大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 45.19

45.19

疏「五緣起者」，疏文有二：一雙標；二「別謂」下別釋，先釋別、後釋通。今初，文有四節：一引小乘諸部所立。二「智論三十二」下，引大乘論立證成上義。此中論文先有問云：聲聞法中何以不說如是法性實際，而摩訶衍中處處說耶？答：聲聞法中亦說此二。下與疏同，玄中已引。疏「涅槃亦說」下，第三引大乘經立無為義。先引《涅槃》，即北經〈迦葉菩薩品〉第三十四經，而為品初。南經三十一。北經半卷向後列二十一諍論，此即第六，經云「或說十二因緣是有為法，或有說言十二因緣是無為法。」至第三十五方釋，經中具云「善男子！我經中說云何名為十二因緣？從無明生行，從行生識，從識生名色，從名色生六入，從六入生觸，從觸生受，從受生愛，從愛生取，從取生有，從有生生，從生則有老死憂悲苦惱。善男子！我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言如來說十二因緣定是有為。我又一時告喻比丘作如是言：『十二因緣，有佛無佛，性相常住。善男子！有十二因緣不從緣生，有從緣生非十二因緣，有從緣生亦十二因緣。有非緣生非十二因緣。有十二因緣非緣生者，未來世十二支也。有從緣生非十二緣者，謂阿羅漢所有五陰。有從緣生亦十二緣者，謂凡夫人所有五陰。有非緣生非十二緣者，謂虛空涅槃。』善男子！我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言如來說十二因緣定是無為。」釋曰：若經中言，為與無為俱不解意。若遠公釋，各有所以，然有二意。今疏是第一意。第二意云：直就因緣事中現在之者名曰有為，在未來者未現起用名曰無為。釋曰：後釋順經後四句意，前釋順經初意及《智論》等意。疏「望今經」下，疏家第四出今意。次言「大品云」下，引他經證成上正義。此即《中論》青目所引，釋初因緣不生之義。疏「涅槃又云：十二因緣即是佛性」者，復引《涅槃》重成上義，即北經三十二〈師子吼品〉。經云「善男子！無明不能吸取諸行，行亦不能吸取於識也。亦得名為無明緣行、行緣識，有佛無佛法界常住。若言佛性住眾生中者，善男子！常法無住，若有住處即是無常。善男子！十二因緣無定住處，若有住處，十二因緣不得名常。如來法身亦無住處，法界、法入、法陰虛空，悉無住處。佛性亦爾，都無住處。」次下又云「佛性者，名十二因緣。何以故？以因緣故如來常住。一切眾生定有如是十二因緣，是故說言一切眾生悉有佛性。十二因緣即是佛性，佛性即是如來。」釋曰：此上經意正取十二因緣之性以為佛性，故是無為。疏文中「雖舉十二因緣」下，第二釋通妨難云：若緣起無性即無為者，諸蘊界等豈有諸蘊界性也。故為此通，則意無不該。是故上引《涅槃》云「法界、法入、法陰虛空」，即說三科皆無住處，同佛性也。疏「法性住」者，即真如也，顯此法性即《唯識》等真如異名耳。疏「謂非妄」下，別釋其名。初釋真如自有二義：初合釋，唯揀於妄。二「又真實如常」下，即是離釋。即《唯識》云「真謂真實，顯非虛妄。如謂如常，表無變易。」是故疏云「揀妄揀事」。疏「於一切位」下，釋法性名。故《唯識》偈云「此諸法勝義，亦即是真如，常如其性故，即唯識實性」是也。次釋住字，亦有二義：一連上釋之則三字一名，謂上之二釋順法相宗，加此住字順法性宗。法性謂隨緣，住字為不變，以隨緣不失自性故。二義既具，即妄即真，故是法性宗義。二「若準智論」下，別釋，取上法字及下住字自為一義，成七無為，則法字兩用。疏「然小乘」下，第四對揀權實。初舉小乘；後「若大乘」下，舉大斥小。「非唯數增」，已如前說。「義亦有異」，次下正明。小乘之義，略如上說，廣如《唯識》廣引廣破。疏「唯識論中二義建立」下，正辨大乘無為之相，即第二論。論中先破諸小乘宗等計於無為為實有竟，顯正義云：然契經說有虛空等諸無為法。略有二種：一依識變假施設有為。謂曾聞說虛空等無為，遂於識上有此相現，此所現相前後相似無有變易，假說為常。釋曰：此空無為而無本質，唯心所變，猶如極微假而無體。於佛等處聞其名故，而心變之。次論復云「二依法性假施設有。謂空無我所顯真如，有無俱非、心言路絕，與一切法非一非異等，是法真理，故名法性。離諸障礙，故名虛空。由揀擇力滅諸雜染，究竟證會，故名擇滅。