[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) › 67.55 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.55 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.55 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [67.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.55) 疏「餘如瑜伽第九」等者，二引文會釋結示根本。《瑜伽》總上四卷，皆明緣起。釋名正當第十，總有五釋。論云「問：何故說為緣起？答云：由煩惱繫縛，往諸趣中數數生起，故名緣起。此依字釋名，謂依緣字起字二字別故，而緣非起。」即是今疏第二釋也。二云「復次依託眾緣速謝滅已續和合起，故名緣起。此依剎那義釋。」三云「復次眾緣過去而不捨離，依自相續而得生起，故名緣起。如說此有故彼有，此生故彼生。非餘。依此義故，釋名應知。」四云「復次數數謝滅，復相續起，故名緣起。此依數壞數起義。」釋曰。此上三釋，皆是今疏第一義。前前為緣令後後起，前前為緣故不捨離，即第三義。前若不滅，復何由起？即含第四。前後不同，必有剎那，即第二義。故其三意，大同小異，疏合為一。五云「復次於過去世覺緣性已等相續起，故名緣起。如世尊言：『我已覺悟，正起宣說。』即由此名展轉傳說，故名緣起。」釋曰：瑜伽五義，初一緣非是起，以因為緣、以果為起。二緣即是起，剎那剎那從緣而起。此揀大乘部十二因緣是無為法，亦揀正量部。三即無間因果，前因為緣而後緣起。四無始因果，前已謝滅，後更起因招果不斷。然通因果，即緣即起。五緣是所覺，起是教法，依悟說教故名緣起。此是自釋五相不同，非餘師義。對會疏文，已如向說。然五義並依起即生義，唯《俱舍》意分二不同。又指《唯識》第八彼中廣釋，如上具引。下以諸門分別有十七門，義亦略具。言十七門者，第一假實分別門，謂十二支，九實三假。一已潤六支，合為有故。二生三老死，三相位別故。第二一非一事門，五是一事，謂無明、識、觸、受與愛，餘非一事。上之二門攝在第一有支相續門。第三染與不染門，無明愛取三唯是染，煩惱性故。七苦不染，異熟果故，七分位中容起善染故。《瑜伽》第十假通二業，有通二有兼無記，此即第五三道不斷門。第四獨雜分別門，無明、愛、取說名獨相，不共餘支相交雜故。餘是雜相。第五色非色門，六唯無色，謂無明、識、觸、受、愛、取，餘通二種。第六有漏無漏門，皆是有漏，唯有為攝，無漏無為非有支故。上三亦如初門。第七有為無為門，有漏無漏門中已具在今。第八因緣生滅及第九生滅繫縛門中已具。第八三性門，無明愛取唯通不善有覆無記，行唯善惡，有通善惡無覆無記，六支合為有故。餘七唯是無覆無記，七分位中亦起善染故。《瑜伽》第十說「七通二性」。此一亦如初門。第九三界分別門，雖皆通三界，而有分有全，欲界則全，二界無染。六處不具，無色唯名故。此門略無。第十能治所治門，上地行支能伏下地，即麁等苦六種行相，有求上生而起彼故。此門略無。第十一學等分別門，一切皆唯非學，無學聖者所起有漏善業明為緣故。違有支故，非有支攝。由此應知，聖必不造感後有業，於後苦果不迷求故。恐有問言：若爾，雜修五淨居業應非行支。若是行支，聖便造業。若非行支，如何生彼感總報耶？故論答云「雜修淨慮，資下故業，生淨居等，於理無違。」意云：不還果等，以有漏無漏前後雜修第四淨慮，資無雲等三天，故業生淨居等，於理無違。此總報業及名言種，凡時已造，生第四禪。下三天業，一地繫故，後由無漏資此故業，生淨居天，非是聖者新造業也。此義亦在初門略具，已如上指。第十二二斷分別門。有義：無明唯見所斷，要迷諦理能發行故。聖必不造後有業故，故非修斷。愛取二支唯修所斷，貪求當有而潤生故，九種命終心俱生愛故。餘九皆通見修二斷。有義：一切皆通見修二斷。《大論》第十說「預流果已斷一切一分有支，無全斷者故。若無明支唯見所斷，寧說預流無全斷者。若愛取支唯修所斷，寧說彼已斷一切支一分。」釋曰：皆斷一分者，則明無明支非惟見斷，由有一分無明在故。愛取二支非唯修斷，入見道時斷一分故。此門經疏略無，含在初門逆觀之內。第十三三受門，十樂捨俱，愛不與受共相應故，老死位中多分無樂及容捨故。十一苦俱，唯除於受，非愛俱故。此門含在第七三苦集成門。十四三苦門，全同第七。十五四諦門，即當第五三道不斷門中，故有入諦之觀。十六四緣門，全同第三自業助成門。十七惑苦相攝門，亦如三道不斷門攝。釋曰：上十七門全分同者，已如上指，故散在諸門。從多分指，恐厭繁博，故疏略耳。 > Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The rest are as in the ninth \[fascicle\] of the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\], etc.": second, this cites texts to correlate the interpretations, concluding by showing the fundamental basis. The Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\] in its preceding four fascicles comprehensively clarifies conditioned arising. The explanation of the name falls precisely in the tenth \[fascicle\], where there are five explanations in total. The treatise states: "Question: Why is it called 'conditioned arising' (pratītyasamutpāda)? Answer: Because, being bound by defilements, one arises again and again within the various destinies, it is therefore called conditioned arising. This explains the name based on the words, meaning that based on the distinct two words 'conditioned' (pratītya / pratyaya) and 'arising' (samutpāda), the condition is not the arising." This is precisely the second explanation in the present Commentary. The second \[explanation in the treatise\] states: "Furthermore, relying on multiple conditions, having quickly perished, they arise in continuous combination; therefore it is called conditioned arising. This explains it according to the meaning of momentariness." The third states: "Furthermore, though the multiple conditions have passed away, they are not discarded; relying on their own continuum they obtain arising, and therefore it is called conditioned arising. As it is said: 'Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises'—not otherwise. According to this meaning, the explanation of the name should be known." The fourth states: "Furthermore, perishing again and again, it again arises in continuum; therefore it is called conditioned arising. This is according to the meaning of repeated destruction and repeated arising." Explanation: The above three explanations are all the first meaning in the present Commentary. What precedes serves as the condition to cause what succeeds to arise; because the preceding serves as the condition, it is not discarded—this is the third meaning. If the preceding did not perish, from what would it arise again? This contains the fourth. The preceding and succeeding being distinct, there must be momentariness—this is the second meaning. Thus the three senses are substantially the same with minor differences, and the Commentary combines them into one. The fifth states: "Furthermore, having awakened to conditioned nature in past times, they arise in an equal continuum; therefore it is called conditioned arising. As the World-Honoured One said: 'Having awakened, I am properly arising to proclaim it.' Because this name has been transmitted from one to another, it is called conditioned arising." Explanation: Regarding the five meanings in the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\]: the first is that the condition is not the arising, taking the cause as the condition and the effect as the arising. The