成唯識論述記 10.32

10.32

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.