[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) › 7.14 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 7.14 止觀輔行傳弘決 7.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.14) 次舉譬者，《婆沙》、《大論》並依樹譬道品，故名道樹。二論並與今文大同，但今結果位在初住，與《婆沙》異。於中又二：初別約無作道品、次通約三觀。初文有譬、合、結，譬及合文並闕如意。譬中應云莖幹上聳即如意足。「法性」下合，先正合、次明果上異名道品。「善知識」下，結前合譬。準方便中有三知識，從初引導令至寶所，即同行也。由是道品令行無誤，即教授義。諸品防護妄誤不侵，即外護義。忍辱為衣、法喜為食，資於慧命、益以定身，並外護義。由三知識，令入初住三身正覺，能與眾生真善知識。「通途」下，通約三諦。前但約圓，別別對位；此通約諦，諦諦各辯。於中先別對、次總對。總別二對但寄喻文，非約修行。又約竪位以譬圓者，觀行為葉，相似為華，分真為果。若通約四教，準說可知。次明三脫門者，明道品功能。《大論》二十一「問：涅槃唯一門，何故三耶？答：法一義三，三秖是一。又隨人不同，故分三別。見行從於空，愛行從無作，見愛等者從於無相。」論局三藏，今通三教，別教初心同二教故。諸教並以證道為無漏城，唯圓義通，六即辨異，是故今文釋道品竟，次明三脫。若準文正意，秖應但明無作三脫，亦為比決使識無作，是故具明諸教三脫。於中先明來意列名。次正釋中，先總釋、次歷教。初文先辯王臣旁正親疎、次約伏斷、三約名體。以總冠別，諸教各各三義不同，準望聖教不可專一，故並云「或」。下約教釋，但注「云云」，不復別辯，應隨其教出其相狀。初王臣中，先明三昧為王、次明三脫為王。三脫從慧，三昧從定，於空等上立二名者，由二種人入無漏異，故有三昧、三脫不同。以親入無漏者為王，旁助發者為臣。見與思惟屬慧，即是從慧發定。從定發慧，準此可知。斷伏名體，尋文可見。次歷教者，初三藏教，約十六行以分三門，《俱舍》、《婆沙》諸文皆爾，但分三昧及以三脫，互為王臣。諸論未辯，故三藏中由觀此行上忍發真，故以此行而為三門。又此行相，但取與其三門類同判屬門耳。通教從初但觀幻化，是故不復依十六行，但約空觀以辯三相，還約定慧以辯王臣。空等三義雖皆觀幻，不妨亦有王臣不同，亦由入道根異故爾。初空門中，具引古今釋論本者，既是古今，互出不同，今雙引之以證假實。此教三門不同三藏三門體殊，此中得空即無相願。次明別教，先通約三觀、次別約出假。初文意者，即以三觀為三三昧，三脫亦然。一一諦中，止即三昧、觀即三脫。王臣伏斷等準三藏說，即以初地為無漏城。次別約出假者，約此一諦既義立三，當知亦具王臣等義。於別教中立二釋者，約教始終雖具三諦，不得意者但在於假，是故此教應須兩釋。又一教始終雖具三諦，若入證道不復名別，是故別教但在於假。凡釋別義，悉皆準此。既約出假以釋三門，亦通行向為無漏城。故《大集》云「欲度眾生修於空，護持諸法修無相，不捨諸有修無願。」豈非純於出假以立三門？出假尚爾，餘任運具，何假義求？次明圓教者，前釋三教直爾釋之。今明圓教云「別約」者，當知前三通途泛列。此文正意別在於圓，故圓三門與前永異，圓王臣等亦復天隔，故圓教中空即無相無作故也。語似道教，意復永乖。定慧體一圓伏圓斷，圓名妙體二義融通。於中先引論文總比決之、次正解釋。初比決者，所緣不同、能通門異。所緣即是初住無漏，故使能通近遠亦異。「智者」等者，明空體不同。智者之言亦通別教及以接通，今唯在圓成圓三脫。空即不空皆能通極，故並名中皆能見性。又所見之空空無大小，以智異故大小名生，是故此中以智判空。智既圓融，二空則合，合故名中，復能見性。「又二乘」下，因辯大小十八空異。若得此空必具十八，是故次此辯十八空。空若不同，餘門自別，所以二乘觀十八空如觀夢事。「今圓」下，大十八空。圓人觀之如觀眠法，法如無明、夢事如取相，取相枝末、無明為本，是故夢事必依眠法。故觀無明即見實相，但觀取相唯見真理。若與二乘辯空異者，則兩教二乘及通別入空任運可識。縱使別教詮於不空，非初心觀，何須比決？故並不與圓教空同。故但約二乘，不論諸教。以此文中義猶含隱，是故下文更重簡之。「如前」下，正示門相。先寄前修中觀中三假以辯三相，故云如前。既用四句觀破無明，即具二空皆不可得，即是空門不見四門之相，即相續假破。尚無法性，豈有無明？是故不分四門之異，即無相門。門秖是句，即四句也。有真有緣故有能所，有能所故故有作者，今非真緣故無作者，即無作門。雖寄三假，實無前後。前通教中尚空即無相及無作等，況復圓妙更立次第耶？「王臣云云」者，亦具三義，與前不同。「如是」等者，明三門相即。「又四門」下，明門門三脫一一互通。「如此」下，重更約教以辯空異。初結成圓門，故云「三門意非次第」。「別雖」下，仍許別教亦緣實相，以次第故與圓不同。「又異」等者，尚不同別，況復藏通？能知異相方可觀同，是故勸物須善識之。 > Next, regarding citing metaphors: both the \*Vibhāṣā\* and the \*Dazhidulun\* rely on the metaphor of a tree for the aids to the path; hence it is called the 'tree of the path'. Both treatises largely accord with the present text, except that here the fruition stage is placed at the initial stage of abiding, which differs from the \*Vibhāṣā\*. In this there are also two parts: first, specifically in terms of the unconditioned aids to the path; second, generally in terms of the threefold contemplation. The first passage contains the metaphor, the application, and the conclusion; both the metaphor and its application omit the 'bases of psychic power' (ṛddhipāda). In the metaphor, it should say that the trunk rising aloft is the bases of psychic power. Below, from 'dharma-nature' onward is the application: first it makes the proper application, and next explains the distinct designations for the aids to the path in the state of fruition. Below, from 'good spiritual friends' onward concludes the preceding application of the metaphor. According to the preliminary practices, there are three types of spiritual friends: those who guide one from the beginning to reach the treasure site are 'companions'. Because the aids to the path ensure that one's practice is without error, this is the meaning of 'instructors'. The various aids protect against the invasion of delusion and error, which is the meaning of 'external protectors'. Taking forbearance as clothing and the joy of Dharma as food nurtures the life of wisdom and strengthens the body of concentration—both have the meaning of external protectors. Through these three types of spiritual friends, one enters the true awakening of the three bodies at the initial stage of abiding, and is able to act as a true and good spiritual friend for sentient beings. Below, from 'generally' onward, it treats them generally in terms of the three truths. Previously it was only in terms of the perfect \[teaching\], separately correlating with stages; here it treats them generally in terms of the truths, discerning each truth individually. Herein, it first correlates them separately, and next correlates them generally. These two correlations, general and separate, merely borrow the metaphorical text and are not in terms of actual