華嚴經疏 1.25.1

1.25.1

自下第七明說分作四門。 初釋名者。 演暢宣陳十地差別故名說分。 二來意者。 前略請滿剛藏告眾許說一分故。 次正說以顯地法。 三說意者。 前本請分中已說地體。 令彼上機悟解玄旨。 今辨地相。 令中下之流隨相開解故明說也。 又前已略示令生正解。 今更廣陳令起行修故明說也。 四釋文中說十地即為十段。 就初地中略作七門。 一釋名。 二來意。 三斷障。 四證理。 五成行。 六得果。 七釋文。 初釋名者。 唯識論第九云。 一極喜地。 初獲聖性具證二空。 能益自他生大喜故。 解云。 此有三義。 一得位。 二證理。 三成行。 皆初獲得故生歡喜也。 攝論中唯依第二成行義釋故。 無性及世親各第七卷云。 由此最初得能成辨自他義利勝功能故。 謂如菩薩入現觀時。 得能成辨自他義利最勝功能。 生極歡喜。 非聲聞等入現觀時。 唯得成辨自利功能。 生如是喜故。 不說彼名極喜地。 依十住毘婆沙論。 唯約證理釋。 彼論云。 始得法味生大歡喜。 依瑜伽七十八。 及解深密經第四。 同約二義釋。 彼云。 成就大義。 得未曾得出世間心生大歡喜故。 解云。 大義即是二利行。 成出世間心。 是得聖位。 同十地論成就二行及得聖位。 如本分中釋。 餘義如下釋名分。 辨二次第者。 何故最初明此地者。 謂先地前加行功力無間發起。 本性無漏功能令生現行。 初無漏智證見真理。 滅惑成行故。 先明此三所斷者。 唯識論第九斷異生性障。 謂二障中分別起者。 依彼種立異生性故。 二乘見道現在前時。 唯斷一種名得聖性。 菩薩見道現在前時。 具斷二種名得聖性。 解云。 異生者執異見而生故○異生即舊名凡夫也。 性者即是分別二障種上假立不相應法。 依彼種上立此性故。 即說彼種名異生性障。 此即異生之障依主釋。 梁論名凡夫性。 無明十地論名凡夫我相障。 解云。 此約二執道名我相故不相違。 又此異生性雖依種立。 然見道前現行分別。 亦此障攝故。 唯識云。 執著我法愚即是此障。 故知通現。 問。 若分別二障現種為體。 如何二愚唯現非種。 答。 障寬愚狹故不相違。 又此異生性。 雖通本隨分別現種。 然由執著云何引發。 故貪瞋等攝屬二執。 問。 聖位翻凡。 何故初地聖性唯依種立。 答。 以現行間斷故非聖性。 問。 若爾地前已有無漏法爾智種。 何不於彼立為聖性。 答。 以凡聖二性同時相違過失故。 雖有種而非聖性。 如滅心定。 依種假立微。 微心時雖有彼性而非滅定。 以有心無心義相違故亦同彼。 又釋地前未有彼無漏種故非聖性。 法爾種子非所許故。 問。 既異生性是不相應行攝。 聖性翻凡。 何不亦立不相應邪。 答。 依大乘宗。 聖性亦是不相應攝。 即二十四中非得是也。 以宗許此通無漏故。 不同小乘不通無漏。 又釋異生劣故。 別立不相應。 聖法力勝故。 不別立亦不相違。 又唯識云。 雖初地所斷實通二障。 而異生性障意取所知說。 十無明非染污故。 無明即是十障品愚。 上來且約斷煩惱說。 理實初地亦除惡趣諸業果等。 是故要說具斷二愚及彼麁重。 一執著我法愚。 即是異生性障。 二惡趣雜染愚。 即是惡趣諸業果等。 應知愚品總說為愚。 解云。 顯上二愚非唯無明執我法時。 所有愚及俱起法說為初愚。 愚品類惡趣業果體雖非愚。 愚所發業及所感果總說為愚。 彼論又說。 利鈍障品俱起以為二愚。 即與五見利品俱起同時無明名為初愚。 與貪等鈍品俱起名為後愚。 言麁重者。 彼論二釋論云。 彼麁重言顯彼二種。 或二所起無堪任性。 解云。 此初釋麁重。 即是二愚種子惡故名麁。 沈沒稱重。 故知二愚唯約現行。 復釋二愚所引。 令身心中無堪任性麁梗沈重故名麁重。 非現非種。

From here below, the seventh [division], clarifying the division of the exposition, consists of four sections: First, the explanation of the name: because it expands, expounds, declares, and sets forth the differences among the ten grounds, it is called the division of the exposition. Second, the reason for its occurrence: previously, [the request in] the brief request section having been fulfilled, Vajragarbha informed the assembly and promised to speak on a single portion; next, he formally speaks to reveal the teachings on the grounds. Third, the purpose of the exposition: previously, in the original request section, the essence of the grounds was already explained to cause those with superior capacity to awaken to and understand the profound purport; now, he distinguishes the characteristics of the grounds to cause those of middling and lower capacity to attain awakening and understanding in accord with these characteristics; thus he clarifies the exposition. Furthermore, previously he briefly indicated it to give rise to correct understanding; now, he further sets it forth extensively to induce them to give rise to practice and cultivation; thus he clarifies the exposition. Fourth, the explanation of the text: explaining the ten grounds constitutes ten sections. Within the first ground, briefly seven sections are made: 1. explaining the name; 2. the reason for its sequence; 3. severing obstacles; 4. realizing the principle; 5. perfecting practice; 6. attaining the fruits; 7. explaining the text. First, explaining the name: Fascicle 9 of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "First, the Joyous Ground (Pramuditā-bhūmi). Having first obtained noble nature and fully realized the twofold emptiness, one is able to benefit oneself and others, and gives rise to great joy." The commentary explains: This has three meanings: 1. attaining the stage; 2. realizing the principle; 3. perfecting practice. Because all are obtained for the first time, one gives rise to joy. In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, it is explained solely relying on the second meaning of perfecting practice; hence, Fascicle 7 of Asvabhāva and of Vasubandhu each state: "Because one initially obtains the superior capability able to accomplish the benefit and welfare of oneself and others. That is, just as when a bodhisattva enters the direct realization (abhisamaya), he obtains the most supreme capability able to accomplish the benefit and welfare of oneself and others, and gives rise to extreme joy; it is not like the śrāvakas and others who, when entering direct