御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.10

2.10

經。是故須菩提至三菩提心　演曰。第四對治示忍因緣由三想生。一住流轉苦想。二住眾生相違苦想。三住乏受用苦想。由初想故不發菩提心。即不能忍生死流轉。不起安受苦忍。及諦察法忍。住眾生相違想故。見怨害苦。不起耐怨害忍住乏受用苦想。亦不能起安受苦忍。不能忍受寒熱飢乏等故。今為對治此三想故令生勝忍。初流轉苦通三界。是行苦。後二苦唯欲界。色界已上無寒熱乏少等故。然依相增眾生相違是苦苦。乏受用是壞苦。又流轉攝五苦。謂生老病死五陰盛苦。眾生相違攝怨憎會苦。愛別離苦。乏受用攝求不得苦。前明忍相中論解有二耐怨諦察。今明對治不忍因緣方解安受苦忍。或初流轉苦相雖亦不能起安受忍。而今意即不起諦察法忍。由不諦察二空道理住流轉想。或一向厭求自滅度。或由住著流轉苦生皆障菩提故。正對治令不住著。以下第三別解對治之受用因安受苦故。問。准論下解明暗喻中。唯據當果名乏受用。亦無安受苦忍之相。如何說是安受苦忍。答。下有二意。一令當果不乏。二雖乏受用而不生苦。不住相故。故論說為忍苦住攝對治。此三即為三段。初對流轉苦因緣中分四。初總標二別釋三重成四結勸。此初也。論云發菩提心者。以三種苦想故則不欲發心故。說應離一切相等。此中一切想者。為顯如是等三苦想也。演曰。大發大心要起慈悲救濟。含識觀諸法空解苦無苦。方於生死長時救度共證菩提。永出流轉。若見三苦起逼迫想。如人畏時非人得。便如是菩薩畏生死故。六塵得便自受流轉。安能救人。或見苦想自求涅槃不能息他流轉之苦。或見苦相相縛縛深復增麁重。或全誹撥邪見流迷常處生死。不能自息流轉之苦。是故發心不起三想免受流轉名為對治。其不發心是流轉苦之因緣也。問。此言邪三苦相障發大心勸離三相發菩提心。若爾應是三苦對治。如何唯說對治流轉苦因緣耶。答。理實發心能治三苦。由發心者起三妙觀。一厭生死即除流轉。二愍眾生即除相違。三求菩提即除乏受用。況此說為離三想故應治三苦。而言唯治流轉苦者。總別異故。謂發心是總離一切相。餘二是別各離相故。所治亦然。流轉是總。餘二苦別。以總除別故不相違。問。不發心障以何為體。答。即法執三想及癡貪等一切二障以為體性近流轉因正是無明。無明緣行故受流轉。癡之根本。即是智障。三相心是。由此離相發菩提心。癡等自滅無明滅故。乃至老死亦復隨滅。流轉自息故。彼論云。若有菩薩不離我相等。彼菩薩見苦行苦亦欲捨菩提心。為彼故說應離一切相發心等。偈言。

