界發菩提心，無作亦遍法界而起，故能翻破遍法界惡。「三諦至寶炬」者，《大集》云「三十七品是菩薩寶炬陀羅尼」，即無作道諦。具足佛法名之為寶，遍照法界名之為炬，總持一切名陀羅尼。修如此功，何過不補？「設令」等者，縱捨有見而入無見，又不修道品不出生死。「今知有」等者，今尚知於非有非無，何況有無。言有無者，且略舉耳。雖知見過，而未修於念處等也。「若破」下，修析法道品。「又體見」下，尚破通別，何況三藏。故云「體見即空假中」。「是為」等者，縱字平聲，自淺階深名之為縱。諸見皆破、修諸道品，故云「補於縱見之過」。昔因見造界內諸見，見無淺深，是故名橫。今修功既深，破見亦遠，始自外見破外入藏，乃至別見破別入圓，至圓名為非動非不動、非修非不修，是無作道品也。若具作四句，應云動修、不動不修、亦動亦不動亦修亦不修、非動非不動非修非不修。復以四動以對一修，成十六句。今且四修以對四動，故別說也。展轉竪入，是故云縱。圓理未契，悉名為過。故修一心三諦之功，補於前來次第三諦深見之過。「守護正法」者，昔毀理護見而申通於見，今毀見護理而申通於理。若不亡身存法，何以表於護法之志？若護法志弱，將何以翻護見毀善？是故復喻父母護子。「念十方佛」者，昔內服諸見、外加惡師，故順於三惑、背三諦理。今內念三諦，諦即是佛，內外具足，故能翻破親狎惡友。若爾，理性云何得是佛耶？故引《大品》薩陀波崙空中見佛，後見曇無竭，乃問言：「佛從何所來？」答言：「不來不去即是佛。無生法即是佛。」是故當知覺無生智即是於佛。若爾，法即是佛，故能翻昔惡法惡師。「觀罪性空」者，初敘計實，故不了性空，凡一念心三惑具足。即此三惑本自涅槃，故云「寂靜」。「今觀」下，明見性空。「一空一切空」下，釋向性空。恐謂如幻不來去等以為但空，故重釋云一空一切空等。「運此」下，總結也。觀理加事方成悔法。言「名第二健兒」者，《大經》云「有二健兒，一者性不作惡、二者作已能悔。」若據此生，見惑未起；若論無始，誰不有之？故知一切皆闕第一。問：見既未起，何須行悔？答：未起預達，況宿曾起。又示當起，應須此悔。是故前文以愛見惡名已生未生，是故今文但令運此逆順十心滅三世惡，故修悔者必事理雙行。「是名」下，雙結前來事理兩懺。懺法若成三諦三昧，諸行具足，況復十戒攝一切行。三昧是眼，眼智具足，至初住位方名開發。文雖次第，為顯圓融，前後諸文一切皆爾。況復事戒為三觀本，故云「尸羅清淨」等也。若無事戒，世禪尚無，何況三諦？有言：大乘何須執戒者，謬矣。言不執者，乃是持而不執。若令不持名不執者，乃是執破，何名不執？執持尚無，忘持安在？「得此」下，結成眼智攝法。「又能」下，結成止觀。「故知」下，結成元意也。「持戒清淨」，結前列名及以持相，即為正修遠方便也。「懇惻」下，結前犯及以懺淨。或恐過現事理二犯，復應誠懇悔彼深愆。愆除復淨，二世無瑕，與本不犯並可為緣，故云「俱為初緣」，意在此也。 > Next, regarding repenting the transgressions of views: "Because of views" and so forth points to the preceding ten states of mind that follow the flow \[of saṃsāra\]. Previously, the states of mind following the flow listed craving and views together; therefore, now in repenting views, it repeats those following the flow, referring back to the previous listing. "Just as previously aroused" and so forth distinguishes this from the mind of craving. The counter-flow of the mind of craving is entirely attached to phenomenal activities. Craving belongs to the dull entanglements and is termed the sin of dull entanglements, yet this does not mean that once the sin is eradicated, the dull entanglements are completely exhausted. Because those sins of craving arise in dependence upon phenomenal activities, repentance attaches to phenomenal activities. Views arise in violation of principle; repentance likewise attaches to principle. If repenting grave sins, both must be practiced together; hence it says that when grave afflictions arise, one should supplementarily use phenomenal activities to assist. Tonics are like deducing the principle; phenomenal assistance is like beans; thus phenomenal activities and principle each have their supplementary and primary roles. "Overturning and breaking" and so forth is the correct explanation, also proceeding from coarse to subtle. As for "unbelievers," this refers to the icchantika mind. The mind of an icchantika arises from the view of individuality; hence it is pointed out to make them recognize suffering and its origination. Why? Because from the view of individuality, the eighty-eight \[afflictions\] are fully present; because the origination is formed, it can summon suffering, fully explained as in the fifth fascicle. As for "like Udraka" and so forth, fascicle nineteen of the Dazhidulun states: "He attained the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception and possessed the five supernormal powers, flying daily into the royal palace to eat. The king's queen, following the custom of their country, received his feet in reverence. Touching her feet, passion arose, and he lost his supernormal powers, asking for a carriage to leave. Returning to his original mountain, he cultivated the five supernormal powers again, single-mindedly concentrated, on the verge of attaining absorption. The forest and pond he relied upon were noisy with fish and birds, whereupon he made an evil vow to devour all fish and birds. Later, as before, he attained the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception and was born into the station of neither perception nor non-perception. When his retribution was exhausted, pulled by his former vow, he fell into the body of a flying civet." The \*Vibhāṣā\* states: "The body of the flying civet is fifty yojanas wide, its two wings fifty yojanas apart, and its body five hundred yojanas in measure. It slaughters sentient beings of water, land, and air, with none escaping." Arousing the evil vow is origination; falling into the body of a flying civet is suffering. One who, like Śuci, attains the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception: having previously attained this concentration, at the Nirvāṇa Assembly he had not yet arrived at the Buddha's place when he was rebuked by the Buddha; though devoid of coarse thoughts, he still had subtle thoughts. Taking refuge in mind and receiving the Path, he attained arhatship. What the present text cites refers to the time before he attained the Path. Dīrghanakha was likewise: arousing speculative views, he was rebuked by the Buddha and attained arhatship; in the fifth fascicle the conditions of his awakening are briefly set forth. As for "lofty attachments" and so forth, it refers to Rāmaputra, Śuci, and others. Among the non-Buddhists, they are the