大乘玄論 3.24

3.24

辨體第二。靈正云：涅槃體者法身是也。尋此法身更非遠物，即昔神明成今法身。神明既是生死萬累之體，法身亦是涅槃萬德之體。今明：不然。以用為體，不及涅槃深體，今以中道正法為涅槃體。開善云：總明萬德體無累為滅度。而經初明三德者，簡異昔日二種涅槃：有餘時，身智在，解脫不滿；無餘時，解脫滿，身智不在。今日涅槃，身智在、解脫滿。三德之中法身為體，波若解脫為用。今明：萬德三德為體者，離此無別涅槃用望。若言法身為體，無有萬德，云何是涅槃體？今明：涅槃體者，正法為體。而正法絕能所、四句百非，故《中論．涅槃品》云「有亦非涅槃，無亦非涅槃，亦有亦無非有非無亦非涅槃，無得無至。」無得者，非因果所得。無至者，無處可至。開善云：凡夫不會不冥，初地以上亦會亦冥，佛果冥而不會。又云：金剛以還會而不冥，佛果亦會亦冥。今明：若初地以上冥義，應常、亦常亦無常俱有。若佛果冥一者，為智一？為境一？一何所目？若智成境者無智耶？彼云：至亡彌存，至亡義成一，彌存義度眾生。彼云：初地以上，稱境而智是會義。而有無當方所不得冥一，佛果萬累永絕無有方所故冥。若成一者，無有度眾生義，彌存不成。今明：波若無知故冥，無所不知故彌存。為緣故冥，為緣故彌存，非定有冥存。《地論》云「性淨、方便淨涅槃。」性淨涅槃是本有理顯現，名性淨涅槃；緣修萬德，名方便淨涅槃，二涅槃體別異。今明：二涅槃體無別，非一非異，非亦一亦異，絕四句為涅槃體。成實師云：本有始有，涅槃體一。若一者，為始有一？為本有一？何處離本有始有別有涅槃一也？今明：於本有詺始有、始有詺本有，非離本有有始有、非離始有名本有。離四句，名本有始有二涅槃體也。地論師性淨涅槃有二種解：一云本有萬德；二云本無萬德，但是萬德體故言萬德。問：修成涅槃假有萬德，正法涅槃有萬德不？答：若有亦非、無亦非，四句皆非，故言無受名涅槃。五種不受，名五不受三昧。問：地論師性淨涅槃、成論師本有涅槃、今日正法涅槃，有何異耶？答曰：地論師阿梨耶識、攝論師阿摩羅識、成論師成佛理顯現，名為法身。定是有法故，以常為經宗。今明：中道為佛性，中道有何隱顯？若以常為經宗者，《大論》云「無常一邊、常為一邊，非是常為究竟。」〈純陀〉、〈哀嘆〉，對生死苦無常，明佛果常樂。至後〈迦葉〉，涅槃非常非無常、非有非無、非因非果。今明：四句百非洞遣為涅槃體，常無常是用。諸法師但得其用、不識深體，但解涅槃，不同外道三師、小乘二說、方等四計。檀提婆羅門，計於此身即是涅槃，蓋明欲界為涅槃。阿羅羅仙人，計無想為涅槃，此計色界為涅槃。欝頭蘭弗，計非想為涅槃。三外道以三有為涅槃。小乘二師者，《毘曇》計無為為涅槃，是常、是善、本有，在煩惱外。斷煩惱起得，得之屬於行者。《成論》明涅槃但是無法。大乘四種：一明涅槃是妙有為體，是世諦法。二云以空為涅槃，即是實相，名第一義諦。三云涅槃非真非俗，出二諦外。四云超出四句方是涅槃。唯四師大明二義。《成實》明本有始有，地論師性淨方便淨，攝論師四種涅槃：一本性寂滅涅槃、二有餘、三無餘、四無住處涅槃。法身故不住於生死，應化二身故不住於涅槃。次用無我真如理，又三無性理，名無住處涅槃。諸師同釋，涅槃備於三德，謂法身、般若、解脫。所以三德為涅槃者，略有四種義：生死與涅槃相對，生死有三障，謂煩惱、業、苦，對報障故名法身、對業障故辨解脫、對煩惱障說於波若。二者欲顯如來三業自在，有法身故身業自在、具波若故口業自在、有解脫故意業自在。三者無境不照名為波若、無感不應名法身、無累不盡稱解脫，故三德為宗。四者為對二乘三德不圓，有身智、解脫不足。解脫亦圓則無身智，故名如來三德圓備。《成論》云「佛果名妙有。」若爾，應是妙為。若妙故非為，亦妙故非有。彼云：有是法體，為即是相。佛果是法體之有，已離生滅相故，非是有為。竝云：若涅槃離相故非為者，亦應離始故非生。若始起故名生，亦始起故名為。又竝：若有而非為，亦應為而非有。成論師云：有四種生死，流來生死、分段生死、八地已上變易生死、七地中間生死。攝論師云：有七種生死，三界分段為三種；變易有四種；初二三地為方便生死，四五六地為因緣生死，七八九地為有有生死，第十地名無有生死。《夫人經》言「有漏業因四住為緣，感分段生死。無漏業因無明住地為緣，感變易生死。」今言方便生死即是無明住地，因緣生死即是無漏業。有有生死即是生住二相，無有生死即是滅相。若通而為論，一一地皆具四種。地前三阿僧祇，地地三阿僧祇，三十三阿僧祇。今望經論無定，若言無量阿僧祇是小劫，言三十三阿僧祇是中劫，三阿僧祇劫成佛是大劫。有人言：從初發心斷五住煩惱，同麁同細。又言：地前斷四住煩惱。又攝論師，地前伏四住上心，初地已上方斷種子。成論師明，地前伏見諦，初地斷上品，二地斷中品，三地斷下品盡，四地斷修道上品，五地斷中品，六地斷下品盡，七地斷習氣，八地已上斷無明三品盡。今明：十信伏見一處住地，十解伏欲愛住地，十行伏色愛住地，十迴向伏有愛住地，初地初心斷四住地盡，初地已上斷十重無明。《地持論》云「二障三處過，地前一向伏。初地至十地，斷煩惱障盡。」從初地斷智障，至金剛心斷智障習氣。問：與他家何異耶？答：他家生死在此、涅槃在彼；眾生在生死、佛在涅槃。今明：生死即涅槃，故《中論》云「若求如來性，即是眾生性。求涅槃性，即是世間性。」故經云「明無明，愚者謂二，智者了達其性無二。」若捨生死別取涅槃，是為愚人，不離生死。若知生死與涅槃無有差別，方得涅槃。他家前有煩惱，後起智慧斷彼煩惱。內外大小乘皆言有煩惱生，而今斷滅，即煩惱不滅。今求煩惱，本自不生、今亦無滅。若能如是知，前念為無礙、後念為解脫，故能斷惑。外人見煩惱不煩惱二，即同明無明，愚者謂二。今明：煩惱不煩惱本無二相，故能斷惑。問：何以得知，地前為分段、初地已上為變易耶？答：《涅槃》云「初地菩薩破二十五有，得金剛三昧。」《法華論》云「初地以上有無雙照受變易身。若迴小入大聲聞，從初發心受變易果報。」問：成論師云一向無實行聲聞，此義為理不耶？彼言：《夫人經》云「三乘初業不愚於法」故。答：此義不然。一切經論皆有聲聞。《法華經》中「內祕菩薩行，外現是聲聞」者，權行聲聞，故權實二種聲聞。《夫人經》不愚於法者，是利根人，非是鈍根能爾也。

Second, determining the essence. Master Lingzheng says: The essence of nirvāṇa is the dharmakāya. When one examines this dharmakāya, it is nothing distant: the consciousness-spirit of the past simply becomes the dharmakāya of the present. Since the consciousness-spirit is the essence of the myriad entanglements of saṃsāra, the dharmakāya is likewise the essence of the myriad virtues of nirvāṇa. We now explain: This is not so. Taking function as essence fails to reach the profound essence of nirvāṇa; we now take the correct Dharma of the Middle Way as the essence of nirvāṇa. Master Kaishan says: Overall, the essence of the myriad virtues being free of entanglements constitutes extinction and crossing over. That the sūtra initially explains three virtues is to distinguish [this] from the two kinds of nirvāṇa of the past: in [nirvāṇa] with remainder, body and gnosis remained while liberation was incomplete; in [nirvāṇa] without remainder, liberation was complete while body and gnosis did not remain. Today's nirvāṇa possesses body and gnosis, and liberation is complete. Among the three virtues, the dharmakāya is the essence, while prajñā and liberation are the functions. We now explain: If the myriad virtues or the three virtues are the essence, then apart from this there would be no separate nirvāṇa to regard as function. If one says the dharmakāya is the essence and lacks the myriad virtues, how could it be the essence of nirvāṇa? We