大乘法界無差別論疏 1.85

1.85

第三、「復次應知」下，釋因果一乘門。此中有一乘章，如別說。文中三：初明因一果無異，破彼小乘異大果；二明果一因無異，破彼小乘異大因；三引教證成，雙顯無二。初中，言「唯有一乘道」者，總標因果一道解脫。《涅槃經》云「一切眾生皆歸一道，一道者即大乘也。諸佛菩薩為眾生故分之為三。」《華嚴》云「文殊法常爾，法王唯一法。一切無礙人，一道出生死。」二、「若不爾」下，釋無差別。於中二句：先反釋、後順釋。前中，言「若不爾者」，反責也。謂若守於權教、不信一乘者，應離如來大涅槃外，別有二乘餘涅槃耶？既此實教宗中，異佛涅槃更無餘滅，故知唯有一乘法也。《勝鬘經》云「阿羅漢辟支佛，有餘生法不盡故有生，有餘梵行不成故不純，事不究竟故當有所作，不度彼故當有所斷。以不斷故，去涅槃界遠。何以故？唯有如來、應、正等覺得般涅槃，成就一切功德故。阿羅漢辟支佛不成就一切功德，言得涅槃者，是佛方便。唯有如來得般涅槃」，乃至廣說。準此經論，二乘之人總無涅槃。廣引教理，如別記說。二、「同一法界」下，歸順釋，謂同一如來藏法界也。豈有勝劣涅槃耶者，謂若有二種涅槃，應有二種法界。既無此事，唯一法界，故知無有二涅槃也。二、「亦不可」下，明果一因無異，破小乘因。於中亦二：先牒計總非、二以理正破。前中謂彼既得無異涅槃，而猶執有三乘因別，攬彼別因而成一果。謂下中上者，是三乘因也。勝劣者，獨覺聲聞一勝一劣，二乘望大亦一勝一劣。三因不同，故云諸因。以此三因同得一佛涅槃，此不應理，故云不可言等也。問：若三乘人因果各別，有不成佛，是權乖實，可須破迷。若三乘人修因雖異，得成佛果，此有何失，而今破之？以處處大乘教經說二乘之人亦當成佛故。答：今此論意，亦不許有二乘別因，然有多義。一、前約破無學人，不令住彼果；今破有學人，不令修彼因，以迂迴故。二、不可以二乘自宗中小行之因，得成無上佛果，故云不可言等也。三、明彼二乘亦無別因，所修小行亦是菩薩道故。經云「汝等所行是菩薩道，漸漸修習當得作佛。」是故總無二乘自因，故云無勝劣因而得一果。四、明彼二乘異因皆是大乘之法，是故不許有別異因。《勝鬘經》云「摩訶衍者，出生一切聲聞緣覺、世間出世間善法。世尊！如阿耨大池出八大河」，乃至廣說。前同一法界，不許有異果；今即同一大乘，不許有異因，是故方為純一乘也。文意如此。二、「以現見」下，以正理破。謂現見世間因若差別，果必非一，無有穀麥等多種同生一芽。此即以果破因。既許果一，何得執有多類因耶？是故就實究竟，唯一因一果，餘並方便也。三、「是故經言」下，引經證成，顯前無二。於中二：初證無異因、二「是故」下證一味果。前中三句：初言「世尊實無等」者，總遮無取。謂遮小乘及大乘權教有勝劣差別因法，終證涅槃之理。若有實證得彼涅槃者，實無勝劣差別因法。二、「世尊平等」下，顯實真證。言「平等諸法」者，顯因無差別也。言「證於涅槃」者，由無差別因，方乃證得涅槃。又釋：上句所證，平等法也。證涅槃者，能證契合也。三、「世尊平等智」下，釋成證相。言「平等智」者，顯能證智平等，離能見也。「平等解脫」者，明所得理平等，離所見相也。「平等解脫知見證得涅槃」者，明理智雙融、妙絕能所，方為究竟證實涅槃。二、「是故」下證成一味果中，有二句：先總一味者，顯境智無二故；二「所謂」下，釋出體狀。是何等味？謂平等味者，同一真性故。解脫味者，同離二障故。又釋：平等味者，無間道中離能所取故。解脫味者，解脫道證累外法界故。此是略論，無結說迴向等。

