大般涅槃經疏 31.27

31.27

「如我先說」下，第二就行為歎，為二：初明道品、次明十想。此有兩義：一為行之要、二皆是大行。言行要者，菩薩應修六度四等為行之要，何得以聲聞道品十想為要？此明道品取真解之位已上，十想取方便之位，此是似解。正觀是入道宗，寧非要耶？又以大涅槃心修，則非二乘法。言大行者，欲攝眾善無非大士之所行故。初明道品，於中為二：初正明道品體、次明道品因緣。初體又三：一明真解為是、二明有漏則非、三還結真是。莊嚴解道品云：三四是外凡所觀，二五是內凡能觀，八七是真聖作觀。開善云：不爾。三十七品通內外凡，三四二五並是內凡似解之觀；八七皆是真聖觀之，八正是見諦，七覺是思惟。觀師彈莊嚴云：《大品》明三十七品是出世法，云何三四是外凡？彈開善云：此文世第一法非淨梵行，三十七品是清淨梵行，云何外凡而能觀之？天台明道品多種，具在《止觀》道品文中。莊嚴據約位道品、開善據通修道品，皆是一塗（云云）。就初明是，有四：第一明三十七品為梵行之宗。「若離如是」下，第二明離道品則不得果。「以是因緣」下，第三結是。「何以故」下，第四釋是之意。「迦葉白佛有漏之法」下，第二明非，有四番問答。此初番問中明有漏善非。問意云：有漏之善亦資生無漏，何故不說以為梵行？答：以其體是倒故，是故不得言是。倒者，不明有漏之善有常無常等倒，但既是有漏則有執心，不能無得，故名為倒。「迦葉白佛世第一法」下，第二問答。問意欲舉世法為難，故先定義宗。佛言有漏者，佛答。開善云：五方便皆帶取相實是有漏，然又是相似無漏，但未能斷漏。不攝無漏之異，故言有漏。然其體實不執，故難文即云性非倒也。「世尊雖是有漏」下，第三問答，正難。問意云：雖復謂為有漏，而能生解，體非顛倒。既其若是，何故非梵行？佛答有二：此初，言向無漏故不名倒者，明此觀發無漏，故不名倒，而自體有執。次又言世第一法唯是一心者，正取隣於苦忍為第一法，則唯一剎那心。今佛答意，明我說梵行本令眾生發心相續，世法即唯一心，是故不取。「迦葉白佛眾生五識」下，第四問答。問中舉五識為問。文云眾生五識非是顛倒者，諸解不同：有說識陰未有取相；或言識心有相，但輕後三心。而今問家云五識非倒者，謂但一往得境，未分別三假參差之相，故說非倒。而復云非一心者，如眼見色即心心相續，若爾者，不得不為梵行。佛答云然是有漏，復是顛倒，故知識心已有取相。又云體非真實，非著想故倒。下文釋云生男女想乃至舍宅缾衣等想者，識心未得男女形心缾衣等解，此乃想心而有。此文者，欲明想時何故有執？正由前識心已著色聲，故生今想著，舉果明因也。「善男子三十七品」下，第三結是也。

