[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) › 8.15 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 8.15 止觀輔行傳弘決 8.15 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.8.15) 「廣說」下，廣說異名，總有三番三十六句。初三十六既言涅槃，涅槃即是解脫德也。此開《淨名》「不斷煩惱而入涅槃」一句為三十六。此會異文，準《大論》意。《大論》云「若如法觀佛、般若與涅槃，是三則一相，其實無有異。」雖復不異，不異而異，此中且屬解脫德故。今初標但言「三十六」者，且從一種根本而說。準初列文，即是出入各作根本，故初根本但作入名。至出涅槃十六句初，即自列出根本四句，故下結云「若各立兩根本四句，成四十句」。問：何故立兩根本四句？答：所生各別。又可但是開合異耳。開者即是出入各四，合者共為一箇根本，即以出入相參為四。如云斷入不斷入、斷出不斷出，若開此為兩根本四句相者，於兩入句更加第三第四句也，於兩出句亦加第三第四句也，故有三十六、四十不同。然根本四不須預釋，至下釋文兩根本句，各在入出兩十六句中，故知實句但三十二。問：根本並在十六句中，何句是耶？答：同者即是，文列並在四句之初。今亦略釋。次別釋中，細尋諸句，文甚分明，無勞委釋。今約其文相稍隱略者出其相狀。初四句中，並以凡夫具縛名為不斷。第二四句去，並約體照名為不斷。第二四句中「亦斷亦不斷」者，義須兩兼，一者析法名斷，體名不斷；二者既是學人已斷名斷，餘名不斷。所言「入」者，惑即未盡，分得有餘，亦名為入。亦可應云析體無學，恐文誤耳。「非斷非不斷」者，理體雙非其性冥真，得名為入。第三四句中第一句者，不得準前作兩兼釋，即應先將亦斷亦不斷為析體竟，次將已斷之惑名為亦入，餘殘未盡名亦不入。餘之三句例此可知。第四四句中第四句者，義亦兼兩，例前第二四句中兩兼義釋。此十六句凡云入者，意並在於從假入空為對，令成十六句故。以凡夫外道為第一四句，故初四句並是空觀所觀所破。後十六句皆云出者，並是從空入假名出，亦是為成十六句故對入空說。此之空假正在藏通，義兼別圓，如後問答料簡中具出其意。又前十六句，初四根本句，雖並以義而屬對竟，至下釋中復屬對者，為示同相故重對耳。出中例入亦應例前，為知同故，故但直列根本四句而不釋相。次明出者，第一四句中第三句者，此是中根出假菩薩分斷煩惱名亦不出，復能出假名為亦出。若下根者，斷見思盡方能出假，則不應云亦出不出。第二四句中初句者，初鹿苑中已入無學，不入涅槃而常輔佛，以至《方等》及《般若》中，亦得義云二乘出假。第三四句中初句者，此是體門兼用析者，析為亦斷，體為不斷。初入空時名亦不出，後必出假名為亦出。非謂正用三藏析法，故皆云兼；二乘亦爾，用體兼析。第三句中有析有體，故云亦斷不斷；並是二乘，故云不出。第四四句中，凡言理者即是雙非。初句應云析體真理，云體法者但是語略。下之三句皆應云理，謂體法出假菩薩理，以出假故名之為出。出假之時已有真理，縱是上根亦先緣理。第三第四句準第二句說。 > From "Extensively explaining" downward, it extensively explains the different designations, which comprise three series of thirty-six phrases in total. The first thirty-six, since they speak of nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa is precisely the virtue of liberation. This expands the single phrase from the Vimalakīrti, "without cutting off afflictions, one enters nirvāṇa," into thirty-six. This integration of distinct texts follows the intent of the Dazhidulun. The Dazhidulun states: "If one contemplates the Buddha, Prajñā, and nirvāṇa in accordance with the Dharma, these three are of a single mark, and in reality there is no difference." Even though they are not different, within non-difference there is difference; here, it provisionally pertains to the virtue of liberation. Now, the initial heading states merely "thirty-six" because it speaks provisionally from a single fundamental type. According to the opening list, it is because emerging and entering are each taken as fundamental; thus the initial fundamental is merely designated as entering. Reaching the beginning of the sixteen phrases of emerging from nirvāṇa, it spontaneously lists the four fundamental phrases of emerging; therefore it concludes below: "If one independently establishes the four fundamental phrases for each, they make forty phrases." Question: Why establish the four fundamental phrases for each? Answer: Because that which is produced is distinct for each. Or it may simply be a difference between expansion and contraction. Expansion means four each for emerging and entering; contraction means they share a single fundamental, namely interleaving entering and emerging to make four. Such as saying: cutting off and entering, not cutting off and entering; cutting off and emerging, not cutting off and emerging. If one expands this into the characteristics of two sets of four fundamental phrases, one adds the third and fourth phrases to the two entering phrases, and also adds the third and fourth phrases to the two emerging phrases; hence there is the difference between thirty-six and forty. However, the four fundamentals do not need to be explained in advance; when it comes to the text of the commentary below, both fundamental phrases are found respectively within the two sets of sixteen phrases for entering and emerging, so we know the actual phrases are only thirty-two. Question: The fundamentals are both within the sixteen phrases; which phrases are they? Answer: Those that are identical are them; in the textual listing, they are both at the beginning of the four phrases. Now we also briefly explain them. Next, in the specific commentary: upon careful examination of the phrases, the text is very clear, so there is no need to explain in detail. Now, taking those textual aspects that are slightly obscure or concise, I will present their characteristics. In the first four phrases, they all take the ordinary person who is completely bound as "not cutting off." From the second four phrases onward, they all refer to substantial illumination as "not cutting off." In the second four phrases, "both cutting off and not cutting off" must take both meanings: first, analyzing dharmas is called cutting off, while the substance is called not cutting off; second, since one is a trainee (śaikṣa), what has already been cut off is called cut off, and the remainder is called not cut off. What is called "entering" means that afflictions are not yet exhausted, but one partially attains \[the nirvāṇa with\] remainder, which is