御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.90

2.90

Sūtra: "Subhūti, a bodhisattva is also like this," up to "is not called a bodhisattva." Exposition: From here down, free from arrogance is not [yet] the realization of reality; one should accord with reality without subject or object. Having subject and object obstructs the realization of reality. Attaining the noble realization of the true principle, one should accord with reality and not give rise to an 'I' that is able to practice bodhisattva deeds, liberate sentient beings, and so forth. If one gives rise to this, one will definitely not see tathatā, because due to inversion it obstructs subsequent realization of the true principle. Because that bodhisattva, having attained the true principle, subsequently in a distracted mind gives rise to innate arrogance, saying, 'I am able to practice and attain realization of the true principle,' this text appears now in order to sever it. However, this arrogance is a jñeyāvaraṇa; called by the name of an affliction, it is concurrent with the sixth consciousness. From the eighth bhūmi upward it will never arise again. That concurrent with the seventh will never function again only upon reaching the vajropama-samādhi. The arrogance spoken of here is provisionally in terms of the sixth arising as 'I am able' and so forth, not the mental mode of the seventh. Therefore, when arrogance arises in the first seven bhūmis, one definitely does not realize reality; claiming to have realized reality, one is not a bodhisattva. It is not that when it does not arise, one is also not a bodhisattva. The Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra and other texts all state that the ten bhūmis sever the jñeyāvaraṇa and do not sever afflictions. In that treatise, from here downward, in order to sever the thirteenth doubt that the practice and vow are not accomplished, the treatise says: 'If there are no bodhisattvas, the Buddhas would not accomplish great bodhi either, sentient beings would not enter great nirvāṇa either, and there would be no pure Buddha lands either. If so, for what purpose do bodhisattvas give rise to the intention wishing to cause sentient beings to enter nirvāṇa, and give rise to the mind to practice and purify Buddha lands?' It clarifies that although one practices, there is no inversion. This text appears to resolve the former doubt. This [text] is in terms of eliminating arrogance; that [treatise] is in terms of eliminating inversion. Inversion is perceptual inversion, which is also a jñeyāvaraṇa. Since both eliminate arrogance and inversion to break doubtful thoughts, they share the same meaning. The text is divided into four: first, addressing; second, questioning; third, explaining; fourth, concluding. This is the first. Previously it said that the Tathāgata can realize tathatā, possesses a wondrous great body, and that not being a body is called a body. A bodhisattva should also correspond to that tathatā and not give rise to arrogance and inversion; hence it says 'is also like this.' If one says 'I am able to bring sentient beings to final nirvāṇa,' one does not correspond to the true principle and is not a bodhisattva.