大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.55

67.55

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The rest are as in the ninth [fascicle] of the Yogācāra[-bhūmi], etc.": second, this cites texts to correlate the interpretations, concluding by showing the fundamental basis. The Yogācāra[-bhūmi] in its preceding four fascicles comprehensively clarifies conditioned arising. The explanation of the name falls precisely in the tenth [fascicle], where there are five explanations in total. The treatise states: "Question: Why is it called 'conditioned arising' (pratītyasamutpāda)? Answer: Because, being bound by defilements, one arises again and again within the various destinies, it is therefore called conditioned arising. This explains the name based on the words, meaning that based on the distinct two words 'conditioned' (pratītya / pratyaya) and 'arising' (samutpāda), the condition is not the arising." This is precisely the second explanation in the present Commentary. The second [explanation in the treatise] states: "Furthermore, relying on multiple conditions, having quickly perished, they arise in continuous combination; therefore it is called conditioned arising. This explains it according to the meaning of momentariness." The third states: "Furthermore, though the multiple conditions have passed away, they are not discarded; relying on their own continuum they obtain arising, and therefore it is called conditioned arising. As it is said: 'Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises'—not otherwise. According to this meaning, the explanation of the name should be known." The fourth states: "Furthermore, perishing again and again, it again arises in continuum; therefore it is called conditioned arising. This is according to the meaning of repeated destruction and repeated arising." Explanation: The above three explanations are all the first meaning in the present Commentary. What precedes serves as the condition to cause what succeeds to arise; because the preceding serves as the condition, it is not discarded—this is the third meaning. If the preceding did not perish, from what would it arise again? This contains the fourth. The preceding and succeeding being distinct, there must be momentariness—this is the second meaning. Thus the three senses are substantially the same with minor differences, and the Commentary combines them into one. The fifth states: "Furthermore, having awakened to conditioned nature in past times, they arise in an equal continuum; therefore it is called conditioned arising. As the World-Honoured One said: 'Having awakened, I am properly arising to proclaim it.' Because this name has been transmitted from one to another, it is called conditioned arising." Explanation: Regarding the five meanings in the Yogācāra[-bhūmi]: the first is that the condition is not the arising, taking the cause as the condition and the effect as the arising. The second is that the condition is itself the arising, arising from conditions moment by moment. This excludes the Mahāsāṃghika school's [view] that the twelve factors of conditioned arising are unconditioned dharmas, and also excludes the Sammatīya school. The third is immediate cause and effect, where the preceding cause acts as the condition and the subsequent condition arises. The fourth is beginningless cause and effect: the preceding has already perished, and subsequently further causes arise to incur effects without interruption. However, pervading cause and effect, the condition is itself the arising. The fifth is that the condition is what is awakened to, and arising is the teaching; proclaiming the teaching based on awakening, it is therefore called conditioned arising. These are its own explanations of the five distinct characteristics, not the positions of other masters. The correlation with the text of the Commentary has already been stated above. Yet all five meanings rely on the sense that arising is coming to be; only the intention of the Abhidharmakośa makes a two-fold distinction. Furthermore, it refers to the eighth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, where it is explained at length, as cited fully above. Below, it distinguishes with various doors; there are seventeen doors, and the meanings are also briefly complete. Regarding the seventeen doors: First is the door of distinguishing the nominal and the real: among the twelve factors, nine are real and three are nominal. First, the six factors that have been moistened are combined to form existence. Second, birth, and third, aging and death, because their characteristics and states are distinct. Second is the door of single versus non-single entities: five are single entities—namely, avidyā, consciousness, contact, feeling, and craving—while the rest are not single entities. The above two doors are subsumed under the first door of the continuum of existence-factors. Third is the door of defiled and undefiled: the three of avidyā, craving, and grasping are exclusively defiled, being of the nature of defilement. The seven of suffering are undefiled, being fruits of retribution (vipāka), because within the stages of the seven, wholesome and defiled [states] can also arise. The tenth [fascicle] of the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] states that the nominal pervades the two karmas, and existence pervades both types of existence along with the indeterminate; this is precisely the fifth door of the non-interruption of the three paths. Fourth is the door of distinguishing individual and mixed: avidyā, craving, and grasping are called individual characteristics because they are not mixed with the characteristics of the other factors. The rest are mixed characteristics. Fifth is the door of form and non-form: six are exclusively non-form—namely, avidyā, consciousness, contact, feeling, craving, and grasping; the rest pervade both types. Sixth is the door of contaminated and uncontaminated: all are contaminated and subsumed exclusively under the conditioned, because the uncontaminated and unconditioned are not factors of existence. The above three are also like the first