大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.29.3

3.29.3

三求佛心觀十二緣，論文名為一切相智分別觀，此即是前悲增上觀。 問：前初住先明悲首、次說增上、後彰悲滿，今此何故先滿、次悲、後說增上？ 前初住中生心次第，故先悲首、後論悲滿； 今此是其正行次第，故先悲滿、後說增上。 是義云何？ 前初住中乘上十法觀法空寂，便念眾生妄有為法之所纏故，故先起悲； 悲欲拔苦，須得佛智，次起增上； 佛必由離有而成，故明滿足生滅等觀。 今正行中，離過為始，先厭有為； 因自離過，便念眾生處之不出，次辨隨順。 前二攝因，理必在前； 一切相智是求果行，理須在後。 此三門中，各有十種觀因緣集，即為三十； 一一門中各有逆順，即成六十。 上來分別但依住地明六十番，對下果分有一百八十因緣觀門。 所以知然，尋果分文以三空門分別緣集，據此門下各攝不同故。 經云「依空解脫得十空三昧，無生無願亦復如是。 」據此三空便有三義。 若以空三昧觀十二緣，即十二緣皆空，所以知？ 已論主將分別無相配空三昧，若以無相門觀十二緣，十二即似； 若以無願門觀十二緣，緣生即實。 論中又說無相觀門為真實性，由真實離相，故以配之。 以無願配無生，為依他無生，無所願求，故用配之。 此等因緣同異法門，准下十空三昧思之可解。 第三以論對經文分齊者，更有別意。 前依經本十番，即成厭離有為因緣等觀，故據前後經本十番成一百八十門。 又問：若依經論無有六十門觀相，云何得成一百八十門？ 答：由經初開三觀門，後論主仍許經本二十番，而更別辨三門、四門、九門等。 今以前開三觀門，驗後經中觀體，即知定有六十門也。 今以論對經，攝十門為三番，意從一觀厭離有為，此意下更分別。 然論攝經分齊者，就厭離有為觀中，攝彼經內十番觀門，以之為三十中初門，即以為一，名成答相； 次有半門復以為一，名第一義； 後八門半合之為一，名世諦差別。 第二大悲隨順觀中，攝十為四：初門為一，名觀眾生愚癡顛倒； 次一為一，名餘處求解脫； 次四為一，名異道求解脫； 後四為一，名求異解脫。 一切相智分別觀中，攝十為九：初有半門說之為一，名染淨觀； 次一門半復以為一，名染依止觀； 次有五門，各別為一； 次有兩門復合為一，名無始觀； 次一為一，名種種觀，通前為九。 此三門中，文之前却，後當分釋。 二釋義者，依大經本，法界緣起乃有眾多，今以要門略攝為二：一約凡夫染法以辨緣起、二約菩提淨分以明緣起。 約淨門者，要攝為四：一本有、二本有修生、三名修生、第四修生本有。 言本有者，緣起本實，體離謂情，法界顯然，三世不動，故〈性起〉云「眾生心中有微塵經卷、有菩提大樹，眾聖共證。 」人證前後不同，其樹不分別異，故知本有。 又此緣生文，十二因緣即第一義。 言本有修生者，然諸淨品本無異性，今約諸緣發生新善，據彼諸緣乃是妄法所發，真智乃合普賢性體。 本無分別，修智亦無分別，故智順理、不順諸緣，故知修生即從本有，同性而發，故〈性品〉云「名菩提心，為性起故。 」問：本有修生既是新發，義非是舊，云何乃說從其本性？ 答：此品為是新生之義說是修生，與本義親，故從性起。 如今穀不別劫初，順本穀親、對今緣疎，故不說新得。 此思可解。 三修生者，信等善根先未現前，今對淨教賴緣始發，故說新生。 故論云「彼無無分別智故。 」四修生本有者，其如來藏性隱在諸纏，凡夫即迷，處而不覺。 若對迷時，不名為有，故《無相論》云「若有應見。 」又依《攝論》云「有得不得、見不見等故也。 」今得無分別智，始顯法身在纏成淨，先無有力同彼無法，今得成用異本先無，故不可說名為本有，說為修淨。 問：若說始顯為修起者名曰修生，云何說顯？

The third is contemplating the twelve links with a mind seeking the Buddha, which in the treatise text is called the "discriminative contemplation of the knowledge of all modes"; this is the earlier contemplation of predominant compassion. Question: In the previous initial dwelling, compassion was first explained as foremost, then predominance was spoken of, and finally the fulfillment of compassion was revealed. Why here is fulfillment first, compassion second, and predominance spoken of last? In the previous initial dwelling, it was the sequence of generating the mind, and therefore compassion was first foremost and the fulfillment of compassion was discussed afterward; here it is the sequence of the actual practice, and therefore the fulfillment of compassion is first and predominance is spoken of afterward. What does this mean? In the previous initial dwelling, availing oneself of the preceding ten dharmas to contemplate the emptiness and quiescence of phenomena, one then recollected sentient beings being bound by falsely existing conditioned phenomena, and therefore one first gave rise to compassion; compassion wishing to eradicate suffering, one must attain the Buddha's wisdom, so next one gave rise to predominance; the Buddha is necessarily accomplished by leaving existence behind, and therefore the contemplation of the fulfillment of arising and ceasing and so forth was explained. Now in the actual practice, leaving faults behind is the beginning, so one first disdains the conditioned; by oneself leaving faults behind, one then recollected sentient beings abiding in them and unable to escape, so next one distinguishes following along. The first two subsume the cause, and their principle must necessarily come before; the knowledge of all modes is the practice of seeking the fruit, and its principle must necessarily come behind. Within these three gates, each has ten kinds of contemplating the accumulation of causes and conditions, which makes thirty; within each gate there is the reverse and direct orders, which becomes sixty. The above differentiation only explains sixty turns on the basis of the residing ground; contrasted with the fruit-portion below, there are one hundred and eighty gates of contemplating causes and conditions. How do we know this is so? Examining the text of the fruit-portion, it differentiates the accumulation of conditions by means of the