大乘義章 9.16

9.16

次明金剛有惑無惑。於中且就窮終以論。依如《毘曇》，金剛心中亦得有惑、亦得無惑。無漏心中煩惱不行，故言無惑；所斷惑得唯在心邊，故云有惑。問曰：若言無漏心邊猶有惑得，不應言斷；若當言斷，不應有得。云何說言所斷惑得猶在心邊？釋言：金剛是其心法，所斷惑得是非色心，良以非心得與心並，是故於彼金剛心邊得有惑得。是金剛心雖與得俱，而今惑得更不牽後，故名為斷。所斷惑得是無常法，與金剛心同時謝往，後更無續。以無續故，不復得彼過未煩惱令來屬己，名得解脫。成實法中，亦有亦無。彼宗金剛必在相續，實一念中無斷結故。於彼續中，始起之時見理未明，細闇猶在，得言有惑。終成之時，見理分明，取執皆盡，得言無惑。又復不同毘曇法中所斷惑得與治同處，故言無惑。問曰：終成若無惑者，無學何別？釋言：金剛是增進智，力勵觀理，力勵無惑。無學智者是順舊智，容預觀理、容預無惑，有斯異也。大乘法中，人說不同，先序異說，次辨其非，後顯正義。言異說者，昔來相傳常有二論：一說定有。此云何知？金剛心者是其學收，若全無惑應名無學。又經中說「無明住地，佛菩提斷。」若金剛中全無惑者，佛何所斷？又人宣說：一向無惑。此云何知？金剛心者，治惑明解。解惑不並，云何有惑？又若有惑，此惑須斷，應金剛後更立金剛。更不立故，明知無惑。異說如此。次辨其非，先破定有。若定有惑，是金剛心則不能斷，若不能斷不名金剛、不名無礙。得名金剛、得名無礙，定知能斷。以能斷故，不得言有。若言能斷復言有者，燈能破闇，是燈之中應當有其所破之闇。彼不得有，此亦應然。又復若言金剛心中有無明地令佛斷者，應名佛智以為金剛、應名佛智為無礙道。而彼佛智不名金剛，非無礙故，不應說言金剛心中留殘無明令佛正斷。又若佛智無礙正斷，便與經違。如《大品》說「無礙道中名為菩薩，解脫道中名之為佛。」云何言佛為無礙斷？又若佛智作無礙道正斷無明，小乘法中應用盡智為無礙道，斷非想惑。彼既不然，此亦不爾。次破定無。若定無惑，應名無學。非無學故，不應全無。又若金剛一向無惑，所見之理應與佛齊，所成智能應與佛等。如《地經》說「十地菩薩遍滿一切界如稻麻葦，比如來智百千萬倍乃至算數畢竟不及。」定知金剛惑障未盡。又復諸佛所以為常，由惑盡故、證理窮故。若金剛心一向無惑，見理應窮、惑盡理窮，何為不常？辨非如是。次顯正義。金剛心中亦得有惑、亦得無惑。是義云何？無明有二：一異相無明，於諸法中緣而不了，相返明解，故曰異相。二自性無明，即彼緣照對治金剛，相雖明照、性是闇惑，名性無明。是二難分，宜以喻顯。異相無明所緣不了，如闇中視。自性無明，如夢中見，雖有所了，性是昏闇。惑相如是。金剛心中異相無明一切盡故，得言無惑；自性無明猶未盡故，得言有惑。以無惑故，於佛境界照見悉知，與佛無別，是故經中說為等覺。問曰：若等，云何得分佛菩薩異？釋言：金剛力勵除闇，佛心容豫。又金剛心緣照無惑，佛心無緣，有斯異也。問曰：若言金剛無惑，何故經說無明佛斷？釋言：彼說解脫證除，不關無礙。又以金剛猶有惑故，學分所收。又金剛心中所有之惑，體是妄識攀緣之心。緣心未息，情與法別，不能融心如法廣大，是故十地德劣於佛。至佛捨之，唯有真心，真心離緣無簡彼此，故能融心如法廣大。又真法中統含法界恒沙佛法，隨法論論心，廣統法界，無一門中而無佛心，是故佛德廣大無量超踰十地。故《地經》云「十地菩薩遍滿十方一切世界如稻麻葦，比佛功德畢竟不及。」良在於此。又金剛中所有之惑體是無常生滅法故，未同佛德常住不動。問曰：有惑，誰之所斷？釋言：金剛無礙正斷，種智心起，解脫證除。問曰：金剛與惑同體，安能正斷？若能正斷，不應同體。釋言：斷除異相無明，明起闇滅、解生惑喪，兩不相應，不得同體。斷性無明，解惑同體而得相斷。是義云何？斷有二種：一以金剛觀察唯真無妄相故，能令自體更不牽後，斷其為因牽後之義，故名為斷。二以金剛緣真力故，令後同類不起赴前，斷其為果酬因之義，故名為斷。問：為偏斷闇惑義邊？亦斷金剛能治之義？釋有通別。別而分之，唯斷闇惑無知之義。闇體盡故，明亦隨滅，如燈油盡明亦隨滅。通而語之，解惑俱盡，良以金剛觀真大明故滅無明，觀真寂滅無分別故能息緣治。故經中說「不觀是菩提，離諸緣故。」菩提道中具一切義，隨其所觀各有所離，是故金剛解惑俱斷。問曰：解惑俱是無常，自然滅謝，何假金剛觀真斷乎？釋言：此雖無常自滅，力能牽後相續不斷，故須金剛截令不續。問曰：解惑二俱滅謝，誰作種智？釋言：菩薩金剛心中非唯妄智，亦有真德。妄雖滅盡，真德猶存，真明獨曜說為種智。問曰：金剛義含真偽，為當真妄共斷煩惱？單妄除惑？釋有兩義：一簡因異果，單妄能除，緣治為因真為果故。以金剛中真德未顯，故不說斷。二就義通論真妄共斷。妄智緣真，故能滅惑，真相漸顯故能除障。金剛心義，粗述如是。

Next, clarifying whether the vajra has defilements or is without defilements. Therein, let us discuss it first in terms of the ultimate end. According to the Abhidharma, in the vajra mind there can be defilements, and there can also be no defilements. In the untainted mind afflictions do not operate, so it is said to have no defilements; the acquisition (prāpti) of the defilements to be severed resides only at the edge of the mind, so it is said to have defilements. Question: If one says that the acquisition of defilements still exists at the edge of the untainted mind, it should not be called severed; if it is to be called severed, there should not be acquisition. Why say that the acquisition of the defilements to be severed still exists at the edge of the mind? Explanation: The vajra is a mental dharma, whereas the acquisition of the defilements to be severed is neither material nor mental (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra). Indeed, because what is non-mental can coexist alongside the mind, the acquisition of defilements can exist at the edge of that vajra mind. Although this vajra mind is concomitant with the acquisition, the current acquisition of defilement no longer drags forward subsequent [defilements], and is therefore called severed. The acquisition of the defilements to be severed is an impermanent dharma; it perishes at the same time as the vajra mind, and thereafter has no continuation. Because there is no continuation, it no longer acquires those past and future afflictions to make them belong to oneself, which is called attaining liberation. In the Tattvasiddhi doctrine, it both has and does not have [defilements]. That school holds that the vajra must exist in a continuum, because in a single thought-moment fetters are not severed in reality. Within that continuum, at the time it first arises, the seeing of the principle is not yet clear, and subtle darkness still exists, so one can say it has defilements. At the time it is finally accomplished, the seeing of the principle is distinct and