大乘義章 6.40

6.40

次解邪難以通正義。何故地前正斷見惑，而不得名為見道者？大乘法中見有二種：一者解見，緣觀諦理而斷煩惱；二者證見，緣觀心滅真照現前。若通論之，解行終心緣觀諦理斷除見惑，亦得名見，故《地持》中說諸見縛解行時斷。但大乘中滅觀真見方是出世，出世分中宣說見道。故解行中雖能緣見，不與其名。如七地中修無功用，而不得名無功用。何故不名為出世者？良以對彼滅觀真德為出世故。地前緣見三界心心數法為體，故非出世。何故不名為歡喜者？正與惑對未得出離，心無安泰，故不名喜。如未來禪雖斷欲結，以未出故，無其喜支，此亦同爾。已能永斷，何故仁王說為伏忍？釋言：地前具有三義。一有斷義，謂於四住增上及中，并麁無明漸次斷除，趣入歡喜。故《地持》中說種性地二障清淨，解行住中斷諸過相入歡喜地。二有伏義，於細四住及中無明，但能遮伏未能永斷，故《仁王》中說為伏忍。三有未斷未伏之義。於彼四住微細習氣，及善煩惱并細無明，未能斷伏，故彼《相續解脫經》說「地前菩薩，煩惱亦行、善法亦行，是故不名上波羅蜜。」彼《仁王》中為別五忍，對後彰劣，故就伏邊說為伏忍，不可執此定言不斷。若以《仁王》說為伏忍，即令於中全無斷者，《仁王》亦說金剛已還皆名為伏，唯佛一人方能永斷。十地已還悉應不斷，彼說為伏，於中有斷。地前亦爾，何勞致疑。又若《仁王》宣說地前名為伏忍，即使於中全無永斷；《仁王》宣說初二三地名為信忍，豈可於中唯信無證？彼說信處，於中有證；彼說伏處，何為無斷？何故經說初依菩薩具煩惱性名凡夫者？地前菩薩雖斷五住，無一住中遍漏盡之處，名具煩惱性，非全無斷。如小乘中，貪瞋癡慢見諦道中雖分除義，由斷不盡，不與斷名。此亦如是。又復地前雖除六道分段生死，殘氣猶在於六道中，無漏盡處，故名凡夫，非無聖德。論言見縛初地斷者，彼說證除，不關無礙。如說無明，佛菩提斷，豈是無礙？此亦同爾。若以小乘類同大乘，是所不應。小乘望大，有三不同，相類。所言三者，一小乘中見道已前全無無漏；大乘有之。小乘無故，不斷煩惱；大乘有故，能為無礙，正斷初障。二小乘中唯有一種緣照無漏，更無真證，是故所有斷結無漏，判屬出世。大乘之中有二無漏，一是緣觀，斷結無漏，體是世間；二是滅觀，無結無漏，體是出世。以彼世間有緣治故，能為無礙，正斷見惑。滅觀真德體是出世，故說初地解脫證除。三小乘中智解微淺，以微淺故，未見未斷，名為世間；有見有斷，即名出世。大乘智深，有見有斷，判為世間；息見息斷，無見為見、無斷為斷，方為出世。以此三別，是故大小不得相類。望彼初地說治既然，乃至望佛說治齊爾。十障之義，略辨如是。

