勝鬘寶窟 2.20

2.20

「世尊無異波羅蜜」下，自上已來釋廣大章門竟，今釋第二無量因行章門。由理成行，故次理明行也。又正法語通，非但理是正法，行亦是正法，故有此文來也。就文亦二：初明攝受、次明正法。上前明正法、後明攝受，今前明攝受、後明正法。與上不同者，接上攝受即明攝受故也。又攝受與正法，義無前後，故得迴互釋之。又欲明標釋結義，所以前明攝受。言標釋結者，初標即義；從「何以故」下，釋即義；次此後結即義也。此中應明釋名門。所言「攝受正法」者，六度即是因行正法。錄六度之法在心，名之為攝；如六度法而頓證，故名為受。頓證之時，不見能攝所攝、能證所證，不知何以目之，強名攝受，此即是今文明相即義。又攝受有不二二義、二不二義。不二而二，故有能攝所攝、能證所證；二而不二，則能所宛然而常寂滅。又約位明之，地前未得真證，故猶有能所；登地已上，永得於真證，故緣觀俱寂。若破病者，眾生謂能攝所攝異；破彼二見，故明不二。此是破二明不二，二病若去，不二亦除。如《華嚴》云「不著不二法，以無一二故。」又《智度論》云「破二不著一，是名為法忍。」法忍者，心安理法，不見一二也。就文有二：初總明不二、次別明不二、三總結不二。初文三句。「無異波羅蜜」者，明攝受正法不異波羅蜜。「無異攝受正法」者，明波羅蜜不異攝受正法。問：此與上攝受何異？答：有同有異。若言攝受不異波羅蜜、波羅蜜不異攝受，此與上智不異理、理不異智，其義則同。但上明理不異智、智不異理，今明智不異行、行不異智。若言攝受正法不異波羅蜜、波羅蜜不異攝受正法，此欲明攝受正法廣大之義。非但理正法是攝受正法，波羅蜜行法亦是攝受正法，是故攝受正法其義廣大。「攝受正法即波羅蜜」者，上來兩句明無異，今第三句結簡無異。所以無異者，以即是故，名曰無異，非謂相似故言無異。問：結即中何因少一句？答：既言攝受即波羅蜜，當知波羅蜜即攝受，故不須第二句也。結中亦有二義：一結智與波羅蜜不異、二結攝受正法與波羅蜜無異。問：攝受是能攝受之智、正法是六度之行，智與行既其不二，云何一智體即具一切行？答：如一正觀，止惡義邊說名為戒、證靜義邊名之為定、能照義邊稱之為慧、達到義邊即波羅蜜，是故一智攝一切行。問：六度與正觀無異，此是解與行無異，亦得言實相正法與六度無異不？答：上明智與理無異，望理智即是行。智既與理無異，即是行與理無異。問：云何無異？答：菩薩以實相心行六度，故六度即實相。今且就檀釋之，然雖復四絕，三事宛然。此實相即檀，雖三事宛然，常是四絕，故檀即實相。檀度既爾，餘行例然。問：上明從實相出生四乘因果，菩薩即以四乘因果行利益於人，與今文明攝受正法何異？答：上明四乘之法利人，今明以六度之行益物。若爾，上即是四乘，六度益物即是一乘。前即是出生益物，今是收入利人。又上明從理出生行、今明行成，故用行益物，則上明其本、今辨末也。「何以故」下，上來第一明攝受，今第二明正法。亦上是標即，今是釋即。「何以故」者，此是問辭。問意云：何故攝受正法即是六波羅蜜？「攝受正法」已下，此是答。答意云：六度即是正法。菩薩攝受六度正法，以化於人，故攝受正法與波羅蜜無異。此中明六度即為六階，一一度中各有三句：一標機緣、二明菩薩行施、三結行成為波羅蜜。初言「應以施成就」者，此明所化機緣也。問：此是何等人耶？答：有人言此是慳貪眾生，宜教行施，故名成就。今謂文相不爾。經云「應以施成就」者，此明前人根緣應見菩薩行施得成就者，菩薩則為之行施。何關教前人行施耶？六度皆有此文，必宜前定之也。問：此是何人？答：此人不定。自有慳貪眾生不肯布施，菩薩前自行施，使彼學之。二者自有貧窮眾生，菩薩施其財物，令其歡喜與菩薩為眷屬，然後化令入道，故云以施成就之。自有眾生應見菩薩行施而得悟道，故菩薩為之行施也。

From "The World-Honoured One, there is no other pāramitā" below, the preceding text having concluded the explanation of the chapter-heading on vastness, now the second chapter-heading on the immeasurable causal practices is explained. Because practice is perfected through principle, practice is explained after principle. Furthermore, the expression "saddharma" is comprehensive: not only is principle saddharma, practice is also saddharma; hence this passage occurs. The text also has two parts: first it explains embracing, and next it explains the saddharma. Above, it first explained the saddharma and afterward explained embracing; here, it first explains embracing and afterward explains the saddharma. The difference from above is because this directly follows upon the preceding "embracing" to explain embracing. Furthermore, between embracing and saddharma there is conceptually no priority or posteriority, so they may be mutually explained back and forth. Again, because it intends to clarify the meaning of indicating, explaining, and concluding, embracing is explained first. Regarding "indicating, explaining, and concluding": the beginning indicates the meaning of identity; from "Why is that?" below, it explains the meaning of identity; and after this, it concludes the meaning of identity. Here, one should clarify the section explaining the name. As for what is called "embracing the saddharma" (parigraha-saddharma): the six pāramitās are themselves the saddharma of causal practice. Gathering the teachings of the six pāramitās in one's mind is called "embracing" (she); directly realizing [them] in accordance with the teachings of the six pāramitās is called "accepting" (shou). At the time of direct realization, one sees neither the grasper nor the grasped, neither the realizer nor the realized; not knowing how to designate it, one provisionally calls it "embracing and accepting" (sheshou). This is the meaning of mutual identity clarified in the present text. Furthermore, embracing has the two aspects of non-duality and duality, and the aspect of duality being non-dual. Being dual while non-dual, there are the grasper and the grasped, the realizer and the realized; being non-dual while dual, grasper and grasped are vividly distinct yet eternally quiescent. Again, explaining it in terms of stages: before the bhūmis, one has not yet attained true realization, so there are still subject and object; from ascending the bhūmis upward, one permanently attains true realization, so both object and contemplation are quiescent. If considered in terms of breaking afflictions: sentient beings think that the grasper and the grasped are different; breaking those two views, it therefore clarifies non-duality. This is breaking the two to clarify non-duality; once the disease of duality is gone, non-duality is also eliminated. As the Avataṃsaka says: "Do not attach to non-dual dharmas, because there is neither one nor two." Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Breaking the two without attaching to the one is called the tolerance of dharmas (dharmakṣānti)." Tolerance of dharmas means that the mind rests serenely in the principle and dharma, seeing neither one nor two. In the text there are [three parts]: first, a general explanation of non-duality; second, a specific explanation of non-duality; third, a general conclusion on non-duality. The first passage has three clauses. "There is no other pāramitā" clarifies that embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās. "There is no other embracing of the saddharma" clarifies that the pāramitās are not different from embracing the saddharma. Question: How does this differ from the embracing above? Answer: There are similarities and differences. If one says that embracing is not different from the pāramitās and the pāramitās are not different from embracing, this is conceptually the same as the above [discussion where] wisdom is not different from principle and principle is not different from wisdom. However, above it clarified that principle is not different from wisdom and wisdom is not different from principle; here it clarifies that wisdom is not different from practice and practice is not different from wisdom. If one says that embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās and the pāramitās are not different from embracing the saddharma, this intends to clarify the vast meaning of embracing the saddharma. Not only is the saddharma of principle the embracing of the saddharma, but the practice-dharma of the pāramitās is also the embracing of the saddharma; therefore, the meaning of embracing the saddharma is vast. "Embracing the saddharma is itself the pāramitās": the preceding two clauses clarified non-difference, and now the third clause concludes and specifies non-difference. The reason they are not different is that because they are identical, they are called non-different; it does not mean they are called non-different because of mere similarity. Question: Why is there one clause missing in the concluding identity? Answer: Since it says that embracing is itself the pāramitās, one should know that the pāramitās are themselves embracing, so a second clause is not needed. In the conclusion there are also two meanings: first, concluding that wisdom is not different from the pāramitās; second, concluding that embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās. Question: Embracing is the wisdom that can embrace, and saddharma is the practice of the six pāramitās; since wisdom and practice are non-dual, how can the single essence of wisdom possess all practices? Answer: Just as with a single correct contemplation, in terms of stopping evil it is called discipline; in terms of realizing tranquility it is called concentration; in terms of illuminating it is called wisdom; and in terms of arriving at the other shore it is the pāramitās; therefore, a single wisdom subsumes all practices. Question: The six pāramitās are not different from correct contemplation—this is understanding being non-different from practice; may one also say that the saddharma of true reality (dharmatā) is not different from the six pāramitās? Answer: Above it clarified that wisdom is not different from principle; looking toward