[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) › 5.55 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.55 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.55 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.55) 「又楞伽云」下，復以《楞伽》釋成六句。先釋《楞伽》，次結《大經》與《楞伽》同。初釋《楞伽》義者，彼經第四〈無常品〉云「大慧白佛：『如佛所言，我於某夜成最正覺、某夜入般涅槃，中間不說一字，不已說、不當說、不今說，是佛說。世尊依何密語作如是說？』佛言：『依二密語，謂自證法及本住法。』」然一代施化豈無權智被物之教？但約此二未曾有說，故云不說耳。今云自法，但約自證耳。「自法者」下，釋向經中所列二法，亦先列經釋也。初釋自法中，云「彼如來」者，謂過去諸佛及以現在十方諸佛，與彼佛證一體無殊，不多不少，名「不增減」。「離言說」等者，重釋自證所離之法。「釋曰」下，今釋經意。「離言說」等者，彼經第七云離言說者，不可議也。離妄想者，不可思也。離文字者，離假名文字也。凡能詮教無非假名，約自證法有何文字？言「二趣」者，複疎釋前言說假名。恐情妄計，但離能說能思能名，即以所說所思所名謂為真體。故複疎云「二趣俱離」。何者？於自證中不見能所，名離二趣。「本住」下，次釋本住法也。謂佛自行所行之道，及佛本若實相之理，並非修成。非作法故遍一切處，不可改易故名為住，理是所至道是所行，故舉譬云「並非行者至者所作」。故本有道為人所行，豈行者作？本有理城由本道至，亦由行人而能至理，故並不由至者能作。經初又云「本住法者，如金在鑛及所至城。」鑛似兼別，城必從圓。「經曰」下，引彼經助釋也。彼經次文即以古城為喻「佛問大慧：『彼城及道并城中物，是彼入者之所作耶？』答曰：『不也。士夫行人但隨本有常住之道，至實相城，得於萬德祕藏之物，以受如意涅槃之樂。』」本期涅槃，故云如意。「當知」下，總結前意。「非口言」者，不可議也。「非分別」者，不可思也。稱本法故，不可變異。「此義」下，會同中乃以生生為本法者，前釋生生指有漏法，今指有漏體全是理。問：前釋何故云是所化？今何故云是本法耶？答：一切所化無非本法。故曉法師云：「水窮波末，波徹水源。」「生隨順緣生不可說」者，結前生生不可說。故前文釋云：生即空中，故不可說。今亦如是，隨順緣生不可說，生即空中故。第二三句準前可知。「不生不生即究竟」者，智斷究竟也。餘並同前。「大經云十因緣」下，次明可說。凡諸文中不可說後必明可說者，先自證已，必化他故。十二因緣中不云生死者，此屬未來；今明從過至現以成機根，故不取也。故《大經》中續前不可說文後，即云「十因緣法為生作因」。所言十因為生作因者，以宿種子在無明行中來至今世，復依本習起愛取有，復由現在聞法發習。此中因緣，且語眾生十因緣邊，亦應義兼感應因緣，謂感佛四說即因緣義。彼《地持》文立四種性，於中聲聞種性謂永入滅者，非今所用。然《瑜伽論》、《解深密經》等，並方等部攝。挫云永入策發令起，如《淨名》中迦葉自敘云：「於此大乘已如敗種」，敗種豈有更生之理，至法華會中根獲記。是故今文且附方等，但以四性對於四教義味泯合。「問」下，料簡中初文，令立第四句也。赴機是立，六句是破，前四句中有智有斷，即是義當亦破亦立。答中亦以《大經》文答。彼文釋五行竟，次明十功德云「十事功德不可思議，非難非易」等。當知十德皆證中道。此五行十德自古多釋。瑤亮云：五行是略、十德是廣，各以二德對於一行。宗師破云：初六對三相貌可爾，後四對行全不相應。光宅云：行與功德一體異名，並從因以至果。開善云：五行淺、十德深。五行者，始從初心，終至地前。十德者，始從初地，至金剛心。若作別義，開善最親；若依圓義，光宅似當。具如《玄》文明圓五行。然亦不是全用彼經，但彼經文兼圓帶別。十地證道雖與圓同，地前教道未曾聞故，故云不可思議聞者驚怪。河西云：若準梵本，應云希有奇特，鈍根小智聞則驚怪。譯者略之，但云不可思議等。章安釋云：深無底故驚，廣無邊故怪。非分別智能知故非難，泥洹智不洎故非易。非真故非內，非俗故非外。非色故非相，非心故非非相。無去來今故非是世法，無中邊故無有相貌，絕四離百故世間所無。疏中不釋非方圓尖邪，今助釋曰：非別故非方，非通故非圓。非空故非尖，非有故非邪。若作非破非立為言者，非破故非難，非立故非易。非破故非內，非立故非外。非立故非相，非破故非非相。非破故非圓，非立故非方。非立故非尖，非破故非邪。次問者，圓有四門，若無生攝盡，何用諸門？答意者，今說無生則云無生攝盡，若說餘門則應一一各云攝盡。今從行便且云無生。乃至開為三十二門，何但四耶？既云從於智斷二德以立門名，三十二門未甞別異，隨舉一門攝三十一。「月無增減」等者，譬不異而異。約惑智邊說有增減，見有增減，月體常圓。諸門依於智斷二德，但從能入差別不同，而其理體未嘗生滅。《大經》云「因須彌山故有虧盈。」《俱舍》復云「近日自影覆。」諸小乘經多云「白銀瑠璃漸漸互現，故有增減。」今取此意譬無增減，意甚便也。「若無生」下，以門結遍。「問無生門門稱無生」等者，門稱無生，則應一切悉稱無生。前諸句中何故復云無生生等？無生生是初四句中第一句，生生是第四句，生自在故是第三句，引三生句以難無生。答意者，三句明生，並是無生功能故也。 > From "Furthermore, the Laṅkā\[vatāra\] states" onward, it further uses the Laṅkāvatāra to explain and establish the six phrases. It first explains the Laṅkāvatāra, and next concludes that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is identical with the Laṅkāvatāra. First, regarding the explanation of the meaning in the Laṅkāvatāra: the fourth chapter of that sūtra, "Chapter on Impermanence," says: "Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: 'As the Buddha has spoken: "From the night I attained supreme, correct awakening to the night I entered parinirvāṇa, in the interim I have not spoken a single word; I have not spoken, I will not speak, and I am not now speaking—this is the Buddha's speech." Based on what esoteric words does the World-Honoured One make such a statement?' The Buddha said: 'Based on two esoteric words: the dharma of one's own realization, and the fundamentally abiding dharma.'" However, within a whole lifetime of bestowing transformation, how could there not be teachings applying expedient wisdom to cover beings? It is only with respect to these two that there has never been any preaching; therefore it is said there is no preaching. Now when it speaks of "one's own dharma," it refers solely to one's own realization. From "As for 'one's own dharma'" onward, it explains the two dharmas listed in the aforementioned sūtra, likewise first citing the sūtra to explain them. First, within explaining one's own dharma, "those Tathāgatas" refers to the past Buddhas as well as the present Buddhas of the ten directions; realization with those Buddhas is one identical body without distinction, neither more nor less, which is called "neither increasing nor decreasing." "Free from verbal explanation," etc., further explains the dharmas from which one's own realization is free. From "The commentary states" onward, it now explains the meaning of the sūtra. Regarding "free