大乘義章 18.41

18.41

次第五門通局分別。約位辨之，性淨菩提有通有局。分別有三：一就實通論。體通染淨，因中亦有。故經說言「一切眾生即菩提相。」二約人論實。菩提真性窮證在佛，就佛返望由來常是，本無妄染能覆障故。故經說言「凡夫未成佛，菩提為煩惱。聖若成佛時，煩惱是菩提。」與經中說「佛知眾生即涅槃相，不復更滅。」其義相似。三約相辨實。在因之時但名佛性，未名菩提。至果顯了方名菩提，菩提是其了因果故。方便菩提凡時全無，設言有者，但於佛性真心體上有可生義，未有法體。故經說言「本有今無、本無今有，三世有法無有是處。」言本有者，本在凡時，但有生死有為之法。言今無者，當今現在有生死時，無其世出菩提行德。言本無者，本在凡時，未有出世菩提行德。言今有者，本現無菩提德時但有生死。三世有法無是處者，生死之法三世恒有，無是處故，凡有聖無。菩提行德三世恒有，無是處故，聖有凡無。經釋如是。有人說言：方便菩提凡時亦有。是義不然。若使凡時已有菩提，「本有今無、本無今有」如此之偈，意何所顯？三世有法無有是處，何得先有？又經中說，方便菩提是生因果，本無今有，何得言生？先有今顯是了因果，何得言生？又《涅槃》中廣舉乳酪及與樹子相生因果而為譬況。若使凡時已有菩提，乳應有酪，樹子之中應先有樹。乳中之酪、子中之樹，佛已廣破。所況同爾，何勞強立。又《涅槃》說「若言身中全無佛性，犯波羅夷。若說身中先有菩提，犯波羅夷。」此罪可畏，何用言有？又《涅槃》言「若說先有常樂我淨不集不生，煩惱覆障不能得見，破煩惱已然後見之，是則名為謗佛法僧。」謗罪非輕，強立何益？又《涅槃》中辨四種性：或有佛性，闡提人有，善根人無；或有佛性，善根人有，闡提人無；或有佛性，二人俱有；或有佛性，二人俱無。如是等四句之義，汝等云何一向作解？經文如是。若言性淨方便菩提二俱本有，云何得言闡提人無？云何得言二人俱無？復釋言：不顯故無，非全無體。若言無者，不顯名無。二人有者應當是顯，二人之有非顯名有，知無者非隱名無。又復方便菩提之果即是報佛。酬因名報。本來恒有，有前無因，酬誰名報？以斯驗求，本有大過，無宜更立。問曰：經說「眾生身中具足如來眼耳等根及諸佛法。」今云何言方便菩提凡時全無？釋言：經說具一切法，是法佛性，不論方便。凡聖相對，通局如是。若唯就聖，通局有五：一極通論之，三乘賢聖悉得菩提。故《地持》云「聲聞得於聲聞菩提，緣覺得於緣覺菩提，菩薩得於無上菩提。」如是等也。二簡大異小，菩提在大，不通小乘。故《大品》中說五菩提，偏在大乘。五菩提義如上廣釋，今略列之：一發心菩提，在於無量生死海中發菩提心，位在善趣。二伏心菩提，在於種性伏忍位中。三明心菩提，在初地上，般若轉增，故說為明。四出到菩提，在七地上，出離有無，到無生忍。五無上菩提，在於佛地。以此五種純在大乘，明不通小。三簡作異退，菩提局在種性已上。故《華嚴》中說習種中云「初發心便成正覺。」又《涅槃》中說「須陀洹八萬劫到，乃至辟支十千劫到於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」此乃到於種性已上名到菩提。以種性上事識之中，緣觀時息，八識真心薄障中現，依之成德，故種性上名得菩提。前未同此，所以不說。四簡聖異凡，菩提局在初地已上，不通地前。故《法華》中宣說「菩薩聞說壽量，或有八生乃至一生得大菩提。」論言「八生乃至一生得菩提者，初地證智。」明知菩提局在地上。以初地上七識心中，緣觀漸息、真智漸現，名得菩提。地前未同，所以不說。五簡果異因，菩提在佛，不通餘人。故《地持》云「得方便者，一切菩薩所修學道。言得義者，無上菩提。」明知菩提偏在佛果。通局如是（此五門竟）。

Next is the fifth section, differentiating scope into the universal and the restricted. Discriminating it according to stages, naturally pure bodhi has both the universal and the restricted. It is differentiated into three: First, discussing it universally with regard to the real. Its essence extends to both defilement and purity, and it is present even in the cause. Thus the sūtra states: "All sentient beings are precisely the mark of bodhi." Second, discussing the real in terms of persons. The ultimate realization of the true nature of bodhi lies with the Buddha; looking back from the standpoint of the Buddha, it has always been so from the origin, because fundamentally there are no delusive defilements that could veil or obstruct it. Thus the sūtra states: "When an ordinary person has not yet achieved Buddhahood, bodhi is defilement. When a noble one achieves Buddhahood, defilement is bodhi." This is similar in meaning to the sūtra statement: "The Buddha knows that sentient beings are precisely the mark of nirvāṇa, not being extinguished again." Third, discerning the real in terms of marks. At the time of the cause, it is only called Buddha-nature, not yet called bodhi. Only upon arriving at the fruit, when it is manifest and clear, is it called bodhi, because bodhi is the fruit of the revealing cause. As for expedient bodhi, in the state of an ordinary person it is completely absent. Even if one says it exists, it is only that upon the essence of the true consciousness of Buddha-nature there is the sense that it can be born; the entity of the dharma does not yet exist. Thus the sūtra states: "Fundamentally existing, now non-existent; fundamentally non-existent, now existing; that a dharma should exist throughout the three times is impossible." "Fundamentally existing" means that fundamentally, when one is an ordinary person, there are only the conditioned dharmas of saṃsāra. "Now non-existent" means that right now, at present, when saṃsāra exists, there are no supramundane qualities of bodhi practice. "Fundamentally non-existent" means that fundamentally, when one is an ordinary person, the supramundane qualities of bodhi practice do not yet exist. "Now existing" means that fundamentally, when one does not at present have the qualities of bodhi, there is only saṃsāra. That "a dharma should exist throughout the three times is impossible" means that for the dharmas of saṃsāra to exist constantly