大方廣佛華嚴經疏 46.30

46.30

第三無生忍。釋中有二：先總明、後「何以」下徵釋。今初。若具，皆應徵無盡等，此二為總，故略標之。釋中具有，皆此別義。後徵釋中，徵意有二。一云：何以得知無生滅耶？二云：既稱無生法忍，何以復言不見法滅？釋中，釋初徵意云：真法本自不生，從緣之法無性故不生。以無生故，何有於滅？此則以緣集釋無生，以無生釋無滅。此中略無緣集，偈文具有。云何無生釋無滅耶？此有二意。一云：若先是生，後必可滅；本既不生，今則無滅。二云：既即緣無性稱曰不生，則不待滅竟方無，故次云無滅。此二為總，餘可倣之。釋第二徵意云：夫無生忍非獨無生，必諸法都寂。今從初義立無生稱，故無滅等成無生義。若從別義，亦可得稱無滅忍等。是以《信力入印度經》明此忍能淨初歡喜地云「一謂得無生忍，亦令他住。」又云「無生忍者，謂證寂滅故。二得無滅忍，亦令他住。」又云「無滅忍者，證無生故。」斯文可據。又此諸句各有二義：一以前前釋後後、以後後成前前，前前有故後後有、前前無故後後無；二者諸句一一皆在無生句中，正無生時諸義頓足，以是即事之理非斷滅故、即理之智無能所故。然文旨包含，略為三釋：一唯約理、二具理智、三唯約智。今初。云何前前有故則後後有？謂生法既滅，滅則終盡，盡則是垢染法，染則前後別異，別則方處不同，有處則能所非寂，不寂則有所欲，有欲則有營作，作則有所願求，願則心住願事，住則有去有來。今由前前無故後後斯寂，故以後後顯成無生，此順長行。二雙約理智者，初二是總，含於理智；次四顯理無生；後六顯智無生。故偈云「其心無染著」等。理智契合，名無生忍。三唯約智者，由了從緣無生，則智無有起，故名無生。無生之忍湛然不遷，故云無滅。無滅故用無斷盡。次垢念皆離，常無差異，傍無方所照而常寂，遇境無染雖為而無作，雖悲而無願，處世而無住，等法界而無去來，皆以前釋後、以後成前。言亡慮絕寂照湛然，名無生忍。若唯約知無生理名無生忍，未足深玄。

Regarding the third, the tolerance of the unarisen dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti), the explanation has two parts: first, an overarching explanation; then, from 'why' onward, an interrogation and explanation. Now for the first. If fully stated, one should interrogate about 'exhaustionless' and so forth; as these two [unarisen and unceasing] are the overarching principles, they are briefly indicated. The explanation contains them fully, which are all specific meanings of this. In the subsequent interrogation and explanation, the intent of the interrogation is twofold: First: 'How is it known that there is no arising or ceasing?' Second: 'Since it is called tolerance of unarisen dharmas, why does it further speak of not seeing the ceasing of dharmas?' In the explanation, the intent of the first interrogation is explained thus: True dharmas are fundamentally unarisen of themselves, while dharmas arising from conditions lack own-nature and thus are unarisen. Because they are unarisen, how could there be ceasing? This uses conditioned accumulation to explain unarisenness, and unarisenness to explain unceasingness. Here, conditioned accumulation is briefly omitted, but the verse fully contains it. How does unarisenness explain unceasingness? There are two meanings: First: If something originally arose, later it must be subject to ceasing; since fundamentally it did not arise, now it is unceasing. Second: Since it is precisely the condition's lack of own-nature that is called 'unarisen,' one does not wait for ceasing to be completed before it becomes non-existent; hence it next says 'unceasing.' These two are overarching; the rest can be patterned after them. Explaining the second interrogation's intent: The tolerance of the unarisen is not solely about being unarisen; all dharmas must be completely quiescent. Here, the name 'unarisen' is established based on the primary meaning; therefore, 'unceasing' and the rest establish the meaning of unarisen. If based on specific meanings, it could also be called 'tolerance of unceasingness' and so forth. Therefore, the *Sūtra on Entering the Seal of the Power of Faith* (*Śraddhābalādhānāvatāramudrā-sūtra*), in explaining that this tolerance can purify the initial Joyous Stage (pramuditā-bhūmi), says: 'First, it is called attaining the tolerance of the unarisen, also causing others to abide in it.' It also says: 'The tolerance of the unarisen means realizing quiescence and cessation. Second, attaining the tolerance of the unceasing, also causing others to abide in it.' It also says: 'The tolerance of the unceasing realizes the unarisen.' This text can serve as authority. Moreover, these various phrases each have two meanings: First, the preceding ones explain the succeeding ones, and the succeeding ones complete the preceding ones: because the preceding exist, the succeeding exist; because the preceding are absent, the succeeding are absent. Second, each and every phrase is contained within the phrase 'unarisen'; at the very moment of non-arising, all meanings are頓足 instantly complete, because noumenon is identical with phenomena and not annihilation, and wisdom is identical with noumenon and devoid of subject and object. However, the text's import is comprehensive, so it can be summarized into three explanations: 1. purely in terms of noumenon; 2. encompassing both noumenon and wisdom; 3. purely in terms of wisdom. Now for the first. How is it that because the preceding exist, the succeeding exist? That is: if an arisen dharma ceases, then ceasing entails ending; ending means it is a defiled dharma; defilement means that before and after are differentiated; differentiation means spatial locations are not identical; having locations means subject and object are not quiescent; not being quiescent means having desires; having desires means engaging in actions; actions mean making vows and seeking; vows mean the mind abides in the vowed-for affairs; abiding means there is going and coming. Now, because the preceding are absent, the succeeding are utterly quiescent; hence, the succeeding make manifest and establish the unarisen. This conforms to the prose. Second, regarding both noumenon and wisdom: the first two are overarching, encompassing both noumenon and wisdom; the next four reveal the non-arising of noumenon; the last six reveal the non-arising of wisdom. Hence the verse says: 'Their mind has no defilement or attachment,' and so forth. The union of noumenon and wisdom is called the tolerance of the unarisen. Third, purely in terms of wisdom: through understanding that what is from conditions is unarisen, wisdom does not arise; hence it is called 'unarisen.' The tolerance of the unarisen is serene and unchanging; hence it is called 'unceasing.' Because it is unceasing, its function has no interruption or exhaustion. Next, defiled thoughts are all cast off, constantly without difference, laterally without spatial location, illuminating yet constantly quiescent; encountering objects without defilement, though acting it is without contrived action, though compassionate it is without vows, dwelling in the world it is without abiding, equaling the dharmadhātu it is without going or coming—all of these use the preceding to explain the succeeding and the succeeding to complete the preceding. Words being silenced and conceptual thoughts severed, serenely quiescent yet illuminating: this is called the tolerance of the unarisen. If one only takes knowing the unarisen noumenon as the tolerance of the unarisen, it would not yet be sufficiently profound and abstruse.