法華玄義釋籤 5.6

5.6

次正釋因緣中，自為四章。初列四章。次釋。釋中先雙舉界內界外各二種以定根性，次釋。釋中三：先重立界內利鈍二根，次引論，三釋。釋中二：先簡，次釋。簡中言「自在天」者，一切外道皆悉尊於三仙二天，如《止觀》第十記。「世性」者，計二十五諦，如《止觀》第十記。「微塵」者，計於眾塵和合而成，以外人不知業力緣，故也。「此正」下正釋，釋中為二：先正釋，次料簡。初正釋中四：初略立，次引證，三過患，四釋名。初文者，以知無明造，故不同外計。次引證中三：先引，次釋，三結。初文中「非自在」者，諸邪計中且舉初計。次「無明」下釋。「當知」下結。三「人天」下明過患，又二：先出過，次引《纓珞》文證。言「經又稱」等者，生已復生，生生不已，故云「十二牽連」等也。「此十二」下釋名，新新秪是念念續起。次料簡中云「纓珞中無明緣行生十二，則一百二十支」者，準彼經第四釋十二因緣云，從無明緣行便生十二支，乃至有緣生老死便生十二，既以未來二支合說，則始從無明來至老死有十一番，此十一番但十箇中間，一一皆生一十二支，故十中間有百二十。若依今文乃成一百三十二支，以開生死為二番故。雖開合不同，大意不別，今雖開生死，結數依經，是故但云「一百二十」。「初是癡」等者，既十二支無明為本，一一復具一十二支，當知支支皆具無明乃至老死。「緣起緣生」者，先問也。從「此同是」去答。《婆沙．雜楗度》中問云，緣起緣生有何差別？彼文答云：或有說者，無有差別。何者？如《伽羅那經》說云，夫緣起法，一切皆是有為法故。云何緣生？一切緣生亦是有為法故。今文略云「同是有為法故」。「亦有差別」去，彼論云「然亦有差別」。故有說者云因是緣起、果是緣生，如因果義，事所事、相所相、成所成、續所續、生所生、取所取亦如是，事如因、所事如果，乃至取亦如是（論中初但云因果，次開對二因二果）。復有說者，過去是緣起，現在是緣生（不云未來）。復有說者，現在是緣起，未來是緣生（不云過去）。今文略無此二解。復有說者，無明是緣起，正是今文第二解。復有說者，無明是緣起，老死是緣生，十支是緣起緣生（今文無此解）。又尊者富那奢說應作四句（具如今文）。四句中初句以未來果支為緣起等者，謂因能起果、非果生因。以過去為緣生等者，因能生果、非果起因，故阿羅漢果不復起因。第三句者謂除前二句相已，取過現果及餘凡夫現在五支等，此是論文諸師異解，不須和會。次引《法身經》說與論文同，因是緣起即無明也，從因所生即是行也。和合謂結業成就，從和合生謂識等是，愛取至老死亦復如是。言「中道」者，離斷常耳。論文又云「復次起所起」等，如前。次推三世中云「三世皆有十二」者，推因知果等如今所說，三世俱名因果而支數多少不同者，具如《俱舍》云「略果及略因，由中可比二」，如《止觀》第三記。現在既望過未成十二，當知過未亦自相望各有過未，故各十二；今且從現故但十二。次釋「十二時中識心眷屬」者，謂三陰也。論文「又問：云何具上三受？答：三受悉能為愛作緣。何者？愛有五種：一者求樂受愛未生樂受欲令生故愛，二者不欲離樂愛已生樂受不欲離故生愛，三者不生苦愛苦受未生欲令不生故生愛，四者欲速離苦愛已生苦受欲令速滅故生愛，五者愚愛未生不苦不樂欲令未生不生已生欲令不失故生愛，為是義故三受緣愛。問：愛取何別？答：愛增廣名取。復有說者，下者名愛，上者名取。復有說者，若愛能生煩惱，是名受緣愛，若愛能生業，是名為取。」次釋「一剎那」者，《俱舍》亦云「連縛等四，剎那是其一也」。具如《止觀》第七記。

