華嚴經探玄記 13.16

13.16

第二依論約相諦分別釋中三段內，初門名成答相差別。於中門別有四，相從為三，要攝為二，總之為一。四者，一舉彼解惑顯成無我門；二「論經愚癡」下，經本一切凡夫下明責情現理；三「依論經無智」下，依經本癡盲等下名辨相現實門；四「不知第一義」下，明依實辨相門。二相從為三者，四中初一名成，謂釋成無我；次二名答，答現無我；後一名相，謂依諸諦理立緣生相。要攝為二者，前之三門宗現無我，故一處舉釋；後之一門宗現緣生依真起相，故別舉別釋。總為一者，謂第一成答相差別也。論云五道中所有生死等者，釋世間所有生處等也。下開三門，就初釋成中四句：一總釋成無我。二「一切世間」下牒舉經也。即無我義成者，但案經即是現成無我義。三「若第一義」下即事現成無我之義，有二句：一若實有我，不成凡夫過；二若我實有，不成聖人過。何者？若第一義中實有我者，定其所取著我之心，即第一義智者辨定能取也。不應世間生者，正出過也，謂若第一義中實有我相者，凡應是聖，此為立宗。以有能證第一義中實我智故，此為出因。如諸聖者，為同法喻。此則凡同聖智過，應無凡夫。理既不爾，明知無我。又聖應同凡宗，因云以理實有我、聖證為無，違理倒惑，非聖智故。如諸凡夫應生世間，同喻也。此則聖同凡倒過，應無聖人。理既不爾，明知無我。此壞聖失也。準前，此文欠一句，應云離著我心則應非是第一義智。無我既非第一義諦，離我之心豈可得名第一義智？言應常生世間者，以理正徵。若離我心非勝義智，應不證涅槃，常生世間故。前句中，凡夫既有第一義智，屬道諦攝，應得涅槃，不在世間。此文現於無我真理，同前可見。四「現示」下舉經對現可知。第二釋答中，謂難在文外，故云答也。有兩難二答：初執情徵理難、情乖正理答。難云：若理實無我，應著無我，云何著我？既著於我不著無我，明知有我。如虛空無人，豈有計人？立量可知。下答以癡所盲故，於無我處而執為我。如目有翳，空中見華，豈可空中有此華也。比量可知。二「如是實無有我」下執相徵實難、相不依我答。難云：若當有我，可令無明作緣行次第。既云無我，唯為次第乃至老死。「此示現」下舉經正答，由癡造業，業行起識乃至老死。如世種植相生次第，何用我耶？答意如此。於中悕常為有、求斷為無。希求是愛、無智是癡，煩惱無量，何故偏舉此二種邪？以是有支根本故。次釋行中三句：一釋邪念、二邪道、三妄行。以菩薩行有不妄行，故次釋識支等，先併舉經文。「是中」下釋以異熟賴耶正是報體，故云示生老死體。又釋：種子識為彼因，故云如來藏賴耶體也。又釋：為生死性故，謂此識體復能隨順攝持餘支種子，令得成就能所引生，故云隨順攝取等也。罪福等業為地。遠釋云「如是住者是色支，如是生心者是名支，結所生名色也。」今更釋：如是住者是識種業地，如是生心者是癡覆愛潤，此結上四文也。又釋：此總標經中我心灌等，謂作如是安住，生如是心。我是我所等，謂見己為我。如男子受生，見父精為己有故為我所，又見母為己妻亦是我所；女人反此。言我我想是慢者，牒前我及我所二想為慢。自見與父共競女色，謂己得勝，便起想慢；女人亦爾。言我生等，釋見網。謂遠云「見己唯在此處生、不餘處生，故云我生不生。」又云：見常為我生，見斷為不生。今釋：見己正報以為我生，見所遊依報名為不生。以受胎時或見遊華林或居殿堂等，異見非一，故云種種。以見執難捨，如網覆也。下釋逆觀。以緣起法無性故滅，非是智力斷故名滅。下結前生後。若緣無我，更依何法緣相得住？下舉經對現，明緣起相依真而起。論中無明作業稱名色者。遠公引《婆沙》名色有二種：一方便名色、二報名色。若言名色緣識是方便名色，若說識緣名色是報名色。今既說行以為名色，故知是彼方便名色。言彼依止者，阿賴耶識是彼名色等所依止故。此約依持門說。二名色與識共生者，是相生義。三相依義，謂識由名色得起、名色由識得存。下釋逆觀。作者作事人法皆空，是名結前。云何問後證此真諦得解脫？答：今舉緣生以辨彼觀故也。

Second, within the three sections of the explanation based on the treatise according to distinguishing aspects and truths, the first gate is named the distinction of establishing and answering the characteristics. Within it, there are four individual gates; brought together, they make three; essentially subsumed, they make two; and totalized, they make one. As for the four: first, the gate of adducing understanding and delusion to demonstrate and establish non-self; second, below 'the treatise-sūtra's [mention of] delusion'—corresponding to below the sūtra text's 'all ordinary beings'—explaining the censuring of emotion and revealing of principle; third, below 'according to the treatise-sūtra's lack of wisdom'—corresponding to below the sūtra text's 'blinded by delusion,' etc.—named the gate of distinguishing characteristics and revealing the actual; fourth, below 'not knowing the supreme truth,' explaining the gate of distinguishing characteristics based on the actual. Second, their being brought together into three: of the four, the first is called 'establishing', meaning explaining and establishing non-self; the next two are called 'answering', answering and revealing non-self; the last one is called 'characteristics', meaning establishing the characteristics of conditioned arising based on the principles of the truths. Their essential subsumption into two: the prior three gates take as their principle revealing non-self, and thus are adduced and explained in one place; the latter gate takes as its principle revealing conditioned arising as arising in its characteristics based on the true, and thus is adduced and explained separately. Totalized as one: it is the first distinction of establishing and answering the characteristics. The treatise's stating 'all birth and death within the five destinies,' etc., explains 'all places of rebirth within the world,' etc. Below it opens into three gates; regarding the four phrases in the first explanation of establishing: first, an overall explanation establishing non-self. Second, below 'all worldly [beings],' repeating and citing the sūtra. 'The meaning of non-self is thereupon established': simply based on the sūtra, it already establishes the meaning of non-self. Third, below 'if the supreme truth,' directly manifesting the meaning of non-self based on the facts, there are two phrases: first, the error of ordinary beings not being established if a self truly exists; second, the error of noble ones not being established if a self truly exists. How so? If in the supreme truth there truly were a self, definitively fixing the mind that grasps that self would be the supreme-truth wisdom—distinguishing and defining the grasping [mind]. 