不由擇力，本性清淨，或緣闕所顯，故名非擇滅。苦樂受滅，故名不動。想受不行，名想受滅。」釋曰：疏取論意以釋經文，但順經有，不順論有。上釋非擇有其二義，依此論文。疏「此中法性」下，第五出體性，即彼論示無為體。論云「此五皆依真如假立。」「真如亦假施設」下，至「故名真如」，皆是論文。「為法之性故名法性」，是疏義加，亦即前文《唯識論》意。「非離色心別有實體」者，取論意結，具足論云「不同餘宗離色心等有實常法名曰真如，故諸無為非定實有。」釋曰：言真如亦是假者，不得體故。遮空見者，說如為有遮。小乘中化地部等執定實有，故說為空，非言無為體即空也。「勿謂虛幻」者，虛揀遍計、幻揀依他，即顯真如是圓成實。以無虛妄顛倒法，故名真如也。疏「今多聞之人」下，第六結示多聞之旨，可知。疏「第六有記法」，中二：先釋總名、後別釋相。今初。先敘昔，即《刊定記》。《大品經》亦云「若善法、若不善法、是名記法、如所說相不捨離故。」疏云「此乃」下，辨非。以下無記既非三性，今此有記，安得例之？後「應云」下，辨正。疏「下出所記」下，辨相中，先指所餘如前、後釋不欲繁文故。疏「四無所畏」下，唯釋此一。言「今當略明」者，諸經中多以五門分別：一辨名、二出體、三行相、四次第、五諸門。今疏但有三門，略無出體、次第。即分為三：初釋名、二辨相、三諸門分別。初中有二：先總名、後別名。今初，上二句標章，「謂外難無怯故」下，正釋。「瑜伽」下，引證無怯之相。言「都不見有如實因相」者，謂其所難皆就跡生疑，不知所觀真實之理，故此所難無如實因。若實有可難，則可怯畏；所難不實，何所畏耶？疏「無畏有四」下，二釋別名。文中但列而不解釋，釋名含在下行相中，故此略無。若具釋者，「一一切智無畏」者，《瑜伽》亦名正等覺無畏，謂由正覺覺諸法故，名一切智。「二漏盡」者，諸煩惱漏，種現俱斷故。「三障道」者，亦名障法，說障礙法染必為障故。「四出苦道」者，說出離道，諸聖修習決定出苦故。於此四中得無所畏，皆依主釋，謂一切智之無畏等。疏「此之四段各有難答」下，二辯相也。一一切智無畏難，於中有二：初牒舉所難、二「有諸比丘」下正難。於中，先出難所因。謂諸部律中多有此言「時諸比丘至如來所，頭面禮足。佛便問言：『比丘住止安樂不？乞求易得不？不以飲食為苦耶』」等。今云何故問者？即是難也。言「一切智」下，結成難也。疏「佛自唱言我是一切智人」下，答也。於中先案定所難，明不失一切智義。若具皆云：我於此難正見無由，得安隱住，無怖無畏，自稱我是大仙尊位。二從「但為攝受來者」下，出是一切智之所以，示現問耳，非己不知。言攝受來者，要令發勝心，聞佛慰問發道心故。「隨順世間師弟人事」者，此有二意：一者成上示現之相；二者亦令餘人審諦於事，佛知尚問，況餘不知？亦為後人作軌則故，見來發心，應為引攝，故云隨順世間。疏「二有難云」下，第二無畏。先難中，文亦有二：先牒舉所難，謂經中說言我諸漏已盡。後「何以愛」下正難，難之所因含在其中。謂羅睺羅被僧驅出在於廁上，佛語諸比丘言：「云何野干驅師子子？」即愛語羅睺也。調達頻為惡行，佛時罵言癡人，或云食唾小兒等。疏「佛於此難正見無由」下，答也。於中亦先案定所難，不失漏盡之義；後「但為隨根而調伏故」，即出愛恚所以。謂羅睺譬之慧象，隨逐人心，軟言即調。調達喻之惡馬，楚毒方調。非是如來有愛羅睺、有恚調達，漏未盡也。疏「三有難云」下，第三無畏。先難之中亦二：先牒所難、後「何故」下牒疑正難。疏「佛於」下，答中亦二：先案定所難，不失欲為障道。若具亦應云：我於此難正見無由，安隱無怯，處大仙位，故云「自唱德號」。後「我所說欲能障道」下，出不障所以。若說邪行障諸聖道，若說畜妻障離欲道，初二果人性戒久成故斷邪行，既未離欲不斷妻子，斯有何失？故諸染法非不障也。疏「四有難云」下，第四無畏。先難中亦二：先牒所疑，謂如說我為弟子說出離道，諸聖修習，決定出離、決定通達。後「何故羅漢」下，正難。既瘡潰蛇螫，豈非苦耶？羅漢豈是無聖道耶？豈非相違。疏「佛於此難」下，答。亦應具云：我於此難正見無由，安隱無怖，處大仙位。「我說聖道」下，通前難。然有二意：一者由於前世故業感身，於此身上得阿羅漢，苦依身在故有此苦，非得羅漢後有此苦。即今疏意。更有意云：無學實無苦果，為現惡因必有苦報，由此聖者示相受苦，起後教故。亦由世尊受金鎗等，示義非實，故疏略無。

