[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735) › 39.7 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 39.7 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 39.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [39.7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.39.7.1) 第二別明觀相，即緣起觀。 然緣起深義佛教所宗，乘智階差淺深多種。 龍樹云「因緣有二：一內、二外。 外即水土穀芽等，內即十二因緣。 」今正辨內。 然外由內變，本末相收，即總含法界一大緣起，染淨交徹義門非一，下當略示。 今經文內略顯十重，窮究性相以顯無盡，非唯寄位同於二乘。 言十重者，一有支相續、二攝歸一心、三自業助成、四不相捨離、五三道不斷、六三際輪迴、七三苦集成、八因緣生滅、九生滅繫縛、十隨順無所有盡，各有逆順即成二十。 故下結云「如是逆順觀察」，逆即緣滅、順即緣生，此約逆順生死流注以為逆順。 若準《對法》第四，此中逆順彼名染淨，染淨之中各有逆順，則成四十，至下當說。 今以易故，經中略無，但二十重。 論主復以上三悲觀門解此十重，則成六十。 古人兼取彼果分中三空觀之，則有一百八十重觀於緣起。 論三觀者，一相諦差別觀、二大悲隨順觀、三一切相智觀。 初但觀二諦有為無有我故，即大悲為首觀也。 二悲隨物增，即大悲增上觀。 三即委悉窮究因緣性相諸門觀故，即大悲滿足觀。 初一下同二乘一切智也，次一自顯菩薩道相智，後即上同諸佛一切種智，故《涅槃》云「十二因緣下智觀故得聲聞菩提，中智觀故得緣覺菩提，上智觀故得菩薩菩提，上上智觀故得佛菩提。 」初二菩提即初觀意，餘二各一，可知。 前約為物三皆稱悲，今約觀心三皆智觀，是知三句各有悲智相導，融此三觀唯在一心，甚深般若於是而現。 然論三觀雖遍釋經，而與十門開合不等。 初一切智觀攝經十門，總為三段：一成答相差別，此攝十中初門； 二第一義差別，攝經第二門中之半； 三名世諦差別，攝餘八門半。 所以分三者，初一顯妄我非有、後二顯真俗非無，真辨緣性、俗明緣相，義理周備故。 第二大悲隨順觀，分十為四：一觀眾生愚癡顛倒，攝十門中第一門； 二餘處求解脫，攝第二門； 三異道求解脫，攝次四門； 四求異解脫，攝後四門。 此之四觀，初一就情彰過、後三就法辨非。 於中，二是所依理，非對彼正理，名所取我以為餘處； 三是所依行法，非舉其法，非明其行失； 後一明所求果，非以苦欲捨苦故。 第三一切相智觀，攝十為九：一染淨分別觀，攝初半門。 二依止觀，攝初門後半及第二門； 三方便觀、四因緣相觀、五入諦觀、六力無力信入依觀、七增上慢非增上慢信入觀，上五門如次各攝一門； 八無始觀，攝八九二門； 九種種觀，攝第十門。 釋相差別，至文當知。 然其三觀俱通二利，若隨相分別相諦觀即自利，次大悲觀明其利他，一切相智通於二利。 於中分別復各不同，前五自利、次二利他、後二二利成熟。 前五中，初二通染淨，一示染淨相、二示染淨依； 後三惟觀染，於中初二建立染法，一染法之因、二染法之緣，後一就染觀過。 次二利他中，初一化凡、後一化小。 後二二利成熟中，初真諦觀見法緣集無本性故，名為無始； 後俗諦觀但順緣轉，故云種種。 已知大意，次正釋文。 依經十段而並以論三觀次第釋之，更無別理。 經之十段，前五佛子、次三復次、後二又字以為揀別，唯初門中中間有一佛子。 今初有支相續門，先依相諦差別觀。 三段之中當成答相三字，即分為三。 初至則無生處辨定無我，即論明成，謂雙舉解惑釋成無我故，則知緣集但是妄我。 二「復作是念」下倒惑起緣，即論明答，謂對難釋通無我義故。 三後佛子迷真起妄緣相次第，即論明相。 此三若望十門，皆顯妄我非有。 三自相望，合之為二，前二顯起因緣，明緣無我； 後一起緣次第，明緣有相。 經依此義，中間加一佛子，皆有染淨。 今初成者，將觀緣起，先釋成無我，辨定所宗一以貫諸，則顯十門皆成無我，此是正破我執習氣。 文中二句。 初言世間受生皆由著我者，即反舉惑情，明我非理，但是苦集故。 > Second, clarifying the characteristics of contemplation in detail: this is the contemplation of pratītyasamutpāda. Now, the profound meaning of pratītyasamutpāda is the core teaching of Buddhism, and according to the gradations of vehicles and wisdom, there are multiple kinds, shallow and deep. Nāgārjuna said: 'Causes and conditions are of two kinds: first, internal; second, external. The external are water, earth, grain, sprouts, and the like; the internal are the twelve links of causes and conditions.' Now we directly determine the internal. However, the external is transformed by the internal, the fundamental and derivative subsuming each other; that is, it entirely encompasses the one great pratītyasamutpāda of the dharmadhātu, defilement and purity interpenetrating, with more than one doctrinal approach, as will be briefly shown below. In the present sūtra text, ten tiers are briefly shown, thoroughly investigating essence and marks to reveal their inexhaustibility, not merely being correlated with stages in common with the two vehicles. Regarding the ten tiers: first, the continuity of the branches of existence; second, subsumption into one mind; third, mutual assistance of one's own karma; fourth, not abandoning one another; fifth, the uninterruptedness of the three paths; sixth, the transmigration through the three boundaries; seventh, the accumulation and generation of the three sufferings; eighth, the arising and ceasing of causes and conditions; ninth, the fetters of arising and ceasing; tenth, compliance with the exhaustion of nonexistence. Each has a reverse and direct order, thus making twenty. Hence it concludes below: 'contemplating thus in reverse and direct order'—'reverse' means the cessation of conditions, and 'direct' means the arising of conditions; this takes the reverse and direct flow of saṃsāra to be the reverse and direct orders. If we follow the fourth fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā, the reverse and direct orders here are there named defilement and purity; within defilement and purity there are each reverse and direct orders, thus making forty, as will be explained