大方廣佛華嚴經疏 33.21

33.21

第二隨難徵釋。由捨轉離文義廣故，重徵釋之。義有四重，謂怖畏與離各有因果。而文分五節：一總徵、二列名總答、三轉徵、四舉因顯相、五「菩薩如是」下結酬初徵。今初。徵意云：何以此中說離畏耶？二答意云：以五怖畏是初地障，得初地時法爾離故。又離此即是此地利益，翻畏名喜，此相最顯，故於釋名分中辨之。三轉徵者，此之一徵文含四意：一云何以名為不活等畏耶？二云何因而有此五畏耶？此二是怖畏因果，故論上生起云何者是怖畏？云何怖畏因？三何以名為得永離耶？四因何令此得永離耶？此二離畏因果，若得離因自然無果，故論上云遠離此因無怖畏故。四舉因顯相者，謂正舉離因顯離果相，反顯畏因及畏果相故。通有四意，酬前四徵。如不愛自身何況資財，是離不活因，則反顯愛身資財是不活畏因；若不畏不活即是離畏果，則反顯畏於不活是此畏果。餘四例然。又此離因即是能治，其怖畏因即是所治。五怖畏果，不活與死二相何別？懼無資緣，身不存於朝夕，名不活畏。懼其因盡正捨報時，名為死畏，大怖之極無過死故。又不活通於三業，死唯約身，故論云「第一第二第五依身口意，第三第四依身。」死約愛於善道，懼捨身故。惡道畏者，憎於惡道，懼得彼身故。但說五者，打縛等畏皆五攝故。此怖畏因，略有二種：一邪智妄取、想見愛著故；二善根微少故。然此二因通五怖畏。善根少者，亦乏資財，懼不活等故。有愛著者，未能忘懷，畏大眾等故。若取相顯，初一為前三畏因，後一為後二畏因。邪智即是分別。身見取我乖理，目之為邪，邪心決斷名之為智。由有此智妄取於我，乃我所想，以成執見而起愛著，故我見為主，我所隨生。愛著於我，則有死畏，見有我身懼捨命故。愛著我所有前二畏，但著財利有不活畏，著利兼名有惡名畏。但無我我所，則三畏因亡。然不活因，舉我況所，意但取所。後二因者，功德善少畏墮惡道，智慧善少畏於大眾。又過去善少今畏大眾，現在善少當畏惡道。今具福智，兼二世善，以為對治，故初三離因即二空智，後二離因即二莊嚴。五「菩薩如是」下結酬初徵。前云何以能離，今酬由上三段如是義故，所以能離，意正如此。而論云怖畏毛豎等事，何故二處說耶？前說身怖畏，後說異身怖畏者，意謂前第十句屬念現得，故但云身；今通當報惡道等，故云異身。

