[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 10.26 # 華嚴經探玄記 10.26 華嚴經探玄記 10.26 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [10.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.10.26) 三所斷者，《唯識論》第九云「一異生性障，謂二障中分別起者，依彼種立異生性故。二乘見道現在前時，唯斷一種名得聖性；菩薩見道現在前時，具斷二種名得聖性。」解云：異生者，執異見而生，故曰異生，即舊名凡夫也。性者，即是分別二障。種上假立不相應法，依彼種上立此性故，即說彼種名異生性障。此即異生之障，依主釋。梁論名凡夫性無明，《十地論》名凡夫我相障。解云：此約二執通名我相，故不相違。又此異生性雖依種立，然見道前現行分別亦此障攝，故《唯識》云「執著我法愚」，即是此障，故知通現。問：若分別二障現種為體，如何二愚唯現非種？答：障寬愚狹，故不相違。又此異生性雖通本隨分別現種，然由執著之所引發，故貪嗔等攝屬二執。問：聖位翻凡，何故初地聖性唯依種立？答：以現行間斷，故非聖性。問：若爾，地前已有無流法爾智種，何不於彼立為聖性？答：以凡聖二性同時相違過失故。雖有種而非聖性，如滅心定依種假立微微心時，雖有彼種而非滅定，以有心無心義相違故；此亦同彼。又釋：地前未有彼無流之種，故非聖性，法爾種子非所許故。問：既異生性是不相應行攝，聖性翻凡，何不立不相應耶？答：依大乘宗，聖性亦是不相應攝，即二十四中非得是也。以大乘宗許此通無流故，不同小乘不通無流。又釋：異生劣故別立不相應，聖法力勝故不別立，亦不相違。又《唯識》云「雖初地所斷，實通二障。而異生性障意取所知，說十無明非染污故，無明即是十障品愚。」上來且約斷煩惱說。理實初地亦除惡趣諸業果等，是故要說具斷二愚及彼麁重：一執著我法愚，則是異生性障；二惡趣雜染愚，即是惡趣諸業果等，應知愚品總說為愚。解云：顯上二愚非唯無明，執我法時所有愚及俱起法說為初愚。愚品類惡趣業果，體雖非愚，愚所發業及所感果，總說為愚。彼論又說「利鈍障品俱起無明以為二愚，即與五見利品俱起同時無明名為初愚，與貪等鈍品俱起名為後愚。」言麁重者，彼論二釋。論云「彼麁重言，顯彼二種或二所起無堪任性。」解云：此初釋麁重即是二愚種子。惡故名麁、沈沒稱重，故知二愚唯約現行。後釋是二愚所引，令身心中無堪任性，麁更沈重，故名麁重非現非種。准此，二愚亦通種子。又案：此二愚或分為三，謂惑、業、報。或分為四，加彼麁重。或分為五，謂惑中分二障故。此等並是此中所除。汎論斷義，有其三種：一自性斷，謂諸煩惱及相應心心所，不善有覆無記諸染污法，見修道生，惑種永斷。此中心王、遍行、別境性非染污，非可斷法，與煩惱俱名相應縛，斷煩惱故亦說名斷。二離縛斷，謂有流善無覆無記通色心等，非正違道，性非可斷，由斷六識緣彼煩惱故說為斷。三不生斷，謂此見道斷見惑已，捨外道身，所依身無，即無想定及無想報竝永不生。又招三惡道總報惡業，皆非擇滅，亦名不生。三惡道報、無根、二根、欝單越等，亦皆不生。畜生、餓鬼別報善業所依依果無，亦不生也。此上且約初教說之。若約終教，初地亦捨三界分段及惑業苦，地上唯斷彼所知障及變易報。其煩惱障，地前漸伏，初地斷盡。所知障，地前亦學伏，初地斷一分，餘在諸地各斷一分，佛地方盡。此如梁論及《寶性論》等說。 > Third, regarding that which is severed: The ninth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra states: "First is the obstacle of ordinary-nature. This refers to the conceptually arisen \[aspects\] of the two obstacles, because ordinary-nature is posited based on their seeds. When the path of seeing of the two vehicles appears, only one kind is severed, which is termed 'attaining noble nature'; when the path of seeing of a bodhisattva appears, both kinds are completely severed, which is termed 'attaining noble nature'." Explanation: 'Ordinary-nature' (pṛthagjana) means those who are born grasping differentiated views, hence called 'differently-born' (pṛthagjana), which was formerly called 'ordinary persons' (fanfu). 'Nature' refers to the two conceptual obstacles. It is an unassociated formation (viprayukta-saṃskāra) nominally posited upon their seeds; because this nature is posited upon those seeds, those seeds are called the obstacle of ordinary-nature. This is a determinative compound (tatpuruṣa): the obstacle of the ordinary person. In the Liang translation of the Saṃgraha it is called 'the ignorance of the ordinary-person-nature'; in the Daśabhūmika-śāstra it is called 'the obstacle of the ordinary person's mark of self'. Explanation: This uniformly refers to the two graspings as the 'mark of self', so there is no contradiction. Furthermore, although this ordinary-nature is posited on the basis of seeds, active conceptualizations prior to the path of seeing are also subsumed under this obstacle; hence the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'the delusion of clinging to self and phenomena', which is precisely this obstacle; thus we know it encompasses active manifestations. Question: If the two conceptual obstacles take both active manifestations and seeds as their essence, why are the two delusions only active manifestations and not seeds? Answer: Obstacles are broad while delusions are narrow; hence there is no contradiction. Furthermore, although this ordinary-nature encompasses root and derivative conceptual active manifestations and seeds, because it is induced by grasping and clinging, greed, anger, and the like are subsumed under the two graspings. Question: The noble state reverses the ordinary state; why is the noble nature of the first bhūmi posited solely based on seeds? Answer: Because active manifestations are subject to interruption, they are not the noble nature. Question: If so, since uncontaminated inherent seeds of wisdom already exist prior to the bhūmis, why is noble nature not posited in them? Answer: Because of the fault of mutual contradiction between the two natures, ordinary and noble, existing simultaneously. Although the seeds exist, they are not the noble nature, just as the cessation attainment is nominally posited based on seeds: at the time of the extremely subtle mind, although those seeds exist, they are not the attainment of cessation, because the meanings of having mind and having no mind are mutually contradictory; this is just like that. Another explanation: prior to the bhūmis there are no such uncontaminated seeds, so it is not the noble nature, for inherent seeds are not accepted \[by that view\]. Question: Since ordinary-nature is subsumed under unassociated formations, and noble nature reverses the ordinary, why is it not posited as an unassociated formation? Answer: According to the Mahāyāna school, noble nature is also subsumed under unassociated formations, namely non-attainment (aprāpti) among the twenty-four. Because the Mahāyāna school accepts that this extends to the uncontaminated, unlike the Hīnayāna, which does not allow it to extend to the uncontaminated. Another explanation: because ordinary beings are inferior, an unassociated formation is separately posited; because noble dharmas possess superior power, none is separately posited; so there is also no contradiction. Furthermore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Although severed on the first bhūmi, in truth it encompasses both obstacles. However, the