below. Now, for the sake of simplicity, the sūtra omits them, having only twenty tiers. The author of the commentary further uses the three gates of compassionate contemplation above to explain these ten tiers, which makes sixty. Ancient masters, additionally taking the three empties in the fruit section to contemplate them, arrived at one hundred and eighty tiers of contemplation of pratītyasamutpāda. Regarding the three contemplations in the commentary: first, the contemplation of the differentiation of marks and truths; second, the contemplation of compliance through great compassion; third, the contemplation of all-aspect wisdom. The first merely contemplates that in the two truths the conditioned has no self; this is the contemplation with great compassion as foremost. The second is compassion increasing in accordance with beings; this is the contemplation of great compassion as predominant. The third is the contemplation that exhaustively and thoroughly investigates the various gates of the nature and marks of causes and conditions; this is the contemplation of the fulfillment of great compassion. The first one below corresponds to the omniscient wisdom of the two vehicles; the next one reveals the bodhisattva's own wisdom of the aspects of the path; the last one above corresponds to the all-aspect wisdom of all buddhas. Hence the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: 'Contemplating the twelve links of causes and conditions with lower wisdom, one attains śrāvaka bodhi; contemplating with intermediate wisdom, one attains pratyekabuddha bodhi; contemplating with superior wisdom, one attains bodhisattva bodhi; contemplating with supreme wisdom, one attains buddha bodhi.' The first two bodhis are the meaning of the first contemplation; the remaining two each correspond to one, as can be known. Previously, in terms of \[working\] on behalf of beings, all three were called compassion; now, in terms of the contemplating mind, all three are wisdom contemplations. Thus we know that in each of the three clauses, compassion and wisdom guide each other; harmonizing these three contemplations rests solely in the one mind, and profound prajñā manifests from this. However, although the three contemplations of the commentary explain the sūtra throughout, their expansion and contraction with respect to the ten gates are unequal. The first, the contemplation of omniscient wisdom, subsumes the sūtra's ten gates into three sections overall: first, the differentiation of marks in establishing and answering, which subsumes the first of the ten gates; second, the differentiation of ultimate truth, which subsumes half of the second gate; third, the differentiation of conventional truth, which subsumes the remaining eight and a half gates. The reason for dividing it into three is that the first reveals that the false self does not exist, and the latter two reveal that the ultimate and conventional are not non-existent: the ultimate determines the nature of conditions, and the conventional clarifies the marks of conditions, so that the doctrinal meaning is fully complete. The second, the contemplation of compliance through great compassion, divides the ten into four: first, contemplating the delusion and inversion of sentient beings, which subsumes the first of the ten gates; second, seeking liberation in other places, which subsumes the second gate; third, seeking liberation through divergent paths, which subsumes the next four gates; fourth, seeking a divergent liberation, which subsumes the final four gates. Among these four contemplations, the first reveals faults with respect to sentiments, and the latter three distinguish errors with respect to doctrines. Within these: the second is the principle upon which one relies—mistaking what is not the correct principle, and designating the self one grasps as 'other places'; the third is the practice and doctrine upon which one relies—pointing