維摩經義疏 5.5.2

5.5.2

文有二：初明佛種、次迦葉自嘆。 前有二問答，自賓主已下淨名獨說，似是辨慧之功偏有所歸； 今欲顯其德，欲令彼說也。 亦云推美以為供養。 又行邪達正，恐人生疑，故問文殊令他取信。 以人異解同，宜應頂受。 「文殊師利言：有身為種」。 此第二答。 就文為四：一明生死果為種、二辨生死因為種、三重辨果、四重釋因。 上明佛道，今明佛種。 佛道據果，佛種約因。 至人體達佛道，故能示現行一切非道悉是佛道，故是果門。 今明生死凡夫能發心成佛紹繼佛義，故明佛種。 當知故據因。 有身者，謂有漏五陰身也。 以有漏五陰身，眾生皆應作佛，故名為種。 又說有身即身見，以有此身故名有身。 又身內起見名為身見，身見是三有之本，名為有身也。 以有身見，眾生發心求佛，故名佛種。 問：何故偏取煩惱為佛種耶？ 答：二乘斷於煩惱，不能發心作佛，故非佛種。 今偏作之，故說有煩惱人名為佛種。 「無明有愛為種、貪恚癡為種、四顛倒為種、五蓋為種」。 此第二明生死因為種。 《涅槃經》云「生死本際凡有二種：一者無明、二者有愛」，以偏是根本，故遍說之。 「六入為種、七識住為種」。 此第三重明生死果為佛種。 七識住者，欲界人天為一，色界三禪，并無色界三空，此之七處識所樂生、識所安住，故名識住第。 四禪有無想天滅識、五那含天求於涅槃亦滅於識。 以有凡聖二種滅識，故識不樂住。 非想天有滅盡定，又彼心想微昧、念不分明，識不安住。 什公云「初禪中除劫初梵王及劫初諸小梵，自此後合為一識住。 劫初唯有梵王，未有後梵。 梵王念欲有餘梵，爾時遇會來生。 梵王因起邪見謂是己造，餘梵亦自謂從梵王生。 唯有精麁，其邪想不異，是名異身一想，第二識住也。 二禪形無優劣而心有若干，除入解脫，種種異念，是名一形異想，是第三識住也。 三禪形無精麁、心無異想，所謂一形一想，是第四識住也。 并無色前三地，是名七識住也。 」什公開初禪為二、沒欲界之一，故古舊為異。 「八邪法為種、九惱為種、十不善道為種。 以要言之，六十二見及一切煩惱皆是佛種」。 第四重舉生死因為如來種。 違八正為八邪。 九惱者，一愛我怨家、二憎我善友、三惱我自身。 一世有三，三世合九。 「曰：何謂也」。 第二重問。 淨名為時眾成問疑，故設斯問。 此等皆彰佛道。 為生死因，何名佛種？ 佛為至極之慧，而用眾患為種，未可了也。 「答曰：若見無為入正位者，不能復發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」。 答文為三：初明起愛眾生為佛種、二乘斷愛故非種； 二明起見眾生為佛種，二乘斷見故非種； 三總約眾惑明種非種。 證於滅諦，名見無為。 從苦法忍至羅漢無生智，此是道諦聖解，道諦聖解稱為正位。 此人見無為境，又入聖位，不能發佛心也。 「譬如高原陸地不生蓮華，卑濕淤泥乃生此華。 如是見無為法入正位者，終不復能生於佛法煩惱泥中，乃有眾生起佛法耳」。 心證無為涅槃，喻之高原。 蓮華，譬菩提心。 蓮華必生蓮實，菩提心必成佛道。 淤泥，喻凡夫起愛，煩惱能發道心，故愛為佛種。 「又如殖種於空終不得生，糞壤之地乃能滋茂。 如是入無為正位者不生佛法； 起於我見如須彌山，猶能發乎阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心生佛法矣」。 第二明起見眾生為佛種。 種謂菩提心。 但見眾生能發菩提心，故名佛種。 而言殖者，世間種藉人功，故殖於種； 由佛菩薩教化故，得發菩提心。 前明二乘樂無為涅槃，不能發菩提心； 今取樂有為空三昧，不能發心作佛。 糞壤謂我見，我見能長養道心，如糞壤也。 「是故當知一切煩惱為如來種，譬如不下巨海終不能得無價寶珠，如是不入煩惱大海則不能得一切智寶」之心。 第三總明一切煩惱為種，結詶其問。 問：二乘何故非種、凡夫為種？

The text has two parts: first, clarifying the seed of Buddhahood; second, Kāśyapa's self-lamentation. Previously there were two questions and answers; from the guest and host onwards, Jingming alone had spoken, which seemed as if the merit of eloquence belonged exclusively to one side. Now, wishing to manifest [Mañjuśrī's] virtue, he wishes to have him speak. It is also said to be praising his excellence as an offering. Furthermore, practicing evil to reach the upright might cause people to doubt; hence he questions Mañjuśrī so that others may gain faith. Because the persons differ yet their understanding is identical, it should be received with reverence. / “Mañjuśrī said: ‘Possessing a body is the seed.’” This is the second answer. Regarding the text, there are four points: first, explaining the fruit of saṃsāra as the seed; second, discerning the cause of saṃsāra as the seed; third, re-explaining the fruit; fourth, re-explaining the cause. Above, the Buddha path was clarified; here, the seed of Buddhahood is clarified. The Buddha path is based on the fruit; the seed of Buddhahood is based on the cause. The ultimate person realizes and reaches the Buddha path, and is thus able to manifest the practice of all non-paths as entirely being the Buddha path; hence that belongs to the gateway of the fruit. Here it clarifies that ordinary beings in saṃsāra can generate the aspiration to become Buddhas and continue the line of the Buddha; thus it clarifies the seed of Buddhahood. One should know that it is therefore based on the cause. ‘Possessing a body’ refers to the body of the five tainted aggregates. Because all sentient beings with the body of the five tainted aggregates should attain Buddhahood, it is called the seed. It is also said that possessing a body is precisely the view of the body (satkāyadṛṣṭi); because one possesses this body, it is called possessing a body. Furthermore, giving rise to views within the body is called the view of the body; the view of the body is the root of the three realms of existence (trayo bhavāḥ), hence it is called possessing a body. Because they have the view of the body, sentient beings generate the aspiration to seek Buddhahood; therefore it is called the seed of Buddhahood. Question: Why specifically take afflictions as the seed of Buddhahood? Answer: The two vehicles eradicate afflictions and cannot generate the aspiration to become Buddhas, so they are not the seed of Buddhahood. Now [the text] specifically highlights this; therefore it says that persons possessing afflictions are called the seed of Buddhahood. / “‘Ignorance and craving for existence are the seed; greed, anger, and delusion are the seed; the four inversions are the seed; the five hindrances are the seed.’” This is the second point, clarifying the causes of saṃsāra as the seed. