大乘義章 12.66

12.66

第六門中明修所為并論是非。所為有三：一為求菩提、二為念眾生、三為求實際，為求菩提是其大心，為念眾生是其廣心，為求實際是其深心。其深心故，捨離有為，不同凡夫；大心廣心，不同二乘；為求菩提護彼小心，為念眾生護彼狹心。通則六度皆為此三，如《地持經》說，菩薩為求一切智故修行六度。如是等比名為菩提。如《維摩》說，以施攝慳，戒攝毀禁，忍攝瞋恚，精進攝怠，禪攝麁念，慧攝愚癡。《勝鬘經》中為成眾生修行六度。如是等比名為眾生。如《大品》說，為見實相修行六度。《涅槃經》說，為見佛性修行六度。如是等比名為實際。於中別分，前之二門為攝眾生，中間兩門為求實際，後之兩門為求菩提，此等差別如《維摩》說。故彼經言「以攝慳貪起檀波羅蜜，以化犯戒起尸羅波羅蜜，以無我法起羼提波羅蜜，以離身心相起毘梨耶波羅蜜，以菩提相起禪波羅蜜，以一切智起般若波羅蜜。」以攝慳貪起檀波羅蜜者，自行布施兼勸他施。以化犯戒起尸羅者，自持淨戒兼勸他持。何故此二偏為眾生？以此麁易可修起，眾生能作，故偏為之。以無我法起羼提者，無我是其眾生空義，依之成忍。又為彼故修行忍辱。以離身心起毘梨耶者，離身心相是其法空，依成精進。又為彼故修起精進。何故此二偏依二空？以此二行修時有苦，在有難成、依空易就，故偏依之。又此二種依空防退，易入實際，故偏為之。以菩提相起禪那者，菩提是佛功德之行，禪能生之，故為菩提修起禪定。以一切智起般若者，彼一切智是佛慧行，般若能生，故為彼智修起般若。何故此二偏為菩提一切智乎？於諸度中，禪定最能出生廣德，於大菩提能生力強，故偏為之修起禪定。般若正是一切智因，生智親強，故偏為之修起般若。蓋乃是其隱顯門耳。所為如是。是非如何？經說此六有波羅蜜、非波羅蜜。其義云何？分別有三：一約時度以論是非。如《優婆塞經》說，前二阿僧祇所行非波羅蜜，非時度故；第三阿僧祇所行是波羅蜜，是時度故。二約果度分別。如《涅槃》說，四心中修，能致究竟大涅槃果，是波羅蜜，是果度故；不具此四，非波羅蜜，不能究竟致大涅槃，非果度故。何者四修？如《地持》說：一決定修，修心堅固，不為緣動。二專心修，修意精純，不雜餘想。三者常能修，恒化不息。四無罪修，不離煩惱無方便道。如《涅槃》經，初功德中具有此相。第三約就自性清淨度以論是非。隨事修行不能到於諸法實性，非是自性清淨度故，非波羅蜜；依實所成，破捨情相到法實性，是其自性清淨度，故是波羅蜜。是非如是。

