大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.34

74.34

疏「若依攝論」下，第三引《攝論》。分二：先引論、後經論對辨。今初。不欲繁文，疏中義引；恐欲委究，故鈔具明。論云「復次何緣如經所說：於依他起自性說幻等喻（此總問也）？於依他起自性，為除他虛妄疑故（此總答也）。」世親釋虛妄疑云「謂於虛妄依他起性所有諸疑。」論云「他復云何於依他起自性有虛妄疑（牒徵也）？由他於此起如是疑（總牒標也，下別釋）。」一論云「云何實無有義，而有所行境界？為除此疑，說幻事喻。」解曰：此中疑意從前論生，以前論云依他起相是虛妄分別唯識為性，是無所有非真實義。從此生疑，故云若無實義，何有境界。下文諸疑皆從此生，故每疑前皆有云何無義，喻釋之中皆云為除此疑說如焰喻等。無性釋幻喻意云「如無實象而有幻象，為所緣境界。依他起性亦復如是，雖無色等所緣六處，周遍計度時似有所緣六處顯現。」解曰：無實似有，何要實耶？下文諸喻，酬意皆爾。二論云「云何無義，心心法轉？為除此疑，說陽焰喻。」釋曰：又如陽焰，於飄動時實無有水，而有水覺。外器世間亦復如是。三論云「云何無義，有愛非愛受用差別？為除此疑，說所夢喻。」釋曰：又如夢中睡眠所起心心所法聚，極成昧略，雖無女等種種境界，有愛非愛境界受用。覺時亦爾。四論云「云何無義，淨不淨業愛非愛果差別而生？為除此疑，說影像喻。」釋曰：又如影像於鏡等中，還見本質而為我，今乃見影像，而此影像實無所有，非等引地善惡思業。本質為緣，影像果生，亦復如是。五論云「云何無義，種種識轉？為除此疑，說光影喻。」釋曰：又如光影，由弄影者映蔽其光起種種影，非等引中種種諸識，於無實義差別而轉。六論云「云何無義，種種戲論言說而轉？為除此疑，說谷響喻。」釋曰：又如谷響實無有聲，而令聽者似聞多種言說境界。種種言說，語業亦爾。七論云「云何無義，而有實取諸三摩地所行境轉？為除此疑，說水月喻。」釋曰：又如水月，由水潤滑澄清性故，雖無有月而月可取。緣實義境之所熏修，潤滑為性。諸三摩地相應之意，亦復如是，雖無所緣實義境界，而似有轉。此與影像有何差別？定不定地而有差別。有說：面等眾緣和合，水鏡等中面等影生，分明可取。如眾緣力，頗胝迦等種種色生。為不爾耶？所取差別，如離水鏡，月面等影分明可得。頗胝迦等所現眾色則不如是，故非同喻。又非我等許有水等種種實義，有法不成，故非比量。八論云「云何無義，有諸菩薩無顛倒心，為辦有情諸利樂事，故思受生？為除此疑，說變化喻。」釋曰：又如變化，依此變化說名變化雖無有實，而能化者無有顛倒，於所化事勤作功用。菩薩亦爾，雖無遍計所執有情，於依他起諸有情類，由哀愍故而往彼彼諸所生處，攝受自體。論下總結云「應知此中唯有爾所虛妄疑事，所謂內一外二、受用差別；三身業、四語業、五三種意業，非等引地；六若等引地、七若無顛倒、八於此八事，諸佛世尊說八種喻，諸有智者聞是所說，於定不定二地義中能正解了。」解曰：上依彼論次第具引，其「釋曰」下皆無性釋，其「解曰」下即鈔家意。然其論釋疑，但由疑異故舉八喻，不必相躡，故論皆牒最初若無有義；疏直依經文之次第以引論文。若《刊定記》一一相躡。既經論中次第不同，如何經中復成相躡？