'They should not be born in the world' directly points out the fault, meaning: if within the supreme truth there truly were a characteristic of a self, ordinary beings should be noble ones—this is the thesis. Because they would possess the wisdom that realizes the real self within the supreme truth—this is providing the reason. Like noble ones—this is the similar example. This is the fault of ordinary beings being identical to noble wisdom; there would be no ordinary beings. Since the principle is not so, one clearly knows there is no self. Furthermore, the thesis that noble ones should be identical to ordinary beings; the reason being: because in principle there truly is a self, yet noble ones realize it as non-existent, conflicting with principle and falling into inverted delusion, so it would not be noble wisdom. Like ordinary beings who should be born in the world—this is the similar example. This is the fault of noble ones being identical to ordinary inversions; there would be no noble ones. Since the principle is not so, one clearly knows there is no self. This is the fault of destroying the noble ones. In accordance with the above, this text lacks one phrase, which should say: 'The mind free from grasping a self would then not be the supreme-truth wisdom.' Since non-self would not be the supreme truth, how could the mind free from a self be termed supreme-truth wisdom? The statement 'they should constantly be born in the world' uses principle to interrogate directly: if the mind free from a self were not ultimate wisdom, they would not realize nirvāṇa and should constantly be born in the world. In the former phrase, since ordinary beings would have supreme-truth wisdom, belonging to the truth of the path, they should attain nirvāṇa and not be in the world. This text reveals the true principle of non-self, as can be seen in line with the above. Fourth, below 'manifesting and showing,' citing the sūtra to contrast and reveal it, as can be known. Second, in explaining the answer: because the objection lies outside the text, it is called an answer. There are two objections and two answers. First, the objection investigating principle based on grasped sentiment, and the answer of sentiment running contrary to correct principle. The objection says: 'If in principle there truly is no self, one should attach to non-self; why attach to a self? Since one attaches to a self and does not attach to non-self, one clearly knows there is a self. Just as where empty space has no person, how could one conceive of a person?' The formal syllogism can be known. Below, the answer is: because one is blinded by delusion, where there is no self one grasps it as a self. Just as when the eye has cataracts, one sees flowers in empty space; how could there be these flowers in empty space? The inference can be known. Second, below 'thus there truly is no self,' the objection investigating the real based on grasped characteristics, and the answer that characteristics do not depend on a self. The objection says: 'If there were a self, ignorance could cause conditions to act sequentially. Since it is said there is no self, there is only sequence up to old age and death.' Below 'this manifests,' citing the sūtra to answer directly: through delusion one creates karma; karmic activity arouses consciousness, up to old age and death. Just as in worldly planting there is a sequence of mutual arising, what need is there for a self? Such is the intention of the answer. Therein, longing for permanence is existence, and seeking annihilation is non-existence. Longing is craving, and lack of wisdom is delusion. Afflictions are immeasurable; why are these two alone singled out? Because they are the roots of the branches of existence. Next, in explaining the formations, there are three phrases: first, explaining incorrect thought; second, incorrect paths; third, false practice. Because bodhisattva practices include non-false practice, next it explains the consciousness branch and the rest, first bringing together and citing