大般涅槃經集解 68.88

68.88

案僧亮曰：廣上觀心行於緣不得法，皆是無明。錄其重者，分為欲有。欲界命資外存欲情重，名為欲漏。上界癡輕，直名為有。「內惡覺觀」訖「生於欲漏」者，漏是貪等煩惱，內外緣生，覺觀是想、緣是外想，「是故一切」訖「是名欲漏」。緣非欲也，能生欲者欲，從欲生者欲漏也。我及我所者，不能分別陰界皆是無明，欲知其是總也。貪因癡因者，三煩惱，錄其重者，無明通輕重，得為癡因也。寶亮曰：第二番，先釋三漏名義，後辯其相因起漏之源。凡夫所為不能忘懷，唯自是為失，故成漏因。聖人以道自處，心無所存，故成道緣也。或時因中說果者，夫無漏解本非果報，從所發處為名，故說無漏為果。迦葉向問有無漏果，復言智者斷諸果報，今諸聖人云何得有？佛答云：真實無有無漏果報。得知無漏是散滅生死法，非復集諦。而解者稱此無漏但不繫三界，由感變易果者，恐非聖意。而今大乘了義，佛自斷云：真實無有無漏果報。豈更感生死果成於集諦？而《勝鬘經》稱無漏業為因，無明住地為緣者，別自有意，不關用無漏為集諦也。五陰是業煩惱家果，寄他無常苦報。上依善知識理緣中發得此無漏解，故云是果。撿理而談，實非果也。或從心身到梵天邊者，亦是因中說果。心者是定因，此定能得梵天身。

Sengliang comments: This elaborates on the previous contemplation of mental activity toward conditions failing to grasp the Dharma, all of which is ignorance. Recording the severe among them, they are divided into desire and existence. In the desire realm, life depends on the external, and longing is strong, so it is named the outflow of desire. In the higher realms, delusion is slight, so it is simply called existence. From 'internal evil vitarka and vicāra' up to 'gives rise to the outflow of desire', outflows are afflictions such as greed, arising from internal and external conditions; vitarka and vicāra are conceptualizations, and conditions are external conceptualizations. From 'therefore all' up to 'this is named the outflow of desire', conditions are not desire; what can produce desire is desire, and what is produced from desire is the outflow of desire. As for 'self and what belongs to self', the inability to distinguish the aggregates and sensory realms is all ignorance; wishing to know them is the general [ignorance]. 'The cause of greed and cause of delusion': among the three afflictions, recording the severe ones, ignorance pervades the light and heavy, and thus can be the cause of delusion. Baoliang comments: In the second turn, first the names and meanings of the three outflows are explained, and then their mutual causal arising and the source of outflows are analyzed. What ordinary persons do cannot be forgotten; taking oneself to be exclusively correct is their fault, which therefore becomes the cause of outflows. Sages dwell in the path and retain nothing in mind, which therefore becomes the condition for the path. As for 'sometimes speaking of the fruit within the cause', uncontaminated understanding is fundamentally not a karmic retribution, but is named after where it arises; hence the uncontaminated is called a fruit. Kāśyapa previously asked whether there is an uncontaminated fruit, and also said that the wise cut off all retributions—how then could the sages now possess it? The Buddha answered, saying: In truth there is no uncontaminated karmic retribution. One comes to know that the uncontaminated is a dharma that disperses and extinguishes saṃsāra, no longer the truth of origin. Yet some commentators claim that this uncontaminated is merely not bound to the three realms and still induces the fruit of transformation; this, I fear, is not the sage's intent. Now the Mahāyāna definitive teaching shows that the Buddha himself definitively states: In truth there is no uncontaminated karmic retribution. How could it induce another saṃsāric fruit and constitute the truth of origin? When the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra states that uncontaminated karma is the cause and the avidyāvāsabhūmi is the condition, it has a distinct intent of its own and does not use the uncontaminated as the truth of origin. The five aggregates are the fruit of karma and afflictions, residing in other impermanent, painful retributions. Dependent on the true conditions of good spiritual friends, one gives rise to this uncontaminated understanding; therefore it is called a fruit. Investigating the principle, in reality it is not a fruit. As for 'or from the body of mind reaching the Brahmā world', this is also speaking of the fruit within the cause. Mind is the cause of meditative concentration, and this concentration can attain a Brahmā-world body.