[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) › 6.8 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 6.8 止觀輔行傳弘決 6.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.8) 次約別教破思假者，前借別名但顯通義，今正在別復顯竪義，故次明之。問：開章之初不列別圓，何故至此便釋別圓？答：但論空位正在藏、通，為顯通義更借別名，若論始終竪義似別，若論文旨須知圓融，故於此中明別圓位。言「十行出假不復關前」者，此中竪意從假入空，故別十行不關前空，但列藏、通意在於此。故顯體中云「若論三人則有諸位大小。」次圓位中，但云「八信至第十信斷習盡」者，習通界外塵沙、無明，例亦應云不復關前。此不云者，從初已來三諦圓修，與次第義永不相關。此論麁惑任運斷處與次第齊，是故不須云不相關。引《華嚴》者，恐人不了麁惑先除，初證初住却望十信，故云「界內習盡」。次「華嚴」下，證初住位。近代釋義地前咸伏，云何銷通住過牟尼？此是第二番示文圓旨。「云何」下，釋《華嚴》意。初文略釋。「若爾」下，徵難。既有菩薩過佛，豈無聲聞過菩薩耶？「然以」下，答。佛道屬於別圓地住，尚能過於藏通牟尼，灼然過於藏通菩薩。此約當分作此比決。「復次」下，辨同異。同斷見思得名功用，巧拙不同。此雖辨前破思假位智用各別，亦是遙判諸經論中智斷異同。初文且列四教斷思智用各別；次「若言」下，判向所辨同異文也。初文是當通教三乘自相比望；次「若言」下，即以別圓菩薩比望。通藏二乘同斷見思而智各異，亦可云智斷俱異，即是通教不斷別惑。此中未論斷於別惑，故不論也。又通三乘自相望者，亦可云智同斷異，習有盡與不盡異也。次「問」下，料簡超果等四。初問可解。答中，初明有超。「雖不」下，明果雖超而品數不失。如神通人及常人行，遲疾不同，豈無里數？次「問」者，夫論超者應是利根，身子利根，何不超耶？初聞三諦但得初果？答中言「七日或十五日」者，《大論》三十八云「身子見舅與佛論議，有云：聞頞鞞說三諦。或云：經七日。或云：經十五日得無學果。」「阿難為侍者」者，《大論》云「佛求侍者，心在阿難，如東日照西壁。至結集時至法會中，迦葉訶云：『汝如驢入馬群。』阿難聞已，於閑靜處精勤修習，未得無學。放身欲臥，將頭就枕，未至枕間得阿羅漢。」故知爾前非無智力，以阿羅漢不合為侍，故不取證。如羅什入天竺，國人敬重，以沙彌五人為侍。據此降佛已還，並不應以大僧為侍。「通教菩薩」下，一往且明不超之義，故云亦應有超。菩薩無不荷負眾生，故不論超。論超自約人行不同，思假不得不破故也。「超果」下，四種論超。言「本斷」者，本在外道修世禪時已斷思惑，名為本斷。隨本時斷品數多少，故使於今入十六心超果不同。本得非想，即是已斷下八地思，至十六心應名阿羅漢向，但名那含者，以凡地時用有漏智，智力弱故但名那含。得那含時，此十六心起無漏得，替前有漏，名印持定。「本得初禪至二三四」，比說可知。「欲界九品隨以世智斷之多少」者，若本斷九，今名三向；若七八品，得名二果；斷六品等，名二果向；斷五四等，但名初果。不同次斷，意如向說。「或三兩品名家家」者，應云三四品，或恐文誤、或《婆沙》不同。「善來」者，如第四說。正習盡者秖是三藏佛耳。圓人云「最超」者，問：前云荷負是故不超，云何不同？答：此言超者，以圓望別故得超名，故引《瓔珞》證超不超。彼《本業經》敬首菩薩白佛言：「諸佛菩薩以大方便平等大慧照諸法界，為頓等覺？為漸漸覺？」佛言：「我昔法會有一億八千無垢大士，即於法會達法性源、頓覺無二，一切諸法皆一合相，各於十方說此瓔珞，大眾皆見一億八千頓覺如來。」故知彼經唯有頓覺。《玄》文第五判為初住，龍女亦爾，並名頓覺。言無垢者，且約六即以明無垢。「淨名」者，雖成佛道，明初住超行菩薩道，此即不超。「實相理」下，即第四句。 > Next, regarding breaking provisionality of thought in terms of the distinctive teaching: previously, borrowing the distinctive names was only to reveal the meaning of the shared \[teaching\]. Now, properly dealing with the distinctive \[teaching\], it reveals the vertical meaning, which is why it is explained next. Question: At the beginning of opening the section, the distinctive and perfect were not listed; why are the distinctive and perfect explained upon reaching this point? Answer: Merely discussing the stages of emptiness properly pertains to the Tripiṭaka and shared \[teachings\]. To reveal the meaning of the shared \[teaching\], distinctive names were borrowed. If discussing vertical meaning from beginning to end, it resembles the distinctive; but if discussing the doctrinal intent of the text, one must know perfect fusion. Therefore, the stages of the distinctive and perfect are explained here. As for the statement 'the ten practices emerge from provisionality and are no longer related to what preceded': the vertical intent here is entering emptiness from provisionality, so the distinctive ten practices do not concern the preceding emptiness. Only listing the Tripiṭaka and shared \[teachings\] had this intention. Therefore, in revealing the essence it says: 'If discussing the three kinds of persons, then there are various stages, great and small.' Next, in the stages of the perfect \[teaching\], it merely says: 'from the eighth faith to the tenth faith, the exhaustion of habit-energy is severed.' Habit-energy extends to the dust-and-sand \[delusions\] and ignorance outside the realm; by analogy, it should also say 'no longer related to what preceded.' The reason it does not say so is that from the very beginning, the three truths have been cultivated in a unified, perfect manner, utterly unrelated to the meaning of gradual stages. Here, discussing where coarse afflictions are naturally severed coincides with the gradual stages; hence it does not need to say 'unrelated.' Citing the Avataṃsaka is out of concern that people may not realize coarse afflictions are eliminated first, and that upon initially realizing the initial abode one looks back upon the ten faiths; thus it says 'habit-energy within the realm is exhausted.' Next, from 'Avataṃsaka' onward verifies the stage of the initial abode. Recent interpretations claim that prior to the stages \[bhūmis\] all are merely suppressed; how can it be