翻刻
【三二頁】
【上段】
薩爲＿二利生＿一。生＿二￣スト善惡二趣＿一判。如何。《割書：四季增寬｜爲＿レ之。》
私云。修學房御義云。菩薩入＿二聖性離生＿一之時。分別煩惱
已斷故。摠報業盡故。於＿二摠報＿一者。得＿二惡趣不生＿一。新不＿レ造＿二
摠報業＿一。造＿二摠報業＿一事。分別煩惱作用故也。而俱生煩惱。
菩薩故留不＿レ斷故。以＿レ之造＿二惡趣別報業＿一。受＿二 三途別報生＿一
也。是以大師。受三途者。乃是實身￣ト判￣スル。此意也。瑜伽
論不＿レ云＿二願生惡趣＿一者。於＿二摠報＿一談＿レ之也。
有人云。業力結生。入見之時盡＿レ之。智力結生。入見已去
尚有＿レ之。爰以惡趣不生。於＿二業力結生＿一談＿レ之。惡趣受生
願。智力結生之時也。
問。經文說＿下佛成道時。梵王帝釋請＿中轉＿二法輪＿一事＿上。爾者。爲＿レ
請＿二 三乘同行四諦法輪＿一。將如何。若不＿レ請＿二 四諦法輪＿一者。依＿二
梵王帝釋請＿一轉＿二《送り仮名：スト云》法輪＿一。定可＿二 四諦法輪＿一耶。爰以淄洲大
師釋＿二經文＿一。若初（[第二]）#1成道・未轉法輪。請轉法輪《割書：云云》。旣云＿三初成
道時。請＿二轉法輪＿一。豈非＿二 四諦法輪＿一耶。隨見＿二智度論文＿一。依＿二
梵釋請問＿一。於＿二波羅奈＿一。轉＿二￣スト法輪＿一判￣セリ。文相無＿レ諍。指＿二初
轉法輪＿一見￣タリ。若依＿レ之如＿レ此者。大師有處（[十二分敎章]）#1。初轉法輪。不＿レ
【下段】
待＿二請問＿一說￣クト＿レ之判。如何。《割書：四季ノ永｜幸爲＿レ之。》
佛母抄難云。見＿二妙經（[第一]）#1說＿一。爾時請梵王。及諸天帝釋。護世
四天王。及大自在天。乃至恭敬合掌。禮請我轉法輪《割書：云云》。
此文明依＿二請問＿一轉＿二 四諦法輪＿一見￣タリ。十二分敎章云。小乘
經中。亦顯佛慈悲。所有法相。不待請問。而便自說。如
初轉法輪。故有自說《割書：云云》。經（ケイ）願答云。依＿二梵王等請問＿一。雖＿レ
說＿二此經＿一。彼非＿二所被機根＿一故。猶名＿二無問自說經＿一。彼經對＿二
狗隣等五比丘＿一說故也。
又云。諸天雖＿二請問＿一。不＿レ言＿三指轉＿二何法輪＿一。故知。彼請通＿二大
小論＿一。兼＿二 三時諸敎＿一也。依＿レ之智論中。梵王請在＿二《送り仮名：ト云》般若￣ニモ＿一。
吉藏亦通＿二法花＿一《割書：云云》。若爾諸天請問。不＿三指在＿二《送り仮名：ト云ハ》初轉
法輪＿一。旣不＿レ同＿下善現請＿二般若＿一。德本問＿中 三性＿上。故名＿二無問自
說經＿一歟。問。經文不生不滅・非有非無《割書：云云》。爲＿レ說＿二法身＿一。將
如何。兩方。若非＿二法身＿一者。法身無＿二起盡＿一故。觀＿二不生不滅＿一。
離＿二去來等相＿一。故說＿二非有非無＿一也。所說定可＿二法身＿一。餘敎中（[般若燈論]）#1
述＿二無生無滅。亦無去來＿一。非＿レ說＿二法身＿一耶。若依＿レ之說＿二法身＿一
者。今疏中。化身也￣ト釋￣セリ。如何。《割書：四季￣ノ珍｜與爲＿レ之。》
【三三頁】
【上段】
私云。披＿二經文＿一。三身各別說＿レ之。不生不滅・非有非無《割書：[考]無｜下恐》
《割書：脫者｜字》說＿二化身＿一。離垢淸淨。心得安住者。觀＿二報身＿一。過一切相・
心本眞如者。觀＿二法身＿一也。今此三段文。摠觀＿二 一切法眞俗
二諦＿一。三段文各理智眞俗中。別指＿二-分三身＿一。淺深有＿レ次說＿レ
之。但於＿二化身＿一。說＿二不生不滅＿一事。疏釋＿二此事＿一。亦觀一切・八
相之法・不生滅等・離執安住等《割書：云云》。心雖＿二有爲俗諦＿一。離＿二妄
執＿一故。觀＿二不生不滅＿一也。生滅等相￣ヲ定執￣スル是妄執。離＿二￣レハ
此執＿一。俗諦卽非＿二定生＿一。亦非＿二定滅＿一。如幻假有也。經文卽
顯＿二此心＿一也。餘經文來￣テ不＿レ可＿レ爲＿レ難也。般若燈論云。《割書：依空｜滿願》
《割書：品之處。八不識｜義之處書＿レ之。》
問。經文明＿二第六地＿一。無相思惟・皆悉現前《割書：云云》。爾者今此
無相思惟者。後得智行相歟。進云。疏云。無相思惟。卽無
