成唯識論了義燈 1.93

1.93

問：若證二空，彼障隨斷，本疏中解，通約餘師。此初段文，不唯安惠，故總相說。若據安惠，《樞要》中有三解。第三云：所知障中，種、習為重，現行名輕，由二障種、習，餘現行得生。若斷種、習，現行永滅。《要集》云：執、障有現、種，如何習、種說名為執，現名餘障？稍乖此文，此意執、障俱有種、現，不應執種、習，獨得執名。現行不名執，但名餘障。今謂無過。不說現行，不名為執，但是種、習重，執之餘名為餘障。以其現行，輕而易伏，有不行時。若論種子，不妨現在。若斷種子，現行必無。故現行輕，名為餘障。故由有種二障具生，文極相符，何處乖反？西明釋云：安惠煩惱執狹障寬，所知障體，即與法執，體無寬狹。今約別煩惱說，故不相違。《要集》云：順文義者，有釋為正，此意以煩惱障，別頭貪等，我執斷時，彼亦隨斷故。云彼障隨斷故，順文義。今謂不爾。前云：由我法執，二障具生，若證二空，彼障隨斷。若但煩惱，何須云二障具生？若證二空，彼障隨斷，即應云若證生空，彼障隨斷。又所知障，障、執相似，何須言二重？一障有重故，今又助釋，安惠有障非執者，如《佛地》論障所得果，亦名為障，即所知障。所起三業，并所得果，及見、相分。雖此所執，亦名隨斷，如於遍計說斷之義。又二障體，《佛地論》云：煩惱障體：一、根本煩惱及隨煩惱；二、所發業；三、所得果。若此論下，一百二十八根本煩惱及隨煩惱以為體性。西明云：如此二論障體不同者。護法就正障說根本，等流以為障體。親光通據障及眷屬故，障業、果為障體性。若准此釋，亦未盡理。護法初出障體，且據勝說，非不取業及果，以不說唯故。又下明十障中，說斷惡趣雜染愚，云：應知愚品，總說為愚。明知障品，亦說為障。又此據自性斷故，但說根本及隨煩惱。《佛地》論等據三斷故，若所發業并所得果，故不相違。若根本、隨惑名自性斷，若所發業，名相應斷。據不善業，作如是說，若其善業，亦緣縛斷。若所得果，名離縛斷，由自性、相應斷，顯有餘涅槃，由緣縛斷及不生故，顯無餘涅槃。

Question: Regarding "if one realizes the two emptinesses, those obstacles are severed accordingly," the explanation in the basic commentary is broadly applied to other masters. This first section of text does not pertain solely to Sthiramati, and so it speaks generally. If it is based on Sthiramati, there are three explanations in the Shunyao. The third says: "Within the cognitive obstacle, seeds and habit-energies are heavy, while active manifestations are called light. Due to the seeds and habit-energies of the two obstacles, the remaining active manifestations are able to arise. If the seeds and habit-energies are severed, active manifestations are eternally extinguished." The Yaoji says: "Grasping and obstacles have both active manifestations and seeds; how can habit-energies and seeds be called 'grasping' while active manifestations are called 'remaining obstacles'? This deviates somewhat from this text." This implies that both grasping and obstacles have seeds and active manifestations, so it is inappropriate that only the seeds and habit-energies of grasping should receive the name 'grasping', while active manifestations are not called grasping, but only called 'remaining obstacles'. We now say there is no fault. It does not say that active manifestations are not called grasping; rather, it is just that seeds and habit-energies are heavy, and the remainder of grasping is called 'remaining obstacles'. Because their active manifestations are light and easily subdued, there are times when they do not operate. As for seeds, they do not hinder being present. If the seeds are severed, active manifestations must certainly be absent. Therefore active manifestations are light and called 'remaining obstacles'. Thus, because seeds exist, the two obstacles arise together; the text accords extremely well—where is there any contradiction? Ximing's explanation says: "For Sthiramati, the grasping of afflictions is narrow while the obstacle is broad; the essence of the cognitive obstacle is neither broader nor narrower than the grasping of phenomena. Here it is spoken with respect to particular afflictions, and so there is no contradiction." The Yaoji says: "One that accords with the text's meaning is explained as correct; this means that with the affliction obstacle, such as greedy attachment taken separately, when the grasping of self is severed, they are severed accordingly. Saying 'those obstacles are severed accordingly' therefore accords with the text's meaning." We now say this is not so. Earlier it said: "Due to the grasping of self and phenomena, the two obstacles arise together; if one realizes the two emptinesses, those obstacles are severed accordingly." If it were only afflictions, why would it need to say "the two obstacles arise together"? If it says "if one realizes the two emptinesses, those obstacles are severed accordingly," it should rather say "if one realizes the emptiness of persons, those obstacles are severed accordingly." Furthermore, for the cognitive obstacle, obstacle and grasping are similar; why would it need to say two are heavy? One obstacle has that which is heavy. Therefore, we now offer an auxiliary explanation: as for Sthiramati positing obstacles that are not grasping, as the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra says that the results obtained from obstacles are also called obstacles—namely, the cognitive obstacle. The three types of karma produced, together with the results obtained, as well as the seeing and seen divisions: although these are grasped, they are also said to be severed accordingly, just like the meaning of severance spoken with respect to the fully conceptualized nature (parikalpita). Furthermore, regarding the essences of the two obstacles, the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra says: "The essence of the affliction obstacle: first, root afflictions and secondary afflictions; second, karma initiated; third, results obtained." In this śāstra below, the one hundred and twenty-eight root afflictions and secondary afflictions are taken as the essential nature. Ximing says: "The reason the essences of the obstacles differ between these two śāstras is that Dharmapāla speaks of root and outflow-concordant ones as the essence of the obstacle in terms of the primary obstacle; Bandhuprabha broadly includes the obstacles and their retinue, and therefore takes the karma and results of the obstacles as the essential nature of the obstacle." According to this explanation, it is still not fully reasoned. When Dharmapāla first presents the essence of the obstacle, he speaks provisionally based on what is predominant; it is not that he does not include karma and results, because he does not say "only." Furthermore, below in explaining the ten obstacles, speaking of severing the delusion of defilement leading to bad destinies, it says: "One should know that the category of delusion is spoken of generally as 'delusion'." Clearly one knows that the category of obstacles is also spoken of as "obstacles." Moreover, because this is based on severance by intrinsic nature, it only speaks of root and secondary afflictions. Because the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra and others are based on the three severances, they include the karma initiated and results obtained, and so there is no contradiction. If root and secondary afflictions are called severance by intrinsic nature; if the karma initiated is called severance through association—this is spoken based on unwholesome karma; if it is wholesome karma, it is also severance by object-binding. If it is the results obtained, it is called severance by separation from bondage. Nirvana with remainder is revealed through severance by intrinsic nature and severance through association; nirvana without remainder is revealed through severance by object-binding and non-arising.