[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘法界無差別論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838) › 1.61 # 大乘法界無差別論疏 1.61 大乘法界無差別論疏 1.61 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838.1.61) 第八、釋常恒門中亦三，謂徵、頌、釋。頌中，初一明不同無常法，故常也。後一頌，明與無常法為依，故常也。何故有此二義者？謂若同無常，即不堪依，故無無常也；若異無常，即非無常所依，故失於常也。是即不異無常而不即無常者，方是真如常也。各初半舉喻、後半法合。三、釋中二：先釋初頌、二「是故」下。釋後頌。前中，先問意云：前分位中既云生死趣中生滅流轉，此法身體為常為無常？若其是常，是成生滅；若是無常，即失法身。二、「譬如」下，答。於中先舉喻、後法合。答意：以法身是真常故，必不礙於生滅；以生滅虛妄故，必不損於法身。問：生滅是虛，不損於常性。法身既亦不礙生滅，法身亦應是虛常。答：若是情謂之虛常，必礙於無常，方得說常。今此是超情之真常，故不異於無常，方乃是真常，以常見所不到故。《勝鬘經》云「見諸行無常，是斷見，非正見。見涅槃常，見常見，非正見。」又以生滅是能依必虛，故同所依。法身是所依必真，故遍能依。是故不齊也。既以虛生滅不損真法身，是故如虛空，非劫火所燒也。《華嚴經》云「譬如世界，有成或有敗，虛空無增減，無師智亦然。」又《寶性論》云「如虛空遍至，體細塵不染。佛性遍眾生，諸煩惱不染。如一切世間，依虛空生滅。依於無漏界，有諸根生滅。火不燒虛空，若燒無是處。如是老病死，不能燒佛性。」乃至具說三災等喻云：如是依邪念風災、業煩惱水災、老病死火災，吹浸燒壞陰界入世間，而自性清淨心虛空常住不壞。又彼論引《陀羅尼自在王菩薩經》言「諸善男子！煩惱本無體，真性本明淨。一切煩惱羸薄，毘婆舍那有大力勢。虛空自性清淨心根本，一切煩惱虛妄分別，自性清淨心實不分別。」乃至說虛空等四輪喻，如論應知。言「法界亦爾」者，舉法合可知。二、「是故」下，引《勝鬘經》釋第二頌中二：先簡妄非真、後顯真非妄。前中二句：初言「生死者但隨俗說有」者，總顯虛妄。謂就實諦道理，本無體法，是故但約隨俗虛妄說有生死，而實此法本無所有。二、「世尊」下，別顯無義。謂但依如來藏，有虛妄根沒說名死、虛妄根起說名生，而如來藏本不動轉，如水上波有起有滅，而水濕性本無起盡。非以波水動靜異故，別謂離水而別有波；亦不以離水無波故，別謂此水自體是波。當知此中道理亦爾。「非如來藏」下，顯真非妄中亦二句：初、明體無妄法。謂與妄為依，舉體成妄，而其自體本恒無妄。如金作器，而金性非器。準此思之。二、「世尊」下，明體具勝德。言「過有為相」者，總顯是無為故。「寂靜」下，別顯四德。彼經名常恒清淨不變義。此中寂靜，是彼清涼。以梵云陀羅，此名清涼，亦名寂靜。此中不斷，是彼恒義。《寶性論》中釋此四義作二門：一約離過門、二約實德門。離過者，彼論第四云「不生及不死，不病亦不老，以常恒清淨，及不變等故。」具引如前第一釋果門處辨。二、約實德者，彼論中引《不增不減經》說「舍利弗！如來法身常，以不異法故、以不盡故、以無分別法故。如來法身不變，以非滅法故、以非作法故。」又釋：亦得寂靜是淨德、常住是常德、不變是我德、不斷是樂德。釋常恒門竟。 > Eighth, the explanation of the gate of permanence also has three parts: the interrogation, the verse, and the explanation. In the verse, the first stanza clarifies that it is not identical to impermanent dharmas, hence it is permanent. The subsequent stanza clarifies that it serves as the support for impermanent dharmas, hence it is permanent. Why are there these two meanings? If it were identical to the impermanent, it would not be fit to be a support; hence it is devoid of impermanence. If it were different from the impermanent, it would not be that upon which the impermanent depends; hence it would lose its permanence. Thus, only that which is not different from the impermanent yet not identical to the impermanent is the permanence of tathatā. For each stanza, the first half adduces an analogy, and the second half applies it to the doctrine. Third, the explanation has two parts: first, explaining the first stanza; second, from "Therefore..." onward, explaining the second stanza. In the former, first the question means: Since the preceding discussion of states stated that there is arising, ceasing, and transmigration within the destinies of birth-and-death, is the substance of this dharmakāya permanent or impermanent? If it is permanent, then it would become arising and ceasing; if it is impermanent, then the dharmakāya would be lost. Second, from "Just as..." onward is the answer. Within it, first an analogy is adduced, then it is applied to the doctrine. The meaning of the answer is: because the dharmakāya is true permanence, it definitely does not obstruct arising and ceasing; because arising and ceasing are illusory, they definitely do not damage the dharmakāya. Question: Arising and ceasing are illusory and do not damage the permanent nature. Since the dharmakāya also does not obstruct arising and ceasing, should the dharmakāya not also be an illusory permanence? Answer: If it were the illusory permanence imagined by conceptual thought, it would definitely have to obstruct impermanence before it could be called permanent. Now this is the true permanence that transcends conceptual thought; hence, only because it is not different from impermanence is it truly permanent, for it is beyond the reach of the view of permanence. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: "To view conditioned formations as impermanent is an annihilationist view, not right view. To view nirvāṇa as permanent is an eternalist view, not right view." Furthermore, because arising and ceasing are what rely, they are necessarily illusory, and thus identical to that upon which they rely. Because the dharmakāya is that upon which they rely, it is necessarily real, and thus pervades that which relies. Therefore they are not equal. Since illusory arising and ceasing do not damage the real dharmakāya, it is therefore like space, which is not burned by the kalpa fire. The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: "Just as worlds are formed or destroyed, but space neither increases nor decreases, so too is the unconditioned wisdom." The Ratnagotravibhāga also says: "Just as space is omnipresent, yet its substance is subtle and unstained by dust, / So the buddhadhātu pervades sentient beings, unstained by all afflictions. / Just as all worlds arise and perish relying on space, / Relying on the undefiled realm, the sense faculties arise and perish. / Fire does not burn space; if it could burn it, there is no such possibility. / Likewise, old age, sickness, and death cannot burn the buddhadhātu." It goes on to fully