obstacle of ordinary-nature primarily intends the cognitive obstacle, for the ten ignorances are said to be non-defiled; ignorance is precisely the delusion within the ten categories of obstacles." The above was spoken merely in terms of severing afflictions. In actual truth, the first bhūmi also eliminates the karmic fruitions of the bad destinies; therefore it must be stated that one fully severs the two delusions and their heavy crudities: first, the delusion of clinging to self and phenomena, which is the obstacle of ordinary-nature; second, the delusion of the defilement of bad destinies, which refers to the karmic fruitions and so forth of bad destinies; one should know that the category of delusion is collectively termed 'delusion'. Explanation: This reveals that the above two delusions are not merely ignorance: the delusion present when clinging to self and phenomena and its co-arising factors are called the first delusion. Regarding the bad-destiny karmic results belonging to the category of delusion, although their essence is not delusion, the karma initiated by delusion and the fruitions induced by it are collectively termed 'delusion'. That treatise also states: "The co-arising ignorance belonging to sharp and dull categories of obstacles constitutes the two delusions; that is, the simultaneous ignorance co-arising with the sharp category of the five views is named the first delusion, and that co-arising with the dull category of greed and the like is named the latter delusion." Regarding 'heavy crudity' (dauṣṭhulya), that treatise gives two explanations. The treatise says: "The phrase 'their heavy crudity' reveals either those two kinds \[of seeds\] or the unfitness induced by the two." Explanation: This first explanation is that heavy crudity refers precisely to the seeds of the two delusions. Being evil, they are called 'crude'; sinking down, they are termed 'heavy'; thus we know the two delusions are spoken of solely in terms of active manifestation. The latter explanation is that it is induced by the two delusions, causing an unfitness in body and mind that is cruder and heavier, hence named 'heavy crudity', being neither active manifestation nor seed. Following this, the two delusions also extend to seeds. Furthermore, consider: these two delusions may be divided into three, namely affliction, karma, and fruition. Or they may be divided into four, by adding their heavy crudity. Or they may be divided into five, by dividing the afflictions into the two obstacles. All of these are what is eliminated here. Generally speaking, regarding the meaning of severing, there are three kinds: First is severing of intrinsic nature, which refers to the afflictions and the associated mind and mental factors, unwholesome and veiled indeterminate defiled dharmas; arising on the paths of seeing and cultivation, the seeds of delusion are forever severed. Herein, the mind-king, omnipresent, and particular mental factors are not defiled by nature and are not dharmas to be severed; being accompanied by afflictions, they are called 'bound by association', and because afflictions are severed, they too are said to be severed. Second is severing by freedom from bondage, which refers to contaminated wholesome and non-veiled indeterminate dharmas extending to form, mind, and the like; not directly contrary to the path, their nature is not to be severed; by severing the afflictions of the six consciousnesses that take them as objects, they are said to be severed. Third is severing by non-arising, which refers to: having severed the delusions of seeing on this path of seeing, one abandons non-Buddhist bodies, and with no basis-body existing, the non-conceptual attainment and the non-conceptual fruition will never arise again. Furthermore, the unwholesome karma of the total retribution attracting the three bad destinies is completely non-analytical cessation, which is also termed 'non-arising'. The retributions of the three bad destinies, having no sense organs, having two sense organs, Uttarakuru, and the like also never arise. The basis and circumstantial results of the specific retributions of wholesome karma as animals or hungry ghosts do not exist, and therefore also do not arise. The above is spoken merely in terms of the initial teaching. If spoken in terms of the final teaching, the first bhūmi also abandons the partitioned \[birth and death\] of the three realms, as well as affliction, karma, and suffering; upon the bhūmis one severs only that cognitive obstacle and the retribution of change. As for the affliction obstacle, it is gradually subdued prior to the bhūmis and completely severed on the first bhūmi. As for the cognitive obstacle, one also trains in subduing it prior to the bhūmis; one part is severed on the first bhūmi, the rest is severed part by part on each bhūmi, and it is exhausted only at the Buddha bhūmi. This is as explained in the Liang Saṃgraha, the Ratnagotravibhāga, and elsewhere. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 10.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.10.25) - [Next: 10.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.10.27) - [Up: 10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.10.26) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.57.28) — Classical Chinese - [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.33.14) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.10.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.10.26) · Pramāṇa