three gates of emptiness, and based on this, what is subsumed under each gate is different. The sūtra says: "Relying on the liberation of emptiness, one attains ten samādhis of emptiness; non-arising and non-wishing are also like this." Based on these three emptinesses, there are three meanings. If one contemplates the twelve links by means of the samādhi of emptiness, the twelve links are all empty. How is this known? The author of the treatise has matched discriminative signlessness to the samādhi of emptiness; if one contemplates the twelve links by means of the gate of signlessness, the twelve are simulated; if one contemplates the twelve links by means of the gate of non-wishing, the dependent origination is real. The treatise also explains the contemplation gate of signlessness as the true nature (tathatā); because the true is free from signs, it matches it. It matches non-wishing with non-arising; because other-dependence is non-arising and has nothing to wish for or seek, it uses it to match it. These dharmic gates of the sameness and difference of causes and conditions can be understood by analogy with the ten samādhis of emptiness below. Third, regarding the demarcation of the treatise contrasted with the sūtra text, there is a further distinct meaning. Previously, relying on the ten turns of the sūtra text, the contemplation of disdaining conditioned causes and conditions and so forth was accomplished; therefore, based on the ten turns of the sūtra text before and after, one hundred and eighty gates are accomplished. Further question: If according to the sūtra and treatise there are no features of sixty contemplation gates, how can one hundred and eighty gates be accomplished? Answer: Because at the beginning of the sūtra three contemplation gates are opened, and afterward the author of the treatise still allows twenty turns in the sūtra text, and further separately differentiates three gates, four gates, nine gates, and so forth. Now, using the previously opened three contemplation gates to verify the contemplation-substance in the subsequent sūtra, one knows that there are definitely sixty gates. Now, contrasting the treatise with the sūtra, subsuming the ten gates into three turns, the intent proceeds from one contemplation of disdaining the conditioned; this intent will be further differentiated below. Now, as for the treatise's demarcation in subsuming the sūtra: within the contemplation of disdaining the conditioned, subsuming the ten turns of contemplation gates within that sūtra to make the initial gate among thirty, this is made into one, named "the mark of accomplishment and answer"; next, there is half a gate which is again made into one, named "paramārtha"; the remaining eight and a half gates are combined into one, named "differences of saṃvṛti-satya". In the second contemplation of following along with great compassion, it subsumes the ten into four: the initial gate is made into one, named "contemplating the delusion and inversion of sentient beings"; the next one is made into one, named "seeking liberation elsewhere"; the next four are made into one, named "seeking liberation on deviant paths"; the last four are made into one, named "seeking a different liberation". In the discriminative contemplation of the knowledge of all modes, it subsumes the ten into nine: the initial half-gate is spoken of as one, named "the contemplation of defilement and purity"; the next gate and a half is again made into one, named "the contemplation of the support of defilement"; next there are five gates, each distinct as one; next there are two gates combined into one, named "the contemplation of beginninglessness"; next one is made into one, named "the contemplation of varieties"—including the preceding, this makes nine. The earlier and later positions of the text within these three gates will be analyzed and explained below. Second, in explaining the meaning: