大般涅槃經疏 11.17

11.17

然此一品答上兩問：初答云何作善業、次答能見難見性。此兩相成，只由善業能見於性。性由善業，業始性終，從終題品。論人解善業義者，假名行人能御善惡，御善則陶練心神得成正覺。中論人問：生死中有假人，此人是佛性不？彼答：不得是佛性，即並亦不得是我。既其無我，誰御善業？又汝明假者是不自在，我是自在二事相害。地人明：法界之體有善惡用，體用具足在妄惑內，如土覆金無能沮壞。妄惑若爾，此用無用，何能作業？今明此義如經金藏不可見者，是時不能作於善業，掘出藏已何須善業耘除草穢？小乘運作非是善業，異人方便示子金藏於舍掘之，正是能作善業之義。若約六位，初位不能、後位不須，中間四句是作業位。若約四句，隱不能、顯不須，亦隱亦顯正能作業。就答善業又二：一明佛性為善業作緣、二明佛性正起善業。初為善業作緣又二：一明業緣、二論義。初業緣中復有問答。問近從〈四倒品〉生，一切世間雖說有我不名佛性，出世真我名為佛性。是故興問。二十五有若定有我，有則非有；若定無我，誰作善業？故言二十五有有我不耶？佛以兩譬答之。初譬則明本有不可見，次譬不即得說以釋疑。初譬中有法、譬、合。法說為兩：一本有、二不可見。然佛性非本非當，為緣說之。次譬，文為四：一譬本有、二譬不可見、三譬緣感、四譬顯說。初文意者，窘乏緣了故言貧，有能生力故言女，棲託五陰故言舍，有正佛性故言金，此性包含故言藏，此性廣博故言多。次家人大小不知者，舊解四果聖人為大、三界凡夫為小，此皆不知。中論人云：但菩薩為大、但聲聞為小，亦皆不知。今明人天為小、析空二乘為大，析空二乘為小、體空二乘為大，但空聲聞為小、但空菩薩為大，但空菩薩為小、出假菩薩為大，皆亦不知。三「時有異人」去，譬緣感。於中問答，先以小道逗之，故言耘除草穢。緣不肯受，故言不能。若示子金，緣為化力。欲先於人，我亦欲見，即是後己。四「是人即」去，顯說。三合譬，有二：先合、次帖。合，可見。第二譬，為二：先譬、次合。初譬為四：一明起有我病、二說無我藥、三邪我病息、四真我教興。意同〈哀歎〉，彼譬顯、此譬隱。舊解女人良醫，凡四師說。一云：女譬法身，醫譬應身。二云：女譬實智，醫譬權智。三云：女譬前佛，醫譬後佛。四云：女譬佛智，醫譬機緣。上文貧女譬眾生身，此女既不言貧，用譬佛智勝應。生育一子譬於眾生稟教生解，以解微故，故言嬰孩。著邪常故，故言得病。次「是女愁惱」下，譬說無我之藥，又三：一佛智觀機、二得機設化、三斷邪我。初文者，權智起悲，故言愁惱。覓無我機，故言求醫。次良醫既至，即得機施化。設三種藥，譬無常三修。三「因告女人」下，斷邪我教。此中乳譬真我。真我非時，故言莫興。苦味塗乳者，譬以無我覆於真我，如苦與甜，其性相違。前合三藥中何故復有乳？此亦是無我苦味，與常相違。三「其兒渴乏」下，譬邪我病息。先明病息、次明藥消。真我緣起故言渴乏，我無我相違故言毒氣。無我治邪，邪消藥息，故言藥消。四母乃洗乳，譬真我教興。又四：一為說、二違情、三重說、四受行可見。次如來亦爾者，合譬也。但合二藥，不合二病。本意疑於我無我異，是故合藥；治病是旁，是故不合。〈哀歎〉亦爾。問：隱名如來藏我是佛性者，一切眾生有我性耶？答：一切眾生皆悉有性，未即是佛，是故有我未是我德。何者？人別法通。法通故，有性有我；人別故，非佛非德。問：法是人法，昔既無別人，法是誰法？解云：法屬法性（云云）。

However, this one chapter answers the two questions above: first it answers how one performs wholesome karma, and next it answers being able to see the nature that is difficult to see. These two complement each other, for it is solely due to wholesome karma that one can see the nature. The nature depends on wholesome karma; karma is the beginning and the nature is the culmination, so the chapter is titled from the culmination. As for the treatise masters who explain the meaning of wholesome karma, a practitioner of nominal designation can regulate good and evil, and by regulating the good, one refines the mental consciousness to attain true awakening. The Mādhyamika masters ask: within saṃsāra there is a nominal person; is this person the buddhadhātu or not? The others answer: it cannot be the buddhadhātu, nor then can it be the self. Since there is no self, who regulates wholesome karma? Furthermore, according to your explanation, nominal entities are not autonomous, while the self is autonomous; the two contradict each other. The Daśabhūmika masters explain: the essence of the dharmadhātu has wholesome and unwholesome functions; with essence and function fully present within delusive afflictions, just as earth covers gold without anything being able to ruin it. If delusive afflictions are like that, this function would be useless; how could it perform karma? Now we clarify this meaning: as the sūtra states, when the gold treasury cannot be seen, at that time one cannot perform wholesome karma; once the treasury is excavated, why would one need wholesome karma to weed out grass and filth? The activities of the Hinayana are not wholesome karma. The extraordinary person using skillful means shows the child the gold treasury in the house to dig it up; this is precisely the meaning of being able to perform wholesome karma. If classified by the six stages, the initial stage is unable and the final stage has no need; the four intermediate clauses are the stages of performing karma. If classified by the four clauses, when hidden it is unable, when manifested it has no need, and when both hidden and manifested it can truly perform karma. Regarding the answer about wholesome karma, there are again two parts: first, clarifying that the buddhadhātu serves as a condition for wholesome karma; second, clarifying that the buddhadhātu genuinely gives rise to wholesome karma. In the