[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) › 7.2 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 7.2 止觀輔行傳弘決 7.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.2.1) 次釋通塞中，先列異名； 次明來意，有法、譬、合。 就初法中，先正明來意，亦是結前生後。 前「破法遍」者，結前也。 「應入」等者，生後也。 俱用三名以為生後，故云應入不入。 「當尋得失必滯是非」，得失秖是有著無著。 若同外道名著名失，當用此門檢校除失； 若無失者，但依前門破塞存通。 是故今門意在檢校，恐於通中翻起於塞。 次「不得」下，誡勸也。 若一向作解唯用破遍，恐於通起塞、於塞無通，所以立此通塞一門。 檢彼破遍令塞得通，使彼破門於通無塞。 次「何者」下，正明來意。 於能生著，同彼外道，宜用通塞四句遍破。 故知前破遍中但用能破破於所破，猶未悟者必於能所心生塞著。 於能生著，觀法雖正，著心同邪，是故須破，故云「愛著觀空智慧」，是故須以四句三假破能著心使無立處。 破能著智如所破惑，故云「能破如所破」也。 雖不愛著能破之觀，而猶愛著所破之惑，故云若不愛著觀空智慧，則「能破不如所破」，是故但用破遍破惑。 是故須以二句分別，則使此文與前永異：一者通途通塞則以所破為塞、能破為通； 二者別相通塞則以於能起著為塞、破塞無著為通。 故下文云「法相淺深任有通塞，況復於中起苦集等。 」上句即是通途通塞，下句即以別相況之。 然今此中總有四義：一橫通塞、二竪通塞、三橫別通塞、四一心通塞。 文四義二。 前三為成一心故也，一一皆須四句檢校。 若於四通而起塞著，皆須破塞以存於通，如是展轉以破為期。 故下文云「於一一能、一一所、一一心皆悉檢校，為是義故立通塞門。 」所以復須四句分別：一者塞中得通、二者通中有塞、三者塞自是塞、四者通自是通。 初之二句即是今文別相通塞，後之二句若塞已破即屬破遍、若塞未破度入今文成前二句。 又第一句兼於兩句，謂通相別相兩意故也。 次舉譬中，先譬。 「除膜養珠」但成分喻，若「破賊護將」便成遍喻。 何者？ 除膜養珠不可珠復為膜，即濫第三第四兩句，是故更喻破賊護將。 將若為賊，此賊亦破； 賊若為將，此將亦護。 如是展轉，將皆為賊，節節破之。 即是此文之正意也。 所言膜者，皮間薄膜，此膜覆眼名為眼膜。 「若爾」下，合譬。 若能如是，方能導人至於寶所。 於中先正合譬，次通五百由旬義也。 亦通塞之正意也。 破塞存通至寶所故，是故路經五百由旬。 經云「導師善知通塞」，故用《法華》將導譬也。 是故須破古今諸釋，方了今文一心通塞。 於中總有六師不同。 破初家云「二乘之道非七八地」者，問：二乘正當七地八地，云何言非？ 答：此中用釋論意以破彼計。 彼釋既云「六地見思盡以為三百，七地八地以為四百。 」是故今文以論破之。 論以二乘而對四百，汝以六地對見思盡，正當二乘不為四百，却以七八二地而為四百，故汝所釋與彼大論通教義違。 此師用通義而不識通意，是故還引《大論》破之。 《大論》通意至後更釋。 後之二家皆約煩惱為五百者，而前家不數塵沙、後家不數於見，是故並失。 後辨失中略不更破也。 「此之名義」下，通今經也。 先正通經。 經具三義，故知諸師不與經會。 「諸師」下，次辨失也，先總、次別。 初言總者，用別如太方、用通如太圓，二乘擅行如太動、界內立城如太靜。 又約煩惱而不數見及塵沙，約生死而不數有後無後為太靜。 故知諸師各隨一見，或得通而失二、或用別而違圓、或至三百而不立化城、或有擅行於四百五百、或約煩惱而攝或不盡、或約生死而取捨不周，欲判圓經恐未可也。 「如持一孔」等者，不可以一師偏解，能釋兼三之文。 「初家」下別判，但判四師不判第五第六師者，略無易見。 判初家云四百立城者，若約通義，七八二地正屬二乘，彼師七八對於四百，故成四百以立化城。 > Next, in explaining pass and blockage: first, different names are listed; second, the purpose of its occurrence is explained, comprising the doctrine, the simile, and the application. In the first part on the doctrine, first the purpose of its occurrence is directly explained, which also concludes the preceding and introduces the following. "Universal refutation of dharmas" concludes the preceding. "Ought to enter" and so forth introduces the following. All three designations are used to introduce the following; therefore it says, "ought to enter but does not enter." "One should search for gain and loss, which must be bogged down in right and wrong"; "gain" and "loss" simply refer to having attachment and lacking attachment. If one is like the non-Buddhists, who are called attached and called errant, one should use this gate to examine and eliminate the errancy; if there is no errancy, one merely relies on the preceding gate to refute blockage and preserve the pass. Therefore, the intention of the present gate lies in examination, fearing that within what is a pass, a blockage might conversely arise. Next, "may not" and so forth gives admonition and exhortation. If one solely adheres to an understanding that exclusively employs universal refutation, one fears that blockages will arise within the pass and that there will be no pass within blockage; for this reason, this single gate of pass and blockage is established. It examines that universal refutation so that blockage yields a pass, causing that gate of refutation to have no blockage within the pass. Next, "why so?" and so forth directly explains the purpose of its occurrence. As for generating attachment in that which can \[refute\], being identical with those non-Buddhists, one ought to use the four propositions of pass and blockage to refute it universally. Thus we know that in the preceding universal refutation, one only used the refuting agent to refute what was refuted; those who have not yet awakened will inevitably generate a blocking attachment in the minds of the refuting agent and the refuted. When attachment arises in the refuting agent, even though the method of contemplation is correct, the attached mind is identical with error, and therefore it must be refuted; hence it says, "clinging attached to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness." For this reason, one must use the four propositions and the three provisionalities to refute the mind capable of attachment, causing it to have no place to stand. Refuting the wisdom capable of attachment is just like \[refuting\] the afflictions that are refuted; hence it