Regarding the Commentary's “[The] fifth, conditioned arising”: the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, a dual presentation; second, from “Specifically meaning” downward, a specific explanation, first explaining the specific and next explaining the general. Now, as for the first, the text has four sections: 1. Adducing what was posited by the various Hīnayāna schools. 2. From “The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, fascicle thirty-two” downward, adducing the position of Mahāyāna treatises to substantiate and corroborate the above meaning. Herein the treatise text first has a question: “Why is it that such dharmatā and bhūtakoṭi are not spoken of in the śrāvaka teachings, while in the Mahāyāna they are spoken of everywhere?” The answer is: “In the śrāvaka teachings these two are also spoken of.” Below it is identical to the Commentary, and has already been cited in the Mysterious Meaning. 3. From the Commentary's “The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also states” downward, adducing Mahāyāna sūtras to establish the meaning of the unconditioned. First citing the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], which is in the northern text, the “Chapter on Kāśyapa Bodhisattva”, the thirty-fourth fascicle, serving as the beginning of the chapter (the thirty-first in the southern text). In the northern text, half a fascicle later, twenty-one controversies are listed, this being the sixth, where the sūtra states: “Some say that the twelve links of conditioned arising are conditioned phenomena; some say that the twelve links of conditioned arising are unconditioned phenomena.” It is only in the thirty-fifth [fascicle] that it explains, the sūtra stating in full: “Good son, how do I explain in the sūtra what is called the twelve links of conditioned arising? From ignorance arises karmic formations; from karmic formations arises consciousness; from consciousness arises name-and-form; from name-and-form arise the six sense bases; from the six sense bases arises contact; from contact arises feeling; from feeling arises craving; from craving arises clinging; from clinging arises becoming; from becoming arises birth; from birth there is old age, death, worry, sorrow, suffering, and distress. Good son! When my disciples heard this explanation, they failed to understand my meaning, and proclaimed that the Tathāgata states the twelve links of conditioned arising are definitively conditioned. Again, at another time, I addressed the monks with an analogy, saying: ‘Whether Buddhas appear or do not appear, the nature and characteristics of the twelve links of conditioned arising are constantly abiding. Good son! There are twelve links of conditioned arising that do not arise from conditions; there are those that arise from conditions but are not the twelve links of conditioned arising; there are those that arise from conditions and are also the twelve links of conditioned arising; and there are those that neither arise from conditions nor are the twelve links of conditioned arising. Those that are the twelve links of conditioned arising and do not arise from conditions are the twelve links of future lives. Those that arise from conditions and are not the twelve links of conditioned arising are the five skandhas of an arhat. Those that arise from conditions and are also the twelve links of conditioned arising are the five skandhas of an ordinary person. Those that neither arise from conditions nor are the twelve links of conditioned arising are space and nirvāṇa.’ Good son! When my disciples heard this explanation, they failed to understand my meaning, and proclaimed that the Tathāgata states the twelve links of conditioned arising are definitively unconditioned.”