now explain: As for the essence of nirvāṇa, the correct Dharma is its essence. Moreover, the correct Dharma transcends subject and object, the catuṣkoṭi, and the hundred negations. Therefore, the "Nirvāṇa Chapter" of the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Existence is not nirvāṇa, non-existence is not nirvāṇa; both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence, are also not nirvāṇa; there is no attainment and no arrival." "No attainment" means it is not obtained through cause and effect. "No arrival" means there is no place to which one can arrive. Master Kaishan says: Ordinary persons neither accord nor merge; those of the first ground and above both accord and merge; the buddha-fruit merges but does not accord. He also says: Up to the vajra[-like samādhi] one accords but does not merge; the buddha-fruit both accords and merges. We now explain: If merging is the meaning for the first ground and above, then both eternal and both eternal and non-eternal should be present. If the buddha-fruit is merging into oneness, is it gnosis that is one, or is it the cognitive object that is one? What does oneness designate? If gnosis becomes the cognitive object, is there no gnosis? He says: "Ultimate absence is pervasive presence"; the meaning of ultimate absence establishes oneness, and the meaning of pervasive presence saves sentient beings. He says: For the first ground and above, gnosis conforming to the cognitive object is the meaning of according; but because existence and non-existence correspond to locations, they cannot merge into oneness; in the buddha-fruit, the myriad entanglements are perpetually eliminated and there is no location, hence it merges. If they become one, there is no meaning of saving sentient beings, and pervasive presence is not established. We now explain: Prajñā merges because it has no knowing, and pervasively is present because there is nothing it does not know. It merges for the sake of conditions, and pervasively is present for the sake of conditions; there is no fixed merging or presence. The Daśabhūmivyākhyāna speaks of "nirvāṇa pure by nature and nirvāṇa pure through expedient means." Nirvāṇa pure by nature is the manifestation of the inherently present principle; it is called nirvāṇa pure by nature. The myriad virtues cultivated through conditions are called nirvāṇa pure through expedient means; the essences of the two nirvāṇas are distinct. We now explain: The essences of the two nirvāṇas are not distinct; they are neither one nor different, nor both one and different; transcending the catuṣkoṭi is the essence of nirvāṇa. The Tattvasiddhi masters say: In inherent presence and newly acquired presence, the essence of nirvāṇa is one. If it is one, is it one with newly acquired presence, or is it one with inherent presence? Where apart from inherent presence and newly acquired presence is there a separate single nirvāṇa? We now explain: Newly acquired presence is designated in terms of inherent presence, and inherent presence is designated in terms of newly acquired presence; newly acquired presence does not exist apart from inherent presence, nor is inherent presence designated apart from newly acquired presence. Transcending the catuṣkoṭi is called the essence of the two nirvāṇas of inherent presence and newly acquired presence. The Daśabhūmi masters have two explanations of the nirvāṇa pure by nature: one says it inherently possesses the myriad virtues; the other says it inherently lacks the myriad virtues, but because it is simply the essence of the myriad virtues it is spoken of as the myriad virtues. Question: Nirvāṇa achieved through cultivation provisionally possesses the myriad virtues; does the nirvāṇa of the correct Dharma possess the myriad virtues or not? Answer: If existence is negated and non-existence is also negated, all four propositions are negated; therefore it is said that non-appropriation is called nirvāṇa. The five kinds of non-appropriation are