says, "the refuting agent is like what is refuted." Even if one does not cling to the contemplation that is the refuting agent, but still clings to the afflictions that are what is refuted, it says that if one does not cling to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness, then "the refuting agent is not like what is refuted"; therefore, one only uses universal refutation to refute afflictions. For this reason, one must differentiate with two propositions, which makes this text permanently distinct from the preceding: first, the general pass and blockage takes what is refuted as blockage and the refuting agent as the pass; second, the specific pass and blockage takes giving rise to attachment in the refuting agent as blockage, and refuting blockage without attachment as the pass. Hence the text below says: "The shallow and deep marks of dharmas naturally have pass and blockage; how much more so when giving rise to suffering, accumulation, and so forth within them!" The upper line is the general pass and blockage; the lower line uses the specific to draw an analogy to it. However, now within this there are four meanings in total: first, horizontal pass and blockage; second, vertical pass and blockage; third, horizontal-distinctive pass and blockage; and fourth, single-mind pass and blockage. The text has four, but the meanings are two. The first three are for the sake of accomplishing the single mind; each and every one requires examination through the four propositions. If blocking attachment arises regarding the four passes, all must refute blockage to preserve the pass, proceeding progressively in this way with refutation as the goal. Hence the text below says: "One examines each and every refuting agent, each and every refuted object, and each and every mind; for this reason, the gate of pass and blockage is established." For this reason, one also must differentiate through four propositions: first, attaining the pass within blockage; second, having blockage within the pass; third, blockage of itself being blockage; and fourth, the pass of itself being the pass. The first two propositions are the specific pass and blockage of the present text; the latter two propositions, if the blockage has already been refuted, belong to universal refutation, and if the blockage has not yet been refuted, they pass over into the present text to form the first two propositions. Moreover, the first proposition combines the two propositions, meaning the two senses of the general mark and the specific mark. Next, in presenting the simile, the simile comes first. "Removing the film to nurture the pearl" only constitutes a partial simile; whereas "defeating the bandits to protect the general" constitutes an all-inclusive simile. Why is that? In removing the film to nurture the pearl, the pearl cannot turn back into a film, which would conflate with the third and fourth propositions; for this reason, one further uses the simile of defeating bandits to protect the general. If the general acts as a bandit, this bandit is also defeated; if the bandit acts as a general, this general is also protected. Proceeding progressively like this, whenever generals all turn into bandits, they are refuted step by step. This is the primary intention of this text. What is called a "film" is a thin membrane between the skin; this film covers the eye and is called an ocular film. Next, "if so" and so forth applies the simile. If one can be like this, only then can one guide people to reach the place of jewels. Within this, it first directly applies the simile, and next explains the meaning of the five hundred yojanas. This is also the primary intention of pass and blockage. Because one refutes blockage and preserves the pass to reach the place of jewels, the road passes through five hundred yojanas. The sūtra says: "The guide knows well the passes and blockages"; hence the simile of the guiding leader from the Lotus Sūtra is employed. Therefore, one must refute the various interpretations of past and present before one can understand the single-mind pass and blockage of the present text. Within this, there are six different teachers in total. Refuting the first master's claim that "the path of the two vehicles is not the seventh and eighth grounds": Question: Since