[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) › [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735) › 41.18 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 41.18 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 41.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [41.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.41.18) 第二淨忍分，有十五句，分三：初十正明無生忍、次四明無生忍淨、後一結得忍名。然無生忍略有二種：一約法、二約行。約法則諸無起作之理皆曰無生，慧心安此故名為忍，即正明中意。約行則報行純熟智冥於理，無相無功曠若虛空、湛猶渟海，心識妄惑寂然不起，方曰無生，即淨忍中意。前一猶通諸地，未得於後，不稱淨忍。今初段中言一切法者，總該萬有理事之法。入即證達。以歷事難窮，略陳其十，十中相從為四無生：前七為一，名事無生；後三各一，二自性無生、三數差別無生、四作業無生。四中，一破相、二破性、三因泯、四果離。即前二破相入如，後二證實捨相。若寄位，初加行、二正體、四後得、三通始終。又四中，約法性收不出真妄，妄法本空稱曰無生，真法離相亦曰無生。依《佛性》等論說三性無生，如初會說。事無生中，前四不增，正顯無生；後三不減，亦即無滅。法本不生，今則無滅，以初攝後皆曰無生。別言七者，為治七種實故。實者，隨相執定故。一淨分法中本有實，謂計自性住，性為事物有。今為治此，故云本來無生，本性離故；先若有生，後應滅故。二新新生實，計習所成性為實。治此云無起，從緣起故。三相實，即計前二性所生行相。治此云無相，前二能生無故。四後際實，謂計於佛果後際出纏。治此云無成，真如出纏，非新成故；菩薩成佛時，煩惱作菩提故。上四，初一自性住佛性、次二引出、後一至得果性。又此四展轉釋疑，可知。五先際實，謂對佛果後際，眾生煩惱為先。治此云無壞，煩惱即空，無可壞故。菩薩未成佛時，菩提作煩惱故，染淨和合以為眾生。前遣淨分、此遣染分。又前即不空藏、此即空藏皆不可得。六論云盡實諸眾生者，謂執眾生念念盡故。揀上煩惱故，特云諸眾生。故上經云「一切凡夫行，莫不速歸盡。」治此云無盡，其性如虛空故。七論云雜染實淨分中者，謂修行位中轉染向淨。治此云無轉，若定有實，不可轉故。論經云不行，謂能轉之行不可得故。第二無性為性者，即自性無生，此則顯詮。論經云非有有性者，明非有彼定執自性。此則遮詮。遮顯雖殊，義旨不異。無性即是法無我理，此理既以無性為其自性，則自體無性，非是先有今無，亦非全無真體，故云為性。以前觀事無生，正忍此理故。故論云「彼觀事故是此忍，不得言無。」斯則非有非無以顯中道。此二亦不二。又此理亦非所觀事外，故論云「所有觀法無我理，無二相故。」斯則非即非離無二為中道義。 > Second, the section on obtaining pure forbearance has fifteen phrases, divided into three: the first ten directly explain the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas; the next four explain the purity of the forbearance of non-arising; and the final one concludes by naming the attainment of forbearance. Now, forbearance of non-arising is briefly of two kinds: first, in terms of dharmas; second, in terms of practice. In terms of dharmas, any principle devoid of origination and activity is called non-arising; the mind of wisdom resting in this is therefore called forbearance—this is the intent in the direct explanation. In terms of practice, when karmic practice matures and wisdom merges with noumenon, free of marks and effort, vast like empty space and still like a deep ocean, with the delusive confusions of mind and consciousness serenely not arising, only then is it called non-arising—this is the intent in pure forbearance. The former still extends through all stages; not yet having attained the latter, it is not called pure forbearance. Now, in the first passage, "all dharmas" comprehensively encompasses the dharmas of all phenomena and noumenon. "Entering" means realizing and reaching. Because tracking every phenomenon is difficult to exhaust, ten are briefly set forth; among the ten, by combining them, they constitute four kinds of non-arising: the first seven form one, named the non-arising of phenomena; the remaining three each form one: second, the non-arising of self-nature; third, the non-arising of numerical distinction; and fourth, the non-arising of operation. Among the four: the first dismantles marks; the second dismantles nature; the third eliminates causes; and the fourth departs from fruits. That is, the former two dismantle marks to enter suchness, and the latter two realize reality to abandon marks. If allocated to spiritual positions: the first is preparatory practice (prayogamārga); the second is fundamental \[wisdom\] (mūla-jñāna); the fourth is subsequent \[wisdom\] (pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna); and the third runs throughout beginning to end. Furthermore, among the four, subsumed in terms of dharma-nature, they do not go beyond reality and delusion: delusive dharmas are fundamentally empty, termed "non-arising"; real dharmas are free of marks, also termed "non-arising." Relying on treatises such as the \*Treatise on Buddha-Nature\*, the non-arising of the three natures is explained as in the first assembly. Among the non-arising of phenomena, the first four do not increase, directly demonstrating non-arising; the last three do not decrease, which is also non-cessation. Dharmas are fundamentally unarisen, and now they are without cessation; by subsuming the latter under the former, all are called non-arising. As for distinguishing seven, it is to remedy seven kinds of substantiality. "Substantiality" means grasping them as fixed according to their marks. First, substantiality inherently existing within dharmas of the pure portion: namely, conceiving of the naturally abiding nature as a substantial