大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 51.5

51.5

疏「十句五對令四心彌固」者，即天親《般若論》中答住問也。若依無著，即當第一發心住處。然無著十八住處，住住皆答三問。三問即應云何住、應云何修行、應云何降伏其心。秦經闕修行問，合在二中。言發心住處者，經「佛告須菩提：『菩薩應如是降伏其心。所有一切眾生之類，若卵生、若胎生、若濕生、若化生，若有色、若無色，若有想、若無想、若非有想、若非無想（即廣大心），我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度之（第一心也）。如是滅度無量無數無邊眾生，實無眾生得滅度者（常心也）。何以故？須菩提！若菩薩有我相人相眾生相壽者相，即非菩薩（不顛倒心也）。』」論偈云「廣大第一常，其心不顛倒，利益深心住，此乘功德滿。」此偈上半標四心，下半說住義，四心利益具自他行，故此深心菩薩應住大乘功德盡圓滿矣。言四心者，三界九類皆盡度之，是廣大心。令入無餘涅槃，是第一心。二乘尚有三餘，非曰無餘，不名第一；今二種涅槃，無餘第一。四涅槃中，無住涅槃方為第一。今言無餘，即佛無住。往昔但有三涅槃，故不言無餘耳。彼疏科上二心名加行住。言常心者，論云「如是取眾生如我身，常不捨離，是名常心。偈中利益解其常義，謂度眾生常不離大悲同體，如我之心，故名常矣。」疏科此心為修行定。言不顛倒心者，疏科為折散心。言不顛倒者，論云「此示現離依止身見眾生等相故。依身執我名為身見，有我等四即非菩薩，是名顛倒。今離此四，即是菩薩，非顛倒心。」大雲言：「此文即根本智。前文大悲，是後得智。由根本智即離我見，故前大智觀無眾生相始得成就。」又大雲解實無眾生得滅度者，總有五義：一眾生性空，故無可滅。二菩薩後得智同體悲，離自身外無別眾生，即無他體。於根本智必先自離我見之相，即自無體。既無自他，實無眾生得滅度矣。三一切眾生本來寂滅，不更滅故。四順法性，法性無念，心若起念即違法性故。五解法界不度眾生。天親解云：平等真法界，佛不度眾生。以眾生名，名即法界。眾生陰身，陰即法界。眾生與佛同一法界，豈於此理度眾生哉？故《淨名》云「眾聖賢亦如也，至於彌勒亦如也。若彌勒得受記者，一切眾生亦應受記。」以同一如不應別故，斯理特深。天親下文有此解者，謂教地上諸大菩薩，以初地上盡證真如，令地上學佛平等法界觀矣。而今天親即解此文，大悲同體是教地前學地上觀，故為此釋。天親妙意，今日曉矣。釋曰：上皆暉公之意。今謂不然。且問寂滅與空為一為異？若言一者，則初三不別。若言異者，異相云何？豈不詮言法性本空寂耶？又寂滅言，但是盡相？為顯實耶？若是顯實，即同第五同一法界。又同體悲寧殊同一法界？又五法界與順法性復何差別？非無念智不名真解，是知論明法界，生佛相望；論明同體，菩薩望生，故不應二。則上五解唯應為二，其無念義應合在於不顛倒心，經唯舉我以為顛倒，法執不亡豈非顛倒？故不顛倒，約止絕妄想，同體常心觀冥真理。是故經文以不顛倒釋上常心，云何以故，由無妄故方能契實，由契理故方得無妄，二義相成故無眾生得滅度者。一契空如，性空寂滅故無可度；二契不空，同一法性，法性平等故無可度。足顯玄妙皆就諸佛菩薩觀心，非獨約理，故今疏文直取論意便為正解。復順今經，以今經證天親解經妙符聖旨。

