大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 49.3.3

49.3.3

聲聞緣覺行於苦樂作中道想，以是義故，雖有佛性而不能見。 」下經文廣不正，釋凡夫。 而道有三種，謂下中上。 下者梵天無常，謬見是常等。 後說生死本際，凡有二種：一者無明、二者有愛，是二中間即有生老病死等者，是定苦行也。 疏《長阿含》、《十二因緣經》、《僧祇律》造塔，事未撿故。 疏「無上依經供佛舍利如芥子許悉得究竟脫生死苦」者，經有兩卷，今當第一。 因阿難隨佛乞食，見一新城樓閣，心念有人以此勝閣布施四方僧，并具四事。 若如來滅後取佛舍利如芥子大安立塔中，起塔如阿摩羅子大，戴剎如針大，露盤如棗葉大，造佛如麥子大，此二功德何者為勝問佛。 佛讚，廣為引喻校量。 初舉滿閻浮提如稻麻，以第四果及辟支佛。 有人盡形四事供養，滅後起大塔供養佛，問功德多不？ 阿難答多。 次舉西瞿陀尼，次舉東弗婆提，次舉北欝單越，皆量漸廣，供事如前，比所造閣如帝釋所處，問於阿難。 阿難皆答甚多。 佛告阿難：「若有善男子善女人，佛涅槃後，取舍利如芥子大，造塔如阿摩羅子大，戴剎如針大，露盤如棗葉大，造佛如麥子大，此功德比前所說，百分不及一、千分不及一、億分不及一，乃至算數譬喻所不能及。 阿難！ 若此功德不迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，此功德聚所獲福德報，盡娑婆世界微塵數，作他化自在天王、化樂天王、兜率陀天王、夜摩天王、三十三天王，況復轉輪聖王。 」釋曰：據此但云福多，若加迴向必至究竟。 疏「當其無，有車之用」者，即《老子．道經》云「三十輻共一轂，當其無，有車之用。 」注云「此明無有功用相資而成。 」又下結云「有之以為利，無之以為用。 」意明假轅廂輪等以成於車，車中不虛則無所用。 故約形質麁有之利，以明妙無之有用。 今借此語，萬行緣成之乘，其內無性即中空矣。 若不涉有，無以利物； 若不入空，無以道行。 以有空義故，一切法得成，故為大用也。 疏「翻三生百劫」者，羅漢三生修福，緣覺百劫，今令百千億那由他劫修等故。 疏「涅槃第十若犯四重禁」等者，明經法資人除惑，有十復次，今是其一。 經云「若比丘比丘尼優婆塞優婆夷及諸外道，有能受持如是經典，讀誦通利，復為他人分別演說，若自書寫令他書寫，斯等皆是菩提因緣。 若犯四禁及五逆罪，若為邪鬼毒惡所持，聞是經典，所有諸惡悉得除滅，如見良醫惡鬼遠去。 當知是人是真菩薩摩訶薩也。 何以故？ 暫得聞是大涅槃故，亦以生念如來常故。 若暫聞者尚得如是，何況書寫受持讀誦。 」釋曰：是則疏但舉中。 疏「又云犯四重禁不還生無有是處」者，即第五經云「又解脫者，名為虛寂無有不定。 有不定者，如一闡提究竟不移，犯重禁者不成佛道，無有是處。 何以故？ 是人若於佛正法中心得淨信，爾時即便滅一闡提。 若復得作優婆塞者，亦得斷滅於一闡提。 犯重禁者，滅此罪已則得成佛。 若言畢竟不成佛道，無有是處。 」疏「如是等文處處皆有」者，第六又云「是大涅槃微妙經典，不可消伏，甚奇甚特。 若有聞者，聞已信受，能信如來是常住法。 如是之人甚為希有，如優曇華。 我涅槃後，若有得聞如是大乘微妙經典生信敬心，當知是等於未來世百千億劫不墮惡道。 」第九經初又云「譬如日出，眾霧悉除。 此大涅槃微妙經典亦復如是，出興于世，若有眾生一經於耳者，悉能滅除一切諸惡無間罪業。 」其餘大乘文亦廣多。 疏「九十五種外道邪論」者，一依《薩婆多律》，外道六師各有十六種道。 疏二「附佛法外道」，若不得般若意，入阿毘曇則滯有故。 疏「故七卷楞伽第一」等者，七卷即實叉難陀三藏所譯。 然十卷文廣、四卷文慳，七卷處中而文又潤，疏所引經具足經文。 引意明此呼二乘以為外道，何以得知是二乘耶？ 以此前有經云「大慧！

‘Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas practice regarding suffering and pleasure with the conception of a Middle Way; by reason of this meaning, although they possess the Buddha-nature, they cannot perceive it.’ Below, the sūtra text broadens into what is not correct, explaining ordinary persons. Furthermore, the path has three kinds: namely lower, middling, and superior. The lower refers to Brahmā being impermanent yet falsely viewed as permanent, and so forth. Later it speaks of the original limit of saṃsāra, which has generally two kinds: first, avidyā; second, craving for existence; between these two there are birth, aging, illness, death, and so on—this is fixed painful practice. The commentary notes regarding the Dīrghāgama, the Twelve Nidānas Sūtra, and the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya concerning building stūpas that the matter has not yet been checked. As for the commentary's ‘The Wushangyi jing states that making offerings to a buddha-relic the size of a mustard seed completely brings about the ultimate escape from the suffering of saṃsāra’: the sūtra has two fascicles, and this is in the first. Because Ānanda followed the Buddha to beg for food and saw the storied pavilions of a new city, he thought: ‘If someone were to give such an excellent pavilion as alms to the saṃgha of the four directions, complete with the four necessities, versus after the Tathāgata's parinirvāṇa taking a buddha-relic the size of a mustard seed and enshrining it in a stūpa, raising a stūpa the size of an āmalaka fruit, mounting a spire the size of a needle, a dew-basin the size of a jujube leaf, and making an image of the Buddha the size of a barley grain—which of these two merits is superior?’ He asked the Buddha. The Buddha praised him and extensively adduced metaphors to weigh them. First he brought up filling all Jambudvīpa as dense as rice and sesame with those of the fourth fruit and pratyekabuddhas: if someone were to provide them with the four necessities of life throughout their lives, and after their passing raise great stūpas to make offerings to the buddhas, he asked: ‘Would the merit be great?’ Ānanda replied, ‘Great.’ Next he brought up Aparagodānīya, next Pūrvavideha, and next Uttarakuru, the quantities gradually broadening, the offerings made as before, comparing the pavilion built to the dwelling of Śakra, and asked Ānanda. Ānanda answered each time that it was exceedingly great. The Buddha told Ānanda: ‘If there be a good man or good woman who, after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, takes a relic the size of a mustard seed, builds a stūpa the size of an āmalaka fruit, mounts a spire the size of a needle, a dew-basin the size of a jujube leaf, and makes an image of the Buddha the size of a barley grain—this merit, compared to that previously spoken of, does not equal a hundredth part, a thousandth part, a hundred-millionth part, nor even what calculation and metaphor can reach. Ānanda! If this merit is not dedicated via pariṇāmanā toward anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi, the karmic reward of fortune obtained from this heap of merit will be to become a king of Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven, a king of Nirmāṇarati Heaven, a king of Tuṣita Heaven, a king of Yāma Heaven, or a king of the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven for as many times as there are dust motes in the entire Sahā world, not to mention a wheel-turning sage king (cakravartin).’ Explanation: According to this, it merely says the fortune is great; if one adds pariṇāmanā, it will certainly reach the ultimate. As for the commentary's ‘When attuned to its nonexistence, there is the utility of the carriage’: this is from the Dao jing of Laozi, which says, ‘Thirty spokes converge on a single hub; attuned to its nonexistence, there is the utility of the carriage.’ The annotation says, ‘This clarifies that nonexistence and existence assist one another in their function to bring it to completion.’ Furthermore, it concludes below: ‘Existence is that by which benefit is derived; nonexistence is that by which utility is had.’ The intended meaning is that shafts, carriage-box, wheels, and the like are relied upon to form a carriage, but if the inside of the carriage were not empty, it would have no utility. Thus, drawing upon the benefit of the coarse existence of physical form, it clarifies the utility of wondrous nonexistence. Borrowing this language now: the vehicle conditioned into being by the myriad practices—its internal lack of intrinsic nature is precisely its emptiness within. If it did not engage existence, there would be no means to benefit beings; if it did not enter emptiness, there would be no means for practice of the path. Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all phenomena can be accomplished; therefore it constitutes great utility. As for the commentary's ‘Overturning the three lifetimes and the hundred kalpas’: arhats cultivate merit for three lifetimes, pratyekabuddhas for a hundred kalpas; here it causes them to cultivate for hundreds of thousands of koṭis of nayutas of kalpas, and so forth. As for the commentary's ‘The tenth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says that if one violates the four grave prohibitions,’ and so on: to clarify that the text of the sūtra assists people in eliminating delusions, there are ten restatements; this is one of them. The sūtra says: ‘If there be a bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, upāsaka, upāsikā, or any non-Buddhist who can uphold such a classic, recite it fluently, and further analyze and expound it for others, or write it out oneself or cause others to write it out, these are all causes and conditions for bodhi. If one has violated the