金光明最勝王經疏 3.468

3.468

解難者，問：障有多種，且惑業苦總名為障，今何但言滅業障耶？答：有二解。一云：惑業苦三總得名業，如言煩惱障即大隨惑，二所發業并及於果，總名煩惱障。準彼相從業因業果，總名為業。問：若爾，何故不云滅惑苦障？答：隨舉於一，皆有難故。或可業礙聖道，勝惑名故。所以業有定業，惑中不說有定惑故。苦由業生，故但從勝名滅業障。一云：雖惑業苦俱得障名，業障增強，但偏懺業，以業招生親於惑故。下請云「曾所造作業障罪者，云何懺悔」，不問惑苦故。又若有極重不善之業，必招難身，無暇入聖，故經但云〈滅業障品〉。前釋為究，下文具懺惑業苦故。問：惑業苦三攝盡二障，未知所知障今亦懺不？答：既趣佛果，二障俱懺，故說云「修菩提行，所有業障悉皆懺悔。」問：三性之業為總懺不？答：三性俱懺。由於二障發三性業故，招人天業亦皆懺故。問：今此與前兩品何別：答：傳云真諦有八解不同。一初夜中妙幢夢見，後大眾晝日修行；二云初是略釋，後是廣釋；三初是懺悔，後一罪滅；四云初是暫伏，後是永除；五初明經能滅罪，後明弘經者罪滅；六初明法身示現，後明化身為說；七初妙幢獨聞，後大眾共感；八初品由妙幢願，後品由大眾機。此八釋中，第二七八三釋為正，餘者不正。今釋不同，如來意辨。

Regarding the resolution of objections: Question: Obstacles are of many kinds; afflicting passions, karma, and suffering are all collectively called obstacles. Why does it now only say "eradication of karmic obstacles"? Answer: There are two explanations. One says: the three—affliction, karma, and suffering—all together can be called karma. Just as when we speak of the "affliction obstacle" (kleśāvaraṇa), it includes the secondary afflictions (upakleśa), the karma they initiate, and their results, all collectively called the affliction obstacle. By analogy to this, the cause of karma and the result of karma follow along and are collectively called karma. Question: If so, why does it not say "eradication of affliction obstacles and suffering obstacles"? Answer: Whichever one were raised, there would be objections. Or it may be because karma obstructs the noble path more prominently than the name of affliction. This is why karma has "determinate karma" (niyatakarman), whereas among afflictions we do not speak of "determinate afflictions." Furthermore, suffering arises from karma, so it is named "eradication of karmic obstacles" merely based on what is prominent. Another explanation says: Although affliction, karma, and suffering all receive the name of obstacle, the karmic obstacle is exceptionally strong, so repentance is directed specifically to karma, because karma brings about rebirth more directly than affliction does. Below, the request asks: "How does one repent of the karmic obstacle offenses one has previously created?" without asking about affliction or suffering. Moreover, if there are extremely heavy unwholesome karmas, they will inevitably bring about a rebirth under adverse conditions, leaving no leisure to enter the noble path; hence the sūtra only says "Chapter on the Eradication of Karmic Obstacles." The first explanation is thorough, since the text below fully repents of affliction, karma, and suffering. Question: Affliction, karma, and suffering subsume both obstacles completely. It is not known whether the obstacle to the knowable (jñeyāvaraṇa) is also repented now? Answer: Since one is heading toward the fruit of Buddhahood, both obstacles are repented; thus it states: "Cultivating the practice of bodhi, all karmic obstacles are repented." Question: Is karma of the three natures repented in its entirety? Answer: Karma of all three natures is repented. Because karma of the three natures is initiated based on the two obstacles, even the karma that brings about rebirth as humans and devas is entirely repented. Question: How does this chapter differ from the previous two chapters? Answer: Tradition says Paramārtha gave eight different explanations: 1. During the early night Ruciraketu saw it in a dream, and later the great assembly practiced it during the day; 2. The first was a brief explanation, and the latter is an extensive explanation; 3. The first was repentance, and the latter was the eradication of offenses; 4. The first was temporary suppression, and the latter was permanent elimination; 5. The first clarified that the sūtra can eradicate offenses, and the latter clarified that offenses are eradicated for those who propagate the sūtra; 6. The first clarified the manifestation of the Dharmakāya, and the latter clarified the Nirmāṇakāya expounding it; 7. Initially Ruciraketu heard it alone, and later the great assembly experienced it together; 8. The first chapter was due to Ruciraketu's aspiration, and the latter chapter was due to the capacity of the great assembly. Among these eight explanations, the second, seventh, and eighth are correct, while the others are not correct. My present explanation differs, as determined in the section on the purpose of its occurrence.