分別智《割書：云云》。付＿レ之。旣云＿二思惟＿一。何無分別智耶。況瑜伽論
中。思惟眞如者。緣＿二眞如相＿一也。非＿レ通＿二-達眞如＿一《割書：云云》。若爾
者。今此文。定可＿二後得智行相＿一耶。如何。
私云。唯識論中。明＿二第六地＿一。六現前地・住緣起智・引無分
別・最勝般若・令現前故《割書：云云》。心￣ハ觀＿二緣起＿一智爲＿二能引＿一。引＿二
【下段】
最勝無分別智＿一。令＿二現前＿一故云也。卽彼論引＿二今經意＿一歟。
觀＿二緣起法＿一智能引。卽加行智也。有相俗智也。無相思惟。
皆悉現前者。能緣義也。卽能證智￣ナリ。何必￣シモ思惟￣トイハ。
加行義耶。有相￣ノ思惟。自＿レ本後得智行相也。瑜伽論來￣テ
不＿レ可＿レ爲＿レ難矣。問。當卷經中。付＿レ明＿二 十地得名＿一。且以＿二第五
地＿一。名＿二極難勝地＿一事。如何釋＿レ之耶。進云。修行方便。勝智
自在。極難得故。見修煩惱。難伏能伏。是故五地。名爲
難勝《割書：云云》。心￣ハ眞俗二諦智。難《返り点：レ》合能合。見修煩惱。難《返り点：レ》伏
能伏。故名＿二極難勝地＿一云也。付＿レ之二義俱不＿レ明。先付＿二初
故＿一。般若經中。明＿二初地菩薩＿一。善覺菩薩。四天王。雙照二
諦。平等道《割書：云云》。眞俗合觀。在＿二初地＿一見タリ。何關＿二此地勝
能＿一耶。次付＿二後故＿一不＿レ明。見惑初地已斷。修惑前後地。斷＿レ
之伏＿レ之。寧此地別能耶。如何。
私云。四地已前。不＿二眞俗合觀＿一。於＿二第五地＿一。始證＿二類無別眞
如＿一故。眞俗兩智。極難＿レ￣キヲ合。合觀故。立＿二極難勝地之名＿一
也。但於＿二仁王經說＿一者。唯識了義燈中會＿レ之。據相見道。雙
相變緣《割書：云云》。心於＿二相見道＿一。變＿二相分＿一緣＿二眞見道所證眞如＿一。
【「[考]」は四角囲み文字】
現代語訳
## 第三二頁
### 【上段】
薩（菩薩）は衆生を利益するために、善趣・悪趣の二趣に生まれると判じている（のはいかにすべきか）。〔割注：四季の増寛がこれを為す。〕
**私に云う。**修学房の御義に云う。菩薩が聖性離生（見道）に入る時、分別煩悩をすでに断じているがゆえに、また総報業を尽くしているがゆえに、総報においては悪趣に生まれないことを得る。新たに総報業を造ることはない。総報業を造ることは、分別煩悩の作用によるものだからである。しかし俱生煩悩については、菩薩がわざと留め置いて断じないがゆえに、それによって悪趣の別報業を造り、三途（地獄・餓鬼・畜生）の別報の生を受けるのである。これをもって（法相宗の）大師（慈恩大師窺基）が「三途を受けるのは、すなわちこれ実身（の受生）である」と判ずる意もこれ（と同じ）である。『瑜伽論』が「悪趣に生まれんことを願う」と云わないのは、総報について談じているためである。
ある人が云う。業力による結生は、見道に入る時にそれを尽くす。智力による結生は、見道に入ってからもなお存する。これをもって、悪趣に生まれないことは、業力による結生について談じたのである。悪趣に受生する願は、智力による結生の場合（についていう）のである。
---
**問。**経文に、仏が成道した時に、梵王・帝釈が法輪を転じることを請うたことを説く。そうであれば、これは三乗が同行する四諦の法輪を請うたものか、あるいはそれ以外（のもの）か。もし四諦の法輪を請うたのでないとすれば、梵王・帝釈の請いに依って法輪を転じたとは、まさに四諦の法輪であるはずではないか。ここに淄洲大師（知周）が経文を釈して「もし初（第二）の成道にして、いまだ法輪を転ぜざれば、（梵王・帝釈が）法輪を転じることを請う」（云云）とある。すでに「初成道の時に法輪を転じることを請う」と云うからには、どうして四諦の法輪でないと言えようか。また『大智度論』の文を見るに、梵王・帝釈の請問に依って、波羅奈（ヴァーラーナシー、鹿野苑）において法輪を転じたと判じている。文脈（文相）に諍いなく、初転法輪を指して見える。