大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 41.2

41.2

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Explaining these four divisions is fully as in the thirteenth fascicle of the Samuccaya," that treatise establishes persons (pudgala) in brief as being of seven kinds: namely, by distinction of afflictive behavior, by distinction of renunciation, by distinction of sustaining, by distinction of upāya, by distinction of result, by distinction of realm, and by distinction of cultivation. Now, under the distinction of afflictive behavior, there are seven kinds of its own: 1. lustful behavior, 2. wrathful behavior, 3. deluded behavior, 4. conceited behavior, 5. discursive behavior, 6. balanced behavior, and 7. behavior of slight defilement. The person of lustful behavior refers to one who has fierce and protracted desire (this is the designation); even toward inferior pleasant objects, he can arouse upper-grade desire (this explains 'fierce'), and once aroused it lasts long without interruption (this explains 'protracted'). As with the one of lustful behavior, so too up to the one of discursive behavior; each is fierce and protracted toward their own objects, properly correlated and explained. A person of balanced behavior refers to one whose defilements abide in their natural state, free from fierceness and weakness, because their defilements abide in neutral objects and because their defilements manifest according to the power of the object. Explanation: 'Fierce' excludes the first five; 'weak' excludes the seventh; 'abiding in neutral objects' explains and accomplishes 'natural state.' 'Manifesting according to the power of the object' explains the defilements of the natural state: namely, toward a superior object, the lustful mind increases; toward an inferior object, the lustful mind diminishes. It is not like the first five, which arouse upper-grade lust even toward inferior objects; it is also like Yan Hui whose anger did not exceed measure. Alternatively, being equal to the object is called 'balanced.' Furthermore, in what is aroused there is no partial excess or deficiency; hence it is called 'balanced.' The treatise says: "A person of the behavior of slight defilement refers to one whose subtle defilements abide in their natural state. As with the characteristics of the defilements in their natural state spoken of before, these defilements are now slight and subtle compared to those. Even toward predominant cognitive objects, subtle defilements manifest, because they are suppressed by the power of superior antidotes previously cultivated." Explanation: This is not like the previous balanced behavior which equals the preceding object—where if the object is superior, lust is heavy, etc.; here, even if it is superior, it remains weak, hence differing from the former; thus, even toward the murderer of one's parents, one does not inflict retribution. Furthermore, although there are seven above, sūtras mostly speak of four, because the three poisons are taken as roots of unwholesomeness. Since the balanced behavior subsumes the other three, the commentary speaks of 'balanced.' Dividing them into light and heavy: the light is precisely slight defilement; the heavy is precisely this [balanced behavior]. Since balanced behavior equals the object, it is considered heavy in comparison to slight defilement. Moreover, 'balanced' means all are similar, without superiority or inferiority; the first three have the sense of mutually increasing. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Fifth, seeking the pleasures of humans and devas is delighting in saṃsāra": fearing someone might object, "Who would delight in death?", it now answers: what is called delighting in birth, because where there is birth there must be death, means that the pleasures of humans and devas are affairs within saṃsāra. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Causing those who delight in phenomenal quiescence to accomplish noumenal quiescence": this is the intention of benefiting persons, and is also an antidote. Regarding the commentary's statement, "That is, relying on the Dharma and not relying on the person": this directly pairs with the first text's connecting meaning, which is relying on the meaning and not relying on the letter; because the commentary finds the letter and meaning obvious, it does not explain it further. In the second phrase there are two pairs: namely, relying on the Dharma and not relying on the person, and relying on wisdom and not relying on consciousness, fully possessing the four reliances of the Dharma. That is, in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, 'Chapter on the Offering of the Dharma', the order is given as meaning and words, wisdom and consciousness, definitive meaning and non-definitive meaning, and person and Dharma. The meaning of the four reliances is analyzed in three gates: 1. explaining the names, 2. identifying their essence, 3. their order. First, explaining the names: the meaning is what is expressed; relying upon it, one arouses practice, and therefore one should rely on it. Although teaching expresses the principle, one must forget words, for words are not the meaning; therefore one should not rely [on them]. Wisdom is non-conceptual and capable of decisive determination; therefore one should rely on it. Consciousness is discriminative and capable of generating defiled attachment; therefore one should not rely on it. "Relying on sūtras of definitive meaning and not relying on those of non-definitive meaning": revealing the real clearly and distinctly is called definitive meaning; relying upon it, one arouses understanding, and therefore one should rely on it. Veiled and having a remainder is called non-definitive meaning; causing people to grasp and adhere, one therefore should not rely on it. Basing practice upon the Dharma, one therefore must rely on it; not following human sentiments, one therefore does not rely on the person. However, sūtras of definitive meaning and the like have many gates: 1. The gate of Dharma seal versus non-seal: that which accords with the three seals of impermanence, quiescence, and non-self is taken as definitive meaning; that which does not accord is non-definitive meaning. 2. The gate of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna: the three seals of the Hīnayāna are also non-definitive meaning; only the Mahāyāna is definitive, as explained in the Seven Kinds of Good Knowledge. Furthermore, the sixth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "If one says the Tathāgata is impermanent and mutable, this is called non-definitive; if one says the Tathāgata is eternally abiding and unchanging, this is called definitive." 3. The gate of explicit versus esoteric: expounding with an underlying intention is called non-definitive; expounding explicitly is called definitive. 4. Furthermore, in the Mahāyāna, words that are not yet complete are called non-definitive; those that are complete are definitive. Among these four gates above, the first causes beings to abandon the heterodox and return to the correct; the second abandons the small and returns to the great; the third abandons the esoteric and approaches the explicit; the fourth causes one to investigate what is expressed so that the meaning is made complete. Second, identifying their essence: the first [reliance] is what is expressed, pervading both phenomena and principle; the second is that which realizes, pervading fundamental and subsequent [wisdom]; the third concerns that which expresses, pervading the expression of both above; the fourth concerns the speaker, setting aside personal sentiment to grasp the Dharma. Third, their order: namely, taking the above meanings as the sequence. The rest can be deduced. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Seventh, severing attachment to the true Dharma": when the real contemplative wisdom sees that principle and phenomena do not contradict each other, if the mind generates love and attachment, one will not realize the real; therefore, if the sages have even the slightest thought, they do not attain the sage's fruition. Regarding the commentary's statement, "Even if one cultivates this for oneself, it is also for the sake of benefiting others": because the heading of this section indicates not relinquishing the perfections when expounding the Dharma, while the explanation below shows that hearing the Dharma from the Buddhas, drawing near to good friends, and so forth, are also accomplished without expounding the Dharma, it therefore provides this reconciliation: even when cultivating for oneself, it is also for the sake of sentient beings; thus it does not contradict carrying forward the preceding idea of constantly expounding the Dharma in accordance with those to be transformed. Regarding the commentary's statement, "In the fourth advancement, universally initiating the various activities," and so forth: here, it subsumes the four cultivations and the three vigors; therefore, the commentary pairs both, as can be known through careful examination.