Elucidation: According to the sūtra's words, both the conditioned and unconditioned fail to grasp the intended meaning. If according to Master Yuan’s explanation, each has its reason, but there are two intentions. The present Commentary adopts the first intention. The second intention states: directly regarding the facts of conditioned arising, those in the present are called conditioned, while those in the future, whose functions have not yet arisen or manifested, are called unconditioned.

Elucidation: The latter explanation accords with the meaning of the sūtra's last four lines; the former explanation accords with the initial meaning of the sūtra and the intent of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, etc. 4. From the Commentary's “Looking toward the present sūtra” downward, the commentator sets forth the present intention. Next, from “The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states” downward, he adduces another sūtra to substantiate and establish the above orthodox meaning. This is what was cited by Piṅgala in the Madhyamakaśāstra to explain the initial meaning that conditioned arising does not arise. As for the Commentary’s “The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also says: ‘The twelve links of conditioned arising are precisely the Buddha-nature,’” it again cites the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to reaffirm the above meaning; this is fascicle thirty-two of the northern text, the “Chapter on the Lion’s Roar”. The sūtra states: “Good son! Ignorance cannot absorb formations, nor can formations absorb consciousness. Yet it can be named ‘ignorance conditions formations, formations condition consciousness.’ Whether Buddhas appear or do not appear, the dharmadhātu is constantly abiding. If it is said that the Buddha-nature abides in sentient beings: good son, eternal phenomena have no dwelling; if there were an abode, it would be impermanent. Good son! The twelve links of conditioned arising have no fixed abode; if there were an abode, the twelve links of conditioned arising could not be called eternal. The Tathāgata’s dharmakāya also has no abode; the dharmadhātu, the dharma-āyatana, the dharma-skandha, and space are all without abode. The Buddha-nature is likewise: it has no abode at all.” Further below, it also says: “The Buddha-nature is called the twelve links of conditioned arising. Why? Because through conditions the Tathāgata is constantly abiding. All sentient beings definitively have such twelve links of conditioned arising; therefore it is said that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature. The twelve links of conditioned arising are precisely the Buddha-nature, and the Buddha-nature is precisely the Tathāgata.”

Elucidation: The intent of the sūtra above takes precisely the nature of the twelve links of conditioned arising to be the Buddha-nature, and thus it is unconditioned.

In the Commentary's text, from “Although the twelve links of conditioned arising are mentioned” downward, the second part resolves an objection, which says: “If conditioned arising lacking self-nature is unconditioned, could the skandhas, dhātus, etc. have a skandha-nature or dhātu-nature?” Therefore, this resolution is made so that the meaning is all-inclusive. This is why the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] was cited above saying “dharmadhātu, dharma-āyatana, dharma-skandha, and space”, explaining that all three categories have no abode, identical to the Buddha-nature.