cultivation. Moreover, in terms of vertical stages to illustrate the perfect \[teaching\]: contemplation practice constitutes the leaves, resemblance constitutes the blossoms, and partial realization of the real constitutes the fruit. If treated generally across the four teachings, it can be understood in line with this explanation. Next, explaining the three gates of liberation explains the functions of the aids to the path. Fascicle twenty-one of the \*Dazhidulun\* asks: 'Nirvāṇa has only one single gate; why are there three? Answer: The Dharma is one, but its aspects are three; the three are just the one. Furthermore, in accordance with the differences among persons, it is divided into three distinct \[gates\]: those whose practice is dominated by views enter through emptiness; those whose practice is dominated by craving enter through the unconditioned; those in whom views and craving are equal enter through signlessness.' The treatise is restricted to the Tripiṭaka \[teaching\], but here it is extended across the three teachings, because the initial mind of the distinctive teaching is identical to the \[first\] two teachings. All teachings take the path of realization as the citadel of the undefiled, but only the purport of the perfect \[teaching\] is all-pervading, with distinctions discerned according to the six identities. Therefore, the present text, having finished explaining the aids to the path, next explains the three liberations. If one accords with the principal intent of the text, it should only explain the unconditioned three liberations; however, in order to compare and determine so that one may recognize the unconditioned, it therefore fully explains the three liberations of all the teachings. In this, it first explains the purpose and lists the names. Next, in the proper explanation, it first explains them generally, and then goes through the teachings. In the first part, it first discerns king and minister, secondary and primary, close and distant; second, in terms of suppression and eradication; third, in terms of name and essence. Subsuming the specific under the general, the three meanings differ across each of the teachings; judging by the sacred teachings, one must not be rigidly exclusive, which is why it repeatedly says 'or'. In the explanation according to the teachings below, it merely notes 'and so forth' without separate discernment; one should bring out their characteristics according to each teaching. First, under king and minister, it first explains samādhi as the king, and next explains the three liberations as the king. The three liberations derive from wisdom, and samādhi derives from concentration; establishing these two designations with respect to emptiness and so forth is because the entry into the undefiled by the two kinds of persons differs, hence the distinction between samādhi and the three liberations. That which directly enters the undefiled is the king; that which assists and stimulates from the side is the minister. Views and thinking belong to wisdom, which means giving rise to concentration from wisdom. Giving rise to wisdom from concentration can be understood by analogy to this. Eradication, suppression, name, and essence can be seen by examining the text. Next, going through the teachings: first, the Tripiṭaka teaching divides into the three gates based on the sixteen mental aspects; texts such as the \*Kośa\* and the \*Vibhāṣā\* are all like this. They merely divide into samādhi and the three liberations, functioning alternately as king and minister. Because the treatises have not yet discerned this, in the Tripiṭaka teaching, it is by contemplating these aspects that upper receptivity gives rise to the real, so these aspects are taken as the three gates. Moreover, regarding these aspects, one merely takes those similar in category to the three gates and classifies them under those gates. The shared teaching contemplates illusory transformations from the very beginning; therefore, it no longer relies on the sixteen mental aspects, but merely discerns the three marks based on the contemplation of emptiness, still discerning king and minister based on concentration and wisdom. Although the three aspects of emptiness and so forth all contemplate illusion, this does not prevent there being differences of king and minister, which is also due to differences in the faculties for entering the