大乘義章 17.9.2

17.9.2

然須陀洹是其證果，息觀之處暫止推求，於見不順，以是義故復言非見。 以非見故，論中判之以為修道。 又須陀洹於大乘中義當初地滿足之心，《地持》宣說初地滿心為修慧行，明知須陀是修非見。 云何是修復言非修？ 修有二種：一於諸諦傍觀增明，名之為修； 二於諸諦重觀增明，進斷修惑，故名為修。 彼須陀果，出離諦惑容裕之邊，傍修寬多，現在唯緣道下一行，未來傍於四諦十六聖行之中悉得增明，隨所欲觀悉明見故。 行從是義，故得名修； 以是修故，論名修道。 未於四諦重慮觀察，進斷修惑，故名非修； 以非修故，論名見地，不名薄地。 正義如是。 有人宣說：須陀洹果證斷見惑，定屬見道，不得名修。 是義不然。 若須陀果證斷見惑偏名見者，彼羅漢果證斷修惑應名修道； 彼不名修，須陀似彼，何勞致疑？ 阿羅漢果，名無學地。 問曰：向說須陀洹果證斷見惑亦見非見，兩義不定。 阿羅漢果證斷修惑，亦復如是不定以不？ 釋言：羅漢經名無學，不名為修。 以義細推，亦修非修。 是義云何？ 修有二種：一於諸諦重觀增明名之為修、二於諸智傍修增明說之為修。 彼阿羅漢，諦觀滿足不更增進，故名非修； 以非修故，經名無學。 而阿羅漢無學心邊，傍修諸智皆令增明，故得名修； 以是修故，《雜心》宣說無學心現能令一切諸德增明，名為大明發彰修矣。 問曰：前說須陀洹果亦修非修得類羅漢，亦是無學非無學不？ 釋有同異。 言其同者，須陀洹果亦修非修，義如上辨。 彼阿羅漢亦是無學亦非無學，於理息求，名為無學； 於論三昧神通等事猶須故習，故名為學。 言其異者，須陀果後別有斯陀、阿那含等以為正修，須陀簡彼，名為非修； 於小乘中羅漢果後更無無學，不得簡彼說阿羅漢為非無學。 此是初門，約道分四。 二約果說四。 果謂須陀、斯陀、那含及阿羅漢。 辨此四中，曲有三門：一釋其名、二定別其相、三明制立。 名義如何？ 須陀洹者是外國語，義釋有三：一當名正翻，名修無漏，如《涅槃》說「須名無漏，陀洹修習。 以修無漏，名須陀洹。 」二隨義傍翻，名為逆流，逆生死流，三途生死永不受故。 三隨義傍翻，亦名觝債，將拒三途因而不受果，故曰觝債。 斯陀含者，亦外國語，義釋有二：一當名正翻，名為輕薄。 形前立稱，欲界九品修惑之中斷六品在，故云輕薄。 二隨義傍翻，名曰頻來，簡後為目。 欲結未盡，於欲界中頻數受身，不如那含一去不還，故曰頻來。 舊翻經中悉彰此名。 阿那含者，亦外國語，此云不還，形前受稱。 欲界結盡不復來生，故曰不還。 阿羅漢者，亦外國語。 外國語中，三名相通：一阿羅訶，此云應供； 二阿盧漢，此云殺賊； 三阿羅漢，此方正翻名曰不生。 隨義三翻，傍說為無著。 無著因亡，於三界法不復愛染、不生果於襄，於三界地不復愛受身。 此四隱顯，理實含通，以含通故俱名須陀，乃至俱名為阿羅漢。 如《涅槃》說「以此四種皆修無漏、同逆生死、並能觝債，是故一切俱名須陀； 皆薄煩惱，是故一切通號斯陀； 於所斷離皆悉無還，是故一切通名那含； 皆有無著不生之義，是故一切俱名羅漢。 」為分賢聖隱顯彰名，是故初果偏名須陀，乃至第四偏字羅漢。 等分賢聖，何故初果偏名須陀，乃至第四偏字羅漢？ 亦有所以。 其義云何？ 超凡入聖先修無漏，是故初果偏名須陀； 無漏轉增能薄煩惱，是故第二偏號斯陀； 煩惱轉薄於欲不生，是故第三偏名那含； 不生窮極永出諸有，是故第四偏名羅漢。 又修無漏明習道因，薄煩惱者明證誠果，因先果後，義之次第。 是故初果明修無漏，其第二果明薄煩惱。 前薄煩惱明其因亡、不還果喪，因先果後，亦是次第，故第三果明其不還。 前不還果明苦分盡、不生全盡，從分至全亦是次第，故第四果明其不生。

However, the srotāpanna is an attained fruit; as a locus where contemplation rests and investigation is temporarily halted, it does not accord with "seeing" [i.e., the path of seeing], and for this reason it is also said not to be "seeing". Because it is not "seeing", treatises classify it as the path of cultivation. Furthermore, in the Mahāyāna, the srotāpanna corresponds in meaning to the stage of the perfected mind of the first ground; the Bodhisattvabhūmi declares that the perfected mind of the first ground is the practice of cultivated wisdom, from which we clearly know that the srotāpanna is cultivation and not seeing. Why, then, is it both cultivation and also said not to be cultivation? There are two kinds of cultivation: first, broad, auxiliary contemplation of the truths to increase clarity, which is termed "cultivation"; second, re-contemplating the truths to increase clarity and further eliminating the afflictions of cultivation, which is therefore termed "cultivation". As for that fruit of the srotāpanna, on the side of ample liberation from the afflictions [cut by seeing] the truths, its collateral cultivation is broad and manifold: in the present, it only takes as its object a single practice under the path, but in the future, it collaterally attains increased clarity in all the sixteen noble practices of the four truths, because it sees clearly whatever it wishes to contemplate. In accordance with this meaning, its practice is entitled to the name "cultivation"; and because it is this cultivation, treatises call it the path of cultivation. Yet, because it has not yet re-pondered and observed the four truths to further eliminate the afflictions of cultivation, it is called "non-cultivation"; and because it is non-cultivation, treatises call it the "ground of seeing" and not the "ground of thinning". Such is the correct doctrine. Some assert: "The fruit of the srotāpanna realizes the eradication of the afflictions of seeing and definitely belongs to the path of seeing; it cannot be called cultivation." This meaning is not so. If the fruit of the srotāpanna, realizing the eradication of the afflictions of seeing, were exclusively called "seeing", then that fruit of the arhat, realizing the eradication of the afflictions of cultivation, should be called the "path of cultivation". Yet it is not called cultivation; since the srotāpanna