もしそのようであれば、大師（慈恩大師窺基）の「十二分教章」において、初転法輪は請問を待たずに説いたと判じている（こととどのように整合させるべきか）。いかに（すべきか）。〔割注：四季の永幸がこれを為す。〕
### 【下段】
**仏母抄（の）難に云う。**『妙法蓮華経』（第一巻）の説を見ると、「爾の時、梵王を請じ、及び諸天の帝釈・護世の四天王・及び大自在天、乃至恭敬合掌して、我に礼して法輪を転じることを請う」（云云）とある。この文は、請問に依って四諦の法輪を転じたことを明かしていると見える。「十二分教章」に云う。「小乗の経の中にも、また仏の慈悲を顕す。有する所の法相は、請問を待たずして、すなわち自ら説く。初転法輪の如し。ゆえに自説（無問自説）がある」（云云）とある。経願（某師）が答えて云う。梵王等の請問に依ってこの経（初転法輪の経）を説いたとはいえ、彼ら（梵王・帝釈）は所被の機根（教えを受けるべき対象）ではないがゆえに、なお「無問自説経」と名づける。彼の経は拘隣等の五比丘に対して説いたからである。
また云う。諸天は請問したとはいえ、いずれの法輪を転じることを指定して請うたとは言っていない。ゆえに知る、あの請いは大乗・小乗の論に通じ、三時の諸教を兼ねているのであると。これにより、『智度論』の中で梵王の請いが「般若」にもある（と説かれ）、吉蔵（嘉祥大師）もまた（梵王の請いが）『法華経』に通ずると（云う）〔云云〕。もしそうであれば、諸天の請問は初転法輪を指定するものではない。すでに善現（須菩提）が般若を請い、徳本（善財童子など）が三性を問うたのとは同じでなく、ゆえに「無問自説経」と名づけるのであろうか。
---
**問。**経文に「不生不滅・非有非無」（云云）とある（のは）、法身を説くのか、あるいはそれ以外のものを説くのか。両方（を挙げる）。もし法身でないとするならば、法身は起滅がないがゆえに「不生不滅」を観じ、去来等の相を離れるがゆえに「非有非無」を説く（のだから、）説かれているのは当然法身であるはずだ。他の教えの中（の『般若燈論』）においても「無生無滅、また去来なし」と述べており、（これは）法身を説いたものではないか。もし（一方、）これに依って法身を説くとするならば、今の疏の中には「化身なり」と釈している。いかに（すべきか）。〔割注：四季の珍与がこれを為す。〕
## 第三三頁
### 【上段】
**私に云う。**経文を披けば、三身（法身・報身・化身）を各別に説いている。「不生不滅・非有非無」〔割注：（考）無の下、恐らく「者」字の脱か〕は化身を説く。「離垢清浄、心得安住する」とは報身を観じたものである。「一切の相を過ぎ、心本（もと）真如なる者」とは法身を観じたものである。今この三段の文は、総じて一切法の真俗二諦を観ずるものであり、三段の文は各々、理智・真俗の中で三身を別に指し分けて、浅深の次第をもって説いたのである。ただし化身について「不生不滅」を説くことに関して、疏はこの事を釈して「また一切の八相の法を観じ、生滅せず等、妄執を離れて安住する等」（云云）とある。（化身の）心は有為・俗諦であるとはいえ、妄執を離れているがゆえに、「不生不滅」を観ずるのである。生滅等の相を固執することが妄執であり、この執を離れれば、俗諦はすなわち定まった生（決定的な生起）でなく、また定まった滅でもない。幻のような仮の有である。経文はすなわちこの（化身の）心を顕しているのである。他の経文（の証拠）をもってきても、（これへの）難とすることはできない。『般若燈論』に云う。〔割注：空満願品の箇所によって、八不の義の箇所を書く。〕
---
