維摩經疏 1.16

1.16

自下第二明法空觀。即是十解第二剎那已去菩薩學伏界外有所得心加行智中學法空觀也。文有二別。初明舉障顯過。我應離之已下次明翻障顯斷。前舉障中初正明舉障。次明顯過。彼有疾菩薩為滅法想當作是念此法想者亦是顛者。此明障也。彼有疾菩薩者。彼取十解第二念已去菩薩。為滅法想者。前生空觀緣法遣生。不破法體。今法空中破其法體亦不可得。緣法之心名為法想。菩薩欲除故言為滅。境界之法從心而生。但使斷心法自不起故言為滅法想。當作是念此法想者亦是顛倒者。前人我執已是見倒。今法我執復是心倒。倒義同前故言亦是。執五陰法為有定性。翻彼法空無所得理故名顛倒。下明顯過顛倒者。是即大患者。此之心倒為過處故名大患。解有多義。是大障故故名大患。感大生死故名大患。障大智故障大理故障大位故障大果故大人斷故。具如此等大過患故故名大患。上來舉障訖。自下翻障顯斷。文中初句正明翻障顯斷。第二問答伏斷方法。我應離之者是初句也。云何為離者。既欲教我伏離法想。云何方法而得離之。此即問訖。離我我所者明其答也。法執之相莫過二種。一者是我。二者我所。計法有體名之為我。計法有用名我所。教其伏斷。是故言離。云何離我我所者。此更進問我與我所。無始執著云何可離。答云。謂離二法。我與我所二法上生。但離二法我自不起。云何離二法者。此即進問二法之相。謂不念內外諸法行於平等者。此明答也。一者內法。二者外法。外者生死。內者涅槃。故攝論云。若應此法自性善故成內。若外此法雖復相應則成㲉。復次內者是根。外者是塵。於此內外執有定性及以作用。是故起彼我與所。觀此內外寂靜無二不起體用。故言平等。云何行行平等者。更問平等之觀何處行之。謂我等涅槃等者答也。我者生死猶是前外。涅槃者猶是前內。於此生死涅槃之上觀之不二名行平等。所以者何徵問。生死涅槃凡聖路隔。約何道理而言平等。自下釋之。我及涅槃此二皆空者。我謂生死生死空故上等涅槃。涅槃空故下齊生死。約此空理故言平等。以何為空者。進問空體。此中菩薩得其空者。為是實性真如之空。為是假名緣和之空。答言。但以名字故空者。得彼緣和空也。地前菩薩於彼一僧祇劫中聞佛言教說一切法空。耳識聞聲引意識起引多道理。恒思量數數習之。生乃能遂薰本識成空種子。無漏意識欲現行時。此空種子流入意識。於意識中有空境界。當識心起知一切法緣和故有無性故空。緣彼名字成此空故。故言但以名字故空。然此空境三性往收義通三性。從心變異是分別性。屬種子故是依他性。無相真故是真實性也。如此二法無決定性者。生死涅槃如此二法緣和故有無故空。無定性。上來明法空觀訖。合名第一修小智竟。