called the samādhi of the five non-appropriations. Question: What is the difference between the Daśabhūmi masters' nirvāṇa pure by nature, the Tattvasiddhi masters' inherently present nirvāṇa, and today's nirvāṇa of the correct Dharma? Answer: The Daśabhūmi masters take the ālayavijñāna, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters take the amalavijñāna, and the Tattvasiddhi masters take the manifestation of the principle of attaining buddhahood as the dharmakāya. Because it is definitely an existent phenomenon, they take permanence as the central theme of the sūtra. We now explain: The Middle Way is buddha-nature; what concealment or manifestation does the Middle Way have? If one takes permanence as the central theme of the sūtra, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "Impermanence is one extreme, permanence is one extreme; it is not that permanence is ultimate." In the "Cunda" and "Grief and Lamentation" [chapters], in contrast to the suffering and impermanence of saṃsāra, the eternal bliss of the buddha-fruit is explained. Reaching the later "Kāśyapa" [chapter], nirvāṇa is neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither existent nor non-existent, neither cause nor fruit. We now explain: Thoroughly relinquishing the catuṣkoṭi and the hundred negations is the essence of nirvāṇa; permanence and impermanence are its functions. The various Dharma masters only grasped its functions and did not recognise its profound essence. They only understood nirvāṇa [in a way that] differed from the three masters among the non-Buddhists, the two theories of the Hīnayāna, and the four views of the Vaipulya. The brāhmaṇa Daṇḍi posited that this very body is nirvāṇa, which clearly took the desire realm as nirvāṇa. The ṛṣi Ārāḍa posited non-ideation as nirvāṇa, which posited the form realm as nirvāṇa. Udraka Rāmaputra posited neither-ideation[-nor-non-ideation] as nirvāṇa. The three non-Buddhists took the three realms of existence as nirvāṇa. As for the two Hīnayāna masters: the Abhidharmikas posited the unconditioned as nirvāṇa, which is eternal, good, inherently existent, and outside afflictions. Cutting off afflictions gives rise to attainment, and attainment belongs to the practitioner. The Tattvasiddhi explains that nirvāṇa is simply a non-existent phenomenon. As for the four Mahāyāna views: the first explains that nirvāṇa takes sublime existence as its essence and is a phenomenon of conventional truth. The second says that emptiness is taken as nirvāṇa, which is the true mark and is called ultimate truth. The third says that nirvāṇa is neither conventional nor ultimate, transcending the two truths. The fourth says that only by surpassing the catuṣkoṭi is it nirvāṇa. Only four masters extensively elucidated the two meanings: the Tattvasiddhi explained inherent presence and newly acquired presence; the Daśabhūmi masters, purity by nature and purity through expedient means; the Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters, four kinds of nirvāṇa: first, nirvāṇa naturally extinguished; second, with remainder; third, without remainder; fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa. Because of the dharmakāya, it does not abide in saṃsāra; because of the two bodies of response and transformation, it does not abide in nirvāṇa. Next, employing the principle of selfless suchness and the principle of the three non-natures, it is called non-abiding nirvāṇa. The various masters agree in explaining that nirvāṇa is fully endowed with the three virtues, namely dharmakāya, prajñā, and liberation. That the three virtues constitute nirvāṇa broadly has four meanings: Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa stand in contrast. Saṃsāra has three obstructions, namely afflictions, karma, and suffering. In contrast to the obstruction of retribution, it is called the dharmakāya; in contrast to the obstruction of karma, liberation is distinguished; in contrast to the obstruction of