大乘義章 6.37

6.37

次破邪執。若言初障，初地始心無礙正斷，乃至第十，十地始心無礙斷者。是義不然。云何不然？如《地論》中，對十一障，說十一地。遠離初障，宣說初地，乃至遠離第十一障，說如來地。又如《相續解脫經》中，對彼二十二種愚故，說十一淨。二十二愚，備如前列。對初二愚，說初地淨，乃至對彼最後二愚，說佛地淨。若言十地作無礙道正斷十障，彼如來地亦應如是。而如來地望彼微障解脫證除非無礙者，十地亦爾，何勞致疑。若言佛地是無學故累外證除全異十地，十地望前，隨分成處更不進習亦是無學，與佛何別？又若佛地是無學故，出處說地；菩薩學中，斷處說地。是則佛地是無學故，出處解脫；菩薩在學，應當斷處說為解脫。因果雖殊，同以出處為解脫道。因果雖異，何為不得同就出處說為地乎？若言經說初依菩薩具煩惱性，令使地前全不斷者，即《涅槃》中宣說：地前雖未階於初不動地，而能壞一切生死，是故名為不可思議。云何不斷？又《大涅槃》解不到到，言不到者謂大涅槃。所言到者，菩薩永斷貪欲瞋癡，是故能到。身口意淨，不犯四重五逆者故能到，不謗方等、不求闡提是故能到。何處菩薩永斷貪等到大涅槃？種性已上。此云何知？即彼文言「須陀洹人八萬劫到，乃至辟支十千劫到。」此言到者，到前菩薩所到涅槃。然彼須陀八萬劫到，乃至辟支十千劫到，到種姓地，名到涅槃。故知菩薩永破貪等到涅槃者，種姓已上永斷貪等到於涅槃。云何不斷？又《華嚴》中辨十住義，云言「菩薩最初發心便成正覺，見法實相具足慧身等諸如來。」云何不斷？又《華嚴》中宣說地前有其永斷。何故不依？彼文如何？《華嚴經》中辨十住義，十住位分在於習種。彼偈說言「第四生貴真佛子，從諸賢聖正法生，有無二邊悉不著，永離生死出三界。」云何不永？又《地持》中宣說種性二障清淨。云何不斷？若言地前名為伏忍證不斷者，即《仁王》中說至金剛悉名為伏。唯佛一人方能永斷，應十地還悉不永斷。經雖說伏，前立義家地上名永。彼雖宣說地前為伏，何得於中全無永斷？又若宣說地前為伏，於中無永，《仁王》宣說初二三地以為信忍，應當無證。彼名信忍，於中有證。彼雖說伏，何妨有永？又若宣說地前為伏，於中無永，《地經》宣說三地已還悉是世間，但厭不斷。應三地還亦無永斷，彼說為厭，於中有永。地前名伏，何為無永？又若地前唯伏不永，則無無漏。若無無漏，大力菩薩用何受於變易生死？以此一驗，其理足定。若言《地論》說諸見縛初地時斷，證非地前。經中亦說「無明住地唯佛所斷，乃至後身猶被覆障。」十地已還，應無斷義。彼言佛斷，十地已還實有斷除。《地論》雖說見縛在於初地時斷，地前菩薩何為不斷？又《地持》云「先解行住，見如是法，如是縛斷。」見縛猶是凡夫我障，彼論既說解行中斷，云何說言初地已去無礙正除？又《地持》中說煩惱障有三處過：一增上中惡趣煩惱過，過解行住入歡喜地；二微細煩惱過，過遠行住入不動地；三者微細習氣行過，過無礙住入第十地。彼增上中惡趣煩惱，猶是初地二種愚中第二種愚，與彼我相同障初地。惡趣煩惱初地出過，非始斷故。凡夫我相亦應如是，云何說言初地始斷？若言初地斷處名過，不以出處名為過者，是則第二微細煩惱，二地已上漸次斷除，八地時盡。應說二地以之為過，不至八地。第三習氣，八地已去漸次斷除，十地窮盡。應說八地以之為過，不至十地。然彼斷處不名為過，而至出處方名過故，明知第一惡趣煩惱初地出過，非是始斷。又《地持》中說，解行住依世俗禪，修習一切菩提分法，發諸大願，斷惡趣報，入歡喜地。然彼所斷，猶是初地二種愚中第二惡趣煩惱之果。彼果既是解行中斷，彼因何為解行不除？又《地持》中說，解行住有五畏等初地之障。彼云「解行行上忍時，斷此過相，入歡喜地。得歡喜故，是諸過相悉無復有。」若初地障解行不斷，云何說言解行上忍斷此過相入歡喜地？若初地上方始漸斷，云何說言得歡喜時諸過悉無？又《地持》云「解行菩薩有軟中上方便展轉淨解脫，非無罪清淨。歡喜住中，出障解脫無罪清淨。」若初地障解行不斷，云何得名展轉清淨？若初地上方始斷者，云何得名出障解脫無罪清淨不名無礙？又如七卷《金光明經．三身品》說「地前菩薩，聞法思惟修行精進，破懶惰障，次破罪障，次破不尊重障，後破掉悔心障。破四障已，入歡喜地。依歡喜地，拔利益障已，入第二地。依第二地，破逼惱障已，入第三地。乃至最後，依第十地，破於一切所知之障，拔除一切根本心障，入如來地。」以斯准驗，定知初障非是初地無礙正斷。若言小乘障見諦惑苦忍已去方始斷除，令大亦同者，此如後釋。又若初地無礙之道十三住分判屬初地，不在解行；彼小乘中須陀人，進斷欲界六品修惑，彼無礙道四果別分，應屬斯陀不屬初果。斯陀進斷欲界修惑七八九品，彼無礙道四果別分，應屬那含不屬斯陀。那含進斷上二界結，彼無礙道，應屬羅漢不屬那含。然彼進斷上結無礙四果別分，悉屬下果。初地無礙，何為不得判屬解行，乃令屬後說初地斷？又若初地障初地斷者，彼無礙道聞思修證四種心中何心所攝？若用證斷，便是證除，不名無礙。若用修斷，修為世間？為是出世？若是出世，《地論》宣說聞思修等但是智因，能生出世，而體不能滿出世間。云何得判以為出世？又《地論》言「不現三界心心數法分別修智，名為世間修道之智。」云何出世？既非出世，何得判之以屬初地？若是世間，便屬解行，何得宣說初地正斷？初障既非初地正斷，乃至最後微障亦然。此是一非。若言初地乃至佛地皆依無礙正斷諸障。是義不然。菩薩無礙，備如前破。若當佛地無礙斷者，便名佛智以為金剛，何故宣說十地終心為金剛乎？又《大品》云「無礙道中名為菩薩，解脫道中名之為佛。」云何說言佛為無礙正斷無明？經中說言「無明住地菩薩斷者，彼說證除。」何關無礙（此二門竟）。

Next, refuting wrongful attachments. If one says that the first obstacle is directly severed by the unobstructed path at the initial mind of the first ground, and so on up to the tenth, severed by the unobstructed path at the initial mind of the tenth ground, this meaning is not correct. Why is it not correct? As in the Dilun, eleven grounds are spoken of in contrast to the eleven obstacles. Transcending the first obstacle, the first ground is proclaimed, and so on up to transcending the eleventh obstacle, the Tathāgata ground is proclaimed. Furthermore, as in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, eleven purities are spoken of in contrast to those twenty-two kinds of ignorance. The twenty-two ignorances are fully set forth as above. In contrast to the initial two ignorances, the purity of the first ground is spoken of, and so on up to, in contrast to those last two ignorances, the purity of the Buddha ground is spoken of. If one says that the ten grounds act as unobstructed paths directly severing the ten obstacles, that Tathāgata ground should also be like this. Yet if the Tathāgata ground, in relation to that subtle obstacle, is a realization-elimination of the path of liberation and not unobstructed, the ten grounds are also thus; what need is there to raise doubts? If one says that because the Buddha ground is the stage of no-more-learning, it is