勝鬘寶窟 3.45

3.45

「如來藏乃至墮身見」下，江南諸師及北土有師並以此章屬前是明顛倒真實。今直簡所依之藏不同陰內之我，明藏體絕離眾相，故有此章來耳。今明上章對破小乘及餘大乘人不立如來藏境，今第二次破外道。上來辨一切眾生有如來藏為生死作依持，疑者云：若爾，與外道何異？龍樹《中論．本住品》云「眾生身中有神我，名為本住。本住者，神為諸根之本。苦樂等諸根，依神得住。又我本來已有，體是常法，苦樂等法依之得住，故名本住。」若爾與如來藏得有何異？今欲簡此義，故有此文來也。「如來藏」者，牒真實也。「非我非眾生非命非人」者，正破外道也。問：我等四，有何異？答：經論釋不同。如經云「觀內無我，外無眾生，內外和合無命，畢竟清淨無人。」陰非神主，名為無我。離陰亦無，名外無眾生。陰與假名眾生相續名命，無別命體，故言內外和合無命。諸陰和合宰用名人，無別人體，故名畢竟清淨。《智度論》云「於五陰起我我所心，故名為我。五陰等眾法和合生，故名眾生。命根成就，故名受者命者。能行人法，故名為人。」《金剛波若論》具釋此四，可尋之。今明如來藏並異此四法，故不同外道也。此但明藏體一同人我，佛性正是人體，故須簡人；不明是法體，略不辨不同法我也。問：〈顛倒真實〉與〈空義隱覆真實〉何異？答：前章明佛有二智，知能藏畢竟空、知所藏不空，故能藏覆所藏。此章明所藏之體空無諸相，而眾生不了，成三種顛倒眾生，故成藏。然前章明能藏空、所藏有，此章明所藏空、能藏有也，亦得俱有。解此四句者，是人解如來藏者也。

From "The tathāgatagarbha [...] up to falling into the view of self" onward: various masters south of the Yangtze and certain masters of the northern territory all assigned this section to the preceding, taking it as clarifying the inverted and the real. Now we directly differentiate the supporting [tathāgata]garbha from the self within the aggregates, clarifying that the substance of the [tathāgata]garbha is completely free from all marks; hence this section appears here. What is explained now is: the previous section refuted the Small Vehicle and other Mahāyānists who do not establish the realm of the tathāgatagarbha; now this second part refutes the non-Buddhists. Above it was explained that all sentient beings possess the tathāgatagarbha as the support for saṃsāra, and a doubter might say: "If so, how does it differ from the non-Buddhists?" Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "Examination of Prior Entity," says: "Within the bodies of sentient beings there is a spiritual self, which is called the 'prior entity'. 'Prior entity' means that the spirit is the root of the faculties; the faculties of suffering, pleasure, and so forth depend on the spirit to abide. Furthermore, the self exists from the beginning and its substance is a permanent dharma; dharmas such as suffering and pleasure depend on it to abide, hence it is called the prior entity." If so, how can it differ from the tathāgatagarbha? Now, wishing to differentiate this meaning, this text appears. "Tathāgatagarbha" adduces the real. "Not a self, not a sentient being, not a life-principle, not a person" directly refutes the non-Buddhists. Question: What is the difference among these four: self and so forth? Answer: Sūtras and treatises explain them differently. As a sūtra says: "Contemplate internally: there is no self; externally: there is no sentient being; in the conjunction of internal and external: there is no life-principle; ultimately pure: there is no person." The aggregates are not a spiritual master, which is called "no self". Apart from the aggregates nothing exists either, which is called "externally there is no sentient being". The continuity of the aggregates and the nominally designated sentient being is called "life-principle", having no distinct substance of life, hence it says "in the conjunction of internal and external there is no life-principle". The dominant functioning of the aggregates in combination is called "person", having no distinct substance of a person, hence it is called "ultimately pure". The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Giving rise to the thought of self and mine regarding the five aggregates is called 'self'. Arising from the combination of manifold dharmas such as the five aggregates is called 'sentient being'. The accomplishment of the life-faculty is called 'experiencer' or 'life-principle'. Being able to practice human dharmas is called 'person'." The Vajracchedikā-śāstra fully explains these four, and one may consult it. Now it is clarified that the tathāgatagarbha differs completely from these four dharmas, and thus does not resemble the non-Buddhists. This only explains that the substance of the [tathāgata]garbha could be conflated with the personal self; since buddhadhātu is precisely the substance of the person, one must differentiate it from the person; it does not explain that it is the substance of dharmas, so it briefly omits differentiating it from the dharma-self. Question: How does the chapter "Inverted Real" differ from "The Real Concealed by the Meaning of Emptiness"? Answer: The previous chapter explained that the Buddha has two wisdoms, knowing that that which conceals is ultimately empty and that that which is concealed is not empty, so that which conceals covers that which is concealed. This chapter explains that the substance of that which is concealed is empty and devoid of all marks, yet sentient beings fail to understand it and become the three kinds of inverted sentient beings, which thereby constitutes a storehouse. Thus, the previous chapter explained that that which conceals is empty while that which is concealed exists; this chapter explains that that which is concealed is empty while that which conceals exists; they can also both exist. One who understands these four propositions is a person who understands the tathāgatagarbha.