金剛般若疏 3.4.2

3.4.2

言斷欲界惑立二果者，欲界思惟有九品，斷前六品名斯陀含果，具斷後三品立阿那含果。 所以斷前六品立斯陀含果者，《毘婆娑》中和須密論師云：「前六品煩惱能發無作潤於三塗，是故斷此六品制於一果。 又且既開惑以為九品，是則上中二三品其惑則重，是以斷之立於一果，後三品既輕故斷之而立阿那含果。 」莊嚴師云：欲界思惟九品煩惱潤業不同，前之三品潤邊地貧窮，次有三品潤邊地富貴。 問曰：立此四果，出何處文？ 答：《毘婆娑》以五義故立：一者、捨於曾道； 二者、得未曾道； 三者、得一味解脫； 四者、具修十六行； 五者、修得八智。 今以五義具立初果，下三果者可具三義，謂捨於曾道、得未曾道及一味解脫也。 如此等義，數論中廣釋，但知是假名方便，不如數論有所得解，數論但得名字，不知佛意也。 就初果文，前問、次答。 就答中有三：一、正答，明悟初果時不見得與不得、證與不證，即成上不可取、不可說義也。 「何以故」下，第二句、釋於上義。 須陀洹者，此言修習無漏，亦名逆生死流。 流有二種：一、生死流，即是煩惱； 二者、道流，名為正觀。 今此中具明二流，名為入流，即是入於道流； 不入色、聲、香、味觸法即是逆生死流，由入道流故。 逆生死流，故入道流。 然入道流而實無所入，亦逆生死流實無所逆。 第三句「是名須陀洹」者，結名也。 餘經云：得須陀，名為溝巷斷結，前觀欲界苦，斷欲界苦下煩惱。 次觀上界苦，斷上界苦下煩惱，還觀欲界集，次觀上界集，如是上下屈曲，似於溝巷，故云溝巷斷結。 三藏師云：得須陀洹者，此云至流，如煩惱引人至生死流，八正道引人至涅槃流也。 問：何故但云不入六塵？ 答：既不入六塵，亦不入六情六識，即明於法空。 不見須陀洹故，即是人空入道流； 無所入故，則涅槃不可得； 逆生死流無所逆故、生死不可得故，不人、不法、不生死、不涅槃，乃名波若須陀洹也。 第二果亦有問答，文來可知。 斯陀含者，此云薄婬怒癡，亦名一往來。 此人猶感欲界兩生，一生天上、一生人中便成羅漢，故名一往來，亦名頻來。 以頻受兩生，故名曰頻來。 第三、阿那含者，此云不還，亦云不來，斷欲界結盡，不生欲界，故名不來也。 「而實無來」者，問：阿那含名不來，既云實不來； 斯陀含名一往來，應云實往來。 上云一往來實無往來，時阿那含名不來，應云無不來。 答：其實應爾，但互文現意而不爾者，那含名不來，而云實無來者，此不來之名而無得之語，其義相稱，故以無來之語還釋不生之名。 上二果名不同，此所以非類也。 又意實應言而無不來，今少不字但云無來者，無即兼不，故省煩言也。 問：四果，十智中具有幾智？ 答：初二果，十智中除盡、無生及他心。 問：凡夫外道尚得他心，二果聖人何故不得？ 答：聖人非不能得，若得他心，即得四禪斷欲界，非復初二果也。 第三果人八智加他心，第四果具十智也。 從第四果去，即是第二、舉小乘果以成格量之義。 上來三種雖並稱果，若望羅漢，並皆是因。 就此文中復開為二：一者、通舉羅漢； 二者、別明善吉。 初亦有問答。 答中有三：一、直答； 二、順釋答； 三、反釋答。 問：四人並皆稱果，何故前三云果，羅漢稱道？ 答：果道之名皆通四人，但羅漢既其德極，簡異上三，偏云道也。 所以然者，《大經》云「菩提名盡智、無生智」。 菩提，此稱為道。 羅漢既得此二智與其道名，上之三果未得二智，不名與道也。 第二、偏據善吉悟解勝為證者，善吉猶是羅漢，但今是對揚之主，又復別得勝定異於餘人，又自引為證，欲使於義明顯也。 就文有四：一、明佛就其得上果； 二、明其果不作得意； 三、明若有得意，則不為佛所印可； 四、明以無著故為佛所歎。

Regarding establishing two fruits through severing the delusions of the desire realm: the bhavanā-heya of the desire realm has nine grades; severing the first six grades is called the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, and completely severing the remaining three grades establishes the fruit of the anāgāmin. As for why severing the first six grades establishes the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the master Vasumitra says in the *Vibhāṣā*: "The afflictions of the first six grades can generate unmanifest karma and moisten rebirth in the three evil destinies; therefore, severing these six grades establishes one fruit. Moreover, having divided the delusions into nine grades, the delusions of the superior and middling two [sets of] three grades are heavy; hence severing them establishes one fruit, while the latter three grades are light, so severing them establishes the fruit of the anāgāmin." Master Zhuangyan says: "The afflictions of the nine grades of bhavanā-heya of the desire realm moisten karma differently: the first three grades moisten rebirth in the impoverished borderlands, and the next three grades moisten rebirth in the wealthy borderlands." Question: "From what text does the establishment of these four fruits come?" Answer: "The *Vibhāṣā* establishes them on account of five meanings: first, abandoning a path previously traveled; second, attaining a path not previously traveled; third, attaining liberation of a single flavor; fourth, fully cultivating the sixteen aspects; fifth, cultivating and attaining the eight knowledges. Now, the first fruit is established by fully possessing all five meanings; the lower three fruits may fully possess three meanings—namely, abandoning a path previously traveled, attaining a path not previously traveled, and liberation of a single flavor. Such meanings are extensively explained in the Sarvāstivāda treatises. One should merely know they are provisional designations and skillful means; it is not like the understanding of apprehension in the Sarvāstivāda treatises, for the Sarvāstivāda treatises