[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) › 6.7 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 6.7 止觀輔行傳弘決 6.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.7) 次釋通位中，初列經正判。言「共聲聞」等者，通教二乘、七地已前，與菩薩共，名共聲聞。若爾，八地已上過二乘地，何故亦名共菩薩耶？答：以初名後，從本立名。不同別圓，始終別故。三藏教中雖有二乘，菩薩行遠，始終伏惑，永異二乘，故不名共；不聞別理，復非不共。問：七地思盡，何故六地名共聲聞？八名支佛地，何故七地名共支佛？答：通位從容，具如後簡。「所言」下，略釋也。此意正言三乘共地，何故諸教判斷惑位高下差別？何故三乘惑斷前後、智行不同？雖復不同而涉共位？以由此故而得共名。「乾慧」下，正釋也。初釋聲聞中五停四念，略如《玄》文及《釋籤》引。並望三藏，立內外凡。若論觀行，巧拙雖別，總別等相何妨稍同。未有理水故名為乾，薄有理解故名為性。忍者，因也。見謂見諦。欲惑稍輕，故名為薄。欲惑全亡，故名為離。智斷功畢，故名為辦。三別名名通位中。先破立序舊，明斷見思位皆不同。「今覈」下，先總破其斷見位殊，秖是不解通教義耳。「何者」下，別責也。通位斷見兩地不同，斷見復應不出入觀。「人師」下，人師不曉，推過與經，故今折言不解經意。「今言」下，略示。「別見」下，略釋。「然名」下，判斷。「例如」下，引例。此十六心同是一位，尚判兩道，何妨斷見二地不同。問：當通教中判斷見位自分二地，何須破他自立借別，立斷見位還同通教？答：秖緣同通，故得名通。通雖二地，斷時仍促。三乘共故，雖促復長，是故須分三地四地。或時借別，別見更長，仍有二意：若約理說，通至佛地；若約教道，云三四地。雖二意各別、見義並長，以別長故，故借教道用判兩地斷見無爽。若依通義，云不出觀，若依別義，但云地地皆能破見。以此為異。以別長故，故後兩番通用四地皆斷見位。人多不見，謂通義足，何須借別？此是大師通申經論。有此判者，屬借別名名通位也。何者？若定屬通，不應地前而立伏位；若定屬別，不應行向屬四善根，乃至四地共斷見惑亦復如是。故立北式示後學者，使古今異說冷然可見。言「借別」下，正明借位。先借別教始終名通。通教地前無位可論，故借別教內外凡位，但名通教初地二地。通教地後亦無復位，故但以別教法雲、佛地以名通教九地十地。從容不定，故有或言。《大品》既云十地如佛，當知即是別名名通。故《楞伽》第七〈偈頌品〉云「遠行、善慧、法雲地是佛種性，餘者悉是二乘種性。」此亦別名名通位也。若是別位，豈遠行已前屬二乘耶？近代釋位，地前伏惑正是斯例。「若借」下，次單借別十地名通十地，則彼此地前通為伏惑。通雖無位，即未斷惑，不入地故。「四別名名通菩薩位」者，此單約菩薩，故修觀斷見不定。「如此」下，略以菩薩斷見之位，斥前舊師三地四地斷見義也。「薄即」去，菩薩斷思位。「舊云」下，重序舊師六七兩地為斷思位。「但六地」下，今家難也。先難六地。六地離欲，止離欲惑，如何即云與羅漢齊？次縱，云縱帶三果行四果向。餘一品在亦名為向，如何復得與羅漢齊？「若七地」下，次難第七地。若最後品盡名第七者，此則可然。前六地中既但名離，欲將向來屬果。初禪初品亦屬已辨，斷初一品實未辦故，故亦不可與羅漢齊。「今若」下，今為申之，則不取通十地之名，但用十度對果名便。以別教義多以十度對於十地，故亦依此以申今意。立此意者，亦恐後人不曉經論對果高低、不識別教名通之意。次「此皆」下，謙退推功。次「問」者，三乘共位借義已成，別立菩薩恐無誠證。次答意者，經論各有兩處明文，意並獨語菩薩智斷。初引《大論》「三處焦炷」者，意引乾慧，別在菩薩斷惑之位。若共二乘不名初焰，初焰即是斷位故也。論別立菩薩，故以初地而為斷位。故《大論》七十八〈燈炷品〉云「十地有二：一菩薩初地為初焰、二聲聞見地為初焰。若獨菩薩地，即歡喜地為初焰。」論文既以菩薩初地而為初焰，故今取之以為況釋。於共伏道尚得以為菩薩初焰，今但退取共斷位者，為獨菩薩初焰，有何不可。故知此文別判通教菩薩位也。下文自有獨菩薩位，即別菩薩位也。所言「三種菩薩」者，即共地菩薩中根之人，亦同二乘三四地斷。「又大品」下，次引《大品》況釋也。第十佛地尚名菩薩，況前諸位無菩薩耶？故云「豈得無中及以初」耶？言「隣極」者，以別佛地過十地故。今借別名，乃云十地隣極故也。「若無」下，重引《大品》從初地來皆云菩薩修治地業。故《大品》云「初十，二有八，三五，四有十，五十二，六六，七二十，八五，九十二，十佛（今略為頌）。」彼文一一具列釋之，當知此亦獨開菩薩。次引《大論》於菩薩邊別得忍名，乃至遊戲神通等名，故知此名別屬菩薩。《大品》忍名亦復如是。「如此」下，正申今意。依向所引，尚得別開菩薩地位。準此以為借別名通，別對菩薩何咎？次「問」者，斷欲九品，那制兩果？答意者，聖制果名，休息疲怠。散地惑重，名為多難，恐為難退，立兩果名。次「問」者，凡禪為治散，欲散既多應多立治。答意者，禪從地立，定散相違，豈可於欲而多立禪？次「問」意者，前別為菩薩立忍名者，六七地前所有智斷與二乘同，何故菩薩別立忍稱？答中有三義，故菩薩名忍。初引十五十六心例。如十五心，雖已有於七智八忍，未入果位，故道比忍猶名為因。菩薩雖斷諸地見思，習未盡故、位未滿故，故但名忍。餘二意可見。 > Next, in explaining the stages of the shared \[teaching\], the sutra is first cited to set out the correct determination. Regarding the phrase "shared with the śrāvakas" and so forth: in the shared teaching, the \[practitioners of the\] two vehicles and \[bodhisattvas\] prior to the seventh stage are shared with bodhisattvas, which is termed "shared with the śrāvakas." If so, then since the eighth stage and above surpass the stages of the two vehicles, why are they also termed "shared with bodhisattvas"? The answer is: the later \[stages\] are named from the initial \[ones\], establishing the designation from the root. This is not like the distinctive and perfect \[teachings\], which are distinct from beginning to end. Although there are the two vehicles within the Tripiṭaka teaching, the bodhisattva's practice is far-reaching, subduing defilements from beginning to end, eternally distinct from the two vehicles; hence they are not termed "shared." Yet as they do not hear the distinctive principle, they are also not unshared. Question: Thought \[defilements\] are exhausted at the seventh stage; why is the sixth stage termed "shared with the śrāvakas"? The eighth is named the pratyekabuddha stage; why is the seventh stage termed "shared with the pratyekabuddhas"? Answer: The shared stages are flexible and accommodating, fully as discriminated below. From "Regarding what is said" downward, this is a brief explanation. The main point here is: in the stages shared by the three vehicles, why do the various teachings determine higher and lower distinctions in the stages of severing defilements? Why are the three vehicles' order of severing defilements, their wisdom, and their practices different? And though different, how do they traverse the shared stages? It is because of this that they obtain the designation "shared." From "Dry Wisdom" downward is the correct explanation. First, within the explanation of the śrāvakas, the five methods of stilling the mind and four stations of mindfulness are briefly as cited in the text of the Profound Meaning and the Expository Notes. Both, looking toward the Tripiṭaka, establish the internal and external ordinary