Regarding the Commentary’s “abiding of dharmatā”: this is precisely tathatā, showing that this dharmatā is just an alternative name for tathatā in the Vijñaptimātratā, etc. From the Commentary’s “Meaning it is not deceptive” downward, it explains its name specifically. First, explaining tathatā inherently has two meanings: first, an integrated explanation, which solely sets aside the deceptive; second, from “Furthermore, truly real and constantly so” downward, an analytical explanation. That is, the Vijñaptimātratā states: “‘Tatha’ means true and real, showing that it is not false or deceptive. ‘Tā’ means constantly so, expressing that it has no change or mutation.” Therefore the Commentary says “setting aside the deceptive and setting aside phenomenal facts.” From the Commentary's “in all states” downward, it explains the name dharmatā. Thus the verse in the Vijñaptimātratā says: “The ultimate truth of these dharmas / Is also precisely tathatā, / Because it is eternally so in its nature; / It is precisely the true nature of consciousness-only.” Next, explaining the word “abiding” also has two meanings: first, connecting it with the above to explain it, so that the three words form one term, meaning that the above two explanations accord with the Faxiang school, while adding this word “abiding” accords with the Faxing school. Dharmatā means concordance with conditions, and the word “abiding” means unchanging, because in accordance with conditions it does not lose its own nature. Since both meanings are complete, the deceptive is itself the true, which is the doctrine of the Faxing school. Second, from “If based on the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa” downward, it explains specifically, taking the word “dharma” above and the word “abiding” below to form a meaning by themselves, constituting the seven unconditioneds, whereby the word “dharma” has a dual use.

From the Commentary's “However, Hīnayāna” downward, the fourth section compares and sets aside the provisional and real. First it adduces Hīnayāna; later, from “As for Mahāyāna” downward, it adduces the Mahāyāna to critique the Hīnayāna. “Not only is there an increase in number,” as has already been stated before. “The meaning is also different,” which is clarified directly below. The Hīnayāna meaning is roughly as stated above, and in detail as extensively cited and refuted in the Vijñaptimātratā. From the Commentary’s “In the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi it is established by two meanings” downward, it directly differentiates the characteristics of Mahāyāna unconditioneds, which is the second fascicle of the treatise. In the treatise, having first refuted the various Hīnayāna schools’ clinging to the unconditioned as substantially existent, it reveals the orthodox doctrine, saying: “However, the sūtras speak of unconditioned phenomena such as space. In brief, there are two kinds: 1. Those nominally established through designation based on the transformations of consciousness. That is, having heard space and other unconditioneds spoken of, such an image appears on consciousness; this manifested image is similar before and after, without mutation, and is nominally called eternal.”

Elucidation: This unconditioned space lacks a substantial referent, being only transformed by the mind, just like subtle atoms which are nominal without an entity. Because its name was heard from the Buddha or elsewhere, the mind transforms it. Next, the treatise further states: “2. Those nominally established through designation based on dharmatā. That is, the tathatā revealed by emptiness and selflessness, which is neither existent nor non-existent, beyond the reach of mind and speech, neither one nor different from all dharmas, is the true principle of dharmas, and hence called dharmatā. Being free from all obstacles, it is called space. Through the power of analytical discrimination, various afflictive defilements are extinguished and ultimately realized, hence it is called analytical cessation. Without relying on the power of discrimination, its fundamental nature is pure, or it is revealed through the deficiency of conditions, hence it is called non-analytical cessation. Because feelings of suffering and pleasure cease, it is called unmoving. Because conception and feeling do not function, it is called the cessation of conception and feeling.”

Elucidation: The Commentary takes the treatise’s meaning to explain the sūtra text, but only accords with what is in the sūtra, not strictly with what is in the treatise. The above explanation of non-analytical cessation possessing two meanings relies on this treatise text.

From the Commentary’s “Here dharmatā” downward, the fifth section identifies the essence, that is, that treatise indicating the essence of the unconditioned. The treatise states: “These five are all nominally established based on tathatā.” From “Tathatā is also nominally established through designation” down to “hence called tathatā”, all is text from the treatise. “Being the nature of dharmas, it is called dharmatā” is an addition from the Commentary’s meaning, which is also the meaning of the preceding text of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. “Not possessing a separate substantial entity apart from form and mind” takes the treatise’s meaning as a conclusion; the complete treatise states: “Unlike other schools which hold that apart from form, mind, etc., there are real, eternal dharmas called tathatā; therefore the various unconditioneds are not definitively real entities.”

