大乘法苑義林章 1.21.2

1.21.2

如說瓶等四塵為體。 諸不相應色心分位，即以所依分位為體。 《對法論》說不相應行色心等中是假立故，是說不害等即無瞋等。 此類非一。 四性用別論體，色心假實各別處故。 《瑜伽》等說色蘊攝彼十處界等。 此類眾多。 又有四重：一真如、二無相、三唯識、四因緣。 此二四體攝法義周，隨其所應釋一切法。 今隨義便略敘明之，庶後學徒詳而易入。 護法等說：諸教體者，謂宜聞者本願緣力，如來識上文義相生，實能所詮文義為體。 此師意說：眾生本願願聞佛說，如來識上文義相生，聽者識心即聞佛說，亦有如是似文義相。 故《升攝波葉喻經》說：佛取樹葉以問阿難，比其林葉所有多少？ 復告慶喜：我未所說乃有爾所。 故諸經首佛皆教置如是我聞。 《二十唯識》天親說云：展轉增上力，二識成決定。 謂餘相續識差別故，令餘相續差別識生，展轉互為增上緣故。 是故世尊實亦說法，言不說者是密意說，於真如性絕語言故，實無諸事。 故《波若》云：音聲尋我，不見如來。 推功歸本，仍言應化非說法者，計所執中無說法故。 於依他起，譬如幻人為幻人說，唯有假說似能說者，都無實說。 聽者心識文義之相，理有無疑，故諸教體取本無漏世尊所說文義為體。 若取能詮，唯聲名等而為體性。 《十地論》說：說者聽者俱以二事而得究竟，一者聲、二者善字。 又《解深密經》及《瑜伽論》七十八說：於第九地斷二種愚，一於無量所說法、無量名句字、陀羅尼自在愚。 《成唯識論》第九卷言：無量名句字者，謂法無礙解。 所說法者，所詮義也。 名句字者，能詮文也。 《對法》等云：成所引聲者，謂諸聖所說聲。 《成唯識論》第二復言：由此法、詞二無礙解，境有差別，法緣名等，詞緣於聲。 金剛波若天親論說：又言無記者，此義不然。 何以故？ 汝法是無記，而我法是記，是故一法寶勝無量珍寶。 是故當知，詮表教體唯聲名等，體唯無漏亦唯是善。 此通依他及圓成實，從眾緣起名曰依他，體是無漏可通成實。 《佛地論》說：依隨轉門及二乘者，說十五界唯是有漏，名、句、文身唯是無記。 今依大乘，若唯如來後得說法聲，名、句、文真善無漏。 如前所解諸教中說，故《佛地論》、《成唯識》說十八界皆通有漏及無漏。 若十地菩薩二乘說法聲，名、句、文唯是有漏。 若聽者識所變文義，或通有漏及與無漏。 一切異生、二乘、菩薩七地已前有漏後得，能聽法者皆唯有漏。 若一切二乘、七地已前無漏後得、八地已去，識上所變聲，名、句、文皆唯無漏，隨其所應說之為教。 然同所敬，既取本質無漏三寶。 故今教體亦取本質，佛等所說任運而現，非有漏戲論聲等為體。 《攝大乘》云「如末尼天鼓，無思成自事。 聲等為體，於能說者識上現，故不違唯識。 若聞者識所變為教，教唯有漏三性為體，同識性故。 」依前所說四出體中，今出教體亦應有四。 依前第一攝相歸性，教即真如。 《般若論》說「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相。 」故知教體性即真如。 無垢稱語大善現言：「文字性離，無有文字是即解脫，解脫相者即諸法也。 」又云「一切法亦如也。 」又云「法非見聞覺知，若行見聞覺知，是即見聞覺知，非求法也。 」故知教體性即真如。 依前第二攝境從識，若取根本，能說法者識心為體； 若取於末，能聞法者識心為體。 故天親云「展轉增上力，二識成決定。 」依前第三攝假隨實，一切內教體唯是聲。 由名句文體是假有，隨實說故。 《對法論》說成所引聲，不說名等名成所引。 依前第四相用別論，唯取根本能說法者識上所現聲名句文以為教體，假之與實義用殊故。 《十地論》云「一者聲、二善字。 如前教理成此體訖，此中四體約義用分，不乖真俗法相理故。

Just as it is said that jars and the like have the four sensory data as their substance, the various conditioned factors not associated [with the mind] (cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra) are states of matter and mind, and thus take the states on which they depend as their substance. The Abhidharmasamuccaya states that conditioned factors not associated [with the mind] are nominally posited within matter, mind, and so forth; thus it says non-harmfulness and so forth are just non-hatred and so forth. Cases of this sort are manifold. Fourth, discussing substance by differentiating nature and function: because matter and mind, nominal and real, occupy distinct categories. The Yogācārabhūmi and so forth say that the aggregate of matter subsumes the ten āyatanas, dhātus, and so forth. Cases of this sort are numerous. Furthermore, there are four tiers: first, tathatā; second, signlessness (animitta); third, consciousness-only (vijñapti-mātra); fourth, causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya). These two sets of four substances completely encompass the meanings of all phenomena, explaining all phenomena according to their proper application. Now, following the convenience of the meaning, I shall briefly explain them, so that future students may investigate them and easily gain entry. Dharmapāla and others say: The substance of all teachings means that by the conditioning force of the original vows of those suited to hear, aspects of text and meaning arise upon the consciousness of the Tathāgata, and the real text and meaning that express and are expressed serve as the substance. This master's meaning is: Sentient beings, having the original vow desiring to hear the Buddha's teaching, cause aspects of text and meaning to arise upon the consciousness of the Tathāgata; the listening consciousness then hears the Buddha's teaching, and likewise possesses such semblance of aspects of text and meaning. Therefore, the Śiṃśapā-parṇa-upama-sūtra says: The Buddha took up tree leaves to ask Ānanda, 'Comparing them to the leaves of this forest, how many are there?' He further said to Ānanda: 'What I have not taught is just as much [as the leaves in the forest].' Therefore, at the head of every sūtra, the Buddha instructed that 'Thus have I heard' be placed. In the Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā, Vasubandhu says: 'Through the reciprocal predominant power, the two consciousnesses become determinate.' This means that owing to the distinctions in the consciousness of another continuum, distinct consciousnesses are