the two vehicles precisely correspond to the seventh and eighth grounds, why say they are not? Answer: Here the intention of the Treatise is employed to refute his position. Since his explanation said, "Taking the exhaustion of \[the delusions of\] views and thoughts on the sixth ground as the three hundred \[yojanas\], and taking the seventh and eighth grounds as the four hundred \[yojanas\]," therefore the present text refutes him using the Treatise. The Treatise matches the two vehicles with the four hundred, but you match the sixth ground with the exhaustion of views and thoughts; while precisely corresponding to the two vehicles, you do not take it as four hundred, but instead take the seventh and eighth grounds as four hundred; therefore your explanation contradicts the shared teaching's meaning in the Dazhidulun. This master used the shared meaning without understanding the shared intent; therefore we quote the Dazhidulun in turn to refute him. The shared intent of the Dazhidulun will be further explained below. The latter two masters both interpret the five hundred in terms of afflictions; however, the former master does not count \[the delusions like\] dust and sand, and the latter master does not count \[delusive\] views; therefore both are deficient. In the subsequent identification of errors, they are omitted without further refutation. Next, "this name and meaning" and so forth explains the present sūtra. First it directly explains the sūtra. The sūtra possesses three meanings; thus we know the various masters did not accord with the sūtra. Next, "the various masters" and so forth identifies the errors, first generally and then specifically. First, regarding the general statement: using the distinctive is like being too square, and using the shared is like being too round; the two vehicles acting presumptuously is like being too active, and establishing the city within the realms is like being too still. Furthermore, interpreting in terms of afflictions without counting views and dust-and-sand, and interpreting in terms of birth-and-death without counting "with remainder" and "without remainder," constitutes being too still. Thus we know that the various masters each followed a single view: either grasping the shared while missing the two, or using the distinctive while contradicting the perfect, or reaching three hundred without establishing the conjured city, or presumptuously walking to four hundred or five hundred, or interpreting in terms of afflictions without subsuming them completely, or interpreting in terms of birth-and-death while accepting and rejecting incompletely; to attempt to judge the perfect sūtra \[with such views\], one fears it is impermissible. "Like holding to a single aperture" and so forth: one cannot use a single master's one-sided interpretation to explain a text that combines the three. Next, "the first master" and so forth makes specific judgments; as for only judging four masters and not judging the fifth and sixth masters, they are omitted because \[their errors\] are easy to see. Judging the first master's statement that the four hundred establishes the city: if according to the shared meaning, the seventh and eighth grounds precisely belong to the two vehicles; that master matched the seventh and eighth with the four hundred, and thus established the conjured city at four hundred. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.2.2) 攝家割二死於荒外者，攝大乘師立七種生死：一分段，謂三界果報； 二流來，謂迷真之初； 三反出，謂背妄之始； 四方便，謂入滅二乘； 五因緣，謂初地已上； 六有後，謂第十地； 七無後，謂金剛心。 汝既自立七種生死釋五百義，何故捨二，但用方便及以因緣足於三界為五百耶？ 如汝所釋，寶渚之外更有有後及以無後，捨而不用，故名為割。 荒為八荒，八極之內，亦云四海之外，亦曰九州之外，亦云荒服之外，故曰荒外。 如第一卷所引。 《爾雅》云「九夷等四，此次荒之國也。 觚竹等四，此極遠荒之國也。 」今以地極名為遠荒，即以所極譬於寶渚，寶渚之外不應有地。 攝師猶有二種生死闕而不論，是故破之。 次判地家界內立城者，既將住位以對二百，住位復是見思斷位，二百對界秖是色界，故知即是界內立城，故不可也。 次家即以二乘足為五百，經過三百以立化城。 二乘至此即應入城，何故將對四百五百？ 故知擅行四百五百，唯至《法華》開權顯實，方可出城進四五百。 若開權已，成大菩薩，那得復云猶是二乘？ 而云二乘足為五百？ 言「徑廷」者，二乘本是被覆之權，輒自開權，故云徑廷。 至法華會佛為發權，不名擅行亦非徑廷。 廷者（他定切），越次之義。 又開權竟，二乘同八，亦非二乘各對一百，是故不用。 城者，盛也，盛於所住，即行人也。 「人師過如此」下，釋疑，先徵起、次正釋。 恐人見論疑破初家，論以二乘而為四百，何故不許四百立城？ 於中先序論文。 言「論有二文」者，《大論》六十八云「譬如欲過一百二百三百四百由旬曠野嶮道。 言嶮道者，即世間也。 一百欲界，二百色界，三百無色，四百二乘。 復次四百欲界，三百色界，二百無色，一百二乘。 菩薩摩訶薩當知不久得菩提記，當知不畏墮於二地，是過四百近菩提城。 」論文無五百之言者，既云通意過於四百曠野近菩提城，城即五百。 「今通之」下，即是今家判於論文但屬通義，是故但以二乘對於四百。 菩薩至此與二乘齊，仍約鈍根未見中者，是故不明五百由旬，故指三乘共得解脫名為涅槃。 「復以二乘為一百」者，如前引論，尋文可知。 「今明」下，今家正解。 