[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) › [四教義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929) › 5.3 # 四教義 5.3 四教義 5.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.5.3) 六明念處觀法者，念處觀法有三種：一性念處者，《大智度論》云：「性念處是智慧性，觀身智慧是身念處，受、心、法亦如是。」解者不同，有但取慧數為智慧性，即是性念處。若南嶽師解：「觀五陰理性，名性念處」，故《雜心》偈云：「是身不淨相，真實性常空，諸受及心法，亦復如是說。」觀別想性念處破四顛倒，有二種：一破愛，二破見。一破愛性念處者，夫有生之類，無不愛著果報、五陰及外依報也。一身念處觀者，觀此內身有五種不淨：一生處不淨，二種子不淨，三自相不淨，四自性不淨，五究竟不淨。一觀生處不淨者，女人胎內生熟二臟之間十月住也。二種子不淨者，攬他精血合為種子也。三自相不淨者，身諸垢膩、九孔流溢也。四自性不淨者，觀身不淨如明眼人開倉見穀粟，觀三十六物不淨充滿也。五究竟不淨者，此身若死，膖脹、爛壞、蟲膿、血露，甚可厭患。若見五種不淨，破淨顛倒，名內身念處。觀外身、內外身亦如是。二受念處，觀內有六根、外有六塵，根塵合故生六識，六識生三受：苦受、樂受、不苦不樂受。觀苦受是苦苦相，觀樂受是壞苦相，觀不苦不樂受是行苦相。若意根生三受同皆苦，即破樂顛倒，名內受念處。外受、內外受亦如是。三心念處，觀此意識是有為，屬因緣故無常，先無今有、今有後無，剎那念念生滅故無常，即破常顛倒，名內心念處。外心、內外心亦復如是。四法念處，觀內想、行二陰因緣和合無有自性，起唯法起、滅唯法滅，無人、無我、眾生、壽命，十六知見皆不可得，破我顛倒，名內法念處。外法、內外法亦復如是。此如《成實》、《大智度論》明「是為性念處之初門」也。二破見性念處者，即是觀身、邊二見污穢無記五陰，即陰我、離陰我，陰中有我、我中有陰，撿我不可得，破二十種身見，名之聖行。次別觀邊見五陰所言性身念處者，即是色性也。色若麁若細悉是不淨，麁色即是人身世界，細色極於隣虛細塵。若見麁細色常，是見悉依色。若見麁細色無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常，是見悉依色。常即有見，無常即無見，亦常亦無常即亦有亦無見，非常非無常即是非有非無見。如是等四見悉依色，即是四邊見色陰。若不知是邊見色陰，生解執著，戲論諍競，從見起諸煩惱結使，亦因結使作起諸惡業，或因結使起諸善業，結業流轉三界二十五有生死無際也。云何名為不知邊見色陰之相？若是外人盲冥故，自不識邊見污穢之色，各云「是事實，餘妄語」，計為涅槃常樂我淨。此不足及言，但末代佛法學問坐禪之人，亦多迷此邊見色。所以者何？如阿毘曇師言：「毘曇是見有得道」，折色至隣虛細塵不可破盡，見此細塵有理，即得道也。今謂此猶是邊見、有見、污穢之色。若因有見生解，起諸結業、流轉生死，事同前說，何關道也。故《智度論》云：「若不得般若方便，入阿毘曇即墮有中。」又諸成實論師皆云：「見隣虛細色有者，此是調心之觀，不能得道。若折此隣虛細塵空，得實法空，以見空故，即能得道也。」今云「若見隣虛色空，只是空見、邊見污穢色陰。」若見此生解，起諸結業流轉生死，事同前說，何關道也。故《智度論》云：「不得般若方便，若入空門即墮無中。」昆勒說：「見隣虛塵色亦有亦無入道」，過同前說。論既不來此土，無論可弘，無繁具出。但《智度論》云「若不得般若方便，即墮有無中」也。但脫諸三論師，或云：「道非有非無，何必毘曇見隣虛細色有得道也？成論復那忽云：見隣虛細色空得道也？」今問：若爾，見非空非有，是得道不？若言得道，《中論》何故云：「若言非有非無，此名愚癡論」？此是非有非無邊見污穢之色，何關道也？答曰：用非有非無破有無，有無既破，豈有非有非無之可存？正道畢竟清淨，無說無示也。問曰：爾，與長爪及《老子》明不可說何殊？今一家明性身念處不爾。若不見非有非無污穢之色陰四諦之理，名愚癡論。若知此是污穢之色，名性身念處，即開三念處門、四念處門、開三十七品門。因三十七品門見生滅四諦，得寂滅涅槃，即是見有得道，是名於諸見而不動而修三十七品。若知非有非無污穢之色，如幻如化、畢竟不可得、本自不生，即是摩訶衍明身念處，具足一切佛法，如《大智度論》說也。此經云：「於諸見不動而修行三十七品，是為宴坐。」復何須捨非有非無，以盡淨不可說為得道也？故《思益經》云：「譬如有人欲捨虛空，終不離空；欲又遠覓虛空，終不得空。」若不得見非有非無中半滿之道，亦不知盡淨不可說中半滿之道，雖復解慧分明，終是世智辨聰，不免結業流轉生死，同前所說。若知身邊二見、四見、六十二見皆是污穢色陰，即是觀色不淨破淨顛倒，名身念處也。二受念處。若觀受是常，是見依受，受無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常，是四見悉依受，即是四邊見受陰。一受各有三受，三受皆苦，破樂顛倒，是名受念處觀。三心念處。若觀心是常，是見依識，心無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常，是見悉依識，即是四邊見識陰。四種見識陰，四種見皆是無常，破常顛倒，是名心念處。四法念處。若觀想行二陰常，是見依想行，無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常，是見悉依想行，即是四邊見想行二陰。四種見想行二陰皆無我，破我顛倒，是名法念處觀。此性四念處觀果報五陰身邊二見單複具足，乃至不可說污穢無記五陰。若破四顛倒即破十四難，伏六十二見、八十八使，及因見所起一切善、不善二十五有生死之業。又此諸見未必悉是外人所起，若佛法中學問坐禪發種種知見、是非諍論，皆是身邊二見污穢五陰。起如是等諸見戲論，破於慧眼、不見真實。若不覺不知，不能用性念處觀觀此五陰破四顛倒，則起見便作諸惡業。或用見心修善，即是外道。此意難見佛法，學問坐禪定人當好思之。若能覺知，用性念處如前觀察，破四顛倒，能生煗法。故《智度論》云：「若有為法中不得正憶念，能生煗法無有是處。有為法中得正憶念，不生煗法無有是處。」諸長爪梵志聰明博學，謂一切法可轉，一切論可破，無一法可得，自言得諸法實相，尚迷此念處。是故如來用別想性念處往問，即破其愛慢，得法眼淨。當知別想性念處，入道之要門。若利根人修此性念處，觀解分明，即能發真無漏，故佛勸諸比丘「依念處修道」。若末世坐禪講說學此義，即毘曇見「有」得道，其意申也。若其迷此者，設言非有非無畢竟不可說，皆是愚癡論，事同上說。長爪之過，意在此也。問曰：若性念處如此玄絕，經論何意不作是說也？答曰：佛在世時，人根猛利，去世之後，正、像法中猶有得道之人，經論何須言取其耳？冥諸其掌也。復次，西土經論悉度來耶。 > Sixth, elucidating the contemplation methods of mindfulness: there are three kinds of contemplation methods of mindfulness. First, regarding mindfulness of dharmic nature, the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "Mindfulness of dharmic nature has the nature of wisdom; wisdom that contemplates the body is mindfulness of the body; feeling, mind, and dharmas are likewise." Commentators differ: some merely take the mental factor of wisdom as the nature of wisdom, which is mindfulness of dharmic nature. If following the Master of Nanyue's explanation: "Contemplating the rational nature of the five aggregates is called mindfulness of dharmic nature." Hence the verse in the Zāxīn says: "This body has the mark of impurity, its true nature is constantly empty; all feelings, mind, and dharmas are also spoken of in this way." Contemplating the four applications of mindfulness considered separately to shatter the four inversions is of two kinds: first, shattering craving; second, shattering views. First, regarding mindfulness of dharmic nature that shatters craving: no living beings whatsoever fail to be cravenly attached to