existence belonging to things. Now, to remedy this, \[the text\] says "originally unarisen," because the original nature is free \[from arising\]; for if there were previously arising, there would subsequently have to be cessation. Second, substantiality newly and repeatedly arising: conceiving of the nature accomplished through habituation as substantial. To remedy this, it says "without origination," because it arises from conditions. Third, substantiality of marks: namely, conceiving of the active marks produced by the previous two natures. To remedy this, it says "without marks," because the former two capable of producing them do not exist. Fourth, substantiality of the final limit: namely, conceiving of emerging from bondage at the final limit in the fruit of Buddhahood. To remedy this, it says "without accomplishment," because tathatā emerging from bondage is not newly accomplished; when a bodhisattva becomes a Buddha, afflictions become bodhi. Among the above four, the first is the naturally abiding Buddha-nature; the next two are the brought-forth \[Buddha-nature\]; and the last is the attained fruit-nature. Furthermore, these four successively resolve doubts, as can be known. Fifth, substantiality of the initial limit: namely, in contrast to the final limit of the fruit of Buddhahood, sentient beings' afflictions are prior. To remedy this, it says "without destruction," because afflictions are themselves empty and there is nothing that can be destroyed; when a bodhisattva has not yet become a Buddha, bodhi acts as afflictions, with defilement and purity combining to constitute a sentient being. The former dispelled the pure portion; this dispels the defiled portion. Furthermore, the former is the inexhaustible treasury (aśūnya-garbha) and this is the empty treasury (śūnya-garbha), neither of which can be grasped. Sixth, what the commentary calls "substantiality of exhaustion in all sentient beings": namely, grasping that sentient beings are exhausted from moment to moment. To distinguish them from the afflictions above, it specifically says "all sentient beings." Therefore the sūtra above says: "All actions of ordinary beings without exception quickly return to exhaustion." To remedy this, it says "without exhaustion," because their nature is like empty space. Seventh, what the commentary calls "substantiality of defilement within the pure portion": namely, transforming defilement toward purity in the stages of cultivation. To remedy this, it says "without transformation," because if there were a definite substantiality, it could not be transformed. The translated treatise says "non-functioning," meaning that the practice capable of transforming cannot be apprehended. Second, "having no nature as nature" is the non-arising of self-nature; this is an explicit expression. The translated treatise says "having a nature that is not an existing nature," explaining that there is no such definitely grasped self-nature; this is an exclusionary expression. Although exclusionary and explicit differ, their intended meaning is not different. Non-nature is itself the principle of the selflessness of dharmas; since this principle takes non-nature as its self-nature, its own essence is without nature—it is not that it previously existed and now is absent, nor is it that a real essence is entirely lacking; hence it is called "as nature." Because the previous contemplation of the non-arising of phenomena was precisely forbearer of this principle, the commentary says: "That contemplation of phenomena is this forbearance; one cannot say it is non-existent." Thus, non-existence and non-non-existence demonstrate the middle way. These two are also non-dual. Furthermore, this principle is not outside the contemplated phenomena; hence the commentary says: "All contemplation of the principle of the selflessness of dharmas is free of dual marks." Thus, neither identical nor separate, non-duality is the meaning of the middle way. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 41.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.41.17) - [Next: 41.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.41.19) - [Up: 41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.41) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.41.18) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.41.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.41.18) · Pramāṇa