resolved that an abode surpasses Śākyamuni? This is the second presentation of the text's perfect intent. From 'Why' onward explains the intent of the Avataṃsaka. The initial passage explains it briefly. From 'If so' onward raises an objection: Since there is a bodhisattva who surpasses a Buddha, could there not also be a voice-hearer who surpasses a bodhisattva? From 'However, by' onward answers: The Buddha path belongs to the stages and abodes of the distinctive and perfect \[teachings\]; if they can even surpass the Śākyamuni of the Tripiṭaka and shared \[teachings\], they clearly surpass the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka and shared \[teachings\]. This comparative judgment is made according to their respective scopes. From 'Furthermore' onward discriminates similarities and differences. In mutually severing views and thought, they gain the designation of function, yet cleverness and clumsiness differ. Although this discriminates how the function of wisdom differs in the previous stage of breaking the provisionality of thought, it also distantly evaluates the similarities and differences in wisdom and severance across various sūtras and treatises. The initial passage temporarily lists the distinct functions of wisdom in severing thought across the four teachings. Next, from 'If it is said' onward evaluates the passage just now discriminating similarities and differences. The initial passage compares the three vehicles within the shared teaching among themselves; next, from 'If it is said' onward compares them with the bodhisattvas of the distinctive and perfect \[teachings\]. The two vehicles of the shared and Tripiṭaka teachings both sever views and thought, yet their wisdoms differ; one could also say both their wisdom and severance differ, meaning that the shared teaching does not sever the distinctive afflictions. Here, severing the distinctive afflictions is not yet under discussion, so it is omitted. Furthermore, when the three vehicles of the shared teaching are compared among themselves, one could also say their wisdom is identical while severance differs, because there is a difference between habit-energy being exhausted and not exhausted. Next, from 'Question' onward analyzes the four points concerning transcending fruits and so forth. The initial question is self-explanatory. In the answer, the first part explains that transcendence exists. From 'Although not' onward explains that although fruits are transcended, the number of grades is not lost. Just as the travel of a person with spiritual penetrations and an ordinary person differs in speed, how could there be no distance in leagues? Next, the question asks: discussing transcendence should apply to those of sharp faculties; Śāriputra had sharp faculties, so why did he not transcend? Why did he only attain the first fruit upon first hearing the three truths? In the answer, the phrase 'seven days or fifteen days' refers to the Dazhidulun, scroll 38, which says: 'Śāriputra saw his maternal uncle debating with the Buddha; some say that upon hearing Aśvajit explain the three truths, or some say after seven days, or some say after fifteen days, he attained the fruit of no-learning.' Regarding 'Ānanda serving as attendant,' the Dazhidulun says: 'When the Buddha sought an attendant, his mind was on Ānanda, like the morning sun shining on a western wall. When it came time for the compilation in the assembly of Dharma, Kāśyapa rebuked him, saying: "You are like a donkey entering a herd of horses." Having heard this, Ānanda diligently cultivated in a quiet place, yet had not attained no-learning. Letting go of his body to lie down, as his head approached the pillow, before touching it he attained arhatship.' Thus we know that before that he did not lack the power of wisdom; because an arhat is not fit to be an attendant, he did not realize the fruit. Just as when Kumārajīva entered India, the people of the country revered him and provided five novices as attendants. Based on this, below the Buddha, fully ordained monks should not serve as attendants. From 'Bodhisattvas of the shared teaching' onward temporarily explains the meaning of non-transcendence, hence saying there should also be transcendence. Bodhisattvas invariably shoulder sentient beings, so transcendence is not discussed for them. Discussing transcendence inherently depends on the differing practices of persons, for the provisionality of thought must be broken. From 'Transcending fruits' onward discusses transcendence in four ways. 