大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 39.38

39.38

疏「此中觀意」，辨作意觀察。就因緣門明無性性空。疏「況於入流無所入等」，上總集八輩以明性空，今明一一皆不可得，即《金剛般若經》意。彼經「佛問須菩提云：『須菩提！於意云何？須陀洹能作是念：我得須陀洹果不？』須菩提言：『不也。世尊！（下三果皆有此問答）何以故？須陀洹名為入流，而無所入，不入聲色香味觸法，是名須陀洹。』二問斯陀含。答云：『何以故？斯陀含名一往來，而實無往來，是名斯陀含。』三問阿那含。答云：『阿那含名為不來，而實無來，是名阿那含。』四問阿羅漢。答云：『實無有法名阿羅漢。世尊！若阿羅漢作是念：我得阿羅漢道。即為著我、人、眾生、壽者。世尊！佛說我得無諍三昧，人中最為第一，是第一離欲阿羅漢。我不作是念：我是第一離欲阿羅漢。世尊！若我作是念：我得阿羅漢道。世尊則不說須菩提是樂阿蘭那行者。以須菩提實無所行，而名須菩提是樂阿蘭那行。』」釋曰：此是第五勝中無慢住處中文，明四果人已捨慢故。此中大意，皆明四聖心離見慢，契第一義，故不生念矣。初果初入聖流，不入塵境方名入流。若念得果，入法塵矣。故不入塵則無念矣。下三果例知。今疏意云：合於八輩，已顯僧寶性空。況一一無念契真，何有僧可依也。疏「以無為法而有差別」，亦是彼經次前之文。經云「須菩提！於意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？須菩提言：『如我解佛所說義，無有定法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有定法如來可說。何以故？如來所說法皆不可取、不可說，非法非非法。所以者何？一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。』」釋曰：今但用後釋文。前之一段亦可證前觀法，故具引之，謂一切聖人由證無為有淺深故而有差別，別同無為即無差矣。無為之中何有八輩凡聖相耶？故皆契性空矣。上一段經即證得法身住處文中智相證得法身文也。

Regarding the commentary's phrase “The intention of the contemplation here”: this distinguishes the observation undertaken with mental application, explaining the emptiness of self-nature (svabhāva-śūnyatā) through the gate of causes and conditions. Regarding the commentary's phrase “how much less in ‘entering the stream there is nothing entered,’ etc.”: above, the eight classes of persons were gathered collectively to explain their emptiness of nature; here, it is explained that each single one is ungraspable, which is precisely the import of the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. That sūtra states: “The Buddha asked Subhūti: ‘Subhūti, what do you think? Can a srotaāpanna form this thought: “Have I attained the fruit of a srotaāpanna?”’ Subhūti said: ‘No, World-Honoured One! (The three lower fruits all have this question and answer.) Why is this? A srotaāpanna is called a stream-enterer, yet there is nothing entered; he does not enter sights, sounds, scents, tastes, tangible objects, or dharmas: this is called a srotaāpanna.’ Second, he asked about the sakṛdāgāmin. He answered: ‘Why is this? A sakṛdāgāmin is called a once-returner, yet in truth there is no going or coming: this is called a sakṛdāgāmin.’ Third, he asked about the anāgāmin. He answered: ‘An anāgāmin is called a non-returner, yet in truth there is no non-returning: this is called an anāgāmin.’ Fourth, he asked about the arhat. He answered: ‘In truth there is no dharma called an arhat. World-Honoured One, if an arhat were to form this thought: “I have attained the path of an arhat,” that would be grasping at a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life-span. World-Honoured One, the Buddha has declared that among humans I am foremost in attaining the samādhi of non-contention, that I am the foremost arhat free from desire. I do not form this thought: “I am the foremost arhat free from desire.” World-Honoured One, if I were to form this thought: “I have attained the path of an arhat,” the World-Honoured One would not have said: “Subhūti is one who delights in the practice of araṇā.” Because Subhūti in truth has no practice, he is called “Subhūti who delights in the practice of araṇā.”’” Explanation: This is the passage within the fifth superiority, the abode of freedom from pride, showing that those of the four fruits have already abandoned pride. The general import here is in all cases to explain that the minds of the four noble ones are free from views and pride, being in accord with the ultimate truth, and therefore they do not produce such thoughts. The first fruit newly enters the stream of sages; only by not entering sensory objects is one called a stream-enterer. If one had the thought of attaining the fruit, one would enter the sensory object of mental phenomena (dharmas). Thus, because there is no entering into sensory objects, there are no thoughts. The three lower fruits are known by analogy. Now the commentary's intention is to say: uniting them in the eight classes of persons has already revealed that the Jewel of the Saṃgha is empty of nature; how much more so, when each and every one has no thought and accords with reality, how could there be any Saṃgha upon which to rely? Regarding the commentary's phrase “are distinguished by unconditioned dharmas”: this is also the passage immediately preceding in that sūtra. The sūtra states: “‘Subhūti, what do you think? Has the Tathāgata attained anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi? Does the Tathāgata have any Dharma that he has expounded?’ Subhūti said: ‘As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has spoken, there is no fixed dharma called anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi, nor is there any fixed dharma that the Tathāgata can expound. Why is this? The dharmas expounded by the Tathāgata are all ungraspable and inexpressible; they are neither dharma nor non-dharma. Why is this? All worthy and noble ones are distinguished by unconditioned dharmas.’” Explanation: Here only the subsequent explanatory text is utilized. The preceding passage may also serve to verify the previous contemplation of dharmas, which is why it is cited in full: it means that because all noble ones realize the unconditioned with varying degrees of depth, they are distinguished; yet since their distinctions are identical with the unconditioned, they are without distinction. Within the unconditioned, how could there be the characteristics of the eight classes of ordinary and noble persons? Therefore, all accord with the emptiness of nature. The preceding passage of the sūtra is precisely the text on the realization of the dharmakāya through the characteristic of cognition within the passage on the abode of realizing the dharmakāya.