正顯今家依《法華》明通塞義也。 經文既云「過於五百」，今家準經以為三釋：若約生死及以煩惱，不應云過； 若約觀智，即得云過。 過前生死煩惱二五，即至涅槃一切種智，故云「空觀智知三百」等。 知即是過。 初「約生死」者，五百皆是生死故也，是故不以寂光對於五百。 次「約煩惱者」，見通三界故合為一，下分繫欲故合為一。 《俱舍》云「由二不超欲，由三復還下。 」二謂貪瞋，上通名類，故合為一。 下分有五，謂身見、戒取、疑、貪、瞋。 言上分者，上分有五，謂掉、慢、無明、色染。 以此三釋即是一念，能所無著，方名善知。 「又諸師」下，結非顯正。 斥諸師釋唯依權教判位太高，於權位中又釋不了。 故下正以橫竪判權及橫別等，方曉權人所行之法。 若橫若竪俱破五百，但非一念，故判屬權。 遼，亦遠也。 遠而又逈，故名為遼。 二邊之外別立五百，故名「遼遠」。 此即通結諸師判位大高：初師以十地為五百、攝師在初地、地師在十地，如此判者凡下絕分，化城非冀、寶所望崖。 凡既望崖，為誰說教？ 若其此教唯為聖人，經不應云「為令眾生」。 又若定在十地等者，二乘被會尚亦未至，何況凡夫？ 今明圓門實相寶所，凡聖通具、六即甄分。 舊依權門判位太遠，今依實教，是故不用。 「今論」下，正以由旬釋通塞意，先縱橫、次一心。 初有三義，謂一橫、二竪、三者橫別。 初橫，如文。 次竪文中，先正明竪、次橫織竪。 竪三如經、橫三如緯，織之令成三諦文章。 若三諦中有苦集等，三諦不成故也。 > Regarding "the Master of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha discarding the two deaths beyond the desolation": The master of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha posits seven kinds of birth-and-death: (1) fragmented \[birth-and-death\], referring to the karmic retributions of the triple realm; (2) flowing downstream, referring to the initial delusion regarding truth; (3) turning back to emerge, referring to the beginning of turning away from falsity; (4) expedient means, referring to the two vehicles entering extinction; (5) causes and conditions, referring to the first bhūmi and above; (6) with a remainder, referring to the tenth bhūmi; (7) without remainder, referring to the adamantine mind. Since you yourself establish seven kinds of birth-and-death to explain the meaning of the five hundred \[yojanas\], why do you discard two, using only expedient means and causes and conditions to supplement the triple realm to make five hundred? According to your explanation, beyond the jewel islet there are still "with remainder" and "without remainder", yet you discard them and do not use them; hence it is called "discarding". "Desolation" refers to the eight desolations, within the eight extremities, also described as outside the four seas, outside the nine provinces, or outside the wild domains; thus it is called "beyond the desolation". It is as cited in the first fascicle. The Erya says: "The four \[barbarian lands\] such as the Nine Yi are the lands bordering the desolation. The four such as Guzhu are the lands of the extreme distant desolation." Now, using the extreme boundary of the earth as the distant desolation, the extreme reached is likened to the jewel islet; beyond the jewel islet there should be no other land. The master of the Saṃgraha still has two kinds of birth-and-death that are omitted and not discussed, which is why he is refuted. Next, regarding the Master of the Daśabhūmika "establishing the city within the realms": Since he correlates the stage of abidings with two hundred, and the stage of abidings is furthermore the stage where \[delusions of\] view and thought are severed, and two hundred correlates among the realms only to the form realm, one therefore knows that this is establishing the city within the realms; hence it is unacceptable. The next master supplements \[the three realms\] with the two vehicles to make five hundred, establishing the conjured city after passing three hundred. When the two vehicles reach this point, they should enter the city; why then correlate them with four hundred and five hundred? Thus we know that advancing arbitrarily through four hundred and five hundred is only possible upon reaching the Lotus, where the provisional is opened and the real is revealed—only then can one emerge from the city and advance through the four and five hundred. If the provisional has already been opened, they become great bodhisattvas; how could one still say that they are the two vehicles, and claim that the two vehicles supplement \[the count\] to make five hundred? As for the term "abruptly taking shortcuts" (jingting): the two vehicles are originally provisionalities that are covered over; to open the provisional arbitrarily on one's own is why it is called "abruptly taking shortcuts". Reaching the assembly of the Lotus, the Buddha reveals the provisional for them; this is not called acting arbitrarily, nor is it abruptly taking shortcuts. Ting (spelled tha + ding) carries the sense of skipping stages. Moreover, once the provisional has been opened, the two vehicles are unified with the eight \[stages\], and it is not that each of the two vehicles corresponds