大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 7.8.5

7.8.5

「囉字門，一切諸法離一切塵染故」者，梵云囉逝是塵染義。 塵是妄情所行處，故說眼等六情行色等六塵。 若見囉字門，則知一切可見聞觸知法皆是塵相，猶如淨衣為塵垢所染，亦如遊塵紛動使太虛昏濁日月不明，是為字相。 《中論》以種種門諦求見法，無有見者。 若無見者，誰能用見法分別外色、見可見？ 見法無故，識觸受愛四法皆無。 以無愛故，十二因緣分亦無。 是故眼見色時即是涅槃相，餘塵例爾。 復次以阿字門展轉觀察諸塵，以其本不生故、無造作故，乃至無所乘法及乘者故，當知所可見聞觸知法悉是淨法界，豈以淨法界染污如來六根耶？ 《鴦掘摩羅經》以佛常眼具足無滅，明見常色，乃至意法亦如是，是囉字門真實義也。 「邏字門，一切諸法一切相不可得故」者，梵云邏吃灑，此翻為相。 有人言：性相無有差別，如說火性即是熱相。 或言：少有差別，性言其體，相言可識。 如釋子受持禁戒是其性，剃髮割截染衣是其相。 若見邏字門，即知一切法皆悉有相。 相復二種：一者總相，謂無常苦空無我相； 別謂諸法雖無常無我，而有各各相，如地堅、水濕、火熱、風動等，捨為施相、不悔不惱為持戒相、心不變異為忍相、發勤為精進相、攝心為禪相、無所著為慧相、能成事為方便相、織作生死為世間相、無織為涅槃相等。 今觀有為無為法體性皆空，此相與誰為相耶？ 如《中論．三相品》及《十二門》中廣說。 復次淨法界中，百六十心等種種諸相本不生則無造作，無造作故乃至畢竟無塵，無塵故離一切相。 以離一切相故，名為諸佛自證三菩提也。 「嚩字門，一切諸法語言道斷故」者，梵音嚩劫跛，名為語言。 若見嚩字時，即知一切諸法不離語言地，以是諸法無不有因有緣故。 若法本來不生則是離諸因緣，是故語言道斷。 復次若法是作相則可宣說，無作則語言道斷。 若虛空相是有相者則可宣說，以諸法如虛空相亦復無相，是故語言道斷。 若法有行有遷變有影像則可宣說，若無行無遷變無影像則語言道斷。 乃至諸法若是有相者則可宣說，今一切法離一切相，故不可表示不可授人，是故語言道斷。 復次無相亦無定相，當知一切法即相無相、即非相非無相，如彼三目不可思議，是故語言道斷。 餘法門例此可知也。 「奢字門，一切諸法本性寂故」者，梵云扇底，此翻為寂。 如世間凡夫，獲少分恬泊之心止息諠動，亦名為寂。 乃至二乘人等，永斷諸行輪迴得涅槃證，亦名為寂。 然非本性常寂。 所以然者？ 諸法從本來，常自寂滅相，三界六道何者非是涅槃？ 無漏智生時，復與凡夫何異？ 而今獨於其中作滅度想，豈非顛倒耶？ 又若諸法本性寂者，於四十二地中，何者非是如來地？ 何者非是凡夫地？ 若彌勒菩薩以本性寂故得一生記者，一切眾生皆亦應得記。 若一切眾生於本性寂中不妨修學凡夫事者，彌勒菩薩亦應修學凡夫事。 而今作差別想，豈非戲論耶？ 若入奢字門時，則知是法平等無有高下，常無所動而無所不為，故云解脫之中多所容受，大般涅槃能建大義，皆以此也。 「沙字門，一切諸法性鈍故」者，若梵本存質，當云性同於頑。 頑謂猶如木石無所識知、無觸受之義。 所云同者，是興喻之言，非一向即同於彼也。 又《大品》云「般若無知，自性鈍故」，即與此字門義合。 故飾文者存古譯之辭耳。 夫自性鈍者，即是極無分別心，不愚不智不慧、無識無智無妄無覺，乃至一切諸法不能動搖，但是一純固金剛地耳。 所以然者？ 如世間人以取捨不妄，故尚智慧而棄愚癡，尊涅槃而賤生死。 而今一概本不生，乃至一概本性寂，則誰利誰鈍耶？ 如彼金剛利刃，以對不堅物故、以偏用一邊故，則名為利。 若令所向之處悉是金剛，舉體皆圓不可偏用，則利相同歸於鈍矣。 「娑字門，一切諸法一切諦不可得故」者，梵云薩跢也，此翻為諦。

Regarding 'the syllable RA gateway, because all dharmas are free from all dust and defilement': in Sanskrit rajas means dust and defilement. Dust is the realm in which deluded sentiments operate; hence it is said that the six sense-faculties, such as the eye, operate upon the six dusts, such as form. If one sees the syllable RA gateway, one knows that all dharmas that can be seen, heard, touched, or cognized are marks of dust, just as a clean garment is stained by dust and dirt, or as drifting dust flutters about, making the great sky murky and the sun and moon dim. This is the mark of the syllable. In the Madhyamakaśāstra, through various gateways one closely examines the dharma of seeing, and finds no seer. If there is no seer, who can use the dharma of seeing to distinguish external forms and see what is to be seen? Because the dharma of seeing does not exist, the four dharmas of consciousness, contact, feeling, and craving do not exist either. Because there is no craving, the twelve links of dependent origination also do not exist. Therefore, when the eye sees form, that itself is the mark of nirvāṇa; the other dusts are likewise by analogy. Furthermore, examining the various dusts successively through the syllable A gateway: because they are originally unborn, because there is no making, up to because there is no dharma to be mounted and no mounter, one should know that all dharmas that can be seen, heard, touched, or cognized are the pure dharmadhātu. How could the pure dharmadhātu defile the Tathāgata's six sense-faculties? The Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra states that the Buddha's eternal eye is fully complete and unceasing, clearly seeing eternal form, and so on up to the mental faculty and dharmas being likewise. This is the true meaning of the syllable RA gateway. Regarding 'the syllable LA gateway, because