大乘法界無差別論疏 1.47

1.47

第六、釋分位門中亦三：一徵、二頌、三釋。釋中三：先牒前門；二、「不淨位」下正顯其相；三、「如說」下引經證成。就正顯中三句：一、此無差別心性，在於雜染眾生位中，名有垢真如。亦是自性住佛性，與眾生作依因，故名眾生界。二、於染淨位中名菩薩者，已斷障故名淨，斷未盡故亦名染。又修起淨德名為淨，淨德未圓猶帶障故名為染。又異前位故名淨，異後位故名染。是故名為垢淨真如，亦名引出佛性。三，最清淨位名如來者，習氣永盡、福智圓滿，故云最極淨也。以此心性從障出來，至佛果位，名為如來。此是無垢真如，亦是至得果佛性。三、「如說」下，引《不增不減經》釋此三位。於中二：初正顯三位、後「是故」下結顯無二。前中，三位即為三。初不淨位中亦三：初、牒舉法體，謂「即此法身」者，是前心性無差別法界也。二、「為本際」下，正顯法身作眾生義。於中二：初、「為本際無邊煩惱藏所纏」者，明為惑業所纏縛也。二、「從無始」等者，明隨苦報所漂流也。三、「名為眾生界」者，依義立名。謂以為惑業苦所纏漂故，名此法身為眾生界也。又釋：為本際煩惱等者，是動法身之緣也。以無始故，云本際也。謂本際已來，無邊煩惱所纏故也。又此煩惱是生死之本際，故名也。又迷本實際起此惑故，以此住地煩惱能生一切起煩惱故，是故名為煩惱藏也。二、「從無始」等者，正顯法身隨彼染緣作眾生義。謂此法身是一心性，本來清淨。以此心性不染而染，故眾生也；染而不染，故眾生即如也。今就前門，故云眾生界。問：餘處說阿賴耶識隨熏變現作眾生，何故此中乃以法身隨緣作眾生耶？答：《寶性論》云「眾生義甚深，唯佛智境。」今歷諸宗，略辨此義。一、若小乘中，一切眾生唯是蘊界等法，有為、無為俱悉是有，唯無人我。二、龍樹、提婆等宗，明眾生蘊界處等，有為無為一切皆空，是眾生義。《中論》云「以有空義故，一切法得成。」三、無著、世親等宗，一切眾生皆自識所變，謂異熟識等，但無所執實我實法，而有所顯真如及依他幻法。此有為無為，以不相離故，非一非異，然其二位恒不雜亂。四、依馬鳴、堅慧等宗，一切眾生皆是如來藏自性清淨心，為煩惱所纏，說為眾生，名有為法，此是不異無為之有為也；又正作眾生時，以相空性實故，自性清淨，名無為法，此是不異有為之無為也。《楞伽》云「如來藏者，受苦樂，與因俱，若生若滅。」《起信論》中釋此義云「如大海水，因風波動，水相風相不相捨離，而水非動性。若風止滅，動相即滅，濕性不壞。如是眾生自性清淨心，因無明風動，心與無明俱無形相，不相捨離」，乃至廣說。又《密嚴經》下卷，頌云「譬如金石等，本來無水相，與火共和合，若水而流動。藏識亦如是，體非流轉法，諸識共相應，與法同流轉。」如是等文，皆明如來藏隨緣作眾生也。廣釋此義，成立多門，如《密嚴疏》中具說。