Second, questioning and explaining according to difficulties. Because the passages and meanings on giving up and being free from [fears] are extensive, they are questioned and explained anew. The meaning has four layers—namely, fear and freedom from [fear] each have cause and fruit. The text is divided into five sections: 1. general questioning; 2. listing names and answering generally; 3. further questioning; 4. adducing causes to reveal the marks; 5. from “Bodhisattvas in this way” onward, concluding the response to the initial question. Now the first: The intention of the question is, why is being free from fear spoken of here? Second, the intention of the answer is: because the five fears are obstacles to the first stage, when one attains the first stage, they are naturally left behind. Moreover, being free from these is itself the benefit of this stage; reversing fear is named joy, and this mark is the most prominent, hence it is discriminated in the section explaining the name. Third, regarding the further questioning, this single questioning contains four points: 1. Why are they named fears such as non-survival? 2. From what cause are there these five fears? These two are the cause and fruit of fear; hence the treatise above initiates [the questions]: “What are the fears? What are the causes of fear?” 3. Why is it named attaining permanent freedom [from them]? 4. By what cause is one made to attain permanent freedom from them? These two are the cause and fruit of being free from fear; if one attains the cause of freedom, naturally there is no fruit. Hence the treatise above says: “Because being far removed from these causes, there is no fear.” Fourth, regarding adducing causes to reveal the marks: this means directly adducing the causes of freedom to reveal the marks of the fruit of freedom, thereby conversely revealing the causes of fear and the marks of the fruit of fear. In all there are four points, answering the previous four questions. As in [the phrase] “not loving one's own body, how much less resources and wealth”—this is the cause of freedom from [the fear of] non-survival, which conversely reveals that loving one's body and wealth is the cause of the fear of non-survival; not fearing non-survival is the fruit of freedom from fear, which conversely reveals that fearing non-survival is the fruit of this fear. The remaining four follow this pattern. Moreover, this cause of freedom is the antidote (pratipakṣa), while the cause of fear is that which is to be eliminated. Regarding the fruits of the five fears, what is the distinction between the two marks of non-survival and death? Fearing a lack of resources so that the body cannot survive from morning to evening is called the fear of non-survival. Fearing that when its causes are exhausted, one directly gives up retribution is called the fear of death, for of the extremes of great terror, none exceeds death. Furthermore, non-survival pertains to all three karmas, while death pertains solely to the body; hence the treatise says: “The first, second, and fifth rely on body, speech, and mind; the third and fourth rely on the body.” Death is treated in terms of love for the good destinies, fearing giving up the body. As for the fear of bad destinies, one detests bad destinies and fears acquiring those bodies. That only five are spoken of is because fears of beating, binding, and the like are all subsumed under these five. As for the causes of these fears, there are briefly two kinds: 1. because of wrongly grasping with wrong intellect, conceptualizing views, and clinging with attachment; 2. because of slight kuśala-mūlas. Yet these two causes pertain generally to all five fears. Those with few kuśala-mūlas also lack resources and wealth, and thus fear non-survival and so forth. Those with clinging attachment cannot forget their concerns and fear assemblies and so forth. If one takes the prominent marks, the first [cause] is the cause of the first three fears, and the latter [cause] is the cause of the latter two fears. “Wrong intellect” is precisely conceptual discrimination. Grasping a self through view of the self runs contrary to noumenon, so it is designated “wrong”; the wrong mind's determination is named “intellect.” Because of having this intellect, one wrongly grasps a self and then conceptualizes what belongs to a self, thereby forming grasping views and generating clinging attachment; hence view of a self is primary, and what belongs to a self arises in its wake. Clinging with attachment to a self, there is then fear of death, because seeing that one has a self and body, one fears surrendering life. Clinging with attachment to what belongs to a self, there are the first two fears: merely being attached to wealth and profit, there is fear of non-survival; being attached to profit along with reputation, there is fear of bad reputation. If one is merely without self and without what belongs to a self, then the causes of the three fears are extinguished. However, the cause of non-survival adduces the self to illustrate what belongs to it; the intent merely targets what belongs to it. As for the latter two causes: having few kuśala-mūlas of merit, one fears falling into bad destinies; having few kuśala-mūlas of wisdom, one fears assemblies. Furthermore, with few past virtues, one now fears assemblies; with few present virtues, one in the future fears bad destinies. Now, endowed with both merit and wisdom and combining the virtues of both lifetimes as the antidote, the causes of freedom for the first three are the wisdom of the two emptinesses, and the causes of freedom for the latter two are the two adornments. Fifth, from “Bodhisattvas in this way” onward, concludes the response to the initial question. Previously it asked why one can be free; now it responds that it is due to such meanings of the above three sections that one can be free. Such is precisely the intent. But the treatise asks: “Regarding matters such as fear and hair standing on end, why are they spoken of in two places?” The former speaks of bodily fears, and the latter speaks of fears of different bodies. The intent means that the previous tenth line belongs to mindfulness of what is presently attained, hence it only speaks of the body; now it includes future retribution in bad destinies and so forth, hence it says “different bodies.”