[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) › 9.18 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 9.18 止觀輔行傳弘決 9.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [9.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.18) 次正明發中，初約《大集》五支，先列、次釋。釋文且依《大集》寶炬以釋其相。《禪門》雖云無的名目，釋義必依《大集》之文，不同諸師云無安致處。初釋覺支，經有五句合而為三：初別約二諦釋二覺、次合約真俗釋二思惟、三約三諦以釋心性。初釋如心，可見。次「又識俗諦」下，釋大覺。準《禪門》釋九十九等者，大小骨三百六十，髓九十九重。此骨間復有諸蟲，四頭四口九十九尾，其數非一。腦有四分，分有十四重，五藏葉葉相覆如蓮華，孔竅空疎內外相通，各有九十九重。亦有八萬戶蟲於中住止互相使役，音聲言語去來動息等，具如《禪門》修證中說。從「思惟」去所言真俗者，秖是向所明真俗耳，乃至定支漸深細故。辯異如文。「心行」下，釋觀支。言「上覺支是解」者，上根本支直覺八觸，暗證無觀故斥云解。「心住」下，釋定支，不釋喜安二支也。指廣如文。「發此」下，明諸地位。言「初禪如泡乃至第四如鏡像」者，展轉相望漸漸深細，故約喻體以辯相貌。入無色界無色可喻，是故喻支但至四禪，無色但云三事空等。「滅非想三種受想」者，若法行比丘作是思惟，若有識想觸想及虛空想，若修無想永滅此想。想雖有三，並是所滅。又滅大地通心所中受想心所，是故通名滅受想也。《婆沙》云「是定亦滅餘心所法，何故但云滅受想耶？答：有云唯滅此二。有云此二勝故。有云亦滅餘心所，且從勝說。又云此二極為行者作疲極故，受於色作疲勞，想於無色作疲勞。又此二法於二界中為勝故，受於色勝，想於無色勝。又能生於二種惑故，受生愛，想生見。又問：此定為是有心？為是無心？答：尊者陀提婆說云有心；若無心者，云何說從彼定起名死耶？如有比丘於日初分欲乞食去，時天大雨恐損衣色，立誓入滅定乃至雨止。雨經兩月乃止，比丘定起即死。色界不須段食，入則經久。問：入時不立誓，何法而起？答：如有心定，法自應起。又問曰：三業之中何業先起後滅？答：若入定時，先滅口、次滅身、後滅意；起則逆次先起於意，不可身起而意不起。問：滅定何別？答：滅是一剎那，定是久相續。問：心不動名定，此定無心，云何不動？答：雖無心不動，有四大相續。」次「有俗觀」下判漏無漏者，此中判前如心等、行大行等中真俗及漏無漏也。仍帶皮肉等相，故名為俗及有漏等。有深細如空之觀，名之為真及無漏也。「此禪」等者，斥成論師有漏名事、無漏名理。故知此禪一一地中，皆有觀慧真俗相即。況過非想至滅受想，尚過特勝，況根本耶？故斥論師不知用之為八解脫，而但以根本為事禪耶？道謂道共，定謂定共。次引《毘曇》斥成論師。《毘曇》明義，不失義理。如汝所解，但有無漏理定，無八解脫事禪，當知汝論無俱解脫。「約外道」下，破成論師。還將彼論戒慧難彼論師。「是則」下，結難。「客醫」等者，既無八解則無客定，將何以異外道禪耶？言「八術」者，《大經》第二云「復有明醫曉八種術，從遠方來。」經文自解八術有八復次，一一復次皆自結喻云「除一闡提」。古人共云：「喻於八正，以治八倒。」章安云：「有十種醫，但除圓教後心即是如來，餘有十人，並須治之，果未滿故。謂圓初心、中心，三教菩薩、兩教二乘，斷結外道、苦行外道、空見外道。此十醫中，二是圓醫，善下八法名曉八術。當知《成論》既無客定，但有斷結苦行等三。又云：三達五根名為八術。又云：無常常等各四為八。據此二義，則成論人八術全無。無常等四尚自不成，云何異於斷結等三？」餘在《釋籤》中明。 > Next, in the direct explanation of the manifestation, first, in terms of the five limbs of the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra, they are first listed and then explained. The explanatory text provisionally relies on the "Precious Torch" of the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra to explain its characteristics. Although the Chanmen states that there is no definite designation, its doctrinal explanation must rely on the text of the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra, unlike the various masters who said there was nowhere to locate it. In first explaining the limb of awakening (vitarka), the sūtra has five phrases that are combined into three: first, individually explaining the two awakenings in terms of the two truths; next, jointly explaining the two reflections (vicāra) in terms of the real and conventional; third, explaining the nature of the mind in terms of the three truths. First, the explanation of "in accordance with the mind" is self-evident. Next, under "also discerning the conventional truth," the great awakening is explained. Following the Chanmen's explanation of the ninety-nine and so forth: there are three hundred and sixty large and small bones and ninety-nine layers of marrow. Between these bones there are further various parasites, with four heads, four mouths, and ninety-nine tails, being manifold in number. The brain has four sections, each section having fourteen layers; the five viscera overlap leaf upon leaf like lotus petals, their orifices and cavities being open and porous, connecting internally and externally, each having ninety-nine layers. There are also eighty thousand families of parasites residing therein, driving one another, causing sounds, speech, coming, going, moving, resting, and so forth, fully described in the section on practice and realization in the Chanmen. From "reflection" onward, what is said about the real and conventional is simply the real and conventional explained earlier, proceeding up to the limb of concentration, which gradually becomes deeper and subtler. The distinctions are as in the text. Under "mental activities," the limb of contemplation is explained. In saying "the above limb of awakening is understanding," the