four prohibitions or the crimes of the five immediate retributions, or is possessed by wicked ghosts or virulent poisons, upon hearing this classic, all bad deeds will be entirely eliminated, just as upon seeing an excellent physician, wicked ghosts depart far away. One should know that such a person is a true bodhisattva-mahāsattva. Why? Because they have temporarily heard this Great Nirvāṇa, and also because they have given rise to the thought that the Tathāgata is eternal. If one who only temporarily hears it still obtains such [benefits], how much more so one who writes it out, upholds, reads, and recites it.’ Explanation: Thus the commentary only cites the middle portion. As for the commentary's ‘It also says: “that one who violates the four grave prohibitions does not come back to life is an impossibility”’: the fifth fascicle of the sūtra says, ‘Furthermore, liberation is called empty and quiescent, without any indeterminacy. If there were indeterminacy, such that an icchantika ultimately never moved, or that one who violated the grave prohibitions did not achieve the Buddha Path, this would be an impossibility. Why? If this person gives rise to pure faith in the Buddha's true Dharma, at that moment the icchantika is immediately extinguished. If they further manage to become an upāsaka, they also extinguish the icchantika. One who has violated the grave prohibitions, having extinguished this transgression, will then achieve buddhahood. If one were to say that they ultimately do not achieve the Buddha Path, that is an impossibility.’ As for the commentary's ‘Passages such as these are found everywhere’: the sixth fascicle also says, ‘This wondrous classic of the Great Nirvāṇa cannot be worn away or suppressed; it is exceedingly marvelous and extraordinary. If there are those who hear it, and having heard it, believe and accept it, being able to believe that the Tathāgata is an eternally abiding phenomenon, such persons are extremely rare, like an udumbara flower. After my nirvāṇa, if there are those who get to hear such a wondrous Mahāyāna classic and give rise to a faithful and reverent mind, one should know that in future ages for hundreds of thousands of koṭis of kalpas they will not fall into the bad destinies.’ The beginning of the ninth fascicle also says: ‘Just as when the sun rises, the multitudes of mists are all cleared away, so too is this wondrous classic of the Great Nirvāṇa: appearing in the world, if there are sentient beings who merely let it pass their ears, it can completely eradicate all bad deeds and the karmas of the unspaced [hell].’ Other Mahāyāna passages are also extensive and numerous. As for the commentary's ‘The ninety-five kinds of non-Buddhist heterodox treatises’: first, according to the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya, each of the six non-Buddhist teachers has sixteen kinds of paths. The commentary's second point, ‘Non-Buddhists attached to the Buddha's Dharma’: if one does not grasp the meaning of prajñā, entering into abhidharma leads to stagnating in existence. As for the commentary's ‘Therefore the first fascicle of the seven-fascicle Laṅkā[vatāra-sūtra],’ and so on: the seven-fascicle version is the one translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Śikṣānanda. While the ten-fascicle text is expansive and the four-fascicle text is terse, the seven-fascicle version is intermediate and its phrasing is polished; the scripture cited by the commentary gives the sūtra's words in full. The intention of citing it is to clarify that this designates the two vehicles as non-Buddhists. How is it known that it refers to the two vehicles? Because prior to this, the sūtra says: ‘Mahāmati!