Next below is the second, explaining the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas. This is the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas studied within the preparatory wisdom of the bodhisattva from the second thought-moment of the ten understandings onward, who studies subduing the mind that has apprehension beyond the triple realm. The text has two distinct parts: first, adducing the hindrance to reveal the fault; and from "I should abandon it" onward, next overturning the hindrance to reveal its eradication. In the preceding adducing of the hindrance, first it directly adduces the hindrance; next, it clearly reveals the fault. "That bodhisattva with illness, in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas, should reflect: 'This conception of dharmas is also an inversion'": this explains the hindrance. "That bodhisattva with illness" takes the bodhisattva from the second thought of the ten understandings onward. "In order to extinguish the conception of dharmas": the previous contemplation of the emptiness of persons takes dharmas as its object to dispel persons, but does not dismantle the entity of dharmas; now, in the emptiness of dharmas, the entity of dharmas is dismantled and likewise cannot be apprehended. The mind taking dharmas as its object is called the "conception of dharmas." The bodhisattva wishes to eliminate it, hence it says "in order to extinguish." Dharmas of the objective sphere arise from the mind; if one only causes the mind to be eradicated, dharmas will naturally not arise, hence it says "in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas." "Should reflect: 'This conception of dharmas is also an inversion'": the preceding grasp of a self of persons was already an inversion of views; now this grasp of a self of dharmas is furthermore an inversion of mind. The meaning of inversion is the same as before, hence it says "is also." Grasping the dharmas of the five aggregates as having a fixed nature overturns the principle of the unapprehendability of the emptiness of dharmas, and is therefore called an "inversion." Below it clearly reveals the fault: "This inversion is a great affliction": because this inversion of mind is the source of faults, it is called a "great affliction." There are multiple meanings in the interpretation: because it is a great hindrance, it is therefore called a "great affliction"; because it brings about great saṃsāra, it is therefore called a "great affliction"; because it hinders great wisdom, hinders the great principle, hinders the great stages, hinders the great fruit, and is severed by great persons. Possessing such great faults and afflictions as these, it is therefore called a "great affliction." Above concludes the adducing of the hindrance. Next below is overturning the hindrance to reveal its eradication. Within the text, the first sentence directly clarifies overturning the hindrance to reveal eradication. The second is a question-and-answer on the method of subduing and eradicating. "I should abandon it" is the first sentence. "What is abandonment?": since you wish to instruct me to subdue and abandon the conception of dharmas, by what method may one abandon it? This is the question. "To abandon self and what belongs to self" explains the answer. The marks of grasping at dharmas do not exceed two kinds: the first is self; the second is what belongs to self. Conceptualizing that dharmas possess an entity is called "self"; conceptualizing that dharmas possess a function is called "what belongs to self." Instructing him to subdue and eradicate them, it therefore says "abandon." "How does one abandon self and what belongs to self?": this proceeds further to ask: self and what belongs to self have been grasped from beginningless time—how can they be abandoned? The answer states: "It means abandoning the two dharmas." Self and what belongs to self arise upon these two dharmas; if one only abandons the two dharmas, self will naturally not arise. "How does one abandon the two dharmas?": this proceeds to ask about the characteristics of the two dharmas. "It means not thinking of internal and external dharmas, practicing impartiality": this explains the answer. The first is internal dharmas; the second is external dharmas. The external is saṃsāra; the internal is nirvāṇa. Hence the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "If it accords with this dharma, because its intrinsic nature is good, it becomes internal; if it is outside this dharma, even if it is associated, it becomes extraneous." Furthermore, the internal refers to the faculties, and the external refers to the sense objects. Grasping that these internal and external [dharmas] have a fixed nature as well as function, one therefore gives rise to that self and what belongs to it. Contemplating that these internal and external [dharmas] are quiescent and nondual, one does not give rise to entity and function, hence it says "impartiality." "How does one practice impartiality?": it asks further: where does one practice this contemplation of impartiality? "It means that self is equal and nirvāṇa is equal" is the answer. "Self" refers to saṃsāra, which is the aforementioned external; "nirvāṇa" is the aforementioned internal. Contemplating them as nondual with respect to this saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is called "practicing impartiality." "Why is this?": this is a query. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, ordinary beings and noble ones, are separated by paths—in accordance with what principle is it called "equal"? Below it explains: "Self and nirvāṇa—these two are both empty": "self" refers to saṃsāra; because saṃsāra is empty, it equals nirvāṇa above; because nirvāṇa is empty, it is matched with saṃsāra below. In terms of this principle of emptiness, it is therefore called "equal." "By what are they empty?": it further asks about the entity of emptiness. When the bodhisattva here attains its emptiness, is it the emptiness of true suchness of actual nature, or is it the emptiness of nominal designation and the harmony of conditions? The answer states: "They are empty merely by virtue of nominal designations": he attains that emptiness of the harmony of conditions. Bodhisattvas prior to the stages, over an asaṃkhyeya kalpa, hear the Buddha's verbal teaching declaring that all dharmas are empty. The ear-consciousness, hearing the sound, induces the mental consciousness to arise and adduce many principles, constantly deliberating and repeatedly habituating them, until it is able to perfume the fundamental consciousness to become seeds of emptiness. When the uncontaminated mental consciousness is about to become active, these seeds of emptiness flow into the mental consciousness, and within the mental consciousness there is the objective sphere of emptiness. When the consciousness-mind arises, it knows that all dharmas, because of the harmony of conditions, exist, and because they lack intrinsic nature, they are empty. Because this emptiness is formed by taking those nominal designations as its object, it is therefore said: "They are empty merely by virtue of nominal designations." Yet when this objective sphere of emptiness is encompassed by the three natures, its meaning extends across all three natures: transformation from the mind is the discriminated nature; belonging to seeds, it is the dependent nature; being signless and true, it is the perfected nature. "Such two dharmas have no determinate nature": such two dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa exist because of the harmony of conditions, and are empty because they lack existence; they have no fixed nature. Above concludes the explanation of the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas. Taken together, it is called the conclusion of the first, cultivating lesser wisdom.