Elucidation: The statement that tathatā is also nominal is because its essence cannot be grasped. To counteract views of emptiness, tathatā is spoken of as existence; to counteract the Mahīśāsaka and other Hīnayāna schools clinging to it as definitively real, it is spoken of as empty, which does not mean that the essence of the unconditioned is itself empty. “Do not consider it illusory”: ‘empty’ sets aside the imagined nature (parikalpita), and ‘illusory’ sets aside the dependent nature (paratantra), directly revealing that tathatā is the consummated nature (pariniṣpanna). Because it has no false or inverted dharmas, it is called tathatā.

As for the Commentary's “Now, a learned person” downward, the sixth section concludes and shows the purport of broad learning; this is readily understood.

Regarding the Commentary's “Sixth: the explicable dharmas (vyākaraṇadharma)”, there are two parts within it: first, explaining the general name; second, explaining the specific characteristics. Now, for the first. First recounting the past, namely the Kanding ji. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā also states: “Whether wholesome dharmas or unwholesome dharmas, these are called explicable dharmas, because they do not depart from their stated characteristics.” From the Commentary's “This is” downward, it discriminates the error: since the inexplicable (avyākṛta) below does not refer to the three natures, how can this explicable be likened to it? Later, from “It should be said” downward, it establishes the correct view. From the Commentary’s “Below identifying what is explicated” downward, within discriminating characteristics, it first refers to the remainder as being as before, and later explains that it does not wish to multiply words.

From the Commentary's “The four fearlessnesses” downward, it explains solely this one item. As for “Now it shall be briefly clarified”: in various sūtras it is mostly distinguished through five gates: 1. Discriminating the name; 2. Identifying the essence; 3. Modes of operation; 4. Sequence; 5. Miscellaneous gates. The present Commentary only has three gates, omitting the identification of the essence and sequence. Thus it is divided into three: first, explaining the name; second, discriminating characteristics; third, miscellaneous differentiations. Within the first there are two parts: first the general name, then the specific names. Now for the first: the upper two lines state the topic; from “meaning being fearless in the face of external objections” downward is the direct explanation. From “Yogācāra” downward, it cites evidence for the characteristic of fearlessness. As for “seeing no real causal characteristics whatsoever”, it means that their objections all give rise to doubt based on traces without understanding the real principle contemplated, and therefore these objections have no real basis. If there were truly something questionable, one might fear; since what is questioned is not real, what is there to fear?

From the Commentary’s “There are four fearlessnesses” downward is the second part, explaining the specific names. The text merely lists them without explaining, as the explanation of the names is implicit in the modes of operation below, and hence is omitted here. If explained fully: 1. “Fearlessness of omniscience”, also called in the Yogācāra fearlessness of right and equal enlightenment, meaning that by virtue of right enlightenment awakening to all dharmas, one is called omniscient. 2. “Destruction of outリークス (āsrava)”, because the seeds and manifestations of all afflictions and āsravas are completely severed. 3. “Obstacles to the path”, also called obstructing dharmas, because when speaking of obstructing dharmas, defilement necessarily acts as an obstruction. 4. “The path to deliverance from suffering”, speaking of the path of departure, because when noble ones cultivate it, they definitively emerge from suffering. Attaining fearlessness in these four are all tatpuruṣa compounds, meaning the fearlessness of omniscience, and so on.

From the Commentary's “These four sections each have objection and reply” downward is the second part, discriminating characteristics. 1. The objection to the fearlessness of omniscience, in which there are two parts: first, taking up the objection; second, from “There are monks” downward, the direct objection. Within this, it first sets forth the origin of the objection. That is, in the Vinayas of various schools there are often these words: “At that time, monks came to the Tathāgata, bowed their heads at his feet, and the Buddha asked them: ‘Monks, are you dwelling in comfort? Is begging easily accomplished? Do you not suffer over food and drink?’” etc. Now, asking why he questioned is precisely the objection. From “Omniscient” downward, it formulates the objection. From the Commentary's “The Buddha himself proclaimed: ‘I am an omniscient person’” downward is the reply. Within it, he first confirms the objection, showing that the meaning of omniscience is not lost. If stated completely, all say: “Facing this objection, I see no basis for it, dwell at ease, without dread or fear, and proclaim myself in the supreme position of the Great Sage.” Second, from “Merely to gather in those who come” downward, he sets forth the reason for being omniscient: it is merely a manifested inquiry, not that he himself did not know. As for gathering in those who come, it is necessary to make them give rise to a superior mind, giving rise to the mind of the Way upon hearing the Buddha's comforting inquiries. Regarding “according with worldly human affairs between teacher and disciple”, this has two meanings: first, to establish the above characteristic of manifestation; second, to cause other people to examine matters thoroughly—if even the Buddha, who knows, still asks, how much more so for others who do not know? It is also to provide a model for later generations: seeing someone come and generate the resolve, one should guide and gather them in, hence it is said to accord with the worldly.