out its doctrine as not \[correct\], clarifying the errors in its practice; the last clarifies the fruit one seeks, which is not \[correct\], because one wishes to abandon suffering by means of suffering. The third, the contemplation of all-aspect wisdom, subsumes the ten into nine: first, the contemplation of the differentiation of defilement and purity, which subsumes the first half-gate; second, the contemplation of reliance, which subsumes the latter half of the first gate and the second gate; third, the contemplation of skillful means; fourth, the contemplation of the marks of causes and conditions; fifth, the contemplation of entering truth; sixth, the contemplation of reliance on the faithful entry into efficacy and inefficacy; seventh, the contemplation of faithful entry into conceit and non-conceit—the above five gates each subsuming one gate in order; eighth, the contemplation of beginninglessness, which subsumes the eighth and ninth gates; ninth, the contemplation of manifoldness, which subsumes the tenth gate. The differences in explaining these marks will be known when we come to the text. However, all three contemplations encompass both benefits. If distinguished according to their marks: the contemplation of marks and truths is self-benefit; next, the contemplation of great compassion clarifies benefiting others; all-aspect wisdom encompasses both benefits. Distinctions within this are also different: the first five are self-benefit, the next two are benefiting others, and the last two are the maturation of both benefits. Among the first five: the first two encompass defilement and purity—one shows the marks of defilement and purity, and two shows the reliance of defilement and purity; the latter three contemplate only defilement, wherein the first two establish defiled phenomena—one, the causes of defiled phenomena, and two, the conditions of defiled phenomena—and the last contemplates faults with respect to defilement. Among the next two that benefit others: the first transforms ordinary beings, and the latter transforms the small \[vehicle\]. Among the last two, the maturation of both benefits: the first, the contemplation of ultimate truth, sees that phenomena are conditionally accumulated and lack inherent nature, hence called 'beginningless'; the latter, the contemplation of conventional truth, merely turns in accordance with conditions, hence called 'manifold.' Having understood the general meaning, we next directly explain the text. Following the ten sections of the sūtra, they are all explained in order using the three contemplations of the commentary, there being no other principle. In the ten sections of the sūtra, the first five use 'sons of the Buddha,' the next three use 'furthermore,' and the last two use the character 'moreover' as a distinction, with only the first gate having a 'son of the Buddha' in the middle. Now, in the first gate, the continuity of the branches of existence, we first rely on the contemplation of the differentiation of marks and truths. Within the three sections, corresponding to the three words 'establishing,' 'answering,' and 'marks,' it is divided into three. First, down to 'there is no place of arising,' determining selflessness is what the commentary explains as 'establishing'—meaning that by citing both understanding and delusion, it explains and establishes selflessness, so that one knows that the accumulation of conditions is merely a false self. Second, from 'he further has this thought' onward, inverted delusion giving rise to conditions is what the commentary explains as 'answering'—meaning that it resolves the difficulty to communicate the meaning of selflessness. Third, after 'sons of the Buddha,' straying from truth to give rise to delusion and the sequence of conditional marks is what the commentary explains as 'marks.' These three, when viewed against the ten gates, all reveal that the false self does not