大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 5.27

5.27

論。修多羅中至勇猛故　釋曰。此會通權教釋伏疑也。謂有疑云。若此菩薩。有大願力。非業繫者。何故經說。種姓菩薩在六住中有其退墮。故此會通遣外疑難。或說有退等者。此舉違教。本業經說。七住已前名為退分。彼若不遇善知識者。或若一劫乃至十劫退菩提心。如淨目天子法財王子舍利弗等。欲入第七住。其中值遇惡因緣故。退入凡夫不善法中。乃至能起五無間業。非其實退等者。釋通其意。但是權語。非謂實教。以彼十信初學之人未入十住正定位中而懈怠者。如來怖之令發勇猛故。說六住退入凡夫。又即十住名為初學。是初發意菩薩攝故。其十行位名為正位。本業經說。是正位故。怖彼十住初學菩薩。令入十行正定位中。假說有退。非實退也。若不爾者。何故經說新發意菩薩名畢竟定。若生八難無有是處。豈況而造無間業耶。若爾何故花嚴經說。至第七住方名不退。答。不退大位。初住即成不退轉心。七住方得聞有佛等心不動。故所顯義別。亦不相違。而有別開四種不退。其信證二理深不可。且初住位。自信已信已性入正定位。豈位退耶。故信與位不可別開。又不退者。對退以立。初地已前既無證退。何要別立證不退耶。若謂未證亦名退者墮頂住頂住何不別開。由此瑜伽說。已成熟有其三品。與此論同故。四不退不可依也。

The treatise states: "In the sūtras, [where it is said that...] because of [their] vigor." Commentary: This harmonises the provisional teachings and resolves implicit doubts. That is, there is a doubt: "If these bodhisattvas have the power of great vows and are not bound by karma, why do the sūtras state that bodhisattvas in the lineage regress and fall away while at the sixth abiding?" Therefore, this [passage] harmonises them to dispel external objections. The words "where it is said that there is regression, etc." raise this apparent contradiction in the teaching. The Benye jing says that before the seventh abiding is called the stage of regression; if they do not meet a good spiritual friend, they may regress from the bodhicitta for one kalpa or even up to ten kalpas, like Prince Śreṣṭhin, Prince Dharmadhana, Śāriputra, and others who, wishing to enter the seventh abiding, encountered adverse conditions along the way, regressed into the unwholesome dharmas of ordinary beings, and even came to generate the five unmitigated [karmas]. The words "is not actual regression, etc." explain the intent: this is merely provisional speech, not actual definitive teaching. Because those beginners of the ten faiths who have not yet entered the correctly determined stage of the ten abidings become indolent, the Tathāgata frightens them to make them generate vigor, and so speaks of regressing into ordinary beings from the sixth abiding. Furthermore, the ten abidings are called the initial learning, being subsumed under newly resolved bodhisattvas; the stage of the ten practices is called the correctly determined stage, as the Benye jing states that it is the correctly determined stage. To frighten those beginning bodhisattvas of the ten abidings and make them enter the correctly determined stage of the ten practices, he provisionally speaks of regression; it is not actual regression. Were it not so, why would the sūtra state that newly resolved bodhisattvas are called definitively determined, and that it is impossible for them to be born into the eight difficulties, much less commit unmitigated karma? If so, why does the Avataṃsaka-sūtra say that only upon reaching the seventh abiding are they called non-regressing? The reply: Regarding the great stages of non-regression, at the first abiding they already achieve the non-regressing mind; at the seventh abiding they first attain an unmoved mind upon hearing that there are buddhas, and so on. Thus, what they signify differs, and they are not contradictory. Some separately posit four kinds of non-regression, but holding faith and realisation as two is doctrinally deep but unacceptable. For at the stage of the first abiding, by having faith oneself in one's own nature one enters the correctly determined stage—how could one's stage regress? Therefore, faith and stage cannot be separately established. Furthermore, non-regression is established in contrast to regression; since there is no regression from realisation prior to the first bhūmi, why need one separately posit non-regression of realisation? If one says that not having realised is also called regression, why not separately establish falling from the summit and abiding on the summit? Hence the Yogācāra states that the matured ones have three grades, which agrees with this treatise; thus the four kinds of non-regression cannot be relied upon.