to one hundred; therefore it is not adopted. A "city" means fullness (sheng), being full with what one abides in, which refers to the practitioner. From "Teachers have erred in this way" downward, doubts are resolved: first raised, then properly resolved. There is a fear that someone seeing the treatise might doubt the refutation of the first master: the treatise makes the two vehicles four hundred, so why not allow establishing the city at four hundred? Therein, the text of the treatise is first quoted. In "The treatise has two texts", the Dazhidulun, fascicle sixty-eight, states: "For example, one wishes to pass through a wilderness and perilous path of one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, or four hundred yojanas. The 'perilous path' refers to the worldly realm: one hundred is the desire realm, two hundred is the form realm, three hundred is the formless realm, and four hundred is the two vehicles. Furthermore, four hundred is the desire realm, three hundred is the form realm, two hundred is the formless realm, and one hundred is the two vehicles. A bodhisattva-mahāsattva should know that before long he will receive the prediction of bodhi, and should know that he does not fear falling into the two stages; this is passing four hundred and nearing the city of bodhi." As for the treatise text lacking mention of "five hundred": since it says the general meaning is passing through the wilderness of four hundred and nearing the city of bodhi, the city itself is five hundred. From "Now interpreting it" downward: our school judges that the text of the treatise belongs only to the shared meaning; therefore it merely correlates the two vehicles with four hundred. Bodhisattvas reaching this point are on par with the two vehicles, which is still formulated according to dull roots who have not seen the middle; for this reason it does not clarify five hundred yojanas, and therefore points to the three vehicles mutually attaining liberation as nirvāṇa. In "Furthermore making the two vehicles one hundred": as cited from the treatise earlier, one can understand by consulting the text. From "Now clarifying" downward: our school's correct interpretation. This directly reveals our school's meaning of pass and blockage based on the Lotus. Since the sūtra text says "passing beyond five hundred", our school bases itself on the sūtra to provide three interpretations: If considered in terms of birth-and-death and afflictions, one should not say "passing beyond"; if considered in terms of contemplative wisdom, then one can say "passing beyond". Passing beyond the two fives of prior birth-and-death and afflictions, one reaches nirvāṇa, the knowledge of all aspects; thus it says "the wisdom of contemplating emptiness knows three hundred", and so on. "Knowing" is precisely "passing beyond". First, regarding "in terms of birth-and-death": because all five hundred are birth-and-death, one therefore does not correlate quiescent light with the five hundred. Next, regarding "in terms of afflictions": because views pervade the triple realm, they are combined into one; because the lower bonds tie one to desire, they are combined into one. The Kośa says: "Due to two, one does not transcend desire; due to three, one falls back down again." The two are greed and anger; since their names and categories generally correspond above, they are combined into one. The lower bonds are five: views of individuality, clinging to precepts, doubt, greed, and anger. As for the higher bonds, the higher bonds are five: agitation, conceit, ignorance, and attachment to form. Understanding these three interpretations as being present within a single thought-moment, without attachment to either the agent or the object \[of contemplation\], is alone termed "skilfully knowing". From "Furthermore, the various masters" downward: concluding the errors and revealing the correct. It rebukes the interpretations of the various masters as relying solely on the provisional teachings and judging the stages to be excessively high, while within the provisional stages they also fail to explain thoroughly. Therefore, below we properly judge the provisional by means of the horizontal and vertical, as well as the horizontal-distinctive, etc.; only then can one understand the dharmas