realization, only obtain the capability to accomplish self-benefit, and do not give rise to such joy; thus, their [state] is not called the Joyous Ground." Relying on the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā, it is explained solely in terms of realizing the principle; that treatise says: "Beginning to obtain the taste of Dharma, one gives rise to great joy." Relying on Fascicle 78 of the Yogācārabhūmi and Fascicle 4 of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, it is explained in terms of both meanings alike; they say: "Accomplishing great welfare and obtaining the supramundane mind never before obtained, one gives rise to great joy." The commentary explains: "Great welfare" is the practice of twofold benefit; "attaining the supramundane mind" is attaining the noble stage. This accords with the Daśabhūmikā-śāstra's accomplishing the two practices and attaining the noble stage, as explained in the root division. The remaining meanings are as explained below in the section on explaining the name. Second, distinguishing its sequence: Why is this ground clarified first? Because previously, through the continuous activation of the effort of preparation prior to the grounds, the non-outflow capability of the original nature is caused to arise in active manifestation (samudhācāra). The initial non-outflow cognition realizes and sees the true principle, extinguishing afflictions and perfecting practice; therefore, this is clarified first. Third, what is severed: Fascicle 9 of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi [says]: Severing the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings (pṛthagjanatva-āvaraṇa). That is, among the two obstacles, those arising from discrimination, because based on their seeds the nature of ordinary beings is posited. When the path of seeing of the two vehicles manifests before them, they sever only one kind, which is called attaining the noble nature. When the path of seeing of a bodhisattva manifests before him, he fully severs both kinds, which is called attaining the noble nature. The commentary explains: "Ordinary beings" (pṛthagjana) are so called because they are born clinging to divergent views. (Ordinary being is the old translation for fánfū). "Nature" (jāti/bhāva) is an unassociated dharmas (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) nominally posited upon the seeds of the two obstacles arising from discrimination. Because this nature is posited upon those seeds, those seeds are called the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings. This is the obstacle of ordinary beings, interpreted as a genitive tatpuruṣa compound. In the Liang [translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-]śāstra, it is named "nature of the worldling." In the Daśabhūmikā-śāstra, it is named "obstacle of the mark of self of the worldling." The commentary explains: Here, referring to the path of the two graspings, it is named the mark of self; thus there is no contradiction. Furthermore, although this nature of ordinary beings is posited on the basis of seeds, the active discriminations prior to the path of seeing are also subsumed under this obstacle; therefore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "The delusion of grasping onto self and dharmas is precisely this obstacle." Hence, one knows that it includes the active manifestations. Question: If the active manifestations and seeds of the two obstacles of discrimination constitute its essence, how can the two delusions be only active manifestations and not seeds? Answer: Obstacles are broad and delusions are narrow; thus there is no contradiction. Furthermore, although this nature of ordinary beings encompasses both root and derivative discriminations, active manifestations and seeds, nevertheless, how are they induced by grasping? Therefore, greed, anger, and the like are subsumed under the two graspings. Question: The noble stage is the reversal of the ordinary; why is the noble nature of the first ground posited solely on the basis of seeds? Answer: Because active manifestations are subject to interruption, they