first part on serving as a condition for wholesome karma, there are again two: first, clarifying the conditions of karma; second, debating the meaning. In the first part on the conditions of karma, there are further questions and answers. The question closely arises from the "Chapter on the Four Inverted Views": although all worldly realms speak of a self, it is not called the buddhadhātu; the supramundane true self is called the buddhadhātu. For this reason the question is raised. If the twenty-five realms of existence definitely have a self, having it means it is not nonexistent; if they definitely have no self, who performs wholesome karma? Therefore it is asked: do the twenty-five realms of existence have a self or not? The Buddha answers with two similes. The first simile clarifies that what is fundamentally present cannot be seen; the second simile explains that it cannot be spoken of immediately, thereby resolving doubts. In the first simile, there are the doctrinal principle, the simile, and the application. The doctrinal statement has two parts: first, fundamentally present; second, cannot be seen. However, the buddhadhātu is neither fundamentally present nor future; it is spoken of for the sake of conditions. Next, the simile's text has four parts: first, illustrating fundamental presence; second, illustrating invisibility; third, illustrating the response to conditions; fourth, illustrating explicit teaching. The meaning of the first passage is: being destitute of conditional and revealing causes is why it says "poor"; having the capacity to produce is why it says "woman"; residing in the five aggregates is why it says "house"; having the authentic buddhadhātu is why it says "gold"; this nature containing everything is why it says "treasury"; and this nature being vast is why it says "much". Next, as for the family members, great and small, not knowing: former interpretations held that the noble persons of the four fruits are "great" and ordinary beings of the triple realm are "small", all of whom do not know. The Mādhyamika masters say: only bodhisattvas are "great" and only śrāvakas are "small", all of whom also do not know. We now clarify: humans and devas are small, while the two vehicles of analytical emptiness are great; the two vehicles of analytical emptiness are small, while the two vehicles of embodied emptiness are great; the śrāvakas of mere emptiness are small, while the bodhisattvas of mere emptiness are great; the bodhisattvas of mere emptiness are small, while the bodhisattvas who emerge from provisionality are great—all of whom also do not know. Third, from "at that time an extraordinary person" onward illustrates the response to conditions. Within this there is a question and answer: first meeting them with the lesser path, hence it says "weed out grass and filth". When the conditions are unwilling to accept it, hence it says "cannot". If showing the child the gold, the conditions serve as the power of transformation. Wishing to precede others, while "I also wish to see it", means placing oneself behind. Fourth, from "this person then" onward is the explicit teaching. Third, the application of the simile has two parts: first the application, and next the line-by-line commentary. The application is evident. The second simile has two parts: first the simile, next the application. The first simile has four parts: first, clarifying the arising of the sickness of positing a self; second, teaching the medicine of non-self; third, the cessation of the sickness of a false self; fourth, the flourishing of the teaching of the true self. The meaning is the same as in the "Lamentation Chapter"; that simile was manifest, while this simile is hidden. For the former interpretations of the woman and the good physician, four