勝鬘寶窟 3.51

3.51

「此自性清淨」下，第二解釋。就文為三：第一略釋；第二「何以故」下，廣釋；第三「唯佛世尊」下，仰推於佛。初文中，一牒淨心；二「客塵煩惱」，顯隨緣隱覆。「此自性清淨」者牒第五、「如來藏」牒第一，但牒始終，餘三略。而雖牒第一，為成第五，以第五正明自性清淨不染故也。是以文牒第五無藏字，故知以第一成第五也。「而客塵」，凡言而者，返前述後之辭也。「客塵煩惱」者，是性成煩惱。望推本性淨心之舊，故說之為客。又無始無明自心分別所作，無有真實，故名為客。坌污稱塵。「上煩惱」者，現起煩惱也。淨心為此二煩惱所染也。「不思議」者，性淨而染，明下情不及也。「如來境界」者，辨唯上智能知也。「何以故」下，第二釋也。「何以故」者，問也。何以淨心而染是不思議佛境界故耶？「剎那善心」下，對問釋也。有人言：剎那善心不善心不為煩惱所染者，正解淨義。剎那是念，念善心體、念惡心體，煩惱俱不能染，不能染故淨。「煩惱不觸心，心不觸煩惱」者，釋前不染。煩惱出自妄情，不及真識，故不觸心；據真無妄，故不觸煩惱。其猶世人見繩為蛇，蛇出妄情，故不觸繩；繩體常淨，亦不觸蛇。「云何不觸法而能得染心」者，責遣染過。今明經言剎那善心不為煩惱染，汝淨心無剎那。又正應觸善心無染，云何亦舉不善心耶？今就文為二：一者舉現近麁法無染而染，以況遠細；二從「自性清淨」下，正明細心不染染義。就初又二：第一明染無所染；二從「世尊然有煩惱」下，明不染染義。就文又二：一正明無染；二從「煩惱不觸心」下，舉不觸釋成無染。「剎那善心非煩惱所染」者，此借麁顯細也。善心是淨、不善心是垢。善心之中無有貪瞋癡，是為淨中無垢，無有染義也。「剎那不善心亦非煩惱所染」者，不善心者即是貪瞋癡心也。當起貪瞋癡時，善心已謝。不善心既即是煩惱，是則唯垢無淨，唯能染無所染，亦無染義。前句有淨無垢，有所染無能染，不成染義；後句有垢無淨，有能染無所染，亦不成染義。如帛與渥合時，可得名染；唯渥無帛、唯帛無渥，竝不成染義。若善心與不善心兩共合者，如渥帛合，可為染義。而二心未曾共俱，垢時無淨、淨時無垢，何得有染？故《中論．縛解品》云「若謂五陰是可縛，五陰中餘煩惱來縛者，是亦不然。」曇影法師釋云：「心淨時則無物來縛，心垢時則無可縛。」此明心淨時有所縛無能縛，心垢時有能縛無所縛。故羅什云：「傳吾業者，寄在道融、曇影、僧叡乎！」釋彼論與此經同。又一意：夫論煩惱染心，心不出二種：一者善心、二者不善心。善心者無貪瞋心也，不善心者貪瞋心也。煩惱竝無染此二心義。所以然者，當起善心時無不善心，但有所染無能染，不成染義。不善心即是貪瞋癡，云何有能染所染？不善心既即是貪瞋癡，則唯是能染，無有所染。不爾，唯是所染，無有能染。若有能所染，便一剎那中有二貪瞋癡心，而實不爾。此亦如《中論．縛解品》，眾生謂五陰身是縛，論云「有身則不縛。若身是所縛，則無能縛。若是能縛，則無所縛。若有能縛所縛，便成二身。」「心不觸煩惱」者，第二舉不觸釋成無染。善心、不善心通名為心，此二種心竝不觸煩惱。有善心時則無煩惱，一切無相觸，如指端不自觸。煩惱不觸心者，善心不善心家二種煩惱竝不觸，有煩惱時無有善心，故煩惱不觸善心；煩惱即是不善心，一體之法亦無相觸，故煩惱不觸不善心也。若就《成論》義，識想受三心未起善，行心中方起善不善。從行心中起不善，染前三心。然行心起不善時，前三心已滅，有能染無所染。當有前三心時，所染無能染。大意同前。「云何不觸法而能得染心」者，此結無相染義。善不善心竟無相觸近義，云何得有相染耶？「世尊然有煩惱有煩惱染心」者，上來求煩惱染心義不可得，即是染無所染。而於眾生宛然有煩惱煩惱染心，此是不染而染。如《中論．觀染染者品》種種門求染，染者不可得，而假名因緣，有能染所染。問：云何是不染而染？答：前心是淨、後心是垢，垢心起時障於淨心，故名為染。「自性清淨心而有染者難可了知」，上來舉麁，今是況細。三界麁心染義，尚難可了知；自性清淨心而為所染，豈易可知？雖本性清淨，而於眾生成顛倒不淨，故名為客塵煩惱所染。雖為客塵煩惱所染，而常本性清淨，故實無所染，難可了知。「唯佛世尊」下，此明唯佛能知。「實眼」者，佛有實眼，見此自性清淨心為煩惱所染，了了分明，故如眼見。「實知」，照於此理。一切善法皆從佛出，故為法根本。佛知一切法，為通達法。「為正法依」，佛能抦持此法，法由人弘，故為正法依。

From "This prakṛtiprabhāsvara-citta" onwards is the second section, which explains it. In the text there are three parts: first, a brief explanation; second, from "Why is this?" onwards, a detailed explanation; third, from "Only the Buddha, the World-Honoured One" onwards, looking up and attributing it to the Buddha. In the initial passage, first it cites the pure mind; second, "adventitious defilements" reveals its being obscured in accordance with conditions. "This prakṛtiprabhāsvara-" cites the fifth [garbha], and "-tathāgatagarbha" cites the first; it only cites the beginning and the end, abridging the other three. Yet although it cites the first, it is in order to establish the fifth, because the fifth directly clarifies that the original nature is pure and undefiled. Hence the text cites the fifth without the word "garbha", so we know that the first establishes the fifth. As for "yet [adventitious]", whenever "yet" is used, it is a phrasing that turns back upon what precedes to express what follows. "Adventitious defilements" are defilements born of nature. Compared with the enduring status of the original pure mind, they are spoken of as adventitious. Furthermore, beginningless ignorance is produced by discrimination of one's own mind and has no reality, hence it is called adventitious. Soiling and polluting is called defilement. "Secondary defilements" are manifest defilements. The pure mind is defiled by these two kinds of defilements. "Inconceivable" means that it is intrinsically pure yet defiled, clarifying that it is beyond the reach of inferior minds. "The sphere of the Tathāgata" explains that only superior wisdom can know it. From "Why is this?" onwards is the second part, the explanation. "Why is this?" is a question: Why is the pure mind being defiled an inconceivable sphere of the Buddha? From "a momentary wholesome mind" onwards, it explains in response to the question. Someone said: "A momentary wholesome mind or unwholesome mind is not defiled by afflictions" directly explains the meaning of purity. A moment is a thought: the essence of a wholesome thought or the essence of an evil thought cannot be defiled by afflictions; because they cannot be defiled, they are pure. "Afflictions do not contact the mind, and the mind does not contact afflictions" explains the previous non-defilement. Afflictions arise from deluded feelings and do not reach the true consciousness, hence they do not contact the mind; relying on the true there is no delusion, hence it does not contact afflictions. It is like people in the