大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 55.24

55.24

疏「相見道後」下，第二疏釋論。亦有三節：一定位，即初地之中含通達、修習兩位。從金剛喻定解脫道後，方是究竟位。二「復數修習」下，釋修道名。即《唯識》第九，加所為中已廣引竟。三「滅二麁重皆不行」下，疏釋論中煩惱不行之言。此言正解不行淨義，疏文有五：初正釋、二解妨、三引證、四會經、五重解妨。今初，唯釋「云數修此故，捨二麁重。二障種子立麁重名，性無堪任，違細輕故。令彼永滅，故說為捨。」疏「對見道中初斷所知」者，二解妨。謂有問言：然見道中雙斷二障而云所知者何？答：以異生性障正取所知以為體故。故《唯識》云「雖初地所斷實通二障，而異生性障意取所知，說十無明非染污故。」是故此經云「捨離癡惑」，癡惑即是偏舉所知。次云「垢染」，即是煩惱。疏「成唯識第十云煩惱障中」等者，三引證。此前論云「此十一障二障所攝。煩惱障中見所斷種，於極喜地見道初斷彼障現起，地前已伏修所斷種。」下論與此疏同。釋曰：就修斷中直觀論文，初地已上能頓伏盡修惑現行，如阿羅漢諸漏已盡無復煩惱。次云由故意力，七地之中雖暫現起，而不為失。自是一段通於妨難。謂有問云：既如阿羅漢令永不行，如何前四猶起我見？七地已前猶起貪瞋等耶？故此答云：故由意力起。謂六地之前容有出觀，尚有誤起。七地之中常在無相，為化眾生故意而起，起不為失，示起示滅。即如下經中七地文云「雖畢竟寂滅諸煩惱焰，而能為眾生起滅貪瞋癡煩惱焰。」即其文也。論言「而不為失」者，下經云「雖常寂滅，以方便力而還熾然，雖然不燒。」即其文也。故下經解脫月菩薩問金剛藏言：「佛子！七地菩薩，為是染行？為是淨行？」金剛藏言：「初地至七地，所行諸行皆捨離煩惱業，以迴向無上菩提故，分得平等道故。然未名為超煩惱行。」便舉輪王、梵王為喻。輪王乘空，不染貪病，未名超人。以喻七地乘波羅蜜乘，不染煩惱，未名超煩惱行。若捨王身，生於梵天，爾乃名為超過人位。以喻八地乘清淨乘，爾乃名為超煩惱行。故次下論云「八地已上畢竟不行」，此之論文甚與經合。而大乘法師釋意：如阿羅漢由故意力，連成一句。云如阿羅漢有怖有不怖，不怖者起，怖者不然。此則以護法羅漢懼於煩惱不敢起故。似非得意。又云：然此中所說見所斷者，唯頓悟人。修所斷者，通漸有學；漸無學者，二種俱無。又問云：其在地前所未伏者相貌可知，其已伏者與此何別？答：道力猶微不能伏盡，為煩惱制，少分自行，即我貪等有失念起。故說地前已伏少分，非有別相地前伏之。釋曰：此即釋地前漸伏之言。以非正要，故在後釋。八地已上任運不行，道力勝故。此是《對法》第十四文。疏「煩惱即是」下，四會經文，即知。疏「然見道中非不斷惑見理義增」等者，五重解妨也。應有並云「修道能斷惑，修道名修道。見道既斷惑，亦應名修道。」又並云「見道能見理，見理名見道。修道既重觀，亦應名見道。」故此釋云「從增勝義各舉一名」。言「見理義增」者，初見理故，即顯斷惑義微，不斷俱生故。修道除障義勝者，能除難斷俱生惑故，數數斷故。前已見理，故此為微。疏「即無厭足淨」等者，即八地無功用行，在法流中趣果無間，故曰無厭。不樂小乘，自分堅也。但於勝進上求希欲，即是深心。「決定」，釋其信解。疏「不隨他教淨」者，論立名。「趣菩薩地盡」下，論釋。然論但云「趣盡道中自正行故。」今疏加於菩薩地盡，釋論盡字，即是十地位極道圓，地法在心不由他教，故云自正行也。

In the commentary, from “After the path of seeing aspects” downward is the second part, the commentary's explanation of the treatise. It also has three sections: First, determining the stages—namely, within the first bhūmi both the stage of penetration and the stage of cultivation are contained. Only after the path of liberation of the vajropamasamādhi does one reach the ultimate stage. Second, from “further repeatedly cultivating” downward, explaining the name “path of cultivation.” This is the ninth [fascicle] of Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi; it has already been extensively cited above under “that for the sake of which [it is undertaken].” Third, from “extinguishing the two heavy burdens so that neither functions” downward, the commentary explains the treatise's statement that “afflictions do not function.” These words precisely explain the meaning of “purity of non-functioning.” The commentary's text has five [parts]: first, the primary explanation; second, resolving an objection; third, citing proof; fourth, reconciling with the sūtra; fifth, resolving an objection again. As for the first, it solely explains: “Because of repeatedly cultivating this, one abandons the two heavy burdens. The seeds of the two hindrances are designated as 'heavy burdens' because their nature lacks competence, running counter to the subtle and light. Causing them to be eternally extinguished is therefore called abandoning.” In the commentary, “In contrast to the initial severance of the knowable in the path of seeing” is the second, resolving an objection. That is, someone asks: “In the path of seeing both hindrances are severed together; why then does it only speak of the knowable?” The reply is: “Because the hindrance of heteroclitic nature (pṛthagjanatva) precisely takes the knowable as its essential nature. