大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.37

74.37

疏「金剛般若」下，第五敘《般若論》。言「九喻」者，羅什譯經但有六喻，九依魏經。偈云「一切有為法，如星翳燈幻，露泡夢電雲。」無著論當第十八，上求佛地住處，明流轉不染。天親當二十七，說法入寂疑，謂佛既涅槃，何能說法？故舉此偈。為了有為如幻等，即無有為。是為大智故不住生死，然非無幻等。故不離有為，即是大悲不住涅槃。以是無住涅槃故，能入寂而說法也。無著頌云「見相及於識，器身受用事，過去現在法，亦觀未來世。」論自解云「此偈顯示四有為相：一自性相：即初句攝三喻。二著所住味相：即如幻喻。三隨順過失相：即露泡二喻。四隨順出離相：即夢電雲三喻。」釋初相云「於中自性相者，共相見識，此相如星，應如是見。無智暗中有彼光故，有智明中無彼光故。」解曰：古有二釋。一者古來諸德，皆以共相見識解自性相，含於三喻，此三皆是生死自體性故。從此相如星下，別解星喻。而云此相者，但此上相字，非此一句，以見屬翳喻、識屬燈喻故。此解甚分明，但不順天親。天親云「能見法亦復如是」耳。以天親云「譬如星宿，為日所映，有而不現。能見心法亦復如是」故。又見相二字，於偈不次。若迴偈云「相見及於識」，理則無違。而天親又以星配於見、翳配相故。二者大雲別為一解云：此相如星者，全指上文共相見識，以為此相。謂第六識起分別見，緣共相境，故喻如星夜有光明。五識各緣，故非共相。第七意識恒行染污，配屬翳喻。若八識所緣行相，俱不可知，以微細故。又無計度，強分別故，不合星喻，星喻要須有智明故，見即分別耳。此釋亦是一理則成。論家不釋自性相義，牒之何為？又令共相見識之中燈喻不明，故不及前解。今為一解，並異兩家。謂此相之言，全指前共相見識，則如大雲。而不將此句獨解如星，謂如星下別解三喻，應云此相如星、如翳、如燈。以星喻在初，故先牒解耳。又不依古星喻相分，今以星喻喻於見分，星有照了之能，同見分故，亦順天親能見心法亦復如是。翳喻相分猶有妄見，謂有空花之外相故。燈喻自證分，此不異論。若為此解，亦順偈中見相及於識，義次第故，亦得論家共相見識解自性義。又通八識三分，共是識故而為自相，不獨第六而為共等。論別解星喻，言無智暗中有光等者，若無般若喻之如暗，便有見分名有彼光。若有智日識見便空，云有智明中無彼光矣。論次解翳喻云「人法我見如翳，應如是見。何以故？以取無義故。」解曰：眼若有翳，妄取空花。心有妄見，妄取我法。無處妄取，名取無義。論次解燈喻云「識如燈，應如是見。何以故？渴愛潤取，緣故熾然。」解曰：愛潤於取而成識緣，故令識炎熾然增盛。則愛如油，取如炷，識猶燈焰。燈體即是第八，炎盛即是七轉。二解著所住味相。論云「於中著所住味相者，味著顛倒境界故。彼如幻，應如是見。」解曰：即偈器字。六境為所住愛心味著，無實為實，為顛倒境，如幻六境令人謂真。三解隨順過失相。論云「於中隨順過失相者，無常等隨順故。彼露譬喻者，顯示相體無有，以隨順無常故。」解曰：即偈中身字。是身無常，不久散滅，如朝露故。論云「彼泡譬喻者，顯示隨順苦體，以受如泡故。」解曰：即偈受用事也。受如泡者，不久立故。三受即為三苦，無樂可著，名隨順苦。四解隨順出離相，論云「隨順出離相者，隨順人法無我，以於攀緣得出離，故說無我，謂出離也。」解曰：出離攀緣也。云何隨順？論云「隨順者，謂過去等行，以夢等譬喻顯示。」解曰：但以夢等觀於三世，則隨順出離矣。夢者，論云「彼過去行所念處故。如夢寤，念夢時都無所有。夢望覺時即是過去。」論曰「現在者，不久時，故如電，可知。」論云「未來者，彼麁惡種子似虛空，引出心，故如雲。」解曰：依空出雲，如種生現。有漏為麁惡。論結云「如是知三世行轉生已，則通達無我，此顯示隨順出離相故。」上依論經，故有九喻。若依秦經，但有六喻。加一影喻，云「一切有為法，如夢幻泡影，如露亦如電，應作如是觀。」次第亦不同。論而將影喻添前，則成十喻。古人亦將影喻攝星翳燈雲，則六喻攝九。

Regarding the commentary's "In the *Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā*..." onwards, this is the fifth part, recounting the *Prajñāpāramitā-śāstra*. Concerning the phrase "nine similes": Kumārajīva's translation of the sūtra has only six similes, while the nine are based on the Wei translation. The verse states: "All conditioned phenomena are like stars, cataracts, lamps, illusions, / Dewdrops, bubbles, dreams, lightning, and clouds." Asaṅga's commentary corresponds to section eighteen, [in which,] aspiring upward to the abiding place of the Buddha-stage, he explains that one cycles through saṃsāra without defilement. Vasubandhu's corresponds to section twenty-seven, concerning doubts about teaching the Dharma while having entered quiescence: it addresses the worry, "Once the Buddha has entered nirvāṇa, how can he teach the Dharma?" Thus this verse is cited. Because one fully understands that conditioned phenomena are like illusions and the rest, conditioned phenomena are non-existent. This constitutes great wisdom, so one does not abide in saṃsāra; yet illusory phenomena and the like are not non-existent. Hence, not departing from the conditioned, this is great compassion, so one does not abide in nirvāṇa. Because of this non-abiding nirvāṇa, he can enter quiescence and yet teach the Dharma. Asaṅga's verse says: "Seeing, characteristics, and consciousness; / Receptacle, body, and objects of enjoyment; / Past and present phenomena, / And one also contemplates the future world." The commentary itself explains: "This verse demonstrates four characteristics of the conditioned: 1. The characteristic of intrinsic nature: that is, the first line encompasses three similes. 2. The characteristic of relishing what one abides in: that is, the simile of illusion. 3. The characteristic of conforming with faults: that is, the two similes of dew and bubbles. 4. The characteristic of conforming with transcendence: that is, the three similes of dreams, lightning, and clouds." Explaining the first characteristic, it says: "Among them, regarding the characteristic of intrinsic nature: the general characteristic, seeing, and consciousness—this characteristic is like a star, and should be viewed thus. Because in the darkness of lacking wisdom there is that light, while in the brightness of possessing wisdom there is no such light." Explanation: In the past there were two interpretations. First, various past masters all explained the intrinsic nature as the general characteristic, seeing, and consciousness, encompassing three similes, because these three are the very intrinsic nature of birth-and-death. From "this characteristic is like a