大方廣佛華嚴經疏 40.3

40.3

第二本末依持門。此下終於十門，皆是世諦差別。緣相本寂但應觀真，何以復觀世諦差別？論云「隨順觀世諦，即入第一義」故。俗為真詮，了俗無性方見真耳。《中論》云「若不知世諦，不得第一義」故。此觀有六：一何者是染染依止觀，即雙辨能依所依攝此半門。二因觀，觀染因故，攝次二門。三攝過觀，唯苦集故。四護過觀，護凡邪見故。五不厭厭觀，防小慢故。上三次第各攝一門。六深觀，顯因緣之理妙，過情取故。此攝後三門。六中初二建立染相、次一就染觀過、次二正觀防非、後一觀行深極。今此半門即染依止觀，因緣有分為染，而此染相依止一心，故論云「此是二諦差別。以純真不生、單妄不成，一心之真雜染之俗此二和合有因緣集。」經中三：初總，謂依一心分別十二，則十二為一心所持。而特言如來說者，一心頓具，非佛不知故。謂顯如來過去覺緣性已等相續起，展轉傳說故。次徵意云：十二有支，三世行列前後引生。何以今說皆依一心？後釋中論無別解，古來諸德但云離本識心一切不成。而其釋相經生越世，此雖不失依持之義，未為得旨。今謂說主巧示，非唯三世不離真心。今一念心頓具十二，彌顯前後不離一心，此同《俱舍》第九明剎那十二因緣也。是以此一門中含多緣起：一含《攝論》二種緣起。彼第二云「若略說緣起有二：一分別自性緣起，謂依阿賴耶識諸法生起」，即今一心依持；「二分別愛非愛緣起，謂十二緣起，於善惡趣能分別愛非愛，種種自體為緣性故」，即通今釋文及前後九段。二含《俱舍》第九四種緣起：一者剎那、二者連縛、三者分位、四者遠續。後三通餘九門，此中正當第一。彼云「云何剎那？謂剎那頃由貪行殺等具有十二。」彼廣說相與此大同，故今不必依次，意顯一心頓具。隨事貪欲與心共生者，此則總指所行之事。貪事非一，隨取一事於一念中則具十二，謂行此貪事必依心起，復了別前境故，心即識支。事是行者，貪事即是意業之行，若形身口亦是二行。不知貪過能招於苦，名於行迷惑。與無明及心共生是名色者，名色是總，為二所依，名與共生。故晉經云「識所依處為名色故。」《俱舍》云「識俱三蘊，總稱名色。」意明以受蘊，自是受支故。名色增長是六處者，不生五識唯名十界，五識依生乃名十處。識依相顯即是增長，增長之言宜譯為開顯。《俱舍》云「住名色根說為六處」，謂六根是別，以別依總開成於六，稱住名色。貪必對境為觸，受必領觸，貪即是愛，名受無厭。愛攝不捨即是欲取，愛取潤前六支成有故。但前諸有支生，即是有義。有所起者，即前諸法起，便是生義。生熟為老者，物生即異故。老壞為死者，剎那滅故。又依大乘，當相壞故，故經云「初生即有滅，不為愚者說」故。此若不斷，則名連縛。十二支位五蘊皆名分位。即此順後，無始來有，名為遠續。大小理通，或六八識異耳。非聖教量，孰信斯旨？論主不解，殆似疎遺。此文正辨同時異體十二有支。若同時同體亦具十二，謂迷第一義即是無明，有漏有取便名為行，體即是識亦即名色，即是意處對境名觸，領境名受，染境名愛，著境名取，招報為有，體現名生，即異滅為老死。以此十二有支，約時通說，總有六種：一依五世說十二支，謂過去無明行，復從過去過去煩惱生，此則煩惱生惑業。過去二因生現五果，則惑業生苦。若現生未來，未來更生未來，則苦復生苦。此依三世推因徵果假說有五，非約展轉，不墮無窮。二依三世、三依二世、四依一世，前後建立，竝如初門中辨。五同時異體、六同時同體，即如此文。二約大悲隨順觀中，即當第二餘處求解脫，謂是凡夫愚癡顛倒，常應於阿賴耶識及阿陀那識中求解脫，及於餘處我我所中求解脫故。經明唯是一心，則心外無我法，當於一心中求，亦同《淨名》「諸佛解脫當於眾生心行中求」。言阿賴耶，此云藏識，能藏一切雜染品法令不失故，我見愛等執藏以為自內我故。此名唯在異生有學。阿陀那者，此云執持，執持種子及色根故。此名通一切位。此二即心之別名，論主意明心含染淨，故雙舉二名釋一心義。求義云何？若有我執成阿賴耶，若我執亡則捨賴耶名。唯阿陀那持無漏種，則妄心斯滅真心顯現。故下偈云「心若滅者生死盡」，即妄滅也，非心體滅。三約一切相智觀，即當第二依止觀，明此緣集依於二種：一依第一義，已如前說。二依心識，即是今文。前唯約淨，此通染淨，依義如前。又前即依真起妄，此則顯妄依真。

Second is the gate of the mutual reliance of root and branch. From this point down to the end of the ten gates, all are the distinctions of conventional truth. The marks of conditions are fundamentally quiescent, so one should only contemplate the real; why then contemplate the distinctions of conventional truth again? Because the treatise says: 'By adaptively contemplating conventional truth, one immediately enters paramārtha.' The conventional is the expression of the real; only by comprehending that the conventional lacks self-nature does one see the real. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'If one does not know conventional truth, one will not attain paramārtha.' This contemplation has six [aspects]: First is the contemplation of what is defilement and what defilement relies upon, which jointly analyzes that which relies and that upon which it relies, subsuming this half of the gate. Second is the contemplation of cause, which contemplates the cause of defilement, subsuming the next two gates. Third is the contemplation of subsuming faults, which pertains solely to suffering and origination. Fourth is the contemplation of guarding against faults, which guards against the wrong views of ordinary beings. Fifth is the contemplation of disdaining what is not disdained, which prevents the conceit of the lesser [vehicles]. The above three successively subsume one gate each. Sixth is the profound contemplation, which reveals the subtlety of the principle of causes and conditions, surpassing emotional grasping. This subsumes the final three gates. Among the six, the first two establish defiled marks; the next one contemplates faults regarding defilement; the next two engage in correct contemplation to prevent errors; the last one is the utmost profundity of contemplative practice. Now, this half of the gate is precisely the contemplation of what defilement relies upon: the factors of existence in causes and conditions constitute defilement, and these defiled marks rely upon the one mind. Therefore the treatise says: 'These are the distinctions of the two truths. Because pure reality alone does not give rise [to anything], and isolated falsity alone cannot form [anything], the reality of the one mind and the conventionality of defilement—these two harmonize, and there is the collection of causes and conditions.' In the sūtra there are three parts: First, the general summary, stating that relying upon the one mind the twelve are distinguished, so the twelve are held by the one mind. It specifically says that the Tathāgata spoke this because the one mind possesses them all at once, and non-buddhas cannot know it. It shows that the Tathāgata, having awakened in the past to the nature of conditions, arose in continuity and so transmitted the teaching in turn. Next, it questions the meaning: 'The twelve limbs of existence are arrayed across the three times and induce one