大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 49.3.1

49.3.1

Regarding the commentary's "Yogācāra thirty-nine says: If sentient beings come and seek..." and so forth: that text explains what a bodhisattva should give and should not give among twenty-three categories in total, and here it corresponds to one of them, which should not be given. Further below, the treatise states: "Why is that? If one gives to them at that time, although one temporarily causes them to generate joy toward the bodhisattva, it will also cause them to perform various disadvantageous deeds extensively. That is, because of the gift, it causes them to engage heavily in haughty, indolent, and evil conduct, and after the destruction of the body, they fall into the evil destinies." From "Now giving beautiful forms" downwards, the commentary uses the treatise to challenge the sūtra. The commentary's "It also says that when giving wife and children, they should not be given to enemies" is also the subsequent text of this treatise. As for "those of violent karmic deeds": the treatise states in full, "Furthermore, regarding their own wives, children, male and female slaves, servants, kin, and relatives, if bodhisattvas do not first instruct them with proper words to cause them to be joyful, they will never coerce them, causing them sorrow and distress, to give them to beggars who come. Even if they have first instructed them to make them joyful and generate a willing mind, they still do not give them to enemies, evil friends, yakṣas, rākṣasas, or those of violent karmic deeds; nor do they give delicately featured clan sons and daughters as wives and children to seekers who come, making them slaves." Next, the treatise also states: "If someone of the highest grade who oppresses sentient beings and delights in performing various violent and evil karmic deeds comes seeking the royal throne, the bodhisattva will never give it. If that violent and evil pudgala previously occupied the royal throne, the bodhisattva, if having the power, should even depose him, much less give it to him." Explanation: None of these should be given. Furthermore, from "Now it says various..." downwards, the commentary uses the treatise to challenge the sūtra. Below "Answer: Those who are capable of giving are of two kinds", within the answer, it first answers directly and later cites supporting evidence. Within the former, there are three points: first, whether the bodhisattva knows skillfully or does not know, both are permissible; second, knowing the woman is free of defilement; third, knowing it turns into benefit. Regarding the commentary's "Therefore in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha there is having benefit and having defilement..." and so forth: this is the eighth fascicle of Asabhāva's treatise; both versions of Vasubandhu's are the ninth, and the Liang translation corresponds to the twelfth. Here it relies on Asabhāva, though it is a paraphrase of the meaning. That treatise first quotes together the four lines of the root treatise, and then subsequently takes them up and explains them; here they are taken up and explained accordingly. The root treatise states: "If bodhisattvas, having accomplished such superior morality, superior mind, and superior wisdom, are consummated in merits and have attained great mastery over wealth and status, why is it seen in actuality that there are sentient beings who lack wealth and status?" Explanation: The above is the question. The explanatory treatise does not gloss it; the root treatise answers: "Because it sees that those sentient beings have heavy karmic hindrances regarding wealth and status." Asabhāva first clarifies the general intent of the answer, stating: "Now it should be clearly explained: due to these causes and conditions, although the bodhisattva has mastery over wealth and status, he does not give to others." Explaining the initial answer just given, it states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that those sentient beings have heavy karmic hindrances regarding their wealth and status, and therefore do not give to them, lest the charitable gift be empty and fruitless. Even if one were to give to them, they would also be unable to receive it; what would be the use of giving? As a verse states: 'Like a mother nursing an infant, / for a whole month without fatigue; / if the infant's throat is blocked, / what can the wet-nurse do?'" Explanation: This is the first: neither benefit nor defilement. Because they are wholly unable to receive it, what benefit or what defilement could there be? Second, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would hinder the arising of wholesome dharmas." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that although those sentient beings have no heavy karmic hindrances regarding wealth and status, if they were to obtain complete wealth and status, they would become very indolent and would not give rise to wholesome dharmas. They reflect thus: 'Better that they be poor and lowly for a short time in the present life, than poor and lowly for a long time in future lives.' Therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status." Explanation: This is the second: having defilement and no benefit. Third, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if those sentient beings lack wealth and status, revulsion will manifest before them." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if those sentient beings lack wealth and status, the mind of revulsion toward saṃsāra will manifest before them, seeking to transcend it. If they were to attain wealth and honor, they would immediately generate indolence; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status. They reflect thus: 'Better that they be poor and lowly, so that the mind of revulsion toward saṃsāra is constantly present before them; than that they be wealthy and honored, delighting in indolence and not giving rise to wholesome dharmas.'" Explanation: This also establishes the above having defilement and no benefit. Fourth, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would become a cause for accumulating unwholesome dharmas." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if they were to give them sufficient wealth and status, they would immediately be indolent and accumulate various evil and unwholesome karmas; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or benefits. As a verse states: 'Better to cause them to be destitute of wealth and status, / staying far from the evil destinies and various evil actions, / than to have their faculties disordered by wealth and honor, / causing them to incur a vessel of manifold future sufferings.'" Explanation: This is also having defilement and no benefit. Fifth, the root treatise states: "Because it sees that if one were to give wealth and status to those sentient beings, it would immediately become a cause for harming and distressing countless other sentient beings." The explanatory treatise states: "That is, the bodhisattvas see that if those sentient beings obtain wealth and honor, they will immediately harm and distress countless sentient beings; therefore, they do not give them any wealth or status. They reflect thus: 'Better that this single person suffer the agony of poverty, than cause harm and distress to many other sentient beings.'" Explanation: This is also having defilement and no benefit. Therefore, the root treatise concludes: "For this reason, it is seen in actuality that there are sentient beings who lack wealth and status." Herein there is a verse: "Seeing that karmic hindrances are present before them, / and because of accumulation and causing harm, / it is seen in actuality that sentient beings / do not receive the bodhisattva's gifts." Explanation: In the fivefold text above, there are only two clauses: the first is neither benefit nor defilement; the remaining four are all having defilement and no benefit. Yet their senses differ: first, hindering the arising of wholesome dharmas; second, not generating revulsion; third, accumulating unwholesome things oneself; fourth, harming and distressing others. As for having benefit and having defilement, because both harm and benefit are present, one also does not give. Because the fault of harm is slight, the treatise omits speaking of it; the rest may be known. Regarding the commentary's "The Lotus Sūtra's 'Chapter on the Four Practices of Ease'": in what the present commentary cites, the first harmonizes the meanings of various masters, while the latter three fully agree with Master [Dao]sheng. Master Sheng's first is simply called 'the sphere of practice and the sphere of association,' the intent being to clarify broadly staying away from evil and drawing near to the principle, while the three below are specific. Master [Kuai]ji of Baolin names the first 'empty practice,' the second 'free from arrogance,' and the third and fourth are the same as Master Sheng. Nanyue states: the first clarifies unattached correct wisdom, the second clarifies the mouth not speaking of faults, the third is respecting superiors and receiving inferiors, and the fourth is the same as Master Sheng. Dharma Master Dacheng: first, correct physical action; second, correct verbal action; third, the self-benefiting action of the mind being free from various evils; fourth, the other-benefiting action of the mind cultivating wholesome dharmas. Tiantai states: śamatha, vipaśyanā, and loving-kindness and compassion guide the three karmas and the vow; initially, because the body has śamatha, it leaves behind coarse physical karma; because it has vipaśyanā, physical karma cannot be apprehended. Because neither that which is capable of leaving nor that which is left can be apprehended, one does not fall into [the status of] ordinary beings;