from verbal explanation," etc.: the seventh chapter of that sūtra says that being free from verbal explanation means being beyond discussion. Being free from discursive thoughts means being inconceivable. Being free from letters means being free from provisional names and letters. In general, all teachings capable of expressing meaning are nothing other than provisional names; with respect to the dharma of one's own realization, what letters could there be? Regarding the "two extremes," this is a sub-commentary further explaining the preceding provisional names of verbal explanation. Fearing that emotional clinging might falsely calculate: once free from that which can speak, that which can think, and that which can name, one would then take that which is spoken, that which is thought, and that which is named to be the true substance. Therefore the sub-commentary states: "Both extremes are left behind." Why? In one's own realization, one sees neither subject nor object, which is called leaving behind the two extremes. From "Fundamentally abiding" onward, it next explains the fundamentally abiding dharma. It refers to the path walked by the Buddha's own practice, as well as the principle of true mark inherently possessed by the Buddha; neither is accomplished through cultivation. Because they are uncreated dharmas, they are omnipresent; because they are immutable, they are called "abiding." Principle is that which is reached, and the path is that which is walked; hence the metaphor is raised: "Neither is produced by the practitioner or the reacher." Thus the fundamentally existent path is walked by people; how could it be made by the practitioner? The fundamentally existent city of principle is reached by means of the fundamental path, and it is also through the practitioner that principle can be reached; therefore, neither can be made by the reacher. At the beginning of the sūtra it also states: "The fundamentally abiding dharma is like gold in ore and the city to be reached." Ore seems to partake of the distinctive \[teaching\], whereas the city necessarily follows the perfect \[teaching\]. From "The sūtra states" onward, it quotes that sūtra to assist the explanation. The subsequent text of that sūtra directly takes an ancient city as a metaphor: "The Buddha asked Mahāmati: 'Were that city, the path, and the objects in the city made by the one who entered it?' He replied: 'No. The traveler merely follows the fundamentally existent, eternally abiding path, reaches the city of the true mark, obtains the objects of the secret treasury of myriad virtues, and enjoys the bliss of nirvāṇa according with his wishes.'" One's fundamental aspiration is nirvāṇa, hence it is said to accord with wishes. From "One should know" onward, it sums up the preceding meaning. "Not spoken by the mouth" means beyond discussion. "Not discriminated" means inconceivable. Because it tallies with the fundamental dharma, it is immutable. From "This meaning" onward, in harmonizing them, it actually takes arising-arising as the fundamental dharma. The preceding explanation of arising-arising referred to contaminated dharmas; now it points out that the substance of the contaminated is completely the principle. Question: Why did the preceding explanation state that it is the object to be transformed, whereas it is now stated to be the fundamental dharma? Answer: None of the objects to be transformed are not the fundamental dharma. Hence Master Xiao says: "Water reaches the end of the waves; waves penetrate the source of the water." "Arising in accordance with conditions is ineffable" concludes the preceding point that arising-arising is ineffable. Hence the earlier text explained: arising is precisely emptiness and the middle, therefore it is ineffable. Now it is also like this: arising in accordance with conditions is ineffable, because arising is precisely emptiness and the middle. The second and third phrases can be known by analogy with the preceding. "Non-arising non-arising is ultimate" refers to the culmination of wisdom and abandonment. The rest are all the same as before. From "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra speaks of ten causes