ones who excel and form attachments in their study. The character 著 is pronounced with the fanqie \*zhi-ju\*. As for "does not even match" and so forth: this rebukes those of modern times who cling to views and the inferior among non-Buddhists—they do not even equal Rāmaputra, yet claim this is the true Path! Since they do not recognize suffering and origination, it is clear that they lack the four noble truths. From "such a person" onward, it explains the absence of the cessation of the twelve links of dependent origination; there is only ignorance up to old age and death; hence it says, "how could there be quietude and cessation?" "If it is said" and so forth inversely refutes their having only ignorance. That there is no cessation of ignorance and so forth, along with the view of individuality, extreme views, and wrong views—this matter is obvious. The previous five sharp \[fetters\] have already listed the two entanglements of views and rules; the remaining three can also be understood by analogy. Why? Arising views based on matter are the aggregate of matter; receiving views, grasping the characteristics of views, praising with joy or disparaging with anger, and discerning views—thus the five aggregates are complete, which is called the view of individuality. What is grasped in views is either nihilism or eternalism, which is called extreme views. Taking one's views as correct and denying cause and effect is called wrong views. When the five views are fully present, that is the eighty-eight \[afflictions\], termed the truth of origination. Origination summons suffering, which is the truth of suffering. "It is not even that of the Tripiṭaka" and so forth raises a comparison to rebuke their lacking both Great and Small \[vehicles\]. As for "if one can thus ... up to overturning disbelief": formerly, various views extensively generated various evils, all due to being deluded about principle and conforming to birth-and-death. Now, deeply recognizing these faults and comprehending the biased and perfect principles, the root of views is destroyed, and all that arises based on views is destroyed. If specifically discussing the refutation of views, merely recognizing the marks of the afflictions of views in the Tripiṭaka will cause the various views to cease naturally. Now, wishing to know universally, to serve as a perfect expedient to reveal the perfect principle, minutely discussing the profound and shallow and extensively discerning the various teachings, it therefore says: universally overturning disbelief across the various teachings. As for "provisionally discussing humans and gods in terms of contemplation of principle": relying on phenomenal activities to discuss principle, here it does not discuss phenomenal activities; hence it says "provisionally." Humans and gods in the contemplation of principle refer only to noble stages: naturally advancing on the Path is called gods; the stages of the worthy with intentional effort are called humans. In terms of principle, one should also list the humans of the seven expedient stages and the gods of the four fruits of the Tripiṭaka; their absence in the text is an abbreviation. Moreover, this is provisionally in terms of the Mahāyāna gate, not yet discussing the Tripiṭaka. Furthermore, it provisionally completes the meaning of the three truths, and is sufficient; hence it omits the Tripiṭaka. Why is it necessary to discuss humans and gods in terms of the contemplation of principle? Because it is to shatter the lack of shame and conscience regarding delusion about principle. Principle is endowed with the three truths and must be overturned; upon the three truths, the lack of shame and conscience is exhausted; therefore, across the three truths, humans and gods are discussed. As for "if one speaks of retribution" and so forth: the "Faith and Slander Chapter" of the \*Dapin\* states: "One who disparages prajñā disparages the Buddhas of the three periods of time and falls into hell for immeasurable kotis of kalpas. Falling from one hell to another, they go throughout the great hells in the ten directions. Or, if obtaining a human body, they are born blind, or born into a caṇḍāla family, or a family of scavengers carrying corpses; or lacking one eye, or without a tongue, without ears, without hands; or undergoing diverse sufferings among animals. Śāriputra asked: 'Is such a person similar to one who commits the five heinous sins?' The Buddha said: 'They surpass the five heinous sins. If one listens to their words and believes their speech, one also undergoes such suffering; suffering like death and so on, so there is no need to ask.'" Fascicle sixty-seven of the \*Dazhidulun\* explains: "Why did the Buddha not speak \[further\]? There are two conditions for which the Buddha did not speak. First, above he had already spoken of their transgressive retribution of suffering, and now spoke again of their bodies being exceedingly repulsive. Some might believe and some might not; those who do not believe will