金光明最勝王經疏 4.408

4.408

贊曰：世尊為說習學之方。於中分三：初標宗略釋、次「善女天云何五蘊」下法喻廣明、後「善女天若善男子」下結勸修學。初中復五：一標、二徵、三釋、四結、五通。此初標也。依於法界，舉前空性所觀之境。《辨中邊》云「即此中說所知空性，由無變義說為真如，真性常如無轉變故。」乃至云「由聖法因義說為法界，以一切聖法緣此生故，此中界言即是因義。」問：準《攝大乘》及《成唯識論》，即以第八為一切法因。《阿毘達磨經》云「無始時來界，一切法等依，由此有諸趣，及涅槃證得。」何故《中邊》說真如理為諸法因？答：約流轉還滅依，即說第八識是一切法因，持彼種故。若約迷悟依，即說真如性，故《勝鬘經》云「如來藏為依、為持、為建立。」《寶性論》中即依此義說真如理為無始時來界等。問：既迷悟依通生染淨，云何《中邊論》云聖法因義說為法界？答：不說唯言，故無有失。又復染法不由證如始得生。若諸聖法因根本智之所引生，無分別智必證如起，是故偏說為聖法因。此增上緣因，非親因緣。今此云依，是所緣因，於是境聲。緣勝義諦行菩提法，以法界性非生死涅槃，離二相故；故亦非非生死涅槃，不離二故。如是見於諸佛菩提，亦非生死涅槃。菩提即三身，三身非生死涅槃。作如是觀修菩提法，即是修平等行。故《十八空論》云「化身非生死涅槃。何以故？生死皆是妄想顛倒，不過苦集故。化身不爾，依法應生（法者法身，應者應身）體非顛倒，復能除眾生顛倒，故非生死。」非涅槃者，有始終故。非生死故非顛倒，非涅槃故非真實。又云「法身與彼應身亦不即不離故。」《十八空論》「問云：若法身不離應身，有何過失？答曰：若爾，一人得佛，餘應同得。以一切人不同得故，知法身有不即應身義。」此意法身一切眾生平等共有，體是其一。與應身一，故一得應身應一切得，體無別故。既不如是，明知法身有不即應身義。論云「又亦不離應身。何以故？法身無異，常不離三世諸佛功德故。若能如此體解法應離不離義，即除決定離不離執。依不離道理而修諸行故，能證得應身之果，化身亦爾。」此意法身與應化身不即不離，應化與法身亦不即不離，亦如真如。作如是觀而修菩提，名平等行。知果既然，修行亦爾，不即生死涅槃，成無住道，即七大性中方便大性。

Commentary: The World-Honoured One explains the method of training and practice. In this there are three parts: first, setting forth the thesis and briefly explaining it; second, from 'Goddess of Goodness, how do the five aggregates...' onwards, elaborately clarifying it through doctrines and parables; third, from 'Goddess of Goodness, if a good son...' onwards, concluding by exhorting practice and study. The first part also has five sections: 1. setting forth, 2. inquiry, 3. explanation, 4. conclusion, and 5. clarification. This is the first, setting forth. 'Relying upon the dharmadhātu' raises the object of contemplation, which is the aforementioned emptiness. The Madhyāntavibhāga says: 'It is precisely here that the emptiness of the knowable is explained: because of the meaning of non-alteration, it is called tathatā, for true nature is constantly such and has no transformation...' up to: 'Because of the meaning of being the cause of noble dharmas, it is called dharmadhātu, for all noble dharmas arise based on this; here the word dhātu means cause.' Question: According to the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, the eighth [consciousness] is the cause of all dharmas. The Abhidharma-sūtra says: 'The dhātu from beginningless time is the common support of all dharmas; because of this, there are all destinies as well as the attainment of nirvāṇa.' Why does the Madhyāntavibhāga say that the principle of tathatā is the cause of all dharmas? Answer: In terms of the support for transmigration and cessation, the eighth consciousness is said to be the cause of all dharmas, because it maintains their seeds. If in terms of the support for delusion and awakening, the nature of tathatā is spoken of; hence the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is the support, the holding, the foundation.' In the Ratnagotravibhāga, it is based on this meaning that the principle of tathatā is said to be the dhātu from beginningless time, etc. Question: Since the support for delusion and awakening generally gives rise to both defiled and pure [dharmas], why does the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra say that it is called dharmadhātu in the sense of being the cause of noble dharmas? Answer: It does not use the word 'only', so there is no fault. Moreover, defiled dharmas do not come to arise dependent upon realizing tathatā. As for the noble dharmas, they are induced by the fundamental wisdom (mūlajñāna), and non-conceptual wisdom must arise by realizing tathatā; therefore it is specifically called the cause of noble dharmas. This is an empowering condition as cause (adhipatipratyaya-hetu), not a direct causal condition (hetupratyaya). Here, 'relying upon' means the objective condition as cause (ālambanapratyaya-hetu), used in the sense of an object. One practices the Dharma of bodhi by taking the ultimate truth as the object, because the nature of the dharmadhātu is neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa, being free from both characteristics; and therefore it is also not not-saṃsāra and not-nirvāṇa, not being separated from the two. Seeing the bodhi of all buddhas in this way, it too is neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa. Bodhi is the three bodies, and the three bodies are neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa. Practicing the Dharma of bodhi with such a contemplation is cultivating the practice of equality. Therefore the Aṣṭādaśaśūnyatā-śāstra says: 'The transformation body is neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa. Why? Saṃsāra is entirely conceptual construction and inverted error, not exceeding suffering and its origination. The transformation body is not like this: arising in accordance with [the truth] dependent on Dharma (Dharma means the Dharma body; 'in accordance' means the enjoyment body), its essence is not inverted error, and furthermore it can eradicate the inverted errors of sentient beings; therefore it is not saṃsāra.' That it is not nirvāṇa is because it has a beginning and an end. Being not saṃsāra, it is not inverted error; being not nirvāṇa, it is not the real. It also says: 'The Dharma body and that enjoyment body are also neither identical nor separate.' The Aṣṭādaśaśūnyatā-śāstra asks: 'If the Dharma body is not separate from the enjoyment body, what fault is there? Answer: If so, when one person attains buddhahood, the others should attain it together. Since not all people attain it together, one knows that the Dharma body has the sense of not being identical to the enjoyment body.' The meaning is: the Dharma body is equally shared by all sentient beings; its essence is one. If it were identical to the enjoyment body, then when one attains the enjoyment body, all should attain it, because their essence would be without distinction. Since this is not the case, it is clearly known that the Dharma body has the sense of not being identical to the enjoyment body. The treatise says: 'Moreover, it is also not separate from the enjoyment body. Why? The Dharma body has no difference, constantly not separated from the qualities of the buddhas of the three times. If one can understand in this way the principle of separation and non-separation of the Dharma and enjoyment [bodies], one will eradicate the rigid clinging to separation or non-separation. Because one cultivates all practices relying on the principle of non-separation, one can realize the fruit of the enjoyment body; the transformation body is likewise.' The meaning is: the Dharma body and the enjoyment and transformation bodies are neither identical nor separate, and the enjoyment and transformation bodies and the Dharma body are also neither identical nor separate, just like tathatā. Cultivating bodhi while contemplating in this way is called the practice of equality. Knowing that the fruit is like this, the practice is also like this: not being identical to saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, one accomplishes the non-abiding path, which is the greatness of upāya among the seven greatnesses.