**問。**経文は第六地を明かして「無相の思惟、皆ことごとく現前す」（云云）とある。そうであれば、今この「無相の思惟」とは、後得智の行相か（それとも無分別智か）。
**進んで云う。**疏に「無相の思惟はすなわち無分別智である」（云云）とある。これについて、すでに「思惟」と云うのに、どうして無分別智（であり得るの）か。しかも『瑜伽論』の中に「真如を思惟するとは、真如の相を縁ずることであり、真如に通達するのではない」（云云）とある。もしそうであれば、今この文は当然後得智の行相であるはずではないか。いかに（すべきか）。
**私に云う。**『唯識論』の中に第六地を明かして「六の現前地は、縁起の智に住し、無分別の最勝の般若を引いて、現前せしめるがゆえに」（云云）とある。意は、縁起を観ずる智を能引として、（それが）
### 【下段】
最勝の無分別智を引いて現前せしめるがゆえにと云うのである。すなわち彼の論（『唯識論』）が今の経の意を引いたのであろうか。縁起の法を観ずる智が能引であり、すなわちこれが加行智（加行道の智）である。（これは）有相の俗智である。「無相の思惟、皆ことごとく現前す」とは、能縁（の智）の意である。すなわち能証の智（証得する智）である。どうして必ずしも「思惟」といえば加行の意（加行智）となるのか。有相の思惟は、もとより後得智の行相である（が、無相の思惟は無分別智に当たる）。『瑜伽論』の（証拠）をもってきても（この議論への）難とすることはできない。
---
**問。**当巻の経の中で、十地の得名（名称の由来）を明かすにあたって、第五地を「極難勝地」と名づけることについて、どのように釈するのか。
**進んで云う。**「修行の方便・勝智の自在が、得ること極めて難しいがゆえに。見修の煩悩を、難じ伏せることができるものが（これを）伏す。このゆえに第五地を難勝と名づける」（云云）とある。意は、真俗二諦の智は合わせること極めて難しいが（これを）よく合わせ、見修の煩悩は伏すこと難いが（これを）よく伏す、ゆえに「極難勝地」と名づけると云うのである。これについて、二つの義がともに明らかでない。まず初めの（理由）について言えば、『般若経』の中に初地の菩薩について「善覚菩薩・四天王が二諦を双照し、平等の道（を行ずる）」（云云）と明かしており、真俗合観は初地においてあると見える。どうして（これが）この第五地の優れた能力に関わるのか。次に後の（理由）についても明らかでない。見惑（分別起の惑）は初地においてすでに断じており、修惑（俱生起の惑）は前後の各地において、それを断じ伏せている。どうしてこの地（第五地）が特別に（これを）よくなし得るのか。いかに（すべきか）。
**私に云う。**第四地以前は、真俗を合わせて観ずることがない。第五地において初めて類無別真如を証するがゆえに、真俗の両智は合わせること極めて難しいが（これを）合わせて観ずるがゆえに、「極難勝地」の名を立てるのである。ただし『仁王経』の説については、『唯識了義燈』の中で（これを）会通して、「相見道によれば、双びに相分を変じて（真如を）縁ずる」（云云）とある。意は、相見道において（智が）相分を変じて、真見道において証した真如を縁ずる（のであり）、
英語訳
## Page Thirty-Two
### [Upper Section]
(the) bodhisattva (*bosatsu*), in order to benefit sentient beings, is judged to take birth in both the good realms (*zen-shu*) and evil realms (*aku-shu*) — how should this be understood? [Marginal note: (Composed by) Shiki no Zōkan.]
