淨名玄論 3.35

3.35

問：作此釋者，與舊何異？答：此義出經，彼此同用者，言不可異、意不可同，如上釋也。又舊但知界外無漏業生，有諸異釋，不達融會之旨，故通經為謬矣。問：若斷煩惱為因解脫、捨生死為果解脫，何得此經云「佛為增上慢，說斷煩惱名解脫。若無增上慢，煩惱即解脫」，又云「不壞於身，而隨一相」。豈得捨生死身名果解脫耶？答：如舊所明者，皆為淨名所呵，非解脫之義也。問：何故被呵？答：作此釋者，乃是縛義，未名解脫，豈不被呵。所以然者，雖有煩惱，治道斷，斯謂無煩惱。於煩惱中起有無見，始成縛義，何有解脫耶？又此乃於煩惱中更起煩惱，就其縛中重起纏縛。所以然者，本有舊煩惱，名為舊縛。尋經讀論、近友從師，便謂煩惱是有，而斷之令無。故於舊煩惱中新起有無二見，豈非縛中更復縛耶？又謂凡夫有煩惱，故起有見；謂聖無煩惱，故起無見。故於若聖若凡令起有無二見，故凡聖皆為縛，何有解脫耶？問？世諦之中有於迷悟，真觀惑虛，實虛妄，有何縛解？答：觀子之問，則重起於縛。所以然者，聞世諦之中有縛解，豈不生於有心？聞真諦中無縛解，豈不起於無念？故於真俗還成煩惱，生心動念終不離魔。俱撫臆論心，不用虛言往復。又言煩惱是縛、智慧為解，諸凡夫為縛人、真聖為解人，故捨凡取聖、滅惑生解。以滅惑故，不為惑所縛；而遂有解，則為解所縛。捨生死，不為生死所縛；得涅槃，則為涅槃所縛。如是常與無常、真之與妄，亦復如是。又我師興皇和上，每登高坐，常作是言：「行道之人，欲棄非道求於正道，則為道所縛。坐禪之者，息亂求靜，為禪所縛。學問之徒，謂有智慧，為慧所縛。」復云：「習無生觀，欲破洗有所得心，則為無生所縛。並是就縛之中欲捨縛耳，而實不知皆是繫縛。故《法華》云『不覺不知、不驚不怖，正擬斯人。』以若欲捨苦，更非求道也。」問：若上來所說皆是縛者，名何為解脫耶？答：觀問者之心，則離上縛外別欲求解，便謂縛解為二。經云「明與無明，愚者謂二，則名為縛」，何猶解脫耶？問：今不言其一二，但請陳解脫之旨。答：考詳問意，終有所求，則終有所縛，何猶解脫耶？此之一訓，足曉玄悟。如其未了，今略示教門。前云有煩惱而斷之令無，故於煩惱上起有無新縛。若能了煩惱本不有、今不無，則故惑自消、新病不起，畢故不造新，名得解脫也。上云捨煩惱不為煩惱所縛，欲求智慧，為慧所縛。今若能愚智雙棄、凡聖兩捨，即是蕭然無寄，名為解脫。又若由來明欲捨縛，前進求解。今但觀煩惱，煩惱體性則是解脫，云何乃欲捨縛而求解耶？是故經云「三毒即佛道，煩惱名解脫」。所以然者，煩惱體性本不生滅，豈非即是解脫也。問：若爾者：此乃是會真諦境，煩惱即空，以悟空為解脫耳。云何言煩惱即是解脫耶？答：即煩惱體性本空，不言煩惱是有，會真諦境然後方空。如眼病見空華，只華即是空，不可言先有此華，觀真諦境方知華空。《大品》云「諸法無所有如是有，如是有無所有」，此經云「從無住本故起妄相分別」。是故有身皆空華義耳。眾生迷故，以空為華；若得了悟，知華本空。問：迷故以空為華、若悟知華本空，與未得菩提時以菩提為煩惱、得菩提時以煩惱為菩提，何異？答：即是此義。經云「寂滅是菩提」，眾生未悟寂滅，則寂滅於眾生成煩惱。了悟之日，知煩惱本寂滅，故煩惱是菩提。問：為是迷菩提謂菩提是有，故菩提名煩惱耶？答：故自有此一塗，蓋是末中倒耳。然眾生本是寂滅亦本是菩提，以空倒故，寂滅於眾生成不寂滅、菩提於眾生成不菩提。如前云「諸法無所有」，眾生以無所有為有，此是根本倒也。眾生既以無所有為有，聖人為欲息其妄謂之有，故為說菩提。而眾生不知其旨，便謂菩提為有，故菩提復成煩惱。故有本末二重倒也。若是本倒，則眾生自起；末中論倒，則藉教而生。問：末中論倒，此事不疑。眾生既本是無所有，今以無所有為有，亦應本是菩提，今變成不菩提。若爾者，今得佛竟，亦應變成眾生。如是循環，則無窮也。答：不言眾生本無所有今方是有，但論即此眾生本是無所有，如華本是空，不言變空成華、亦非變華為空。於病人空恒是華，於無病人華恒是空。於眾生菩提成煩惱，於了悟之人煩惱常是菩提。故先云「於緣未始一，於道未始二」，即其事也。問：若爾者，蓋是夢虛空華義耳。昔已被彈，今云何用？答：什公云「十喻以悟空，空必待是喻。借言以會意，意盡無會處。既得出長羅，住此無所住。若更執熟空，華還成縛也。」

Question: How does making this explanation differ from the old [interpretations]?