only grasp the names and do not know the Buddha's intention." Regarding the text on the first fruit, there is first the question and next the answer. Within the answer there are three parts: first, the direct answer, clarifying that when awakening to the first fruit, one does not see attainment and non-attainment, or realization and non-realization, which accomplishes the aforementioned meaning of being ungraspable and ineffable. From "Why is this?" downward is the second sentence, explaining the meaning above. As for srotāpanna: here this means cultivating the uncontaminated, and it is also called "going against the flow of saṃsāra." There are two kinds of flows: first, the flow of saṃsāra, which is afflictions; second, the flow of the path, which is called correct contemplation. Here both flows are fully clarified: being called "entering the stream" means entering the flow of the path; not entering form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas means going against the flow of saṃsāra on account of entering the flow of the path. Because one goes against the flow of saṃsāra, one enters the flow of the path. Yet entering the flow of the path, there is in truth nothing entered; and going against the flow of saṃsāra, there is in truth nothing gone against. The third sentence, "This is called a srotāpanna," concludes with the name. Other sūtras say: "Attaining the srotāpanna is called severing the fetters in the trenches: first contemplating the suffering of the desire realm to sever the afflictions under the suffering of the desire realm; next contemplating the suffering of the higher realms to sever the afflictions under the suffering of the higher realms; turning back to contemplate the origination of the desire realm, and next contemplating the origination of the higher realms. Bending up and down like this resembles trenches; hence it is called severing the fetters in the trenches." The Tripiṭaka Master says: "Attaining the srotāpanna is translated here as reaching the flow: just as afflictions lead a person to the flow of saṃsāra, the Noble Eightfold Path leads a person to the flow of nirvāṇa." Question: "Why does it only say not entering the six sense objects?" Answer: "Since one does not enter the six sense objects, nor does one enter the six faculties or six consciousnesses, this clarifies the emptiness of dharmas. Because one does not see a srotāpanna, this is the emptiness of persons. Entering the flow of the path, there is nothing entered; hence nirvāṇa is unobtainable. Going against the flow of saṃsāra, there is nothing gone against; hence saṃsāra is unobtainable. Thus, no person, no dharma, no saṃsāra, and no nirvāṇa—this is called a srotāpanna of prajñā." The second fruit also has a question and answer; the coming of the text can be known. Sakṛdāgāmin is translated here as "attenuating lust, anger, and delusion," and is also called "once-returner." This person still experiences two births in the desire realm—one birth in heaven and one birth among humans, whereupon they become an arhat; hence they are called "once-returner," and also called "frequent returner." Because they frequently undergo two births, they are called a "frequent returner." Third, anāgāmin is translated here as "non-returner," and also called "not coming": having exhausted the fetters of the desire realm, they are not reborn in the desire realm; hence they are called "not coming." Regarding "yet in truth there is no coming": Question: "The anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' and it already says 'in truth does not come'; the sakṛdāgāmin is