made to arise in another continuum, because they mutually serve as predominant conditions (adhipati-pratyaya). Therefore, the World-Honoured One also actually teaches the Dharma; to say that he does not speak is an intentional teaching, because within the nature of tathatā language is completely cut off, and in reality there are no such entities. Therefore the Prajñā[pāramitā] says: 'Those who seek me in sound will not see the Tathāgata.' Tracing the function back to the source, it is still said that the apparitional and transformation bodies are not the preachers of the Dharma, because within the conceptually constructed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva) there is no preaching of the Dharma. With respect to the other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), it is like an illusory person speaking to an illusory person: there is only nominal preaching appearing like an expounder, with no real preaching at all. In the listener's mental consciousness, the aspects of text and meaning unquestionably exist in principle; therefore, taking the substance of the teachings, one takes the original undefiled text and meaning spoken by the World-Honoured One as the substance. If one takes what can express, it is exclusively sound, names, and so forth that constitute the substance. The Daśabhūmikā-śāstra says: 'The speaker and the listener both attain culmination through two things: first, sound; second, good syllables.' Furthermore, the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle seventy-eight, state: 'On the ninth ground, one abandons two kinds of ignorance: first, ignorance regarding mastery over the immeasurable Dharma taught, immeasurable names, phrases, and syllables, and dhāraṇīs.' The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle nine, states: '"Immeasurable names, phrases, and syllables" refers to the unimpeded understanding of Dharma (dharma-pratisaṃvid). "The Dharma taught" is the expressed meaning. "Names, phrases, and syllables" are the expressing text.' The Abhidharmasamuccaya and other texts state: 'Sound induced by realization refers to the sounds uttered by the noble ones.' The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle two, further states: 'Because these two unimpeded understandings of Dharma and language (nirukti-pratisaṃvid) have different objects, Dharma takes names and so forth as its object, while language takes sound as its object.' Vasubandhu's commentary on the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā states: 'Furthermore, to say it is indeterminate (avyākṛta)—this meaning is incorrect. Why is that? Your dharma is indeterminate, whereas my Dharma is determinate [as wholesome]; therefore, a single jewel of the Dharma surpasses immeasurable precious treasures.' Therefore, one should know that the substance of the teaching that expresses is solely sound, names, and so forth; its substance is solely undefiled, and likewise solely wholesome. This encompasses both the other-dependent (paratantra) and the consummate (pariniṣpanna): arising from multiple conditions, it is named other-dependent; its substance being undefiled, it can encompass the consummate. The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra states: 'In accordance with the provisional gateway of sequential adaptation (anuvṛtti) and the two vehicles, it is said that the fifteen dhātus are strictly defiled, and the collections of names, phrases, and syllables are strictly indeterminate.' Now, according to the Mahāyāna, if it is solely the sound, names, phrases, and syllables of the Tathāgata's post-attainment preaching of the Dharma, they are truly wholesome and undefiled. As explained in the various scriptures previously referenced, the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra and the Cheng weishi lun therefore state that the eighteen dhātus all encompass both the defiled and the undefiled. If it is the sound, names, phrases, and syllables of the preaching of the Dharma by bodhisattvas on the ten grounds and the two vehicles, they are strictly defiled. If it is the text and meaning transformed