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: ‘The fundamental limits of saṃsāra are generally of two kinds: first, ignorance; second, craving for existence.’ Because they are singularly fundamental, they are comprehensively stated. / “‘The six sense entrances are the seed; the seven stations of consciousness are the seed.’” This is the third point, re-explaining the fruits of saṃsāra as the seed of Buddhahood. As for the seven stations of consciousness: humans and devas of the desire realm form one; the three dhyānas of the form realm, together with the three immaterial realms, these seven places are where consciousness delights in being born and where consciousness abides peacefully; hence they are named stations of consciousness. In the fourth dhyāna, there is the heaven without perception where consciousness is extinguished; in the five heavens of non-returners, they seek nirvāṇa and also extinguish consciousness. Because there are two kinds of extinction of consciousness—ordinary and noble—consciousness does not delight in abiding there. In the heaven of neither perception nor non-perception, there is the attainment of cessation, and moreover, their mental perceptions are faint and obscure, thoughts are unclear, so consciousness does not abide peacefully. Master Shen [Kumārajīva] said: ‘In the first dhyāna, setting aside the Brahmā king at the beginning of the kalpa and the minor Brahmās at the beginning of the kalpa, from this point onward they combine into one station of consciousness. At the beginning of the kalpa there was only the Brahmā king, and not yet the later Brahmās. The Brahmā king had the thought of wishing for other Brahmās, and at that time, encountering the conjunction, they came to be born. The Brahmā king subsequently gave rise to the false view, thinking he had created them, while the other Brahmās also thought of themselves as born from the Brahmā king. There is only refined and coarse, but their false perception is not different; this is named “different bodies with identical perception,” the second station of consciousness. In the second dhyāna, bodily forms have no superiority or inferiority, yet minds have manifold differences; setting aside the entry into liberation, there are various different thoughts; this is named “identical forms with different perceptions,” the third station of consciousness. In the third dhyāna, bodily forms have neither refined nor coarse, and minds have no different perceptions; the so-called “identical forms with identical perceptions,” the fourth station of consciousness. Together with the first three realms of the formless, these are named the seven stations of consciousness.’ Master Shen opens the first dhyāna into two and excludes one from the desire realm; hence he differs from the old [commentators]. / “‘The eight unwholesome practices are the seed; the nine annoyances are the seed; the ten unwholesome paths of action are the seed. In short, the sixty-two views and all afflictions are the seed of Buddhahood.’” The fourth point re-enumerates the causes of saṃsāra as the seed of the Tathāgata. Contravening the eightfold noble path constitutes the eight unwholesome practices. The nine annoyances are: first, loving my enemy; second, hating my good friend; third, annoying my own self. There are three in one time period; across the three times, they total