practiced by persons of the provisional. Whether horizontal or vertical, both refute the five hundred, but because they are not a single thought-moment, they are judged as belonging to the provisional. Liao also means distant. Far away and remote, it is therefore called liao. Establishing the five hundred separately outside the two extremes is why it is called "remote and distant". This generally concludes that the various masters judge the stages to be excessively high: the first master considers the tenth bhūmi to be the five hundred, the Saṃgraha master places it at the first bhūmi, and the Daśabhūmika master places it at the tenth bhūmi. Explaining in this way, ordinary and low persons are completely excluded; the conjured city is beyond hope, and the jewel place is an inaccessible precipice. Since ordinary beings view it as an inaccessible precipice, for whose sake was the teaching expounded? If this teaching were exclusively for noble ones, the sūtra should not have said "in order to cause sentient beings...". Furthermore, if it were fixed at the tenth bhūmi and so on, even the two vehicles when convened have not yet arrived there, let alone ordinary beings. Now we clarify that the jewel place of the true mark of the perfect gate is possessed in common by both ordinary beings and noble ones, distinguished by the six identities. The old interpretations relied on the provisional gate and judged the stages too remotely; now we rely on the real teaching, and therefore do not adopt them. From "Now discussing" downward: properly explaining the meaning of pass and blockage by means of the yojanas; first the vertical and horizontal, then the single mind. First there are three meanings, namely: (1) horizontal, (2) vertical, and (3) horizontal-distinctive. First, the horizontal, as in the text. In the subsequent vertical text: first the vertical is properly clarified; next the horizontal weaves through the vertical. The vertical three are like the warp; the horizontal three are like the weft; weaving them causes the pattern of the three truths to be formed. If suffering and accumulation and so forth are present within the three truths, it is because the three truths would not be accomplished. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.2.3) 如入空時具諦緣度，檢校心法及以能所，令無苦集無明六蔽。 假中檢校亦復如是。 初入空中，析體不同。 初明析空中先言三塞者，初是苦集，「既不識」下是十二緣，次「不滅」下是六蔽。 於六蔽中但舉一慳，餘五並略。 次引《大經》以證六蔽。 蔽即是塞。 第十一云「如婆羅門幼稚童子為饑所逼，見人糞中有菴羅果，即便取之。 有智之人即訶責之：『汝淨行種，云何取此穢果而食？ 』童子聞已赧然有愧，即答之言：『我實不食，淨洗棄之。 』智者訶言：『汝大愚癡。 若擬棄者，本不應取』」章安解云「婆羅門者，即譬初修般若淨道。 幼稚，以譬解行淺弱。 三途苦逼，譬之如饑。 無常之中有人天果，如彼穢糞有菴羅果。 深行訶淺，故曰智訶。 童子去淺行懷愧，非貪天樂，為欲於中修道棄捨，故云洗棄。 智者語言去，菩薩勸令一切俱捨，不須受已復觀而捨。 」故知經意正譬三藏菩薩，觀生受生名洗已棄。 故知三祇百劫之內，有漏心中修事六度，度與惑俱，義同於蔽。 「若於」下，次明二通，即諦緣度。 諦緣度相，尋文可見。 「當用」下，次明檢校。 言「一一」者，不問能所及以心法。 有塞咸破如前破賊。 故知通塞咸須檢校。 三諦之中言「心」等者，心謂體析見思之心，法謂假觀知病等三，及中觀中無明等三，此等皆有能所故也。 又心謂能緣之心，法謂所緣之法，若觀若境俱有心法咸須檢校。 下去例然。 「復次」下，次明體空。 文亦先明通塞之相，「如羅漢」下以聖況凡。 聖尚名陰，凡何得無？ 「若計」下，次示苦集。 結業即集，生死即苦。 「若不識」下，次明十二因緣。 「若愛」下，次明六蔽。 亦但舉一慳，餘五並略。 「用即空慧」下，檢校入空。 從「於病法」等下，次明檢校入假。 並可見。 問：前入空中云一一心，今入假中云一一法者，何耶？ 答：三觀所觀無非心法，初破見思作心名便，入假習法作法名便。 以己他心所習成法，入中之時並是法界，從法又便。 文略可見。 次「檢校中道正觀」者，還檢竪破中觀三番。 此中存略，但云觀於無明、法性、真緣三假以示通塞。 「一一」下，示檢校相。 「若作如此下至塞乃得通」者，明權位太高。 通教六地、別教初地，如是兩教經於劫數，乃到實相寶所之位，此位乃是竪三諦相。 次引《大經》以證權位經於劫數。 《大經》前後總有四文，大同小異。 第十云「經爾所劫當得菩提」，第十九云「至菩提」，第二十云「得菩提」。 第二十一云「住菩提」。 住者秖是住於初住菩提住處，當謂經劫方得菩提。 至之與得名異義同，至謂從於方便中來，得謂得於發心處所。 言「須陀洹」等者，從本為名。 經七生已任運入般，生彼復經八萬劫竟方發大心，一來六萬、不還四萬、無學二萬、支佛一萬，比說可知。 從根利鈍，故使出界經劫長短。 發心已後修中道觀，斷無明惑，得見佛性，乃可名為過於五百。 此語三藏入滅二乘，通教多分即生能發，如此論者無益初心。 然向五人皆云發心若到若得，是故不與《唯識》義同。 長時乃發，教尚是權，況計永滅寧非方便？ 若執權論破佛實經，招過既深，良恐未可。 此之竪相，雖本為成非竪非橫，與彼權教次位同故，故須斥破。 下橫亦爾。 > For instance, when entering emptiness, the \[four\] truths, \[twelve\] links of conditions, and \[six\] perfections are fully present: one examines mental factors and \[objective\] phenomena, as well as the subjective \[cognition\] and objective \[realm\], so that there are no suffering and origin, no ignorance, and no six hindrances. The examination in provisionality and the middle is also like this. In the initial entry into emptiness, the analytic and the embodiment \[approaches\] differ. In the initial explanation of analytic emptiness, first, in mentioning the three blockages: the first is suffering and origin; from "if one does not recognize" downward is the twelve links of conditions; next, from "if not extinguished" downward is the