勝鬘寶窟 2.48.2

2.48.2

答：所作已辦差別者，如《智度論》說有其多種，今略顯要者，斷屬愛煩惱名所作，斷屬見煩惱名已辦。 煖等四心名所作，苦法忍等無漏名已辦。 見諦名所作，思惟名已辦。 心解脫名所作，慧解脫名已辦。 今此二乘上果人所作已辦者，應是心解脫名所作，慧解脫名已辦也。 隨言義次第，應言凡夫未作，學人未辦。 而今此文不然者，非凡夫力所能辦，故言未辦。 學人未作者，但作學地之行，未作無學之行，故言未作。 又若言學人未辦，功濫上果所作。 所以然者，如心解脫人，望慧解人，亦是未辦故也。 若對凡夫及七種學人，說言所作已辦。 若對諸佛菩薩，則所作未辦。 「虛偽煩惱斷故說所作已辦」者，第二句對障顯也。 一切煩惱無非虛偽，於中分別妄愛受生，虛妄中極，故偏名虛偽。 如來以其所修正道，能斷如是虛偽煩惱，是故說言所作已辦。 望於無明，故是方便。 又顯虛偽麁煩惱斷，未能斷細。 「阿羅漢」下，此第四明不受後有智以為方便。 不受後有智是斷集智。 集有二種：一分段因、二變易因。 二乘但斷分段，餘因未斷。 如來偏就斷分段因，說不受後有，故是方便。 文中初言所斷煩惱障，昔日是方便也。 「非盡」已下，明今有餘不了之義。 明今有餘不了義中，前略開二門、次廣釋之。 言二門者，「非盡一切煩惱」，是第一門，謂不斷集體，集體即是煩惱體。 「亦非盡一切受生」者，是第二門，謂不斷集能，謂煩惱招生用。 又非盡一切煩惱，謂無盡智。 非盡一切受生，謂無無生智。 以此二智，為不受後有智體。 「何以故」下，第二廣釋。 「何以故」者，問也。 二乘兩輪惑亡、三界生盡，今何故言非盡煩惱、非盡受生？ 「有煩惱」下，第二解釋。 釋二章門即二，前明非盡一切煩惱； 「又如取」下，廣明非盡一切受生。 前明非盡一切煩惱中又二：言「有煩惱是羅漢辟支所不斷」者，略明非盡一切煩惱也； 「煩惱有二種」下，廣明非盡一切煩惱。 初明有煩惱，是煩惱章門。 從「阿羅漢辟支佛所不斷」下，彰其不盡，是不盡章門。 而云「有煩惱羅漢不盡」者，正取無明住地二乘不能盡。 「煩惱有二種」下，第二解釋。 然但應釋無明其二乘不能斷； 而今釋四住者，以舉四住之麁對無明之細故也。 就文為二：前釋煩惱章門、次釋不斷章門。 此中應有五住地義，今略以八門釋。 第一釋名門。 「見一處住地」者，能生名地，令所生成立名住，心迷不解名惑，八忍七智推求諦理名見。 緣一理總斷煩惱，故名一處。 故云見一處住地也。 有人言：初一是見諦惑，繫在三塗。 一處具有五見，示其尤重，以見諦為標。 餘三住地，即是三界思惟，受為繫縛，故以受為名。 又解：五利煩惱推求名見，入見道一處併斷，名見一處。 言住地者，本為末依，名之為住。 本能生末，目之為地。 今言四住地，唯有二種：一見、二受。 合三界見總為一處，故云見一處住地。 以對離愛為三處，故云見一處也。 愛地者，欲界地中一切煩惱，除無明及見，說為欲愛。 以此地中著外五欲，故名欲愛。 然欲界亦愛自身，但著欲情多，故偏言之。 又簡上界所愛色身，偏說欲愛也。 色愛者，色界地中一切煩惱，除無明見，說為色愛。 以此界中，捨外五欲、著己色身，故名色愛。 然色界且愛己心，以此界中著色情多，偏說色愛。 又簡無色愛著心，故徧說色愛。 有愛者，無色界中一切煩惱，除無明見，說為有愛。 若就簡下說之，應名無色愛； 若隨所取，應名心愛。 但今為破患，故名有愛。 外道多取無色界中以為涅槃，今為破之，故名有耳。 有者，謂生死三有之法，故名為有。 又總論五鈍使，以愛為主，能感欲界果報者，名為欲愛。 以愛為主，能感色界果報者，名為色愛。 以愛為主，能感無色界果報者，名為有愛。

Answer: Regarding the distinctions in "what was to be done has been accomplished," as the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* states, there are many varieties. Now, to briefly highlight the essential ones: severing the defilements associated with craving is called "what was to be done," while severing the defilements associated with views is called "accomplished." The four states of mind, beginning with heat, are called "what was to be done," while the uncontaminated states such as the forbearance of the cognition of the Dharma of suffering are called "accomplished." Seeing the truths is called "what was to be done," while cultivating [them in] meditation is called "accomplished." Liberation of mind is called "what was to be done," while liberation through wisdom is called "accomplished." Now, regarding these persons of the higher fruit of the two vehicles for whom "what was to be done has been accomplished," it must be that liberation of mind is called "what was to be done" and liberation through wisdom is called "accomplished." According to the semantic sequence of the words, one should say that ordinary persons have "not done" it and learners have "not accomplished" it. Yet here the text does not say this: because it cannot be accomplished by the power of ordinary persons, it is said to be "not accomplished." As for learners "not having done" it, because they have only performed the practices of the stage of learning and have not yet performed the practices of the stage beyond learning, it is said to be "not done." Furthermore, if one were to say that learners have "not accomplished" it, its merit would be confused with what has been done by the higher fruits. Why so? Because, for instance, a person of liberation of mind, when compared to a person of liberation through wisdom, has likewise not yet accomplished it. In contrast to ordinary persons and the seven kinds of learners, it is said that "what was to be done has been accomplished." But in contrast to the buddhas and bodhisattvas, what was to be done has not been accomplished. "Because unreal defilements are severed, it is said that 'what was to be done has been accomplished' ": this second clause clarifies it in contrast to the obstacles. There are no defilements that are not unreal; among them, discriminative false craving leading to rebirth is the utmost in unreality, so it is specifically