realization-elimination beyond afflictions and entirely different from the ten grounds, then when the ten grounds look to what preceded them, having reached completion according to their share and no longer progressing in practice, they are also stages of no-more-learning; what difference is there with the Buddha? Furthermore, if because the Buddha ground is no-more-learning the ground is spoken of in terms of the stage of emergence, while for the bodhisattva within learning the ground is spoken of in terms of the stage of severing, then because the Buddha ground is no-more-learning, emergence is liberation; for the bodhisattva in learning, the stage of severing should be called liberation. Although cause and effect are distinct, they equally take the stage of emergence as the path of liberation. Although cause and effect are different, why can they not equally be spoken of as grounds in terms of the stage of emergence? If one says that the sūtras state that a bodhisattva of the first reliance is endowed with the nature of afflictions, thereby causing them not to sever anything at all prior to the grounds, yet the Nirvāṇa Sūtra proclaims that prior to the grounds, although one has not yet reached the initial immovable ground, one is able to destroy all saṃsāra, and therefore this is called inconceivable. How could they not sever them? Furthermore, the Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains 'reaching without reaching', saying that the 'unreached' is the Great Nirvāṇa. As for what is called 'reaching', it is because a bodhisattva permanently severs greed, anger, and delusion that they are able to reach it. Because body, speech, and mind are pure and they do not commit the four grave offenses or the five heinous crimes, they are able to reach it; because they do not slander the Mahāyāna scriptures and do not seek to become icchantikas, they are able to reach it. At what stage does a bodhisattva permanently sever greed and the rest to reach Great Nirvāṇa? From the lineage [stage] onward. How is this known? That text itself says, 'A srotāpanna reaches it in eighty thousand kalpas, and so on up to a pratyekabuddha reaches it in ten thousand kalpas.' What is called 'reaching' here is reaching the nirvāṇa reached by the aforementioned bodhisattva. Yet that srotāpanna reaches it in eighty thousand kalpas, and so on up to the pratyekabuddha reaches it in ten thousand kalpas, by reaching the lineage ground, which is called reaching nirvāṇa. Therefore we know that when it says a bodhisattva permanently crushes greed and the rest to reach nirvāṇa, it is from the lineage [stage] onward that they permanently sever greed and the rest to reach nirvāṇa. How could they not sever them? Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, in distinguishing the meaning of the ten abodes, states: 'When a bodhisattva first generates the mind, they immediately attain right awakening, see the true mark of phenomena, are endowed with the body of wisdom, and are equal to all Tathāgatas.' How could they not sever them? Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra proclaims that prior to the grounds there is permanent severing. Why not rely on it? How does that text go? In distinguishing the meaning of the ten abodes in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the stages of the ten abodes belong to the practice lineage. Its verse states: 'The fourth, being truly born as a noble child of the Buddha, / Born from the true Dharma of all the wise and noble, / Clinging to neither of the two extremes of existence or non-existence, / Permanently leaves saṃsāra and transcends the three realms.' How could it not be permanent? Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi proclaims that in the lineage [stage] the two obstacles are purified. How could they not sever them? If one says that prior to the grounds it is called 'subduing forbearance' to prove they are not severed, the Benevolent King Sūtra states that all stages up to the vajra[-like samādhi] are called 'subduing'. Only the Buddha alone is then able to permanently sever them; thus, everything prior to the ten grounds should also not be permanently severed. Although the sūtra speaks of 'subduing', the earlier proponent asserted that above the grounds it is called 'permanent'. Although that [sūtra] proclaims prior to the grounds to be 'subduing', how could there be no permanent severing at all within it? Furthermore, if one proclaims prior to the grounds to be 'subduing' and there is no permanence within it, the Benevolent King Sūtra proclaims the first, second, and third grounds to be 'faith forbearance', so there should be no realization. Yet although they are called 'faith forbearance', there is realization within them. Though that text speaks of 'subduing', why should it hinder having permanent severing? Furthermore, if one proclaims prior to the grounds to be 'subduing' and there is no permanence within it, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra proclaims that everything up to the third ground is worldly, only turning away without severing. Then up to the third ground there should also be no permanent severing; yet that text speaks of 'turning away', and there is permanent severing within it. Prior to the grounds is called 'subduing', so why should there be no permanent severing? Furthermore, if prior to the grounds it is only subduing and not permanent, then there would be no anāsrava. If there were no anāsrava, by what would a bodhisattva of great power receive the transformation saṃsāra? By this single verification, the principle is fully established. If one says that the Dilun states that the bondages of views are severed at the time of the first ground, proving it is not prior to the grounds, the sūtras also state: 'The ground of ignorance is severed only by the Buddha; up to the final body one is still obscured by it.' Then prior to the ten grounds, there should be no meaning of severing. That text says the Buddha severs it, yet prior to the ten grounds there is truly severance. Although the Dilun says that the bondage of views is severed at the time of the first ground, why would a bodhisattva prior to the grounds not sever them? Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'Formerly in the abode of understanding and practice, seeing such dharmas, such bondages are severed.' The bondage of views is still the ordinary person's obstacle of self; since that treatise states it is severed within understanding and practice, how can one say that from the first ground onward it is directly eliminated by the unobstructed [path]? Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi states that the obstacle of afflictions has three places of surpassing: first, surpassing the dominant afflictions of the bad destinies, surpassing the abode of understanding and practice to enter the joyful ground; second, surpassing subtle afflictions, surpassing the abode of far-reaching practice to enter the immovable ground; third, surpassing the activity of subtle residual impressions, surpassing the unobstructed abode to enter the tenth ground. Those dominant afflictions of the bad destinies are still the second kind of ignorance among the two kinds of ignorance of the first ground, and together with that mark of self they hinder the first ground. The afflictions of the