explain the analogies of the three disasters and so forth, saying: in this way, relying on the wind disaster of incorrect mindfulness, the water disaster of karma and afflictions, and the fire disaster of old age, sickness, and death, the world of aggregates, dhātus, and āyatanas is blown, inundated, and burned to destruction, yet the intrinsically pure mind, like space, abides permanently and is indestructible. That treatise also cites the Dhāraṇīśvararāja-bodhisattva-sūtra, saying: "Good sons! Afflictions originally have no substance; the true nature is originally luminous and pure. All afflictions are frail and weak, while vipaśyanā has great power. Space and the intrinsically pure mind are the root; all afflictions are false conceptualizations, while the intrinsically pure mind truly does not conceptualize." It goes on to explain the four-wheel analogy of space and so forth, which should be known as in that treatise. The phrase "the dharmadhātu is also like this" adduces the application to the doctrine, which can be understood. Second, from "Therefore..." onward, citing the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra to explain the second stanza, has two parts: first, distinguishing the false from the true; second, revealing that the true is not false. In the former are two clauses. First, the statement "'birth-and-death' is spoken of only in accordance with conventional truth" comprehensively reveals its illusory nature. This means that in terms of the principle of ultimate truth, it is originally a dharma without substance; therefore, birth-and-death is spoken of as existing only in accordance with conventional falsity, whereas in truth this dharma originally does not exist. Second, from "World-Honoured One..." onward, it specifically reveals the meaning of non-existence. That is, relying solely on the tathāgatagarbha, the disappearing of illusory faculties is called death, and the arising of illusory faculties is called birth; yet the tathāgatagarbha originally does not stir or turn, just as waves on water arise and perish, while the wet nature of water originally neither arises nor ends. It is not that because of the difference between motion and stillness in waves and water, waves are separately said to exist apart from water; nor is it that because there are no waves apart from water, the substance of this water is itself separately said to be waves. One should know that the principle here is also like this. From "It is not that the tathāgatagarbha..." onward, revealing that the true is not false also has two clauses: first, clarifying that its substance is free from false dharmas. That is, though it serves as the support for the false and its entire substance becomes the false, its own substance is originally and permanently free from the false. Just as gold is made into vessels, yet the nature of gold is not the vessels; one should reflect along these lines. Second, from "World-Honoured One..." onward, clarifying that its substance is endowed with excellent virtues. The phrase "transcending conditioned characteristics" comprehensively reveals that it is unconditioned. From "tranquil" onward, it specifically reveals the four virtues. In that sūtra, they are named the meanings of permanence, constancy, purity, and immutability. Here, "tranquil" corresponds to that "coolness", for the Sanskrit term dhāra means coolness here, and is also called tranquility. Here, "unbroken" corresponds to that meaning of constancy. In the Ratnagotravibhāga, these four meanings are explained through two gates: first, the gate of separation from faults; second, the gate of real virtues. Regarding separation from faults, the fourth chapter of that treatise says: "Neither born nor dying, neither sick nor aging, / Because of being permanent, constant, pure, immutable, and so forth." This was fully cited and analyzed previously under the explanation of the gate of fruition. Second, regarding real virtues, that treatise cites the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa-sūtra, saying: "Śāriputra! The Tathāgata's dharmakāya is permanent because it is not a different dharma, because it is inexhaustible, and because it is an undifferentiated dharma. The Tathāgata's dharmakāya is immutable because it is not a perishing dharma, and because it is an uncreated dharma." Another explanation states: it is also acceptable that tranquility is the virtue of purity, permanent abiding is the virtue of permanence, immutability is the virtue of self, and being unbroken is the virtue of bliss. The explanation of the gate of permanence is finished. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838.1.60) - [Next: 1.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838.1.62) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838~en-mt.1.61) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.54.19) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838.1.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1838.1.61) · Pramāṇa