stages. If we discuss the contemplation practice, though skillful and unskillful differ, what is to prevent the general and specific characteristics from being slightly the same? Because the water of principle is not yet present, it is called "dry"; because there is a slight understanding of principle, it is called "nature." "Patience" means cause. "Seeing" refers to seeing the truths. The defilements of desire are somewhat lightened, hence called "thin." The defilements of desire are completely eliminated, hence called "free." The work of wisdom and severing is finished, hence called "accomplished." Under "third, using the distinctive designations to name the shared stages": first, the old traditions of setting up prefaces are refuted, which explained that the stages of severing views and thought were all different. From "Now, examining..." downward, their view that the stages of severing views are disparate is first generally refuted, \[showing that\] they simply did not understand the meaning of the shared teaching. From "Why?" downward, they are specifically rebuked. In the shared stages, the severing of views differs across two stages; furthermore, the severing of views should not entail entering and emerging from meditative contemplation. From "Human masters..." downward: human masters, failing to understand, shifted the blame onto the sutras; hence they are now broken down by saying that they do not understand the intention of the sutras. From "Now we say..." downward, this is briefly indicated. From "Distinctive views..." downward, this is briefly explained. From "However, the designations..." downward, this is a determination. From "By analogy..." downward, an analogy is adduced. These sixteen minds belong to the same single stage, yet two paths are still determined for them; what is to prevent the severing of views from differing across two stages? Question: In the shared teaching itself, the stages of severing views are intrinsically divided into two stages; why must one refute others, establish the borrowing of the distinctive on one's own, and establish that the stages of severing views are still the same as the shared teaching? Answer: Merely because they are the same as the shared \[teaching\], they can be named "shared." Although the shared spans two stages, the time of severing is still brief. Because they are shared by the three vehicles, though brief, it is also long; therefore, it must be divided into the third and fourth stages. Or at times, borrowing from the distinctive, the distinctive views are even longer, yet there are two meanings: if spoken of in terms of principle, it extends up to the Buddha stage; if spoken of in terms of the pedagogical path, it refers to the third and fourth stages. Although the two meanings are each distinct, their senses of "view" are both long. Because the distinctive is long, borrowing the pedagogical path to determine the severing of views in two stages has no error. If one relies on the shared meaning, it says one does not emerge from meditative contemplation; if one relies on the distinctive meaning, it simply says stage by stage can each break views. This is the difference. Because the distinctive is long, the latter two turns both generally use the four stages as stages of severing views. Many people fail to see this, thinking the shared meaning is sufficient, and asking why one must borrow the distinctive. This is the Great Master's comprehensive elucidation of the sutras and treatises. Those with this determination belong to "using the distinctive designations to name the shared stages." Why? If it definitely belonged to the shared, one should not establish stages of subduing prior to the stages; if it definitely belonged to the distinctive, the practices and dedications should not belong to the four wholesome roots, and the joint severing of the defilement of views up to the fourth stage would also be likewise. Therefore, the northern formula was established to show later students, making the disparate doctrines of past and present clearly discernable. From "borrowing the distinctive" downward correctly clarifies borrowing stages. First, borrowing the distinctive teaching from beginning to end to name the shared. Prior to the stages of the shared teaching, there are no stages that can be discussed; hence, borrowing the internal and external ordinary stages of the distinctive teaching, they are simply named the first