法華文句記 4.127

4.127

問：舊以五濁障大者，舊師計也。四句料簡今家破之。言「如前」者，指上《玄》文，五濁有除不除，大機有動不動，不得一向云障於大。亦可云「如後」，即後釋五濁中具歷五味四四句是。「有人」下復引他解，斷見惑竟有無明在，故所證真與此無明共為大障。無明舉修惑也，即不發心。初果故引《法華論》證。言「無煩惱」者，已斷見故。「有染慢」者，有修惑也。未知常住即是大障。若博地不執未有所證未曾斷見，二癡合明無明惑彊，故云「獨障」。意云：五濁之中眾生、劫、命不全為障，為障者見修兩濁。「若爾」下他難也。意云：若二人無明若共若獨俱能障者，此之無明若定能障即定須破，若聞法已破不妨聞法，何障之有？若未聞法無明先破，則聞法時無明已去復不名障。此是三論師意，不問無明為障所以，直以自他等責障有無。

Question: That the old [masters] took the five defilements as obstructing the Great [Vehicle] was a reckoning of the old teachers. The four propositions of analysis are refuted by our school. The expression "as before" points to the text of the *Profound Meaning* above: the five defilements have both elimination and non-elimination, and the great capacity has both stirring and non-stirring; one must not claim without qualification that they obstruct the Great [Vehicle]. One may also say "as below," which refers to what is below in the explanation of the five defilements, where he runs fully through the four sets of four propositions for the five flavors. From "Someone says" onward, he again cites another interpretation: having completely severed the afflictions of views, ignorance remains; therefore the truth realized and this ignorance together constitute the great obstruction. "Ignorance" brings up the afflictions of cultivation—that is, not giving rise to the mind [of bodhi]. Because of the first fruit, he cites the *Upadeśa on the Lotus Sūtra* as proof. In the expression "having no defilements," it is because they have already severed views. In "having defiled arrogance," they have the afflictions of cultivation. Not knowing the eternal abide is precisely the great obstruction. If one is an ordinary person of broad ground who does not cling and has not yet realized anything, never having severed views, the two delusions combine to manifest and the affliction of ignorance is strong; hence it is called a "sole obstruction." The meaning is: among the five defilements, sentient beings, kalpa, and life span do not entirely constitute obstructions; what constitute obstructions are the two defilements of views and cultivation. From "If so" onward is another's objection. The meaning is: if ignorance in both persons—whether shared or sole—is equally capable of obstructing, then if this ignorance is definitively capable of obstructing, it must definitively be broken. If it is broken after hearing the Dharma, it does not impede hearing the Dharma, so what obstruction could there be? If ignorance is broken prior to hearing the Dharma, then when hearing the Dharma, ignorance is already gone and again is not termed an obstruction. This is the intention of the Sanlun masters: not inquiring into the reason why ignorance constitutes an obstruction, they directly demand the presence or absence of obstruction in terms of self, other, and so forth.