起信論疏筆削記 5.4

5.4

疏　次二下，釋中二句也，文二：初釋上句明離過，二：初正解此句。言離過者，過即疑執也。由疑下，釋疑執之相。迷真者，雖有如無，謂之迷也。故下文云：所言不覺義者，謂不如實知真如法一故，不覺心起，而有其念等。既迷一真，即菩提、涅槃二無上樂棄之如遺，故云失樂。起妄者，妄即五蘊色心。認虛為實，謂之執。此則因迷起似、執似為實，從微至著，展轉發生。故《圓覺經》云：妄認四大為自身相，六塵緣影為自心相等。既起於妄，則三苦八苦自此而生，故云種苦。故下文云：動則有苦，果不離因故。《十地論》即天親所造，解《華嚴．十地品》也。遠離等，即前迷真失樂義。具足等，即前起妄種苦義。彼二即失真樂、具妄苦，於此不知不覺，故名顛倒。失不知者，如《法華》說：窮子於己庫藏以為他物，雖付主執，而無希取一餐之意，斯則日用而不知也。得不覺者，亦如《法華》說：火宅諸子戀著嬉戲，了無出心。亦復不知何者是火，云何為失？但東西馳走，視父而已。然此三種不出於二，以顛倒無體，只就前二，約不知覺便成顛倒，合為三也。故令下，結歸聖意。以菩薩觀彼眾生有如是過。是故造論。

[The text says,] "In the commentary: 'Next two [lines]...', this explains the middle two lines, with text in two parts: first, explaining the preceding line to clarify leaving errors behind, which has two parts: first, directly explaining this line. Stating 'leaving errors behind': errors are doubts and attachments. 'Due to doubt...', this explains the marks of doubts and attachments. 'Confused about the real': although it exists, it seems non-existent; this is termed 'confused'. Thus, the later text says: 'What is meant by the definition of non-enlightenment is that, because one does not truly know the oneness of the tathatā-dharma, the unenlightened mind arises, and there is its thought,' and so forth. Having become confused about the one reality, one casts away the two supreme joys of bodhi and nirvāṇa as if abandoned; thus it says 'losing joy'. 'Giving rise to the false': the false means the material and mental aggregates of the five skandhas. Taking the empty as real is termed 'attachment'. This is giving rise to appearances based on confusion and grasping appearances as real; proceeding from the subtle to the gross, these develop consecutively. Therefore, the *Yuanjue jing* says: 'Falsely grasping the four great elements as the marks of one's own body, and the conditioning reflections of the six dusts as the marks of one's own mind,' and so forth. Having given rise to the false, the three sufferings and eight sufferings are generated from this; hence it says 'planting suffering'. Therefore, the later text states: 'When there is movement, there is suffering, because the fruit does not depart from the cause.' The *Daśabhūmika-śāstra* was authored by Vasubandhu to explain the 'Chapter on the Ten Stages' of the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra*. 'Departing far from...', this is the earlier meaning of being confused about the real and losing joy. 'Fully possessing...', this is the earlier meaning of giving rise to the false and planting suffering. These two refer to losing real joy and being equipped with false suffering; being unaware and unawakened regarding this is termed inverted. Not knowing what is lost is like the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra* explaining: the poor son regards the storehouse of his own home as another's property; though entrusted with management, he has no aspiration to take even a single meal; this is using it daily without knowing. Not awakening to what is gained is also like the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra* explaining: the children in the burning house are attached to play, having no thought of escaping. Nor do they know what fire is or what loss is; they merely run back and forth, looking at their father. However, these three kinds do not go beyond two: because inversion has no substance, it is just formulated on the preceding two, designated as inversion by virtue of not knowing and not awakening, and combined into three. 'Therefore causing...', this concludes by returning to the sage's intention. Because the bodhisattva observes that sentient beings have such errors, he composed the treatise.