undergo severe suffering. Second, if they believe the Buddha's words, they will feel great sorrow and terror; because of sorrow and terror, the wind element will stir, vomiting hot blood to death and the like; while those who do not believe will undergo even heavier suffering." As for "overturning the lack of fear of evil paths": explaining this single item, based on the context above and below, it lacks the meaning of contemplation of principle. Following the rule, it should say: formerly, relying on views, faults arose that destroyed the correct principle, without fear of the three evil paths. Now, yearning for the principle of truth, one fears even the evil paths of the three empties and the pit of the three unconditioned states of the Small Vehicle, and fears even the evil paths of the preceding three teachings—how much more so the three evil paths of hells and the like! Now, it is taken provisionally from the side of slandering the three truths, the meaning of falling into the evil paths. As for "with the eightfold correct path" and so forth: only with the eightfold path of non-action can one destroy the three illusions. As for "because of the extremes of existence and non-existence" and so forth: existence refers to defiled action; sin refers to the fruit summoned by defiled action; up to undefiled, both defiled and undefiled, neither defiled nor undefiled, and so forth, which summon the sins of the two lands. Therefore, we know that formerly deluded about the three truths, action pervaded the three illusions, and suffering pervaded the three lands. Now, focusing on the dharma-dhātu and arousing the aspiration for awakening, non-action likewise arises pervading the dharma-dhātu, and thus can overturn and shatter evils pervading the dharma-dhātu. As for "the three truths ... up to the torch of jewels": the \*Daji jing\* states: "The thirty-seven aids are the bodhisattva's dhāraṇī of the torch of jewels," which is the truth of the path of non-action. Fully possessing the Buddhadharma is called a jewel; illuminating the dharma-dhātu everywhere is called a torch; retaining everything is called a dhāraṇī. Cultivating such merit, what fault cannot be repaired? As for "supposing that" and so forth: even if one abandons the view of existence and enters the view of non-existence, if one does not cultivate the aids to the path, one cannot escape birth-and-death. As for "now knowing existence" and so forth: now one knows even neither existence nor non-existence, let alone existence and non-existence. Speaking of existence and non-existence is merely a brief mention. Although one knows the fault of views, one has not yet cultivated the stations of mindfulness and so forth. "If breaking" and so forth is the cultivation of the aids to the path analyzing dharmas. "Further, realizing views" and so forth: this refutes even the shared and distinctive \[teachings\], how much more so the Tripiṭaka. Hence it says, "realizing views to be immediately empty, provisional, and middle." As for "this is" and so forth: the character 縱 is in the level tone; progressing from shallow to deep is called "vertical" (縱). When all views are destroyed and all aids to the path are cultivated, it is therefore said to "repair the fault of progressive (vertical) views." Formerly, because of views, various views within the realm were created; these views lacked shallow and deep, and hence were called horizontal. Now, practice and merit being deep, the destruction of views is also far-reaching, beginning with external views to destroy the external and enter the Tripiṭaka, up to distinctive views destroying the distinctive and entering the perfect; arriving at the perfect, it is called neither moving nor unmoving, neither cultivating nor uncultivating, which is the aids to the path of non-action. If fully forming the four propositions, one should say: moving and cultivating; unmoving and uncultivating; both moving and unmoving, both cultivating and uncultivating; neither moving nor unmoving, neither cultivating nor uncultivating. Furthermore, pairing the four \[aspects of\] moving against one \[aspect of\] cultivating yields sixteen propositions. Now, provisionally pairing four cultivations against four movings, they are spoken of separately. Progressively entering vertically, it is therefore called "vertical." As long as the perfect principle is not yet tallied with, all are called faults. Therefore, cultivating the merit of the three truths in a single mind repairs the former faults of the deep views of the sequential three truths. As for "protecting the correct Dharma": formerly, one destroyed principle and protected views, promoting and advancing views; now, one destroys views and protects principle, promoting and advancing principle. If one does not sacrifice the body to preserve the Dharma, how can one express the resolve to protect the Dharma? If the resolve to protect the Dharma is weak, how could one overturn the protecting of views and destroying of good? Therefore, it is further