nine. / “[Vimalakīrti] said: ‘What does this mean?’” This is the second questioning. Jingming formulated this question on behalf of the assembly to frame their doubt, which is why he posed it. All these manifest the Buddha path. Being the causes of saṃsāra, why are they called the seed of Buddhahood? The Buddha is ultimate wisdom, yet using the manifold troubles as the seed cannot be easily comprehended. / “[Mañjuśrī] replied: ‘If one sees the unconditioned and enters the stage of certainty, one cannot again generate the aspiration for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’” The text of the reply has three parts: first, explaining that sentient beings who give rise to craving are the seed of Buddhahood, while the two vehicles have severed craving and are therefore not the seed; second, explaining that sentient beings who give rise to views are the seed of Buddhahood, while the two vehicles have severed views and are therefore not the seed; third, comprehensively clarifying what is the seed and what is not the seed in terms of the manifold defilements. Realizing the truth of cessation is called seeing the unconditioned. From the forbearance of the dharma of suffering up to the arhat's cognition of non-arising, this is the noble understanding of the truth of the path; the noble understanding of the truth of the path is called the stage of certainty. This person sees the unconditioned realm and enters the noble stage, unable to generate the mind of Buddhahood. / “‘Just as lotus flowers do not grow on high plateaus or dry ground, but grow in low, wet mud, likewise, those who see the unconditioned dharma and enter the stage of certainty will ultimately never again be able to generate the Buddha-dharmas; it is only in the mud of afflictions that sentient beings give rise to the Buddha-dharmas.’” The mind realizing the unconditioned nirvāṇa is compared to the high plateau. The lotus flower is an analogy for the bodhicitta. The lotus flower must yield the lotus seed; the bodhicitta must accomplish the Buddha path. The mud is an analogy for ordinary beings giving rise to craving; afflictions can generate the mind of the path, so craving is the seed of Buddhahood. / “‘Furthermore, just as sowing seeds in the empty sky will ultimately never grow, whereas in fertile soil they can flourish, likewise, those who enter the unconditioned stage of certainty do not generate the Buddha-dharmas; while those who give rise to the view of self as great as Mount Sumeru are still able to generate the aspiration for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and produce the Buddha-dharmas.’” Second, explaining that sentient beings who give rise to views are the seed of Buddhahood. ‘Seed’ refers to the bodhicitta. Only sentient beings who hold views can generate the bodhicitta, hence they are called the seed of Buddhahood. Saying ‘sowing’ means that in the world, seeds rely on human effort, hence one sows seeds; due to the teaching and transformation of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, one is able to generate the bodhicitta. Previously it clarified that the two vehicles delight in unconditioned nirvāṇa and cannot generate the bodhicitta; here it addresses delighting in conditioned emptiness samādhi, unable to generate the mind to become a Buddha. ‘Fertile soil’ refers to the view of self; the view of self can nourish the mind of the path, like fertile soil. / “‘Therefore, one should know that all afflictions are the seed of the Tathāgata. Just as without plunging into the great ocean one can never obtain the priceless jewel, likewise, without entering the great ocean of afflictions, one cannot obtain the jewel of the mind of all-knowledge.’” Third, comprehensively clarifying that all afflictions are the seed, concluding the answer to his question. Question: Why are the two vehicles not the seed, while ordinary beings are the seed?