also called entering. It could also be said that it should read "analyzing the substance in an arhat (aśaikṣa)," but fear the text is mistaken. "Neither cutting off nor not cutting off": the substance of the principle negates both, its nature being darkly identical with truth, hence it gains the name of entering. In the first phrase of the third set of four phrases, one must not explain it as taking both meanings as before; rather, one should first take both cutting off and not cutting off as analyzing the substance completely, and next take the afflictions already cut off as also entering, and the remaining unexhausted ones as also not entering. The remaining three phrases can be understood by analogy with this. The fourth phrase of the fourth set of four phrases also combines both meanings, explained by analogy with the dual-meaning explanation in the second set of four phrases above. Whenever these sixteen phrases speak of "entering," the intention lies entirely in entering emptiness from the provisional as the counterpart, to complete the sixteen phrases. Taking ordinary persons and non-Buddhists as the first four phrases, the initial four phrases are all what is contemplated and refuted by the contemplation of emptiness. The latter sixteen phrases all speak of "emerging," which all refer to entering the provisional from emptiness being called emerging; this is also to complete the sixteen phrases by speaking in contrast to entering emptiness. This emptiness and provisionality belong strictly to the Tripiṭaka and shared \[teachings\], while their meaning encompasses the distinctive and perfect, as will be fully brought out in the questions, answers, and discriminative evaluations below. Furthermore, in the previous sixteen phrases, although the first four fundamental phrases were completely correlated in terms of meaning, the reason they are correlated again in the commentary below is to show their identical characteristics, hence they are correlated again. Emerging follows the analogy of entering and should also follow the preceding; in order to know that they are identical, it merely lists the four fundamental phrases directly without explaining their characteristics. Next, to explain emerging: the third phrase in the first set of four phrases refers to a bodhisattva of middling faculties emerging into the provisional, who partially cuts off afflictions, termed "also not emerging," and is further able to emerge into the provisional, termed "also emerging." If it were one of inferior faculties, only after completely cutting off the afflictions of view and thought could they emerge into the provisional; then one should not say "both emerging and not emerging." The first phrase in the second set of four phrases refers to having already entered the stage of an arhat (aśaikṣa) in the Deer Park initially, not entering nirvāṇa but constantly assisting the Buddha, extending to the Vaipulya and Prajñā periods, where it can also be said in principle that the two vehicles emerge into the provisional. The first phrase in the third set of four phrases refers to the substantial approach concurrently employing the analytical one: analysis is "also cutting off," substance is "not cutting off." When first entering emptiness, it is called "also not emerging"; later, definitely emerging into the provisional, it is called "also emerging." It does not mean strictly using the Tripiṭaka's analytical method; hence all say "concurrently"; the two vehicles are also like this, using substance while concurrently using analysis. The third phrase contains both analysis and substance, hence it says "both cutting off and not cutting off"; both are the two vehicles, hence it says "not emerging." In the fourth set of four phrases, whenever it mentions "principle," it refers to the dual negation. The first phrase should say "the true principle of analyzing substance"; saying "dharmas of substance" is merely an abbreviation of phrasing. The subsequent three phrases should all say "principle," referring to the principle of a bodhisattva of dharmas of substance emerging into the provisional; because of emerging into the provisional, it is called emerging. At the time of emerging into the provisional, the true principle is already present; even if one is of superior faculties, one also first conditions upon the principle. The third and fourth phrases should be explained by analogy with the second phrase. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.8.14) - [Next: 8.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.8.16) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.8.15) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [維摩經玄疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.5.144) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.8.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.8.15) · Pramāṇa