大方廣佛華嚴經疏 39.7.2

39.7.2

若離此著則無生處者，即順舉解心，明理非我，是滅道故。 此直順經文已無我義成矣。 論經言受身處生者，以我執習氣但令自他差別，故論云「五道中所有生死差別。 若五道差別，自由業招耳。 」又論主反徵惑情顯成無我。 初徵著我，明凡應同聖過。 云若第一義中實有我相者，此按定所執著我之心。 即是第一義智，此反以縱立，謂稱實我知故。 次云不應世間受身處生者，以理正徵，謂若我是滅理、著心是道，則凡應同聖得於涅槃，何以著我世間受生耶？ 此中應為立過云：若第一義中實有我者凡應同聖，為立宗； 以有能證第一義中實我智故，為出因； 如諸生盡聖人，為同喻。 此則凡應同聖。 凡既同聖，即無凡夫，復成一過。 次反徵後句，明聖應同凡過云：又復若第一義中實有我相者，若離著我應常生世間，以不稱實、同於妄執，非第一義智故。 此中應為立過云：以理實有我，聖應同凡，為宗； 次聖證無我，違理倒惑非聖智故，為出因； 如諸凡夫，為同喻。 此則結成聖應同凡過。 聖既同凡，則無聖人，復是一過。 是以經云「若離此著則無生處」，則反顯妄情定是過也。 二過既成，則無我理昭然可見。 第二倒惑起緣，即論明答，答外伏難故。 兩難二答：一執情徵理難，情乖正理答。 二「常求」下執相徵實難，相不依我答。 今初難云：若實無我，云何著我？ 如空中無人，豈計有人？ 既著於我，不著無我，明知有我。 答云：由無智故，於無我處執著於我，非由有我。 如翳見空華，豈空中有華？ 第二難云：若實無我，何以貪著於我，世間受生為緣次第？ 明知有我，方得為緣次第生起。 答云：正由無我計我，癡愛為本、倒惑造業乃至老死，何要我耶？ 答意正爾。 就文分三：初明倒惑順起染緣； 二「此因緣故」下正智逆觀，結酬無我； 三「菩薩如是」下就人結觀。 今初。 然十二支即為十二別，亦無間然。 而諸論中多攝為四：一能引支，謂無明行能引識等五果種故； 二所引支，謂識等五是前二支所引發故； 三能生支，謂愛取有近生當來生老死故； 四所生支，即生老死是愛取有近所生故。 此約二世一重因果，明生引別。 若依三世兩重因果，則生引互通。 今經並具。 且依十二文分為五：初至有無辨無明支。 無智是癡，常求有無即是有愛。 然依三世，諸惑謝往總名無明，略舉發潤，有支本故。 若約二世，雖諸煩惱皆能發潤，而發業位無明力增，故名無明，唯取能發正感後世善惡業者以為其體。 希常為有，於有樂事，欲常住故。 求斷為無，於有苦事，願斷滅故。 次不正思惟至增長明行支，文有七句，初三行過、次三行體、後一結成。 初云不正思惟者，是行俱無明。 《涅槃》說此為無明因，亦無明攝。 躡前起後，故因果互舉。 次句就人彰過，謂起妄行者必是凡夫，無明為因，求有造業故。 故初地云「凡所作業皆顛倒相應」，反示菩薩勝義，謂菩薩雖行於有起於善行，以明為因，不求有造不名妄行。 下句就法彰過，論云「示於解脫處不正行故。 」若行涅槃路方為正道。 次三句辨行體相，以三業相應思造三行故。 謂由迷異熟愚違正信解，起感三塗惡業及人天別報苦業，皆名罪行。 然別必兼總，唯感別報非行支故。 由迷真實義愚，不知三界皆苦、妄謂為樂，起欲界善業名福行，八禪淨業名不動行。 後句結成行支，謂作已無悔，積集增長，有遷流故。 次「於諸行」下明識支，謂既發行已，由行熏心，令此本識能招當來生老死故，名之為種。 若無行熏終不成種故。 云於諸行中植心種字，即是所引識等五種，於一剎那為行所集，無有前後。 約為異熟六根之種，名六處支。 為異熟觸受種，名觸受支。 除本識種，為識支體。 及此三種諸餘異熟蘊種，皆名色支，故無前後。

"If one is free from this clinging, there is no place of birth": this brings forward in proper sequence the understanding mind, clarifying that the noumenon is non-self, because it is the truths of cessation and the path. Straightforwardly following the sūtra text, the meaning of non-self is already established. When the commentary on the sūtra says "birth in a place where a body is received", it is because the habit-energy of self-grasping merely causes differentiation between self and other; hence the treatise says: "Whatever differences of birth and death there are among the five destinies. The differences among the five destinies are naturally brought about by karma alone." Furthermore, the treatise master inversely questions the deluded sentiments to demonstrate and establish non-self. First, he challenges clinging to a self, clarifying the fault that ordinary beings would have to be identical to noble ones. It says: "If in the ultimate truth there truly were the characteristic of a self"—this holds down the mind that clings to a self—"then this would be ultimate wisdom." This is an inverse concession, meaning that [such grasping would] accord with the knowledge of a real self. Next, it says: "They should not be born in places in the world where bodies are received." This properly questions based on reason, meaning: if the self were the noumenon of cessation and the clinging mind were the path, then ordinary beings ought to be identical to noble ones and attain nirvāṇa; why would they cling to a self and receive birth in the world? Here, a faulty argument should be formulated: "If in the ultimate truth there truly were a self, ordinary beings would be identical to noble ones" is the proposition; "Because there would be wisdom that realizes a real self in the ultimate truth" provides the reason; "Like noble ones whose rebirths are exhausted" is the positive example. This would mean that ordinary beings would be identical to noble ones. Once ordinary beings are identical to noble ones, there would be no ordinary beings—constituting yet another fault. Next, inversely questioning the subsequent sentence, he clarifies the fault that noble ones would have to be identical to ordinary beings, saying: "Furthermore, if in the ultimate truth there truly were the characteristic of a self, then if one were free from clinging to a self, one should constantly be born in the world, because [such freedom] would not accord with reality, would be identical to false attachment, and would not be ultimate wisdom." Here, a faulty argument