**Personal view:** The *Gigi* (*御義*) of the Shugaku-bō (*修学房*) states: When the bodhisattva enters the state of "separation from (ordinary) birth" through the saintly nature (*shōshō-rishō*, i.e., the path of insight, *darśana-mārga*), since the discriminatively-arisen afflictions (*funbetsu-bonnō*, *parikalpita-kleśa*) have already been cut off, and since the general-retribution karma (*sōhō-gō*) has been exhausted, with respect to general retribution, one attains the state of not being born in evil realms. One no longer creates new general-retribution karma. The creation of general-retribution karma is a function of the discriminatively-arisen afflictions. However, as for the innately-arisen afflictions (*guishō-bonnō*, *sahaja-kleśa*), since the bodhisattva intentionally retains them without cutting them off, by means of these (afflictions), one creates the individual-retribution karma (*beppō-gō*) for evil realms, and thus receives the individual-retribution births in the three evil destinies (*sanzu*: hell, hungry ghosts, and animals). For this reason, (Tzu-en) the Great Master (Kuiji, 窺基) judges that "receiving (birth in) the three evil destinies is precisely the birth of the actual body (*jisshin*)." This is the intent. The reason the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* (*Yuga-ron*) does not say "vowing to be born in evil realms" is because it discusses (the matter) in terms of general retribution.
A certain person says: The rebirth conditioned by karmic power (*gōriki-kessho*) is exhausted at the time of entering the path of insight. The rebirth conditioned by the power of wisdom (*chiriki-kessho*) still remains even after entering the path of insight. For this reason, "not being born in evil realms" is discussed in terms of rebirth conditioned by karmic power. The vow to take rebirth in evil realms pertains to the case of rebirth conditioned by the power of wisdom.
