[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) › 9.23 # 止觀輔行傳弘決 9.23 止觀輔行傳弘決 9.23 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [9.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.23) 三明淨背捨中，初出異釋。《成論》「四禪共淨背捨」者，前云成論判第三背捨在於色界，故知四禪共淨背捨。「今以兩禪」下，今文正判。用此一意盡破前三。何者？以極淨故在第四禪，勝處、一切處非第四不成，有身證故在第三禪，仍約初後以分三四。若定結位，應歸第三。故準此解，前三俱壞。「緣淨故淨」者，以第四禪為極淨緣。「此色起時瑩於八色」者，三四起時瑩練初二，故名三四以為初二色之淨緣，是故三四獨得淨名。是故更開四句釋之，前三屬初二，第四屬第三。初句者，實是不淨上更加假想故也。《禪門》云「不淨有三：一者出處不淨，謂骨人。二者所照不淨，謂外不淨境。三者光體未被淨緣瑩練故也。故初二禪雖有光明，未名為淨。」今言淨，淨離三不淨，淨義具足，名淨背捨。空處中云「過一切色」等，具如第六卷略釋。但彼依根本，今在淨禪，以此為異。又根本亦滅有對等三。今此背捨，可見不可見有對，前二背捨已滅，第三唯有不可見無對，故至空定但滅無對，以此為異。「若凡夫」等者，斥根本。「聖人」等者，立聖斥凡，然背捨者實通凡夫。「又識生滅」下，釋無所有。前空識處具有能所，今無所有滅於所緣，故云無所有。次釋非想者，能忘前三，故云捨識無識，無識即是不用處也，故名非想非非想。言「識處如癰」等者，八聖種觀亦具如第六卷說。次「此無」下釋滅受想中，言「猶有細煩惱」者，細惑有十，謂受、想、行、觸、思、欲、解、念、定、慧，此斥非想有惑故也。「今捨能緣之受想」等者，釋滅受想名，依名出體。非想地中猶有能緣非想之心，今滅受想中滅彼能緣，復滅能滅，方得名為滅自他地。言「水魚」者，取命根在，例如蟄蟲。蟄者，藏也。《易》曰「龍蛇之蟄以藏身」。從「若以所滅為名」去，正破舊解。若但滅他地，何殊根本？從「今從」下，正解釋。釋前初解捨能緣等，即滅他地。無復能滅，即滅自地。故不同舊單從所滅。次敘二論，如文。斥成論師云「後四」等者，緣成論人執無客定，但以無漏依於根本，是故文中以背捨中前三背捨以難論人。然此難辭有縱有奪。八中且除滅受想一，於前七中後四空處已滅骨人唯緣空等，既無別法，但以無漏之心修此四空。此則可然，是則以四空背捨縱之。若前三背捨觀不淨境，八色光明異於根本名為背捨，此則正是俱解脫義。何意棄此而不肯用，但約外道根本禪耶？此即奪也。故知《成論》但用世禪，實為違理。「若過」下，判習。前七解脫攝得八定，故約八定以論發習。滅受想定不論發習，是故前文不以為難。又第八定不關根本，故不為難。「九次第定」等者，釋九想初既以具列四種事定，未暇簡出，故今重釋。準於小乘，則無發於練熏修義。大乘或有，如南嶽大師通名背捨一時俱發，即其相也。 > In the third section, explaining the pure vimokṣa, \[the text\] first presents differing explanations. Regarding the statement that according to the \*Tattvasiddhi-śāstra\*, "the pure vimokṣa is shared across the four dhyānas": earlier it was said that the \*Tattvasiddhi-śāstra\* determines the third vimokṣa to be in the form realm; hence we know that the four dhyānas share the pure vimokṣa. Next, from "Now, based on both dhyānas" onward, the present text provides the correct determination. Employing this single meaning completely refutes the previous three. Why? Because being exceedingly pure, it resides in the fourth dhyāna; the stations of mastery (abhibhv-āyatana) and the spheres of totality (kṛtsna-āyatana) are not achieved without the fourth dhyāna; and because there is realization through the body, it resides in the third dhyāna. It is still divided between the third and fourth in terms of beginning and end. If its stage is definitely established, it should belong to the third. Therefore, according to this explanation, all three previous ones are broken down. Regarding "pure because it takes the pure as object": it takes the fourth dhyāna as the condition of ultimate purity. Regarding "when this form arises, it polishes the eight forms": when the third and fourth arise, they polish and refine the first and second; hence the third and fourth are called the pure conditions for the forms of the first and second, and on this account the third and fourth alone receive the designation 'pure'. For this reason, it is further explained by opening into four propositions: the first three belong to the first and second \[vimokṣas\], and the fourth belongs to the third. The first proposition refers to superimposing a provisional mental construct upon what is actually impure. The \*Chanmen\* states: "There are three kinds of impurity: first, impurity of the point of origin, namely the skeleton; second, impurity of what is illuminated, namely the external impure object; third, that the substance of light has not yet been polished and refined by the condition of purity. Thus, although the first and second dhyānas have radiant light, they are not yet called pure." Here, 'pure' means pure by being free of these three impurities; because the meaning of purity is complete, it is named the pure vimokṣa. In the sphere of infinite space, the phrase "transcending all forms" and so forth is explained in brief as in fascicle 6. However, that was based on the fundamental \[absorptions\], whereas here it is in the pure dhyānas; this is their difference. Furthermore, the fundamental \[absorptions\] also extinguish the three, such as \[matter\] with resistance. In these vimokṣas, \[matter that is\] visible and invisible with resistance has already been extinguished in the first two vimokṣas; in the third there is only invisible without resistance; hence, upon reaching the absorption of space, it only extinguishes \[matter\] without resistance. This constitutes the difference. "If an ordinary person" and so forth rebukes the fundamental \[absorptions\]. "A noble one" and so forth establishes the noble and rebukes the ordinary; however, these vimokṣas actually apply also to ordinary persons. Next, from "Furthermore, consciousness arises and ceases" onward, \[the text\] explains nothingness. The previous spheres of space and consciousness fully possess the apprehending \[subject\] and apprehended \[object\]; now, nothingness extinguishes the objective condition, hence it is said to have nothingness. Next, explaining