華嚴五十要問答 1.80

1.80

二對諸門分別者，略對五門：一約乘分別、二約三性分別、三約諸惑分別、四對諸識分別、五約假實分別。初約乘分別者，乘有三種：一一乘、二三乘、三小乘。今此心數是三乘心數，為治世出世心煩惱，非一非小、非三乘終、非一乘別教。就三乘終大乘教及一乘別教內心數，即有無量，竝如緣起法界數量。何以故？諸心數類一一緣別，約其緣別不可總說，故不同三乘等總明數也。三乘始一分心數，為治煩惱障、所知障世間心煩惱說，仍此三乘有始有終。終教二乘心數亦不可說。始教心數即如此。《瑜伽》、《對法論》等小乘心數同異，如下別辨。二約三性，有二：一善等三性、二遍計等三性。善等三性者，遍行五通三性，仍隨在一性則非餘二。別境五通三性，仍隨在一性，五法之中多少不定。善等十一唯善性，仍通流無流，若在流則非無流，無流亦爾。煩惱通不善及無記，為末那識及定地惑是無記故。隨煩惱二十通不善及無記，準前可知。若約違理不善，但是不善性。不定四法通三性。不善之時，則餘二性準前可知，餘二亦爾。約偏計等三性者，遍行等五通三性，仍隨在一性則攝餘二性成此一性，此如三性義中說，隨在一性連之具五。別境等五通三性，仍隨在一性則非餘二攝，同前說。善等十一唯圓成實，此通漏無漏，會攝如前說。煩惱等十通依他起及遍計，相會準前說。隨煩惱等二十法通依他起及遍計。不定等四通三性，相會準前說。三約諸惑分別者，略約三門：一約皮等三惑分別、二約煩惱所知二障分別、三約五住地分別。皮等三惑分別者，遍行通三惑。別境亦通三。善等非三惑。煩惱唯皮肉，若約寄位則通三。隨煩惱等亦皮肉，若約麁細說則通皮肉心。不定等四亦通皮肉心，由緣成三惑故。煩惱所知二障分別者，遍行通二障。別境亦復然。善等非二惑。煩惱唯煩惱。隨煩惱等亦復然，若約相成門則通於二障。不定唯所知，若約相成門則通於二障。約五住地分別者，遍行通五住。別境亦遍通。善等非五住。煩惱通五住。隨煩惱等亦通五住。如此之義可準。諸惑障當廣分別。不定通五住，由緣成諸惑故。四約諸識分別者，賴耶識起遍行五。末那識起九，遍行五及我見、我愛、我慢、無明。意識起遍行等六位所有法。五識則不定，或初五或一切，由與意識或同體或異體故。故經云「有一意識，與五識共緣境故。」此約三乘始教麁相說也。若約三乘終教論，則賴耶六識等皆具起一切所有法，由唯一識成十一識故。五假實分別者，假實有三：一約緣成辨假實。若約此義，或有分別或無分別，緣成故離分別，應教故有分別。若約此義皆通假實，即無性故實，緣成故假。二本末明假實。煩惱為本，隨煩惱為末，如論可知。三約事顯理辨假實。理事相應為實，但理無事為假，假從事教說故。