should be formulated: "Because in reason there truly is a self, noble ones would be identical to ordinary beings" is the proposition; "Next, noble ones realize non-self, which contradicts reason and is inverted delusion, not noble wisdom" provides the reason; "Like all ordinary beings" is the positive example. This concludes the establishment of the fault that noble ones would be identical to ordinary beings. Once noble ones are identical to ordinary beings, there would be no noble ones—which is yet another fault. Therefore, the sūtra says: "If one is free from this clinging, there is no place of birth"; this inversely reveals that the deluded sentiment is definitively faulty. These two faults having been established, the principle of non-self can be clearly seen. Second, inverted delusions giving rise to conditions is explained in the treatise as a reply, because it answers a hidden objection from an opponent. There are two objections and two replies. First is the objection that challenges the noumenon based on clinging sentiments, replied to by showing that sentiments run contrary to correct noumenon. Second is the objection from "constantly seeking" onward, challenging reality based on characteristics, replied to by showing that characteristics do not rely on a self. Now, the first objection says: "If there truly is no self, why is there clinging to a self? Just as when there is no person in empty space, how could one imagine there to be a person? Since there is clinging to a self and not clinging to non-self, one clearly knows there is a self." The reply says: "Because of lack of wisdom, one clings to a self where there is no self; it is not because there is a self. Just as one with cataracts sees flowers in the sky—how could there be flowers in the sky?" The second objection says: "If there truly is no self, why does greedy clinging to a self serve as the sequential condition for receiving birth in the world? Clearly knowing there is a self, only then can there be sequential arising through conditions." The reply says: "Precisely because there is no self, one conceptualizes a self: delusion and craving are the root, and inverted delusions create karma down to old age and death; what need is there for a self?" Such is the precise intention of the reply. Regarding the text, it divides into three: first, it clarifies inverted delusions giving rise in forward order to defiled conditions; second, from "due to these causes and conditions" onward, correct wisdom contemplates in reverse order, concluding the reply on non-self; third, from "The bodhisattva thus…" onward, it concludes the contemplation with reference to the person. Now, the first. Although the twelve links are twelve distinct items without any gap, yet in various treatises they are mostly subsumed into four: first, the projecting links, meaning ignorance and formations, because they can project the seeds of the five results such as consciousness; second, the projected links, meaning the five such as consciousness, because they are projected by the preceding two links; third, the actualizing links, meaning craving, grasping, and existence, because they immediately actualize coming birth, old age, and death; fourth, the actualized links, which are birth, old age, and death, because they are immediately actualized by craving, grasping, and existence. This explains the difference between projection and actualization with reference to one layer of cause and effect across two lifetimes. If based on two layers of cause and effect across three lifetimes, then projection and actualization mutually interpenetrate. The present sūtra encompasses both. For now, following the twelve, the text is divided into five: first, up to "existence and non-existence" it explains the link of ignorance. Lack of wisdom is delusion; constantly seeking existence and non-existence is craving for existence. Yet, based on the three lifetimes, all defilements that have passed away are collectively called ignorance; this briefly brings up initiating and