[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) › 5.54 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.54 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.54 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.54) 「經又」下，次釋六句。經中所以重明六句者，前之四句直明因果、能所無生，無生之名雖即是破，未破無生，是故今明皆不可說。又前四句雖云無生，未知為是何等無生，故六句中思議不思議、生與無生一切俱破，是故六句皆不可說，乃顯今文破遍正意。先正釋六句皆不可說以明自行。於中初列經句，「案此」下略明句意。「若破」下，大師先且銷經本句。一一句下皆云「不可說」者，即是破義。初文是略判也。言「思議不思議惑」者，應云思議不思議解惑，文中存略但云惑耳。次第解惑即是思議，不次第解惑是不思議。解是能破、惑是所破，故解惑相從同名思議、不思議也。惑之與解俱須遍破，尚不可作不思議說，況思議耶？故一一句下皆云不可說。問：思議須破，不可思議何用破耶？答：理非遍圓，故皆須破。若破圓者，破圓異偏，不破圓理，故云不破聖人心中所得涅槃。為未得者執成戲論，是故破耳。「何者」下，釋。先釋四句思議解惑。於中先破惑、次破解。初惑中兩句，初釋成可思議、次釋成不可說。初句云「界外惑」者，理體不生而惑是生，故云「不生生」。界內之惑言「枝末」者，界外之惑已是於生，從生惑上復生於惑，故云「生生」。界外即是無明惑也，界內即是見思惑也，有麁細故、有內外故，是故判為可思議惑。「此惑」下，示相待相。初明生生是所化境。所言「並」者，凡是生生皆所化故，因所有能故成相待。「所化既不可得」下，釋不可說。明能化所化皆不可說，猶如幻人為幻人說法。問：能化既是別惑，何故乃云自在？答：已斷通惑，即於通惑名為自在。若於別惑，仍是繫縛。枝之與本並是法性，即觀法性而亡於惑，名不可說。次「若破」下，破思議解者，亦初釋兩句成可思議、次總釋成不可說也。界外之解言「雙遣」者，從前得名。亦是異時相望名雙，應言破惑。今言「破分段變易」者，因中說果，以惑破故生死必破。破界內惑令生不生，故云「生不生」。問：界外之惑既是能化，與界內解有何差別？答：界內之解破界內惑而得解名。生界外已，於彼具縛，名界外惑。雖當分名惑，而能化於界內之惑，體雖不別得名處殊。「此解」下，示相待相。十六門異，故云「種種」，從淺至深皆屬自行。前後次第及化他位，望四教說，乃成多種因果不同，如第一卷四弘中說。「理尚」下，釋不可說。四種道諦是能趣行、滅理法性是所趣理，理體尚無，何得種種能趣所趣？故皆不可說。次破不思議中，亦先惑、次解。此之解惑但點無明對於圓理，不分內外枝本之殊，是故名為不思議也。初破惑中，先且釋成不可思議，故云「秖是無明」。「無明不可得」下，明不可說，不可得者秖是不可說耳。次破不可思議解者，亦先示於不思議相，故云「秖是圓解」，於此判出圓因圓果。「理不偏圓」下，明不可說。理非偏故，不可偏說；理亦非圓，何可圓說耶？「將彼」下，明用句意。「佛自」下，次明大師釋佛所釋，故句句中皆先舉佛自釋。次「今解」下，明大師所釋，意扶佛釋但小廣耳。一一句中皆云「依佛此旨」者，大師自云已申佛意，重述佛旨以符己見。「生即顛倒」下，明不可說也。次釋第二句，亦先舉經釋。「今解」下，明大師釋，又二，先釋生生。「八相所遷全是有漏」，八相所遷具如前釋。問：八相中云小生生大，此中何以大生生小？答：由有大生引起小生，故令小生能生於大。「生生故不生」等者，明不可說。有漏之生即是空中，空中不可言思所得，故不可說。但云空中者，且以法性空中對幻假說。其實須云幻假即是不思議假。何者？今但以此假即是空中，此假任運成不思議，故不別說。前第一卷四弘文中意亦如之。次釋第三句者，亦先牒經釋。次「今解」下明大師釋，亦二，先釋生不生。「生即名為生」者，釋上生字。般若生時，由諸法不生。「生不自生」下，釋不生字，即以四句推破諸法。諸法破已尚無無句，何有四句？是故般若非四句，生名為不生。「又般若生時」下，重釋也，反以不生生而釋生不生。生即無生者，良由般若生時世諦已死，故得雖生而生自在，即是生不生也。「若般若生」下，釋成不可說也。若般若生，牒上初解中第二解。又次解中，初解云「般若生時若自在生」，牒上第二釋中後解也，言而「生三界」也。此之兩生皆不可作生而說者，體非次第故也。次釋第四句，亦先牒佛解。「今解」下大師釋，亦二，先釋不生不生。「尚非」下，明不可說。「據此」下，判句也。既云「極果」，知是界外解也。次釋第五句，亦先舉經。「今解」下，大師釋，亦先釋於生。「界內外生秖是無明」者，覽前兩句思議之惑，秖是一念從緣生惑，此惑秖是障中無明。「緣生即空即中」下，明不可說。界內外生生義雖殊，今觀同是一念緣生，即空即中。何者？以見一念即畢竟空，即法性中。前對生生是可思議，見此思議是空是中；今見一念即具三惑，名不思議惑。道理即是即空即中，大意同前。次釋第六句，亦先牒經。「今解」下，大師釋也，亦二。先釋不生者，亦覽前兩思議之解，即是此中不思議解，故云及界內外解並皆是得，得即詣理。「理絕心口」下，明不可說。不可復作圓理而說，理無說故，名不可說。「佛以」下，隨結破遍也。偏圓解惑悉皆不生，皆不可說，故名為遍。「依佛藏」下，總以《佛藏》通結前來四句六句。言「前四句亦吹亦唾」者，結初四句。初四句中，初句即吹而唾，次第三句即唾而吹，次第二句者吹唾成就，第四句者吹唾所化。當知前三句中句句之中有吹有唾。第四句者，若單約所化則義屬於吹，吹不獨用義須即唾。若以所顯能，全是吹唾之功用也。「後兩句」者，謂六句中後兩句也。以此兩句兩向用之，在六句末同名為唾。唾秖是破，破者秖是不可說耳。故六句中句句皆云不可說也。若將結前四句文者，二句既是不思議之解惑，解惑相即、智斷不二，與吹唾義同，故用結前四句智斷。此乃但用上生不生，不論二句下不可說也。故用生字以結前吹，用不生字以結前唾。若兼後二句下不可說亦結前者，結前吹唾皆悉相即，亦不可作相即而說。 > From "The sūtra also \[states\]" downward, next is the explanation of the six phrases. The reason the sūtra re-clarifies them with six phrases is that the preceding four phrases directly explained that cause and effect, as well as the active and the passive, are non-arising. Although the term 'non-arising' is itself a refutation, it had not yet refuted 'non-arising'; therefore, it is now explained that all are ineffable. Furthermore, although the previous four phrases spoke of non-arising, it was not yet known what kind of non-arising it was. Therefore, within the six phrases, the conceivable and inconceivable, arising and non-arising, are all refuted together; hence, all six phrases are ineffable, which reveals the primary intent of universal refutation in the present text. First, it directly explains that all six phrases are ineffable to clarify one's own practice. Therein, it first lists the sūtra's phrases, and from "According to this" downward, it briefly clarifies the meaning of the phrases. From "If refuting" downward, the Great Master first resolves the original phrases of the sūtra. That under each and every phrase it says "ineffable" is precisely the meaning of refutation. The first passage is a brief assessment. Where it says "conceivable and inconceivable delusions," it should say "conceivable and inconceivable understanding and delusions"; the text saves words by only saying "delusions." Sequential understanding and delusion are conceivable; non-sequential understanding and delusion are inconceivable. Understanding is the active refuter, and delusion is the refuted object; therefore, following one another, understanding and delusion are together termed conceivable or inconceivable. Delusion and understanding must both be universally refuted; if they cannot even be spoken of as inconceivable, how much less as conceivable? Therefore, under each and every phrase it says 'ineffable.' Question: The conceivable must be refuted, but why need one refute the inconceivable? Answer: Because the principle is neither biased nor round, both must be refuted. If one refutes the round, it refutes the round \[as set\] apart from the biased, not the round principle itself; hence it is said that it does not refute the nirvāṇa attained in the minds of the sages. Because those who have not yet attained it grasp it and turn it into frivolous discourse, it is therefore refuted. From "What is this?" downward is the explanation. First it explains the four phrases of conceivable understanding and delusion. Therein, it first refutes delusion, and next refutes understanding. In the initial \[treatment of\] delusion there are two phrases: the first explains them as conceivable, and the next explains them as ineffable. The first phrase mentions "delusions outside the realm": the substance of principle does not arise, yet delusion does arise; hence it is called "non-arising arising." For delusions within the realm, it says "branches": delusion outside the realm is already an arising, and from this arising delusion further delusion arises; hence it is called "arising arising." Outside the realm refers to the delusions of ignorance; inside the realm refers to the delusions of views and thoughts. Because there are coarse and subtle, and because there are internal and external, they are therefore assessed as conceivable delusions. From "These delusions" downward shows the aspect of mutual dependence. First it explains that 'arising arising' is the objective realm to be transformed. The word "together" means that whatever is 'arising arising' is an object of transformation; because of the passive object, there is the active subject, and so they form a mutual dependence. From "Since the object of transformation is unobtainable" downward explains 'ineffable.' It clarifies that both the transformer and the transformed are ineffable, like an illusory person expounding the Dharma to an illusory person. Question: Since the active transformer is a distinctive delusion, why is it called sovereign? Answer: Having already severed the common delusions, one is termed sovereign with respect to the common delusions. If with respect to the distinctive delusions, one is still bound. Both the branches and the root are dharma-nature; contemplating dharma-nature and thereby obliterating delusion is called ineffable. Next, from "If refuting" downward refutes conceivable understanding: here too, it first explains the two phrases as conceivable, and next generally explains them as ineffable. For understanding outside the realm, it says "double dispatching": it gets its name from what preceded it. It also refers to viewing them at different times as a pair; it should be said to refute delusions. Now in saying "refuting samsāra of fragmented \[lifespans\] and of transformation," it speaks of the fruit from the standpoint of the cause: because delusion is refuted, samsāra must be refuted. Refuting delusions within the realm causes arising not to arise; hence it is called "arising non-arising." Question: Since the delusion outside the realm is the active transformer, what difference is there between it and the understanding within the realm? Answer: Understanding within the realm refutes delusion within the realm and thereby obtains the name of 'understanding.' Having been born outside the realm, one is fully bound by those \[subtler delusions\], which is called delusion outside the realm. Although in its own station it is called delusion, it can transform delusions within the realm; though their substance is not different, the loci from which they receive their names differ. From "This understanding" downward shows the aspect of mutual dependence. The sixteen gates differ, hence it says "various"; from shallow to deep, they all belong to one's own practice. The sequential order of before and after, as well as the stages of transforming others, when viewed in terms of the four teachings, form many kinds of different causes and fruits, as explained in the first fascicle under the four universal vows. From "The principle still" downward explains 'ineffable.' The four truths of the path are the active practices directed toward it, and the truth of cessation and dharma-nature are the passive principle to which one is directed. Even the substance of the principle does not exist, so how could there be various active and passive directions? Therefore, all are ineffable. Next, in refuting the inconceivable, it is also first delusion and next understanding. Here, understanding and delusion merely indicate ignorance in contrast to the perfect principle, without