path. In the first, the gate of emptiness, it fully cites ancient and modern commentaries on the treatise; since they are ancient and modern, they present differences, and now both are cited to verify the provisional and the real. The three gates of this teaching are not like the three gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching whose essences are distinct; here, attaining emptiness is itself signlessness and wishlessness. Next, explaining the distinctive teaching: first generally in terms of the three contemplations, and next specifically in terms of emerging from emptiness into provisionality. The meaning of the first text is that the three contemplations are taken as the three samādhis, and the three liberations are likewise. Within each single truth, calming is samādhi and contemplation is liberation. King, minister, suppression, eradication, and so forth are understood by analogy to the Tripiṭaka teaching, taking the initial bhūmi as the citadel of the undefiled. Next, specifically in terms of emerging into provisionality: since three \[gates\] are nominally established with respect to this single truth, one should know that it also possesses the meanings of king and minister and so forth. The establishment of two interpretations in the distinctive teaching is because, although from beginning to end the teaching possesses the three truths, those who miss its intent remain solely in the provisional; therefore, this teaching must have both interpretations. Furthermore, although from beginning to end a single teaching possesses the three truths, once one enters the path of realization it is no longer called 'distinctive'; therefore, the distinctive teaching resides solely in the provisional. All explanations of the meaning of 'distinctive' are modeled on this. Since the three gates are explained in terms of emerging into provisionality, the stages of practice and dedication also count as the citadel of the undefiled. Thus the \*Mahāsaṃnipāta\* says: 'Desiring to save sentient beings, one cultivates emptiness; protecting and upholding all dharmas, one cultivates signlessness; not abandoning all states of existence, one cultivates wishlessness.' How could this not be establishing the three gates purely with respect to emerging into provisionality? If emerging into provisionality is already like this, the remainder is naturally endowed—why rely on theoretical deduction? Next, explaining the perfect teaching: earlier, the three teachings were explained straightforwardly. Now, in explaining the perfect teaching, it says 'specifically in terms of', which shows that the previous three were broadly listed in a general manner. The primary intent of this text lies specifically in the perfect teaching; hence the three gates of the perfect teaching are eternally distinct from the former ones, and the perfect king and minister are also separated by heaven and earth. Thus, in the perfect teaching, emptiness is itself signlessness and unconditionedness. The words resemble Daoist teachings, but the meaning is completely different. Concentration and wisdom are identical in essence, with perfect suppression and perfect eradication; the perfect name and wonderful essence harmonize and interpenetrate in both meanings. In this, it first cites the text of the treatise to compare and determine them generally, and next gives the proper explanation. First, regarding the comparison: the objects focused upon differ, and the gates capable of accessing them differ. The object focused upon is the undefiled \[state\] of the initial stage of abiding, which causes the gates capable of access to differ in proximity and distance. The phrase 'one of wisdom' and so forth explains that the essence of emptiness differs. The words 'one of wisdom' also apply to the distinctive teaching and to the shared teaching that connects \[to the distinctive or perfect\], but here it resides solely in the perfect, accomplishing the three liberations of the perfect teaching. Emptiness being identical to non-emptiness can fully reach the ultimate; hence both are called the middle and both can see the nature. Furthermore, the emptiness that is seen has neither great nor small in its emptiness; it is because wisdom differs that the designations of great and small arise. Therefore, here, emptiness is determined by wisdom. Since wisdom is perfectly integrated, the two