neither-perception-nor-non-perception: it can forget the previous three, hence it is said to abandon consciousness and be without consciousness; being without consciousness is precisely the realm of non-use, hence it is named neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Regarding the phrase "the sphere of consciousness is like a boil" and so forth: the contemplation of the eight noble lineages is also fully explained as in fascicle 6. Next, under "This non-" and so forth, in explaining the extinction of sensation and perception, the statement "there are still subtle afflictions": there are ten subtle afflictions, namely sensation, perception, volition, contact, attention, desire, resolve, mindfulness, samādhi, and wisdom; this rebukes neither-perception for possessing afflictions. Regarding "Now, abandoning the sensation and perception that can cognize" and so forth: this explains the name 'extinction of sensation and perception', revealing its essence based on the name. In the stage of neither-perception, there is still the mind that can cognize neither-perception; now, in the extinction of sensation and perception, one extinguishes that which can cognize, and further extinguishes that which can extinguish; only then can it be called extinguishing both its own stage and other stages. Regarding "the fish in water": it takes the life faculty as remaining, like hibernating insects. 'Hibernating' (zhe) means hiding. The \*Book of Changes\* says: "Dragons and snakes hibernate to preserve their bodies." From "If it were named after what is extinguished" onward, \[the text\] directly refutes the old explanation. If it only extinguished other stages, how would it differ from the fundamental \[absorptions\]? From "Now, according to" onward, \[the text\] gives the correct explanation. Explaining the previous first interpretation, abandoning what can cognize and so forth is extinguishing other stages. There being no further \[mind\] that can extinguish is extinguishing its own stage. Thus it differs from the old \[explanation\] which solely followed what is extinguished. Next, the two treatises are cited, as in the text. Rebuking the masters of the \*Tattvasiddhi-śāstra\* by saying "the latter four" and so forth: because the adherents of the \*Tattvasiddhi-śāstra\* insist there are no adventitious absorptions, and merely rely on the fundamental \[absorptions\] through the undefiled, the text uses the first three vimokṣas among the vimokṣas to challenge the treatise masters. However, this line of challenge has both concession and refutation. Among the eight, setting aside the extinction of sensation and perception for a moment: among the first seven, the latter four spheres of formlessness have already extinguished the skeleton and solely take space and so forth as object; since there is no separate dharma, one simply cultivates these four formless \[absorptions\] with an undefiled mind. This may indeed be so, and thus it concedes to them on the four formless vimokṣas. But as for the first three vimokṣas contemplating impure objects, the radiant light of the eight colors differs from the fundamental \[absorptions\] and is termed vimokṣa; this is precisely the meaning of liberation in both ways. Why discard this and refuse to use it, relying solely on the fundamental dhyānas of non-Buddhists? This is the refutation. Therefore, we know that the \*Tattvasiddhi-śāstra\* uses only worldly dhyānas, which truly contradicts reason. From "If surpassing" onward, \[the text\] determines habituation. The first seven liberations subsume the eight absorptions; therefore, manifestation and habituation are discussed in terms of the eight absorptions. The absorption of the extinction of sensation and perception does not discuss manifestation and habituation; hence the previous text did not challenge them on this. Furthermore, the eighth absorption is not concerned with the fundamental \[absorptions\], so it is not challenged. Regarding "the nine successive absorptions" and so forth: in explaining the nine contemplations of decay, since the four kinds of concrete absorptions were already listed fully at the beginning and there was not yet leisure to sort them out, they are now explained once again. According to the Hinayāna, there is no meaning of manifestation through refining, perfuming, and cultivating. In the Mahāyāna, this may occur; as the Great Master of Nanyue universally termed them vimokṣas that manifest all at once simultaneously—that is precisely the mark of it. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 9.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.22) - [Next: 9.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.24) - [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.9.23) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1912.9.23) · Pramāṇa