Sūtra: Therefore, Subhūti, [...] the mind of sambodhi. / Commentary: Fourth, showing the antidotes to the causes and conditions of [inability to] endure, which arise from three conceptions: first, dwelling on the conception of the suffering of saṃsāra (saṃsāra-pravṛtti); second, dwelling on the conception of the suffering of contradiction by sentient beings (sattva-vipratipatti); third, dwelling on the conception of the suffering of the lack of requisites for enjoyment (bhoga-vaihālya). Due to the first conception, one does not give rise to the bodhi-mind; that is, one cannot endure the flow of birth and death, and does not give rise to the patience of willingly accepting suffering (duḥkhādhivāsana-kṣānti) or the patience of carefully examining phenomena (dharma-pravicaya-kṣānti). Because of dwelling on the conception of contradiction by sentient beings, one sees the suffering of harm from enemies and does not give rise to the patience of enduring harm (parāpakāra-marṣaṇa-kṣānti). Dwelling on the conception of the lack of requisites for enjoyment, one also cannot give rise to the patience of willingly accepting suffering, because one cannot endure cold, heat, hunger, scarcity, and the like. Now, to counter these three conceptions, [the sūtra] causes superior patience to arise. The first—the suffering of saṃsāra—pervades the three realms; it is the suffering of conditioned existence (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā). The latter two sufferings pertain only to the desire realm, for above the form realm there is no cold, heat, scarcity, or the like. However, according to their predominant characteristics, contradiction by sentient beings is the suffering of suffering (duḥkha-duḥkhatā), and lack of requisites for enjoyment is the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā). Moreover, saṃsāra subsumes five sufferings, namely the sufferings of birth, old age, sickness, death, and the five aggregates of grasping. Contradiction by sentient beings subsumes the suffering of association with the disliked and separation from the beloved. Lack of requisites for enjoyment subsumes the suffering of not getting what one seeks. In the previous explanation of the marks of patience, the treatise explained two: enduring harm and careful examination. Now, in explaining the antidote to the causes and conditions of non-endurance, it only then explains the patience of willingly accepting suffering. Alternatively, although in the first case of the suffering of saṃsāra one also cannot give rise to the patience of accepting suffering, the present intention is that one does not give rise to the patience of carefully examining phenomena: because of not carefully examining the principle of the two emptinesses, one dwells on the conception of saṃsāra; either one solely seeks extinction for oneself out of revulsion, or, because of attachment, the suffering of saṃsāra arises—both obstructing bodhi. Therefore, the direct antidote causes one not to dwell or attach. This is because, in the third [section] below, the antidote regarding the causes of enjoyment is specifically explained through the patience of willingly accepting suffering. Question: According to the treatise's subsequent explanation of the metaphor of light and dark, it designates 'lack of requisites for enjoyment' solely based on the future fruition, and there is no mark of the patience of willingly accepting suffering either; how can this be said to be the patience of willingly accepting suffering? Answer: Below, there are two meanings: first, to cause the future fruition not to be lacking; second, even if there is a lack of enjoyment, no suffering arises, because one does not dwell on marks. Therefore, the treatise speaks of it as the antidote that subsumes dwelling in enduring suffering. These three make three sections. In the first—the causes and conditions countering the suffering of saṃsāra—there are four parts: first, a general statement; second, a specific explanation; third, a restatement for confirmation; fourth, a concluding exhortation. This is the first. The treatise states: 'Regarding generating the bodhi-mind: because of the conceptions of the three kinds of suffering, one does not wish to generate the mind; therefore it says that one should be free from all marks, etc.' Here, 'all conceptions' indicates such conceptions of the three sufferings. The Commentary says: To generate the great aspiration, one must give rise to compassion to rescue sentient beings and contemplate the emptiness of all dharmas, understanding suffering as without suffering; only then can one, throughout the long duration of birth and death, rescue them and together realize bodhi, forever emerging from saṃsāra. If, seeing the three sufferings, one gives rise to the conception of oppression, it is like when a person is afraid, non-humans take advantage. In the same way, because a bodhisattva fears birth and death, the six sensory objects take advantage, and he himself undergoes saṃsāra; how could he rescue others? Or, seeing the conception of suffering, he seeks nirvāṇa for himself and cannot put an end to others' suffering of saṃsāra. Or, seeing the marks of suffering, he is deeply bound by the bondage of marks and further increases heavy dross. Or, completely negating through wrong views and wandering lost in the flow, he constantly remains in birth and death, unable to put an end to his own suffering of saṃsāra. Therefore, generating the mind and not giving rise to the three conceptions, thereby escaping saṃsāra, is called the antidote. Not generating the mind is the cause and condition of the suffering of saṃsāra. Question: Here it is said that the marks of the three sufferings obstruct the generation of the great aspiration, and one is exhorted to be free from the three marks and generate the bodhi-mind; if so, this should be the antidote to the three sufferings; why is it only said to be the antidote to the causes and conditions of the suffering of saṃsāra? Answer: In truth, generating the mind can counter the three sufferings. Because one who generates the mind gives rise to three wondrous contemplations: first, revulsion toward birth and death eliminates saṃsāra; second, pity for sentient beings eliminates contradiction; third, seeking bodhi eliminates the lack of requisites for enjoyment. Furthermore, this is spoken of as freeing oneself from the three conceptions, so it should counter the three sufferings. That it is said to only counter the suffering of saṃsāra is due to the difference between general and specific: generating the mind is the general abandonment of all marks, while the other two are specific abandonments of their respective marks. What is countered is also like this: saṃsāra is general, and the other two sufferings are specific; using the general to eliminate the specific involves no contradiction. Question: What is the intrinsic nature of the obstacle to generating the mind? Answer: It takes dharma-grasping, the three conceptions, and all of the two obstacles such as delusion, greed, and so forth as its intrinsic nature. The proximate cause of saṃsāra is precisely ignorance: with ignorance as condition, formations arise, and thus one undergoes saṃsāra. The root of delusion is precisely the cognitive obstacle; the mind with the three marks is it. Because of being free from marks and generating the bodhi-mind, delusion and the like naturally cease; because ignorance ceases, aging and death likewise cease, and saṃsāra naturally comes to an end. Therefore, that treatise states: 'If there are bodhisattvas who are not free from the conception of a self, etc., those bodhisattvas, seeing suffering and the suffering of conditioned existence, also wish to abandon the bodhi-mind. For their sake, it is said that one should be free from all marks and generate the mind, etc.' The verse says: