大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 49.22

49.22

疏「若成唯識」下，三彰異名。《唯識》因解變易生死名，云「由悲願力改轉身命無定齊限，故名變易。無漏定願正所資感，妙用難測，名不思議。或名意成身，隨意願成故。」彼釋云「隨大悲意之所成耳」。「意明」已下，是疏釋論。然此異名總有其三：一名不思議變易身、二名變化身、三名意成身。若出體者，總有三說：一云悲願為體、二云定願為性、三云無明住地惑無漏有分別業為性。若問答者，問：若所依身隨地有別，可說短長；而命如燈焰念念生滅，非如分段一期等事，憑何說彼無定齊限？答：玄奘三藏解云「理實命根無別分限，隨所依身假說分限。」問：若依悲願而感此身，故留煩惱此復何用？諸法師答云：七地已來自有菩薩受分段身，故留不斷。八地已上雖受變易，而與聖道不相違故，所以不斷。又解：八地已上，變易生死還相假籍，故留不斷。由此惑力資別業力，得受用身，非如無學迴心大者唯依一業。問：若所知障助業能感生死，二乘定性應不永入無餘涅槃。釋曰：小乘問也。二乘既有所知障，則常感生死不入涅槃。論主答云：如諸異生拘煩惱故。釋曰：異生有煩惱，不趣涅槃。彼趣寂者，心樂趣寂，為此心拘馳流無相，不起無上正等菩提，如諸異生為煩惱拘，故論問云：如何道諦實能感苦？釋曰：以無漏有分別業，即是道故。論答：誰言實感？不爾如何：下論主答：無漏定願資有漏業，令所得果相續長時展轉增勝，假說名感。如是感時，由所知障為緣助力，非獨能感。然所知障不障解脫，無能發業潤生用故。釋曰：謂第四禪無漏勝定，資色無色已感異熟諸有漏業，令所得果相續增長，無漏資勝，假說能感；非無漏業，實能感苦。又此能感由所知障助故。所知障不感苦者，不同煩惱障有發潤，故論云：彼復何須所知障助？論答云：既未圓證無相大悲，不執菩提有情實有，無由發起猛利悲願。餘可略也。

Regarding the commentary’s phrase from “If according to the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi…” downward, the third part reveals alternate names. In explaining the name of inconceivable-transformation saṃsāra, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states: “Through the power of compassionate vows, bodily life is transformed without a fixed duration, hence it is called transformation. Being directly sustained and induced by untainted concentration and vows, its wondrous function is difficult to fathom, hence it is called inconceivable. Or it is called a mind-made body (manomayakāya), because it is accomplished according to the intention of the vows.” That commentary explains: “It is simply accomplished in accordance with the intention of great compassion.” From “The commentary explains…” downward is the commentary explaining the treatise. However, of these alternate names, there are three in total: first, the inconceivable transformation body; second, the transformation body; third, the mind-made body. If identifying the essence, there are three explanations in total: one says compassionate vows are the essence; another says concentration and vows are the nature; another says the affliction of the ground of avidyā together with untainted discriminating karma is the nature. In terms of questions and answers: Question: If the dependent body differs according to the grounds, one could speak of longer or shorter; but life, like the flame of a lamp, arises and ceases from moment to moment, not being like the single-lifespan continuum of fragmentary [saṃsāra]. On what basis is it said to have no fixed duration? Answer: Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang explained: “In actual principle, the life-faculty has no distinct boundaries; boundaries are provisionally spoken of according to the dependent body.” Question: If this body is induced based on compassionate vows, what is the purpose of deliberately retaining the afflictions? Various masters answered: Up through the seventh ground, bodhisattvas naturally receive fragmentary bodies, so they retain them without severing them. From the eighth ground upward, although receiving transformation [bodies], because these do not conflict with the noble path, they are not severed. Another explanation: From the eighth ground upward, transformation saṃsāra and [afflictions] mutually rely on each other, so they are retained without being severed. Due to the power of these afflictions sustaining the power of distinct karma, one obtains a sambhogakāya, unlike the great ones who resolve their minds from the stage of no-learning, who rely solely on a single karma. Question: If the cognitive hindrance assists karma in being able to induce saṃsāra, those of the two vehicles of fixed nature should never enter nirvāṇa without remainder. Commentary: This is a question by the Hīnayāna. Since the two vehicles have the cognitive hindrance, they would constantly induce saṃsāra and not enter nirvāṇa. The treatise master replies: Just as ordinary beings are bound by afflictions. Commentary: Ordinary beings have afflictions and do not head toward nirvāṇa. Those who incline toward quiescence have minds that take pleasure in heading toward quiescence; bound by this mind, they drift into signlessness and do not give rise to unexcelled, correct, and complete bodhi, just as ordinary beings are bound by afflictions. Therefore, the treatise asks: How can the noble truth of the path actually induce suffering? Commentary: Because untainted discriminating karma is itself the path. The treatise answers: Who says it actually induces it? If not so, how is it? Below, the treatise master answers: Untainted concentration and vows sustain tainted karma, causing the obtained fruit to continue for a long time and progressively become superior; it is provisionally said to induce it. When inducing it in this manner, it takes the cognitive hindrance as a contributing condition; it cannot induce it alone. However, the cognitive hindrance does not obstruct liberation, because it lacks the function of initiating karma and moistening rebirth. Commentary: That is to say, the untainted superior concentration of the fourth dhyāna sustains the various tainted karmas of the form and formless realms that have already induced vipāka, causing the obtained fruit to continuously increase; with the untainted sustaining its superiority, it is provisionally said to induce it, not that untainted karma actually induces suffering. Furthermore, this ability to induce is assisted by the cognitive hindrance. The reason why the cognitive hindrance does not induce suffering is that, unlike the affective hindrances, it lacks initiating and moistening. Therefore, the treatise states: Why does it further require the assistance of the cognitive hindrance? The treatise answers: Since one has not yet fully realized signless great compassion, without clinging to bodhi and sentient beings as truly existing, there would be no basis for giving rise to fierce compassionate vows. The rest may be omitted.