are not the noble nature. Question: If so, prior to the grounds there already are seeds of the naturally inherent non-outflow cognition; why is the noble nature not posited upon them? Answer: Because of the fault of mutual contradiction between the two natures, ordinary and noble, at the same time, although the seeds exist, they are not the noble nature. It is like the absorption of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), which is nominally posited based on seeds; at the time of subtle and faint mind, although that nature exists, it is not the absorption of cessation; because the senses of having mind and having no mind are mutually contradictory, it is also the same as that. Alternatively, it is explained that prior to the grounds those non-outflow seeds do not yet exist, so it is not the noble nature, because naturally inherent seeds are not accepted [in that position]. Question: Since the nature of ordinary beings is subsumed under the unassociated formations, and the noble nature is the reversal of the ordinary, why is [the noble nature] not also posited as an unassociated [formation]? Answer: According to the Mahāyāna school, the noble nature is also subsumed under the unassociated [formations]; that is, it is non-acquisition (aprāpti) among the twenty-four. Because this school accepts that this extends to non-outflow, unlike the Hīnayāna, which does not allow it to extend to non-outflow. Alternatively, it is explained that because ordinary beings are inferior, an unassociated [formation] is separately posited; because the power of noble dharmas is superior, not separately positing it also does not contradict. Furthermore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Although what is severed on the first ground actually encompasses both obstacles, the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings is spoken of with the intent of the knowable (jñeya); because the ten ignorances are not defiled." Ignorance is precisely the delusions of the category of the ten obstacles. The above has been explained merely in terms of severing afflictions; in truth, on the first ground one also eliminates the karmic fruits and so forth of the bad destinies. Therefore, it must be said that one fully severs the two delusions and their heavy coarseness (dauṣṭhulya): 1. the delusion of grasping onto self and dharmas, which is precisely the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings; 2. the delusion of defilement of bad destinies, which is precisely the karmic fruits and so forth of bad destinies. It should be known that the categories of delusion are collectively spoken of as delusion. The commentary explains: This shows that the above two delusions are not only ignorance: when grasping onto self and dharmas, all delusions and concomitant dharmas are spoken of as the first delusion. Although the karmic fruits of the bad destinies of the category of delusion are not delusion in their essence, the karma generated by delusion and the fruits induced [by it] are collectively spoken of as delusion. That treatise also says: Sharp and dull categories of obstacles arising together constitute the two delusions; that is, the simultaneous ignorance arising together with the sharp category of the five views is called the first delusion; that arising together with the dull category of greed and the like is called the latter delusion. As for "heavy coarseness," that treatise offers two explanations; the treatise says: "That word 'heavy coarseness' signifies those two kinds, or the unfitness (akarmaṇyatā) arisen from the two." The commentary explains: This first explanation of heavy coarseness is precisely the seeds of the two delusions; because they are bad, they are called coarse, and because they sink down, they are termed heavy. Hence one knows that the two delusions are taken solely in terms of active manifestation. The second explanation is what is induced by the two delusions, which causes in body and mind an unfitness that is rough, obstructive, sunken, and heavy; hence it is called heavy coarseness. It is neither active manifestation nor seed.