types of emptiness unite; because they unite, it is called the middle, and is further able to see the nature. Below, from 'Moreover, the two vehicles' onward, it discerns the differences between the greater and lesser eighteen kinds of emptiness on this basis. If one attains this emptiness, one must be fully endowed with the eighteen; therefore, next to this, it discerns the eighteen kinds of emptiness. If emptiness differs, the remaining gates will naturally be distinct; that is why the two vehicles contemplate the eighteen kinds of emptiness like contemplating dream occurrences. Below, from 'Now, the perfect' onward treats the great eighteen kinds of emptiness. A person of the perfect \[teaching\] contemplates them like contemplating the phenomenon of sleep: the phenomenon is like ignorance, and dream occurrences are like grasping at marks. Grasping at marks is the branch, and ignorance is the root; therefore, dream occurrences necessarily depend on the phenomenon of sleep. Thus, contemplating ignorance is immediately seeing the true mark, whereas merely contemplating grasping at marks only sees the principle of truth. If one discerns the difference in emptiness from the two vehicles, then the two vehicles of the two teachings, as well as the shared and distinctive entry into emptiness, can be naturally recognized. Even though the distinctive teaching expounds non-emptiness, it is not the contemplation of the initial mind—why would it need to be compared? Therefore, it is entirely unlike the emptiness of the perfect teaching. Thus it is only discussed in terms of the two vehicles, and not the various teachings. Because the meaning in this text is still implicit, the text below sifts it again. Below, from 'as before' onward, it directly shows the characteristics of the gates. It first borrows the three kinds of provisionality from the previous practice of the contemplation of the middle to discern the three characteristics; hence it says 'as before'. Once one uses the four propositions to contemplate and break through ignorance, one is endowed with the two types of emptiness, both of which are ungraspable; this is the gate of emptiness. Not seeing the marks of the four gates means breaking through provisionality as continuity. When even dharma-nature does not exist, how could there be ignorance? Therefore, not distinguishing the differences among the four gates is the gate of signlessness. 'Gate' is just 'proposition'—that is, the four propositions. When there is the real and there are conditions, there are subject and object; because there are subject and object, there is an agent. Now, since it is neither real nor conditions, there is no agent; this is the gate of the unconditioned. Although relying on the three kinds of provisionality, in reality there is no before or after. In the preceding shared teaching, emptiness is already identical to signlessness, the unconditioned, and so forth; how much more so in the perfect and wonderful teaching—would it establish a sequence? 'King and minister, and so forth' also possesses three meanings, differing from before. 'Thus' and so forth explains the mutual identity of the three gates. Below, from 'Moreover, the four gates' onward, it explains that within each gate the three liberations mutually interpenetrate. Below, from 'In this manner' onward, it again discerns the differences in emptiness according to the teachings. First, it concludes with the perfect gate, hence saying 'the meaning of the three gates is not sequential'. Below, from 'Although the distinctive' onward, it still grants that the distinctive teaching also focuses on the true mark, but because of its sequentiality it differs from the perfect. The phrase 'Furthermore, differing' and so forth means that it does not even agree with the distinctive, let alone the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings. Only by being able to know the distinct characteristics can one contemplate their identity; therefore, it exhorts people to understand them well. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.13) - [Next: 7.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.15) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.7.14) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [觀音玄義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.3.14) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.14) · Pramāṇa