distinguishing differences between inner and outer, branches and root; therefore it is called inconceivable. In first refuting delusion, it first explains it as inconceivable, hence saying "it is merely ignorance." From "Ignorance is unobtainable" downward clarifies 'ineffable': 'unobtainable' is merely 'ineffable.' Next, refuting inconceivable understanding also first indicates the aspect of the inconceivable, hence saying "it is merely perfect understanding," assessing round cause and round fruit from this. From "The principle is neither biased nor round" downward clarifies 'ineffable.' Because the principle is not biased, it cannot be spoken of as biased; nor is the principle round, so how could it be spoken of as round? From "Applying those" downward clarifies the intention of using the phrases. From "The Buddha himself" downward next clarifies the Great Master's explanation of what the Buddha explained; thus, in each and every phrase, it first cites the Buddha's own explanation. Next, from "Now to explain" downward clarifies what the Great Master explained; his intent supports the Buddha's explanation, only slightly broader. In each and every phrase it says "Relying on this intent of the Buddha": the Great Master himself states that he has already expressed the Buddha's intent, restating the Buddha's purpose to conform with his own view. From "Arising is inversion" downward clarifies 'ineffable.' Next, explaining the second phrase, it also first cites the sūtra's explanation. From "Now to explain" downward clarifies the Great Master's explanation, which also has two parts: first it explains 'arising arising.' "Shifted by the eight marks, it is entirely with outflows": being shifted by the eight marks is fully as explained before. Question: Among the eight marks it says that minor arising gives rise to major \[arising\]; why here does major arising give rise to minor? Answer: Because there is major arising that induces minor arising, it causes minor arising to be able to give rise to major. In "Because of arising arising, it does not arise" and so forth, it clarifies 'ineffable.' Arising with outflows is itself emptiness and the middle; emptiness and the middle cannot be obtained through words or thought, and so are ineffable. Only mentioning 'emptiness and the middle' temporarily contrasts the emptiness and middle of dharma-nature with illusory provisionality. In truth, one must say that illusory provisionality is itself inconceivable provisionality. Why? Now, by merely taking this provisionality as emptiness and the middle, this provisionality naturally becomes inconceivable, so it is not separately stated. The intent in the passage on the four universal vows in the earlier first fascicle was also like this. Next, explaining the third phrase, it also first cites the sūtra's explanation. Next, from "Now to explain" downward clarifies the Great Master's explanation, which also has two parts: first it explains 'arising non-arising.' "Arising is called arising" explains the preceding character 'arising.' When prajñā arises, it is due to all phenomena not arising. From "Arising does not arise of itself" downward explains the characters 'non-arising,' which uses the four lemmas to investigate and refute all phenomena. When all phenomena have been refuted, not even a 'non-lemma' exists, so how could there be four lemmas? Therefore, prajñā is not an arising of the four lemmas; it is called non-arising. From "Moreover, when prajñā arises" downward is a re-explanation, conversely using 'non-arising arising' to explain 'arising non-arising.' That arising is non-arising is truly because when prajñā arises, worldly truth has already died; therefore, though it arises, arising is sovereign, which is precisely 'arising non-arising.' From "If prajñā arises" downward explains it as ineffable. "If prajñā arises" cites the second explanation in the first explanation above. Furthermore, in the subsequent explanation, the first explanation says "When prajñā arises, if it arises sovereignly," which cites the latter explanation in the second explanation above, saying "yet arising in the three realms." That neither of these two arisings can be spoken of as an arising is because their substance is not sequential. Next, explaining the fourth phrase, it also first cites the Buddha's explanation. From "Now to explain" downward is the Great Master's explanation, which also has two parts: first it explains 'non-arising non-arising.' From "It is not even" downward clarifies 'ineffable.' From "Based on this" downward assesses the