金光明最勝王經疏 4.100

4.100

The Commentary says: This third [part] explains the obstacles of the grounds. Consequently, it clarifies the obstacles of the eleven grounds. Because the earlier inquiry concerned bodhi and comprehensively included the fruit of Buddhahood, it now also explains the obstacles of the Buddha ground. These eleven obstacles form eleven sections. This first is the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings (pṛthagjanatva). The text is divided into three: first, mentioning the addressee who requested [the teaching]; second, presenting the essence of the obstacle; third, distinguishing what is obstructed. The other ten obstacles each have two parts in their text, omitting the addressee spoken to. 'Marks of self and phenomena' are the objects of the two clingings. 'Mark' means the characteristic appearance—the appearance as presented before the clinging mind. This is identical to what the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'giving rise to marks of its own mind.' Or it is the essential characteristic, while 'clinging' is the clinging mind itself. This clinging [takes] self and phenomena to all have substantial reality. Even if one clings to phenomena as non-existent, one still clings to the mark of non-existence. Therefore the sūtra says: 'One should not abide in phenomena, nor should one abide in non-phenomena.' 'Non-phenomena' means non-existent phenomena. If one clings to the self as non-existent, that too is clinging to phenomena. The two clingings are ignorance associated with wisdom; they are forcefully termed 'ignorance'—this is an interpretation by proximity. As for 'ignorance that dreads the evil destinies of saṃsāra,' this phrase 'evil destinies' does not refer solely to the three evil paths, for it comprehensively includes the eight difficulties. However, unwholesome karma arisen through conceptual discrimination and its consequential fruits, together with the karma and fruits set in motion by the cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa), are also subsumed here. As a name of reproach, they are collectively called 'evil destinies.' Thus this sūtra says 'the evil destinies of saṃsāra,' not merely the three paths. 'Dread' means that these evil destinies are what is dreaded, hence termed 'dread.' Because this ignorance produces the category of ignorance, it is called 'ignorance.' Furthermore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'Or it is said that they are two kinds of folly arising together with the sharp and dull categories of obstacles. The ignorance of the two clingings refers to the sharp category; the ignorance of evil destinies refers to the dull category.' The co-arising ignorance being named 'evil destinies' is also an appellation of reproach. Or [it means that] views and the like, being confused about principle, do not set unwholesome karma in motion, whereas the dull category, being confused about concrete phenomena, does set unwholesome karma in motion. Taking its name from its fruit, it is named 'the folly of defilement of the evil destinies.' Because folly is the root, both are determinative compound (tatpuruṣa) interpretations. Question: The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says, 'first, the folly of clinging to self and phenomena,' which is the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings here. Now, the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings is a non-concurrent conditioned factor (cittaviprayuktasasaṃskāra) that is a designation; it is established upon the states of the seeds and is not the substance of the seeds itself—how then can the two clingings be the nature of ordinary beings? Answer: Although the nature of ordinary beings is actually established universally upon the seeds of the two conceptually discriminated obscurations belonging to the same stage as the manifesting fundamental consciousness that can generate them, the name of the obstacle is established from the dependent factor. Or [one may say that] the nature of ordinary beings itself is called 'the folly of clinging to self and phenomena' from the clinging seeds on which it depends. In substance it is not itself folly, but belongs to the category of folly, as cited above. Question: The first ground can sever the two conceptually discriminated clingings; why do that Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and other texts not establish the name of the obstacle directly from the intrinsic nature of the two clingings, or establish it from that which depends or that upon which it depends? Answer: When the nature of ordinary beings is eliminated, the two clingings are severed. Furthermore, the name 'ordinary being' differentiates them from the noble ones (ārya). Attaining noble status severs them, so the name was established because it is obvious. Question: Since entering the first ground severs the two obscurations, why does the Mahāyānasaṃgraha state that the ten kinds of ignorance are undefiled, given that conceptually discriminated self-clinging is defiled? Answer: In his Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, Vasubandhu explains there: 'Although it severs the two obscurations, the two vehicles can also sever the afflictive obscurations (kleśāvaraṇa), as this is a shared virtue.' The intention is that it is termed 'undefiled' with reference to the unshared cognitive obscurations. Another explanation: its saying 'undefiled' refers to what is severed on the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga); setting aside the ten obstacles, it speaks of ten kinds of ignorance to clearly establish the ten grounds. Both the Cheng weishi lun and Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya have these two explanations. The essential nature explained for the twenty-two follies is identical to that in Yogācārabhūmi fascicle 78 and elsewhere. Furthermore, based on other texts, it is everywhere said that on the first ground one severs the two follies and their crude heavy residue (dauṣṭhulya); here it briefly omits crude heavy residue, for which the Cheng weishi lun offers two explanations. The treatise says: 'That word "crude heavy residue" indicates either of those two kinds [of folly] or the unserviceability generated by the two.' Regarding 'unserviceability,' Yogācārabhūmi fascicle 58 states: 'It refers to the state of instability within the eighth consciousness, and so forth.' The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states: 'Just as entering the second dhyāna is said to sever the faculty of suffering, and the severed roots of virtue, though neither manifest nor seeds, are termed crude heavy residue; this should also be understood in the same way.' The remaining ten kinds of folly and crude heavy residue are all to be understood following this. The explanation of the nature of ordinary beings and its crude heavy residue is treated at length in the Cheng weishi lun yideng.