仁王般若經疏 1.97

1.97

問：月光既稱問護佛果因緣，佛應答佛果事，何故云化四生耶？答：諸師云云，不能具出。今云欲示因果不二，明眾生畢竟空與佛無別。故《淨名經》云「眾生如、彌勒如，一如無二。」例如《涅槃》云「我者即如來藏義」，此經所辨四生等一切法，悉皆是如，與佛無異。若知四生與佛一無二，即是護佛果。如此問答，豈是世人所解？自非久種善根、多值諸佛，了悟一切法空，只可與此文相應耶？所言四生者，從母胎生，故名胎生；毘舍佉母生三十二卵，名為卵生；如菴羅波利婬女，名為濕生；劫初人皆化生也。二不觀色如下，別約諸科。明生法二空，有二：初廣明空；是故一切下，第二總結。初明空中四句：初明法空；二眾生下，明生空；三六度者，明行空；四二諦下，明二諦境教亦寂。初文言不觀色如者，諸解非一，不能具出。今依《大智論》解，從緣生法，體性自無，不假智推方無也。此欲明緣觀俱寂也。故《大品》云「色尚不可得，何況非色。」如體經意，應具明四句，今為存略，故但云不觀色耳，受想行識例爾。三藏師云：若遣色歸如，應云觀色如。而文云不觀色如者，若遣色存如，則觀心未淨；今圓觀，不觀色、不觀如，不見空有、不見境智也。下去諸句例皆爾也。眾生下，第二明生空，七句：五陰中生，故名眾生空。我者，計五陰為我。人者，假名行人。常樂我淨者，明眾生體空也。眾生顛倒，橫計於苦無常無我無淨中計常樂我淨，故言生死空也。今謂眾生我人名顛倒法，常樂我淨四德是清淨法，若能體知此二畢竟空，故云為如。此中欲明生死涅槃不二。如者，佛性、法性、正道、不二之異名也。知見壽者，意識名知、眼識名見、色心不斷名為壽者。菩薩者，大道心名為菩薩。今謂前明眾生所化，今辨菩薩能化，能所皆淨，故云如也。第三明行空，有三句：一六度、二四攝、三總一切諸行法，明此等一切菩薩行法皆如故有也。第四明二諦如者，以空有為世諦、有空為第一義諦，故《涅槃》云「第一義諦如即世諦如。佛言如是如是。」至後〈二諦品〉自當別釋。

Question: Since Candraprabha explicitly asked about the causes and conditions for protecting the fruit of Buddhahood, the Buddha should have answered concerning the fruit of Buddhahood; why does he speak of transforming the four modes of birth? Answer: The various masters say this and that, which cannot be detailed fully. We now say: wishing to show that cause and fruit are not two, he clarifies that sentient beings being completely empty is not distinct from the Buddha. Thus the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "The suchness of sentient beings and the suchness of Maitreya are one suchness without duality." For example, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "The Self is precisely the meaning of the tathāgatagarbha." All phenomena such as the four modes of birth distinguished in this sūtra are all suchness, no different from the Buddha. If one knows that the four modes of birth and the Buddha are one and not two, that is precisely protecting the fruit of Buddhahood. How could ordinary people understand a question and answer such as this? Unless one has long planted roots of goodness, encountered many Buddhas, and thoroughly awakened to the emptiness of all phenomena, how could one correspond with this text? As for the four modes of birth: being born from a mother's womb is called womb-born; the mother Viśākhā giving birth to thirty-two eggs is called egg-born; like the courtesan Āmrapālī, it is called moisture-born; and at the beginning of the kalpa, human beings were all apparitionally born. Second, from "does not contemplate rūpa as suchness" onward, he treats the various rubrics individually. To clarify the two emptinesses of persons and phenomena, there are two parts: first, extensively clarifying emptiness; second, from "Therefore, all..." onward, a general conclusion. In the first part clarifying emptiness, there are four clauses: first, clarifying the emptiness of phenomena; second, from "sentient beings" onward, clarifying the emptiness of persons; third, "six pāramitās" clarifies the emptiness of practice; fourth, from "the two truths" onward, clarifies that the object and teaching of the two truths are also quiescent. In the first text, regarding "does not contemplate rūpa as suchness," the various explanations are not one, and cannot be detailed fully. We now explain following the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: phenomena born from conditions are devoid of intrinsic nature by themselves, and do not rely on intellect's deduction before becoming non-existent. This intends to clarify that conditions and contemplation are both quiescent. Therefore the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: "Rūpa is already unfindable, how much more so non-rūpa." If one embodies the meaning of the sūtra, it should fully explain the four clauses; here, for the sake of brevity, it only says "does not contemplate rūpa"; the same applies to vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, and vijñāna. Master Tripiṭaka says: If one were eliminating rūpa to return to suchness, it should say "contemplates rūpa as suchness." But the text says "does not contemplate rūpa as suchness" because if one eliminates rūpa yet preserves suchness, then the contemplating mind is not yet pure. Here, in the complete contemplation, one neither contemplates rūpa nor contemplates suchness, seeing neither emptiness nor existence, neither object nor wisdom. The following clauses are all similar to this. From "sentient beings" onward is the second part clarifying the emptiness of persons, in seven clauses: arising within the five skandhas is called the emptiness of sentient beings. "Self" means clinging to the five skandhas as a self. "Person" is the conventionally designated practitioner. "Permanence, bliss, self, and purity" clarifies that the substance of sentient beings is empty. Sentient beings are inverted; they arbitrarily reckon permanence, bliss, self, and purity within suffering, impermanence, non-self, and non-purity, hence he speaks of saṃsāra being empty. We now say: "sentient beings, self, and person" are named inverted phenomena; the four virtues of permanence, bliss, self, and purity are pure phenomena; if one can embody and know that these two are completely empty, they are therefore said to be suchness. Here he intends to clarify that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not two. Suchness is another name for buddhadhātu, dharmatā, the correct path, and non-duality. Regarding "knower, seer, and soul": mental consciousness is named knower, eye-consciousness is named seer, and the uninterrupted continuity of rūpa and mind is named soul. Regarding "bodhisattva": the mind of the great Way is named bodhisattva. We now say: the former clarified sentient beings as the transformed; here he distinguishes the bodhisattva as the transformer; both the agent and the object of transformation are pure, hence he says "suchness." Third, clarifying the emptiness of practice, there are three clauses: first, the six pāramitās; second, the four means of embracing; third, generally, all phenomena of practices; clarifying that these various practices of the bodhisattva are all existing because of suchness. Fourth, clarifying that the two truths are suchness: taking emptiness and existence as saṃvṛti-satya, and the emptiness of existence as paramārtha-satya, therefore the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "The suchness of paramārtha-satya is precisely the suchness of saṃvṛti-satya. The Buddha said: 'So it is, so it is.'" When we reach the later "Chapter on the Two Truths," this will be explained separately.