phrase. Since it says "ultimate fruit," one knows it is understanding outside the realm. Next, explaining the fifth phrase, it also first cites the sūtra. From "Now to explain" downward is the Great Master's explanation, which also first explains 'arising.' "Arising inside and outside the realm is merely ignorance" takes the conceivable delusions of the previous two phrases as being merely delusion arising from conditions in a single thought; this delusion is merely the ignorance that obstructs the middle. From "Arising from conditions is immediately empty and immediately the middle" downward clarifies 'ineffable.' Although the meanings of arising inside and outside the realm differ, contemplating them now, they are equally a single thought arising from conditions, which is immediately empty and immediately the middle. Why? Because seeing a single thought is seeing it as ultimately empty and as the middle of dharma-nature. Previously, in contrast to 'arising arising,' it was conceivable; seeing this conceivable as empty and the middle, one now sees that a single thought is fully endowed with the three delusions, termed inconceivable delusion. The principle is precisely 'immediately empty and immediately the middle'; the broad purport is the same as before. Next, explaining the sixth phrase, it also first cites the sūtra. From "Now to explain" downward is the Great Master's explanation, which also has two parts. First, explaining 'non-arising,' it also takes the two conceivable understandings from before as being the inconceivable understanding here; hence it says that both understandings inside and outside the realm are attainments, attainment meaning reaching the principle. From "The principle transcends mind and speech" downward clarifies 'ineffable.' It cannot further be spoken of as the round principle; because the principle is devoid of speech, it is called ineffable. From "The Buddha, with..." downward concludes with universal refutation. Biased and round understanding and delusion are all non-arising, and all are ineffable; therefore it is called universal. From "Relying on the Fotang" downward generally concludes the preceding four phrases and six phrases with the Fotang jing. "The former four phrases are both blowing and spitting" concludes the first four phrases. Among the first four phrases, the first phrase is spitting while blowing; the next, the third phrase, is blowing while spitting; the second phrase is the perfection of blowing and spitting; the fourth phrase is the transformed object of blowing and spitting. One should know that in each of the first three phrases, there is both blowing and spitting. As for the fourth phrase, if restricted solely to the transformed object, its meaning belongs to blowing; blowing is not used alone, so its meaning must immediately involve spitting. If using the passive to reveal the active, it is entirely the function of blowing and spitting. "The latter two phrases" refers to the latter two phrases among the six phrases. Because these two phrases are applied in both directions, at the end of the six phrases they are together termed spitting. Spitting is simply refuting, and refuting is simply being ineffable. Therefore, in each and every phrase among the six phrases, it says 'ineffable.' If used to conclude the text of the preceding four phrases: since these two phrases are inconceivable understanding and delusion, understanding and delusion are mutually identical, and wisdom and severance are non-dual, this is identical to the meaning of blowing and spitting; hence they are used to conclude the wisdom and severance of the preceding four phrases. This merely uses the preceding 'arising' and 'non-arising,' without discussing the 'ineffable' under the two phrases. Thus, the character 'arising' is used to conclude the preceding 'blowing,' and the characters 'non-arising' are used to conclude the preceding 'spitting.' If one additionally uses the 'ineffable' under the latter two phrases to conclude the former, it concludes that the preceding blowing and spitting are all mutually identical, and yet cannot be spoken of as mutually identical. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.53](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.53) - [Next: 5.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.55) - [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.5.54) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [妙法蓮華經玄義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716.2.202) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.54) · Pramāṇa