door. Seventh is the door of conditioned and unconditioned: this has already been fully included in the door of contaminated and uncontaminated, and is also fully present in the eighth [door] of conditioned arising and perishing and the ninth [door] of the fetters of arising and perishing. Eighth is the door of the three natures: avidyā, craving, and grasping only pervade the unwholesome and the obscured-indeterminate; volitional formations are exclusively wholesome and evil; existence pervades the wholesome, evil, and unobscured-indeterminate, because the six factors are combined to form existence. The other seven are exclusively unobscured-indeterminate, because within the stages of the seven, wholesome and defiled [states] also arise. The tenth [fascicle] of the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] states: "The seven pervade two natures." This one is also like the first door. Ninth is the door of distinguishing the three realms: although all pervade the three realms, some are partial and some are complete; the desire realm is complete, while the two [higher] realms lack defilement. The six sense-bases are incomplete, and the formless realm is purely mental. Therefore this door is omitted. Tenth is the door of the antidote and what is to be countered: the factor of volitional formation of a higher stage can subdue a lower stage, namely the six aspects of grossness, suffering, etc., because there are those who seek higher rebirth and arouse them. Therefore this door is omitted. Eleventh is the door of distinguishing the trainee, etc.: all are exclusively non-trainees, because the contaminated wholesome karma aroused by noble ones who are non-trainees has clear understanding as its condition. Because it opposes the factors of existence, it is not subsumed under the factors of existence. From this one should know that noble ones definitely do not create karma that induces future existence, because they do not deludedly seek after future painful retribution. Fearing that someone might ask: "If so, the karma of the mixed practice of the five pure abodes should not be the factor of volitional formation. If it is the factor of volitional formation, then noble ones would create karma. If it is not the factor of volitional formation, how could they be born there and incur collective retribution?" Hence the treatise answers: "Mixed cultivation of absorption assists old karma of lower [stages] to be born in the Pure Abodes and so forth; there is no contradiction in principle." The meaning is: non-returners and so forth, by cultivating the fourth dhyāna in a mixture of contaminated and uncontaminated before and after, assist the old karma of the three heavens such as the Cloudless Heaven to be born in the Pure Abodes, etc., which does not contradict principle. This collective-retribution karma and the verbal-convention seeds were already created when they were ordinary beings, producing the karma of the three lower heavens of the fourth dhyāna; being bound to one stage, subsequently through uncontaminated [states] they assist this old karma to be born in the Pure Abode heavens, and it is not that the noble ones newly create karma. This meaning is also briefly present in the first door, as already indicated above. Twelfth is the door of distinguishing the two abandonments. One opinion holds: avidyā is abandoned exclusively by seeing, because it must delude one regarding the truths and principles to be able to initiate volitional formations. Since noble ones definitely do not create karma of future existence, it is not abandoned by cultivation. The two factors of craving and grasping are abandoned exclusively by cultivation, because they moisten rebirth through longing for future existence, and craving co-arises with the nine types of death-approaching mind. The other nine all pervade both abandonment by seeing and by cultivation. Another opinion holds: all pervade both abandonment by seeing and by cultivation. The tenth [fascicle] of the Great Treatise states: "Stream-enterers have already abandoned a fraction of all factors of existence; there is none who has completely abandoned them. If the factor of avidyā were abandoned exclusively by seeing, how could it be said that stream-enterers have none completely abandoned? If the factors of craving and grasping were abandoned exclusively by cultivation, how could it be said that they have already abandoned a fraction of all factors?" Explanation: That all are abandoned in part clarifies that the factor of avidyā is not abandoned exclusively by seeing, because a fraction of avidyā remains. The two factors of craving and grasping are not abandoned exclusively by cultivation, because when entering the path of seeing, a fraction is abandoned. This door is omitted in the sūtra commentary, being contained within the reverse contemplation of the first door. Thirteenth is the door of the three feelings: ten are associated with pleasure and equanimity, because craving does not associate with feeling, and in the state of aging and death there is mostly no pleasure and it permits equanimity. Eleven are associated with pain, excluding only feeling, because it does not associate with craving. This door is contained within the seventh door of the aggregation of the three sufferings. Fourteenth is the door of the three sufferings: completely identical with the seventh. Fifteenth is the door of the four truths: this precisely corresponds to the fifth door of the non-interruption of the three paths, and hence there is the contemplation of entering the truths. Sixteenth is the door of the four conditions: completely identical with the third door of one's own karma assisting and completing. Seventeenth is the door of the mutual subsumption of affliction and suffering: this is also subsumed like the door of the non-interruption of the three paths. Explanation: The parts of the above seventeen doors that are entirely identical have already been indicated above, and thus are scattered among the various doors. Referring to them mostly in general, out of fear that [readers] would find it tedious, the Commentary therefore omitted them.