named "unreal." Because the Tathāgata, by means of the correct path he cultivates, is able to sever such unreal defilements, it is therefore said that "what was to be done has been accomplished." From the perspective of ignorance, it is an expedient. Moreover, it reveals that unreal, coarse defilements are severed, but subtle ones cannot yet be severed. From "Arhats..." downward, this fourth section clarifies that the cognition of having no subsequent existence is taken as an expedient. The cognition of having no subsequent existence is the cognition of severing the origin [of suffering]. Origin is twofold: first, the cause of fragmented [death]; second, the cause of change[ful death]. The two vehicles only sever fragmented [death], leaving other causes unsevered. The Tathāgata specifically refers to the severance of the causes of fragmented [death] when speaking of having no subsequent existence; hence it is an expedient. In the text, the defilement-obstacles severed at first were an expedient in the past. From "not exhausting..." downward, it clarifies the present meaning of there being an incomplete remainder. Within the clarification of the present meaning of an incomplete remainder, it first briefly opens two gates and next explains them at length. Regarding the two gates: "not having exhausted all defilements" is the first gate, meaning not severing the substance of origin, the substance of origin being the substance of defilements. "Nor having exhausted all rebirths" is the second gate, meaning not severing the capacity of origin, which refers to the function of defilements in bringing about birth. Furthermore, not exhausting all defilements refers to the absence of the cognition of exhaustion; not exhausting all rebirths refers to the absence of the cognition of non-arising. These two cognitions constitute the substance of the cognition of having no subsequent existence. From "Why is this so?" downward is the second part, explaining at length. "Why is this so?" is an inquiry: Since the two vehicles have eliminated the defilements of both wheels and exhausted births in the three realms, why is it now said that they have neither exhausted defilements nor exhausted rebirths? From "There are defilements..." downward is the second part, providing the explanation. Explaining the two thematic sections comprises two parts: first, clarifying that they have not exhausted all defilements; from "Moreover, just as with clinging..." downward, explaining at length that they have not exhausted all rebirths. Within the first part clarifying that they have not exhausted all defilements, there are again two: saying "There are defilements that arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not sever" briefly clarifies that they have not exhausted all defilements; from "Defilements are of two kinds..." downward, it explains at length that they have not exhausted all defilements. The opening statement that there are defilements is the thematic section on defilements; from "which arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not sever" downward, revealing their non-exhaustion, is the thematic section on non-exhaustion. Saying "There are defilements that arhats do not exhaust" specifically refers to the entrenchment-ground of ignorance, which the two vehicles cannot exhaust. From "Defilements are of two kinds..." downward is the second part, providing the explanation. However, it ought only to explain ignorance which the two vehicles cannot sever; yet now it explains the four entrenchments because it adduces the coarseness of the four entrenchments in contrast to the subtlety of ignorance. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining the thematic section on defilements; next, explaining the thematic section on non-severance. Here there should be the doctrine of the five entrenchment-grounds; now it is briefly explained through eight gates. The first is the gate of explaining the names. Regarding the "entrenchment-ground of single-station views": that which can produce is called "ground"; that which causes what is produced to be established is called "entrenchment"; the mind's confusion and lack of understanding is called "delusion"; investigating the principle of the truths through the eight forbearances and seven cognitions is called "view." Because it severs defilements all at once in reliance upon a single principle, it is called "single-station." Thus it is called the entrenchment-ground of single-station views. Some say: The first consists of the delusions [to be abandoned through] seeing the truths, which tie one to the three evil destinies. A single station possesses all five views; to indicate their particular gravity, it takes seeing the truths as its label. The remaining three entrenchment-grounds are simply the [delusions to be abandoned through] cultivation in the three realms, where grasping serves as the bondage; hence they are named from grasping. Another explanation: The investigation of the five sharp defilements is called "view"; entering the path of vision severs them together in a single station, so it is called "single-station views." As for "entrenchment-ground": the root serves as the reliance for the branches, and is called "entrenchment"; the root can produce the branches, and is designated as "ground." Now, speaking of the four entrenchment-grounds, there are only two kinds: first, views; second, grasping. Combining the views of the three realms collectively into a single station, it is therefore called the entrenchment-ground of single-station views. Because it is contrasted with separating craving into three stations, it is called "single-station." The "ground of craving": all defilements in the realm of desire, excluding ignorance and views, are described as desire-craving. Because in this ground one clings to the five external desires, it is called desire-craving. Although in the realm of desire one also craves one's own body, because the affective attachment to desire is predominant, it is specifically called such. Furthermore, to differentiate it from the material body craved in the higher realms, it is specifically called desire-craving. "Form-craving": all defilements in the realm of form, excluding ignorance and views, are described as form-craving. Because in this realm one relinquishes the five external desires and clings to one's own material body, it is called form-craving. Although in the realm of form one also craves one's own mind, because affective attachment to form is predominant in this realm, it is specifically called form-craving. Furthermore, to differentiate it from attachment to the mind in the formless realm, it is comprehensively called form-craving. "Craving for existence": all defilements in the formless realm, excluding ignorance and views, are described as craving for existence. If spoken of in order to differentiate it from what is below, it should be called formless-craving; if named according to what is grasped, it should be called mind-craving. But here, in order to dismantle the affliction, it is called craving for existence. Non-Buddhists mostly grasp the formless realm to be nirvāṇa; now, in order to refute this, it is simply called existence. "Existence" refers to the phenomena of the three existences of saṃsāra; hence it is called existence. Furthermore, in general discussion of the five dull drives, with craving as the primary factor, that which can bring about the karmic retribution of the realm of desire is called desire-craving; with craving as the primary factor, that which can bring about the karmic retribution of the realm of form is called form-craving; and with craving as the primary factor, that which can bring about the karmic retribution of the formless realm is called craving for existence.