Sixth, within the section explaining the stages, there are also three parts: first, the inquiry; second, the verse; third, the explanation. Within the explanation there are three: first, reiterating the preceding section; second, directly revealing the characteristics from "the impure stage" onward; third, citing sūtra to verify and establish from "as it is said" onward. Regarding the direct revelation, there are three phrases: 1. This undifferentiated mind-nature, while in the stage of defiled sentient beings, is called tathatā with defilement. It is also the naturally abiding buddhadhātu, acting as the cause of support for sentient beings, and is therefore called the realm of sentient beings. 2. Being called a bodhisattva in the stage of both defilement and purity: because [they] have already severed obstructions, it is called pure; because severing is not yet complete, it is also called defiled. Furthermore, cultivating and giving rise to pure virtues is called pure; pure virtues not yet being complete and still carrying obstructions is called defiled. Furthermore, being different from the previous stage is called pure; being different from the subsequent stage is called defiled. Therefore it is called tathatā with defilement and purity, and is also called the brought-forth buddhadhātu. 3. Being called Tathāgata in the utmost pure stage: habitual tendencies are forever exhausted, and merit and wisdom are perfected; hence it is called the utmost pure. Because this mind-nature emerges from obstructions and reaches the stage of the Buddha fruit, it is called Tathāgata. This is tathatā without defilement, and is also the attained-fruit buddhadhātu. Third, citing the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa-sūtra from "as it is said" onward to explain these three stages. Therein are two: first, directly revealing the three stages; second, concluding to show their non-duality from "therefore" onward. In the former, the three stages make three parts. Within the first, the impure stage, there are also three: first, reiterating and identifying the dharma-essence: "this very dharmakāya" is the aforementioned undifferentiated dharmadhātu of mind-nature. Second, directly revealing the meaning of the dharmakāya acting as sentient beings from "entangled by the fundamental limit..." onward. Therein are two: first, "entangled by the store of boundless afflictions of the fundamental limit" explains being bound by delusions and karma; second, "from the beginningless..." and so forth explains drifting along with painful retributions. Third, "named the realm of sentient beings" establishes the name based on the meaning, stating that because it is entangled and swept along by delusion, karma, and suffering, this dharmakāya is named the realm of sentient beings. Another explanation: being afflicted by the afflictions of the fundamental limit is the condition that moves the dharmakāya. Because it is beginningless, it is called the fundamental limit; that is, because since the fundamental limit it has been entangled by boundless afflictions. Furthermore, these afflictions are the fundamental limit of saṃsāra, hence the name. Furthermore, because of delusion regarding the fundamental reality, these delusions arise; because these ground afflictions can generate all manifest afflictions, it is therefore named the store of afflictions. Second, "from the beginningless..." and so forth directly reveals the meaning of the dharmakāya acting as sentient beings by following those defiled conditions. That is, this dharmakāya is the nature of the one mind, originally pure. Because this mind-nature is defiled while not defiled, it is a sentient being; because it is not defiled while defiled, sentient beings are themselves tathatā. Now, in terms of the former perspective, it is called the realm of sentient beings. Question: Elsewhere it is said that the ālayavijñāna, transforming and manifesting according to perfuming, acts as sentient beings; why here is it the dharmakāya that follows conditions to act as sentient beings? Answer: The Ratnagotravibhāga says: "The meaning of sentient beings is extremely profound, the realm of the Buddha's wisdom alone." Now, reviewing the various traditions, I shall briefly distinguish this meaning: 1. In the Hīnayāna, all sentient beings are merely the dharmas of the aggregates, realms, and so forth; both conditioned and unconditioned exist, there being only the absence of a personal self. 2. The tradition of Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, and others explains that the aggregates, realms, and sense bases of sentient beings—all conditioned and unconditioned—are entirely empty: this is the meaning of sentient beings. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas are able to be established." 3. The tradition of Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, and others holds that all sentient beings are transformed by their own consciousness, namely the vipākavijñāna and so forth; there are simply no grasped real selves or real dharmas, yet there are the manifested tathatā and dependent illusory dharmas. Because these conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are not separate from each other, they are neither one nor different; however, their two stages are perpetually unconfused. 4. According to the tradition of Aśvaghoṣa, Sāramati, and others, all sentient beings are the intrinsically pure mind of the tathāgatagarbha; entangled by afflictions, it is spoken of as sentient beings and named conditioned dharmas—this is the conditioned that is not different from the unconditioned. Moreover, precisely when acting as sentient beings, because characteristics are empty and the nature is real, it is intrinsically pure and named an unconditioned dharma—this is the unconditioned that is not different from the conditioned. The Laṅkāvatāra says: "The tathāgatagarbha experiences suffering and pleasure; together with causes, it arises and ceases." Explaining this meaning in the Awakening of Faith, it says: "Just as the water of the great ocean is stirred into waves due to the wind, the characteristics of water and the characteristics of wind are not separated from each other, yet water is not of a moving nature. If the wind ceases, the moving characteristics cease, but the wet nature is not destroyed. In this way, the intrinsically pure mind of sentient beings is moved by the wind of ignorance; mind and ignorance are both without physical form and are not separated from each other"—and so on at length. Furthermore, in the lower fascicle of the Ghanavyūha-sūtra, a verse says: "Just as gold, stone, and the like / originally have no form of water, / yet when united with fire / flow like water, / the storehouse consciousness is likewise: / its essence is not a dharma of transmigration, / yet associated with the various consciousnesses, / it transmigrates together with dharmas." Passages such as these all explain that the tathāgatagarbha follows conditions to act as sentient beings. To explain this meaning extensively and establish multiple gates is fully stated in the Ghanavyūha Commentary.