world mistaking a rope for a snake: the snake arises from deluded perception, so it does not contact the rope; the substance of the rope is ever pure, so it also does not contact the snake. "How can an untouched phenomenon defile the mind?" refutes and eliminates the fault of defilement. Now we clarify: the sūtra says that a momentary wholesome mind is not defiled by afflictions, but your pure mind is without moments. Moreover, it should properly be that contact with a wholesome mind is free of defilement; why also bring up the unwholesome mind? Now, taking the text, there are two parts: first, it adduces coarse phenomena that are present and immediate being free of defilement yet defiled, in order to illustrate the distant and subtle; second, from "prakṛtiprabhāsvara-" onwards, it directly clarifies the subtle mind being undefiled yet defiled. In the first part there are again two: first, clarifying that in defilement there is nothing to be defiled; second, from "World-Honoured One, yet there are afflictions" onwards, clarifying the meaning of undefiled yet defiled. In the text there are again two: first, directly clarifying the absence of defilement; second, from "Afflictions do not contact the mind" onwards, adducing non-contact to explain and establish the absence of defilement. "A momentary wholesome mind is not defiled by afflictions": this borrows the coarse to reveal the subtle. The wholesome mind is pure, and the unwholesome mind is defiled. Within the wholesome mind there is no greed, anger, or delusion; this is the absence of defilement within purity, so there is no defilement. "A momentary unwholesome mind is also not defiled by afflictions": the unwholesome mind is itself the mind of greed, anger, and delusion. When greed, anger, and delusion arise, the wholesome mind has already ceased. Since the unwholesome mind is itself the afflictions, there is only defilement and no purity, only that which can defile and nothing that is defiled; thus there is also no defilement. The preceding sentence has purity and no defilement, having that which is defiled but nothing that defiles, so defilement is not established; the following sentence has defilement and no purity, having that which defiles but nothing that is defiled, so defilement is also not established. Like when silk and dye are combined, it may be called dyeing; if there is only dye and no silk, or only silk and no dye, neither establishes the meaning of dyeing. If the wholesome mind and the unwholesome mind were to combine, like dye and silk combining, it could constitute defilement. But the two minds have never coexisted: when there is defilement there is no purity, and when there is purity there is no defilement; how could there be defilement? Therefore, the "Chapter on Bondage and Liberation" of the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "If it is claimed that the five aggregates are what is bound, and that other afflictions in the five aggregates come and bind them, this too is not so." Dharma Master Tanying explained: "When the mind is pure, then there is no entity that comes to bind it; when the mind is defiled, then there is nothing to be bound." This clarifies that when the mind is pure, there is that which is bound but nothing that binds; when the mind is defiled, there is that which binds but nothing that is bound. Therefore Kumārajīva said: "Those who will transmit my work—does it not rest with Daorong, Tanying, and Sengrui!" His explanation of that treatise agrees with this sūtra. Another interpretation is: when discussing afflictions defiling the mind, the mind does not exceed two kinds: first, the wholesome mind; second, the unwholesome mind. The wholesome mind is a mind free of greed and anger; the unwholesome mind is a mind of greed and anger. Afflictions have no meaning of defiling either of these two minds. Why so? When a wholesome mind arises, there is no unwholesome mind; there is only that which is defiled and nothing that defiles, so defilement is not established. The unwholesome mind is itself greed, anger, and delusion; how could there be that which defiles and that which is defiled? Since the unwholesome mind is itself greed, anger, and delusion, it is solely that which can defile, with nothing that is defiled. Otherwise, it would be solely that which is defiled, with nothing that can defile. If