Next, resolving the incorrect objections to establish the correct doctrine: Why is it that, although the delusion of views is directly eradicated prior to the grounds, it does not receive the name 'path of seeing'? In the Mahāyāna teachings, seeing is of two kinds: the first is conceptual seeing, which contemplates the principle of the truths based on objective conditions and eradicates defilements; the second is realizational seeing, where the mind of conditioned contemplation ceases and true illumination manifests. If discussed comprehensively, the final mind of resolving practice, in contemplating the principle of the truths based on objective conditions and eradicating the delusions of views, may also be called 'seeing'; therefore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi says that the fetters of views are eradicated at the time of resolving practice. But in the Mahāyāna, only the true seeing that puts an end to contemplation is world-transcending, and the path of seeing is proclaimed within the world-transcending domain. Therefore, although resolving practice can see based on conditions, it is not given that name. This is like the cultivation of effortless action on the seventh ground, which nevertheless is not named effortless. Why is it not called 'world-transcending'? Truly because it is in contrast to the true virtue of having ceased contemplation that something is world-transcending. The conditioned seeing prior to the grounds takes the mind and mental factors of the three realms as its essence; therefore, it is not world-transcending. Why is it not called 'Joyous'? Directly confronting delusion, one has not yet attained escape and the mind lacks peaceful tranquility; hence it is not called Joyous. Just as the anāgamya-dhyāna, although eradicating the fetters of desire, lacks the limb of joy because one has not yet fully emerged—this is also the same. If it can already permanently eradicate, why does the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] call it the forbearance of subduing? The explanation states: The stage prior to the grounds possesses three meanings. First, it has the meaning of eradication: with respect to the superior and middling grades of the four active entrenchments, as well as coarse fundamental ignorance, they are progressively eradicated to enter the Joyous Ground. Therefore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi says that on the gotra-bhūmi the two obstacles are purified, and in the dwelling of resolving practice one eradicates all marks of faults to enter the Joyous Ground. Second, it has the meaning of subduing: with respect to the subtle grades of the four active entrenchments and middling fundamental ignorance, it can only check and subdue them but cannot permanently eradicate them; therefore, the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] calls it the forbearance of subduing. Third, it has the meaning of being neither eradicated nor subdued: with respect to the subtle latencies of those four entrenchments, along with wholesome defilements and subtle fundamental ignorance, it can neither eradicate nor subdue them; therefore, that Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: 'For bodhisattvas prior to the grounds, defilements are still active and wholesome dharmas are still active; therefore, this is not called the superior pāramitā.' In the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra], in order to distinguish the five forbearances and highlight its inferiority relative to what follows, it is spoken of as the forbearance of subduing from the aspect of subduing; one must not cling to this and definitively say that there is no eradication. If because the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] calls it the forbearance of subduing, one makes it out to have no eradication whatsoever, the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] also says that everything prior to the vajra[-like concentration] is called subduing, and only the Buddha alone can permanently eradicate. Then everyone on the tenth ground and below would not eradicate anything! It is spoken of as subduing, yet within it there is eradication; the stage prior to the grounds is also like this, so what need is there to doubt? Furthermore, if because the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] proclaims the stage prior to the grounds to be the forbearance of subduing, one makes it out to completely lack permanent eradication within it—then the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] proclaims the first, second, and third grounds to be faith forbearance: how could there be only faith without realization within them? Where it speaks of faith, there is realization within it; where it speaks of subduing, why should there be no eradication? Why does the sūtra say that bodhisattvas of the first reliance are endowed with defilement-nature and called ordinary beings? Although bodhisattvas prior to the grounds have eradicated [parts of] the five entrenchments, there is no single entrenchment wherein the contaminations are completely exhausted, which is why it is called 'endowed with defilement-nature'—it does not mean there is no eradication at all. Just as in the Hīnayāna, although greed, anger, ignorance, and conceit have the meaning of partial removal on the path of seeing the truths, because they are not completely eradicated, they are not granted the name of 'eradication'—this is also like that. Furthermore, although prior to the grounds one eliminates fragmented birth and death in the six destinies, residual latencies still remain in the six destinies and there is no state of exhausted contaminations; hence they are called ordinary beings, not that they lack noble virtues. As for the treatise saying that the fetters of views are eradicated on the first ground, it refers to removal by realization, not concerning the unobstructed [path]. Just as saying that fundamental ignorance is eradicated by Buddha-bodhi—how could that be the unobstructed [path]? This is also the same. To equate the Hīnayāna with the Mahāyāna is inappropriate. Comparing Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna, there are three differences, not similarities. As for the three: First, in the Hīnayāna, prior to the path of seeing there is no anāsrava at all; the Mahāyāna has it. Because the Hīnayāna lacks it, it cannot eradicate defilements; because the Mahāyāna has it, it can serve as the unobstructed [path] to directly eradicate the initial obstacle. Second, in the Hīnayāna there is only one kind of anāsrava that objectifies and illuminates, with no true realization beyond that; therefore, all anāsrava that eradicates fetters is judged as belonging to the world-transcending. Within the Mahāyāna there are two kinds of anāsrava: one is conditioned contemplation, which is anāsrava that eradicates fetters, whose essence is mundane; the second is the cessation of contemplation, which is anāsrava without fetters, whose essence is world-transcending. Because that mundane [state] has conditioned counteraction, it can serve as the unobstructed [path] to directly eradicate the delusions of views; the true virtue that puts an end to contemplation is world-transcending in essence, so the first ground is said to remove them by realization via liberation. Third, in the Hīnayāna wisdom and understanding are shallow: because they are shallow, what has not yet seen and not yet eradicated is called mundane; having seeing and having eradication is immediately called world-transcending. In the Mahāyāna wisdom is deep: having seeing and having eradication is judged as mundane; resting seeing and resting eradication, taking non-seeing as seeing and non-eradication as eradication, only then is it world-transcending. Because of these three differences, the Greater and Lesser [Vehicles] cannot be treated as analogous. Since the explanation of counteraction with respect to that first ground is thus, it is likewise so all the way up to the counteraction with respect to the Buddha[-ground]. The meaning of the ten obstacles is briefly distinguished in this way.