afflictions, prajñā is spoken of. Second, to reveal the Tathāgata's sovereign mastery in the three karmas: having the dharmakāya, bodily karma is sovereignly mastered; possessing prajñā, vocal karma is sovereignly mastered; having liberation, mental karma is sovereignly mastered. Third, illuminating all cognitive objects without exception is called prajñā; responding to all resonances without exception is called the dharmakāya; exhausting all entanglements without exception is called liberation; hence the three virtues are the central theme. Fourth, in contrast to the two vehicles whose three virtues are not complete: having body and gnosis, liberation is insufficient; when liberation is also complete, there is no body or gnosis; hence the Tathāgata is said to be fully endowed with the three virtues. The Tattvasiddhi states: "The buddha-fruit is called sublime existence." If so, it should be called sublime conditioning. If because it is sublime it is not conditioned, it should also because it is sublime not be existent. They say: Existence is the essence of phenomena; conditioning is its mark. The buddha-fruit is an existence of the essence of phenomena; since it is already free from the marks of arising and ceasing, it is not conditioned. One counters: If nirvāṇa is not conditioned because it is free from marks, it should also not be born because it is free from beginning. If it is called born because it newly arises, it should also be called conditioned because it newly arises. Furthermore, one counters: If it is existent yet not conditioned, it should also be conditioned yet not existent. The Tattvasiddhi masters say: There are four kinds of saṃsāra: flowing-along saṃsāra, segmented saṃsāra, transformative saṃsāra from the eighth ground and above, and saṃsāra within the seventh ground. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters say: There are seven kinds of saṃsāra: segmented in the three realms constitutes three kinds; transformative has four kinds: the first, second, and third grounds constitute expedient saṃsāra; the fourth, fifth, and sixth grounds constitute causal saṃsāra; the seventh, eighth, and ninth grounds constitute existent saṃsāra; the tenth ground is called non-existent saṃsāra. The Śrīmālādevīsūtra states: "Defiled karma as cause and the four entrenchments as condition induce segmented saṃsāra. Undefiled karma as cause and the entrenchment of ignorance as condition induce transformative saṃsāra." Now, expedient saṃsāra is simply the entrenchment of ignorance, causal saṃsāra is simply undefiled karma, existent saṃsāra is simply the two marks of arising and abiding, and non-existent saṃsāra is simply the mark of cessation. If discussed comprehensively, each ground possesses all four kinds. Before the grounds there are three asaṃkhyeyas, and for each ground there are three asaṃkhyeyas, making thirty-three asaṃkhyeyas. Now, viewed in terms of sūtras and treatises, there is no fixed rule: if one speaks of immeasurable asaṃkhyeyas, it refers to small kalpas; if one speaks of thirty-three asaṃkhyeyas, it refers to medium kalpas; and achieving buddhahood in three asaṃkhyeya kalpas refers to great kalpas. Someone says: From the initial generation of the thought [of awakening], one severs the afflictions of the five entrenchments, both coarse and subtle alike. Another says: Before the grounds one severs the afflictions of the four entrenchments. Moreover, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters hold that before the grounds one suppresses the manifest consciousness of the four entrenchments, and only on the first ground and above does one sever their seeds. The Tattvasiddhi masters explain that before the grounds one suppresses [the defilements of] seeing the truths; on the first ground one severs the upper grade, on the second ground the middle grade, on the third ground exhausting the lower grade; on the fourth ground one severs the upper grade of the path of cultivation, on the fifth ground