by the listener's consciousness, they may encompass both the defiled and the undefiled. All ordinary beings, the two vehicles, and bodhisattvas before the seventh ground who possess defiled post-attainment [cognition] and are able to listen to the Dharma are strictly defiled. If it is all those of the two vehicles, those with undefiled post-attainment [cognition] before the seventh ground, and those from the eighth ground onward, the sound, names, phrases, and syllables transformed upon their consciousnesses are all strictly undefiled, and are called the teaching in accordance with their proper application. However, as the shared object of veneration, since one takes the intrinsic, undefiled Three Jewels, the present substance of the teaching likewise takes the intrinsic [form], which is spontaneously manifested as taught by the Buddha and others, and does not take defiled conceptual proliferations such as sound as its substance. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'Like a mani jewel or a heavenly drum, which accomplish their tasks without thought. Sound and so forth constitute the substance, manifesting upon the consciousness of the expounder; therefore, it does not contradict consciousness-only. If what is transformed by the listener's consciousness were the teaching, the teaching would have only defiled natures and the three moral natures as its substance, because it would share the nature of that consciousness.' In accordance with the previously explained four manners of establishing substance, the present establishment of the substance of the teaching should also have four: According to the first, subsuming appearance into the nature: the teaching is simply tathatā. The Prajñāpāramitā-śāstra states: 'The apparitional and transformation bodies are not the true Buddha, nor are they the preacher of the Dharma; in preaching the Dharma, there is no grasping of duality, and there is no preaching, for it transcends the sign of language.' Therefore, one knows that the nature of the substance of the teaching is simply tathatā. Vimalakīrti said to the Great Subhūti: 'The nature of syllables is detached; absence of syllables is itself liberation, and the sign of liberation is all phenomena.' Furthermore, it says: 'All phenomena are likewise suchness.' It also says: 'The Dharma is not seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognizing. If one engages in seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognizing, that is merely seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognizing, not seeking the Dharma.' Therefore, one knows that the nature of the substance of the teaching is simply tathatā. According to the second, subsuming the object into consciousness: If one takes the root, the consciousness and mind of the expounder of the Dharma constitute the substance; if one takes the branch, the consciousness and mind of the hearer of the Dharma constitute the substance. Therefore, Vasubandhu says: 'Through the reciprocal predominant power, the two consciousnesses become determinate.' According to the third, subsuming the nominal into the real: the substance of all internal teachings is exclusively sound. Because the substance of names, phrases, and syllables is nominally existent, they are explained in accordance with the real. The Abhidharmasamuccaya speaks of 'sound induced by realization', and does not say that names and so forth are called 'induced by realization'. According to the fourth, discussing appearance and function separately: one exclusively takes the sound, names, phrases, and syllables manifested upon the consciousness of the original expounder of the Dharma as the substance of the teaching, because nominal and real differ in meaning and function. The Daśabhūmikā-śāstra states: 'First, sound; second, good syllables.' As the establishment of this substance has now been completed through the preceding scriptures and reasoning, the four substances here are distinguished in terms of meaning and function, without violating the principles of ultimate and conventional truths and the characteristics of phenomena.