金剛般若波羅蜜經略疏 1.65

1.65

就阿羅漢文中，大分有七：初審定其法；二答；三何以故責；四顯其實法；五反以顯過；六順成其德，此文有三，可知；七有一句，反述已結成所以。此位皆得從實，由佛所說皆以無為法為名故，由聖人無為故，不取六塵境界以為我所，故文言不入色聲香味觸法也。入之言得耳。言須陀洹者，此云逆流，逆分段生死流故；斯陀含者，此云住薄，住薄煩惱故；阿那含者，此云不還，不還欲界故；阿羅漢者，此云不受，不受三界故。文言作是念我得阿羅漢即為著我人眾生壽者，此有二種義：一者正使；二者習氣。若在觀中習氣亦不生、若在觀外正使心必不起，故言實無有法名須陀洹等。尋此文相正意少隱，欲覆法我名，引聲聞人以我人，從其一實大乘；攝彼法執分別，入習氣我人。是文中意，若攝人習屬法，執一觀俗引得聲聞同一乘也，少得相應。所以知者，於彼證離取我等煩惱，是故無如是心我能得果。若是正使，觀外亦不起，何須說觀中？以此故知無諍行，亦準正習二門取之。又四果人等各皆自分離麁煩惱，是自境界無有分別，即是實性三般若；若餘分別即非聖意，名增減執。此可思準。

In the passage on the arhat, there are broadly seven [parts]: first, determining the dharma; second, the reply; third, the interrogation of "Why is this?"; fourth, revealing its real dharma; fifth, revealing the error by counter-argument; sixth, establishing its virtue in direct order, which has three [parts] and can be known; seventh, there is one sentence that reiterates in reverse to conclude the reason. These stages are all able to accord with reality because what the Buddha spoke of are all named by means of unconditioned dharmas; because the noble ones are unconditioned, they do not grasp the spheres of the six sense-objects as belonging to a self, which is why the text says "not entering form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas." The word "entering" simply means obtaining. The term *srotāpanna* is translated here as "stream-enterer" [lit. opposing the stream], because one opposes the stream of delimited birth-and-death; *sakṛdāgāmin* is translated here as "abiding in thinning," because one abides in thinning afflictions; *anāgāmin* is translated here as "non-returner," because one does not return to the desire realm; *arhat* is translated here as "non-recipient," because one does not receive [rebirth in] the three realms. The text says that forming the thought "I have attained arhatship" is being attached to a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life-span; this has two meanings: first, primary afflictions; second, habit-energies. If one is in contemplation, habit-energies also do not arise; if one is outside of contemplation, the mind of primary afflictions certainly does not arise; therefore it says that in reality there is no dharma named srotāpanna and so forth. Investigating the text's surface, the primary intention is slightly hidden: wishing to cover over the names of self of dharmas, it draws śrāvakas through [the notions of] self and person into the One Real Mahāyāna, subsuming those conceptual discriminations of attachment to dharmas into the habit-energies of self and person. This is the intent of the text: if one subsumes personal habit-energies under dharmas, grasping a single contemplation of conventional truth and thereby drawing śrāvakas to be identical with the One Vehicle, it is somewhat congruent. Why is this known? In that [stage], one realizes freedom from afflictions such as grasping at a self, and therefore there is no such thought as "I am able to attain the fruit." If it were primary afflictions, they would not arise outside of contemplation either, so why would one need to speak of within contemplation? Through this, we know that the practice of non-contention should also be understood according to the two approaches of primary [afflictions] and habit-energies. Furthermore, practitioners of the four fruits each, in their own portion, leave behind coarse afflictions; this is their own sphere, free of conceptual discrimination, which is itself the real nature of the three prajñās; if there were other conceptual discriminations, that would not be the intent of the noble ones, and is termed attachment to addition and subtraction. One should consider and understand this accordingly.