is analogous to it, why labor in doubt? The fruit of the arhat is called the ground of the non-learner. Question: It was just said that the fruit of the srotāpanna, realizing the eradication of the afflictions of seeing, is both seeing and non-seeing, undecided between the two meanings. Is the fruit of the arhat, which realizes the eradication of the afflictions of cultivation, likewise undecided or not? Explanation: In the sūtras, the arhat is called a "non-learner" and not called "cultivation". When deduced in fine detail through the meaning, it is also both cultivation and non-cultivation. What does this mean? There are two kinds of cultivation: first, re-contemplating the truths to increase clarity is termed "cultivation"; second, collaterally cultivating the various knowledges to increase clarity is spoken of as "cultivation". That arhat's contemplation of the truths is complete and progresses no further, hence it is called "non-cultivation"; and because it is non-cultivation, the sūtras call it "non-learning". Yet alongside the arhat's non-learner mind, it collaterally cultivates the various knowledges, causing them all to increase in clarity, hence it can be called "cultivation"; and because it is this cultivation, the Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya declares that when the non-learner mind appears, it can cause all virtues to increase in clarity, which is termed "the cultivation that brings forth and manifests great clarity". Question: It was said earlier that the fruit of the srotāpanna is also both cultivation and non-cultivation, and can be compared to the arhat; is it also both non-learning and not non-learning, or not? Explanation: There are both similarities and differences. In terms of their similarities: the fruit of the srotāpanna is also both cultivation and non-cultivation, as explained above. That arhat is also both a non-learner and not a non-learner: having ceased seeking with respect to the principle, it is called a "non-learner"; yet regarding treatise discourses, samādhis, supernormal powers, and the like, one must still practice them as before, hence one is called a "learner". In terms of their differences: after the fruit of the srotāpanna, there are separately the sakṛdāgāmin, anāgāmin, and so on as the correct cultivation; in contradistinction to them, the srotāpanna is called "non-cultivation". But in the Hīnayāna, after the fruit of the arhat there is no further non-learner; one cannot, in contradistinction to anything, call the arhat a "non-non-learner". This is the first gate: distinguishing four in terms of the path. Second, explaining four in terms of the fruit. The fruits are the srotāpanna, sakṛdāgāmin, anāgāmin, and arhat. In distinguishing these four, there are specifically three gates: first, explaining their names; second, determining and distinguishing their characteristics; third, clarifying their establishment. What are the names and meanings? "Srotāpanna" is a foreign word, and its exegetical explanation has three aspects: First, translating the name directly, it is called "cultivating the untainted", as the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "'Srota' means untainted, and 'āpanna' means cultivation; because one cultivates the untainted, one is called a srotāpanna." Second, translating collaterally according to the meaning, it is called "going against the stream"—going against the stream of saṃsāra, because one will never again undergo saṃsāra in the three evil paths. Third, translating collaterally according to the meaning, it is also called "repudiating debt", as one rejects the causes of the three paths and will not receive the retribution, hence it is called "repudiating debt". "Sakṛdāgāmin" is also a foreign word, and its exegetical explanation has two aspects: First, translating the name directly, it is called "light and thin". The