exist. Viewing the three against one another, they combine into two: the first two reveal the causes and conditions of arising, clarifying that conditions have no self; the latter one clarifies the sequence of the arising of conditions, showing that conditions have marks. The sūtra, based on this meaning, adds a 'son of the Buddha' in the middle, each possessing defilement and purity. Now, regarding the first, 'establishing': about to contemplate pratītyasamutpāda, it first explains and establishes selflessness, determining the primary doctrine so as to run through all the rest, thereby revealing that all ten gates establish selflessness; this directly shatters the dormant propensity of grasping at a self. In the text there are two clauses. First, stating that beings receiving birth in the world is entirely due to attachment to a self, it reversely cites the deluded sentiment to clarify that the self is contrary to principle, being nothing other than suffering and its accumulation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [39.7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.39.7.2) 若離此著則無生處者，即順舉解心，明理非我，是滅道故。 此直順經文已無我義成矣。 論經言受身處生者，以我執習氣但令自他差別，故論云「五道中所有生死差別。 若五道差別，自由業招耳。 」又論主反徵惑情顯成無我。 初徵著我，明凡應同聖過。 云若第一義中實有我相者，此按定所執著我之心。 即是第一義智，此反以縱立，謂稱實我知故。 次云不應世間受身處生者，以理正徵，謂若我是滅理、著心是道，則凡應同聖得於涅槃，何以著我世間受生耶？ 此中應為立過云：若第一義中實有我者凡應同聖，為立宗； 以有能證第一義中實我智故，為出因； 如諸生盡聖人，為同喻。 此則凡應同聖。 凡既同聖，即無凡夫，復成一過。 次反徵後句，明聖應同凡過云：又復若第一義中實有我相者，若離著我應常生世間，以不稱實、同於妄執，非第一義智故。 此中應為立過云：以理實有我，聖應同凡，為宗； 次聖證無我，違理倒惑非聖智故，為出因； 如諸凡夫，為同喻。 此則結成聖應同凡過。 聖既同凡，則無聖人，復是一過。 是以經云「若離此著則無生處」，則反顯妄情定是過也。 二過既成，則無我理昭然可見。 第二倒惑起緣，即論明答，答外伏難故。 兩難二答：一執情徵理難，情乖正理答。 二「常求」下執相徵實難，相不依我答。 今初難云：若實無我，云何著我？ 如空中無人，豈計有人？ 既著於我，不著無我，明知有我。 答云：由無智故，於無我處執著於我，非由有我。 如翳見空華，豈空中有華？ 第二難云：若實無我，何以貪著於我，世間受生為緣次第？ 明知有我，方得為緣次第生起。 答云：正由無我計我，癡愛為本、倒惑造業乃至老死，何要我耶？ 答意正爾。 就文分三：初明倒惑順起染緣； 二「此因緣故」下正智逆觀，結酬無我； 三「菩薩如是」下就人結觀。 今初。 然十二支即為十二別，亦無間然。 而諸論中多攝為四：一能引支，謂無明行能引識等五果種故； 二所引支，謂識等五是前二支所引發故； 三能生支，謂愛取有近生當來生老死故； 四所生支，即生老死是愛取有近所生故。 此約二世一重因果，明生引別。 若依三世兩重因果，則生引互通。 今經並具。 且依十二文分為五：初至有無辨無明支。 無智是癡，常求有無即是有愛。 然依三世，諸惑謝往總名無明，略舉發潤，有支本故。 若約二世，雖諸煩惱皆能發潤，而發業位無明力增，故名無明，唯取能發正感後世善惡業者以為其體。 希常為有，於有樂事，欲常住故。 求斷為無，於有苦事，願斷滅故。 次不正思惟至增長明行支，文有七句，初三行過、次三行體、後一結成。 初云不正思惟者，是行俱無明。 《涅槃》說此為無明因，亦無明攝。 躡前起後，故因果互舉。 次句就人彰過，謂起妄行者必是凡夫，無明為因，求有造業故。 故初地云「凡所作業皆顛倒相應」，反示菩薩勝義，謂菩薩雖行於有起於善行，以明為因，不求有造不名妄行。 下句就法彰過，論云「示於解脫處不正行故。 」若行涅槃路方為正道。 次三句辨行體相，以三業相應思造三行故。 謂由迷異熟愚違正信解，起感三塗惡業及人天別報苦業，皆名罪行。 然別必兼總，唯感別報非行支故。 由迷真實義愚，不知三界皆苦、妄謂為樂，起欲界善業名福行，八禪淨業名不動行。 後句結成行支，謂作已無悔，積集增長，有遷流故。 次「於諸行」下明識支，謂既發行已，由行熏心，令此本識能招當來生老死故，名之為種。 若無行熏終不成種故。 云於諸行中植心種字，即是所引識等五種，於一剎那為行所集，無有前後。 約為異熟六根之種，名六處支。 為異熟觸受種，名觸受支。 除本識種，為識支體。 及此三種諸餘異熟蘊種，皆名色支，故無前後。 > "If one is free from this clinging, there is no place of birth": this brings forward in proper sequence the understanding mind, clarifying that the noumenon is non-self, because it is the truths of cessation and the path. Straightforwardly following the sūtra text, the meaning of non-self is already established. When the commentary on the sūtra says "birth in a place where a body is received", it is because the habit-energy of self-grasping merely causes differentiation between self and other; hence the treatise says: "Whatever differences of birth and death there are among the five destinies. The differences among the five destinies are naturally brought about by karma alone." Furthermore, the treatise master inversely questions the deluded sentiments to demonstrate and establish non-self. First, he challenges clinging to a self, clarifying the fault that ordinary beings would have to be identical to noble ones. It says: "If in the ultimate truth there truly were the characteristic of a self"—this holds down the mind that clings to a self—"then this would be ultimate wisdom." This is an inverse concession, meaning that \[such grasping would\] accord with the knowledge of a real self. Next, it says: "They should not be born in places in the world where bodies are received." This properly questions based on reason, meaning: if the self were the