[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 49.3.1 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 49.3.1 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 49.3.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [49.3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.49.3.1) 疏「瑜伽三十九云：若有眾生來求」等者，即彼明菩薩應施不應施中總有二十三類，今當其一，不應施與。 下更有論云「何以故？ 若施彼時，雖暫令彼於菩薩所心生歡喜，而復令彼廣作種種不饒益事。 謂因施故令彼多行憍逸惡行，身壞之後墮諸惡趣。 」從「今施美色」下，疏以論難經。 疏「又云施妻子時不應施與怨家」，亦是此論次文。 其「凶暴業者」，論具云「又諸菩薩於自妻子奴婢僕使親戚眷屬，若不先以正言曉喻令其歡喜，終不強逼令其憂惱施來乞者。 雖復先以曉喻令其歡喜生樂欲心，而不施與怨家惡友藥叉羅剎凶暴業者，不以妻子形容軟弱族姓男女施來求者令作奴婢。 」論次又云「菩薩若有上品逼惱眾生樂行種種暴惡業者來求王位，終不施與。 若彼暴惡補特伽羅先居王位，菩薩有力尚應廢黜，況當施與。 」釋曰：此皆不應施。 又從「今云種種」下，疏以論難經。 「答能施有二」下，答中先正答、後引證。 前中有三意：一菩薩善知不知皆得、二知女無染、三知翻利益。 疏「故攝論中有利有染」等者，即無性論第八，兩本世親皆是第九，梁論當第十二。 今依無性，然是義引。 彼論先併舉本論四句，後更牒釋，今隨舉便釋。 本論云「若諸菩薩成就如是增上尸羅、增上質多、增上般若功德圓滿，於諸財位得大自在，何故現見有諸有情匱乏財位？ 」釋曰：上即問也。 釋論不解，本論答云「見彼有情於諸財位有重業障故。 」無性先總明答意云「今當顯說由是因緣，菩薩雖有財位自在而不施他。 」釋向初答云「謂諸菩薩見彼有情，於其財位有重業障，故不施與，勿令惠施空無有果。 設復施彼，亦不能受，何用施為？ 如有頌云『如母乳嬰兒，一經月無倦，嬰兒喉若閉，乳母欲何為？ 』」解曰：此即第一無利無染。 以一向不能受，何利何染？ 二本論云「見彼有情若施財位障生善法故。 」釋論云「謂諸菩薩見彼有情雖於財位無重業障，而彼若得財位圓滿，便多放逸不起善法。 作是思惟：寧復現世少時貧賤，勿令來生多時貧賤。 故不施彼所有財位。 」解曰：即第二有染無利。 三本論云「見彼有情若乏財位，厭離現前故。 」釋論云「謂諸菩薩見彼有情，若乏財位厭生死心便現在前，求欲出離。 若得富貴即生放逸，故不施彼所有財位。 作是思惟：寧彼貧賤，厭離生死心常現前； 勿復富貴，愛樂放逸不起善法。 」解曰：此亦成上有染無利。 四本論云「見彼有情若施財位即為積集不善法因故。 」釋論云「謂諸菩薩見彼有情，若當施彼滿足財位，即便放逸積集種種惡不善業，故不施彼所有財利。 如有頌云『寧使貧乏於財位，遠離惡趣諸惡行。 勿被富貴亂諸根，令感當來眾苦器。 』」解曰：亦有染無利。 五本論云「見彼有情若施財位，即便作餘無量有情損惱因故。 」釋論云「謂諸菩薩見彼有情，若得富貴即便損惱無量有情，故不施彼所有財位。 作如是念：寧彼一身受貧窮苦，勿令損惱餘多有情。 」解曰：亦有染無利也。 故本論結云「是故現見有諸有情匱乏財位。 」此中有頌「見業障現前，積集損惱故，現見諸有情，不感菩薩施。 」釋曰：上文五重但有二句：初一無利無染、餘四皆有染無利。 而義不同，一障生善法、二不生厭離、三自積不善、四損惱於他。 其有利有染，損益雙具故亦不施。 為損過微，論略不說，餘可知也。 疏「法華四安樂行品」者，今疏所引，初一會諸師義，後三全同生公。 生公初一但名行處近處，意是總明遠惡近理，下三別耳。 寶林基公第一名空行，二名離憍慢，三四同生公。 南嶽云：一名無著正慧，二明口不說過，三敬上接下，四同生公。 大乘法師：一正身行，二正語行，三心離諸惡自利行，四心修善法利他行。 天台云：止觀慈悲導三業及誓願，初身有止故離身麁業、有觀故不得身業。 不得能離無所得故，不墮凡夫； > Regarding the commentary's "Yogācāra thirty-nine says: If sentient beings come and seek..." and so forth: that text explains what a bodhisattva should give and should not give among twenty-three categories in total, and here it corresponds to one of them, which should not be given. Further below, the treatise states: "Why is that? If one gives to them at that time, although one temporarily causes them to generate joy toward the bodhisattva, it will also cause them to perform various disadvantageous deeds extensively. That is, because of the gift, it causes them to engage heavily in haughty, indolent, and evil conduct, and after the destruction of the body, they fall into the evil destinies." From "Now giving beautiful forms" downwards, the commentary uses the treatise to challenge the sūtra. The commentary's "It also says that when giving wife and children, they should not be given to enemies" is also the subsequent text of this treatise. As for "those of violent karmic deeds": the treatise states in full, "Furthermore, regarding their own wives, children, male and female slaves, servants, kin, and relatives, if bodhisattvas do not first instruct them with proper words to cause them to be joyful, they will never coerce them, causing them sorrow and distress, to give them to beggars who come. Even if they have first instructed them to make them joyful and generate a willing mind, they still do not give them to enemies, evil friends, yakṣas, rākṣasas, or those of violent karmic deeds; nor do they give delicately featured clan sons and daughters as wives and children to seekers who come, making them slaves." Next, the treatise also states: "If someone of the highest grade who oppresses sentient beings and delights in performing various violent and evil karmic deeds comes seeking the royal throne, the bodhisattva will never give it. If that violent and evil pudgala previously occupied the royal throne, the bodhisattva, if having the power, should even depose him, much less give it to him." Explanation: None of these should be given. Furthermore, from "Now it says various..." downwards, the commentary uses the treatise to challenge the sūtra. Below "Answer: Those who are capable of giving are of two kinds", within