clear, and grasping and attachment are completely exhausted, so one can say it is without defilements. Furthermore, it is not like the Abhidharma doctrine where the acquisition of defilements to be severed resides in the same locus as the remedy, and therefore it is said to have no defilements. Question: If the final accomplishment is without defilements, how does it differ from [the stage of] non-training (aśaikṣa)? Explanation: The vajra is an advancing knowledge, vigorously observing the principle and vigorously remaining free from defilements. The knowledge of non-training is a knowledge that accords with what has been established, observing the principle with ease and remaining free from defilements with ease; such is the difference. In the teachings of the Mahāyāna, different teachers have different explanations. First, we state the differing explanations; next, we identify their errors; afterward, we reveal the correct meaning. Regarding the differing explanations: traditionally, two arguments have always been transmitted. One says that it definitely has [defilements]. How is this known? The vajra mind is subsumed under training; if it were completely without defilements, it should be called non-training. Furthermore, a sūtra says: "The ground of ignorance is severed by the Buddha's bodhi." If the vajra were completely without defilements, what would the Buddha sever? Other people proclaim: it is strictly without defilements. How is this known? The vajra mind is the luminous understanding that remedies defilements. Understanding and defilement do not coexist; how could there be defilements? Furthermore, if there were defilements, these defilements would need to be severed, and another vajra would have to be established after the vajra. Since none is further established, one clearly knows it is without defilements. Such are the differing explanations. Next, identifying their errors. First, refuting the view that it definitely has [defilements]. If it definitely had defilements, this vajra mind would not be able to sever them; if it could not sever them, it would not be called vajra, nor would it be called the unobstructed [path]. Since it is called vajra and called unobstructed, one definitely knows it can sever them. Because it can sever them, one cannot say it has [defilements]. If you say it can sever them and yet say it has [defilements], then when a lamp can dispel darkness, there should be within that lamp the darkness to be dispelled. Since that cannot have it, this should also be likewise. Furthermore, if you say that in the vajra mind there is the ground of ignorance for the Buddha to sever, then the Buddha's knowledge should be called vajra, and the Buddha's knowledge should be called the unobstructed path. Yet that Buddha's knowledge is not called vajra because it is not unobstructed; therefore, one should not say that residual ignorance is left in the vajra mind for the Buddha to correctly sever. Furthermore, if the Buddha's knowledge were the unobstructed [path] that correctly severs, that would contradict the sūtras. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "In the unobstructed path one is called a bodhisattva; in the path of liberation one is called a Buddha." Why say that the Buddha severs through the unobstructed [path]? Furthermore, if the Buddha's knowledge acted as the unobstructed path to correctly sever ignorance, then in the Hīnayāna teachings, the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna) should be used as the unobstructed path to sever the defilements of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization. Since that is not so, this is also not so. Next, refuting the view that it is definitely without [defilements]. If it were definitely without defilements, it should be called non-training. Because it is not non-training, it should not be completely without them. Furthermore, if the vajra were strictly without defilements, the principle seen should be equal to that of a Buddha, and the