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā says: 'Although what is severed on the first bhūmi in reality extends to both hindrances, the hindrance of heteroclitic nature is intended to take the knowable, stating that the ten non-cognitions are not defiled.'” For this reason this sūtra says: “Abandoning delusion and confusion.” Delusion and confusion specifically refers to the knowable. Next it says “defilements,” which are the afflictions. In the commentary, “The tenth [fascicle] of the Cheng weishi [lun] says: 'Among the affliction-hindrance...'” and so forth is the third, citing proof. Earlier in that treatise it says: “These eleven hindrances are subsumed under the two hindrances. In the affliction-hindrance, the seeds severed by seeing are initially severed at the path of seeing of the Pramuditā-bhūmi, and their active manifestations have already been suppressed before the stages; the seeds severed by cultivation...” The subsequent treatise text is identical to this commentary. The explanation says: regarding those severed by cultivation, directly observing the text of the treatise, from the first bhūmi upward one is able to immediately and completely suppress the active manifestations of the afflictions of cultivation, like an arhat whose outflows are exhausted and who has no more afflictions. Next it says: “Due to the power of deliberate intent, although they briefly manifest actively within the seven bhūmis, it does not constitute a fault.” This is naturally a passage that resolves an objection. That is, someone asks: “Since they are made eternally non-functioning just as with an arhat, why do the first four still give rise to the view of self, and prior to the seventh bhūmi still give rise to greed, anger, and so forth?” Therefore this reply says: “They arise through the power of deliberate intent.” That is, before the sixth bhūmi there is the possibility of emerging from meditative concentration, so there are still mistaken arisings. Within the seventh bhūmi, one constantly abides in signlessness; for the sake of transforming sentient beings, they are raised deliberately; arising does not constitute a fault, for their arising and extinguishing are merely demonstrated. This is just as the subsequent sūtra text on the seventh bhūmi says: “Although the flames of all afflictions are completely quiescent, one can arouse and extinguish the flames of greed, anger, and delusion for the sake of sentient beings.” This is the very text. Where the treatise says “and does not constitute a fault,” the subsequent sūtra says: “Although constantly quiescent, through the power of upāya it flares up again, yet even so it does not burn.” This is the very text. Therefore later in the sūtra Bodhisattva Vimukticandra asks Vajragarbha: “O Son of the Buddha! Are the practices of a bodhisattva on the seventh bhūmi defiled practices or pure practices?” Vajragarbha says: “All practices carried out from the first bhūmi to the seventh bhūmi abandon afflicted karma, because they are dedicated toward anuttarabodhi and because one partially attains the path of equanimity. Yet they are not yet called practice that transcends afflictions.” Then he cites the analogies of a cakravartin and a Brahmā king. A cakravartin traverses the sky without being defiled by the affliction of greed, yet he is not called one who transcends humans. This serves as an analogy for the seventh bhūmi: riding the vehicle of the pāramitās, one is not defiled by afflictions, yet it is not called practice that transcends afflictions. If he abandons the royal body and is born in the Brahmā heaven, only then is he called one who transcends the human position. This serves as an analogy for the eighth bhūmi: riding the pure vehicle, only then is it called practice that transcends afflictions. Therefore the subsequent treatise text says: “From the eighth bhūmi upward they are completely non-functioning.” This text of the treatise accords closely with the sūtra. However, the Dharma Master of the Mahāyāna interpreted the meaning by joining “like an arhat” and “due to the power of deliberate intent” into a single sentence, saying: “Just as among arhats there are those with fear and those without fear—those without fear give rise [to them], while those with fear do not.” This