金剛般若論會釋 1.91

1.91

經言「何以故」者等者，顯有法執、我執隨逐，分二，初、釋意，後、屬經。取法相轉者，取有也；取非法相轉者，取空也。此經意說，於彼惡世，諸異生等雖修正行而起善心，若起法執，執空、有時，由我執種尚未斷故，必有我執之所隨逐，設於此位，法執心中無現行我執，亦為我執種子隨逐，後必現起，名有我取。故論釋云，但起空、有二法執時，非皆起煩惱執我等想，以取我想及所依癡此時不轉，麁易伏故，此於我想由有隨眠種子不斷，隨法執故，亦得名為有我取也。故天親云，「但有無明使，無現行麁煩惱，示無我見」，無我見者，現行不起也。想既不轉，俱時所依癡亦不行，故此論云，以想及依止不轉，有彼種子，名有隨眠，亦名為使，名有我等取。或復此時亦起我執，我執必隨法執起故，乍可獨起法而無我執？如二乘等我執種子先以斷故，此中不依有學等聖說，彼時無故，故云，「若取法執等，即為著我等取」，唯依惡時異生等說，故知煩惱障以法執為本，故斷法執，煩惱不行，是此深意。屬經可知，然此論釋經，《能斷》、真諦皆於法執說法、非法，空、有雙陳；流支本中雖有二文，乃言取法相及有法相，二文何別？羅什本中有三「何以故」，初「何以故」同此，以何義故具足四因便生實相；第二「何以故」下，言若心取相，總顯取法必定執生，若取法相，與流支同取有也；第三「何以故」下，方言若取非法相，言顯取空，微執順理故，尚有其執，何況執有，執不生？「何以故」徵義可知也，不應之上便無「何以故」，并剩一文，若心取相，由如此也。

Where the sūtra says "Why is this?" and so forth reveals that the grasp of phenomena and the grasp of self follow along; it is divided into two: first, explaining the intention, and second, correlating with the sūtra. To operate grasping the mark of phenomena is to grasp existence; to operate grasping the mark of non-phenomena is to grasp emptiness. The intention of this sūtra is to say that in that evil age, although all ordinary beings practice correct conduct and generate wholesome minds, if they give rise to the grasp of phenomena—grasping emptiness and existence—because the seeds of the grasp of self have not yet been severed, they will certainly be followed by the grasp of self; even if at this stage, within the mind grasping phenomena, there is no actively manifested grasp of self, they are still followed along by the seeds of the grasp of self, which will certainly arise actively later, and this is called having the grasp of self. Therefore the commentary of the treatise says: when merely generating the two grasps of phenomena as emptiness and existence, it is not that all generate the conceptions of afflicted grasp of self and so forth, because the grasping conception of self and the ignorance upon which it relies do not operate at this time, being coarse and easily suppressed; regarding this conception of self, because the underlying latent dispositions of seeds are unsevered and follow along with the grasp of phenomena, it may also be named as having the grasp of self. Therefore Vasubandhu says: "There are only the latent tendencies of ignorance and no actively manifested coarse afflictions, which indicates the absence of the view of self." "Absence of the view of self" means that the active manifestation does not arise. Since the conception does not operate, the ignorance upon which it simultaneously relies also does not operate; therefore this treatise says that because the conception and its reliance do not operate, yet those seeds exist, they are called having latent dispositions, also called latent tendencies, and called having the grasp of self and so forth. Or again, at this time the grasp of self also arises, for the grasp of self certainly arises following the grasp of phenomena; how could one merely give rise to phenomena alone without the grasp of self? For example, in the two vehicles and the like, the seeds of the grasp of self have already been severed; here it is not spoken based on āryas such as śaikṣas, because at that time they do not exist. Therefore it says: "If one grasps the grasp of phenomena and the like, that is attachment to the grasp of self and the like"; it is spoken solely based on ordinary beings and the like in the evil age. Thus we know that the afflictive obscurations take the grasp of phenomena as their root; therefore, when the grasp of phenomena is severed, afflictions do not operate—this is its profound intention. The correlation with the sūtra can be known. However, in this treatise's explanation of the sūtra, both the Vajracchedikā and Paramārtha explain phenomena and non-phenomena regarding the grasp of phenomena, presenting both emptiness and existence; in Bodhiruci's version, although there are two passages, it says "grasping the mark of phenomena" and "the mark of existing phenomena"—what is the difference between the two texts? In Kumārajīva's version, there are three occurrences of "Why is this?": the first "Why is this?" is identical to this one—for what reason does one who is complete with the four causes then generate the real mark? Below the second "Why is this?", it says "if the mind grasps marks," which generally reveals that grasping phenomena will certainly generate attachment, and "if it grasps the mark of phenomena," which, like Bodhiruci, is grasping existence; only below the third "Why is this?" does it say "if it grasps the mark of non-phenomena," the words revealing grasping emptiness, for since subtle attachment accords with reason, that attachment still exists, so how much more so with grasping existence could attachment not arise? The meaning inquired by "Why is this?" can be known; above "should not," there should not be an absence of "Why is this?", together with the extra passage "if the mind grasps marks," because it is like this.