bad destinies are surpassed at the first ground, not initially severed there. The ordinary person's mark of self should also be like this; how can one say it is initially severed at the first ground? If one says that the place of severing at the first ground is called 'surpassing', and it is not the place of emergence that is called 'surpassing', then the second, the subtle afflictions, are gradually severed from the second ground onward and exhausted at the eighth ground. One should say that the second ground is the 'surpassing', not reaching the eighth ground. The third, residual impressions, are gradually severed from the eighth ground onward and exhausted at the tenth ground. One should say that the eighth ground is the 'surpassing', not reaching the tenth ground. However, that place of severing is not called 'surpassing', but reaching the place of emergence is only then called 'surpassing'; thus we clearly know that the first, the afflictions of the bad destinies, are surpassed at the first ground, not initially severed there. Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi states that the abode of understanding and practice relies on worldly dhyāna, cultivates all bodhipakṣadharma, generates great vows, severs the retributions of the bad destinies, and enters the joyful ground. Yet what is severed there is still the fruit of the afflictions of the bad destinies, the second among the two kinds of ignorance of the first ground. Since that fruit is severed within understanding and practice, why would that cause not be eliminated in understanding and practice? Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi states that the abode of understanding and practice has the five fears and other obstacles of the first ground. It says: 'When the practice of understanding and practice reaches the highest forbearance, one severs these marks of faults and enters the joyful ground. Because one attains joy, these marks of faults no longer exist at all.' If the obstacles of the first ground were not severed in understanding and practice, how could it say that the highest forbearance of understanding and practice severs these marks of faults and enters the joyful ground? If they were only gradually severed from the first ground onward, how could it say that when attaining joy, all faults no longer exist? Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'A bodhisattva of understanding and practice has weak, medium, and superior skillful means, progressively purifying liberation, which is not stainless purity. In the joyful abode, one emerges from obstacles into liberation, which is stainless purity.' If the obstacles of the first ground were not severed in understanding and practice, how could it be called progressive purification? If they were only initially severed from the first ground onward, how could it be called emerging from obstacles into liberation, stainless purity, and not be called unobstructed? Furthermore, as the seven-fascicle Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra, 'Chapter on the Three Bodies', states: 'A bodhisattva prior to the grounds, hearing the Dharma, contemplating, and vigorously practicing, crushes the obstacle of indolence, next crushes the obstacle of transgression, next crushes the obstacle of disrespect, and afterwards crushes the obstacle of remorseful distraction. Having crushed the four obstacles, they enter the joyful ground. Relying on the joyful ground, having eradicated the obstacle to benefiting others, they enter the second ground. Relying on the second ground, having crushed the obstacle of affliction, they enter the third ground. And so on up to the end, relying on