retribution, to the five aggregates, and to the external circumstantial retribution. First, the contemplation of mindfulness of the body: one contemplates that this internal body has five kinds of impurity: first, impurity of the place of birth; second, impurity of the seed; third, impurity of its own characteristics; fourth, impurity of its own nature; fifth, ultimate impurity. First, contemplating impurity of the place of birth: dwelling for ten months inside a woman's womb between the raw and the cooked viscera. Second, impurity of the seed: taking another's semen and blood compounded together as the seed. Third, impurity of its own characteristics: all the grime and grease of the body, overflowing from the nine apertures. Fourth, impurity of its own nature: contemplating the impurity of the body like a clear-sighted person opening a granary and seeing grains and millets—contemplating it as filled with the thirty-six impure substances. Fifth, ultimate impurity: when this body dies, it bloats, rots and decomposes, with worms, pus, and blood exposed—it is deeply repulsive. If one sees the five kinds of impurity, it shatters the inversion of purity; this is called internal mindfulness of the body. Contemplating the external body and both internal and external body is also like this. Second, mindfulness of feeling: one contemplates that internally there are the six sense organs and externally there are the six dusts; because organ and dust join, the six consciousnesses arise; the six consciousnesses give rise to three feelings: painful feeling, pleasurable feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling. One contemplates painful feeling as the mark of the suffering of suffering; one contemplates pleasurable feeling as the mark of the suffering of decay; one contemplates neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling as the mark of the suffering of conditioning. If the three feelings produced by the mind sense organ are all equally suffering, it shatters the inversion of pleasure; this is called internal mindfulness of feeling. External feeling and both internal and external feeling are also like this. Third, mindfulness of the mind: one contemplates that this mental consciousness is conditioned and, belonging to causes and conditions, is impermanent; previously non-existent and now existent, now existent and later non-existent, arising and ceasing from instant to instant, and therefore impermanent; it shatters the inversion of permanence; this is called internal mindfulness of the mind. External mind and both internal and external mind are also like this. Fourth, mindfulness of dharmas: one contemplates that the two internal aggregates of perception and volition, being a harmony of causes and conditions, have no self-nature; when arising, it is only dharmas arising; when ceasing, it is only dharmas ceasing; there is no person, no self, no sentient being, and no life span—the sixteen views are all unattainable; it shatters the inversion of self; this is called internal mindfulness of dharmas. External dharmas and both internal and external dharmas are also like this. This is as explained in the Chengshi and the Dà zhìdù lùn: "This is the primary gateway to mindfulness of dharmic nature." Second, regarding mindfulness of dharmic nature that shatters views: this is contemplating the defiled and morally indeterminate five aggregates of the two views of the self and extremes—the self identical to the aggregates, the self apart from the aggregates, the self within the aggregates, and the aggregates within the self; upon examining, a self cannot be found; shattering the twenty kinds of view of self is called holy practice. Next, separately contemplating the five aggregates of extreme views: what is called mindfulness of the bodily nature is the nature of form. Form, whether coarse or fine, is entirely impure; coarse form is the human body and world; fine form reaches the extreme of fine dust of neighboring emptiness. If one sees coarse and fine form as permanent, this view