named 'once-returning,' so it should say 'in truth returns.' Above it said that the once-returner 'in truth has no returning'; so when the anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' it should say 'there is no not-coming.'" Answer: "In truth it should be so, but the alternating text expresses the meaning without doing so. The anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' yet it says 'in truth there is no coming' because the name of 'not coming' and the expression of 'no attainment' correspond in meaning; hence the phrase 'no coming' is used in turn to explain the name of 'non-birth.' The names of the two fruits above are different, which is why they are not of the same category. Furthermore, the meaning in truth should say 'and there is no not-coming'; now, lacking the character 'not' and merely saying 'no coming,' 'no' subsumes 'not,' thus sparing cumbersome words." Question: "Among the ten knowledges, how many knowledges do the four fruits fully possess?" Answer: "The first two fruits, among the ten knowledges, exclude the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the knowledge of others' minds." Question: "Ordinary beings and non-Buddhists still attain the knowledge of others' minds; why do the noble ones of the two fruits not attain it?" Answer: "It is not that the noble ones are incapable of attaining it; if they attain the knowledge of others' minds, they attain the four dhyānas and sever the desire realm, and are no longer of the first two fruits. A person of the third fruit possesses eight knowledges plus the knowledge of others' minds, and the fourth fruit fully possesses all ten knowledges." From the fourth fruit onward is the second part: adducing the fruit of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative assessment. The three above, although all called fruits, are all causes when viewed in relation to the arhat. Within this text there are again two parts: first, speaking generally of arhats; second, specifically clarifying Subhūti. The first also has a question and answer. Within the answer there are three parts: first, a direct answer; second, an answer explaining in accordance; third, an answer explaining by contrast. Question: "All four persons are called fruits; why do the first three say 'fruit' while the arhat is called the 'path'?" Answer: "The designations of fruit and path both apply to all four persons; however, because the arhat's virtue is ultimate, to distinguish them from the three above, it specifically says 'path.' Why is this? The *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* says: 'Bodhi is named the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising.' Bodhi is called the 'path' here. Since the arhat has attained these two knowledges, they are given the name of the 'path'; the three fruits above have not attained these two knowledges, so they are not named with the 'path.'" Second, specifically relying on Subhūti's superior awakening and understanding as proof: Subhūti is indeed an arhat, but now he is the principal interlocutor, and he has also uniquely attained superior samādhi distinct from other people; moreover, he adduces himself as proof, wishing to make the meaning evident. In the text there are four parts: first, clarifying that the Buddha addressed his attainment of the superior fruit; second, clarifying that regarding his fruit he does not form the thought of attainment; third, clarifying that if he had the thought of attainment, he would not be endorsed by the Buddha; fourth, clarifying that because of non-attachment, he is praised by the Buddha.