likened to parents protecting a child. As for "mindfulness of the Buddhas of the ten directions": formerly, internally one imbibed various views, and externally one added evil teachers; thus one conformed to the three illusions and turned one's back on the principle of the three truths. Now, internally one contemplates the three truths, the truth being immediately the Buddha; internally and externally fully equipped, one can thus overturn and shatter intimacy with evil friends. If so, how can the nature of principle be the Buddha? Hence it cites Sadāprarudita from the \*Dapin\* seeing the Buddha in the sky, and later meeting Dharmodgata, where he asked: "Where does the Buddha come from?" He replied: "Neither coming nor going is precisely the Buddha. The unproduced dharma is precisely the Buddha." Therefore, one should know that the wisdom awakening to the unproduced is precisely the Buddha. If so, Dharma is precisely the Buddha; hence it can overturn the former evil dharmas and evil teachers. As for "contemplating the nature of sin as empty": at first it narrates grasping reality, thus failing to understand that nature is empty; in any single thought of the mind, the three illusions are fully present. Yet these very three illusions are originally nirvāṇa, hence called "calm and extinguished." "Now contemplating" and so forth explains that the nature of views is empty. From "one empty, all empty" onward, it explains the preceding emptiness of nature. Fearing that one might take "like an illusion, neither coming nor going" and so forth to be mere emptiness, it re-explains that one empty is all empty, and so forth. "Wielding this" and so forth is the general conclusion. Contemplating principle while adding phenomenal activities completes the method of repentance. As for "called the second strong person": the \*Great Scripture\* states: "There are two strong persons: the first is one who by nature does not do evil; the second is one who, having done so, can repent." If based on this lifetime, the afflictions of views have not arisen; but if discussing beginninglessness, who does not have them? Thus we know that all lack the first. Question: Since views have not yet arisen, why is it necessary to practice repentance? Answer: Even if not arisen, anticipate and comprehend them, not to mention having arisen in past lives! Furthermore, to indicate that they may arise in the future, one must have this repentance. Therefore, the preceding text termed the evils of craving and views as "already arisen and not yet arisen." Thus the present text merely directs one to wield these ten minds of counter-flow and following the flow to eliminate evils of the three periods of time; hence one who cultivates repentance must practice both phenomenal activities and principle in tandem. "This is called" and so forth jointly concludes the preceding two repentances of phenomenal activities and principle. If the repentance method is completed, the samādhis of the three truths and all practices will be fully present, not to mention that the ten precepts subsume all practices. Samādhi is the eye; when eye and wisdom are complete, only upon reaching the stage of the first abidance is it called manifestation. Although the text is sequential, it is to reveal the perfect integration; all texts before and after are entirely like this. Furthermore, phenomenal precepts are the foundation of the threefold contemplation; hence it says "śīla is pure" and so forth. If there are no phenomenal precepts, even mundane dhyāna does not exist, let alone the three truths! Those who say that in the Mahāyāna there is no need to hold to precepts are mistaken. What is meant by "not clinging" is to uphold without clinging. If making "not upholding" mean "not clinging," that is clinging to destruction—how can that be called not clinging? When even clinging and upholding do not exist, where does forgetting about upholding abide? "Obtaining this" and so forth concludes the subsumption of dharmas by eye and wisdom. "Further able to" and so forth concludes calming and contemplation. "Therefore we know" and so forth concludes the original intention. "Pure upholding of precepts" concludes the previous listing of names and marks of upholding, which serve as the distant expedients for correct practice. "Earnest and sorrowful" and so forth concludes the previous offenses and repentance to purity. Perhaps fearing phenomenal and principle offenses across past and present, one should again earnestly repent those deep transgressions. When transgressions are removed and purity restored, flawless across two lifetimes, it can serve as a condition together with originally not offending; hence it says "both serve as the initial conditions," which is the meaning here. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.4.13) - [Next: 4.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.4.15) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.4.14) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.4.14) · Pramāṇa