limbs of the fundamental \[dhyānas\] above merely perceive the eight touches blindly without contemplation, and are thus criticized as mere intellectual understanding. Under "abiding of the mind," the limb of concentration is explained; the two limbs of joy and ease are not explained. The details are as in the text. Under "when this manifests," the various stages are explained. In saying "the first dhyāna is like a bubble, up to the fourth which is like an image in a mirror," viewing them mutually in succession, they gradually become deeper and subtler, so the characteristics are discerned in terms of metaphorical substances. Entering the formless realm, there is no form that can serve as a metaphor; therefore the metaphorical limbs only reach the fourth dhyāna, while the formless realm merely speaks of the three matters being empty and so on. Regarding "ceasing the three kinds of sensation and conception of neither-conception-nor-non-conception": if a Dharma-practicing monk reflects thus: 'If there are conceptions of consciousness, conceptions of contact, and conceptions of empty space, if one cultivates non-conception, one eternally ceases these conceptions.' Although conceptions are threefold, they are all what is ceased. Furthermore, it ceases the mental factors of sensation and conception among the universal mental factors of the great ground; therefore it is collectively called the cessation of sensation and conception. The \*Vibhāṣā\* says: 'This absorption also ceases the remaining mental factors; why is it only called the cessation of sensation and conception? Answer: Some say only these two are ceased. Some say it is because these two are preeminent. Some say the remaining mental factors are also ceased, but it is provisionally spoken in terms of the preeminent ones. It is also said that these two extremely exhaust the practitioner: sensation causes fatigue with regard to form, and conception causes fatigue with regard to the formless. Furthermore, these two dharmas are preeminent in the two realms: sensation is preeminent in form, and conception is preeminent in the formless. Furthermore, they are able to generate two kinds of afflictions: sensation generates craving, and conception generates views. It is also asked: Is this absorption with-mind or without-mind? Answer: Venerable Dātīva (Tuodipo) states that it is with-mind; if it were without-mind, how could emerging from that absorption be called dying? As when a monk in the early part of the day wished to go begging for food, and at that time heavy rain fell; fearing damage to the colour of his robes, he made a vow to enter the cessation absorption until the rain stopped. The rain stopped only after two months, and the monk died upon emerging from the absorption. The form realm does not require solid food, so one may enter for a long duration. Question: If one makes no vow upon entering, by what dharma does one emerge? Answer: Just like a concentration with-mind, the dharma should naturally emerge. It is also asked: Among the three karmas, which karma ceases first and which arises later? Answer: When entering the absorption, speech ceases first, next body, and last mind; when emerging, it is in reverse order, mind arising first, for it is impossible for the body to arise while the mind does not arise. Question: What is the distinction between cessation and concentration? Answer: Cessation is a single moment; concentration is prolonged continuity. Question: The mind being motionless is called concentration; this absorption is without mind, so how is it motionless? Answer: Although it is without mind and motionless, the four great elements continue in succession.' Next, under "having conventional contemplation," in evaluating the defiled and undefiled: here it evaluates the real and conventional, and defiled and undefiled, in the earlier "in accordance with the mind" and "practicing the great practice," and so forth. Still bearing the marks of skin, flesh, and so forth, it is called conventional and defiled. Having contemplation that is deep and subtle like space, it is called real and undefiled. Regarding "this dhyāna" and so forth: this criticizes the masters of the \*Chengshi lun\* who call the defiled 'phenomena' and the undefiled 'principle.' Thus we know that in this dhyāna, in each and every stage, there is contemplative wisdom wherein the real and conventional are mutually identical. How much more so when passing beyond neither-conception-nor-non-conception to the cessation of sensation and conception, which surpasses even the extraordinary dhyāna, not to mention the fundamental \[dhyānas\]? Thus it criticizes the masters of the treatise for not knowing how to use it as the eight liberations, instead merely taking the fundamental \[dhyānas\] as phenomenal dhyāna. 'Path' refers to path-concomitant \[discipline\], and 'concentration' refers to concentration-concomitant \[discipline\]. Next, the \*Abhidharma\* is cited to criticize the masters of the \*Chengshi lun\*. The \*Abhidharma\* explains the doctrine without losing its principled meaning: according to your interpretation, there is only the undefiled principle-concentration and no phenomenal dhyāna of the eight liberations; you should know that your treatise lacks liberation in both ways. Under "in terms of non-Buddhists," it refutes the masters of the \*Chengshi lun\*. It turns back the precepts and wisdom of their own treatise to challenge the masters of that treatise. Under "this then," it concludes the challenge. Regarding "visiting physician" and so forth: since there are no eight liberations, there is no visiting concentration; how then can it be distinguished from non-Buddhist dhyāna? Regarding the "eight methods": the second fascicle of the \*Great Sūtra\* says: 'Furthermore, there is a wise physician skilled in eight methods, coming from a distant land.' The sūtra text itself explains the eight methods in eight further subdivisions, each subdivision concluding with the metaphor: 'excepting the icchantika.' The ancients collectively said: 'It is a metaphor for the eightfold noble path, to cure the eight inversions.' Zhang'an says: 'There are ten kinds of physicians; except for the final mind of the perfect teaching, who is the Tathāgata, the remaining ten all require treatment, because their fruition is not yet complete. They are: the initial mind and intermediate mind of the perfect teaching, the bodhisattvas of the three teachings, the \[practitioners of the\] two vehicles of the two teachings, non-Buddhists who cut off fetters, non-Buddhists who practice austerities, and non-Buddhists of empty views. Among these ten physicians, two are physicians of the perfect teaching, whose mastery of the lower eight dharmas is called being skilled in the eight methods. You should know that since the \*Chengshi lun\* lacks visiting concentration, it only has the three: cutting off fetters, austerities, and so forth. It is also said: The three knowledges and five faculties are called the eight methods. It is also said: The four each of impermanence and so on make eight. According to these two interpretations, the proponents of the \*Chengshi lun\* lack the eight methods entirely. Since even the four of impermanence and so on are not accomplished, how can they differ from the three: cutting off fetters and so on?' The remainder is explained in the \*Shigian\*. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 9.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.17) - [Next: 9.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.19) - [Up: 9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912~en-mt.9.18) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.18) · Pramāṇa