Next, in directly explaining conditioned origination, there are naturally four sections. First, the four sections are listed. Next is the explanation. In the explanation, [the text] first presents both the two kinds within the realm and the two kinds beyond the realm to determine the faculties and natures [of practitioners], and next explains them. In the explanation there are three parts: first, [the text] re-establishes the two faculties, sharp and dull, within the realm; second, it quotes treatises; third, it explains. In the explanation there are two parts: first, exclusions; next, the direct explanation. In the exclusions, regarding "Maheśvara," all non-Buddhists revere the three ṛṣis and two devas, as [noted] in the record on the tenth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Regarding "primordial nature" (prakṛti), it posits twenty-five truths, as [noted] in the record on the tenth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Regarding "atomic particles," it posits that [things] are formed by the combination of numerous particles, because outsiders do not understand the conditions of karmic power. From "This precisely..." onward is the direct explanation, within which there are two parts: first, the direct explanation; next, the critical distinctions. In the first part, the direct explanation, there are four points: first, it briefly establishes [the premise]; second, it cites testimonies; third, faults; fourth, it explains the names. As for the first passage: because it is known to be produced by ignorance, it differs from non-Buddhist assertions. In the second part, citing testimonies, there are three points: first, citing [the text]; next, explaining; third, concluding. In the first passage, regarding "it is not Maheśvara," among the various heterodox assertions [the text] temporarily cites the first assertion. Next, from "ignorance..." downward is the explanation. From "It should be known..." downward is the conclusion. Third, from "human and heavenly..." downward clarifies faults, which also has two parts: first, pointing out the fault; next, citing the text of the Yingluo [jing] as testimony. When it says, "The sūtra also calls it..." and so forth, it means that having arisen, [things] arise again, arising and arising without cease; hence it says "the twelve are linked together" and so forth. From "These twelve..." downward explains the names: "constantly new" simply means continuous arising moment by moment. Next, in the critical distinctions, regarding the statement "in the Yingluo [jing], conditionality of ignorance causes formations to generate twelve, thus making one hundred and twenty links": based on the explanation of the twelve links of conditioned origination in the fourth fascicle of that sūtra, it says that from ignorance conditioning formations, twelve links are immediately produced, and so on up to being conditioning birth, aging, and death immediately producing twelve; since the two future links are stated together, then starting from ignorance down to aging and death there are eleven iterations; these eleven iterations are merely ten intervals, and each of them produces twelve links, so the ten intervals have one hundred and twenty. If based on the present text, it would become one hundred and thirty-two links, because it expands birth and death into two iterations. Although the expansion and contraction differ, the general meaning is not distinct; although the present text expands birth and death, in concluding the count it follows the sūtra, and for this reason only says "one hundred and twenty." Regarding "the first is delusion" and so forth: since the twelve links have ignorance as their root, and each one further possesses the twelve links, one should know that each link possesses ignorance up to aging and death. Regarding "conditioned arising (pratītyasamutpāda) and conditioned origination (pratītyasamutpanna)": this is first a question. From "these are identically..." onward is the answer. In the "Miscellaneous Chapter" of the Vibhāṣā, it asks: "What is the difference between pratītyasamutpāda and pratītyasamutpanna?" That text answers: "Some say there is no difference. Why? As the *Karaṇa-sūtra* says: all dharmas of conditioned arising are conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma). Why conditioned origination? All conditioned origination is also conditioned dharmas." The present text abridges this to: "Because they are identically conditioned dharmas." Going on to "there is also a difference," that treatise says, "However, there is also a difference." Thus, some say: "Cause is conditioned arising; result is conditioned origination." Just as with the meaning of cause and effect, so too are matter and what is acted upon, characteristic and what is characterized, accomplishment and what is accomplished, succession and what is succeeded, arising and what is arisen, grasping and what is grasped; matter is like cause, what is acted upon is like result, and so on up to grasping being like this. (In the treatise, it first merely mentions cause and effect, and next unpacks the correlation into two causes and two effects.) Furthermore, some say: "The past is conditioned arising; the present is conditioned origination" (it does not mention the future). Furthermore, some say: "The present is conditioned arising; the future is conditioned origination" (it does not mention the past). The present text omits these two explanations. Furthermore, some say: "Ignorance is conditioned arising"—this is precisely the second explanation in the present text. Furthermore, some say: "Ignorance is conditioned arising, aging and death are conditioned origination, and the ten links are both conditioned arising and conditioned origination" (the present text lacks this explanation). Furthermore, the venerable Pūrṇayaśas says that it should be formulated into four propositions (fully present in the current text). In the four propositions, regarding the first proposition taking the future result links as conditioned arising and so forth: it means cause can give rise to result, but result does not produce cause. Regarding taking the past as conditioned origination and so forth: cause can produce result, but result does not give rise to cause, so the arhat's fruit does not again give rise to a cause. The third proposition means that, setting aside the characteristics of the preceding two propositions, it takes past and present results and the present five links of other ordinary people, and so forth. These are the differing explanations of various masters in the treatise text; there is no need to reconcile them. Next, citing the explanation of the Dharmakāya-sūtra, it agrees with the text of the treatise: cause is conditioned arising, which is ignorance; what is produced from cause is formations. Combination means the completion of binding karma; what is produced from combination refers to consciousness and so forth; from craving and grasping up to aging and death, it is also like this. Regarding the "middle way," it is simply leaving behind annihilation and permanence. The treatise text also says, "Furthermore, arising and what is arisen," and so forth, as before. Next, in inferring across the three periods of time, regarding "the three periods of time all possess twelve": inferring the result from knowing the cause and so forth is as currently explained. As to the three periods of time all being called cause and effect while the number of links differs, it is fully stated in the Kośa: "Abridging the result and abridging the cause, from the middle the two can be inferred," as [noted] in the record on the third fascicle of the Zhiguan. Since the present, viewed in relation to past and future, constitutes twelve, one should know that past and future, also viewed in relation to each other, each possess their own past and future, and therefore each have twelve; here it temporarily follows the present, and thus there are only twelve. Next, in explaining "the mental consciousness and its retinue during the twelve periods," it refers to the three aggregates. The treatise text states: "It is also asked: 'How does one possess the above three feelings?' Answer: 'The three feelings can all serve as conditions for craving. How so? There are five kinds of craving: first, craving seeking pleasant feeling, which arises because one wishes unarisen pleasant feeling to arise; second, craving not wishing to separate from pleasure, which arises because one does not wish to separate from arisen pleasant feeling; third, craving for unpleasantness not to arise, which arises because one wishes unarisen unpleasant feeling not to arise; fourth, craving wishing to quickly separate from unpleasantness, which arises because one wishes arisen unpleasant feeling to quickly cease; fifth, deluded craving, which arises because one wishes unarisen neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling not to arise, and wishes arisen [feeling] not to be lost. For these reasons, the three feelings condition craving.' Question: 'What is the difference between craving and grasping?' Answer: 'The increase and expansion of craving is called grasping.' Furthermore, some say: 'The lesser is called craving; the superior is called grasping.' Furthermore, some say: 'If craving can give rise to afflictions, this is called feeling conditioning craving; if craving can give rise to karma, this is called grasping.'" Next, in explaining "a single moment (kṣaṇa)," the Kośa also says: "Of the four [types of conditioned origination] such as continuous connection, a single moment is one of them." This is fully as [noted] in the record on the seventh fascicle of the Zhiguan.