成唯識論述記 10.32

10.32

述曰：第三，次第廣前答也，初廣因；後廣果。因中有四，初廣十地，於中有三：初、解十別名；二、出地體性；三、釋總地義。初獲聖性者，謂初斷凡性得聖性，即依無漏無分別智等俱行五蘊種子，為聖性體，異生性體，唯二障種。若此聖性取三乘初智種正能生現功能，名為聖性，依分別二種立異生性。俱生二障種雖有，亦非凡夫，依能生初無漏種立聖性故。凡夫時有初無漏種，而非聖性，未能生故。分別之障，障聖性者，名為凡性；無漏之性能斷凡性者，名為聖性。若爾，後諸無漏應非聖性，不能斷分別障故，前劣者已捨故。此亦不然，性能斷故，是彼類故，亦名聖性，各隨自乘所治既為凡性，亦隨自乘能治名為聖性。即隨一空、二空智種為體，若現行智為體，起世俗心應非聖者。若菩薩是大士夫之聖性，非如二乘小人之聖性，二具證二空，簡二乘等唯證一空。今從詮說，說如為空，如非空也。三、能益自他，簡彼二乘唯自利也。由獲大士聖性、具證二空、益自他三因故生大喜，此地名極喜地，簡後菩薩非初得聖性，不名極喜，及簡二乘無是三勝，初得果時不名極喜。若爾，菩薩初果何故不名預流？《對法》第十四說：何緣菩薩已得超昇而非預流也？由得不住道一向預流行不成就故，預聖之流樂住於道，厭出生死故。何緣亦非一來也？故受諸有無量生故，何緣亦非不還耶？安住靜慮還生欲界故。《十地論》第五卷說：菩薩生欲界不退靜慮。《對法》第十三說：菩薩咸離無色界生，靜慮相應住靜慮樂而生欲界或色界中，已證得威德菩薩，凡所受生，皆欲利益安樂有情，以無色界非成熟有情處故。彼自解言：住靜慮者，由此菩薩善巧迴轉故。《瑜伽》、《顯揚》等，此文非一。由此義故不名不還，復還來故。何故不名阿羅漢者？此亦可名，如前第三卷引，至此卷末當知。由此初地菩薩不名預流，預流之果不名極喜。《攝論》第七，唯有具二利故喜，對彼二乘名極喜故。無性云：若初地喜不相應者，自後諸地亦不相應，此為先故。《十地論》第一卷說，無上二利初證聖處多生歡喜故，即與此二因同，「唯證二空」此論獨有。四十七說，此地善決定故，四相發心故，發起精進發正願故，淨修地法故，開曉餘地故，修治善根故，受生故，威力故。如彼及《十地經》第一、第二、第三卷廣解。《瓔珞經》下卷雖別釋十地名，然不及此，此地即願為最勝，有十大願等，並如彼二論說。