another in sequence. Why is it now said that all rely upon the one mind?' Later, in the explanation, the treatise has no separate interpretation. Virtuous teachers of old merely said that without the fundamental mind-consciousness, nothing could be established; but their explanation of the marks spanned births and passed across lifespans. Although this did not lose the meaning of reliance and sustenance, it did not capture the core intent. I say now that the expounder skillfully demonstrates that it is not merely that the three times are not apart from the true mind: right now, in a single moment of mind, all twelve are possessed at once, which all the more reveals that prior and subsequent are not separate from the one mind. This is identical to the Abhidharmakośa's ninth [chapter] explaining the twelve links of dependent origination in a single instant. Therefore, this single gate encompasses multiple kinds of dependent origination: First, it encompasses the two kinds of dependent origination in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Its second [chapter] says: 'Briefly speaking, dependent origination has two kinds: first, the dependent origination of discriminating self-nature, which refers to all dharmas arising in reliance upon the ālayavijñāna'—which is the present reliance and sustenance of the one mind; 'second, the dependent origination of discriminating the agreeable and disagreeable, which refers to the twelve links of dependent origination, because they can discriminate the agreeable and disagreeable in good and bad destinies, taking diverse individual entities as the nature of conditions'—which applies to the present explanatory text as well as the nine preceding and succeeding passages. Second, it encompasses the four kinds of dependent origination in the ninth [chapter] of the Abhidharmakośa: first, instantaneous; second, continuous; third, positional; fourth, prolonged. The latter three apply to the other nine gates, while the present one corresponds directly to the first. It says: 'What is instantaneous? It means that in a single instant, due to craving one commits killing and so forth, possessing all twelve.' Its detailed explanation of the marks is broadly identical with this, so there is no need to follow the sequence now; the intent is to show that the one mind possesses them at once. 'Craving arises together with the mind in accordance with things': this generally points to the deeds performed. The things craved are not one, yet whichever thing is taken up, in a single moment of thought it possesses all twelve. That is, performing this deed of craving must arise in reliance upon the mind, and again it discerns the object before it; hence the mind is the link of consciousness. 'Things are action': the thing craved is action of mental karma; if formed in body and speech, these are also the two [types of] action. Not knowing that the fault of craving can incur suffering is called confusion regarding action. 'Arising together with ignorance and the mind is name-and-form': name-and-form is the collective [basis], serving as the support for both, which is why it is called arising together with them. Thus the Jin-dynasty translation says: 'The locus of reliance for consciousness is name-and-form.' The Abhidharmakośa says: 'The three aggregates concomitant with consciousness are collectively called name-and-form.' The intent is to clarify that the feeling aggregate belongs inherently to the link of feeling. 'The growth of name-and-form is the six sense bases': when the five consciousnesses are not yet produced, they are only called the ten dhātus; when the five consciousnesses arise in reliance upon them, they are called the ten āyatanas. When consciousness's locus of reliance becomes manifest, this is 'growth'; the word 'growth' ought properly to be translated as 'unfolding and manifestation.' The Abhidharmakośa says: 'The sense organs abiding in name-and-form are spoken of as the six bases.' This means the six sense organs are distinct, and because the distinct rely upon the collective, they unfold into six, which is called abiding in name-and-form. Craving must face an object to be contact; feeling must experience contact; craving is precisely thirst, called insatiable feeling. Grasping without letting go is grasping of desire; craving and grasping moisturize the preceding six links to become existence. Hence whenever the preceding links of existence arise, that is the meaning of existence. 'That which arises' means that when the preceding dharmas arise, that is the meaning of birth. 'Maturity of birth is aging,' because when things are born, they immediately alter. 