and second stages of the shared teaching. After the stages of the shared teaching, there are also no further stages; hence, using only the Dharma Cloud and Buddha stages of the distinctive teaching, they name the ninth and tenth stages of the shared teaching. Because it is flexible and unfixed, there is the word "perhaps." Since the Dapin states that the tenth stage is like a buddha, one should know that this is using distinctive names to name the shared. Thus the seventh chapter, the "Gāthā Chapter" of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, states: "The Far-Reaching, Good Wisdom, and Dharma Cloud stages are the Buddha-gotra; the others are all the gotras of the two vehicles." This is also using distinctive names to name the shared stages. If these were distinctive stages, could those prior to the Far-Reaching belong to the two vehicles? The recent interpretations of stages, where defilements are subdued prior to the stages, are precisely an example of this. From "If borrowing..." downward, next, purely borrowing the distinctive ten stages to name the shared ten stages means that, on both sides, prior to the stages is generally the subduing of defilements. Although the shared has no stages, since defilements are not yet severed, one does not enter the stages. Regarding "fourth, using the distinctive designations to name the stages of the shared bodhisattva": this is purely in terms of the bodhisattva, hence cultivating contemplation and severing views are not fixed. From "Such as..." downward, briefly using the stages where bodhisattvas sever views, it rejects the former old masters' doctrine of severing views at the third and fourth stages. From "Thinning means..." onward are the bodhisattva's stages of severing thought \[defilements\]. From "The old say..." downward, it reiterates the old masters' view that the sixth and seventh stages are the stages of severing thought. From "Only at the sixth stage..." downward is our school's objection. First, objecting to the sixth stage: at the sixth stage, one is free from desire, but merely free from the defilements of desire; how can one immediately say that this is equal to an arhat? Next, conceding, it says that even conceding that it includes the third fruit and the practice toward the fourth fruit, with one remaining grade it is still called "approaching \[the fruit\]"; how could it again be equal to an arhat? From "If at the seventh stage..." downward, next, objecting to the seventh stage: if the exhaustion of the final grade is called the seventh, this would then be acceptable. Since the preceding sixth stage is merely called "freeing," you wish to subsume the approach into the fruit. The first grade of the first dhyāna would also belong to "already accomplished"; but having severed only the first grade, it is truly not yet accomplished, and hence it also cannot be equal to an arhat. From "If we now..." downward, now elucidating this, we do not take the designations of the shared ten stages, but merely use the ten perfections to match the fruits, which is convenient. Because the doctrine of the distinctive teaching mostly matches the ten perfections to the ten stages, we also rely on this to elucidate our present intention. Establishing this intention is also out of concern that later people will not understand how sutras and treatises match the fruits as higher or lower, and will not recognize the intention of using the distinctive teaching to name the shared. Next, from "All these..." downward, he modestly defers and attributes merit. Next, regarding the "Question": since the meaning of borrowing for the stages shared by the three vehicles is already established, establishing the bodhisattva separately might lack authentic proof. Next, regarding the intention of the answer: the sutras and treatises each have two explicit texts, both intending to speak exclusively of the bodhisattva's wisdom and severing. First, citing the Dazhidulun's "three places scorching the wick": the intention is to cite "dry wisdom" as being separately in the bodhisattva's stage of severing defilements. If shared with the two vehicles, it is not named the "initial flame," because the initial flame is precisely the stage of severing. Since the treatise separately establishes the bodhisattva, it takes the first stage as the stage of severing. Thus Chapter 78 of the Dazhidulun, "The Lamp-Wick Chapter," states: "There are two kinds