大乘義章 12.34

12.34

次就位論。第一伏忍，通則遍在一切地前。於諸地前始觀未斷，斯名為伏。別則唯在種性解行，以此世間未入聖位，不能永斷，故偏名伏。問曰：《地持》宣說種性二障清淨，似永不伏。彼文復說，解行菩薩有其種種煩惱上纏。《涅槃》亦云「地前菩薩具煩惱性，名為凡夫，似如具在，非伏非永。」《仁王》說伏，似非永非具在。其義云何？釋言：煩惱麁細非一，於中麁者種性地時已伏已斷，《地持》據此說為二淨。中品之者，地前始伏未能永斷，《仁王》據此說為伏忍。微細之者，地前菩薩未伏未斷，《地持》所說解行菩薩有其種種煩惱上纏，據此為言。《涅槃》所云具煩惱性，義有兩兼，若望中品伏而未斷亦名為具，若望細品未伏未斷亦得名具。若復細論，煩惱無量。或有煩惱，十信中伏，種性時斷。或有煩惱，種性時伏，解行中斷。或有煩惱，解行中伏，初地時斷。或有煩惱，初地時伏，二地中斷，如是次第乃至佛地。若復細論，從初發心乃至佛地，念念之中前伏後斷，以有此義，聖說沈浮種種不同。今據一義，且說地前以為伏耳。是伏有三，謂下中上，下在習種、中在性種、上在解行。第二信忍，通亦遍在，如道品中所說之信；別唯在於初二三地，如《仁王》說「信中下品在於初地，中在二地，上在三地。」問曰：論說證信兩地，信在地前，故論說言「願善決定已入初地，非信地攝。」今說信忍，何故在於初二三地？釋言：信者是其始相，世間中說。世與出世，相對有二：一地前地上相對分別，地前世間說為信地，地上出世判為證地。二就地上隨相以分，初二三地是其世間，說為信忍；四地已上是出世故，更與異名，名為順忍、無生忍等。問曰：若言信是始相世間說者，四不壞信應在世間，何故就彼出世說乎？釋言：不壞是其證信，故就出世證處論之，不同玄信，在出世故。或對地前初地出世，名不壞淨，故《地持》云「初地菩薩得不壞淨，生歡喜心。」或復對彼三地已還世間之行，四地出世名不壞淨。故《地持》云「四地菩薩不壞淨首，如修多羅。」第三順忍，通亦遍在，別唯在於四五六地，如彼《仁王》及《地經》說，以此三地破相趣寂順入無生，故說為順。順有三品，下在四地，為道品觀；中在五地，為四諦觀；上在六地，十法平等及因緣觀。無生忍者，通亦遍在，別則不定。如龍樹說：初地已上亦得無生。若依《仁王》及與《地經》，無生在於七八九地。下在七地，始習無生；中在八地，成就無生；上在九地，無生忍滿。問曰：前來以何義故不名無生，至此方論？釋有四義：一就行以論。前六地中差別修道諸行漸起，初地起願，二地起戒，三地起定，四地修起道品之慧，五地修起諦相應慧，六地修習緣起之慧，以此諸行分分新生，故非無生；七地已上念念頓起，一切佛法無有別行新起之者，故名無生。二據修以解。初至六地，功用修道修心未熟，故名為生；第七地中修無功用，八地已上成無功用，修心純熟，故曰無生。三約有無二法以解。前六地中，有無二行前後互起不能雙修，以互起故名之為生，七地已上，寂用雙修無有間起，故名無生。四就一相如理以釋。初地已上，觀法虛假破遣定性，名得無我；四地已上，破相入如，未能證實自體無相，故非無生；七地已上，證實離相，知法本寂由來不起，故名無生。寂滅忍者，通亦遍在，別唯在於十地已上。於中唯有上下二品，如《仁王》說，下在十地，上在如來。故經說言「下忍行中名為菩薩，上忍中行名之為佛。」問曰：此忍九地已前何故不得？以彼趣求一相寂滅無分別法，未能了達法界皆寂，故不得此。問曰：何故三持之中，地前分多，地上為一？此五忍中，地前為一，地上分多？釋言：地位開合不定，或有開前合後，如彼三持、三決定等；或開後合前，如五忍等，或前後俱開，如五方便及六地等；或前後俱合，如彼證信二種地等。門別各異，寧可一類？五忍之義，大況麁爾。

Next, to discuss them in terms of stages. First, the forbearance of subduing: in a general sense, it pervades everywhere prior to all bhūmis. Prior to all bhūmis, one first contemplates but has not yet severed [afflictions]; this is named subduing. In a specific sense, it resides only in the stages of lineage and understanding-and-action; because in these worldly [stages] one has not entered the noble stages and cannot sever them forever, it is specifically named subduing. Question: The Bodhisattvabhūmi explains that the two obstructions of the lineage stage are pure, which seems to mean that afflictions are forever subdued and not [present]. That text also explains that bodhisattvas of understanding-and-action have various upper entanglements of afflictions. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also says: 'Bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis possess the nature of afflictions and are called ordinary persons,' which seems to mean that afflictions are fully present, neither subdued nor forever severed. The Renwang jing speaks of subduing, which seems to mean neither forever severed nor fully present. What is its meaning? Explanation: Afflictions are not merely of one kind in their coarseness and subtlety; among them, the coarse ones have already been subdued and severed at the lineage stage, and the Bodhisattvabhūmi speaks of the two purities based on this. The middling ones are first subdued prior to the bhūmis and cannot yet be severed forever, and the Renwang jing speaks of the forbearance of subduing based on this. The subtle ones have not yet been subdued or severed by bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis, and what the Bodhisattvabhūmi states about bodhisattvas of understanding-and-action having various upper entanglements of afflictions is spoken based on this. What the Nirvāṇa Sūtra refers to as possessing the nature of afflictions has two meanings: viewed in relation to the middling grades, being subdued but not severed is also called possessing them; viewed in relation to the subtle grades, being neither subdued nor severed can also be called possessing them. If discussed more minutely, afflictions are immeasurable. There are afflictions subdued during the ten faiths and severed at the lineage stage; there are afflictions subdued at the lineage stage and severed during understanding-and-action; there are afflictions subdued during understanding-and-action and severed at the first bhūmi; there are afflictions subdued at the first bhūmi and severed in the second bhūmi; and