'Destruction of aging is death,' because they perish in an instant. Furthermore, according to the Mahāyāna, their marks perish right as they are; thus the sūtra says: 'At the very moment of birth there is perishing; this is not spoken for the foolish.' If this is uninterrupted, it is called continuous. The five aggregates in the states of the twelve links are all called positional. Following upon this from beginningless time, it is called prolonged. Both the Great and Lesser [Vehicles] share this principle, perhaps differing only in positing six or eight consciousnesses. Without authoritative scripture, who would believe this tenet? The author of the treatise did not explain this, which almost seems an oversight. This text properly analyzes the twelve links of existence as simultaneous and distinct in entity. If they are simultaneous and identical in entity, they also possess all twelve: confusion regarding paramārtha is ignorance; being with outflows and grasping is action; the entity itself is consciousness, which is also name-and-form; this is the mental base; facing an object is contact; experiencing an object is feeling; being defiled by an object is craving; clinging to an object is grasping; incurring retribution is existence; manifestation of the entity is birth; and alteration and cessation right there are aging and death. Taking these twelve links of existence and speaking generally across time, there are six kinds in total: First, explaining the twelve links based on five times: past ignorance and action arise from even earlier past afflictions, which is afflictions giving rise to defilements and karma; the two past causes give rise to the five present results, which is defilements and karma giving rise to suffering; if the present gives rise to the future, and the future further gives rise to a further future, then suffering again gives rise to suffering. This posits five times conventionally by tracing causes and examining results on the basis of the three times; it does not concern reciprocal succession, so it does not fall into infinite regress. Second, based on three times; third, based on two times; fourth, based on one time: established sequentially, all are analyzed as in the first gate. Fifth, simultaneous and distinct in entity; sixth, simultaneous and identical in entity, which is just like the present text. Second, in the contemplation in accordance with great compassion, this corresponds to the second [aspect], 'seeking liberation elsewhere': this means ordinary beings, foolish and inverted, constantly seek liberation within the ālayavijñāna and ādānavijñāna, and seek liberation in other loci of self and mine. The sūtra explains that there is only the one mind; thus outside mind there is no self or dharma, and one should seek within the one mind. This is also like the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: 'The liberation of all buddhas should be sought in the mental actions of sentient beings.' Regarding the word ālaya, here translated as 'storehouse consciousness,' it can store all defiled dharmas without losing them, and the view of self, craving, and the like cling to it and store it as one's internal self. This name is applied only to ordinary beings and those in training. Ādāna is translated here as 'appropriating and sustaining,' because it appropriates and sustains seeds and the physical sense organs. This name applies to all stages. These two are alternative names for mind; the treatise master's intent was to clarify that mind contains both defiled and pure, so he cited both names to explain the meaning of the one mind. What does 'seeking' mean? If there is self-grasping, it constitutes the ālaya; if self-grasping is eliminated, one relinquishes the name ālaya. Only ādāna sustains uncontaminated seeds, whereupon the false mind is extinguished and the true mind becomes manifest. Thus the verse below says: 'If the mind is extinguished, saṃsāra comes to an end'—that is, the false is extinguished, not that the essence of mind is extinguished. Third, regarding the contemplation of the wisdom of all aspects, this corresponds to the second contemplation of reliance, clarifying that this collection of conditions relies upon two things: First, reliance upon paramārtha, as explained before. Second, reliance upon mind and consciousness, which is the present text. The former pertained solely to the pure; this pertains to both defiled and pure, with the meaning of reliance as stated before. Furthermore, the former meant the false arising in reliance upon the real, while this reveals the false relying upon the real.