noumenon of cessation and the clinging mind were the path, then ordinary beings ought to be identical to noble ones and attain nirvāṇa; why would they cling to a self and receive birth in the world? Here, a faulty argument should be formulated: "If in the ultimate truth there truly were a self, ordinary beings would be identical to noble ones" is the proposition; "Because there would be wisdom that realizes a real self in the ultimate truth" provides the reason; "Like noble ones whose rebirths are exhausted" is the positive example. This would mean that ordinary beings would be identical to noble ones. Once ordinary beings are identical to noble ones, there would be no ordinary beings—constituting yet another fault. Next, inversely questioning the subsequent sentence, he clarifies the fault that noble ones would have to be identical to ordinary beings, saying: "Furthermore, if in the ultimate truth there truly were the characteristic of a self, then if one were free from clinging to a self, one should constantly be born in the world, because \[such freedom\] would not accord with reality, would be identical to false attachment, and would not be ultimate wisdom." Here, a faulty argument should be formulated: "Because in reason there truly is a self, noble ones would be identical to ordinary beings" is the proposition; "Next, noble ones realize non-self, which contradicts reason and is inverted delusion, not noble wisdom" provides the reason; "Like all ordinary beings" is the positive example. This concludes the establishment of the fault that noble ones would be identical to ordinary beings. Once noble ones are identical to ordinary beings, there would be no noble ones—which is yet another fault. Therefore, the sūtra says: "If one is free from this clinging, there is no place of birth"; this inversely reveals that the deluded sentiment is definitively faulty. These two faults having been established, the principle of non-self can be clearly seen. Second, inverted delusions giving rise to conditions is explained in the treatise as a reply, because it answers a hidden objection from an opponent. There are two objections and two replies. First is the objection that challenges the noumenon based on clinging sentiments, replied to by showing that sentiments run contrary to correct noumenon. Second is the objection from "constantly seeking" onward, challenging reality based on characteristics, replied to by showing that characteristics do not rely on a self. Now, the first objection says: "If there truly is no self, why is there clinging to a self? Just as when there is no person in empty space, how could one imagine there to be a person? Since there is clinging to a self and not clinging to non-self, one clearly knows there is a self." The reply says: "Because of lack of wisdom, one clings to a self where there is no self; it is not because there is a self. Just as one with cataracts sees flowers in the sky—how could there be flowers in the sky?" The second objection says: "If there truly is no self, why does greedy clinging to a self serve as the sequential condition for receiving birth in the world? Clearly knowing there is a self, only then can there be sequential arising through conditions." The reply says: "Precisely because there is no self, one conceptualizes a self: delusion and craving are the root, and inverted delusions create karma down to old age and death; what need is there for a self?" Such is the precise intention of the reply. Regarding the text, it divides into three: first, it clarifies inverted delusions giving rise in forward order to defiled conditions; second, from "due to these causes and conditions" onward, correct wisdom contemplates in reverse order, concluding the reply on non-self; third, from "The bodhisattva thus…" onward, it concludes the contemplation with reference to the person. Now, the first. Although the twelve links are twelve distinct items without any