[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [勝鬘寶窟](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744) › 2.57 # 勝鬘寶窟 2.57 勝鬘寶窟 2.57 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.57) 「如是無明住地緣」下，第二辨無明受生。就文為二：一彰無明能生變易；二「此三地」下，彰彼變易同依無明。初中言無明緣者，其兩義：一潤業牽生緣。用此無明瞙，潤前生無漏，令因牽生果報。二發業緣。發業有二：一前為後緣，以前無明覆障真法，修起後治，故名為緣。故《地持》云「以有無明，樂求淨法，淨法得生。」故十因中，名已有因。二同時緣，無明住地，是妄識心，依此心體，修起得治。如依睡心，起夢中解，故名為緣。無漏業者，三乘聖人無漏之解，正能感於變易，故說為因。成論師云：有二種潤，一瞙潤、二入體潤。入體潤有二說。一云：其解之體，帶無明惑得變易報。二云：三十心中相似之解，及七地之前觀外無漏體帶無明惑，得變易之果也。問：今正明無明受生，何須論業？答：業牽生，方得為緣，故須辨也。問：無明為緣，斯事不疑。既稱無漏，云何是感生因也？答：此無漏是有漏耳。但對三界內之有漏，故三界外者名無漏耳。問：云何對界內名為無漏？答：諸勝鬘師多不尋經首尾，好疑此事。下文云「生死有二種，一有為生死、二無為生死。」分段是有為生死，變易無為生死。變易對界內名無為，實是有為。今且爾，感有為生死業，名為有漏。對此有漏故，感界外生死者為無漏，而體實是有漏。若體實是有漏，此即是入體潤，非瞙潤。以此釋之，映如明鏡。問：若對界內有漏業，詺界外為無漏業者，且應對界內四住之暗，詺界外之惑名明。答：通義悉例。界外生死果，是無為因，是無漏緣，亦得是明。今文分四住受生、無明受生，是故不得說之為明也。《佛性論》明九種煩惱，釋第五無明住地煩惱，在羅漢心中為無漏業生家因。流有三義：一流入三界；二退失，如退失色界，生下界等；三流脫功德善根，失戒定慧。今無三流，故名無漏。業者，作意為義，能生四種生死；今文但作一變易生死。問：無漏云何是業？答：即此無漏作意之義，故名為業。生羅漢業，是變易果。生相云何？如《智度論》云「有妙淨土，出過三界，是阿羅漢當生彼中。」所言三種意生身者，如《楞伽》說：一三昧意生身、二覺法自性意生身、三種類俱生無行作意生身。初地至五地，禪度增強，是故說為三昧意生身。六七地，知法無性，故名覺法自性身。八地已上，無功用行任運續起，名種類俱生無行作身。此之三種是其因行。用此三種因行，隨意受生，故皆名意生身。今謂文云意生身者，非謂三種意為因而受生，三種意乃是所生之果。此三種果，由無明緣無漏業因所生，故文云「三種意生身，生皆由無明。」又〈聖諦章〉云「滅意生身陰，名為苦滅諦。」若以意為因受生者，意是集諦，不得云滅意生身陰苦，名苦滅諦。有人言：三種意生身者，三界外阿羅漢、辟支佛、大力菩薩謂三也。此中唯是意，念念冥傳，相續不斷，故名意生身。今謂《楞伽》三種，約十地分之，乃是明菩薩有此三種生。今文乃明羅漢、辟支、大力菩薩三乘人意生身，不應以《楞伽》為釋。後見林公疏，同吾此釋。 > From "In this way, with the avidyāvāsabhūmi as condition" onward is the second part, explaining rebirth through avidyā. In the text there are two parts: first, revealing that avidyā can produce transformation \[birth and death\]; second, from "these three stages" onward, revealing that those transformations equally rely on avidyā. In the first part, saying that avidyā is the condition has two meanings: 1. the condition of moistening karma to draw forth rebirth: using this film of avidyā to moisten the untainted \[karma\] produced earlier, causing the cause to draw forth the retributive fruit; 2. the condition of initiating karma: initiating karma has two aspects: (a) the former serves as condition for the latter: because earlier avidyā veiled and obstructed the true dharma, one cultivates and generates the subsequent remedy; hence it is called a condition. Thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'Because there is avidyā, one aspires to seek pure dharmas, and pure dharmas are able to arise.' Therefore among the ten causes it is called the 'cause of existing \[possession\]'; (b) simultaneous condition: the avidyāvāsabhūmi is the deluded conscious mind; relying on this mental essence, one cultivates and attains the remedy. Just as relying on a sleeping mind one gives rise to understanding in a dream, hence it is called a condition. Untainted karma refers to the untainted understanding of the āryas of the three vehicles, which directly brings about transformation; hence it is spoken of as the cause. The masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra say: there are two kinds of moistening: first, film-moistening; second, entering-the-essence moistening. Entering-the-essence moistening has two explanations. One says: the essence of that understanding bears the defilement of avidyā and obtains the retribution of transformation. The second says: the corresponding understanding in the thirty minds, as well as the untainted essence that contemplates externally prior to the seventh bhūmi, bears the defilement of avidyā and obtains the fruit of transformation. Question: Now when directly explaining rebirth through avidyā, why must karma be discussed? Answer: Karma draws forth rebirth, and only then can \[avidyā\] serve as a condition; hence it must be analyzed. Question: That avidyā is the condition is beyond doubt. Since it is called untainted, how can it be the cause that brings about rebirth? Answer: This untainted is simply \[subtly\] tainted. It is merely called untainted in contrast to the tainted within the three realms, because it is outside the three realms. Question: How is it called untainted in contrast to within the realms? Answer: Many masters of the Śrīmālā do not examine the beginning and end of the sūtra and often doubt this matter. The text below says: 'There are two kinds of saṃsāra: first, conditioned saṃsāra; second, unconditioned saṃsāra.' Fragmented \[saṃsāra\] is conditioned saṃsāra; transformation is unconditioned saṃsāra. Transformation is called unconditioned in contrast to within the realms, but in reality it is conditioned. For now it is like this: karma that brings about conditioned saṃsāra is called tainted; in contrast to this tainted, that which