nourishing, because they are the root of the links of existence. If referring to two lifetimes, although all afflictions are capable of initiating and nourishing, at the stage of initiating karma the power of ignorance increases; hence it is called ignorance, taking solely that which can initiate and directly induce wholesome or unwholesome karma of future lifetimes as its essence. Hoping for permanence is "existence", because with regard to pleasurable matters of existence, one desires them to abide permanently. Seeking annihilation is "non-existence", because with regard to painful matters of existence, one wishes them to be cut off. Next, from "incorrect reflection" to "increase" clarifies the link of formations. The text has seven phrases: the first three are the faults of formations, the next three are the essence of formations, and the final one concludes their establishment. First, "incorrect reflection" is ignorance concurrent with formations. The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] calls this the cause of ignorance, and it is also subsumed under ignorance. Stepping on the preceding to initiate the succeeding, cause and effect are thus mutually adduced. The next phrase reveals the fault with reference to the person, meaning that one who gives rise to false formations must be an ordinary being, taking ignorance as cause and creating karma out of seeking existence. Hence the first stage says: "Whatever karma is done is associated with inversion," which inversely indicates the superior meaning for bodhisattvas: although bodhisattvas act within existence and give rise to wholesome formations, with knowledge as their cause, not creating out of seeking existence, these are not called false formations. The following phrase reveals the fault with reference to the dharma; the treatise says: "It indicates improper practice regarding the place of liberation." Only if one walks the path of nirvāṇa is it the correct path. The next three phrases explain the essence and marks of formations, because through volition associated with the three karmas, one creates the three formations. Meaning, through the delusion of incomprehension regarding karmic ripening that contradicts correct faith and understanding, one gives rise to evil karma that induces the three wretched destinies, as well as painful karma of distinct retributions among humans and gods; these are all called unmeritorious formations. However, distinct [retributions] necessarily encompass the total; that which only induces distinct retributions is not the link of formations. Through the delusion of incomprehension regarding the real truth, not knowing that the three realms are entirely suffering and falsely deeming them pleasure, one gives rise to wholesome karma of the desire realm, called meritorious formations, and pure karma of the eight dhyānas, called immovable formations. The final phrase concludes the formation link, meaning that having acted without regret, they accumulate and increase, undergoing transition and flow. Next, from "in formations" onward clarifies the consciousness link, meaning that once formations have been initiated, because formations perfume the mind, they cause this fundamental consciousness to be able to bring about future birth, old age, and death; hence it is called a seed. If there were no perfuming by formations, it would never become a seed. Therefore it says "planting the mind-seed among formations," which is the five seeds such as the projected consciousness; they are accumulated by formations in a single instant, with no before or after. In terms of being the seed of the six internal bases of maturation, it is called the link of the six bases. Being the seeds of contact and feeling of maturation, they are called the links of contact and feeling. Excluding the seed of the fundamental consciousness, this is the essence of the consciousness link. And these three along with all other seeds of the maturation aggregates are all called the link of name-and-form; therefore there is no before or after.