star" onwards, it separately explains the star simile. When it says "this characteristic," it refers only to the preceding character "characteristic" and not to this whole phrase, because seeing belongs to the cataract simile and consciousness belongs to the lamp simile. This explanation is very clear, but it does not accord with Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu simply says: "Mental phenomena capable of seeing are also like this." For Vasubandhu says: "Just as the constellations of stars, outshone by the sun, exist yet do not appear, mental phenomena capable of seeing are also like this." Furthermore, the two characters "seeing" and "characteristic" are not in order in the verse. If one reordered the verse to say "Characteristics, seeing, and consciousness," then logically there would be no contradiction. Moreover, Vasubandhu matches the star to seeing and the cataract to characteristics. Second, Dayun provided a different explanation, saying: "This characteristic is like a star" refers entirely to the preceding phrase "the general characteristic, seeing, and consciousness" as "this characteristic." That is to say, the sixth consciousness gives rise to discriminative views and takes general characteristics as its object, so it is compared to the stars having light at night. The five consciousnesses each take their own objects, so they are not general characteristics. The seventh manovijñāna constantly operates in defilement and corresponds to the cataract simile. As for the cognitive objects and modes of activity of the eighth consciousness, both cannot be known because they are subtle. Furthermore, it lacks deliberation and forcible discrimination, so it does not match the star simile; the star simile requires possessing the light of wisdom, and seeing is just discrimination. This explanation also holds together as one line of reasoning. [Yet] if the author of the commentary did not explain the meaning of the characteristic of intrinsic nature, why did he cite it? Moreover, it leaves the lamp simile within "the general characteristic, seeing, and consciousness" unclear, and so it is inferior to the former explanation. Now I provide an explanation that differs from both schools: to say that the words "this characteristic" refer entirely to the preceding "the general characteristic, seeing, and consciousness" is like Dayun's view. But one should not take this phrase to explain "like a star" exclusively; rather, from "like a star" onwards, it separately explains the three similes, and it should read: this characteristic is like a star, like a cataract, and like a lamp. Because the star simile comes first, it is cited and explained first. Furthermore, not following the ancient [view that] the star similes the objective part, I now use the star to simile the seeing part, for the star has the capacity of illuminating and understanding, which is identical to the seeing part; this also accords with Vasubandhu's "mental phenomena capable of seeing are also like this." The cataract similes the objective part, which still entails delusive seeing, meaning taking the external appearance of sky-flowers to exist. The lamp similes the self-authenticating part; this does not differ from the commentary. If explained in this way, it also accords with the sequential meaning of "seeing, characteristics, and consciousness" in the verse, and it preserves the commentator's meaning of explaining intrinsic nature through the general characteristic, seeing, and consciousness. Furthermore, it applies generally to the three parts of the eight consciousnesses, which collectively are consciousness and thus constitute its self-characteristic, rather than taking the sixth consciousness alone as the general [characteristic], and so forth. Where the commentary separately explains the star simile, saying "because in the darkness of lacking wisdom there is that light," and so forth: if there is no prajñā, it is compared to darkness, and then there is the seeing part, called "there is that light." If the sun of wisdom is present, the seeing of consciousness becomes empty, which is described as "in the brightness of possessing wisdom there is no such light." The commentary next explains the cataract simile, saying: "The view of self in persons and phenomena is like a cataract; it should be seen