brings about saṃsāra outside the realms is untainted, yet its essence is in reality tainted. If its essence is in reality tainted, this is precisely entering-the-essence moistening, not film-moistening. When explained this way, it is clear as a bright mirror. Question: If, in contrast to the tainted karma within the realms, that outside the realms is termed untainted karma, then in contrast to the darkness of the four vāsabhūmis within the realms, shouldn't the delusion outside the realms be termed brightness? Answer: The universal principle applies to all such cases. The fruit of saṃsāra outside the realms is unconditioned, its cause is untainted, and its condition can also be brightness. But the present text distinguishes rebirth through the four vāsabhūmis from rebirth through avidyā; therefore it cannot be spoken of as brightness. The Buddhadhātuvibhāga explains nine kinds of defilements, interpreting the fifth, the defilement of the avidyāvāsabhūmi, as the domestic cause for the production of untainted karma in the mind of an arhat. Outflow (āsrava) has three meanings: 1. flowing into the three realms; 2. falling back, as in falling back from the form realm and being born into a lower realm, etc.; 3. the flowing away and loss of merits and wholesome roots, losing morality, concentration, and wisdom. Now, lacking these three outflows, it is called untainted. Karma has the meaning of mental intention (cetanā), capable of producing four kinds of saṃsāra; the present text merely treats it as one: transformation saṃsāra. Question: How can the untainted be karma? Answer: It is precisely the sense of mental intention of this untainted; hence it is called karma. Karma that produces an arhat is the fruit of transformation. What is the mark of its birth? As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'There is an exquisite pure land that transcends the three realms; arhats will be born there.' What are called the three kinds of mind-made bodies (manomayakāya) are as explained in the Laṅkāvatāra: 1. the samādhi mind-made body; 2. the mind-made body that realizes the self-nature of dharmas; 3. the mind-made body born of its own kind, free of volitional effort. From the first to the fifth bhūmi, the pāramitā of dhyāna is predominant; hence it is called the samādhi mind-made body. On the sixth and seventh bhūmis, one knows the essencelessness of dharmas; hence it is called the body realizing the self-nature of dharmas. On the eighth bhūmi and above, effortlessness arises continuously of its own accord; it is called the body born of its own kind, free of volitional effort. These three are causal practices. By means of these three kinds of causal practices, one takes rebirth according to one's wish (manas); hence all are called mind-made bodies. Now I maintain: when the text says 'mind-made body', it does not mean that the three kinds of mind serve as the cause to take rebirth; the three kinds of mind are rather the produced fruits. These three kinds of fruits are produced with avidyā as the condition and untainted karma as the cause; hence the text says: 'The three kinds of mind-made bodies and \[their\] rebirth all arise from avidyā.' Furthermore, the 'Noble Truths Chapter' states: 'The cessation of the aggregates of the mind-made body is called the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.' If they took rebirth with the mind as the cause, the mind would be the truth of origination, and it could not be said that 'the suffering of the cessation of the aggregates of the mind-made body is called the truth of cessation.' Someone says: the three kinds of mind-made bodies refer to the arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and powerful bodhisattvas outside the three realms, which makes three. Herein, it is exclusively the mind that transmigrates subtly from moment to moment in unbroken succession; hence it is called a mind-made body. Now I maintain: the three kinds in the Laṅkāvatāra are divided according to the ten bhūmis, which is to explain that bodhisattvas have these three kinds of births. The present text, however, explains the mind-made bodies of the persons of the three vehicles—arhats, pratyekas, and powerful bodhisattvas; one should not take the Laṅkāvatāra as the explanation. Later I saw Master Lin's commentary, which agreed with this explanation of mine. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.56) - [Next: 2.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.58) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744~en-mt.2.57) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.57) · Pramāṇa