prajñā and abilities accomplished should be equal to those of a Buddha. As the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says: "Even if tenth-bhūmi bodhisattvas filled all realms like rice, hemp, and reeds, compared to the Tathāgata's knowledge, it would not equal even a hundred-thousandth part, down to being utterly beyond reckoning." One definitely knows that in the vajra, the obstacles of defilement are not yet exhausted. Furthermore, the reason why all Buddhas are permanent is because defilements are exhausted and they have fully realized the principle. If the vajra mind were strictly without defilements, its seeing of the principle should be exhausted, and with defilements exhausted and the principle fully realized, why would it not be permanent? Such is the refutation of the errors. Next, revealing the correct meaning. In the vajra mind, there can be defilements, and there can also be no defilements. What does this mean? Ignorance is of two kinds: First, ignorance of different marks: cognizing dharmas without comprehending them, its mark being the opposite of luminous understanding; hence it is called [ignorance of] different marks. Second, ignorance of self-nature: this is the very vajra of remedy that cognizes and illuminates; although its mark is luminous illumination, its nature is dark delusion; hence it is called ignorance of nature. These two are difficult to distinguish, and should be clarified through an analogy. Ignorance of different marks, where the object is not comprehended, is like seeing in the dark. Ignorance of self-nature is like seeing in a dream: although there is something comprehended, its nature is dim and dark. Such are the marks of defilement. Because in the vajra mind the ignorance of different marks is completely exhausted, one can say it is without defilements; because the ignorance of self-nature is not yet exhausted, one can say it has defilements. Because it is without defilements, it illuminates, sees, and completely knows the Buddha's realm, being no different from a Buddha; therefore, in the sūtras it is spoken of as equal enlightenment. Question: If they are equal, how can the difference between a Buddha and a bodhisattva be distinguished? Explanation: The vajra vigorously dispels darkness, whereas the Buddha's mind is at ease. Furthermore, the vajra mind illuminates objects without defilement, whereas the Buddha's mind is without objectification; such is the difference. Question: If you say the vajra has no defilements, why do sūtras say that ignorance is severed by the Buddha? Explanation: That speaks of the realization and elimination in the path of liberation, not concerning the unobstructed [path]. Furthermore, because the vajra still has defilements, it is subsumed under the category of training. Furthermore, all the defilements in the vajra mind have as their substance the mind of deluded consciousness that climbs upon conditions. As long as this conditioning mind has not ceased, feeling and dharma remain differentiated, and one cannot merge the mind so that it is as vast as the Dharma; therefore, the virtues of the tenth bhūmi are inferior to those of the Buddha. Reaching the Buddha, this is relinquished, and there is only the true mind; the true mind is free from conditions and makes no distinction between this and that, and therefore can merge the mind so that it is as vast as the Dharma. Furthermore, within the true dharma, the sands of the Ganges of Buddha-dharmas of the dharmadhātu are fully contained; discussing the mind in accordance with the dharma, it broadly encompasses the dharmadhātu, and there is no gate in which the Buddha-mind is not present; therefore, the Buddha's virtues are vast, immeasurable, and surpass the tenth bhūmi. Thus the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says: "Even if tenth-bhūmi bodhisattvas filled all the worlds of the ten directions like rice, hemp, and reeds, compared to the Buddha's merit, they would utterly fall short." It truly lies in