the sūtra text. Below 'therein,' it explains that since the heterogeneous maturation ālaya[-vijñāna] is precisely the body of retribution, it says it shows the body of birth, old age, and death. Another explanation: the seed consciousness is its cause, hence it says it is the body of the tathāgatagarbha-ālaya. Another explanation: because it is the nature of birth and death, meaning this consciousness-body can further conform to and maintain the seeds of the remaining branches, causing the accomplishers and the accomplished, the projected and the projectors, to be established; hence it says 'conforming to and appropriating,' and so forth. Sinful and meritorious karma is the earth. Master Yuan explained: '“Abiding like this” is the form branch; “arousing the mind like this” is the name branch, concluding the produced name-and-form.' Now I explain further: 'abiding like this' is the consciousness seed and the ground of karma; 'arousing the mind like this' is being obscured by delusion and moistened by craving; this concludes the four passages above. Another explanation: this summarizes the sūtra's 'sprinkling with the mind of self,' etc., meaning making such abiding and giving rise to such a mind. 'Self and what belongs to the self,' etc., means seeing oneself as the self. As when a male is reborn, seeing the father's semen as belonging to himself, he takes it as 'what belongs to the self', and seeing the mother as his own wife, she is also 'what belongs to the self'; for a female it is the opposite. The statement 'conceiving of self and self is conceit' takes up the prior two conceptions of self and what belongs to the self as conceit. Seeing oneself competing with the father for female beauty, thinking oneself victorious, one then gives rise to conception and conceit; for a female it is likewise. The words 'my birth,' etc., explain the net of views. Master Yuan said: 'Seeing oneself as born only in this place and not born in another place, hence it says “my birth and non-birth.”' He also said: 'Seeing permanence is “my birth”; seeing annihilation is “non-birth.”' Now I explain: seeing one's own primary retribution is taken as 'my birth'; seeing the supporting retribution in which one roams is called 'non-birth'. Because when entering the womb one either sees roaming in flowery groves or dwelling in palaces, different views are manifold, hence it says 'various'. Because views and attachments are difficult to relinquish, it is like being covered by a net. Below explains the reverse contemplation: because conditioned arising phenomena lack intrinsic nature, they cease; they are not called ceased because the power of wisdom cuts them off. Below concludes the prior and generates the following: if conditions are without a self, upon what further phenomena do the characteristics of conditions abide? Below, the sūtra is adduced to contrast and reveal, clarifying that the characteristics of conditioned arising arise dependent upon the true. In the treatise, ignorance creating karma is called name-and-form. Master Yuan cited the *Vibhāṣā* that there are two kinds of name-and-form: first, provisional name-and-form; second, retribution name-and-form. If one says name-and-form conditions consciousness, it is provisional name-and-form; if one says consciousness conditions name-and-form, it is retribution name-and-form. Now since it explains formations as being name-and-form, one knows it is that provisional name-and-form. The words 'its support': because the ālayavijñāna is that upon which name-and-form and the rest depend. This is explained in terms of the gate of supporting and sustaining. Second, 'name-and-form and consciousness arise together' is the meaning of co-arising. Third is the meaning of mutual dependence, meaning consciousness can arise by means of name-and-form, and name-and-form can exist by means of consciousness. Below explains the reverse contemplation: agent and deed, person and dharma, are both empty; this is called concluding the prior. How does the subsequent question of realizing this true reality and attaining liberation apply? Answer: it now adduces conditioned arising in order to distinguish that contemplation.