all marks of all dharmas are unattainable': in Sanskrit lakṣaṇa is translated here as 'mark'. Some say that nature and mark have no distinction, just as saying 'the nature of fire' is itself the mark of heat. Others say there is a slight distinction: 'nature' speaks of its essence, and 'mark' speaks of what can be recognized; for example, a disciple of the Śākya clan receiving and observing the prohibitive precepts is their nature, while shaving the head and cutting and dying the robes are their mark. If one sees the syllable LA gateway, one knows that all dharmas possess marks. Marks are again of two kinds: the first is general marks, namely the marks of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self; specific marks means that although dharmas are impermanent and non-self, they have their respective individual marks, such as hardness for earth, wetness for water, heat for fire, and movement for wind; relinquishment is the mark of giving, lack of regret and distress is the mark of keeping precepts, an unchanging mind is the mark of patience, bringing forth diligence is the mark of vigor, gathering the mind is the mark of dhyāna, non-attachment is the mark of wisdom, being able to accomplish tasks is the mark of upāya, weaving saṃsāra is the mark of the mundane, and lack of weaving is the mark of nirvāṇa. Now, when one contemplates that the essence of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas is completely empty, to what do these marks belong as marks? This is explained in detail in the 'Chapter on the Three Marks' and the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra of the Madhyamakaśāstra. Furthermore, in the pure dharmadhātu, the various marks such as the hundred and sixty minds are originally unborn and thus have no making; because there is no making, up to being ultimately free from dust; because they are free from dust, they are free from all marks. Because they are free from all marks, this is called the saṃbodhi directly realized by all buddhas. Regarding 'the syllable VA gateway, because the path of speech is cut off for all dharmas': the Sanskrit sound vākya means speech. When one sees the syllable VA, one knows that all dharmas do not depart from the plane of speech, because there are none among these dharmas that lack causes and conditions. If a dharma is originally unborn, it is free from all causes and conditions; therefore, the path of speech is cut off. Furthermore, if a dharma has the mark of being made, it can be proclaimed; if it is unmade, the path of speech is cut off. If the mark of space were an existing mark, it could be proclaimed; because dharmas are like the mark of space and likewise have no mark, the path of speech is cut off. If a dharma has movement, alteration, or reflection, it can be proclaimed; if it has no movement, alteration, or reflection, the path of speech is cut off. Up to: if dharmas had marks, they could be proclaimed; now, because all dharmas are free from all marks, they cannot be indicated and cannot be conferred upon others; therefore, the path of speech is cut off. Furthermore, having no mark also has no fixed mark; one should know that all dharmas are markless precisely in their marks, and are neither marks nor markless, like those three eyes that are inconceivable; therefore, the path of speech is cut off. The remaining dharma-gateways can be known by analogy with this. Regarding 