Regarding the second, analysis in contrast to various gates, there are briefly five gates: first, analysis according to the vehicles; second, analysis according to the three natures; third, analysis according to the various delusions; fourth, analysis in contrast to the various consciousnesses; fifth, analysis according to nominal and real. First, regarding analysis according to the vehicles, there are three kinds of vehicles: first, the Ekayāna; second, the triyāna; third, the Hīnayāna. These present mental factors are the mental factors of the triyāna, spoken to cure mundane and supramundane mental afflictions; they are neither the One nor the Hīnayāna, neither the final [teaching] of the triyāna, nor the distinct teaching of the Ekayāna. With regard to the mental factors within the Mahāyāna final teaching of the triyāna and the distinct teaching of the Ekayāna, they are boundless, completely conforming to the quantities of the dharmadhātu of pratītyasamutpāda. Why? The kinds of mental factors are each distinct in their conditions; according to their distinct conditions, they cannot be spoken of collectively; hence, unlike the triyāna and others, they do not collectively elucidate quantities. The mental factors of one portion of the initial triyāna are spoken to cure the affliction obstacle, the cognitive obstacle, and mundane mental afflictions; furthermore, this triyāna has an initial and a final. The mental factors of the two vehicles in the final teaching also cannot be spoken. The mental factors of the initial teaching are just as this. The similarities and differences of the Hīnayāna mental factors in the Yogācāra, Abhidharmasamuccaya, and other treatises will be distinguished separately below. Second, according to the three natures, there are two kinds: first, the three natures of wholesome and the rest; second, the three natures of parikalpita and the rest. Regarding the three natures of wholesome and the rest: the five universals pervade the three natures, yet depending on their being in one nature, they are not the other two. The five specific-objects pervade the three natures, yet depending on their being in one nature, the number among the five factors is indefinite. The eleven wholesome and the rest are solely of the wholesome nature, yet they pervade defiled and undefiled; if in the defiled, they are not the undefiled, and the undefiled is likewise. Afflictions pervade the unwholesome and the indeterminate, because the afflictions of manas-consciousness and the concentrated states are indeterminate. The twenty secondary afflictions pervade the unwholesome and the indeterminate, which can be known by analogy with the above. If according to unwholesomeness that contravenes principle, they are only of the unwholesome nature. The four indeterminate factors pervade the three natures. When unwholesome, the other two natures can be known by analogy with the above, and the other two are likewise. Regarding the three natures of parikalpita and the rest: the five universals and so forth pervade the three natures, yet depending on their being in one nature, they subsume the other two natures to form this one nature; this is as explained in the doctrine of the three natures: depending on being in one nature, they link to possess all five. The five specific-objects and so forth pervade the three natures, yet depending on their being in one nature, they are not subsumed by the other two, as explained before. The eleven wholesome and so forth are solely pariniṣpanna; this pervades defiled and undefiled, and their combination and subsumption are as explained before. The ten afflictions and so forth pervade paratantra and parikalpita, and their mutual combination is by analogy with what was explained before. The twenty factors of secondary afflictions and so forth pervade paratantra and parikalpita. The four indeterminate and so forth pervade the three natures, and their mutual combination is by analogy with what was explained before. Third, regarding analysis according to the various delusions, there are briefly three gates: first, analysis according to the three delusions of skin and the rest; second, analysis according to the two obstacles of affliction and knowable; third, analysis according to the five resting grounds. Regarding analysis according to the three delusions of skin and the rest: universals pervade the three delusions. Specific-objects also pervade the three. Wholesome and the rest are not the three delusions. Afflictions are only skin and flesh; if analyzed according to lodged positions, they pervade the three. Secondary afflictions and the rest are also skin and flesh; if spoken of in terms of coarse and subtle, they pervade skin, flesh, and marrow. The four indeterminate and so forth also pervade skin, flesh, and marrow, because through conditions they form the three delusions. Regarding analysis according to the two obstacles of affliction and knowable: universals pervade the two obstacles. Specific-objects are also like this. Wholesome and the rest are not the two delusions. Afflictions are solely [the obstacle of] affliction. Secondary afflictions and the rest are also like this; if according to the gate of mutual formation, they pervade both obstacles. Indeterminate are solely [the obstacle of] the knowable; if according to the gate of mutual formation, they pervade both obstacles. Regarding analysis according to the five resting grounds: universals pervade the five resting grounds. Specific-objects also pervade universally. Wholesome and the rest are not the five resting grounds. Afflictions pervade the five resting grounds. Secondary afflictions and the rest also pervade the five resting grounds. Such meanings can be inferred by analogy. The various delusions and obstacles will be broadly analyzed. Indeterminate pervade the five resting grounds, because through conditions they form the various delusions. Fourth, regarding analysis in contrast to the various consciousnesses: the ālayavijñāna gives rise to the five universals. The manas-consciousness gives rise to nine: the five universals, self-view, self-attachment, self-pride, and ignorance. The mental consciousness gives rise to all the factors in the six categories, including universals. The five consciousnesses are indeterminate: either the first five or all of them, because they are either identical in substance with or different in substance from the mental consciousness. Hence the sūtra says: 'There is one mental consciousness that conditions objects together with the five consciousnesses.' This is spoken according to the coarse aspects of the initial teaching of the triyāna. If discussed according to the final teaching of the triyāna, then the ālaya and the six consciousnesses and so forth all fully give rise to all mental factors, because the single consciousness forms the eleven consciousnesses. Fifth, regarding the analysis of nominal and real, nominal and real have three [aspects]: first, determining nominal and real according to conditioned origination. If according to this meaning, there is either conceptualization or non-conceptualization; being formed by conditions, they are free from conceptualization; responding to teachings, there is conceptualization. If according to this meaning, all pervade nominal and real: namely, being without self-nature, they are real; being formed by conditions, they are nominal. Second, clarifying nominal and real through root and branch. Afflictions are the root, and secondary afflictions are the branch, as is known from the treatises. Third, determining nominal and real through revealing principle by means of phenomena. When principle and phenomena correspond, it is real; when there is merely principle without phenomena, it is nominal, because nominal is spoken in accordance with the teaching of phenomena.