Regarding the commentary's "Ten sentences and five pairs cause the four minds to become increasingly firm": this answers the question regarding abidance in Vasubandhu's Prajñā[-pāramitopadeśa]-śāstra. If one relies on Asaṅga, it corresponds to the first, the abidance of arousing the mind. However, of Asaṅga's eighteen abidances, each and every abidance answers three questions. The three questions are: how should one abide, how should one cultivate, and how should one subdue one's mind? The Qin sūtra lacks the question on cultivation, combining it in the [other] two. Regarding the abidance of arousing the mind, the sūtra states: "The Buddha addressed Subhūti: 'A bodhisattva should thus subdue his mind. As for all the varieties of sentient beings—whether egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, or miraculously born; whether having form or formless; whether having conception, lacking conception, or neither having conception nor lacking conception (this is the vast mind)—I will cause all of them to enter remainderless nirvāṇa and attain extinction (the supreme mind). Having thus brought measureless, countless, and boundless sentient beings to extinction, in truth there are no sentient beings who attain extinction (the constant mind). Why is this? Subhūti! If a bodhisattva has the notion of a self, the notion of a person, the notion of a sentient being, or the notion of a living being, he is not a bodhisattva (the non-inverted mind).'" The verse of the treatise states: "Vast, supreme, constant, / and the mind not inverted; / abiding in the profound mind of benefit, / the merits of this vehicle are perfected." The first half of this verse marks out the four minds; the second half explains the meaning of abidance. The benefit of the four minds possesses practices for both oneself and others; therefore, in this profound mind the bodhisattva should abide, and the merits of the Great Vehicle will be completely perfected. As for the four minds: liberating all nine classes across the three realms completely is the vast mind. Causing them to enter remainderless nirvāṇa is the supreme mind. The two vehicles still have three remainders and cannot be said to be without remainder, so they are not called supreme; here, between the two kinds of nirvāṇa, remainderless is supreme. Among the four kinds of nirvāṇa, only non-abiding nirvāṇa is supreme. Here, the mention of remainderless is just the Buddha's non-abiding [nirvāṇa]. In former times there were only three nirvāṇas, so remainderless was not stated. That commentary topicalized the above two minds as the abidance of preparatory application. As for the constant mind, the treatise states: "Thus regarding sentient beings as one's own body, constantly never abandoning them, is called the constant mind. The verse uses 'benefit' to explain its meaning of constancy, meaning that when liberating sentient beings one never departs from great compassion of identical substance, like one's own mind; hence it is called constant." The commentary topicalized this mind as the meditation of cultivation. As for the non-inverted mind, the commentary topicalized it as breaking scattered thoughts. As for being non-inverted, the treatise states: "This demonstrates the characteristic of leaving behind dependence on the view of a body, sentient beings, and so forth. Relying on the body and grasping at a self is called the view of a body; possessing the four notions of self and so forth means one is not a bodhisattva, which is called inverted. Now, leaving behind these four means one is a bodhisattva, which is the non-inverted mind." Dayun stated: "This text is just fundamental cognition. The prior text's great compassion is subsequent cognition. Because through fundamental cognition one departs from the view of self, the prior great wisdom contemplating the absence of the characteristic of sentient beings can only then be accomplished." Furthermore, Dayun explained that "in truth there are no sentient beings who attain extinction" comprises five meanings in total: First, because the nature of sentient beings is empty, there is nothing that can be brought to extinction. Second, through the bodhisattva's subsequent cognition and compassion of identical substance, apart from one's own body there are no distinct sentient beings, meaning there is no substance of another. In fundamental cognition one must first leave behind the characteristic of the view of a self, meaning one has no substance oneself. Since there is neither self nor other, in truth no sentient beings attain extinction. Third, all sentient beings are originally in quiescence and extinction, and are not extinguished again. Fourth, in accordance with the dharmatā: the dharmatā is devoid of thought; if the mind gives rise to thought, it contradicts the dharmatā. Fifth, understanding that the dharmadhātu does not liberate sentient beings. Vasubandhu explains: in the equal, true dharmadhātu, the Buddha does not liberate sentient beings. Because of the name 'sentient being,' the name is just the dharmadhātu. The aggregate-body of sentient beings: the aggregates are just the dharmadhātu. Sentient beings and Buddhas are of the same dharmadhātu; how, within this principle, could one liberate sentient beings? Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'All noble and worthy ones are also thus, and even Maitreya is also thus. If Maitreya is to obtain prediction, all sentient beings should also obtain prediction.' Because they are of the same thusness, there should be no distinction; this principle is particularly profound. The reason Vasubandhu has this explanation in the text below is that he is teaching the great bodhisattvas on the stages, because above the first stage they fully realize tathatā, causing those on the stages to learn the Buddha's contemplation of the equal dharmadhātu. And now Vasubandhu precisely explains this text: great compassion of identical substance teaches those before the stages to learn the contemplation of those on the stages, which is why he provides this explanation. Vasubandhu's wondrous intent is clear today." The explanation states: The above is entirely Master Hui's view. Now I say this is not so. Let us ask: are quiescence-extinction and emptiness one or different? If one says they are one, then the first and third are not distinct. If one says they are different, what are their different characteristics? Does it not denote that the dharmatā is originally empty and quiescent? Furthermore, does the phrase 'quiescence and extinction' merely mean the exhaustion of characteristics, or does it reveal the real? If it reveals the real, it is identical to the fifth, the same dharmadhātu. Furthermore, how could compassion of identical substance differ from the same dharmadhātu? And what distinction is there between the fifth, the dharmadhātu, and accordance with the dharmatā? If it is not cognition devoid of thought, it is not called true understanding. Hence we know that when the treatise clarifies the dharmadhātu, sentient beings and the Buddha are viewed in relation to each other; when the treatise clarifies identical substance, the bodhisattva is viewed in relation to sentient beings; therefore they should not be two. Thus the above five explanations should only be made into two. Its meaning of absence of thought should be subsumed under the non-inverted mind. The sūtra only brings up 'self' as inverted; if attachment to dharmas is not obliterated, how could that not be inverted? Therefore, 'non-inverted' refers to stopping and cutting off false conceptions, while the constant mind of identical substance contemplates and merges with the true principle. Therefore, the text of the sūtra explains the above constant mind by means of being non-inverted, asking 'Why is this?': only by being free from delusion can one accord with reality, and only by according with principle can one be free from delusion; the two meanings mutually fulfill each other, so 'there are no sentient beings who attain extinction.' First, according with empty thusness: because its nature is empty and quiescent, there is nothing that can be liberated; second, according with non-empty: they are of the same dharmatā, and because the dharmatā is equal, there is nothing that can be liberated. This sufficiently demonstrates that the profound and marvelous all pertain to the contemplation mind of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, and are not solely regarding principle. Therefore, the commentary text now directly takes the intent of the treatise as the correct explanation. Furthermore, it accords with the present sūtra, using the present sūtra to verify that Vasubandhu's explanation of the sūtra marvelously accords with the holy intent.