gap, yet in various treatises they are mostly subsumed into four: first, the projecting links, meaning ignorance and formations, because they can project the seeds of the five results such as consciousness; second, the projected links, meaning the five such as consciousness, because they are projected by the preceding two links; third, the actualizing links, meaning craving, grasping, and existence, because they immediately actualize coming birth, old age, and death; fourth, the actualized links, which are birth, old age, and death, because they are immediately actualized by craving, grasping, and existence. This explains the difference between projection and actualization with reference to one layer of cause and effect across two lifetimes. If based on two layers of cause and effect across three lifetimes, then projection and actualization mutually interpenetrate. The present sūtra encompasses both. For now, following the twelve, the text is divided into five: first, up to "existence and non-existence" it explains the link of ignorance. Lack of wisdom is delusion; constantly seeking existence and non-existence is craving for existence. Yet, based on the three lifetimes, all defilements that have passed away are collectively called ignorance; this briefly brings up initiating and nourishing, because they are the root of the links of existence. If referring to two lifetimes, although all afflictions are capable of initiating and nourishing, at the stage of initiating karma the power of ignorance increases; hence it is called ignorance, taking solely that which can initiate and directly induce wholesome or unwholesome karma of future lifetimes as its essence. Hoping for permanence is "existence", because with regard to pleasurable matters of existence, one desires them to abide permanently. Seeking annihilation is "non-existence", because with regard to painful matters of existence, one wishes them to be cut off. Next, from "incorrect reflection" to "increase" clarifies the link of formations. The text has seven phrases: the first three are the faults of formations, the next three are the essence of formations, and the final one concludes their establishment. First, "incorrect reflection" is ignorance concurrent with formations. The Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] calls this the cause of ignorance, and it is also subsumed under ignorance. Stepping on the preceding to initiate the succeeding, cause and effect are thus mutually adduced. The next phrase reveals the fault with reference to the person, meaning that one who gives rise to false formations must be an ordinary being, taking ignorance as cause and creating karma out of seeking existence. Hence the first stage says: "Whatever karma is done is associated with inversion," which inversely indicates the superior meaning for bodhisattvas: although bodhisattvas act within existence and give rise to wholesome formations, with knowledge as their cause, not creating out of seeking existence, these are not called false formations. The following phrase reveals the fault with reference to the dharma; the treatise says: "It indicates improper practice regarding the place of liberation." Only if one walks the path of nirvāṇa is it the correct path. The next three phrases explain the essence and marks of formations, because through volition associated with the three karmas, one creates the three formations. Meaning, through the delusion of incomprehension regarding karmic ripening that contradicts correct faith and understanding, one gives rise to evil karma that induces the three wretched destinies, as well as painful karma of distinct retributions among humans and gods; these are all called unmeritorious formations. However, distinct \[retributions\] necessarily encompass the total; that which only induces distinct retributions is not the link of formations. Through the delusion of incomprehension regarding the real