six hindrances. Among the six hindrances, only stinginess is raised, while the other five are omitted. Next, the Great Scripture is cited to prove the six hindrances. Hindrance (蔽) is blockage (塞). The eleventh fascicle states: "Just as a young brāhmaṇa boy, pressed by hunger, saw an āmrātaka fruit in human feces and immediately took it. A wise person then reproached him: 'You are of pure-conduct lineage; why do you take this defiled fruit and eat it?' Having heard this, the boy was abashed and ashamed, and immediately replied to him: 'I truly will not eat it; I will wash it clean and discard it.' The wise one reproached him: 'You are greatly foolish! If you intended to discard it, you should not have taken it in the first place.'" Zhang'an explains: "The brāhmaṇa exemplifies one initially cultivating the pure path of prajñā. The young boy exemplifies shallow and weak understanding and practice. Being pressed by the sufferings of the three evil paths is exemplified by hunger. Amid impermanence there are the fruits of humans and gods, just like the āmrātaka fruit in that defiled feces. Deeper practice reproaching shallow \[practice\] is called the reproach of the wise. The boy going beyond shallow practice and harbouring shame is not craving heavenly pleasure, but wishing to cultivate the path amidst it and abandon it; hence it is called washing and discarding. From 'the wise one said' downward, the bodhisattva admonishes that all should be relinquished together, without needing to receive it first and then contemplate it to discard it." Thus we know that the scripture's intention specifically exemplifies the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva, for whom contemplating birth and receiving birth is called having washed and then discarded. Hence we know that within the three asaṃkhyeya kalpas and one hundred eons, cultivating the phenomenal six perfections with an outflow-tainted mind entails that the perfections coexist with afflictions, which in sense is identical to hindrances. From "if for" downward, next the two passes are explained, which are the truths, links of conditions, and perfections. The aspects of the truths, links of conditions, and perfections can be seen by consulting the text. From "one should use" downward, next the examination is explained. "Each and every" means without distinguishing between subjective and objective or between mind and phenomena: wherever there is blockage, all must be demolished, just as in the earlier refutation of bandits. Thus we know that passes and blockages must all be examined. Among the three truths, the mention of "mind" and so forth means: 'mind' refers to the mind that embodies or analyzes \[the attachments to\] views and thought; 'phenomena' refers to the three such as knowing diseases in the contemplation of provisionality, and the three such as ignorance in the contemplation of the middle; these all have subjective and objective \[aspects\]. Furthermore, 'mind' refers to the mind that is the subjective condition, and 'phenomena' refers to the phenomena that are the objective condition; whether contemplation or object, both have mind and phenomena, and all must be examined. The subsequent \[cases\] follow the same pattern. From "furthermore" downward, next the embodiment of emptiness is explained. The text also first explains the characteristics of passes and blockages; from "just as an arhat" downward, the noble is used to illustrate the ordinary. When even the noble are still called aggregates, how could the ordinary be without them? From "if one conceives" downward, next suffering and origin are indicated: binding karma is origin, and birth-and-death is suffering. From "if one does not recognize" downward, next the twelve causes and conditions are explained. From "if one cherishes" downward, next the six hindrances are explained, also merely raising stinginess and omitting the other five. From "using wisdom that is identical to emptiness" downward, the examination for entering emptiness \[is explained\]. From "regarding disease-phenomena" and so forth downward, next the examination for entering provisionality is explained; these can all be seen. Question: Why is it that previously, upon entering emptiness, it spoke of "each and every mind", but now, upon entering