throughout the three times is impossible, and hence they exist in ordinary persons but are absent in noble ones; for the qualities of bodhi practice to exist constantly throughout the three times is impossible, and hence they exist in noble ones but are absent in ordinary persons. Such is the sūtra's explanation. Someone says: "Expedient bodhi exists even in the state of an ordinary person." This proposition is not correct. If an ordinary person already possessed bodhi, what meaning would be revealed by verses such as "Fundamentally existing, now non-existent; fundamentally non-existent, now existing"? Since that a dharma should exist throughout the three times is impossible, how could it exist beforehand? Furthermore, the sūtra states that expedient bodhi is the fruit of the generative cause; if it is fundamentally non-existent and now exists, how could one speak of it being born? What exists beforehand and is now manifest is the fruit of the revealing cause; how could one speak of it being born? Moreover, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] extensively adduces the metaphors of milk and curd, and of a seed and a tree, as generative causes and fruits. If an ordinary person already possessed bodhi, milk should already contain curd, and the inside of a seed should already contain a tree. Curd within milk and a tree within a seed have already been extensively refuted by the Buddha. The illustrated meaning is identical; why labor to insist upon it? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states: "If one says that within the body there is no Buddha-nature at all, one commits a pārājika. If one says that within the body there is bodhi beforehand, one commits a pārājika." This sin is fearsome; why claim that it exists? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "If one says that eternity, bliss, self, and purity exist beforehand, not gathered and not born, but veiled and obstructed by defilements so that one cannot see them, and that one sees them only after destroying defilements—this is called slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha." The sin of slander is not light; what benefit is there in obstinately asserting this? Furthermore, in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], four types of nature are distinguished: there is a Buddha-nature that icchantikas possess and persons with good roots lack; there is a Buddha-nature that persons with good roots possess and icchantikas lack; there is a Buddha-nature that both persons possess; and there is a Buddha-nature that neither person possesses. With such fourfold propositions, how can you maintain a one-sided interpretation? The sūtra text is like this. If one says that both naturally pure bodhi and expedient bodhi are fundamentally existent, how can it be said that icchantikas lack it? How can it be said that neither person possesses it? Again [the opponent] explains: "It is absent because it is unmanifest, not that its entity is completely non-existent." If one says it is absent, and defines absence as being unmanifest, then the possession [of it] by both persons ought to mean that it is manifest; yet the possession by both persons is not called existence because of being manifest, and thus we know that absence is not called non-existence because of being concealed. Furthermore, the fruit of expedient bodhi is precisely the retribution Buddha. Retribution means requiting a cause. If it were always existent from the origin, then prior to its existence there would be no cause; whom would it requite so as to be called retribution? Examining and investigating through this, [the thesis of] fundamental existence has grave faults, and should not be maintained any further. Question: The sūtra states: "Within the bodies of sentient beings, the faculties of the Tathāgata such as eyes and ears, as well as all Buddha-dharmas, are fully complete." Why do you now say that expedient bodhi is