second is that the condition is itself the arising, arising from conditions moment by moment. This excludes the Mahāsāṃghika school's \[view\] that the twelve factors of conditioned arising are unconditioned dharmas, and also excludes the Sammatīya school. The third is immediate cause and effect, where the preceding cause acts as the condition and the subsequent condition arises. The fourth is beginningless cause and effect: the preceding has already perished, and subsequently further causes arise to incur effects without interruption. However, pervading cause and effect, the condition is itself the arising. The fifth is that the condition is what is awakened to, and arising is the teaching; proclaiming the teaching based on awakening, it is therefore called conditioned arising. These are its own explanations of the five distinct characteristics, not the positions of other masters. The correlation with the text of the Commentary has already been stated above. Yet all five meanings rely on the sense that arising is coming to be; only the intention of the Abhidharmakośa makes a two-fold distinction. Furthermore, it refers to the eighth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, where it is explained at length, as cited fully above. Below, it distinguishes with various doors; there are seventeen doors, and the meanings are also briefly complete. Regarding the seventeen doors: First is the door of distinguishing the nominal and the real: among the twelve factors, nine are real and three are nominal. First, the six factors that have been moistened are combined to form existence. Second, birth, and third, aging and death, because their characteristics and states are distinct. Second is the door of single versus non-single entities: five are single entities—namely, avidyā, consciousness, contact, feeling, and craving—while the rest are not single entities. The above two doors are subsumed under the first door of the continuum of existence-factors. Third is the door of defiled and undefiled: the three of avidyā, craving, and grasping are exclusively defiled, being of the nature of defilement. The seven of suffering are undefiled, being fruits of retribution (vipāka), because within the stages of the seven, wholesome and defiled \[states\] can also arise. The tenth \[fascicle\] of the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\] states that the nominal pervades the two karmas, and existence pervades both types of existence along with the indeterminate; this is precisely the fifth door of the non-interruption of the three paths. Fourth is the door of distinguishing individual and mixed: avidyā, craving, and grasping are called individual characteristics because they are not mixed with the characteristics of the other factors. The rest are mixed characteristics. Fifth is the door of form and non-form: six are exclusively non-form—namely, avidyā, consciousness, contact, feeling, craving, and grasping; the rest pervade both types. Sixth is the door of contaminated and uncontaminated: all are contaminated and subsumed exclusively under the conditioned, because the uncontaminated and unconditioned are not factors of existence. The above three are also like the first door. Seventh is the door of conditioned and unconditioned: this has already been fully included in the door of contaminated and uncontaminated, and is also fully present in the eighth \[door\] of conditioned arising and perishing and the ninth \[door\] of the fetters of arising and perishing. Eighth is the door of the three natures: avidyā, craving, and grasping only pervade the unwholesome and the obscured-indeterminate; volitional formations are exclusively wholesome and evil; existence pervades the wholesome, evil, and unobscured-indeterminate, because the six factors are combined to form existence. The other seven are exclusively unobscured-indeterminate, because within the stages of the seven, wholesome and defiled \[states\] also arise. The tenth \[fascicle\] of the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\] states: "The seven pervade two natures." This one is also like the first door. Ninth is the door of distinguishing the three realms: although all pervade the three realms, some are partial and some are complete; the desire realm is complete, while the two \[higher\] realms lack defilement. The six sense-bases are incomplete, and the formless realm is purely mental. Therefore this door is omitted. Tenth is the door of the antidote and what is to be countered: the factor of volitional formation of a higher stage can subdue a lower stage, namely the six aspects of grossness, suffering, etc., because there are those who seek higher rebirth and arouse them. Therefore this door is omitted. Eleventh is the door of distinguishing the trainee, etc.: all are exclusively non-trainees, because the contaminated wholesome karma aroused by noble ones who are non-trainees has clear