'Original severance' means that originally, when as an outsider cultivating worldly dhyāna, one had already severed the afflictions of thought; this is called original severance. In accordance with the number of grades severed at that original time, when one now enters the sixteen minds, the transcended fruits differ. Having originally attained the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception means having already severed the thought \[afflictions\] of the lower eight grounds; upon reaching the sixteen minds, one should be called a candidate for arhatship, but is only called a non-returner because in the ordinary stage one used defiled wisdom, and due to weak wisdom power is only named a non-returner. When attaining non-returner, these sixteen minds arouse undefiled attainment, replacing the previous defilement, which is called the concentration of seal and maintenance. 'Originally attaining the first dhyāna up to the second, third, and fourth' can be understood by analogy. 'Regarding the nine grades of the desire realm, according to how much was severed by worldly wisdom': if one originally severed nine, one is now called a candidate for the third fruit; if seven or eight grades, one attains the name of the second fruit; severing six grades and so on is called candidate for the second fruit; severing five, four, and so on is merely the first fruit. This differs from gradual severance, the meaning of which is as stated above. 'Or two or three grades are named one who goes from family to family': it should say three or four grades; perhaps the text is erroneous, or the Vibhāṣā differs. 'Come, monk' is as explained in the fourth \[fascicle\]. The exhaustion of both active defilements and habit-energy belongs only to the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka. Regarding the person of the perfect \[teaching\] being called 'most transcendent': Question: Previously it was said that because they shoulder \[beings\], they do not transcend; why is it different here? Answer: This mention of transcendence is named transcendent by contrasting the perfect with the distinctive. Hence the Yingluo is cited to verify transcendence and non-transcendence. In that Benye jing, Bodhisattva Jingshou said to the Buddha: 'All Buddhas and bodhisattvas illuminate all dharma-dhātus with great skillful means and equal great wisdom; do they awaken suddenly and equally, or do they awaken gradually?' The Buddha said: 'In my past assembly, there were one hundred and eighty million immaculate great beings who, right in the assembly, reached the source of the dharma-nature, suddenly awakened to non-duality, saw all dharmas as a single compound mark, and in each of the ten directions expounded this Yingluo; the great assembly all saw one hundred and eighty million suddenly awakened Tathāgatas.' Thus we know that sūtra speaks only of sudden awakening. The fifth fascicle of the Xuanwen judges this as the initial abode; the dragon girl was also like this, both being called sudden awakening. The word 'immaculate' explains immaculateness provisionally in terms of the six identities. Regarding 'Vimalakīrti': although having accomplished the Buddha path, it shows that the initial abode transcends to practice the bodhisattva path; this is non-transcendence. From 'The principle of the true mark' onward is the fourth phrase. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.7) - [Next: 6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.9) - [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.6.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.6.8) · Pramāṇa