Answer: This meaning comes from the sūtras; when both this and that use it, the words cannot differ, but the intent cannot be the same, as explained above. Furthermore, the old [masters] only knew of arising through untainted karma outside the triple world and held various divergent explanations, failing to realize the purport of harmonizing fusion, so their understanding of the sūtras was mistaken.
Question: If severing afflictions is liberation as cause, and relinquishing saṃsāra is liberation as effect, how is it that this sūtra says, "For those of overweening pride, the Buddha spoke of severing afflictions as liberation; if one has no overweening pride, afflictions are themselves liberation," and also says, "Without destroying the body, one accords with the single mark"? How could relinquishing the body of saṃsāra be called liberation as effect?
Answer: What was explained by the old [masters] was completely rebuked by Vimalakīrti and is not the meaning of liberation.
Question: Why was it rebuked?
Answer: Making this explanation is itself the meaning of bondage; it cannot yet be called liberation, so how could it not be rebuked? Why is this so? Although there are afflictions, the path of antidote severs them, which is called being without afflictions. Conceiving views of existence and nonexistence regarding afflictions is where the meaning of bondage first begins—how could there be liberation? Furthermore, this is giving rise to further afflictions within afflictions, and generating anew fetters within bondage itself. Why is this so? Originally having former afflictions is called the old bondage. Searching the sūtras, reading the treatises, approaching companions, and following teachers, one then thinks that afflictions exist and severs them to make them nonexistent. Thus, regarding the old afflictions, one newly generates the two views of existence and nonexistence—how is this not binding further within bondage? Moreover, thinking that ordinary persons have afflictions, one gives rise to the view of existence; thinking that sages have no afflictions, one gives rise to the view of nonexistence. Thus, regarding both sages and ordinary persons, one generates the two views of existence and nonexistence; therefore, both ordinary persons and sages are bound—how could there be liberation?
Question: In saṃvṛti-satya there are delusion and awakening, and real contemplation [sees] delusion as unreal; if it is truly unreal and delusive, what bondage and liberation could there be?
Answer: Looking at your question, you have given rise to bondage once again. Why is this so? Hearing that there are bondage and liberation within saṃvṛti-satya, do you not give rise to a mind [grasping at] existence? Hearing that there are no bondage and liberation in paramārtha-satya, do you not give rise to a thought [grasping at] nonexistence? Thus, with regard to the real and the conventional, these turn back into afflictions; generating thoughts and moving the mind never departs from Māra. Let us both hold our chests and examine our minds, rather than engaging in empty verbal exchanges. Furthermore, saying that affliction is bondage and wisdom is liberation, that all ordinary persons are bound beings and true sages are liberated beings—thus relinquishing the ordinary and grasping the sage, extinguishing delusion and producing understanding—because delusion is extinguished, one is not bound by delusion, yet thereupon having understanding, one is bound by understanding. Relinquishing saṃsāra, one is not bound by saṃsāra, yet attaining nirvāṇa, one is bound by nirvāṇa. The permanent and impermanent, the real and the delusive, are likewise also like this. Furthermore, my teacher, the Upādhyāya of Xinghuang, whenever ascending the high seat, constantly spoke these words: "A person practicing the Path who wishes to abandon the non-path to seek the correct Path is bound by the Path. One who sits in dhyāna, quieting disturbance to seek stillness, is bound by dhyāna. Those who study, thinking they possess wisdom, are bound by wisdom." He also said: "Practicing the contemplation of non-arising, wishing to demolish and cleanse the mind that has attainments, one is bound by non-arising. These are all merely wishing to relinquish bondage from within bondage, yet truly not knowing that these are all fetters. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says, 'Without awareness, without knowledge, without alarm, without fright'—it precisely targets these people. For if one wishes to relinquish suffering, that is not seeking the Path."
Question: If everything spoken above is bondage, what is called liberation?
Answer: Looking at the questioner's mind, apart from the bondage above, you separately wish to seek liberation, thus considering bondage and liberation as two. The sūtra says, "Light and ignorance—fools consider them to be two, and that is called bondage"—how is that yet liberation?
Question: Now I do not speak of them as one or two; I merely ask that you expound the purport of liberation.