masters gave explanations. One says: the woman illustrates the dharmakāya, and the physician illustrates the nirmāṇakāya. The second says: the woman illustrates real wisdom, and the physician illustrates provisional wisdom. The third says: the woman illustrates the previous Buddha, and the physician illustrates the subsequent Buddha. The fourth says: the woman illustrates the Buddha's wisdom, and the physician illustrates the capacities and conditions. In the passage above, the poor woman illustrated the bodies of sentient beings; since this woman is not said to be poor, she illustrates the Buddha's wisdom and superior response. Giving birth to a single son illustrates sentient beings receiving the teaching and giving rise to understanding; because their understanding is slight, it says "infant". Because they cling to a false permanence, it says "fell ill". Next, from "this woman was grieved and distressed" downward illustrates teaching the medicine of non-self, which again has three parts: first, the Buddha's wisdom contemplates capacities; second, finding the capacity to establish transformation; third, cutting off the false self. In the first passage, provisional wisdom gives rise to compassion, hence it says "grieved and distressed". Searching for the capacity for non-self is why it says "sought a physician". Next, when the good physician arrives, he immediately finds the capacity to administer transformation. Setting forth three kinds of medicine illustrates the three cultivations of impermanence. Third, from "thereupon he told the woman" downward cuts off the teaching of a false self. Here, the milk illustrates the true self. Because it is not the time for the true self, it says do not give it. Smearing the breast with a bitter taste illustrates covering the true self with non-self, just as bitter and sweet are opposed in nature. Why was milk also included when compounding the three medicines previously? This too is the bitter taste of non-self, opposing permanence. Third, from "the child was thirsty" downward illustrates the cessation of the sickness of a false self. First, clarifying the cessation of the sickness; next, clarifying the digestion of the medicine. Because the conditions for the true self arise, it says "thirsty"; because self and non-self are mutually opposed, it says "toxic energy". Non-self remedies the false; when the false is eliminated, the medicine ceases, hence it says "the medicine was digested". Fourth, the mother then washing her breast illustrates the flourishing of the teaching of the true self. Again there are four parts: first, speaking for them; second, conflicting with inclinations; third, reiterating; fourth, accepting and practicing, which are evident. Next, "the Tathāgata is also like this" is the application of the simile. It only applies the two medicines and does not apply the two sicknesses. The original intention was doubt concerning the difference between self and non-self, which is why the medicines are applied; curing the sickness is secondary, which is why it is not applied. The "Lamentation Chapter" is also like this. Question: If the hidden is called the tathāgatagarbha and the self is the buddhadhātu, do all sentient beings have the nature of the self? Answer: All sentient beings have the nature, but are not yet Buddhas; therefore they have the self, but do not yet have the virtue of the self. Why is this? Persons are distinct, while the Dharma is universal. Because the Dharma is universal, there is the nature and there is the self; because persons are distinct, they are not Buddhas and do not possess the virtue. Question: Dharma is the Dharma of persons; since previously there was no distinct person, whose Dharma is the Dharma? Explanation: Dharma belongs to dharmatā (and so forth).