provisionality, it speaks of "each and every phenomenon"? Answer: What is contemplated by the three contemplations is nothing other than mind and phenomena. When initially refuting views and thought, designating them as "mind" is convenient; when entering provisionality to practice phenomena, designating them as "phenomena" is convenient. Because the phenomena are formed through the practice of one's own and others' minds, when entering the middle, all are the dharma-dhātu; designating them as "phenomena" is again convenient. The text is brief and can be seen. Next, "examining the correct contemplation of the middle way" refers back to examining the three vertical turns of refutation in the contemplation of the middle. Here it is kept brief, merely speaking of contemplating the three provisionals of ignorance, dharma-nature, and true conditions to illustrate passes and blockages. From "each and every" downward, the characteristics of the examination are shown. "If one acts like this \[...\] down to the blockage, then one attains the pass" explains that the provisional stages are overly elevated. In the six stages of the shared teaching and the initial bhūmi of the distinctive teaching, it is only after passing through eons in these two teachings that one reaches the stage of the jewel-abode of the true mark; this stage is precisely the aspect of the vertical three truths. Next, the Great Scripture is cited to prove that the provisional stages pass through eons. In the Great Scripture there are four passages in all, earlier and later, which are largely the same with minor differences. The tenth fascicle states: "Having passed through that many eons, one will attain bodhi"; the nineteenth says: "reaches bodhi"; the twentieth says: "attains bodhi"; the twenty-first says: "abides in bodhi". "Abides" simply means abiding in the bodhi-dwelling of the initial abode; "will" means that only after passing through eons does one attain bodhi. "Reaching" and "attaining" differ in name but are the same in meaning: "reaching" means coming from the expedient, and "attaining" means attaining the place of arousing the aspiration \[for awakening\]. The mention of "srotāpanna" and so forth designates them according to their origin: having passed through seven lifetimes, they spontaneously enter nirvāṇa; being reborn there, they pass through eighty thousand eons, after which they finally arouse the great aspiration \[for awakening\]; the sakṛdāgāmin takes sixty thousand, the anāgāmin forty thousand, the aśaikṣa twenty thousand, and the pratyekabuddha ten thousand; by comparing these explanations, this can be understood. Depending on whether their faculties are sharp or dull, the eons they spend in transcending the realms vary in length. Only after arousing the aspiration \[for awakening\], cultivating the contemplation of the middle way, severing the afflictions of ignorance, and attaining vision of the Buddha-nature can they be called "having passed beyond the five hundred \[yojanas\]". This refers to the Tripiṭaka two vehicles who enter extinction; in the shared teaching, the majority can arouse it within the present life. Discussing it in this manner brings no benefit to beginners. However, regarding the aforementioned five persons, it is always said that they arouse the aspiration \[for awakening\] "upon reaching" or "upon attaining"; therefore, this is not the same as the doctrine of the Vijñaptimātra \[school\]. When a long period must pass before they arouse it, the teaching is still provisional; how much more so if one posited eternal extinction—how could that not be an expedient? If one clings to provisional treatises to refute the Buddha's real scripture, the fault incurred is already profound, and this is truly inadmissible. Although this vertical aspect was originally meant to accomplish what is neither vertical nor horizontal, because it is identical to the sequential stages of those provisional teachings, it must be repudiated and demolished. The horizontal \[aspect\] below is also like this. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.7.2.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [翻譯名義集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.63) — 法雲, Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.7.2) · Pramāṇa