Answer: Examining the intention of your question, ultimately there is something sought, and so ultimately there is something bound—how is that yet liberation? This single instruction is sufficient to enlighten one to profound awakening. If you have not yet understood, I shall now briefly show the gate of the teaching. Previously it was said that having afflictions, one severs them to make them nonexistent, and therefore upon afflictions one gives rise to the new bondage of existence and nonexistence. If one can understand that afflictions originally do not exist and now are not nonexistent, then former delusions naturally dissolve and new sicknesses do not arise; exhausting the old without creating the new is called attaining liberation. Above it was said that relinquishing afflictions, one is not bound by afflictions, yet wishing to seek wisdom, one is bound by wisdom. Now, if one can abandon both foolishness and wisdom and relinquish both ordinary person and sage, this is to be tranquil and without resting place, which is called liberation. Furthermore, if hitherto one clearly wished to relinquish bondage and advance to seek liberation, now one merely contemplates afflictions: the essential nature of afflictions is itself liberation—how then could one wish to relinquish bondage to seek liberation? Therefore the sūtra says, "The three poisons are themselves the Buddha-path; afflictions are called liberation." Why is this so? The essential nature of afflictions originally neither arises nor ceases—how is this not itself liberation?
Question: If that is so, this is merely harmonizing with the object of paramārtha-satya, where afflictions are empty, taking the awakening to emptiness as liberation. Why say that afflictions are themselves liberation?
Answer: Afflictions' essential nature is directly originally empty; it is not said that afflictions exist and only after harmonizing with the object of paramārtha-satya do they become empty. Just like an eye disease seeing flowers in the sky, the flowers are themselves empty; one cannot say that these flowers first existed, and only by contemplating the object of paramārtha-satya does one know the flowers to be empty. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, "All dharmas are nonexistent, yet they exist in this way; existing in this way, they are nonexistent." This sūtra says, "From the root of non-abiding, delusive conceptual differentiations arise." Therefore, having a body has entirely the meaning of flowers in the sky. Because sentient beings are deluded, they take emptiness to be flowers; if they attain awakening, they know the flowers are originally empty.
Question: Being deluded, one takes emptiness to be flowers; if awakened, one knows the flowers are originally empty. How does this differ from: when not having attained bodhi, one takes bodhi to be afflictions; and when having attained bodhi, one takes afflictions to be bodhi?
Answer: It is precisely this meaning. The sūtra says, "Quiescent cessation is bodhi." When sentient beings have not awakened to quiescent cessation, then quiescent cessation becomes afflictions for sentient beings. On the day of clear awakening, one knows afflictions are originally quiescent cessation; therefore, afflictions are bodhi.
Question: Is it because being deluded about bodhi, one thinks bodhi exists, and so bodhi is called afflictions?
Answer: There is naturally this one approach, but it is an inversion at the branch. However, sentient beings are originally quiescent cessation and also originally bodhi; because of the inversion regarding emptiness, quiescent cessation becomes non-quiescent cessation for sentient beings, and bodhi becomes non-bodhi for sentient beings. As said before, "All dharmas are nonexistent," yet sentient beings take the nonexistent to be existent; this is the fundamental inversion. Since sentient beings take the nonexistent to be existent, the sage, wishing to rest their deluded claim of existence, speaks of bodhi for them. Yet sentient beings do not know its purport and immediately think bodhi exists; thus bodhi turns back into afflictions. Therefore, there are the two layers of fundamental and branch inversions. If it is the fundamental inversion, sentient beings give rise to it by themselves; discussing the inversion at the branch, it arises dependent on the teaching.
Question: As for discussing the inversion at the branch, there is no doubt about this matter. Since sentient beings are originally nonexistent, yet now take the nonexistent to be existent, they should also originally be bodhi, yet now transform into non-bodhi. If that is so, having now attained buddhahood, they should also transform back into sentient beings. Circulating like this, it would be endless.
Answer: It is not said that sentient beings were originally nonexistent and only now are existent; it is only discussed that these very sentient beings are originally nonexistent, just as the flowers are originally empty. It is not said that emptiness transforms into flowers, nor that flowers transform into emptiness. To a sick person, emptiness is constantly flowers; to a person without sickness, flowers are constantly empty. To sentient beings, bodhi becomes afflictions; to an awakened person, afflictions are constantly bodhi. Therefore it was previously said, "With respect to conditions, there was never oneness; with respect to the Path, there was never duality"—this is precisely that matter.
Question: If that is so, this is merely the meaning of the dream and the empty flowers in the sky. Formerly this was already criticized; why use it now?
Answer: Master Kumārajīva said: "The ten similes are used to awaken to emptiness, yet emptiness must rely on these similes. One borrows words to realize the meaning; when the meaning is exhausted, there is no place to be realized. Having emerged from the vast snare, one abides in this non-abiding. If one further grasps at settled emptiness, the flowers turn back into bondage."