From the Commentary’s “2. There is an objection saying” downward is the second fearlessness. In the initial objection, the text also has two parts: first, taking up the objection, namely that the sūtra states ‘my āsravas are completely exhausted.’ Later, from “Why love” downward, is the direct objection, the origin of the objection being contained within it. That is, Rāhula was expelled by the Saṅgha and was at the latrine; the Buddha said to the monks: “Why does a jackal drive out a lion's whelp?” This is speaking affectionately to Rāhula. Devadatta repeatedly performed evil deeds, and the Buddha at times scolded him as an ignorant person, or called him a child who eats spittle, etc. From the Commentary’s “The Buddha, facing this objection, saw no basis for it” downward is the reply. Within it, he also first confirms the objection without losing the meaning of the exhaustion of āsravas; later, “Merely in order to tame them in accordance with their capacities” sets forth the reason for affection and wrath. That is, Rāhula is compared to a wise elephant that follows human intentions and is tamed with gentle words. Devadatta is compared to a vicious horse that is tamed only with harsh flogging. It is not that the Tathāgata had affection for Rāhula or wrath toward Devadatta, which would mean his āsravas were not exhausted.

From the Commentary's “3. There is an objection saying” downward is the third fearlessness. In the initial objection there are also two parts: first, taking up what was questioned; later, from “For what reason” downward, taking up the doubt and presenting the direct objection. From the Commentary’s “The Buddha facing” downward, in the reply there are also two parts: first, confirming the objection, not losing that desire is an obstacle to the path. If complete, it should also say: “Facing this objection, I see no basis for it, dwell peacefully without dread, occupying the station of the Great Sage,” hence it says “proclaimed his own virtuous title.” Later, from “What I declared as desire being able to obstruct the path” downward, he sets forth the reason why it does not obstruct: if one speaks of wrong conduct obstructing the noble paths, or if one speaks of having a wife obstructing the path of freedom from desire, [it must be noted that] those of the first two fruits have long established morality and thus severed wrong conduct, but since they have not yet separated from desire, they have not severed wife and children—what fault is there in this? Therefore, defiled dharmas are not non-obstructive.

From the Commentary’s “4. There is an objection saying” downward is the fourth fearlessness. In the initial objection there are also two parts: first, taking up the doubt, namely as stated: “I expound to my disciples the path of departure, and when noble ones cultivate it, they definitively depart and definitively penetrate.” Later, from “Why did arhats” downward is the direct objection: since they suffered festering sores and snakebites, are these not suffering? Could it be that arhats lack the noble path? Is this not contradictory? From the Commentary’s “The Buddha, facing this objection” downward is the reply. It should also say in full: “Facing this objection, I see no basis for it, dwell peacefully without fear, occupying the station of the Great Sage.” From “I expound the noble path” downward, he resolves the previous objection. There are two intentions, however: 1. Due to former karma of past lives bringing about this body, they attained the arhat state in this body; since suffering relies on the body's presence, they had this suffering, not that after attaining the arhat state this suffering arose. This is the intention of the present Commentary. 2. A further intention states: those beyond training truly have no karmic fruits of suffering; to demonstrate that evil causes necessarily have suffering retributions, these noble ones manifested the appearance of undergoing suffering to give rise to teachings for future generations. Just as the World-Honoured One underwent the golden lance, etc., which was a manifestation whose meaning was not real, hence the Commentary omits it.