'the syllable ŚA gateway, because the original nature of all dharmas is quiescent': in Sanskrit śānti is translated here as 'quiescent'. For example, when ordinary mundane persons obtain a slight degree of tranquil mind and cease turbulence, this is also called quiescent; up to followers of the two vehicles eternally cutting off the cycle of conditioned actions and attaining the realization of nirvāṇa, this is also called quiescent. Yet it is not the eternally quiescent original nature. Why is this? Dharmas from the origin are eternally of themselves the mark of quiescence and extinction; which of the three realms and six destinies is not nirvāṇa? When untainted wisdom arises, how is it different from that of an ordinary person? Yet now to form a concept of extinction within it alone—how could this not be an inversion? Furthermore, if the original nature of dharmas is quiescent, among the forty-two stages, which is not the stage of the Tathāgata, and which is not the stage of an ordinary person? If Bodhisattva Maitreya, because of this quiescent original nature, received the prediction of becoming a Buddha in one lifetime, then all sentient beings should also receive the prediction. If all sentient beings, within this quiescent original nature, are not obstructed from practicing the affairs of an ordinary person, Bodhisattva Maitreya should also practice the affairs of an ordinary person. Yet now to form thoughts of distinction—how could this not be prapañca? When one enters the syllable ŚA gateway, one knows that this dharma is equal, without high or low, constantly unmoving yet with nothing it does not do; therefore it is said that within liberation much is accommodated, and great parinirvāṇa can establish great purposes—all on account of this. Regarding 'the syllable ṢA gateway, because the nature of all dharmas is blunt': if the Sanskrit text preserved the literal sense, it should say that the nature is like being insensible. 'Insensible' means being like wood or stone, without cognition, without the meaning of contact and feeling. Saying 'like' is an expression of analogy; it does not mean strictly identical to that. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra states: 'Prajñā has no knowing, because its self-nature is blunt,' which accords with the meaning of this syllable gateway. Therefore, the stylizer preserved the wording of the older translation. Now, having a blunt self-nature is precisely the mind of utter non-discrimination: neither foolish nor wise nor sagacious, without consciousness, without knowledge, without delusion, and without awareness, up to: all dharmas cannot shake it; it is simply a pure, solid vajra ground. Why is this? Because mundane people do not err in accepting and rejecting, they value wisdom and cast aside foolishness, venerate nirvāṇa and disparage saṃsāra. But now, if all alike are originally unborn, up to all alike being quiescent in their original nature, then who is sharp and who is blunt? Like that sharp vajra blade, because it confronts soft objects and because it is applied partially to one side, it is called sharp. If the place it faces were entirely vajra, its whole body being completely round and impossible to apply partially, then the mark of sharpness would return to bluntness. Regarding 'the syllable SA gateway, because all truths of all dharmas are unattainable': in Sanskrit satya is translated here as 'truth'.