understanding as its condition. Because it opposes the factors of existence, it is not subsumed under the factors of existence. From this one should know that noble ones definitely do not create karma that induces future existence, because they do not deludedly seek after future painful retribution. Fearing that someone might ask: "If so, the karma of the mixed practice of the five pure abodes should not be the factor of volitional formation. If it is the factor of volitional formation, then noble ones would create karma. If it is not the factor of volitional formation, how could they be born there and incur collective retribution?" Hence the treatise answers: "Mixed cultivation of absorption assists old karma of lower \[stages\] to be born in the Pure Abodes and so forth; there is no contradiction in principle." The meaning is: non-returners and so forth, by cultivating the fourth dhyāna in a mixture of contaminated and uncontaminated before and after, assist the old karma of the three heavens such as the Cloudless Heaven to be born in the Pure Abodes, etc., which does not contradict principle. This collective-retribution karma and the verbal-convention seeds were already created when they were ordinary beings, producing the karma of the three lower heavens of the fourth dhyāna; being bound to one stage, subsequently through uncontaminated \[states\] they assist this old karma to be born in the Pure Abode heavens, and it is not that the noble ones newly create karma. This meaning is also briefly present in the first door, as already indicated above. Twelfth is the door of distinguishing the two abandonments. One opinion holds: avidyā is abandoned exclusively by seeing, because it must delude one regarding the truths and principles to be able to initiate volitional formations. Since noble ones definitely do not create karma of future existence, it is not abandoned by cultivation. The two factors of craving and grasping are abandoned exclusively by cultivation, because they moisten rebirth through longing for future existence, and craving co-arises with the nine types of death-approaching mind. The other nine all pervade both abandonment by seeing and by cultivation. Another opinion holds: all pervade both abandonment by seeing and by cultivation. The tenth \[fascicle\] of the Great Treatise states: "Stream-enterers have already abandoned a fraction of all factors of existence; there is none who has completely abandoned them. If the factor of avidyā were abandoned exclusively by seeing, how could it be said that stream-enterers have none completely abandoned? If the factors of craving and grasping were abandoned exclusively by cultivation, how could it be said that they have already abandoned a fraction of all factors?" Explanation: That all are abandoned in part clarifies that the factor of avidyā is not abandoned exclusively by seeing, because a fraction of avidyā remains. The two factors of craving and grasping are not abandoned exclusively by cultivation, because when entering the path of seeing, a fraction is abandoned. This door is omitted in the sūtra commentary, being contained within the reverse contemplation of the first door. Thirteenth is the door of the three feelings: ten are associated with pleasure and equanimity, because craving does not associate with feeling, and in the state of aging and death there is mostly no pleasure and it permits equanimity. Eleven are associated with pain, excluding only feeling, because it does not associate with craving. This door is contained within the seventh door of the aggregation of the three sufferings. Fourteenth is the door of the three sufferings: completely identical with the seventh. Fifteenth is the door of the four truths: this precisely corresponds to the fifth door of the non-interruption of the three paths, and hence there is the contemplation of entering the truths. Sixteenth is the door of the four conditions: completely identical with the third door of one's own karma assisting and completing. Seventeenth is the door of the mutual subsumption of affliction and suffering: this is also subsumed like the door of the non-interruption of the three paths. Explanation: The parts of the above seventeen doors that are entirely identical have already been indicated above, and thus are scattered among the various doors. Referring to them mostly in general, out of fear that \[readers\] would find it tedious, the Commentary therefore omitted them. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 67.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.54) - [Next: 67.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.56) - [Up: 67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.67.55) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.6.528) — Classical Chinese - [瑜伽師地論略纂](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.4.145) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.55) · Pramāṇa