---
**Question:** The sūtra text explains that when the Buddha attained enlightenment, Brahmā (*Bonō*) and Indra (*Taishaku*) requested (the Buddha) to turn the wheel of the Dharma (*tenpōrin*). In that case, was this a request to turn the wheel of the four noble truths (*shitai-no-hōrin*) that all three vehicles practice in common, or was it something else? If (the request was) not for the wheel of the four noble truths, then based on the request by Brahmā and Indra to turn the wheel of the Dharma, must it not necessarily be the wheel of the four noble truths? Here, the Great Master of Zizhou (*Shishū-no-daishi*, Zhizhou 知周) interprets the sūtra text (saying): "If at the first (second?) accomplishment of enlightenment, (the Buddha) has not yet turned the wheel of the Dharma, (they) request (him to) turn the wheel of the Dharma" (etc.). Since it already says "(they) requested (him to) turn the wheel of the Dharma at the time of the first accomplishment of enlightenment," how could this not be the wheel of the four noble truths? Following the text of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* (*Daichido-ron*, *Dà zhìdù lùn*), it is judged that based on the request by Brahmā and Indra, (the Buddha) turned the wheel of the Dharma at Vārāṇasī (the Deer Park). The contextual meaning is undisputed, and it appears to point to the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma. If it is so, then there is (the statement) by the Great Master (Kuiji) in the "Chapter on the Twelve Categories of Scripture" (*Jūni-bungyō-shō*) that the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma was preached without waiting for a request — how should these be reconciled? [Marginal note: (Composed by) Shiki no Eikō.]
### [Lower Section]
**A difficulty raised in the *Butsumo-shō* (*佛母抄*) states:** Looking at the account in the *Wonderful Dharma Lotus Sūtra* (Fascicle One), "At that time (the Buddha) invited Brahmā (*Bonō*), and also the Heavenly Lord Indra (*Taishaku*), the Four Heavenly Kings who protect the world, and the Great Self-Existent Heavenly Being (*Daijizaiten*, Maheśvara), and thereupon with reverence and joined palms, they bowed and requested me to turn the wheel of the Dharma" (etc.). This passage appears to make clear that the wheel of the four noble truths was turned based on a request. The "Chapter on the Twelve Categories of Scripture" (*Jūni-bungyō-shō*) states: "In the sūtras of the Lesser Vehicle also, the Buddha's compassion is manifested. All the characteristics of the Dharma are preached spontaneously without waiting for a request, as in the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma. Hence there is the (category of) spontaneous preaching (*jissetsu*, *udāna*)" (etc.). The Master Kyōgan (*Jinguan*, 經願) responds (by saying): Although this sūtra (i.e., the first turning of the Dharma-wheel) was preached based on a request from Brahmā and others, since they were not the intended audience (*shohiki-kongen*) (for that teaching), it is still called a "sūtra of spontaneous preaching without request" (*mumon-jissetsu-kyō*, *udāna-sūtra*). That is because that sūtra was preached for the five monks (headed by) Kauṇḍinya (*Kurin*) and others.
Furthermore (it is said): Although the celestial beings made a request, they did not specify which wheel of the Dharma (they were requesting to be turned). Therefore, it may be understood that that request extends to both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, encompassing all the teachings of the three periods. Accordingly, in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, the request of Brahmā extends even to the (teaching of) *Prajñāpāramitā* (*hannya*), and Jizang (*Kichizō*, 吉藏) also extends (the request) to the *Lotus Sūtra* (etc.). If that is so, then the request of the celestial beings does not specifically point to the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma. Since it is not the same as Subhūti (*Zenkō*, 善現) requesting the *Prajñāpāramitā* or Śreṣṭhin (*Tokubon*, 德本) asking about the three natures (*san-shō*), (the first turning of the Dharma-wheel) is perhaps rightly called a "sūtra of spontaneous preaching without request."
---
**Question:** The sūtra text (states) "not arising and not ceasing, neither existent nor non-existent" (etc.) — does this explain the *dharmakāya* (*hosshin*, the truth body), or is it something else? Both sides (are presented): If it is not the *dharmakāya*, then since the *dharmakāya* has no arising or ceasing, one contemplates "not arising and not ceasing," and since it is separated from characteristics such as coming and going, "neither existent nor non-existent" is explained. Therefore, what is being explained must naturally be the *dharmakāya*. Also, in other teachings (such as the *Prajñāpradīpa-śāstra*, *Hannya-tō-ron*), the statement "no arising and no ceasing, also no coming and going" is made — does this not explain the *dharmakāya*? On the other hand, if one says it explains the *dharmakāya* based on this, the present commentary (*疏*) interprets it as "the transformation body (*keshin*, *nirmāṇakāya*)." How (should this be understood)? [Marginal note: (Composed by) Shiki no Chinyo.]