entirely relies on form. If one sees coarse and fine form as impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these views all rely on form. Permanence is the view of existence; impermanence is the view of non-existence; both permanent and impermanent is the view of both existence and non-existence; neither permanent nor impermanent is the view of neither existence nor non-existence. These four views all rely on form; they are the form aggregate of the four extreme views. If one does not know this form aggregate of extreme views, producing conceptual understanding and attachment, frivolous discourse and contention, then from views arise all afflictions and entanglements; also, because of the entanglements, one performs all evil karmas, or because of the entanglements, one performs all good karmas; karma and entanglements revolve in the three realms and the twenty-five states of existence through boundless birth and death. What is meant by not knowing the characteristics of the form aggregate of extreme views? If outsiders, being blind and in darkness, naturally do not recognize the defiled form of extreme views, each says: "This is true, the rest is false speech," reckoning it to be the permanence, pleasure, self, and purity of nirvāṇa. This is not worth speaking of; however, in the final age, people who study and sit in meditation in the Buddha's Dharma also mostly stray into this form of extreme views. Why is this? As the Abhidharma masters say: "Abhidharma means attaining the path through seeing existence," analyzing form down to the fine dust of neighboring emptiness that cannot be further broken down, and seeing that this fine dust has real principle, they attain the path. Now I say that this is still an extreme view, a view of existence, a defiled form. If one generates understanding based on the view of existence, giving rise to entanglements and karma, revolving in birth and death, the matter is as spoken before—what does it have to do with the path? Hence the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If one does not attain the skillful means of prajñā, entering the Abhidharma, one falls into existence." Furthermore, all masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra say: "Seeing the fine form of neighboring emptiness as existent is a contemplation to train the mind; it cannot attain the path. If one analyzes this fine dust of neighboring emptiness into emptiness, one attains the emptiness of real dharmas; because one sees emptiness, one can attain the path." Now I say: "If one sees the form of neighboring emptiness as empty, this is merely an empty view, an extreme view, a defiled form aggregate." If seeing this, one generates understanding, giving rise to entanglements and karma, revolving in birth and death, the matter is as spoken before—what does it have to do with the path? Hence the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If one does not attain the skillful means of prajñā, if one enters the gate of emptiness, one falls into non-existence." The Piṭaka \[of Kātyāyana\] says: "Seeing the dust-form of neighboring emptiness as both existent and non-existent allows entry to the path"; its error is the same as spoken before. Since that treatise has not come to this land and there is no treatise to propagate, there is no need to set it out in full detail. However, the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If one does not attain the skillful means of prajñā, one falls into existence and non-existence." But some Sanlun masters say: "The path is neither existent nor non-existent; why must the Abhidharma attain the path by seeing the fine form of neighboring emptiness as existent? And why would the Chengshi suddenly say that one attains the path by seeing the fine form of neighboring emptiness as empty?" Now I ask: if so, does seeing neither empty nor existent attain the path or not? If you say it attains the path, why does the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā say: "If one says neither existent nor non-existent, this