The Commentary states: Third is the detailed explanation, in sequence, of the previous answer: first broadly explaining the cause, and afterwards broadly explaining the fruit. Within the cause there are four parts: first, broadly explaining the ten grounds, within which there are three [aspects]: first, explaining the ten distinct names; second, bringing forth the essential nature of the grounds; third, explaining the general meaning of "ground." "First attaining the noble nature" means first severing ordinary nature and attaining the noble nature; that is, relying on the seeds of the five aggregates that co-arise with anāsrava non-conceptual wisdom and so forth as the substance of the noble nature, whereas the substance of ordinary nature (pṛthagjanatva) consists solely of the seeds of the two obstacles. If this noble nature is taken as the capacity of the seeds of the initial wisdom of the three vehicles directly able to generate actual activity, it is called the noble nature, and relying on the seeds of the two [obstacles] that are conceptually constructed, ordinary nature is established. Although the seeds of the innate two obstacles still exist, one is no longer an ordinary person, because the noble nature is established relying on the seeds able to generate initial anāsrava [wisdom]. At the time of being an ordinary person, one possesses the initial anāsrava seeds but they are not the noble nature, because they are not yet able to generate [actual wisdom]. The conceptually constructed obstacles that obstruct the noble nature are called ordinary nature; the anāsrava nature that is able to sever ordinary nature is called the noble nature. If so, subsequent anāsrava [states] would not be the noble nature, because they cannot sever the conceptually constructed obstacles, the earlier inferior ones having already been abandoned. This is also not correct; because their nature is able to sever and they are of that category, they are also called the noble nature. In each case, in accordance with one's own vehicle, what is remedied is ordinary nature, and in accordance with one's own vehicle, what acts as the remedy is called the noble nature. That is, it takes the seeds of wisdom of either one emptyness or two emptynesses as its substance; if actualised wisdom were taken as its substance, then when conventional thoughts arise, one would not be a noble one. If it is the noble nature of a bodhisattva, it is the noble nature of a great person (mahāpuruṣa), unlike the noble nature of petty persons of the two vehicles. Second, "fully realising the two emptynesses" distinguishes [the bodhisattva] from the two vehicles and so forth, who realise only one emptyness. Here, speaking in terms of expression, suchness is described as emptyness, though suchness is not [merely] empty. Third, "benefiting oneself and others" distinguishes [the bodhisattva] from those two vehicles who solely benefit themselves. Owing to the three causes—attaining the noble nature of a great person, fully realising the two emptynesses, and benefiting oneself and others—great joy is generated; hence this ground is named the Ground of Utmost Joy. This distinguishes later bodhisattvas, who are not first attaining the noble nature and thus are not named Utmost Joy, and distinguishes the two vehicles, who lack these three superior qualities and when first attaining their fruit are not named Utmost Joy. If so, why is the initial fruit of a bodhisattva not called Stream-Enterer (srotāpanna)? The fourteenth fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā states: For what reason has the bodhisattva already attained transcendence and yet is not a Stream-Enterer? Because having attained the non-abiding path, their practice of one-sided stream-entry is not accomplished, for those who enter the stream of the nobles take pleasure in abiding in the path and are weary of, and wish to leave, saṃsāra. For what reason are they also not a Once-Returner (sakṛdāgāmin)? Because they intentionally receive immeasurable births in various realms of existence. For what reason are they also not a Non-Returner (anāgāmin)? Because while dwelling stably in the dhyānas, they are reborn again in the desire realm. The fifth fascicle of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states: Bodhisattvas are born into the desire realm without falling away from the dhyānas. The thirteenth fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā states: Bodhisattvas all abandon rebirth in the formless realm; associated with dhyāna and dwelling in the bliss of dhyāna, they are born into the desire realm or the form realm. Bodhisattvas who have already realised majestic virtue, wherever they receive rebirth, all wish to benefit and bring peace and happiness to sentient beings, since the formless realm is not a place for maturing sentient beings. That text itself explains: As for dwelling in dhyāna, this is because these bodhisattvas skillfully turn around. In the Yogācārabhūmi, Prakaraṇāryavācā, and so forth, this passage appears more than once. By this meaning, they are not called Non-Returners, because they return again. Why are they not called arhats? They could also be called this, as cited above in Fascicle Three and as should be known toward the end of this fascicle. Because of this, a bodhisattva of the first ground is not called a Stream-Enterer, and the fruit of a Stream-Enterer is not called Utmost Joy. The seventh fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that joy exists solely due to possessing the two benefits, and in contrast to those two vehicles, it is called Utmost Joy. Asvabhāva says: If joy were not associated with the first ground, it would not be associated with the subsequent grounds either, since this serves as the precursor. The first fascicle of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states: Because upon first realising the supreme noble state of the two benefits, abundant joy arises; this agrees with these two causes, while "solely realising the two emptynesses" is unique to this treatise. Fascicle forty-seven [of the Yogācārabhūmi] states that this ground is so named because of excellent determination, because of generating the mind through four marks, because of initiating vigor and making correct vows, because of purifying and cultivating the dharmas of the grounds, because of illuminating the remaining grounds, because of cultivating roots of goodness, because of taking rebirth, and because of majestic power. As broadly explained in that work and in fascicles one, two, and three of the Daśabhūmika-sūtra. Although the lower fascicle of the Yingluo jing separately explains the names of the ten grounds, it is not equal to this; on this ground, vows are supreme, possessing the ten great vows and so forth, all as stated in those two treatises.