## Page Thirty-Three
### [Upper Section]
**Personal view:** Reading the sūtra text, the three bodies (*sanshin*: the three kāyas) are each explained separately. "Not arising and not ceasing, neither existent nor non-existent" [marginal note: (by textual consideration) below "non-existent" (*mu*), there may be a missing character (*sha*, "者"), possibly a scribal omission] explains the transformation body (*keshin*, *nirmāṇakāya*). "Separated from defilement, pure, the mind having attained peaceful abiding" means contemplating the reward body (*hōshin*, *sambhogakāya*). "Transcending all characteristics, the mind fundamentally being thusness (*shinnyо*, *tathatā*)" means contemplating the truth body (*hosshin*, *dharmakāya*). These three passages as a whole contemplate the two truths — the ultimate (*shin*, *paramārtha*) and the conventional (*zoku*, *saṃvṛti*) — of all dharmas, and within each of the three passages the truth-wisdom and the two truths individually distinguish and classify the three bodies, explaining them in order of depth from shallow to profound. Regarding the explanation of "not arising and not ceasing" with respect to the transformation body, the commentary interprets this matter (saying): "Also contemplating all dharmas of the eight phases (of a Buddha's existence), (they are) not arising and not ceasing, and so forth, separated from false attachment and dwelling in equanimity, and so forth" (etc.). Even though the (transformation body's) mind is of conditioned existence (*uи*, *saṃskṛta*) and the conventional truth, because it is separated from false attachment, one contemplates "not arising and not ceasing." To be fixedly attached to characteristics such as arising and ceasing is false attachment; if one separates from this attachment, the conventional truth is then not definitively arising, nor definitively ceasing — it is like an illusion, a provisional existence. The sūtra text reveals precisely this (state of) mind (regarding the transformation body). Even if evidence is brought from other sūtra texts, it cannot serve as a counter-argument. The *Prajñāpradīpa-śāstra* states: [Marginal note: Written at the point of the *Śūnyatāpūrṇāvadāna*-chapter (*Kūman-ganpon*), at the point of identifying the meaning of the eight negations (*hachi-fu*).]
---
**Question:** The sūtra text, in clarifying the sixth ground (*roku-chi*), says "non-conceptual contemplation (*musō-shiyui*), all and entirely manifesting before (one)" (etc.). In that case, is this "non-conceptual contemplation" (*musō-shiyui*) the cognitive mode (*gyōsō*) of subsequently-attained wisdom (*gotoku-chi*, *pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna*), or (is it something else)?
**It is advanced:** The commentary says "non-conceptual contemplation is precisely non-discriminating wisdom (*mufunbetsu-chi*, *nirvikalpa-jñāna*)" (etc.). Regarding this: since it already says "contemplation" (*shiyui*, *vitarka*), how can it be non-discriminating wisdom? Moreover, the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* states: "to contemplate thusness (*shinnyо*, *tathatā*) means to take the characteristic of thusness as its object; it does not (mean) to penetrate (*tsūtatsu*) thusness directly" (etc.). If so, this passage must surely be describing the cognitive mode of subsequently-attained wisdom. How (should this be understood)?
**Personal view:** The *Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra* (*Yuishiki-ron*, *Chéng wéishí lùn*), in clarifying the sixth ground, states: "The sixth, the stage of Manifestation (*Genzenjichi*, *Abhimukhī*), dwelling in the wisdom of dependent origination (*engi-chi*), draws forth the most excellent non-discriminating *prajñā* (*mufunbetsu-saikōhannya*), causing it to manifest before (one), therefore" (etc.). The meaning is: the wisdom of contemplating dependent origination serves as the "actively-drawing" (*nōin*) (wisdom), drawing forth
### [Lower Section]
the most excellent non-discriminating wisdom (*mufunbetsu-chi*) and causing it to manifest — hence (it is) so stated. Probably that treatise (*Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra*) cites the intent of the present sūtra. The wisdom that contemplates dependent origination (*engi*) serves as the active-drawer (*nōin*); this is precisely the preparatory-path wisdom (*kegyō-chi*, *prayogamārga-jñāna*), the conventional wisdom with characteristics (*usō-no-zokuchi*). "Non-conceptual contemplation (*musō-shiyui*), all and entirely manifesting before (one)" carries the meaning of the "actively-cognizing" (*nōen*) (wisdom) — it is precisely the wisdom that certifiably realizes (*nōshō-chi*). Why must "contemplation" (*shiyui*) necessarily imply the meaning of preparatory practice (*kegyō*)? Contemplation with characteristics (*usō-no-shiyui*) is by nature the cognitive mode of subsequently-attained wisdom. Even if the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* is brought as evidence, it cannot serve as a counter-argument.