this. Furthermore, because all the defilements in the vajra have as their substance impermanent dharmas of arising and ceasing, they are not yet identical with the Buddha's virtues, which are eternally abiding and unmoving. Question: If there are defilements, by what are they severed? Explanation: The vajra unobstructed [path] correctly severs them, and when the mind of all-knowledge arises, liberation realizes and eliminates them. Question: Since the vajra and defilement share the same substance, how can it correctly sever them? If it can correctly sever them, they should not share the same substance. Explanation: In severing and eliminating the ignorance of different marks, light arises and darkness perishes, understanding is born and delusion dies; the two do not correspond and cannot share the same substance. In severing the ignorance of nature, understanding and delusion share the same substance and yet can sever each other. What does this mean? Severing is of two kinds: First, because the vajra contemplates only the real and no false marks, it can cause its own substance no longer to drag forward subsequent [moments], severing its meaning of being a cause that drags forward subsequent [moments]; hence it is called severing. Second, because of the vajra's power of conditioning on the real, it causes subsequent [moments] of the same kind not to arise and succeed the preceding, severing its meaning of being an effect that recompenses the cause; hence it is called severing. Question: Is it only on the side of dark delusion that it is severed? Or is the vajra's ability to remedy also severed? Explanation: There are general and specific [explanations]. Distinguishing them specifically, it severs only the dark delusion of unknowing. Because the substance of darkness is exhausted, light also perishes along with it, just as when the oil of a lamp is exhausted, the light also perishes along with it. Speaking generally, both understanding and delusion are exhausted; indeed, because the vajra contemplates the great illumination of the real, it eliminates ignorance; and because it contemplates the quiescent extinction and non-discrimination of the real, it can pacify the remedies of conditioning. Thus a sūtra says: "Non-contemplation is bodhi, because it is free from all conditions." The path of bodhi possesses all meanings, and according to what is contemplated, each has what is relinquished; therefore, the vajra severs both understanding and delusion. Question: Understanding and delusion are both impermanent and naturally perish and pass away; why rely on the vajra's contemplation of the real to sever them? Explanation: Although these are impermanent and naturally perish, their power can drag forward subsequent [moments] in unbroken continuity; therefore, the vajra is required to cut them off so that they do not continue. Question: If both understanding and delusion perish and pass away, what constitutes the knowledge of all aspects (sarvākārajñatā)? Explanation: In the bodhisattva's vajra mind, there is not only false knowledge, but also true virtue. Although the false is completely extinguished, the true virtue still remains; the true illumination shining alone is spoken of as the knowledge of all aspects. Question: Since the meaning of vajra contains both the true and the false, do the true and the false together sever afflictions? Or does the false alone eliminate defilements? Explanation: There are two meanings: First, distinguishing cause from effect, the false alone can eliminate them, because the remedy of conditioning is the cause and the true is the effect. Since the true virtue in the vajra is not yet manifest, it is not said to sever. Second, discussing it comprehensively in terms of meaning, the true and the false together sever them. False knowledge conditions on the real and therefore can eliminate defilements; the true mark gradually manifests and therefore can remove obstacles. The meaning of the vajra mind is roughly described in this way.