according to the root text of the Great Sūtra, the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu has many [modes], but now they are briefly subsumed into two essential gates: first, distinguishing dependent origination in terms of defiled phenomena of ordinary beings; second, explaining dependent origination in terms of the pure part of bodhi. Regarding the pure gate, it is essentially subsumed into four: first, fundamentally existing; second, fundamentally existing and produced through cultivation; third, named produced through cultivation; fourth, fundamentally existing as produced through cultivation. "Fundamentally existing" means: dependent origination is fundamentally real, its essence being free from conceptualizing sentiments; the dharmadhātu is manifest and unmoving through the three times. Thus the "Nature Arising" chapter says: "Within the minds of sentient beings there is a scroll of sūtra in a speck of dust, and there is the great bodhi tree, which all āryas jointly realize." People realize it earlier or later, but that tree has no discriminative difference; thus we know it is fundamentally existing. Moreover, in this text on dependent origination, the twelve links of causes and conditions are themselves paramārtha. "Fundamentally existing and produced through cultivation" means: all pure categories fundamentally have no different nature, but now, in terms of various conditions, new goodness is generated; based on those various conditions, it is generated from false phenomena, and true wisdom then accords with the nature-essence of Samantabhadra. Fundamentally it is non-discriminative, and cultivated wisdom is also non-discriminative; hence wisdom accords with principle and does not accord with various conditions. Thus we know that what is produced through cultivation arises from what is fundamentally existing, sharing the same nature. Thus the "Nature Chapter" says: "It is called the bodhicitta, because it is nature-arising." Question: Since "fundamentally existing and produced through cultivation" is newly generated and its meaning is not old, why is it said to come from its fundamental nature? Answer: Because this chapter has the meaning of being newly born, it is called "produced through cultivation"; because it is intimate with the fundamental meaning, it is [said to] arise from nature. Just as grain today is not distinct from that at the beginning of the kalpa: it is intimate with the original grain, but distant in relation to present conditions; therefore it is not called newly attained. Reflecting on this, it can be understood. Third, "produced through cultivation" means: good roots such as faith have not previously been manifest; now, facing pure teaching and relying on conditions, they first arise; therefore they are called newly born. Thus the treatise says: "Because they lack non-discriminative wisdom." Fourth, "fundamentally existing as produced through cultivation" means: that tathāgatagarbha nature is hidden in all entanglements; ordinary beings are deluded, residing in it without realizing it. If contrasted with the time of delusion, it is not named as existing; therefore the *Lakṣaṇābhāva-śāstra* says: "If it existed, it should be seen." Furthermore, relying on the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, it says: "Because there are attainment and non-attainment, seeing and non-seeing, and so forth." Now, having attained non-discriminative wisdom, the dharmakāya begins to be revealed; being in entanglement, it is made pure; having previously lacked power, it was like those non-existent phenomena, but now, attaining functional efficacy, it is different from the fundamental prior non-existence; hence it cannot be said to be fundamentally existing, but is called purified through cultivation. Question: If the initial revelation is called produced through cultivation because it arises through cultivation, why is it called revealed?