維摩經疏 1.15

1.15

就前生空觀中。第一就四大上破人我顯生空。第二又此病起皆由著我已下就五陰上破人我顯生空。問曰。何故約此兩處而說。答曰。良以眾生所計不同。自有眾生就四大上以起人我。自有眾生就五陰上起此人我。乃至十二入十八界亦如是如是。是故今時且約兩處破其別計。及至得彼無我觀時於四大上得知無我。不須觀陰。於五陰上得知無我。不須觀四大。又復前四大破其我相。後五陰上破其我見。就前四大上作無我觀中。初作無相性觀。次所以者何已下明作依他性觀。就前無相性觀中先明推因後正破我。維摩詰言有疾菩薩應作是念今我此病皆從前世妄想顛倒諸煩惱生者。此明推因也。有疾菩薩者取十信末後心正欲入十解初心。箇中菩薩應作是念者。推因之心不云念相。今我此病皆從前世妄想顛倒諸煩惱生今我此病者。我此病果及以病事從前世者。界內修道所斷煩惱名想倒也。顛倒者。界內見道所斷煩惱名為見倒也。由此過去二輪煩惱發業潤生感我現在病果病事。此即推因訖。問曰。本欲破我。何不直破。乃須推因。答曰。夫論斷病果者。要須斷因。其因既無。果自不起。現在果法不可說斷。故下文言。但除其病而不除法。今計我者。於彼四大果報之上計為有我。果報之法既不可斷。故須推因。第二義者。今明菩薩欲作空觀從因。故當知是空。故論中云。因緣所生法我說即是空。故須推因也。自下正明作無相性觀破其我相。無有實法誰受病者。實法者。凡夫計我言自實是我體自在是我用。今明破其我體。果報身者。從彼過去煩惱因生。何處得有自實之我。故言無有實法。實我既無。誰當受病。故言誰受病者。自下明作依他性觀。先徵後釋。所以者何微也。凡夫言現見有我。青黃赤白麻麥母指。所以言無者。何自下釋。釋中舉彼四大示之令知無我。即是舉依他性遣分別性也。問曰。夫論遣分別性要。須是緣空。無漏之觀方能破我。依他性者乃是緣有即是有漏。云何破我。答曰。今言。以依他性破其我者。此是觀前方便。未入觀前緣此四大得知無我。正入觀時但緣於空不緣四大。藤蛇之喻可以准知。四大合故假名為身者。觀別成總明身假有。四大無主身亦我者。觀別破總彰我實無。攬彼四大以成此身。四大之中既無主宰。身何有我。上來約就四大作生空觀破人我相訖。自下約就五陰作生空觀破其我見。文中先明舉障後明翻障顯斷。又此病起皆由著我者。舉障也。亦是推因。前約四大已觀無我。今就五陰復觀無我。是故言又此病起者。五陰病果也。皆由著我者。明推因也。由我見故發業招生感此病果五陰身也。故十地經云。以著我故世間受身處生。若離著我則不世間受身生處生也。是故於我不應生著者。舉觀勸厭。是前病起由著我故應當於我不生計著。上來舉障訖。自下翻障顯斷。文中有二。初明無相性觀。當起法想已下次明依他性觀。既知病本即除我想及眾生想者明無性觀。既知病本者知前著我為起病之本即除我想及眾生想者。觀過斷除。我與眾生能招病果故名為本。教令斷却故言即除。於五陰上別計神主名之為我。於五陰上和合計我名曰眾生。總別雖殊。同是我見故齊名想。自下明作依他性觀。當起法想者。此句是總。上無想性觀直於陰上破其我執。不示陰體。此依他性觀舉陰示之令捨我執。但是五陰果報之法。何處有彼本住神我。勸捨我見之心。教起陰法之想。故言當起法想。自下明別。別中初觀察五陰。除其總我破眾生想。次又此法者已下觀察五陰除其別我破其我想。就前文中應作是念。但以眾法合成此身者。觀別成總。明身假有。起唯法起滅唯法滅者。觀別破總。明我實無。應作是念者。教其依法起於觀心故言應作是念。但之言單以之言。用陰體非一故名眾法。五陰眾法和合成身。推其體性不離五陰。是故生滅唯是陰法。陰法之上何處更有和合眾生說起說滅也。自下觀察五陰除其別我破其我相。又此法者各不相知者。觀察五陰也。前已破總。此更破別。是故言又此法者五陰法也。各不相知者。計我之家謂彼神我體。是神知名為知者。五陰之法從色至識次第觀之。□□□□故言若不相知。自下正明除其別我。起時不言我起滅時不言我滅者。計我之人於五陰中別執為我。五陰生時亦言我生。五陰滅時亦言我滅。今觀陰法本無我故亦非知者。我與知者既其本無。誰分別言我生我滅也。上來約就五陰作生空觀破遣人我。合名第一作生空觀訖。即是十解初心直來菩薩四住之中斷見一處住地也。

Within the contemplation of the emptiness of persons above, first, with respect to the four great elements, it refutes the self of persons to reveal the emptiness of persons. Second, from “Furthermore, this illness arises entirely from attachment to a self” onward, with respect to the five aggregates, it refutes the self of persons to reveal the emptiness of persons. Question: Why is it explained in terms of these two loci? Answer: It is truly because what sentient beings grasp at differs. There are sentient beings who generate this self of persons upon the four great elements; there are sentient beings who generate this self of persons upon the five aggregates; and so forth up to the twelve sense bases and eighteen realms, which are also likewise. Therefore, now we temporarily take these two loci to refute their particular graspings. When one attains that contemplation of nonself, if upon the four great elements one comes to know nonself, one does not need to contemplate the aggregates; if upon the five aggregates one comes to know nonself, one does not need to contemplate the four great elements. Furthermore, the former four great elements refute the mark of self, while the latter five aggregates refute the view of self. In performing the contemplation of nonself upon the former four great elements, first one performs the contemplation of the signless nature, and next, from “Why is this?” onward, it explains performing the contemplation of the dependent nature. In the contemplation of the signless nature above, it first explains tracing the cause and afterward directly refutes the self. When Vimalakīrti says, “The ill bodhisattva should think: ‘Now this illness of mine has all arisen from the deluded thoughts, inversions, and all the afflictions of past lives,’” this clarifies tracing the cause. “The ill bodhisattva” refers to those at the final thought of the ten faiths who are just about to enter the initial thought of the ten understandings; the bodhisattvas among them “should think”—the mind that traces the cause is not called the mark of thought. “Now this illness of mine has all arisen from the deluded thoughts, inversions, and all the afflictions of past lives”: “Now this illness of mine” refers to the result of my illness as well as the matter of illness. “From past lives”: the afflictions abandoned by the path of cultivation within the realms are called the inversion of thought. “Inversions”: the afflictions abandoned by the path of seeing within the realms are called the inversion of view. Due to these two wheels of affliction in the past motivating karma and moistening rebirth, they bring about my present result of illness and matter of illness. This concludes tracing the cause. Question: Originally one wishes to refute the self; why not refute it directly, instead of needing to trace the cause? Answer: As for eliminating the result of illness, one must eliminate the cause. Once that cause is absent, the result naturally does not arise. The present result-dharmas