大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 48.43

48.43

疏「一無眾生離眾生垢故」者，多同《淨名》，即目連章中「淨名云：『夫說法者當如法說，法無眾生，離眾生垢故。法無有我，離我垢故。法無壽命，離生死故。法無有人，前後際斷故。』」釋曰：上四句我空故，故疏取之。此四，即《金剛》無我、無人、無眾生、無壽者。今經辨次，不同二經，皆明無定前後也。名亦小異，以作者當我，以補特伽羅當人。若釋義者，人我等相十行已具。空之所以，亦如前辨。今取彼經意，案今文釋。一法無眾生者，已無眾生為法，故遠公云：「正明理無其所無，有三：一無橫計神我、二於假名眾生無有定性、三無假名眾生之相。此等皆是虛妄分別。相有理無，餘門類爾。」離眾生垢者，破情顯理，取我之心名眾生垢。生公亦云：「若得見理，垢情必盡。以離垢驗之，知無眾生也。」二法無壽命，正明理無。離生死故，釋成上義。無壽命，謂色心連持從生至死，本無生死，何有壽命？又壽命為生死之果，若有實者，不合得離；今有永離之人，明本無矣。三無有我者，理本無也，離我垢故。釋成上義，一同初句。四數取趣，《淨名》為人，《智論》云「能造善惡，行人法故，取於諸趣三際輪迴。」本無數取者，何有前後際耶？又若定有者，不應聖人斷前後際，今聖有斷，明無有人能數取也。疏「螺髻」，亦是《淨名》，前已引竟。餘即可知。

Regarding the commentary's "First, there are no sentient beings, because one is free from the defilement of sentient beings": this is mostly the same as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, namely the chapter on Maudgalyāyana, where "Vimalakīrti said: 'One who expounds the Dharma should expound it in accordance with the Dharma. In the Dharma there are no sentient beings, because it is free from the defilement of sentient beings. In the Dharma there is no self, because it is free from the defilement of self. In the Dharma there is no life-span, because it is free from birth-and-death. In the Dharma there is no person, because the front and rear limits are cut off.'" Commentary: Because the above four lines refer to the emptiness of the self, the commentary adopts them. These four are precisely the 'no self, no person, no sentient being, no soul' of the Vajracchedikā. The order presented in the present sūtra differs from the two sūtras; all clarify that there is no fixed sequence. The names also differ slightly: "agent" corresponds to self, and "pudgala" corresponds to person. As for explaining the meaning, the characteristics of person, self, and so forth have already been fully detailed in the ten practices. The reason for their emptiness has also been distinguished as before. Now, taking the intent of that sūtra, it is explained according to the present text. First, "in the Dharma there are no sentient beings": since there are already no sentient beings that constitute the Dharma, Master Yuan said, "Correctly clarifying that the principle is devoid of what it lacks has three points: 1. there is no falsely imagined spiritual self; 2. regarding provisionally designated sentient beings, there is no fixed nature; 3. there are no marks of provisionally designated sentient beings. These are all false discriminations. The marks exist while the principle is devoid [of them]; the other gates are similar." "Free from the defilement of sentient beings" breaks emotional grasping to reveal the principle; the mind that grasps at a self is called the defilement of sentient beings. Master Sheng also said: "If one attains the vision of the principle, defiled grasping will certainly be exhausted. Testing it by the departure from defilement, one knows there are no sentient beings." Second, "in the Dharma there is no life-span": this correctly clarifies the absence in principle. "Because it is free from birth-and-death" explains and completes the above meaning. "No life-span" means that matter and mind continuously sustain each other from birth to death; originally there is no birth-and-death, so how could there be a life-span? Furthermore, life-span is the fruition of birth-and-death; if it truly existed, it would not be right that it could be parted from. Now there are those who have abandoned it forever, which clarifies that it is originally absent. Third, "there is no self": it is fundamentally absent in principle; "because it is free from the defilement of self" explains and completes the above meaning, entirely identical with the first line. Fourth, "one who repeatedly takes rebirth (gati)": in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa this is "person." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Because one can create good and evil and practice human dharmas, one takes rebirth in the various destinies, transmigrating through the three temporal periods." Since fundamentally there is no one who takes rebirth, how could there be front and rear limits? Furthermore, if it definitely existed, holy beings should not cut off the front and rear limits; now that holy beings have severed them, it clarifies that there is no person who can repeatedly take rebirth. The commentary's "Śikhin" is also from the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and has already been cited above. The rest can be understood from this.