From "As I previously explained" onward is the second [section], praising [the sūtra] in terms of practice, divided into two: first, explaining the factors of awakening (bodhipākṣika-dharma); second, explaining the ten perceptions. This has two meanings: first, being the essentials of practice; second, all being great practices. Regarding their being the essentials of practice: a bodhisattva ought to cultivate the six perfections and the four equalities as the essentials of practice; why would the śrāvaka factors of awakening and ten perceptions be taken as essential? This explains that the factors of awakening are taken from the stages of true understanding and above, while the ten perceptions are taken from the stages of expedient means, which are resemblance-understanding. Correct contemplation is the principal gate for entering the Path; how could it not be essential? Furthermore, when cultivated with the mind of great nirvāṇa, it is not the dharma of the two vehicles. Regarding their being great practices: it is because they aim to gather all goods, none of which are not practiced by the Great Being. In the first part, explaining the factors of awakening, there are two subdivisions: first, directly explaining the essence of the factors of awakening; second, explaining the causes and conditions of the factors of awakening. The first, on the essence, also has three parts: first, explaining that true understanding is correct; second, explaining that the contaminated is not; third, returning to conclude what is truly correct. [Master] Zhuāngyán explained the factors of awakening, saying: the three and four are contemplated by external ordinary beings; the two fives are contemplations practiced by internal ordinary beings; the eight and seven are contemplations practiced by true noble ones. Kāishàn said: this is not so. The thirty-seven factors pervade both internal and external ordinary beings; the three, four, and two fives are all contemplations of resemblance-understanding of internal ordinary beings; the eight and seven are all contemplated by true noble ones: the eight right [factors] belong to the vision of the truths, and the seven factors of awakening belong to cultivation. Master Guān refuted Zhuāngyán, saying: the *Pañcaviṃśati* explains that the thirty-seven factors are supramundane dharmas; how could the three and four belong to external ordinary beings? He refuted Kāishàn, saying: this text states that supreme worldly dharmas (laukikāgradharma) are not pure conduct, while the thirty-seven factors are pure conduct; how could external ordinary beings be able to contemplate them? Tiāntái explains the factors of awakening in multiple ways, fully detailed in the text on the factors of awakening in the *Mahaśamathavipaśyanā*. Zhuāngyán relied on the factors of awakening according to stages, while Kāishàn relied on the universally cultivated factors of awakening; each is just one approach. In the first part, explaining what is correct, there are four: first, explaining the thirty-seven factors as the principle of pure conduct; from "If one departs from such" onward, second, explaining that departing from the factors of awakening results in not attaining the fruit; from "For this reason" onward, third, concluding what is correct; from "Why is that" onward, fourth, explaining the rationale for what is correct. From "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: Contaminated dharmas..." onward is the second [part], explaining what is not [pure conduct], comprising four rounds of question and answer. In this first round of questioning, it is explained that contaminated goodness is not [pure conduct]. The question means: contaminated goodness also fosters and generates the uncontaminated; why is it not spoken of as pure conduct? The answer: because its essence is inverted, it therefore cannot be said to be so. "Inverted" does not mean that contaminated goodness has the inversions of permanence, impermanence, and so forth; rather, since it is contaminated, it possesses an adhering mind and cannot be free from attainment, and is thus called inverted. From "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: The supreme worldly dharmas..." onward is the second question and answer. The questioner wishes to raise worldly dharmas as a challenge, and thus first defines the principle. "The Buddha said: They are contaminated" is the Buddha's answer. Kāishàn said: The five expedients all carry grasping at marks and are genuinely contaminated; yet they are also resemblance uncontaminated, but have not yet been able to sever contaminations. Because they do not encompass the distinction of the uncontaminated, they are called contaminated. Yet their essence does not truly grasp; hence the challenge text states that their nature is not inverted. From "World-Honoured One, although they are contaminated..." onward is the third question and answer, directly posing the challenge. The question means: although they are spoken of as contaminated, they can generate understanding, and their essence is not inverted. Since they are like this, why are they not pure conduct? The Buddha's answer has two parts: first, stating that because they tend toward the uncontaminated they are not called inverted explains that this contemplation brings forth the uncontaminated and hence is not called inverted, yet in their own essence there is grasping. Next, stating that supreme worldly dharmas are only a single thought-moment means that, taking precisely what is adjacent to the receptivity to suffering (duḥkhe dharmajñānakṣānti) as the supreme dharma, it is only a single moment of mind. Now, the Buddha's intention in answering is to explain: I taught that pure conduct originally causes sentient beings to arouse the mind in continuity; worldly dharmas are only a single thought, and therefore are not accepted [as pure conduct]. From "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: The five consciousnesses of sentient beings..." onward is the fourth question and answer. The question raises the five consciousnesses. The text says that the five consciousnesses of sentient beings are not inverted; various explanations differ: some say the consciousness aggregate does not yet possess grasping at marks; others say the consciousness mind does have marks, but they are lighter than the subsequent three mental states. Now, when the questioner says the five consciousnesses are not inverted, it means that they merely take in the object in an initial encounter without discerning the irregular marks of the three provisional designations, and thus they are said to be not inverted. But then he says they are not a single thought-moment: for instance, when the eye sees form, mind-moments succeed one another in continuity; if so, they cannot but be pure conduct. The Buddha answered that they are contaminated and also inverted, from which we know that the consciousness mind already possesses grasping at marks. Furthermore, he says their essence is not real, and they are inverted because of grasping at conceptions. The text below explains that giving rise to the conception of male and female, up to conceptions of houses, pots, clothes, and so forth, belongs to the conceptualizing mind, as the consciousness mind has not yet attained understanding of the shapes, minds, pots, clothes, and so forth of males and females. What this text wishes to explain is: why is there grasping at the time of conceptualization? It is precisely because the preceding consciousness mind has already become attached to form and sound that it now gives rise to conceptual grasping—indicating the cause by pointing to the fruit. From "O good son, the thirty-seven factors..." onward, third, concludes what is correct.