[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) › 5.61.4 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.61.4 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.61.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.61.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.61.4) 還離前來初總止觀，以對四悉二行故也。 下去例然，具如前文安心中說。 於一一見並作此結，故知前文離開三諦及以一心猶名為總。 用此總別有見即伏，望小同於四善根位，故且結為善有漏陰。 「以被」下，見度計轉，以不起故便起無見。 有見猶在，謂心起無，亦成見也。 「夫破見」下，欲破無見。 先明破由，即二行三根。 依無起計已成下根。 如前總後亦判利鈍二行不同，下去亦爾，或但文略。 明三根中，「聞觀於生」等者，生即有見，謂有為無、謂無為實。 是故此見應須委破。 「又當」下，正破。 先標也。 總謂直修觀破，別謂三假四句。 故此等總即同初文，前於單見名之為總。 雖對四見名總，今文重述，故於一見對別名總。 又亦不同有見因成末文總別。 若對信法六十四番，此之總別復成於總。 「總破者」下，正明破無。 先引二經明破之相。 初引《大品》者，以識了別，於生即有見、無生即無見，有無俱破，故互相況，皆云不可得。 即是舉深況淺、舉淺況深也。 思之思之。 次引《楞伽》者，彼經第四云「若起空見，名為壞者，墮於自共。 」彼前後文，破見非一。 次「然無生」下，斥奪也。 捨有著無，何殊步屈？ 次別破者，亦先序見由。 由前有見三假惑伏，成今無見所執之境。 總別二破名用止觀，不見三假似性相空，故云「泯然入定」。 不見內外似因成破，亦無前後似相續破，無相形待似相待破。 「寂然」下，正明無見所計之相。 「而起見著」下，責見過相。 故論偈云「諸佛說空法，為破諸見故。 而復著於空，諸佛所不化。 」「釋論」下，比決簡異。 《大論》十八云「外道愛慢多故，不捨一切法。 」論「問云：外道觀空則捨一切，云何不捨？ 答：外道雖觀空，而取空相。 雖知諸法空，不知我空。 愛著觀空智慧故，若愛著者便成我見，我見即具八十八使。 」論「又問云：外道既有無想等定滅心所法，應無取著觀空智慧。 答：無想定力非智慧力。 」「如是」下，出見過由，結成空見。 「佛弟子」下，顯正辨異，明知過由，由謂著心。 著心若生，知過故離，離即修觀，豈更謂此為真無生？ 「云何」下，示無見中三假具足，良由有見來入此中。 「無生法塵」下，出無見中三假之相。 「當推」下，次正用觀，先破因成。 「當知」下，結成二空十八空等。 「非但」下，例破諸見，意如前說。 「者未」下，別約六十四番，如前說。 「勤修」下，見度計轉。 > This returns to separating from the initial general calming and contemplation mentioned before, in order to correspond to the four siddhāntas and two practices. The same applies below by analogy, fully as explained before under calming the mind. This conclusion is drawn for each and every view; hence we know that in the preceding text, setting out the three truths and the single mind is still termed general. Applying this general and specific, the view of existence is subdued; compared with the Hinayana, it is equivalent to the stage of the four roots of goodness, and is therefore temporarily concluded as wholesome contaminated aggregates. From "Because of being refuted" downward, the view shifts its attachment: because \[existence\] does not arise, it immediately gives rise to the view of non-existence. The view of existence still remains, thinking that the mind gives rise to non-existence, which also becomes a view. From "Now, refuting views" downward: wishing to refute the view of non-existence. First clarify the reason for refutation, which is the two practices and three faculties. Giving rise to attachment based on non-existence has already become the inferior faculty. Just as after the general explanation earlier the sharp and dull faculties of the two practices were also distinguished, so too below, or else the text is simply abridged. In clarifying the three faculties, regarding "Hearing contemplation on arising," etc.: arising is the view of existence, regarding existence as non-existence and non-existence as real. Therefore, this view must be comprehensively refuted. From "Furthermore, one should" downward, directly refutes. First it marks out \[the categories\]. General means directly cultivating contemplation to refute; specific means the three provisionalities and four phrases. Hence these instances of "general" are identical to the initial text, where before it was termed general in contrast to a single view. Although termed general in contrast to the four views, the present text restates it, and therefore within a single view it is termed general in contrast to the specific. Moreover, it is also not the same as the general and specific at the end of causal formation in the view of existence. If contrasted with the sixty-four turns of faith and Dharma, this general and specific again becomes general. From "The general refutation" downward, directly clarifies the refutation of non-existence. First two sūtras are cited to clarify the characteristics of refutation. First, citing the Dapin: using consciousness to discriminate, in arising there is the view of existence, and in non-arising there is the view of non-existence; both existence and non-existence are refuted, so they are compared with each other, both said to be unattainable. That is, using the profound to compare with the shallow, and using the shallow to compare with the profound. Ponder this! Ponder this! Next, citing the Laṅkāvatāra: fascicle 4 of that sūtra states: "If one gives rise to the view of emptiness, one is called a