is called the doctrine of fools"? This is the defiled form of the extreme view of neither existence nor non-existence—what does it have to do with the path? The answer is: using neither existence nor non-existence shatters existence and non-existence; since existence and non-existence are shattered, how could neither existence nor non-existence remain? The correct path is ultimately pure, without preaching and without pointing out. A question asks: if so, how does that differ from Dīrghanakha and Laozi's explanation of the ineffable? Now our school's explanation of mindfulness of the bodily nature is not like that. If one does not see the principle of the four truths in the defiled form aggregate of neither existence nor non-existence, it is called the doctrine of fools. If one knows that this is defiled form, it is called mindfulness of the bodily nature, which opens the gateway of the three applications of mindfulness, the gateway of the four applications of mindfulness, and opens the gateway of the thirty-seven factors \[of awakening\]. Through the gateway of the thirty-seven factors, seeing the four truths of arising and ceasing, one attains quiescent nirvāṇa; this is attaining the path through seeing existence, which is called not moving among all views while practicing the thirty-seven factors. If one knows that the defiled form of neither existence nor non-existence is like an illusion, like a transformation, ultimately unattainable, and originally non-arisen, this is the mindfulness of the body explained in the Mahāyāna, complete with all Buddha-dharmas, as spoken in the Dà zhìdù lùn. This sūtra says: "Not moving among all views while practicing the thirty-seven factors—this is quiet sitting." Furthermore, why is it necessary to discard neither existence nor non-existence and take the exhausted, pure ineffable as attaining the path? Hence the Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra says: "Just as if someone wishes to discard space, they ultimately do not separate from space; if they wish to seek space far away, they ultimately do not find space." If one does not attain the path of the half and full \[teachings\] within seeing neither existence nor non-existence, and also does not know the path of the half and full \[teachings\] within the exhausted, pure ineffable, then even though one's understanding and wisdom are clear, it is ultimately worldly wisdom and intellectual cleverness, failing to avoid entanglements and karma revolving in birth and death, the same as spoken before. If one knows that the two views of self and extremes, the four views, and the sixty-two views are all defiled form aggregates, this is contemplating form as impure to shatter the inversion of purity; it is called mindfulness of the body. Second, mindfulness of feeling: if one contemplates feeling as permanent, this view relies on feeling; if feeling is impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these four views all rely on feeling; these are the feeling aggregate of the four extreme views. Each feeling has the three feelings; the three feelings are all suffering, shattering the inversion of pleasure; this is called the contemplation of mindfulness of feeling. Third, mindfulness of the mind: if one contemplates the mind as permanent, this view relies on consciousness; if the mind is impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these views all rely on consciousness; these are the consciousness aggregate of the four extreme views. The four views of the consciousness aggregate—the four views are all impermanent, shattering the inversion of permanence; this is called mindfulness of the mind. Fourth, mindfulness of dharmas: if one contemplates the two aggregates of perception and volition as permanent, this view relies on perception and volition; if impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these views all rely on perception and volition; these are the two aggregates of perception and volition of the four extreme views. The four views of the two aggregates