of ten stages: first, the bodhisattva's first stage is the initial flame; second, the śrāvaka's stage of seeing is the initial flame. If it is exclusively the bodhisattva stage, then the Joyful Stage is the initial flame." Since the treatise's text takes the bodhisattva's first stage as the initial flame, we now take it to make a comparison and explanation. If even in the shared path of subduing it can be taken as the bodhisattva's initial flame, now merely stepping back to take the shared stage of severing as the exclusive bodhisattva's initial flame, what objection could there be? Therefore, we know that this text separately determines the shared teaching bodhisattva's stages. The text below naturally has the exclusive bodhisattva stages, which are the distinctive bodhisattva stages. The "three kinds of bodhisattvas" mentioned refers to people of medium faculties among the bodhisattvas of the shared stages, who also sever at the third and fourth stages like the two vehicles. From "Furthermore, the Dapin..." downward, it next cites the Dapin to make a comparison and explanation. The tenth Buddha stage is still named "bodhisattva"; how much more could the preceding stages lack bodhisattvas? Hence it says: "How could there be no middle and beginning?" Regarding "neighboring the ultimate": because the distinctive Buddha stage surpasses the ten stages, now borrowing the distinctive designations, it says the tenth stage neighbors the ultimate. From "If there were none..." downward, it again cites the Dapin, where from the first stage onward, all speak of the bodhisattva cultivating and purifying the karmic activities of the stages. Thus the Dapin says: "The first has ten, the second has eight, the third five, the fourth has ten, the fifth twelve, the sixth six, the seventh twenty, the eighth five, the ninth twelve, and the tenth is Buddha (now briefly versified)." That text lists and explains them one by one in detail; you should know that this also exclusively sets apart the bodhisattva. Next, citing the Dazhidulun, in the bodhisattva's case it separately receives the designation "patience," up to designations such as "sporting in supernormal powers"; thus we know these designations belong separately to the bodhisattva. The designations of patience in the Dapin are also like this. From "Such as..." downward, this directly elucidates our present intention. Relying on what was cited above, one can still separately set apart the bodhisattva stages. Following this to borrow the distinctive to name the shared, separately matching them to the bodhisattva, what fault is there? Next, regarding the "Question": in severing the nine grades of desire, why are two fruits instituted? The intention of the answer is: the sage institutes fruit names to rest the weary. Defilements in the realm of distraction are heavy, termed "many difficulties"; fearing that practitioners might retreat because of difficulties, two fruit names are instituted. Next, regarding the "Question": dhyāna in general is to counter distraction; since distraction in desire is manifold, many remedies should be instituted. The intention of the answer is: dhyāna is established according to the plane; concentration and distraction are mutually opposed, so how could many dhyānas be instituted in \[the realm of\] desire? Next, regarding the intention of the "Question": earlier, the designation "patience" was separately established for bodhisattvas; before the sixth and seventh stages, all wisdom and severing are identical with the two vehicles, so why does the bodhisattva separately receive the appellation "patience"? In the answer there are three reasons why the bodhisattva is called "patience." First, citing the analogy of the fifteen and sixteen minds: as in the fifteen minds, although there are already seven wisdoms and eight patiences, one has not yet entered the fruit stage; hence the path, compared to patience, is still termed a cause. Although the bodhisattva severs the views and thought of the various planes, because latent habit-energies are not yet exhausted and the stages are not yet completed, it is merely named "patience." The remaining two intentions are readily apparent. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.6) - [Next: 6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.8) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.6.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.7) · Pramāṇa