cannot be said to be eliminated; therefore, the text below says: “Only remove its illness, but do not remove the dharmas.” Now, those who grasp at a self grasp that there is a self upon those resultant retributions of the four great elements. Since the dharmas of resultant retribution cannot be eliminated, one must trace the cause. As for the second meaning: now it clarifies that when a bodhisattva wishes to perform the contemplation of emptiness, it follows from the cause; therefore, one should know that it is empty. Thus a treatise states: “Whatever dharma is produced by causes and conditions, that I explain as emptiness.” Therefore, one must trace the cause. Next, it directly clarifies performing the contemplation of the signless nature to refute the mark of self: “There is no real dharma; who experiences the illness?” A “real dharma”: ordinary people grasp at a self, saying that intrinsically real is the essence of my self, and sovereign is the function of my self. Now it explains refuting the essence of the self. The body of resultant retribution is produced from those past causes of afflictions; how could there be an intrinsically real self? Hence it says: “There is no real dharma.” Since a real self is absent, who could experience the illness? Hence it says: “Who experiences the illness?” Next, it clarifies performing the contemplation of the dependent nature, first interrogating and then explaining. “Why is this?” is the interrogation. The ordinary person says: “We presently see that there is a self: blue, yellow, red, white, hemp, barley, or the size of a thumb. Why do you say it is absent?” Next comes the explanation. Within the explanation, it adduces those four great elements and shows them so as to cause one to know nonself; that is, adducing the dependent nature to dispel the discriminated nature. Question: When dispelling the discriminated nature, it must be an outflow-free contemplation conditioned on emptiness that can refute the self. The dependent nature is conditioned on existence, which is with outflows; how does it refute the self? Answer: Now saying that one refutes the self by means of the dependent nature is an expedient prior to contemplation. Prior to entering contemplation, one conditions upon these four great elements and comes to know nonself; when directly entering contemplation, one only conditions upon emptiness and does not condition upon the four great elements. One may know this by analogy with the rope and the snake. “Because the four great elements combine, it is provisionally designated a body”: contemplating the particulars to form the whole clarifies that the body is provisionally existent. “The four great elements have no master, and the body also [lacks a self]”: contemplating the particulars to refute the whole reveals that the self is truly nonexistent. Gathering those four great elements together forms this body. Since within the four great elements there is no master or ruler, how could the body have a self? The above, performing the contemplation of the emptiness of persons in terms of the four great elements to refute the mark of the self of persons, is concluded. Next, in terms of the five aggregates, it performs the contemplation of the emptiness of persons to refute the view of self. In the text, it first clarifies adducing the obstacle, and afterward clarifies overturning the obstacle to reveal abandonment. “Furthermore, this illness arises entirely from attachment to a self” adduces the obstacle; it is also tracing the cause. Previously, in terms of the four great elements, it has already contemplated nonself; now, with respect to the five aggregates, it again contemplates nonself. Therefore, it says: “Furthermore, this illness arises”: the result of illness of the five aggregates. “Entirely from attachment to a self” clarifies tracing the cause. Due to the view of self, one motivates karma and招brings about rebirth, evoking this result of illness, the body of the five aggregates. Thus the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says: “Because of attachment to a self, one receives a body and takes birth in a place in the world. If one is free from attachment to a self, one does not receive a body and take birth in a place in the world.” “Therefore, toward a self, one should not generate attachment”: adducing the contemplation to urge revulsion. Since the preceding illness arose due to attachment to a self, one should not generate clinging attachment toward a self. The above adducing of the obstacle is concluded. Next, it overturns the obstacle to reveal abandonment. In the text there are two parts: first, it clarifies the contemplation of the signless nature; second, from “One should generate