there were both that which defiles and that which is defiled, then within a single moment there would be two minds of greed, anger, and delusion, but in reality it is not so. This is also like the "Chapter on Bondage and Liberation" in the Madhyamakaśāstra, where sentient beings say that the body of the five aggregates is bondage, and the treatise says: "If there is a body, it is not bound. If the body is that which is bound, then there is nothing that binds. If it is that which binds, then there is nothing that is bound. If there were both that which binds and that which is bound, it would become two bodies." "The mind does not contact afflictions" is the second part, adducing non-contact to explain and establish the absence of defilement. Wholesome and unwholesome minds are both generally termed "mind"; both of these two minds do not contact afflictions. When there is a wholesome mind, then there are no afflictions; none of them contact one another, just as the tip of a finger does not contact itself. "Afflictions do not contact the mind": the two kinds of afflictions belonging to the wholesome and unwholesome minds do not contact them; when there are afflictions, there is no wholesome mind, hence afflictions do not contact the wholesome mind; afflictions are themselves the unwholesome mind, and a single essence of a dharma does not contact itself either, hence afflictions do not contact the unwholesome mind. If we take the perspective of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, the three minds of consciousness, conception, and feeling have not yet arisen as wholesome; only in the mind of volition (saṃskāra) do wholesome and unwholesome arise. From the mind of volition unwholesome arises, defiling the preceding three minds. Yet when the mind of volition arises as unwholesome, the preceding three minds have already ceased; there is that which can defile, but nothing that is defiled. When the preceding three minds exist, that which is defiled has nothing that can defile it. The general idea is the same as before. "How can an untouched phenomenon defile the mind?" concludes the meaning of the absence of mutual defilement. Since wholesome and unwholesome minds ultimately have no contact or proximity, how could there be mutual defilement? "World-Honoured One, yet there are afflictions, and there is the mind defiled by afflictions": previously, seeking the meaning of afflictions defiling the mind was ungraspable, which is defilement having nothing defiled. Yet in sentient beings there clearly are afflictions and the mind defiled by afflictions; this is undefiled yet defiled. Just as the "Examination of Passion and the Impassioned" of the Madhyamakaśāstra seeks passion and the impassioned through various approaches and finds them ungraspable, yet as conventional designations of causes and conditions there are that which defiles and that which is defiled. Question: How is it undefiled yet defiled? Answer: The preceding mind is pure, and the subsequent mind is defiled; when the defiled mind arises, it obstructs the pure mind, hence it is called defiled. "That the prakṛtiprabhāsvara-citta is defiled is difficult to comprehend": previously coarse phenomena were adduced, and now they illustrate the subtle. The meaning of defilement in the coarse minds of the three realms is already difficult to comprehend; how could the prakṛtiprabhāsvara-citta being defiled be easy to know? Although intrinsically pure, in sentient beings it becomes inverted and impure, hence it is said to be defiled by adventitious defilements. Although defiled by adventitious defilements, it is constantly pure in its original nature, so in truth there is nothing defiled; thus it is difficult to comprehend. From "Only the Buddha, the World-Honoured One" onwards, this clarifies that only the Buddha can know it. "True eye": the Buddha possesses the true eye, seeing this prakṛtiprabhāsvara-citta being defiled by afflictions, completely distinct and clear, so it is like seeing with the eyes. "True knowledge": illuminating this principle. All wholesome dharmas arise from the Buddha, hence he is the root of dharmas. The Buddha knows all dharmas, so he has fully penetrated dharmas. "The refuge of the true Dharma": the Buddha can uphold this Dharma; since the Dharma is propagated by persons, he is the refuge of the true Dharma.