so on in succession up to the Buddha stage. If discussed more minutely, from the initial resolve of the mind up to the Buddha stage, in thought-moment after thought-moment the earlier subdues and the later severs; because this meaning exists, the noble teachings differ in various ways between sinking and floating. Now, based on one meaning, we provisionally speak of the stages prior to the bhūmis as subduing. This subduing has three grades: lower, middling, and upper; the lower is in the lineage of practice, the middling in the lineage of nature, and the upper in understanding-and-action. Second, the forbearance of faith: in a general sense it also pervades everywhere, like the faith spoken of in the factors of awakening; in a specific sense it resides only in the first, second, and third bhūmis, as the Renwang jing says: 'The lower grade of faith is in the first bhūmi, the middling in the second bhūmi, and the upper in the third bhūmi.' Question: The treatises say that realized faith comprises two stages, and that faith is prior to the bhūmis, so the treatise says: 'Aspiration and good resolution having already entered the first bhūmi are not subsumed under the stage of faith.' Now in speaking of the forbearance of faith, why is it in the first, second, and third bhūmis? Explanation: Faith is an initial characteristic and is spoken of in the worldly realm. Between the worldly and the supramundane, there are two kinds of correlation: first, distinguishing between prior to the bhūmis and on the bhūmis: prior to the bhūmis is worldly and spoken of as the stage of faith, while on the bhūmis is supramundane and determined to be the stage of realization. Second, distinguishing according to characteristics on the bhūmis: the first, second, and third bhūmis are worldly and spoken of as the forbearance of faith; because the fourth bhūmi and above are supramundane, they are given different names, such as the forbearance of compliance, the forbearance of non-arising, and so forth. Question: If you say that faith is an initial characteristic and spoken of in the worldly realm, the four types of indestructible faith should be in the worldly realm; why are they spoken of in terms of the supramundane? Explanation: Indestructibility is realized faith, and therefore it is discussed in terms of the locus of realization that is supramundane, unlike subtle faith, because it is in the supramundane. Or, contrasted with prior to the bhūmis, the first bhūmi is supramundane and named indestructible purity; thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'A bodhisattva of the first bhūmi attains indestructible purity and gives rise to a joyous mind.' Or again, contrasted with the worldly practice of the third bhūmi and below, the fourth bhūmi is supramundane and named indestructible purity; thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'A bodhisattva of the fourth bhūmi has indestructible purity as foremost, as stated in the sūtras.' Third, the forbearance of compliance: in a general sense it also pervades everywhere; in a specific sense it resides only in the fourth, fifth, and sixth bhūmis, as stated in the Renwang jing and the Daśabhūmika Sūtra: because these three bhūmis shatter marks, proceed toward tranquility, and compliantly enter non-arising, they are spoken of as compliance. Compliance has three grades: the lower is in the fourth bhūmi, as contemplation of the factors of awakening; the middling is in the fifth bhūmi, as contemplation of the four noble truths; the upper is in the sixth bhūmi, as contemplation of the equality of the ten dharmas and of dependent origination. As for the forbearance of non-arising: in a general sense it also pervades everywhere; in a specific sense it is indefinite. As Nāgārjuna says, from the first bhūmi and above one also attains non-arising. If according to the Renwang jing and the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, non-arising resides in the seventh, eighth, and ninth bhūmis: the lower is in the seventh bhūmi, where one first practices non-arising; the middling is in