takes the protective arhat as being afraid of afflictions and not daring to raise them. This seems to miss the intended meaning. Furthermore it says: “However, what is spoken of here as severed by seeing applies only to persons of sudden awakening. What is severed by cultivation extends to gradual [practitioners who are] learners; for gradual non-learners, both kinds are absent.” Furthermore, it is asked: “The characteristics of what is not yet suppressed prior to the stages are identifiable; how does that which is already suppressed differ from this?” The answer: “Because the power of the path is still weak, it cannot suppress them completely; being constrained by afflictions, they carry out their own activity in small measure, namely greed for the self and so forth arising through lapse of mindfulness. Therefore it is said that prior to the stages a small measure has already been suppressed; it is not that there is a distinct characteristic suppressed prior to the stages.” The explanation says: this precisely explains the words “gradually suppressed prior to the stages.” Because it is not essential, it is explained afterward. From the eighth bhūmi upward they naturally do not function because the power of the path is superior. This is the text of the fourteenth [fascicle] of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya. In the commentary, from “Afflictions are precisely...” downward is the fourth, reconciling with the sūtra text, which is readily known. In the commentary, “Yet in the path of seeing it is not that delusion is not severed; seeing principle is the predominant sense” and so forth is the fifth, resolving an objection again. There should be a counter-argument saying: “The path of cultivation can sever delusion, so the path of cultivation is called the path of cultivation. Since the path of seeing also severs delusion, it should also be called the path of cultivation.” There is also the counter-argument saying: “The path of seeing can see principle, so seeing principle is called the path of seeing. Since the path of cultivation contemplates again, it should also be called the path of seeing.” Therefore this explains: “Each is given a name according to its predominant meaning.” Saying that “seeing principle is the predominant sense” is because principle is seen for the first time, which makes clear that the sense of severing delusion is slight, since innate [afflictions] are not severed. In the path of cultivation the sense of eliminating hindrances is predominant because it can eliminate the difficult-to-sever innate delusions, and does so repeatedly. Principle having been seen before, here [the seeing of it] is slight. In the commentary, “namely the purity of insatiability” and so forth: this refers to the effortless practice of the eighth bhūmi, proceeding toward the fruit without interruption within the stream of Dharma; hence it is called “insatiable.” Not taking joy in the Hīnayāna is the firmness of one's own stage. Simply seeking with desire the superior advancement above is the profound mind. “Definitively” explains one's faith and understanding. In the commentary, “the purity of not following other teachings” is the name established by the treatise. From “progressing to the culmination of the bodhisattva bhūmis” downward is the treatise's explanation. However, the treatise merely says: “Because of correctly practicing by oneself in the path progressing to the culmination.” Now the commentary adds “of the bodhisattva bhūmis” to explain the word “culmination” in the treatise: this refers to the culmination of the tenth bhūmi where the path is perfected; the dharmas of the bhūmi reside in one's mind without depending on other teachings; therefore it says “correctly practicing by oneself.”