and conditions" onward, it next explains what can be spoken. Whenever an ineffable state is followed in the texts by an explanation of what can be spoken, it is because after one's own realization has been attained, one must necessarily transform others. That birth-and-death is not mentioned among the twelve causes and conditions is because it belongs to the future; here it clarifies proceeding from past to present to form faculties and capacities, so it is not taken up. Therefore, in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, immediately following the text on the ineffable, it says: "The ten dharmas of cause and condition serve as the causes for arising." As for stating that the ten causes serve as causes for arising: because past seeds exist within ignorance and karmic formations and come into this present lifetime, one further relies on fundamental habit-energies to give rise to craving, grasping, and becoming; further, due to hearing the Dharma in the present, one arouses habit-energies. The causes and conditions here provisionally speak from the side of the ten causes and conditions of sentient beings; it should also implicitly include the causes and conditions of stimulus and response—namely, being stimulated by the Buddha's four preachings is the meaning of cause and condition. In the text of that Bodhisattvabhūmi (Dichi lun), four gotras (lineages) are established, among which the śrāvaka gotra is said to enter extinction forever; this is not what is used here. However, texts like the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra are all subsumed under the Vaipulya division. Deprecating them by saying they enter forever is meant to stimulate and arouse them to rise, just as in the Vimalakīrti Kāśyapa relates of himself: "Regarding this Mahāyāna, we are already like rotten seeds." How could there be any principle of rotten seeds sprouting again? Yet upon reaching the Lotus Assembly, those of medium faculties received the prediction. Therefore the present text provisionally relies on the Vaipulya, merely matching the four gotras to the four teachings so that their flavors of meaning harmonize and merge. From "Question" onward, in the critical examination, the opening text poses the need to establish the fourth phrase. Responding to capacities is establishing; the six phrases are refuting; within the first four phrases there are wisdom and abandonment, which functionally correspond to both refuting and establishing. In the answer, it also answers using the text of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. Having explained the five practices, that text next clarifies the ten virtues, stating: "The ten matters of virtue are inconceivable, neither difficult nor easy," etc. One should know that all ten virtues realize the middle way. These five practices and ten virtues have been widely interpreted since antiquity. Yaoliang said: The five practices are brief and the ten virtues are extensive, matching two virtues to each single practice. The ancestral master refuted this, saying: Matching the first six to three appears acceptable, but the latter four are completely incongruent with the practices. Guangzhai said: Practice and virtue are one substance with different names, both proceeding from cause to result. Kaishan said: The five practices are shallow, and the ten virtues are profound. The five practices begin from the initial mind and culminate before the bhūmis. The ten virtues begin from the first bhūmi and extend to the diamond-like mind. If one takes the distinctive meaning, Kaishan is closest; if one relies on the perfect meaning, Guangzhai seems appropriate. This is detailed in the text of the Xuan\[yi\] explaining the perfect five practices. However, it does not fully use that sūtra either; that sūtra's text merely combines the perfect and carries the distinctive. Although realizing the path on the ten bhūmis is identical to the perfect, because the doctrinal path before the bhūmis had never been heard before, it says that it is inconceivable and those who hear it are astonished and bewildered. Hexi says: According to the Sanskrit text, it should say 'rare and extraordinary'; when those