the tenth ground, they crush all obstacles to the knowable, eradicate all root mental obstacles, and enter the Tathāgata ground.' By verifying with this, one definitely knows that the first obstacle is not directly severed by the unobstructed [path] of the first ground. If one says that in the Hīnayāna the afflictions of the obstacle of seeing the truths are only severed from the suffering forbearance onward, and that the Mahāyāna should also be the same, this will be explained below. Furthermore, if the unobstructed path of the first ground among the divisions of the thirteen abodes is judged to belong to the first ground and not to understanding and practice, then in the Hīnayāna, when a srotāpanna advances to sever the six grades of cultivation-afflictions of the desire realm, that unobstructed path, divided among the four fruits, should belong to the sakṛdāgāmin and not to the initial fruit. When a sakṛdāgāmin advances to sever the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades of cultivation-afflictions of the desire realm, that unobstructed path, divided among the four fruits, should belong to the anāgāmin and not to the sakṛdāgāmin. When an anāgāmin advances to sever the fetters of the upper two realms, that unobstructed path should belong to the arhat and not to the anāgāmin. Yet when they advance to sever the upper fetters, the unobstructed paths, divided among the four fruits, all belong to the lower fruits. Why can the unobstructed [path] of the first ground not be judged to belong to understanding and practice, rather than being made to belong to the later and saying that the first ground severs it? Furthermore, if the obstacle of the first ground is severed by the first ground, into which of the four minds—hearing, contemplation, cultivation, or realization—is that unobstructed path subsumed? If it severs by realization, then it is realization-elimination, not called unobstructed. If it severs by cultivation, is this cultivation worldly, or is it transworldly? If it is transworldly, the Dilun proclaims that hearing, contemplation, cultivation, and the like are merely causes of wisdom, able to produce the transworldly, but their essence cannot fulfill the transworldly. How could it be judged to be transworldly? Furthermore, the Dilun says: 'The discriminative wisdom of cultivation that does not manifest the mind and caittas of the three realms is called the wisdom of the worldly path of cultivation.' How could it be transworldly? Since it is not transworldly, how could it be judged to belong to the first ground? If it is worldly, it belongs to understanding and practice; how could one proclaim that the first ground directly severs it? Since the first obstacle is not directly severed by the first ground, the same is true even for the final subtle obstacle. This is the first error. If one says that from the first ground up to the Buddha ground, all rely on the unobstructed [path] to directly sever the obstacles, this meaning is not correct. The bodhisattva's unobstructed [path] was fully refuted as above. If the Buddha ground severed through the unobstructed [path], the Buddha's wisdom would be called vajra; why then proclaim that the final mind of the tenth ground is vajra? Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'In the unobstructed path one is called a bodhisattva; in the path of liberation one is called a Buddha.' How could one say that the Buddha is unobstructed, directly severing ignorance? When the sūtra says that the ground of ignorance is severed by a bodhisattva, it speaks of realization-elimination. What does it have to do with being unobstructed? (This concludes the second section.)