completely absent in the state of an ordinary person? Explanation: The sūtra's statement that all dharmas are complete refers to the Buddha-nature as dharma; it does not discuss the expedient. Contrast between ordinary persons and noble ones: universal and restricted are like this. If we consider only noble ones, there are five kinds of universal and restricted [applications]: First, discussing it most universally, the worthy and noble ones of the three vehicles all attain bodhi. Thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "Śrāvakas attain śrāvaka bodhi, pratyekabuddhas attain pratyekabuddha bodhi, and bodhisattvas attain unsurpassed bodhi," and so forth. Second, selecting the great as distinct from the small: bodhi resides in the Mahāyāna and does not extend to the Hīnayāna. Thus in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, five bodhis are spoken of, which pertain exclusively to the Mahāyāna. The meaning of the five bodhis has been extensively explained above; now they are briefly listed: 1. Bodhi of generating the mind: in the ocean of immeasurable birth and death, generating the bodhicitta; the stage resides in the good destinies. 2. Bodhi of subduing the mind: residing in the stage of subduing forbearance within the gotra. 3. Bodhi of clarifying the mind: on the first bhūmi, where prajñā increasingly expands, hence called "clarifying." 4. Bodhi of transcending and arriving: on the seventh bhūmi, transcending existence and non-existence, arriving at anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti. 5. Unsurpassed bodhi: residing in the Buddha stage. Because these five types pertain purely to the Mahāyāna, it is clear that they do not extend to the Hīnayāna. Third, selecting cultivation as distinct from retrogression: bodhi is restricted to the gotra stage and above. Thus the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says regarding the lineage of practice: "At the initial generation of the mind, one immediately achieves right awakening." Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "Srotāpannas arrive after eighty thousand kalpas, down to pratyekabuddhas arriving at anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi after ten thousand kalpas." This refers to arriving at the gotra stage or above as arriving at bodhi. Because from the gotra stage upward, within phenomenal consciousness, conditioned contemplation ceases at times, and the true consciousness of the eighth consciousness appears amidst thin veils, by relying upon which one accomplishes qualities, therefore from the gotra stage upward one is said to attain bodhi. What precedes this does not match it, which is why it is not spoken of. Fourth, selecting noble ones as distinct from ordinary persons: bodhi is restricted to the first bhūmi and above, not extending to pre-bhūmi [stages]. Thus the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra declares: "Bodhisattvas, upon hearing the lifespan preached, attain great bodhi within eight lives or down to a single life." The treatise states: "Attaining bodhi in eight lives down to a single life refers to the realization-wisdom of the first bhūmi." Clearly we know that bodhi is restricted to the bhūmi stages. Because on the first bhūmi and above, within the seventh consciousness mind, conditioned contemplation gradually ceases and true wisdom gradually appears, this is called attaining bodhi. What is prior to the bhūmis does not match this, which is why it is not spoken of. Fifth, selecting the fruit as distinct from the cause: bodhi resides in the Buddha and does not extend to other persons. Thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "Attaining expedients refers to the path cultivated and practiced by all bodhisattvas. Attaining the meaning refers to unsurpassed bodhi." Clearly we know that bodhi pertains exclusively to the Buddha fruit. The universal and the restricted are like this. (This completes the five sections.)