華嚴經明法品內立三寶章 1.50

1.50

總中有四義：一、相違義，以背滅為生，生盡為滅，以相違故成生滅。二、順義，以前念若不滅，後念不生，要由滅前念後念方生，是故相順方成生滅。問：若前念不滅、後念不得生，以二念不並故者，既其滅已，亦不得生，以生無所依故，如論云「滅法何能緣？故無次第緣。」是故滅已無物，誰能生後？答：滅有二種：一斷滅、二剎那滅。今非斷滅，故不同無物。問：此剎那滅若不同無物，應非是滅。答：是剎那滅必引後故，不同無物。若不引後，非此滅故。問：若剎那必引後生，是即不得入無心定等，以滅已無間要必生故。答：剎那有二位：一、約能依轉識麁故，皆從自種生，前念、後念近遠俱為等無聞緣；二、約所依本識細故，前後流注，滅已更生，無間相續。問：若爾，入寂二乘最後滅心應亦還生，即無涅槃，便成大過。答：若約小乘初教，可如所難，以彼宗中許入寂二乘永滅斷故。若終教等即不如此，以二乘人燒分段身，生滅度想，入於涅槃，而餘世界受變易身，受佛教化，行菩薩道，乃至成佛，盡於未來無有斷絕，以無眾生作非眾生故。四記論中，滅者復生分別記者，此約小乘說。問：此微細滅既自不住，何能有力而生後念？答：以依真如如來藏故，令此生滅得生滅也，經云「依如來藏故有生滅心」等。又經云「依無住本立一切法」等。是故滅無真依，無以起生；生不依真，不從滅起。《起信論》云「不生不滅與生滅和合，名阿梨耶識。」是即流轉是不流轉轉也，是故相順而成生滅。三、此二亦違亦順方得生滅，由前二義不相離故，以若不滅，生無以生；生若不依滅，無以背滅。是故由極相違，方極相順，思之可解。四、非違非順方得生滅，由前二義相形奪故，以無二為一，離二相故，違順雙泯故。

In the general, there are four senses: First, the sense of mutual conflict: turning away from cessation is arising, and the exhaustion of arising is cessation; through mutual conflict, arising and ceasing are established. Second, the sense of accord: if the prior thought did not cease, the posterior thought would not arise; it is precisely through the cessation of the prior thought that the posterior thought arises, so through mutual accord, arising and ceasing are established. Question: If when the prior thought does not cease, the posterior thought cannot arise because two thoughts cannot coexist, then once it has already ceased, it also cannot arise, because arising would have no support; as the treatise states: "How could a ceased dharma serve as an object-condition? Thus there is no immediately preceding condition." Therefore, once ceased there is no entity; what could produce the subsequent? Answer: Cessation is of two kinds: first, annihilating cessation; second, momentary cessation. Now it is not annihilating cessation, so it is not the same as the absence of entities. Question: If this momentary cessation is not the same as the absence of entities, it should not be cessation. Answer: It is momentary cessation precisely because it necessarily induces the subsequent; it is not the same as the absence of entities. If it did not induce the subsequent, it would not be this cessation. Question: If the moment necessarily induces subsequent arising, one could not enter the concentration of non-mind and the like, because having ceased, it must necessarily arise without interval. Answer: The moment has two stages: first, in terms of the evolving consciousnesses that are supported, which are coarse, all arise from their own seeds, and the prior and posterior thoughts, whether near or far, both serve as equal and immediately preceding conditions; second, in terms of the fundamental consciousness which is the support, which is subtle, flowing continuously forward and backward, having ceased it arises again, continuing without interval. Question: If so, the final ceased mind of the two vehicles entering extinction should also arise again, meaning there would be no nirvāṇa, which would become a great error. Answer: In terms of the initial teaching of the Hīnayāna, this objection is tenable, because in that tenet it is maintained that the two vehicles entering extinction are eternally annihilated. In the final teaching and above, it is not like this, because persons of the two vehicles burn the karmically conditioned physical body, generate the notion of extinction, and enter nirvāṇa, yet in another world they receive a body of transformation, receive the Buddha's teaching, practice the bodhisattva path, and up until they become Buddhas extending through the future, there is no termination, because no sentient being ever becomes a non-sentient-being. In the Four Classes of Questions, the analytical response regarding whether the ceased will arise again is explained in terms of the Hīnayāna. Question: Since this subtle cessation does not abide in itself, how could it have the power to produce the posterior thought? Answer: Because it relies on the tathatā-tathāgatagarbha, it causes this arising and ceasing to be capable of arising and ceasing. A sūtra states: "Relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing," and so forth. Another sūtra states: "Relying on the non-abiding root, all dharmas are established," and so forth. Therefore, if cessation lacked a real support, it would have no way to generate arising; if arising did not rely on the real, it would not arise from cessation. The Awakening of Faith states: "Neither arising nor ceasing combined with arising and ceasing is called the ālayavijñāna." Thus saṃsāric transmigration is the turning of non-transmigration; therefore, through mutual accord, arising and ceasing are established. Third, these two are both conflicting and in accord, and only then do we have arising and ceasing: because the previous two senses are inseparable; for if there were no cessation, arising would have no way to arise, and if arising did not rely on cessation, it would have no way to turn away from cessation. Therefore, by being extremely conflicting they are extremely in accord; reflecting on this, it can be understood. Fourth, being neither conflicting nor in accord, only then do we have arising and ceasing: because the previous two senses mutually displace each other, taking non-duality as oneness, departing from both marks, and both conflict and accord are completely eliminated.