大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 89.51

89.51

第九德生有德。「三就五類法中」等者，疏文有三：一釋一切法即有為。「一切以無為」下，出揀無為所以。同《掌珍論》真性有為空故。從「異熟識等」，出餘四類之果。異熟是心，等餘七識及心所色法并不相應。二「從無始」下，釋我見等能成之因。然我見有二：一與七識相應，即執第八以為內我，故謂我所與四惑相應。今言我見等者，等取愛慢。二者與六識相應我執，兼外取妄境以為我所，及起餘惑，故云種種。三「故感」已下辨因。感果可知。疏「四五二句別明不相應」者，然不相應有二十四，今二門中略遣其四，等於所餘。四中，言「即是時」者，釋經三世，三世是二十四中之一時故。從「謂依行」下，出三世如幻之由。行即五蘊，剎那生滅、前後相續，已謝為過去、未起為未來、生已未謝名為現在，離行之外何有分位而有三世耶？況所依行空，能依何有？疏「五即無常生老等」者，即二十四中之三，一無常、二生、三老等。即等上經言生滅及死，皆無常攝。生老二字即是二法，但略無住。又諸聖教多合生滅名為無常。所以然者，生名為有，有非恒有，不如無為。滅名為無，無非恒無，不如兔角。由不同彼無為兔角二常之相，故名無常。疏「謂依生已壞滅」下，顯如幻所由。故《唯識》第二云「然有為法，因緣力故，本無今有、暫有還無，表異無為，假立四相。本無今有，有位名生。生位暫停，即說為住。住別前後，復立異名。暫有還無，無時稱滅。」斯即依生已壞滅分位建立也。言「皆妄分別」者，正顯幻因。然其憂悲苦惱即生老中事，體非不相應行。又上四五，亦是前十二因中別義，四明三世生老死耳。疏「既有妄想故心見皆倒」者、即出三倒也。一想倒、二心倒、三見倒。然〈十行品〉已廣分別。彼有多義，今是一義，以心見非倒見，由想亂故，令餘二皆倒耳。疏「幻法非有」等者，此中且約有無一異，兼下中道以為三觀。亦應有離四句。又以合性相非一非俱非句，非異之義當非俱句。既離二邊已是中道，亦亡中道絕待中也。上即事理無礙。「由斯交徹」下，即事事無礙。餘義如前。

The ninth, Guṇasambhava and Guṇasambhūtā. Regarding "Third, with respect to the five categories of dharmas," etc.: the text of the commentary has three parts. First, it explains that all dharmas are conditioned. From "All take unconditioned" downward, it shows the reason for setting aside the unconditioned, because, as in the Karatalaratna, the true nature of the conditioned is empty. From "vipāka consciousness, etc.," it sets forth the results of the other four categories. Vipāka is mind; 'etc.' includes the remaining seven consciousnesses, mental factors, physical matter, and non-concurrent [formations]. Second, from "from beginningless" downward, it explains the causes capable of accomplishing self-view, etc. Now, self-view has two kinds: first, it is associated with the seventh consciousness, grasping the eighth consciousness as the internal self, and hence calls what pertains to the self as associated with the four afflictions. Now, in saying "self-view, etc.," 'etc.' takes in attachment and conceit. Second, the self-grasping associated with the six consciousnesses, together with grasping external deluded objects as pertaining to the self and giving rise to the remaining afflictions; hence it says "various." Third, from "therefore inducing" downward, it distinguishes the cause; inducing the result is understandable. In the commentary, "the fourth and fifth phrases separately clarify non-concurrent [formations]": now, there are twenty-four non-concurrent [formations]; here in the two gates, four of them are briefly removed to represent the remainder. In the fourth, the statement "that is time" explains the three times in the sūtra, because the three times are one, 'time', among the twenty-four. From "meaning based on formations" downward, it shows the reason why the three times are like an illusion. Formations are the five aggregates: arising and ceasing from kṣaṇa to kṣaṇa, continuing before and after; what has already passed away is the past, what has not yet arisen is the future, and what has arisen and not yet passed away is named the present. Apart from formations, how could there be designations of position such that there are the three times? How much less, when the formations that are relied upon are empty, could that which relies upon them exist? In the commentary, "the fifth is impermanence, birth, aging, etc.": these are three among the twenty-four: first, impermanence; second, birth; third, aging, etc. 'Etc.' includes the sūtra's earlier statements of arising, ceasing, and dying, which are all subsumed under impermanence. The two words 'birth' and 'aging' are two dharmas, but 'abiding' is briefly omitted. Furthermore, the holy teachings often combine arising and ceasing under the name 'impermanence'. Why is this? Arising is named existence, but this existence is not permanent existence, unlike the unconditioned. Ceasing is named non-existence, but this non-existence is not permanent non-existence, unlike a hare's horn. Because it is not like the two permanent marks of the unconditioned and the hare's horn, it is named impermanent. In the commentary, from "meaning based on what has arisen and decomposed" downward, it shows why it is like an illusion. Thus the second fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Conditioned dharmas, by the power of causes and conditions, were originally non-existent and now exist, and temporarily exist and return to non-existence; to express their difference from the unconditioned, four marks are provisionally established. Originally non-existent and now existing: the state of existence is named birth. Temporarily pausing in the state of birth is explained as abiding. Distinguishing before and after in abiding, different names are further established. Temporarily existing and returning to non-existence: the time of non-existence is called cessation." This is establishing them based on the positional states of what has arisen and decomposed. The statement "all are deluded discriminations" directly reveals the cause of illusion. However, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, and distress are matters within birth and aging; their essence is not non-concurrent formations. Furthermore, the fourth and fifth above are also distinct meanings within the previous twelve causes [of dependent origination]: the fourth clarifies the three times, and the fifth birth, aging, and death. In the commentary, "since there is deluded conceptualization, mind and views are both inverted": this points out the three inversions: first, inversion of perception; second, inversion of mind; third, inversion of views. Now, the Chapter on the Ten Practices has already distinguished them extensively. There are many interpretations there; here is one interpretation: because mind and views are not inherently inverted views, it is due to perception being confused that the other two are both inverted. In the commentary, "illusory dharmas are not existent," etc.: here, provisionally based on existence and non-existence, oneness and difference, together with the Middle Way below, these constitute the three contemplations. There should also be freedom from the four propositions. Furthermore, through combining nature and characteristics as neither one nor both nor a proposition, the meaning of 'not different' corresponds to the proposition of 'neither both'. Once one is free from the two extremes, this is already the Middle Way, and it also abolishes the Middle Way of absolute transcendence. The above is the non-obstruction of phenomenon and principle. From "Due to this mutually penetrating" downward is the non-obstruction of phenomenon and phenomenon. The remaining meanings are as before.