On the passage in the Commentary beginning with "If one relies on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha": third, citing the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. This has two parts: first, citing the treatise; second, comparing and discerning between the sūtra and the treatise. Now for the first. Not wishing to clutter the text, the Commentary cites by meaning; fearing [some] may wish to investigate thoroughly, the Subcommentary sets it out in full. The treatise states: "Furthermore, for what reason, as stated in the sūtra, are similes such as an illusion spoken of with respect to the other-dependent nature (paratantrasvabhāva)? (This is the general question.) With respect to the other-dependent nature, it is in order to dispel others' delusive doubts (this is the general answer)." Vasubandhu explains 'delusive doubts': "It refers to all doubts concerning the delusive other-dependent nature." The treatise states: "How do others further have delusive doubts regarding the other-dependent nature? (Restating the query.) Because others raise such doubts regarding this: (This is the general statement of the premise; below it is explained individually)." (1) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is truly no referent (artha), there is an objective sphere that is engaged with? To dispel this doubt, the simile of an illusion is spoken." The Subcommentary explains: The doubt here arises from the preceding [passage of the] treatise, since the preceding treatise stated that the characteristic of the other-dependent is delusive conceptualization (vikalpa), taking consciousness-only as its nature; it has no real existence and is not true referent. From this, doubt arises, and thus it says: 'If there is no true referent, how can there be an objective sphere?' The doubts below all arise from this, and thus before every doubt it asks, 'How is there no referent?'; and within the explanations of the similes, all say, 'To dispel this doubt, it speaks of the simile of a mirage, and so forth.' Asabhāva explains the intent of the illusion simile: "Just as there is no real elephant, yet there is an illusory elephant serving as an objective support (ālambana). The other-dependent nature is also like this: although there are no six sensory bases of objective support such as form, when one conceptualizes ubiquitously, it seems as though six sensory bases of objective support manifest." The Subcommentary explains: There is no reality, yet it appears to exist; why must there be a reality? The explanations of the similes below all respond with this intent. (2) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, mind and mental factors operate? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a mirage is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a mirage, when it flickers, there is truly no water, yet there is the perception of water. The external vessel world is also like this." (3) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, there are differentiated experiences of pleasant and unpleasant? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a dream is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as in a dream the collection of mind and mental factors arising from sleep is extremely dim and coarse; although there are no various external objects such as women, there are experiences of pleasant and unpleasant objects. The waking state is also like this." (4) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, differentiated pleasant and unpleasant fruits of pure and impure karma arise? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a reflected image is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a reflected image in a mirror or the like, seeing the original face again, [one takes it] to be oneself; now seeing the reflected image, this reflected image is truly non-existent; [this is like] volitional karma of good and evil belonging to the uncollected plane (asamāhitabhūmi). Taking the original archetype as the condition, the reflected image as fruit arises, and it is also like this." (5) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, various consciousnesses operate? To dispel this doubt, the simile of a light-shadow is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a light-shadow, when a puppeteer obscures the light, various shadows are produced; so various consciousnesses in the uncollected plane operate differentially with respect to what has no real referent." (6) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, various discursive proliferations (prapañca) and spoken words operate? To dispel this doubt, the simile of an echo is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with a valley echo there is truly no sound, yet it makes listeners seem to hear manifold objects of speech; so too are various spoken words and verbal karma." (7) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, there is an operation involving the true apprehension of objects engaged by various samādhis? To dispel this doubt, the simile of the moon in the water is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with the moon in the water, because water has the nature of smoothness and clarity, although there is no moon, a moon can be apprehended. One is perfumed by contemplating the object of true referent, having smoothness as its nature. The mind associated with various samādhis is also like this: although there is no objective sphere of a true referent as objective support, it seems to operate. What is the difference between this and the reflected image? They differ by being in the collected (samāhita) and uncollected (asamāhita) planes. Some say: When various conditions such as a face come together, a reflected image of the face arises in water or a mirror and can be clearly apprehended. Just as by the power of multiple conditions, various colors arise in crystal (sphaṭika) and the like. Is it not so? The difference in what is apprehended is that, apart from water or a mirror, a reflected image of the moon or face can be clearly obtained. The various colors appearing in crystal and the like are not like this, and therefore it is not a parallel simile. Moreover, we do not accept that there are various true referents such as water; since the subject of the proposition (dharmin) is unestablished, it is not a valid inference (anumāna)." (8) The treatise states: "How is it that when there is no referent, there are bodhisattvas who, with undeluded minds, intentionally take birth to accomplish all matters of benefit and joy for sentient beings? To dispel this doubt, the simile of an apparition is spoken." The commentary says: "Furthermore, just as with an apparition, it is called an apparition based on transformation; although it has no reality, the magician is undeluded and exerts effort in the things transformed. The bodhisattva is also like this: although there are no sentient beings by imagined nature (parikalpitasvabhāva), out of compassion for sentient beings of other-dependent nature, they proceed to various places of birth to assume an embodiment." Below, the treatise concludes: "It should be known that here there are only so many instances of delusive doubt: namely, (1) inner and (2) outer, (3) differentiated experiences, (4) bodily karma, (5) verbal karma, and (6) three kinds of mental karma of the uncollected plane, (7) of the collected plane, and (8) being undeluded. Regarding these eight things, the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, have spoken eight kinds of similes. When the wise hear what is said, they can correctly understand the meanings in the two planes, collected and uncollected." The Subcommentary explains: Above, it is cited in full according to the order of that treatise. What follows "The commentary says" is all Asabhāva's commentary; what follows "The Subcommentary explains" is the author's own understanding. However, in the treatise's explanation of the doubts, it merely brings up the eight similes because the doubts differ, without necessarily linking sequentially one after the other; thus the treatise always restates the initial phrase, 'If there is no referent'. The Commentary simply cites the text of the treatise according to the sequence of the sūtra text. In the Kanding ji, they link sequentially one by one. Since the sequence differs between the sūtra and treatise, how could they form a sequential link in the sūtra as well?