designation is established in contrast to what precedes: among the nine grades of afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm, six grades have been eliminated, hence it is called "light and thin". Second, translating collaterally according to the meaning, it is called "once-returning", a designation distinguishing it from what follows: because the bonds of desire have not yet been exhausted, one repeatedly takes rebirth in the desire realm, unlike the anāgāmin who once gone does not return; hence it is called "once-returning". The old translated sūtras all display this name. "Anāgāmin" is also a foreign word; here it is translated as "non-returning", a title received in contrast to what precedes. The bonds of the desire realm having been exhausted, one will not come to take rebirth again; hence it is called "non-returning". "Arhat" is also a foreign word. In the foreign language, three names are interconnected: first, "araha", which here means "worthy of offerings"; second, "arihan", which here means "slayer of foes"; third, "arahan", which is directly translated here as "unborn". Following the meaning, there are three translations; collaterally it is spoken of as "non-attachment". When non-attachment causes are destroyed, one is no longer attached or tainted by the dharmas of the three realms; when non-arising retributions are eliminated, one no longer receives a body with attachment in the grounds of the three realms. As for the implicit and explicit [senses] of these four, in principle and reality they are inclusive and shared; because they are inclusive and shared, all are called srotāpanna, and up to all being called arhat. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Because these four kinds all cultivate the untainted, together go against saṃsāra, and are all able to repudiate debt, therefore all of them are called srotāpanna; because all thin out afflictions, all are collectively called sakṛdāgāmin; because all are free of returning with respect to what has been eradicated, all are collectively called anāgāmin; and because all possess the meaning of non-attachment and non-arising, all are called arhat." In order to distinguish the worthy and the noble by making the names explicit or implicit, the first fruit is exclusively named srotāpanna, and up to the fourth being exclusively styled arhat. If they equally divide the worthy and noble, why is the first fruit exclusively named srotāpanna, and up to the fourth being exclusively styled arhat? There is indeed a reason. What is the meaning? Surpassing the ordinary to enter the noble, one first cultivates the untainted; therefore the first fruit is exclusively named srotāpanna. As the untainted increases, it can thin out afflictions; therefore the second is exclusively called sakṛdāgāmin. As afflictions become thinner, one is not reborn into desire; therefore the third is exclusively named anāgāmin. Non-arising reaches its ultimate, forever departing all existences; therefore the fourth is exclusively named arhat. Furthermore, cultivating the untainted clarifies the practice of the causes of the path; thinning afflictions clarifies the realization of the actual fruits. Causes come first and fruits come after: this is the sequence of the meaning. Therefore the first fruit clarifies cultivating the untainted, and the second fruit clarifies thinning afflictions. The preceding thinning of afflictions clarifies the destruction of their causes, and non-returning clarifies the demise of the fruit: causes coming first and fruits after is likewise the sequence, hence the third fruit clarifies non-returning. The preceding fruit of non-returning clarifies that suffering has been partially exhausted, and non-arising clarifies that it has been totally exhausted: proceeding from the partial to the total is likewise the sequence, hence the fourth fruit clarifies non-arising.