大乘義章 11.74

11.74

第四門中明其三緣分別。言三緣者，一眾生緣、二是法緣、三是無緣。地經論中名眾生念、法念、無念，緣念一矣。辨此三緣略有三別：一依《涅槃》直就化益開分三種。於此門中，緣諸眾生欲與其樂，名眾生緣。緣諸眾生所須之物，名為法緣。緣如來者，名曰無緣，簡前二故。故彼經言「慈者多緣貧窮眾生，如來大師永離貧窮受第一樂。若緣眾生，即不緣佛。法亦如是。是故緣佛，名曰無緣。」此明緣生欲與樂時不緣於佛，緣法欲與眾生之時亦不緣佛，前二緣中並不緣佛，簡別前二故曰無緣，非全不緣。既非不緣，何義緣之？欲將佛樂與眾生故。若將佛樂欲與眾生，便是法緣，何故言無？以佛是人，非是法故。若佛是人，即眾生緣，何義言無？為別所化諸眾生故。如慈既然，悲等亦爾。二依《地論》，前二化益，後一觀入，開分三種。於此門中，緣生與樂名眾生緣，緣化生法名曰法緣，觀諸法空說為無緣。慈行如是，悲等亦然。三依《涅槃》、《地持論》等，初一化益，後二觀入離分三種。於此門中四義分別：一辨其相、二約人分定、三論通別、四明大小有具不具。言辨相者，緣諸眾生欲與其樂，如緣父母妻子眷屬，名眾生緣。緣諸眾生，但是五陰生滅法數，無我無人，名為法緣。問曰：法緣不見我人眾生等相，云何行慈？釋有兩義：一由見無我，念諸眾生妄為我人之所纏縛，深可哀愍，所以生慈。二念為生說如斯法，是即真利樂，故名行慈。觀五陰空，名曰無緣。問曰：無緣云何行慈？還有兩義：一由見法空，念諸眾生妄為虛法之所纏縛，所以生慈。二念為生說如斯法，故名行慈。故《維摩》言「自念我當為眾生說如斯之法，是即名為真實慈也，第一義樂利眾生故。」問曰：彼此皆無我人，誰起自念為眾生說？釋言：經說幻化不真，所以名無，不無幻人。故經說言「譬如幻士為幻人說，當建是意而為說法。」故得自念為其說也。如慈既然，悲等同然（此一門竟）。

The fourth section clarifies the distinction among their three conditions. The three conditions are: first, the condition of sentient beings; second, the condition of dharmas; and third, the unconditioned. In the Daśabhūmika-sūtra and its treatise, they are called mindfulness of sentient beings, mindfulness of dharmas, and non-mindfulness; "condition" (ālambana) and "mindfulness" (smṛti) are the same. Discerning these three conditions roughly has three distinctions. First, according to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, three kinds are differentiated straightforwardly in terms of transforming and benefiting [beings]. In this approach, taking sentient beings as conditions and wishing to give them joy is called the condition of sentient beings. Taking what sentient beings require as conditions is called the condition of dharmas. Taking the Tathāgata as a condition is called the unconditioned, because it sets apart the previous two. Thus that sūtra states: "Benevolence mostly takes destitute sentient beings as conditions. The Tathāgata, the Great Master, has eternally transcended destitution and experiences the foremost bliss. If one takes sentient beings as conditions, one does not take the Buddha as a condition; it is likewise with dharmas. Therefore, taking the Buddha as a condition is called the unconditioned." This clarifies that when taking beings as conditions wishing to give them joy, one does not take the Buddha as a condition; when taking dharmas as conditions wishing to give them to sentient beings, one also does not take the Buddha as a condition. In both of the first two conditions, one does not take the Buddha as a condition at all; because it sets apart the first two, it is called the unconditioned, not that there is entirely no conditioning. Since it is not that there is no conditioning, with what meaning is it taken as a condition? It is because one wishes to take the Buddha's joy and give it to sentient beings. If one wishes to take the Buddha's joy and give it to sentient beings, that would be the condition of dharmas, so why say "unconditioned"? Because the Buddha is a person, not a dharma. If the Buddha is a person, that would be the condition of sentient beings, so with what meaning is it called "unconditioned"? It is to distinguish [the Buddha] from the sentient beings to be transformed. Just as it is for benevolence, compassion and the others are also like this. Second, according to the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, three kinds are distinguished: the first two are transforming and benefiting [beings], and the latter one is contemplative entry. In this approach, taking beings as conditions and giving joy is called the condition of sentient beings; taking the dharmas that transform beings as conditions is called the condition of dharmas; contemplating the emptiness of all dharmas is called the unconditioned. The practice of benevolence is like this, and compassion and the others are also like this. Third, according to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the Bodhisattva-bhūmi, and so forth, three kinds are distinguished: the first one is transforming and benefiting [beings], and the latter two are contemplative entry. In this approach, there are four distinctions: first, discerning their characteristics; second, determining them in relation to persons; third, discussing their common and specific aspects; fourth, clarifying whether the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna possess them completely or incompletely. As for discerning characteristics: taking sentient beings as conditions wishing to give them joy—like taking parents, wife, children, and kin as conditions—is called the condition of sentient beings. Taking sentient beings as conditions as merely the dharmic factors of the arising and ceasing of the five aggregates, without self and without person, is called the condition of dharmas. Question: In the condition of dharmas, one does not see characteristics such as a self, a person, or sentient beings; how then does one practice benevolence? Explanation: There are two meanings. First, from seeing no-self, one thinks of all sentient beings as falsely bound by self and person, which is deeply pitiable, and therefore benevolence arises. Second, one thinks of expounding such a Dharma for beings, which is true benefit and joy, hence it is called practicing benevolence. Contemplating the five aggregates as empty is called the unconditioned. Question: In the unconditioned, how does one practice benevolence? There are also two meanings. First, from seeing the emptiness of dharmas, one thinks of all sentient beings as falsely bound by unreal dharmas, and therefore benevolence arises. Second, one thinks of expounding such a Dharma for beings, hence it is called practicing benevolence. Therefore, the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa states: "Thinking to oneself, 'I shall expound such a Dharma for sentient beings'—this is what is called true benevolence, because it benefits sentient beings with the bliss of the ultimate truth." Question: If both self and other are without self or person, who arouses the thought to expound it for sentient beings? Explanation: The sūtras state that like an illusion, they are not real, which is why it is called "non-" [or "unconditioned"], not that there are no illusory persons. Thus a sūtra states: "Just as an illusory man speaks to an illusory person, one should establish this intention and expound the Dharma." Therefore, one may think to oneself to expound it for them. Just as it is for benevolence, compassion and the others are also the same (this concludes the first sub-section).