the answer, it first answers directly and later cites supporting evidence. Within the former, there are three points: first, whether the bodhisattva knows skillfully or does not know, both are permissible; second, knowing the woman is free of defilement; third, knowing it turns into benefit. Regarding the commentary's "Therefore in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha there is having benefit and having defilement..." and so forth: this is the eighth fascicle of Asabhāva's treatise; both versions of Vasubandhu's are the ninth, and the Liang translation corresponds to the twelfth. Here it relies on Asabhāva, though it is a paraphrase of the meaning. That treatise first quotes together the four lines of the root treatise, and then subsequently takes them up and explains them; here they are taken up and explained accordingly. The root treatise states: "If bodhisattvas, having accomplished such superior morality, superior mind, and superior wisdom, are consummated in merits and have attained great mastery over wealth and status, why is it seen in actuality that there are sentient beings who lack wealth and status?" Explanation: The above is the question. The explanatory treatise does not gloss it; the root treatise answers: "Because it sees that those sentient beings have heavy karmic hindrances regarding wealth and status." Asabhāva first clarifies the general intent of the answer, stating: "Now it should be clearly explained: due to these causes and conditions, although the bodhisattva has mastery over wealth and status, he does not give to others." Explaining the initial answer just given, it states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that those sentient beings have heavy karmic hindrances regarding their wealth and status, and therefore do not give to them, lest the charitable gift be empty and fruitless. Even if one were to give to them, they would also be unable to receive it; what would be the use of giving? As a verse states: 'Like a mother nursing an infant, / for a whole month without fatigue; / if the infant's throat is blocked, / what can the wet-nurse do?'" Explanation: This is the first: neither benefit nor defilement. Because they are wholly unable to receive it, what benefit or what defilement could there be? Second, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would hinder the arising of wholesome dharmas." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that although those sentient beings have no heavy karmic hindrances regarding wealth and status, if they were to obtain complete wealth and status, they would become very indolent and would not give rise to wholesome dharmas. They reflect thus: 'Better that they be poor and lowly for a short time in the present life, than poor and lowly for a long time in future lives.' Therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status." Explanation: This is the second: having defilement and no benefit. Third, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if those sentient beings lack wealth and status, revulsion will manifest before them." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if those sentient beings lack wealth and status, the mind of revulsion toward saṃsāra will manifest before them, seeking to transcend it. If they were to attain wealth and honor, they would immediately generate indolence; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status. They reflect thus: 'Better that they be poor and lowly, so that the mind of revulsion toward saṃsāra is constantly present before them; than that they be wealthy and honored, delighting in indolence and not giving rise to wholesome dharmas.'" Explanation: This also establishes the above having defilement and no benefit. Fourth, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would become a cause for accumulating unwholesome dharmas." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if they were to give them sufficient wealth and status, they would immediately be indolent and accumulate various evil and unwholesome karmas; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or benefits. As a verse states: 'Better to cause them to be destitute of wealth and status, / staying far from the evil destinies and various evil actions, / than to have their faculties disordered by wealth and honor, / causing them to incur a vessel of manifold future sufferings.'" Explanation: This is also having defilement and no benefit. Fifth, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would immediately become a cause for harming and distressing countless other sentient beings." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if those sentient beings obtain wealth and honor, they will immediately harm and distress countless sentient beings; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status. They reflect thus: 'Better that this single person suffer the agony of poverty, than cause harm and distress to many other sentient beings.'" Explanation: This is also having defilement and no benefit. Therefore, the root treatise concludes: "For this reason, it is seen in actuality that there are sentient beings who lack wealth and status." Herein there is a verse: "Seeing that karmic hindrances are present before them, / and because of accumulation and causing harm, / it is seen in actuality that sentient beings / do not receive the bodhisattva's gifts." Explanation: In the fivefold text above, there are only two clauses: the first is neither benefit nor defilement; the remaining four are all having defilement and no benefit. Yet their senses differ: first, hindering the arising of wholesome dharmas; second, not generating revulsion; third, accumulating unwholesome things oneself; fourth, harming and distressing others. As for having benefit and having defilement, because both harm and benefit are present, one also does not give. Because the fault of harm is slight, the treatise omits speaking of it; the rest may be known. Regarding the commentary's "The Lotus Sūtra's 'Chapter on the Four Practices of Ease'": in what the present commentary cites, the first harmonizes the meanings of various masters, while the latter three fully agree with Master \[Dao\]sheng. Master Sheng's first is simply called 'the sphere of practice and the sphere of association,' the intent being to clarify broadly staying away from evil and drawing near to the principle, while the three below are specific. Master \[Kuai\]ji of Baolin names the first 'empty practice,' the second 'free from arrogance,' and the third and fourth are the same as Master Sheng. Nanyue states: the first clarifies unattached correct wisdom, the second clarifies the mouth not speaking of faults, the third is respecting superiors and receiving inferiors, and the fourth is the same as Master Sheng. Dharma Master Dacheng: first, correct physical action; second, correct verbal action; third, the self-benefiting action of the mind being free from various evils; fourth, the other-benefiting action of the mind cultivating wholesome dharmas. Tiantai states: śamatha, vipaśyanā, and loving-kindness and compassion guide the three karmas and the vow; initially, because the body has śamatha, it leaves behind coarse physical karma; because it has vipaśyanā, physical karma cannot be apprehended. Because neither that which is capable of leaving nor that which is left can be apprehended, one does not fall into \[the status of\] ordinary beings; > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 49.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.49.2) - [Next: 49.3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.49.3.2) - [Up: 49.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.49.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.49.3.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་བསྡུས་པའི་བཤད་སྦྱར](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha!upanibandhana*bo.166) — Classical Tibetan --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.49.3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.49.3.1) · Pramāṇa