the middle grade, on the sixth ground exhausting the lower grade; on the seventh ground one severs residual impressions; and on the eighth ground and above one exhausts the three grades of ignorance. We now explain: The ten faiths suppress the entrenchment of seeing as one state; the ten understandings suppress the entrenchment of desire-attachment; the ten practices suppress the entrenchment of form-attachment; the ten dedications suppress the entrenchment of existence-attachment; the initial thought of the first ground completely severs the four entrenchments; and on the first ground and above one severs the tenfold ignorance. The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "The two obstructions are overcome in three stages; before the grounds they are uniformly suppressed. From the first ground to the tenth ground, the affliction obstruction is completely severed." From the first ground one severs the knowledge obstruction, up to the vajra-like mind where the residual impressions of the knowledge obstruction are severed. Question: What is the difference between this and other schools? Answer: For other schools, saṃsāra is here and nirvāṇa is there; sentient beings are in saṃsāra and the Buddha is in nirvāṇa. We now explain: Saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa. Therefore, the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "If one seeks the nature of the Tathāgata, it is the nature of sentient beings. If one seeks the nature of nirvāṇa, it is the nature of the world." Therefore the sūtra states: "Clarity and ignorance—the foolish regard them as two, while the wise thoroughly understand that their nature is non-dual." If one abandons saṃsāra to grasp nirvāṇa separately, one is a foolish person and does not depart from saṃsāra. Only if one knows that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa have no distinction does one attain nirvāṇa. In other schools, afflictions exist previously, and wisdom arises subsequently to sever those afflictions. Non-Buddhists and Buddhists, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, all say that afflictions arise and are now severed and extinguished, which means afflictions are not unextinguished. We now examine afflictions: originally they do not arise, and now they do not cease. If one can know them in this way, the preceding thought is unimpeded and the subsequent thought is liberation; thus one can sever delusions. Outsiders see affliction and non-affliction as two, which is just like clarity and ignorance, which the foolish regard as two. We now explain: Affliction and non-affliction originally have no dual marks; therefore one can sever delusions. Question: How is it known that before the grounds is segmented, and on the first ground and above is transformative? Answer: The Nirvāṇasūtra states: "A bodhisattva on the first ground destroys the twenty-five states of existence and attains the vajra-like samādhi." The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa states: "On the first ground and above, illuminating both existence and non-existence, one receives a transformative body. If a śrāvaka turns from the small to enter the great, from the initial generation of the thought [of awakening] they receive a transformative retribution." Question: The Tattvasiddhi masters say that there are definitely no śrāvakas of real practice; does this doctrine accord with principle or not? They state: Because the Śrīmālādevīsūtra says: "Those of the initial stages of the three vehicles are not deluded about the Dharma." Answer: This doctrine is not so. All sūtras and treatises have śrāvakas. In the Lotus Sūtra, "internally concealing bodhisattva practice, outwardly appearing as śrāvakas" refers to śrāvakas of provisional practice; hence there are two kinds of śrāvakas, provisional and real. That the Śrīmālādevīsūtra speaks of not being deluded about the Dharma refers to persons of sharp faculties; it is not that those of dull faculties can be so.