thus. Why? Because it grasps what is meaningless." Explanation: If the eye has a cataract, it falsely grasps sky-flowers. If the mind has false views, it falsely grasps self and phenomena. Falsely grasping where there is nothing is called "grasping what is meaningless." The commentary next explains the lamp simile, saying: "Consciousness is like a lamp; it should be seen thus. Why? Because moisted by craving, grasping conditions it so that it blazes up." Explanation: Craving moistens grasping to become the condition for consciousness, thereby causing the flame of consciousness to blaze up and increase. Thus craving is like the oil, grasping is like the wick, and consciousness is like the flame of the lamp. The essence of the lamp is the eighth [consciousness], and the blazing flame is the seven evolving [consciousnesses]. Second, explaining the characteristic of relishing what one abides in: The commentary says: "Among them, as for the characteristic of relishing what one abides in: because of relishing inverted objects. They are like illusions, and should be seen thus." Explanation: This corresponds to the word "receptacle" in the verse. The six sense-objects are what one abides in, and the loving mind relishes them, taking what is unreal as real, which constitutes an inverted object; like illusions, the six sense-objects lead people to think they are real. Third, explaining the characteristic of conforming with faults: The commentary says: "Among them, as for the characteristic of conforming with faults: because of conforming with impermanence and the like. The simile of dew demonstrates that the essence of characteristics does not exist, because it conforms with impermanence." Explanation: This corresponds to the word "body" in the verse. This body is impermanent and will soon disperse and perish, like morning dew. The commentary says: "The simile of bubbles demonstrates the nature of conforming with suffering, because feeling is like a bubble." Explanation: This corresponds to "objects of enjoyment" in the verse. Feeling is like a bubble because it does not stand for long. The three feelings are just the three sufferings; having no pleasure to be attached to is called "conforming with suffering." Fourth, explaining the characteristic of conforming with transcendence: The commentary says: "The characteristic of conforming with transcendence: conforming with the selflessness of persons and phenomena; because one attains transcendence with respect to grasping objects, it is called selflessness, which refers to transcendence." Explanation: It is transcending grasping objects. How does one conform? The commentary says: "Conforming means the formations of the past and so forth are demonstrated through similes such as dreams." Explanation: Merely by contemplating the three times through dreams and the like, one conforms with transcendence. Regarding dreams, the commentary says: "Because they are the locus of recollection for past formations. Just as when one awakens from a dream and recollects the dream, nothing at all exists. Looking from awakening, the dream is just the past." The commentary says: "Present [formations] do not last long, so they are like lightning, as can be known." The commentary says: "Future [formations]: those coarse and evil seeds resemble empty space, drawing forth the mind, so they are like clouds." Explanation: Clouds emerging dependent on space is like seeds producing manifestations. The defiled is coarse and evil. The commentary concludes: "Having known that the formations of the three times arise in transformation in this way, one thoroughly penetrates selflessness; this demonstrates the characteristic of conforming with transcendence." The above is based on the sūtra text of the commentary, hence there are nine similes. If one follows the Qin translation of the sūtra, there are only six similes. Adding the simile of a shadow, it says: "All conditioned phenomena / Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, and shadows, / Like dew and like lightning; / One should contemplate them thus." The sequence is also different. If in the commentary one adds the shadow simile to the former ones, it makes ten similes. The ancients also used the shadow simile to subsume stars, cataracts, lamps, and clouds; thus the six similes subsumed the nine.