the eighth bhūmi, where one accomplishes non-arising; the upper is in the ninth bhūmi, where the forbearance of non-arising is fulfilled. Question: For what reason was it not called non-arising previously, but discussed only when reaching here? Explanation: There are four meanings: First, to discuss it in terms of practice: in the first six bhūmis, the various practices of distinct cultivation of the path arise gradually—in the first bhūmi vows arise, in the second bhūmi precepts arise, in the third bhūmi samādhi arises, in the fourth bhūmi one cultivates and arises the wisdom of the factors of awakening, in the fifth bhūmi one cultivates and arises wisdom corresponding to the truths, and in the sixth bhūmi one cultivates the wisdom of dependent origination; because these various practices arise anew part by part, they are not non-arising. In the seventh bhūmi and above, all Buddha-dharmas arise suddenly in thought-moment after thought-moment, and there is no distinct practice newly arising; thus it is called non-arising. Second, to explain it based on cultivation: from the first to the sixth bhūmi, one cultivates the path with effort and the cultivating mind is not yet mature, and so it is called arising; in the seventh bhūmi one cultivates without effort, and from the eighth bhūmi and above effortless activity is accomplished and the cultivating mind is fully mature, and thus it is called non-arising. Third, to explain it in terms of the two dharmas of existence and non-existence: in the first six bhūmis, the two practices of existence and non-existence arise alternately before and after and cannot be cultivated concurrently; because they arise alternately, this is called arising. In the seventh bhūmi and above, tranquility and function are cultivated concurrently without any intermittent arising, and thus it is called non-arising. Fourth, to explain it in terms of the single mark of the principle of suchness: from the first bhūmi and above, contemplating dharmas as provisional and shattering fixed nature is called attaining non-self; from the fourth bhūmi and above, shattering marks and entering suchness, one has not yet realized that the intrinsic nature itself is markless, and so it is not non-arising; from the seventh bhūmi and above, realizing reality and leaving marks, knowing that dharmas are fundamentally tranquil and have never arisen, it is called non-arising. As for the forbearance of tranquil extinction: in a general sense it also pervades everywhere; in a specific sense it resides only in the tenth bhūmi and above. Within it there are only two grades, lower and upper, as the Renwang jing says: the lower is in the tenth bhūmi, and the upper is in the Tathāgata. Therefore the sūtra says: 'One practicing in the lower forbearance is called a bodhisattva; one practicing in the upper forbearance is called a Buddha.' Question: Why is this forbearance not attained prior to the ninth bhūmi? Because those stages seek after the non-conceptual dharma of tranquil extinction of a single mark and have not yet thoroughly penetrated that the dharmadhātu is entirely tranquil; therefore they do not attain this. Question: Why is it that among the three kinds of upholding, those prior to the bhūmis are divided into many while those on the bhūmis are made into one, whereas among these five forbearances, those prior to the bhūmis are made into one while those on the bhūmis are divided into many? Explanation: The expansion and contraction of stages and positions are indefinite: sometimes the earlier are expanded and the later are combined, as in the three kinds of upholding, the three determinations, and so on; sometimes the later are expanded and the earlier are combined, as in the five forbearances and so on; sometimes both earlier and later are expanded, as in the five skillful means and the six bhūmis; sometimes both earlier and later are combined, as in the two stages of realization and faith. The approaches are each distinct; how could they be treated as of a single kind? Such is the general purport of the five forbearances.