principle, wisdom is practice. Since wisdom is not different from principle, practice is also not different from principle. Question: How are they not different? Answer: The bodhisattva practices the six pāramitās with a mind of true reality; therefore, the six pāramitās are themselves true reality. Now let us provisionally explain this in terms of giving (dāna): although the four extremes are severed, the three factors [of giving] remain distinctly apparent. This true reality is itself giving; although the three factors are distinctly apparent, they are constantly severed of the four extremes; therefore giving is itself true reality. As it is with the pāramitā of giving, the other practices follow suit by analogy. Question: Above it clarified that the causes and fruits of the four vehicles arise from true reality, and the bodhisattva benefits people with the causal and fruitional practices of the four vehicles; how does this differ from the present passage clarifying the embracing of the saddharma? Answer: Above it clarified benefiting people through the teachings of the four vehicles; here it clarifies benefiting beings through the practices of the six pāramitās. If so, the above is the four vehicles, while benefiting beings through the six pāramitās is the ekayāna. The former is benefiting beings by bringing forth, while the present is benefiting people by gathering in. Furthermore, above it clarified the arising of practice from principle; here it clarifies that practice is perfected, and thus practice is used to benefit beings; thus the above clarifies the root, and the present distinguishes the branches. From "Why is that?" below, the preceding was the first part clarifying embracing, and now the second part clarifies the saddharma. Also, the above was the indication of identity, and the present is the explanation of identity. "Why is that?": this is a questioning phrase. The meaning of the question is: Why is embracing the saddharma identical to the six pāramitās? From "Embracing the saddharma" onward, this is the answer. The meaning of the answer is: The six pāramitās are themselves the saddharma. The bodhisattva embraces the saddharma of the six pāramitās to transform people; therefore, embracing the saddharma is not different from the pāramitās. Here, clarifying the six pāramitās constitutes six stages; in each and every pāramitā there are three clauses: first, indicating the receptive capacities; second, clarifying the bodhisattva's practice of giving; third, concluding that the practice is perfected as a pāramitā. At the beginning, "should be matured through giving": this clarifies the receptive capacity to be transformed. Question: What kind of person is this? Answer: Some say this is a stingy and greedy sentient being who should be taught to practice giving, and is therefore called "matured." Now I say that the phrasing of the text is not like that. When the sūtra says "should be matured through giving," this clarifies that when a person's root-capacity is such that they should see the bodhisattva practice giving to attain maturation, the bodhisattva practices giving for their sake. What does this have to do with teaching the other person to practice giving? The six pāramitās all have this text, so it must be determined beforehand. Question: What kind of person is this? Answer: This person is not fixed. There are stingy and greedy sentient beings who refuse to give; the bodhisattva first practices giving himself to cause them to learn it. Second, there are destitute sentient beings to whom the bodhisattva gives material goods to make them rejoice and become the bodhisattva's followers, afterward transforming them to enter the path; hence it says "maturing them through giving." There are sentient beings who should see the bodhisattva practice giving to attain awakening to the path; therefore the bodhisattva practices giving for their sake.