Third, "Furthermore, it should be known..." and so forth explains the gate of the one vehicle of cause and effect. In this there is a chapter on the one vehicle, as explained elsewhere. In the text there are three: first, showing that causes being one, results are not different, refuting the Hīnayāna's [view of] a result different from the Great [Vehicle]; second, showing that results being one, causes are not different, refuting the Hīnayāna's [view of] causes different from the Great [Vehicle]; third, citing teachings to verify and establish, jointly demonstrating non-duality. In the first, the words "there is only the one vehicle path" generally indicate that cause and effect are a single path of liberation. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: "All sentient beings return to a single path; the single path is the Great Vehicle. For the sake of sentient beings, the buddhas and bodhisattvas divide it into three." The Avataṃsaka[-sūtra] says: "Mañjuśrī's Dharma is ever thus; / The Dharma King has only a single Dharma. / All unhindered persons, / By a single path transcend birth and death." Second, "If it were not so..." and so forth explains non-differentiation. Within this are two sentences: first a refutation by contrary implication, and later an explanation in accord. In the former, the words "If it were not so" are a contrary rebuke. It means: if one adheres to the expedient teaching and does not believe in the one vehicle, should there be, apart from the Tathāgata's great nirvāṇa, another separate nirvāṇa of the two vehicles? Since in this tenet of the ultimate teaching there is no other cessation different from the Buddha's nirvāṇa, one knows that there is only the Dharma of the one vehicle. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: "Because arhats and pratyekabuddhas have remaining births not exhausted, they have birth; because they have remaining brahma-practices not completed, they are not pure; because their tasks are not ultimate, they have things to do; because they have not crossed beyond, they have things to sever. Because they do not sever [them], they are far from the realm of nirvāṇa. Why is this? Only the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Samyaksambuddha attains parinirvāṇa, because he has accomplished all merits. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not accomplish all merits; to say they attain nirvāṇa is the Buddha's skillful means. Only the Tathāgata attains parinirvāṇa"—and so on at length. According to these sūtras and treatises, persons of the two vehicles entirely lack nirvāṇa. The extensive citation of teachings and reasoning is as stated in a separate record. Second, "the same dharmadhātu..." and so forth is the explanation in accord, meaning that it is the same dharmadhātu of the tathāgatagarbha. As for "how could there be superior and inferior nirvāṇas?", it means that if there were two kinds of nirvāṇa, there should be two kinds of dharmadhātu. Since there is no such thing and there is only a single dharmadhātu, we know there are not two nirvāṇas. Second, "nor can it be said..." and so forth shows that results being one, causes are not different, refuting the causes of the Hīnayāna. Within this are also two: first, restating the attachment to universally refute it; second, directly refuting it through principle. In the former, it means that while they attain the non-different nirvāṇa, they still cling to distinct causes of the three vehicles, gathering those distinct causes to form a single result. "Inferior, middling, and superior" refers to the causes of the three vehicles. "Superior and inferior" means that pratyekabuddha and śrāvaka are one superior and one inferior, and the two vehicles compared to the Great [Vehicle] are also one superior and one inferior. The three causes being different, they are called "various causes." That through these three causes one equally attains the one Buddha nirvāṇa does not accord with principle; hence it says "nor can it be said," and so forth. Question: If the causes and results of persons of the three vehicles are each distinct and some do not attain Buddhahood, this is the expedient departing from the ultimate, and one must refute such delusion. But if persons of the three vehicles cultivate different causes yet succeed in attaining the Buddha fruit, what fault is there in this that it must now be refuted? For in many places the Great Vehicle teachings and sūtras state that persons of the two vehicles will also become Buddhas. Answer: The intention of this treatise does not permit distinct causes for the two vehicles either, but there are multiple meanings. First, the preceding was in terms of refuting the aśaikṣa, preventing them from abiding in that result; the present refutes the śaikṣa, preventing them from cultivating those causes, because they are circuitous. Second, one cannot attain the unsurpassable Buddha fruit by means of the causes of lesser practices within the two vehicles' own traditions; hence it says "nor can it be said," and so forth. Third, it reveals that those two vehicles also have no distinct causes, because the lesser practices they cultivate are also the bodhisattva path. The sūtra says: "What you practice is the bodhisattva path; gradually cultivating it, you shall become Buddhas." Therefore, the two vehicles have no distinct causes of their own at all; hence it says that there are no superior and inferior causes that attain a single result. Fourth, it shows that the different causes of those two vehicles are all dharmas of the Great Vehicle, and therefore it does not allow distinct causes. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: "The Mahāyāna produces all śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, mundane, and supramundane wholesome dharmas. World-Honoured One, just as Lake Anavatapta issues forth the eight great rivers"—and so on at length. Previously, [by establishing] the same dharmadhātu, it did not permit different results; now, [by establishing] the same Great Vehicle, it does not permit different causes; therefore it is purely the one vehicle. Such is the purport of the text. Second, "Because it is visibly seen..." and so forth refutes with correct principle. It means that, visibly seen in the world, if causes are different, the results are definitely not one; there is never a case where various species such as grain and wheat together produce a single sprout. This refutes the cause by means of the result. Since you acknowledge that the result is one, how can you cling to having multiple types of causes? Therefore, according to the ultimate reality, there is only one cause and one result; all the rest are skillful means. Third, "Therefore the sūtra says..." and so forth cites a sūtra to verify and establish, revealing the preceding non-duality. Within this are two: first, verifying the non-different cause; second, "therefore..." and so forth verifying the result of single taste. In the former there are three sentences: First, the words "World-Honoured One, there truly are no..." and so forth universally negate without acceptance. It means negating that the Hīnayāna and the expedient teachings of the Mahāyāna have superior and inferior differentiated causal dharmas that ultimately realize the principle of nirvāṇa. If there is one who truly realizes that nirvāṇa, there are truly no superior or inferior differentiated causal dharmas. Second, "World-Honoured One, equal..." and so forth reveals true, real realization. The words "equal dharmas" reveal that causes are without differentiation. The words "realize nirvāṇa" mean that it is by means of undifferentiated causes that one then realizes nirvāṇa. Another explanation: the upper phrase is the realized equal Dharma. "Realize nirvāṇa" is the realizing accord. Third, "World-Honoured One, equal wisdom..." and so forth explains the character of realization. The words "equal wisdom" show that the realizing wisdom is equal, free from the cognizer. "Equal liberation" reveals that the attained principle is equal, free from the mark of the cognized. "With the knowledge and vision of equal liberation realizes nirvāṇa" reveals that principle and wisdom are jointly fused, wondrously transcending cognizer and cognized, which is only then the ultimate realization of true nirvāṇa. Second, in verifying the result of single taste under "Therefore...", there are two sentences: First, the general "single taste" reveals that object and wisdom are non-dual; second, "namely..." and so forth explains its essence and characteristics. What kind of taste is it? The "taste of equality" is because of the identical true nature. The "taste of liberation" is because of identically being free from the two hindrances. Another explanation: the taste of equality is being free from the grasped and the grasper in the path of uninterrupted [insight]. The taste of liberation is the path of liberation realizing the dharmadhātu beyond defilements. This is an abbreviated treatise; it lacks concluding verses, dedications, and so forth.