destroyer, falling into self and shared \[arising\]." The text before and after that refutes views in more than one way. Next, from "However, non-arising" downward, reprimands and rejects it. Abandoning existence to cling to non-existence, how does it differ from an inchworm? Next, the specific refutation: also first sets forth the origin of the view. Because the delusion of the three provisionalities of the preceding view of existence has been subdued, it forms the object grasped by the present view of non-existence. The two refutations, general and specific, are termed the application of calming and contemplation; not seeing the three provisionalities resembles the emptiness of nature and characteristic, hence it says, "Obliviously entering absorption." Not seeing internal or external resembles the refutation of causal formation; having neither before nor after resembles the refutation of continuity; lacking mutual comparison and dependence resembles the refutation of mutual dependence. From "Silently" downward, directly clarifies the characteristics conceived by the view of non-existence. From "Yet giving rise to attachment to views" downward, reprimands the characteristics of the faults of views. Therefore the treatise verse states: "The Buddhas teach the Dharma of emptiness / In order to refute all views; / But if one further clings to emptiness, / Such a one the Buddhas cannot convert." From "The commentary" downward, makes comparisons, determinations, and distinctions. Fascicle 18 of the Dazhidulun states: "Because non-Buddhists have much craving and conceit, they do not relinquish all dharmas." The treatise asks: "When non-Buddhists contemplate emptiness they relinquish everything; why do you say they do not relinquish? Answer: Although non-Buddhists contemplate emptiness, they grasp the mark of emptiness. Although they know all dharmas are empty, they do not know the emptiness of the self. Because of craving and clinging to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness, if they crave and cling, it becomes the view of self, and the view of self is endowed with the eighty-eight proclivities." The treatise further asks: "Since non-Buddhists have absorptions such as non-conception that extinguish mental factors, they should be free from grasping the wisdom that contemplates emptiness. Answer: The power of the absorption of non-conception is not the power of wisdom." From "Like this" downward, brings out the reasons for the faults of views, concluding in the view of emptiness. From "Disciples of the Buddha" downward, reveals the correct and distinguishes the different, clarifying the reason for knowing faults, which is due to the clinging mind. If a clinging mind arises, knowing the fault one abandons it; abandoning it, one immediately cultivates contemplation—how could one further consider this to be true non-arising? From "How" downward, shows that the three provisionalities are fully present within the view of non-existence, precisely because the view of existence has come and entered into this. From "The mental dust of non-arising dharmas" downward, brings out the characteristics of the three provisionalities within the view of non-existence. From "One should examine" downward, next directly applies contemplation, first refuting causal formation. From "One should know" downward, concludes by establishing the two emptineses, eighteen emptineses, and so forth. From "Not only" downward, refutes the various views by analogy, the meaning being as explained before. From "Those who have not yet" downward, specifically treats the sixty-four turns, as explained before. From "Diligently cultivating" downward, the view shifts its attachment. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.61.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.61.3) - [Next: 5.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.62) - [Up: 5.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.61) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.5.61.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大智度論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.pancavimsatisahasrika!mahaprajnaparamitopadesa*zh-kumarajiva.18.64) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.61.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.61.4) · Pramāṇa