[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) › 5.66 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.66 止觀輔行傳弘決 5.66 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.66) 大段第二得失中，問意者，所破之見是失非得，能破止觀從單至具乃至圓門隨逐不捨。為唯是得？有失不耶？答中分為四句，先列四句、次舉譬。「前二」下，判，且從末說。「所以」下，釋。初之兩句，外道得失。「亦言修止觀」者，本是佛弟子，因觀起見過同於外。於中復辨事感伏者且名為得，事惑未伏者唯起諸惡名之為失。又以外道中有斷常二見，常見之人斷鈍使者名之為得，斷見之人撥因果故名之為失。此且寄外論得失也。次佛弟子兩句論得失中，雖復用觀，見惑未斷，位在方便名之為失，惑斷入真方名為得。若望外道，失却成得。何者？外道雖得仍起見故，是故外道得翻成失。以此四種判前破假觀者得失異耳，即如前文破一一見三根不同，上根是佛弟子中得者是也，中根是佛弟子中失者是也，下根即同外計得失者是也。若成外得失及佛法得失，並應更觀（云云）。 > In the second major section, on gain and loss, the intent of the question is: the views that are refuted are loss and not gain, whereas the calming and contemplation capable of refuting pursue them relentlessly from the single to the comprehensive and up to the perfect gate. Is this purely gain? Is there any loss or not? The reply is divided into four propositions: first listing the four propositions, and next providing analogies. From 'the first two' onward, it evaluates them, tentatively speaking from the terminal perspective. From 'the reason why' onward, it explains. The first two propositions are the gain and loss of non-Buddhists. 'Also said to cultivate calming and contemplation' refers to those who were originally disciples of the Buddha, but through contemplation gave rise to views whose faults were identical to those of non-Buddhists. Among these, those who tangibly subdue \[afflictions\] are tentatively termed 'gain,' while those whose tangible afflictions are not subdued and only give rise to various evils are called 'loss.' Furthermore, among non-Buddhists there are the two views of annihilationism and eternalism: those of eternalist view who sever the blunt entanglements are called 'gain,' while those of annihilationist view who deny cause and effect are called 'loss.' This is tentatively discussing gain and loss in terms of external teachings. Next, in discussing gain and loss in the two propositions concerning disciples of the Buddha: although they employ contemplation, because the afflictions of views are not yet severed and their status is on the level of expedient means, it is called 'loss'; only when afflictions are severed and they enter the true is it called 'gain.' Yet looking from the perspective of non-Buddhists, this loss turns out to be gain. Why? Because although non-Buddhists achieve \[subjugation\], they still give rise to views; therefore the gain of non-Buddhists conversely becomes loss. Using these four to judge the previous meditator refuting provisionality, their gain and loss differ. This is just as in the previous text where refuting each view differed across the three capacities: the superior capacity corresponds to gain among the Buddha's disciples; the middling capacity corresponds to loss among the Buddha's disciples; the inferior capacity corresponds to the gain and loss of non-Buddhist reckonings. If one forms external gain and loss and Buddhadharma gain and loss, all should be further contemplated (and so on). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.65) - [Next: 5.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.67) - [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.5.66) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.5.66) · Pramāṇa