of dull faculties and meager wisdom hear it, they are astonished and bewildered. The translator abbreviated it, merely saying inconceivable, etc. Zhang'an explained: Astonished because it is fathomless; bewildered because it is boundless. Because it cannot be known by discriminating wisdom, it is not difficult; because the wisdom of nirvāṇa does not reach it, it is not easy. Because it is not true, it is not internal; because it is not conventional, it is not external. Because it is not form, it is not a mark; because it is not mind, it is not a non-mark. Because it lacks past, future, and present, it is not a worldly dharma; because it has neither middle nor extremes, it has no characteristics; transcending the four \[propositions\] and departing from the hundred \[negations\], it does not exist in the world. The commentary does not explain 'neither square nor round, neither sharp nor oblique'; now I add this explanation: because it is not distinctive, it is not square; because it is not shared, it is not round. Because it is not empty, it is not sharp; because it is not existent, it is not oblique. If one speaks in terms of 'neither refuting nor establishing': because it is not refuting, it is not difficult; because it is not establishing, it is not easy. Because it is not refuting, it is not internal; because it is not establishing, it is not external. Because it is not establishing, it is not a mark; because it is not refuting, it is not a non-mark. Because it is not refuting, it is not round; because it is not establishing, it is not square. Because it is not establishing, it is not sharp; because it is not refuting, it is not oblique. Regarding the next question: The perfect \[teaching\] has four gates; if non-arising subsumes them completely, what need is there for the other gates? The intent of the answer is: when now speaking of non-arising, one says non-arising subsumes them completely; if one were to speak of the other gates, each and every one should likewise be said to subsume them completely. Now, following the convenience of practice, it provisionally speaks of non-arising. Even if expanded into thirty-two gates, why would it be limited to four? Since it is said that the names of the gates are established based on the two virtues of wisdom and abandonment, the thirty-two gates have never been distinct; whichever single gate is raised subsumes the thirty-one. "The moon neither increases nor decreases," etc., is a metaphor for being different while not different. It is spoken of as increasing or decreasing from the side of delusion and wisdom, and seen as increasing or decreasing, yet the body of the moon is constantly full. The various gates rely on the two virtues of wisdom and abandonment, merely differing in accordance with that which can enter, while the substance of principle has never undergone arising or cessation. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "Due to Mount Sumeru there is waning and waxing." The Abhidharmakośa further states: "Approaching the sun, its own shadow covers it." Most Hīnayāna sūtras state: "Silver and lapis lazuli gradually and reciprocally appear, hence there is waxing and waning." Now taking this intent to metaphorize non-increasing and non-decreasing, the meaning is very apt. From "If the non-arising" onward, it uses the gate to conclude the universality. Regarding "Question: If the gate of non-arising is called non-arising," etc.: if the gate is called non-arising, then all should be called non-arising. Why do the preceding phrases further speak of non-arising arising, etc.? Non-arising arising is the first phrase among the initial four phrases, arising-arising is the fourth phrase, and arising with autonomy is the third phrase; it cites the three phrases on arising to challenge non-arising. The intent of the reply is: the three phrases clarify arising, yet all are the functional manifestations of non-arising. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.54) - [Next: 5.56.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.56.1) - [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.5.55) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.55) · Pramāṇa