金剛般若論會釋 2.3

2.3

初離慢中有二種，一、我慢，二、邪慢，亦下當知。初文有二，初、配四義；上坐已下，後、釋難義。經文有二，初、問答四果，以釋離慢；後、引已為識，四果為四，一一有二，初、問，後、答。此問四果，正入觀時，頗作是念，「我得果不」，以明離慢。善現答中，《能斷經》內初果、後果，皆言我能得果，即為有執，中二果無，略舉初、後例中間故，餘本皆唯第四果有，例前三果。若爾，無學尚說執生，何因有學不說執起？故《能斷》正。天親疑云，「向說聖人無為得名，彼法不可取、說，若爾，云何預流果等，能自知我得彼果？」如是證為他說，即是四果可取、可說，以成疑意故。此論前卷云，為修道得勝中無慢故，經言等即彼疑同，若以無為不可取、說，云何四果言得可說？彼既有疑，於無得、無說之中，謂有得、說。我者我慢，踞倣性故，或是我見得者，於無所得中，謂有所得功德，是邪慢說。亦如是所說，皆利眾生中所說，我見、我慢為根本故，邪慢等生。故此論言，若有我相，則為有慢等，菩薩所應斷。正是法執，舉煩惱名以顯法執，下皆唯知。今此總言為離此慢故經言等，意顯入證無為之時，四果皆不言我得、我說，出觀已後方言我能證得此果。又後得智觀前所證，所證深妙，觀之不著，觀證前加行行相，逐依行相而宣說之，言有得證，非實真智正證無為言有得證。前之三果若言得證，以有種子煩惱隨逐，此時雖無現行煩惱，由有種故，應二執隨生，故言即為有我等執；第四果人若有得證，唯所知障種子隨逐，正起四智，我生已盡，梵行已立等，雖非現執，由執種逐，言我等者，應法執起。故天親言，「以有使煩惱，非行煩惱。何以故？彼於證時離取我等煩惱，是故無如是心，我能得果」等，此顯證時，若言我既證，有種隨逐，應起現行我煩惱等，如餘起時。論言「使」者，是種子故；四果證時，既不言取、說，明知有取之慢皆應離也。今為離此，故此文生。「須陀洹」等，羅什文別，餘經多同。釋名斷或，皆如理知。

First, within freedom from arrogance, there are two kinds: first, the arrogance of self, and second, deviant arrogance, as should also be understood below. The initial text has two parts: first, matching the four meanings; from "Elder" onward, second, explaining difficult points of meaning. The sūtra text has two parts: first, questions and answers on the four fruits to explain freedom from arrogance; second, adducing oneself as an example. The four fruits make four [sections], each having two parts: first, the question; second, the answer. This asks whether the four fruits, when directly entering contemplation, would ever conceive this thought: "have I attained the fruit or not?"—in order to clarify freedom from arrogance. In Subhūti's answer, within the *Vajracchedikā-sūtra*, both the initial fruit and the final fruit speak of "I am able to attain the fruit", which would be to have clinging, while the middle two fruits do not, summarily citing the first and last to exemplify the middle ones; the other versions only have this for the fourth fruit, exemplifying the prior three fruits. If so, when clinging is spoken of as arising even in an aśaikṣa, why would clinging not be spoken of as arising in a śaikṣa? Therefore, the *Vajracchedikā* is correct. Vasubandhu raises a doubt: "Earlier it was said that noble ones derive their name from the unconditioned, and that dharma cannot be grasped or spoken of. If so, how can a stream-enterer and the rest know by themselves, 'I have attained that fruit'?" Thus, testifying and speaking for others means that the four fruits can be grasped and spoken of—such is the intent of raising the doubt. In the earlier fascicle of this treatise it says: "In order to be free from arrogance when attaining distinction in the path of cultivation, the sūtra says..."—this is the same as that doubt. If by being unconditioned it cannot be grasped or spoken of, how can the four fruits speak of an attainment that can be stated? Since they have doubts, in the midst of non-attainment and non-speech, they suppose there is attainment and speech. "I" refers to the arrogance of self, due to its nature of haughtiness; or it is the view of self. "Attaining" refers to supposing that there are attained virtues in the midst of nothing to be attained, which is the expression of deviant arrogance. What is also spoken of in this way is all spoken of in the context of benefiting sentient beings; because the view of self and the arrogance of self serve as the root, deviant arrogance and so forth arise. Therefore, this treatise states: "If there is a characteristic of self, then there is arrogance and the like, which should be severed by a bodhisattva." This is precisely the grasping at phenomena; names of afflictions are adduced to reveal grasping at phenomena, as will only be understood below. Now, generally stating here that in order to be free from this arrogance, the sūtra speaks [of this] and so forth, the intention is to show that at the time of entering and realizing the unconditioned, none of the four fruits say "I have attained" or "I speak"; only after emerging from contemplation do they say "I can realize and attain this fruit." Furthermore, subsequent wisdom contemplates what was previously realized; what was realized is profound and wondrous, and contemplating it, one does not cling to it; contemplating the aspects of prior preparatory practices, one proceeds to proclaim them in accordance with those aspects, speaking of having attainment and realization—it is not that true wisdom directly realizing the unconditioned speaks of having attainment and realization. If the prior three fruits were to speak of attainment and realization, because they are pursued by seeds of affliction, at this time, although there are no active afflictions, because there are seeds, the two graspings would arise in pursuit; hence it says "it would precisely be having grasping at a self and so forth." If a person of the fourth fruit were to have attainment and realization, pursued solely by seeds of the cognitive hindrance, directly giving rise to the four wisdoms, [thinking] "my births are exhausted, the holy life is established", and so forth, although not active grasping, because seeds of grasping pursue them, saying "I" and so forth would mean that grasping at phenomena arises. Therefore, Vasubandhu says: "Because of having underlying afflictions, not active afflictions. Why is this? Because at the time of realization they are free from afflictions that grasp at a self and so forth; therefore, they do not have such a mind as 'I can attain the fruit,' etc." This reveals that at the time of realization, if one were to say "since I have realized it", with seeds pursuing them, active afflictions of self and so forth would arise, just as when other things arise. The treatise's word "underlying" means seeds; since at the time of realizing the four fruits they do not speak of grasping or speaking, it is clear that arrogance involving grasping should all be abandoned. Now, in order to be free from this, this text arises. As for "srotāpanna" and so forth, Kumārajīva's text differs, while the other sūtras are mostly identical. Explaining the names and severing doubts should all be understood in accordance with reason.