of perception and volition are all without self, shattering the inversion of self; this is called the contemplation of mindfulness of dharmas. These four applications of mindfulness of nature contemplate the retribution five aggregates, the single and compound sets of the two views of self and extremes, down to the ineffable defiled and morally indeterminate five aggregates. If one shatters the four inversions, one shatters the fourteen unanswerable questions, and subdues the sixty-two views, the eighty-eight entangling afflictions, and all good and unwholesome karmas of birth and death in the twenty-five states of existence arising due to views. Furthermore, these views are not necessarily all generated by outsiders; if within the Buddha's Dharma those who study and sit in meditation give rise to various views and disputes over right and wrong, they are all the defiled five aggregates of the two views of self and extremes. Giving rise to such views and frivolous discourses shatters the eye of wisdom so that they do not see reality. If without awareness and knowledge, one cannot use the contemplation of mindfulness of dharmic nature to contemplate these five aggregates and shatter the four inversions, then giving rise to views, one immediately commits all evil karmas. Or if one uses a mind of views to cultivate good, this is an external path. This meaning is difficult to see; those in the Buddha's Dharma who study and sit in meditation should reflect on it carefully. If one can be aware and know, using mindfulness of dharmic nature to contemplate as before and shatter the four inversions, one can generate the stage of warmth. Hence the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If among conditioned dharmas one does not attain correct mindfulness, that one could generate the stage of warmth is impossible. If among conditioned dharmas one attains correct mindfulness, that one would not generate the stage of warmth is impossible." The various Dīrghanakha brāhmaṇas, clever and learned, claimed that all dharmas can be refuted, all doctrines can be shattered, and not a single dharma can be attained, stating of themselves that they attained the true mark of all dharmas, yet they were still deluded about this mindfulness. Therefore, the Tathāgata used mindfulness of dharmic nature considered separately to go and question him, immediately shattering his craving and conceit, so that he attained the purity of the Dharma eye. One should know that mindfulness of dharmic nature considered separately is the essential gateway for entering the path. If a person of sharp faculties cultivates this mindfulness of dharmic nature and their contemplation and understanding are clear, they can generate the true untainted \[state\]; hence the Buddha exhorted the monks: "Rely on mindfulness to cultivate the path." If in the final age those who sit in meditation and deliver sermons study this meaning, then the Abhidharma's "attaining the path through seeing existence" will have its meaning expressed. If one is deluded about this, even if one speaks of neither existence nor non-existence as ultimately ineffable, it is entirely the doctrine of fools, the matter being as spoken above. The error of Dīrghanakha lay precisely here. A question asks: if mindfulness of dharmic nature is so profound and transcendent, why do sūtras and treatises not state it in this way? The answer is: when the Buddha was in the world, people's faculties were sharp and keen; after his passing, during the True Dharma and Semblance Dharma ages, there were still people who attained the path—why would sūtras and treatises need to grab them by the ear? It was already concealed within their palms. Furthermore, have all the sūtras and treatises of the Western land crossed over to here? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.5.2) - [Next: 5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.5.4) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929~en-mt.5.3) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.5.3) · Pramāṇa