大乘義章 2.68

2.68

次就互無辨三無為。宗別不同，毘曇法中，有為之上互無他法，從其說處，有為所攝。三無為上互無他法，亦從說處，三無為攝。成實法中，有為之上互無他法，是虛空攝，以彼有為不攝無故。三無為上互無他法，義則不定，若虛空中互無他法，是虛空攝。數滅之上互無他法，義有兩兼：一望所滅諸煩惱等以說互無，是數滅攝；正說彼無，為數滅故。二望餘法以辨互無，是虛空攝，不無彼法為數滅故。非數滅上互無他法，義亦兩兼：一望所滅以辨互無，非數滅攝，正無彼法為非數滅故。二望餘法以辨互無，是虛空攝，不無彼法為非數滅故。問曰：何故有上無他非有為攝，空中無他即虛空攝？釋言：有上辨互無者，附有說無，不用彼無以為有故，有法不攝。空中無他，正說此無為虛空故，虛空所攝。問曰：何故空中無他，令攝虛空；餘無為中互無他法，或是數滅非數滅攝、或虛空攝？釋言：虛空是其寬故。空中無他，全虛空攝。餘無為中，除其所滅互無他法，亦虛空攝。餘二狹故，唯望所滅以說互無，是其數滅非數滅攝。大乘法中，若就有為、虛空無為、非數無為以辨互無，與《成實》同。若就數滅以辨互無，麁同《成實》，窮實別異。所言異者，大乘法中說一切法但是心有，如夢所見，心生法生、心滅法滅，得涅槃時妄心息故，隨心所見一切法滅，故數滅中互無他法，皆是數滅。問曰：若使得涅槃時諸法皆滅，便無眾生，佛何所化？釋言：據凡以望諸佛，噵佛化生；就佛論佛，無佛異生、無生異佛。無佛異生，則無能化；無生異佛，亦無所化。故經說言「平等法界，佛不度生。眾生分別，說佛度生（此互無竟）。」

Next, distinguishing the three unconditioned [dharmas] with reference to mutual non-existence (itaretarābhāva). The tenets of the traditions differ. In the Abhidharma teaching, the mutual non-existence of other dharmas upon conditioned [dharmas] is, in accordance with the locus of which it is spoken, subsumed under conditioned [dharmas]. The mutual non-existence of other dharmas upon the three unconditioned [dharmas] is likewise, in accordance with the locus of which it is spoken, subsumed under the three unconditioned [dharmas]. In the Tattvasiddhi teaching, the mutual non-existence of other dharmas upon conditioned [dharmas] is subsumed under space, because those conditioned [dharmas] do not subsume non-existence. Regarding the mutual non-existence of other dharmas upon the three unconditioned [dharmas], the principle is not fixed: if other dharmas are mutually non-existent within space, it is subsumed under space. Regarding the mutual non-existence of other dharmas upon cessation through deliberation, there are two concurrent aspects: First, speaking of mutual non-existence with reference to the defilements and so forth that are extinguished, it is subsumed under cessation through deliberation, because it precisely speaks of that non-existence as cessation through deliberation. Second, distinguishing mutual non-existence with reference to other dharmas, it is subsumed under space, because the absence of those dharmas is not cessation through deliberation. Regarding the mutual non-existence of other dharmas upon cessation independent of deliberation, there are also two concurrent aspects: First, distinguishing mutual non-existence with reference to what is extinguished, it is subsumed under cessation independent of deliberation, because the absence of precisely those dharmas constitutes cessation independent of deliberation. Second, distinguishing mutual non-existence with reference to other dharmas, it is subsumed under space, because the absence of those dharmas is not cessation independent of deliberation. Question: Why is the absence of others upon the existent not subsumed under the conditioned, whereas the absence of others within space is subsumed under space? Explanation: When distinguishing mutual non-existence upon the existent, one speaks of non-existence in attachment to existence; since that non-existence is not taken to be existent, it is not subsumed under existent dharmas. In the case of the absence of others within space, one speaks precisely of this non-existence as space, and so it is subsumed under space. Question: Why is the absence of others within space subsumed entirely under space, whereas the mutual non-existence of other dharmas within the other unconditioned [dharmas] is subsumed either under cessation through deliberation and cessation independent of deliberation, or under space? Explanation: Space is broad; hence the absence of others within space is subsumed entirely under space. Within the other unconditioned [dharmas], excluding that which is extinguished, the mutual non-existence of other dharmas is also subsumed under space. Because the other two are narrow, only when speaking of mutual non-existence with reference to what is extinguished are they subsumed under cessation through deliberation and cessation independent of deliberation. In the Mahāyāna teaching, if distinguishing mutual non-existence with reference to conditioned dharmas, unconditioned space, and unconditioned cessation independent of deliberation, it is the same as the Tattvasiddhi. If distinguishing mutual non-existence with reference to cessation through deliberation, it is roughly the same as the Tattvasiddhi, but when probing the ultimate reality, it differs. What is meant by differing is that in the Mahāyāna teaching, all dharmas are said to exist only in the mind, like what is seen in a dream: when mind arises dharmas arise, and when mind ceases dharmas cease; at the time of attaining nirvāṇa, because the deluded mind ceases, all dharmas seen in accordance with the mind cease. Therefore, the mutual non-existence of other dharmas within cessation through deliberation is entirely cessation through deliberation. Question: If at the time of attaining nirvāṇa all dharmas are extinguished, then there would be no sentient beings; what would the Buddha convert? Explanation: Based on ordinary beings looking toward the Buddhas, one says that the Buddha converts sentient beings; but discussing the Buddha from the perspective of the Buddha, there is no Buddha distinct from sentient beings, and no sentient beings distinct from the Buddha. Since there is no Buddha distinct from sentient beings, there is no agent of conversion; since there are no sentient beings distinct from the Buddha, neither is there anything to be converted. Therefore the sūtra says: 'In the equanimous dharmadhātu, the Buddha does not deliver sentient beings. It is through the discrimination of sentient beings that one says the Buddha delivers sentient beings.' (Here ends [the discussion of] mutual non-existence.)