---
**Question:** In the sūtra of the present fascicle, regarding the explanation of why each of the ten grounds (*jūchi*, *daśabhūmi*) receives its name, how is the naming of the fifth ground as "Extremely Difficult to Overcome" (*Goku-nansho-chi*, *Sudurjayā*) to be interpreted?
**It is advanced:** "(Because) the skillful means (*hōben*, *upāya*) of practice, and the sovereign excellence of superior wisdom (*shōchi-no-jizai*), are extremely difficult to attain. The afflictions of the path of insight (*kenji-bonnō*, *darśana-kleśa*) and the path of cultivation (*shuji-bonnō*, *bhāvanā-kleśa*), though difficult to subdue, are subdued. Therefore the fifth ground is named Difficult to Overcome (*Nansho*)" (etc.). The meaning is: the wisdom of the two truths — ultimate and conventional — is extremely difficult to unify, yet (the bodhisattva) succeeds in unifying them; and the afflictions of insight and cultivation, though difficult to subdue, are subdued. Therefore it is named "Extremely Difficult to Overcome Ground." Regarding this, the two reasons are both unclear. First, regarding the initial reason: in the *Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (*Hannya-kyō*), the bodhisattva of the first ground (*sho-chi*) — "the Bodhisattva Zenngaku (*Śīlaskandhin*?), and the Four Heavenly Kings (*Shitennō*), illuminating the two truths together and treading the equal path" (etc.) — is mentioned, and contemplating the two truths (ultimate and conventional) together appears to occur at the first ground. Why then would this be the special capacity (*shōnō*) specific to this (fifth) ground? Second, regarding the subsequent reason, it is also unclear: the afflictions of the path of insight (*kenji-waku*, *darśana-kleśa*) are already cut off at the first ground, and the afflictions of the path of cultivation (*shuji-waku*, *bhāvanā-kleśa*) are cut off and suppressed at each stage before and after. How could this ground have the special ability (to do so)? How (should this be understood)?
**Personal view:** Prior to the fourth ground, there is no unified contemplation of the ultimate and conventional truths. At the fifth ground, (the bodhisattva) for the first time certifiably realizes the "thusness distinguished by category without distinction" (*rui-mubetsu-shinnyo*, 類無別真如) — therefore, the two wisdoms of ultimate and conventional are extremely difficult to unify, yet (the bodhisattva) achieves a unified contemplation — hence the name "Extremely Difficult to Overcome Ground" (*Goku-nansho-chi*) is established. However, regarding the account in the *Sūtra of Benevolent Kings* (*Ninnō-kyō*), the *Vijñaptimātratā-liāodeng* (*Yuishiki-ryōgi-tō*, *Chéng wéishí liǎoyì dēng*, "Torch Clarifying the Meaning of *Vijñaptimātratā*") reconciles this (apparent contradiction) as follows: "According to the phenomenal (*sō*) path of insight (*kenzan*), (the wisdom) transforms the image-part (*sōbun*, *nimitta-bhāga*) and apprehends (the thusness)" (etc.). The meaning is that in the phenomenal path of insight (*sō-kendo*), (the wisdom) transforms the image-part (*sōbun*) and takes as its object the thusness (*shinnyо*) that was certifiably realized in the noumenal path of insight (*shin-kendo*),