the conception of dharmas” onward, it clarifies the contemplation of the dependent nature. “Having known the root of illness, one immediately eliminates the conception of a self and the conception of sentient beings” clarifies the contemplation of the signless nature. “Having known the root of illness”: knowing that the preceding attachment to a self is the root from which illness arises. “One immediately eliminates the conception of a self and the conception of sentient beings”: contemplating the error and eliminating it. The self and sentient beings are able to incur the result of illness, hence they are called the root. Instructing them to cut it away, it therefore says “immediately eliminates.” Particularly grasping at a spiritual master upon the five aggregates is named a self; grasping at a self in combination upon the five aggregates is called a sentient being. Although general and particular differ, they are identically the view of self, hence they are equally named “conception.” Next, it clarifies performing the contemplation of the dependent nature. “One should generate the conception of dharmas”: this phrase is general. The preceding contemplation of the signless nature directly refuted the grasping at self upon the aggregates without showing the substance of the aggregates. This contemplation of the dependent nature adduces the aggregates and shows them so as to cause one to abandon the grasping at self: these are merely the dharmas of resultant retribution of the five aggregates; how could there be that inherently abiding spiritual self? It urges abandoning the mind of the view of self, and instructs generating the conception of the aggregate-dharmas; therefore, it says: “One should generate the conception of dharmas.” Below it clarifies the particulars. Within the particulars, first it contemplates the five aggregates to eliminate the general self and refute the conception of sentient beings. Next, from “Furthermore, these dharmas” onward, it contemplates the five aggregates to eliminate the particular self and refute the conception of a self. In the preceding text, “One should think: ‘Only by a multitude of dharmas combining is this body formed’” contemplates the particulars to form the whole, clarifying that the body is provisionally existent. “Arising is merely the arising of dharmas; ceasing is merely the ceasing of dharmas” contemplates the particulars to refute the whole, clarifying that the self is truly nonexistent. “One should think”: instructing one to generate the contemplative mind in reliance on the dharmas, hence it says “one should think.” “Only” (但) means solely; “by” (以) means using. Because the substance of the aggregates is not one, they are called a multitude of dharmas. The multitude of dharmas of the five aggregates combine to form a body. Tracing their essential nature, it does not depart from the five aggregates. Therefore, arising and ceasing are solely aggregate-dharmas. Above the aggregate-dharmas, how could there be a further combined sentient being about whom arising and ceasing are spoken? Next, it contemplates the five aggregates to eliminate the particular self and refute the mark of self. “Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another” contemplates the five aggregates. Previously it has refuted the general; here it further refutes the particular. Therefore, it says: “Furthermore, these dharmas”: the dharmas of the five aggregates. “Do not know one another”: the schools that grasp at a self claim that the substance of that spiritual self is a spiritual knowing, which is called the knower. The dharmas of the five aggregates, from form to consciousness, are contemplated in sequence, […] therefore it says they do not know one another. Below, it directly clarifies eliminating the particular self. “When arising, it does not say ‘I arise’; when ceasing, it does not say ‘I cease’”: persons who grasp at a self grasp particularly at a self among the five aggregates. When the five aggregates arise, they also say “I arise”; when the five aggregates cease, they also say “I cease.” Now, contemplating that the aggregate-dharmas fundamentally have no self, they are also not a knower. Since the self and the knower are fundamentally nonexistent, who discriminates, saying “I arise” and “I cease”? The above, performing the contemplation of the emptiness of persons in terms of the five aggregates to refute and dispel the self of persons, together is named the first, performing the contemplation of the emptiness of persons, concluded. This is the stage of the ground of dwelling in views alone among the four grounds of dwelling, for the bodhisattva coming directly from the initial thought of the ten understandings.