[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) › 5.40 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.40 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.40 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.40) 次明慈誓者，亦初明誓境。境中亦初總牒前妙境不思議樂。道滅二諦俱名為樂，義攝四教，秖在一念，故云一樂一切樂。不說妙境一念三千，如何可識一攝一切？三千不出一念法性，是故唯有樂因樂果。由知法性秖是無明，是故起慈。「我及眾生」下，別明誓境，明無道滅。言「昔雖」等者，但求人天二乘之樂，明無滅也。而不知發菩提之心、習諸佛法為究竟樂因，明無道也。前悲誓中明無道滅，義兼於此。故此文略，但舉譬云「如執瓦礫」譬不識滅，「妄指螢光」譬不識道。妄謂世間及小因果以之為實。「今方始解」下，正依境發誓。初約道諦起於初誓、次約滅諦起於次誓。「雖知」下，次明誓相，亦寄次第以辨不次。初文即是空觀誓相。次「雖知」下，假觀誓相。次「雖知」下，中觀誓相。畫空種樹，並《思益》文。中觀文中，「法門」是標初誓，「佛果」是標次誓。「非修」等者釋初誓也，「非證」等者釋次誓也。中道之體雖非修證亦可修證，是故發誓自為為他。「是名」下，顯正也。此中圓教真正發心，應約三教以簡毒偽，所謂非空及非愛見也。三教菩薩未證中道通名為毒，兩教二乘及九非心通名為偽，兩教二乘及以通別入空菩薩俱名為空，三教出假通名愛見。從初發心常觀中道，故永不同毒偽空假。「如此」下，結束也。初明誓願與境智相即；次「慈悲」下，明智慧與慈悲相即。智秖是解，依境生解，依解起願。境為所緣，誓為能緣，以無緣慈悲緣不思議境，境名「無緣」、誓名「無念」。運此慈悲遍覆法界，故能任運拔苦自然與樂。「不同」下，重總斥前次第慈悲也。前二文後雖各斥竟，今二文竟復更總斥。「是名」下，亦總結之。義不異前，故還指上。此中應具云慈悲，單云悲者，隨語便耳。又此四弘更互相資，一念具足無前無後，具如第一及下諸文（云云）。觀心者，約一念心無作四諦，寄於弘誓略明觀心，亦應可解。如前誓相即其相也。 > Next, explaining the vows of benevolence (maitrī): this also first explains the objects of the vows. Within the objects, it also first generally brings up the inconceivable bliss of the marvelous object from before. The two truths of the path and cessation are both called 'bliss'; their meaning subsumes the four teachings, which are present simply within a single moment of thought; hence it says, 'one bliss is all blisses.' If one does not speak of the marvelous object as three thousand \[realms\] in a single moment of thought, how could one recognize that the one subsumes all? The three thousand \[realms\] do not go beyond the dharma-nature of a single moment of thought; therefore there are only the causes of bliss and the results of bliss. Because one knows that the dharma-nature is simply ignorance, for this reason benevolence arises. From 'I and sentient beings' onwards, it distinctively explains the objects of the vows, clarifying the absence of the path and cessation. The phrase 'Although in the past' and so on means that they only sought the bliss of humans, devas, and the two vehicles, which clarifies the absence of cessation. And not knowing how to arouse the aspiration for awakening or practice the Buddhadharmas as the cause of ultimate bliss clarifies the absence of the path. The previous explanation of the absence of the path and cessation within the vow of compassion also encompassed this meaning. Therefore this text is concise, only presenting the similes: 'like clutching rubble and tiles' is a simile for not recognizing cessation, while 'falsely pointing to the light of a firefly' is a simile for not recognizing the path. They falsely consider the worldly and the Hinayāna causes and effects to be real. From 'Now for the first time understanding' onwards, it directly makes the vows based on the objects. First, it gives rise to the initial vow based on the truth of the path; next, it gives rise to the subsequent vow based on the truth of cessation. From 'Although knowing' onwards, it next explains the characteristics of the vows, also relying on the sequential to discern the non-sequential. The first passage is the characteristic of the vow of the contemplation of emptiness. Next, from 'Although knowing' onwards, is the characteristic of the vow of the contemplation of provisionality. Next, from 'Although knowing' onwards, is the characteristic of the vow of the contemplation of the middle. Drawing in empty space and planting trees are both citations from the \*Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchā\*. Within the passage on the contemplation of the middle, 'dharma-doors' indicates the initial vow, and 'Buddha-fruit' indicates the subsequent vow. 'Non-cultivation' and so on explains the initial vow; 'non-realization' and so on explains the subsequent vow. Although the essence of the Middle Way is neither cultivated nor realized, it can nevertheless be cultivated and realized; for this reason one makes vows for oneself and for others. From 'This is called' onwards, it reveals what is correct. Here, the genuine arousing of the aspiration in the perfect teaching must be distinguished from the toxic and the false by reference to the three teachings—namely, being non-empty and free from views of love. For the bodhisattvas of the three teachings who have not yet realized the Middle Way, this is collectively called 'toxic'; for the two vehicles of the two teachings and the nine erroneous minds, this is collectively called 'false'; for the two vehicles of the two teachings as well as the bodhisattvas of the shared and distinctive teachings who enter emptiness, this is collectively called 'empty'; and for those of the three teachings who emerge into provisionality, this is collectively called 'views of love'. Constantly contemplating the Middle Way from the initial arousing of the aspiration, one is therefore eternally unlike the toxic, the false, the empty, and the provisional. From 'In this way' onwards, it concludes. First, it explains the mutual identity of the vow with the object and wisdom; next, from 'Benevolence and compassion' onwards, it explains the mutual identity of wisdom with benevolence and compassion. Wisdom is simply understanding: understanding arises based on the object, and vows arise based on understanding. The object is what is grasped (ālambana), and the vow is that which grasps; with unconditioned (anālambana) benevolence and compassion grasping the inconceivable object, the object is called 'unconditioned' and the vow is called 'thoughtless'. Exercising this benevolence and compassion to pervade the dharma-dhātu, one can therefore spontaneously uproot suffering and naturally bestow bliss. From 'Unlike' onwards, it again comprehensively refutes the sequential benevolence and compassion from before. Although each was already refuted after the previous two passages, now that both passages are finished, it refutes them comprehensively once again. From 'This is called' onwards, it also summarizes it. The meaning is not different from before, so it refers back to the above. Here, one should properly say 'benevolence and compassion'; saying only 'compassion' is merely for linguistic convenience. Furthermore, these four universal vows mutually reinforce one another, fully present within a single moment of thought without before or after, fully as in the first and subsequent passages (and so on). As for contemplating the mind: by relying on the uncreated four noble truths in a single moment of mind, and by using the universal vows to briefly explain contemplating the mind, it should also be understandable. Just like the preceding characteristics of the vows, these are indeed its characteristics. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.39) - [Next: 5.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.41) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.5.40) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.40) · Pramāṇa