In the sixth section, we explain the aims of cultivation and discuss whether it is true or not [pāramitā]. The aims are three: first, seeking bodhi; second, being mindful of sentient beings; third, seeking bhūtakoṭi. Seeking bodhi is the great mind; being mindful of sentient beings is the broad mind; seeking bhūtakoṭi is the deep mind. Because of the deep mind, one abandons the conditioned, unlike ordinary persons; because of the great mind and broad mind, one is unlike the two vehicles. By seeking bodhi, one guards against their small mind; by being mindful of sentient beings, one guards against their narrow mind. Generally speaking, all six pāramitās are for the sake of these three. As the Bodhisattvabhūmi Sūtra says, a bodhisattva cultivates the six pāramitās for the sake of seeking all-knowledge. Such things are called bodhi. As the Vimalakīrti says, one gathers in stinginess through giving, gathers in violating precepts through morality, gathers in anger through forbearance, gathers in laziness through vigor, gathers in coarse thoughts through meditation, and gathers in delusion through wisdom. In the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, one cultivates the six pāramitās for the sake of bringing sentient beings to maturity. Such things are called sentient beings. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says, one cultivates the six pāramitās to see the true characteristic. As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, one cultivates the six pāramitās to see Buddha-nature. Such things are called bhūtakoṭi. Differentiating them specifically, the first two are for gathering in sentient beings; the middle two are for seeking bhūtakoṭi; the latter two are for seeking bodhi. Such differences are as explained in the Vimalakīrti. Thus that sūtra states: "Giving rise to dāna-pāramitā to gather in stinginess and greed; giving rise to śīla-pāramitā to transform those who violate precepts; giving rise to kṣānti-pāramitā by means of the dharma of non-self; giving rise to vīrya-pāramitā by means of parting from the marks of body and mind; giving rise to dhyāna-pāramitā by means of the mark of bodhi; giving rise to prajñā-pāramitā by means of all-knowledge." "Giving rise to dāna-pāramitā to gather in stinginess and greed" means personally practicing giving and additionally encouraging others to give. "Giving rise to śīla to transform those who violate precepts" means personally upholding pure precepts and additionally encouraging others to uphold them. Why are these two dedicated exclusively to sentient beings? Because these are coarse and easy to cultivate and give rise to, and sentient beings are capable of them, they are dedicated exclusively to them. "Giving rise to kṣānti by means of the dharma of non-self": non-self is the meaning of the emptiness of sentient beings, and relying on it, one achieves forbearance; furthermore, for their sake, one cultivates forbearance. "Giving rise to vīrya by parting from body and mind": parting from the marks of body and mind is the emptiness of dharmas, and relying on it, one achieves vigor; furthermore, for their sake, one cultivates and arouses vigor. Why do these two rely exclusively on the two kinds of emptiness? Because when these two practices are cultivated there is suffering; abiding in existence they are difficult to accomplish, whereas relying on emptiness they are easily completed, hence they rely exclusively on them. Furthermore, these two rely on emptiness to guard against regression and easily enter bhūtakoṭi, so they are exclusively dedicated to them. "Giving rise to dhyāna by means of the mark of bodhi": bodhi is the practice of the Buddha's virtues, and meditation is capable of generating it, so one cultivates and gives rise to meditation for the sake of bodhi. "Giving rise to prajñā by means of all-knowledge": that all-knowledge is the Buddha's practice of wisdom, and prajñā is capable of generating it, so one cultivates and gives rise to prajñā for the sake of that knowledge. Why are these two dedicated exclusively to bodhi and all-knowledge? Among the pāramitās, meditation is most capable of generating vast virtues, having strong power to generate great bodhi, so one cultivates and gives rise to meditation exclusively for it. Prajñā is the direct cause of all-knowledge, intimately and strongly generating wisdom, so one cultivates and gives rise to prajñā exclusively for it. This is merely a perspective of concealing and revealing. Such are the aims. What about whether it is true or not? Sūtras state that these six are both pāramitās and non-pāramitās. What does this mean? There are three distinctions: First, discussing whether it is true or not according to temporal pāramitā. As the Upāsaka-śīla Sūtra states, what is practiced in the first two asaṃkhyeyas is not pāramitā, because it is not a temporal pāramitā; what is practiced in the third asaṃkhyeya is pāramitā, because it is a temporal pāramitā. Second, distinguishing according to the fruition pāramitā. As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, cultivating with four minds can lead to the fruition of ultimate great nirvāṇa, which is pāramitā, because it is a fruition pāramitā; if these four are not complete, it is not pāramitā, because it cannot lead ultimately to great nirvāṇa, not being a fruition pāramitā. What are the four cultivations? As the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 1. resolute cultivation: the cultivating mind is firm and not shaken by conditions; 2. single-minded cultivation: the cultivating intention is pure and unmixed with other thoughts; 3. constant cultivation: perpetually transforming [beings] without cessation; 4. faultless cultivation: not leaving the path of defilements without skillful means. As in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, these characteristics are fully present in the first virtue. Third, discussing whether it is true or not in terms of the naturally pure pāramitā. Cultivating according to phenomenal affairs without reaching the true nature of all dharmas is not a naturally pure pāramitā, hence it is not pāramitā; what is completed by relying on reality, shattering and abandoning emotional marks and reaching the true nature of dharmas, is the naturally pure pāramitā, hence it is pāramitā. Such is whether it is true or not.