truth, not knowing that the three realms are entirely suffering and falsely deeming them pleasure, one gives rise to wholesome karma of the desire realm, called meritorious formations, and pure karma of the eight dhyānas, called immovable formations. The final phrase concludes the formation link, meaning that having acted without regret, they accumulate and increase, undergoing transition and flow. Next, from "in formations" onward clarifies the consciousness link, meaning that once formations have been initiated, because formations perfume the mind, they cause this fundamental consciousness to be able to bring about future birth, old age, and death; hence it is called a seed. If there were no perfuming by formations, it would never become a seed. Therefore it says "planting the mind-seed among formations," which is the five seeds such as the projected consciousness; they are accumulated by formations in a single instant, with no before or after. In terms of being the seed of the six internal bases of maturation, it is called the link of the six bases. Being the seeds of contact and feeling of maturation, they are called the links of contact and feeling. Excluding the seed of the fundamental consciousness, this is the essence of the consciousness link. And these three along with all other seeds of the maturation aggregates are all called the link of name-and-form; therefore there is no before or after. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [39.7.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.39.7.3) 因位難知，但依當起分位說五有殊，五不離心但名心種，又隱餘四就現說故。 然《唯識論》中，但識等種以為所引。 而《集論》中說此識支通於能引，正取業種為識支故，識種乃是名色支攝。 《緣起經》說通能所引，業種識種俱名識故； 識種但是名色所依，非名色故，不同《集論》。 今經意同《緣起經》說，通取二故雙舉行識。 論云此中起心種子者，示生老死體性者，謂未來二果以此識種為親因故。 次有漏有取成上種義，謂行及識等名言種子皆通無漏，今與三漏相應故名有支。 如初地中，以欲等四流起心種故。 有漏是愛、有取是取，愛取潤故能招後有。 次「復起」下辨名色支。 初之二句文含二意：一者成上種義，由起生死，心得種名。 二者總標後義，現行名等皆生老死故，即同初地於三界田中復生苦芽。 「所謂」下別，亦有二意：一通約十二，自此至生名色芽，是識生名色。 二為顯前來已具十因，則辨有支生於生死，名色居初，次第辨耳。 謂由前心等五種有漏有取，愛取潤故復起後有，是標有支生於二果，今別顯有支之相故。 《唯識》云「愛取合潤能引業種及所引因，轉名為有，俱能近有後有果故。 」《瑜伽》第十唯說業種名為有者，此能正感異熟果故。 如後段說。 三十八中復說唯識等五名為有者，親生當來識等五故。 實則總有八支共立有名，唯除無明，通有成九。 今經復加無明，則通前十因共招二果。 若以十二是前世二果，則一世中具十二矣。 且約有支，文有六緣：一業為田，即是行種，望所生果但為增上緣故。 二識為種，即是識等五種，為後生死作親因故。 如世種植依田肥瘦，然其菽麥隨自種生。 論總釋云「隨順攝取罪福等行，業為地故。 」此正明隨順於愛，攝前行識之種而成有支也。 三無明闇覆，論主取前經無明，故云前說無智闇障，無明覆蔽故。 此則依於等能發起遠為助故，亦是舉於前世例今世故。 準《唯識》意，非前發業無明即是覆業無明。 亦是愛攝，即迷外增上果愚。 又諸煩惱皆能潤故，以約十因同一世故。 四愛水為潤，論主指前常求有無之愛，即是舉例，亦即是前標中有漏，以前有愛無明攝故。 五我慢溉灌者，即是取支，要數溉灌方生有芽。 我語等取為我慢故，若悟無我容不生故。 六見網增長，亦是取支，見取攝故。 我見為本，諸見生故。 令無漏法不能壞故，名之為網。 論總釋云如是住如是生心者，總顯生名色芽。 由無明愛，令上識種安住業地，名色心生故。 次却釋我慢，彼經云「我心溉灌」，論云我是我所我我想是慢者，謂我是我所釋我字，以非但執我亦執行業，是我所修故。 次我我想是慢者，釋彼心字，心即想義，依我起於我想以陵他故，名之為慢。 正同今經。 次釋見網云「我生不生」，生即是常、不生是斷。 斷常為本，具足六十二見故。 末句云「如是種種諸見」也。 如初地中，始於無明終至識支皆名邪見。 然遠公諸德皆云我我所者，受生之時，自見己身名之為我，見父母精血名為我所。 又謂父母是我夫妻，當受生時與父母競色，謂己諍得便起勝想，故名為慢。 我生者，我唯此處生，不於餘處生。 此並通取中有求生之愛，於理無失。 然上諸句皆明能生，生名色芽即是所生當報五果。 初結生蘊即是識支，今以前辨識種隱於餘四，今辨現行略其總報所依，欲顯識與名色次第相生義故。 復欲顯其通種現故，故有隱顯。 然名色等必有所依本識，故初地云「於三界田復生苦芽，所謂名色共生。 」論云「共阿賴耶識生故」，即此後文云「與識共生」。 次「名色增」下辨六入等八支，如後段明。 然此一段，意欲答於受生所以，故具出諸惑隱顯等殊，不在顯相。 顯相在於後段。 二約逆觀結酬無我。 初二句約生明無我，但由無明等集，非由我集。 又上句揀無因，下句揀邪因。 後二句約滅明無我。 > Because the causal stage is difficult to know, the five are explained as distinct only according to their states as they are about to arise; as the five are not separate from the mind, they are simply termed 'seeds of the mind'; and furthermore, the other four are hidden to speak in terms of the manifest. However, in the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi\*, only the seeds of consciousness and so forth are taken as what is projected. Yet in the \*Abhidharmasamuccaya\*, this link of consciousness is said to extend to what can project, precisely because it takes karma-seeds as the link of consciousness, and seeds of consciousness are subsumed under the link of name-and-form. The \*Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra\* says that it extends to both the projecting and the projected, because karma-seeds and consciousness-seeds are both called 'consciousness'; the seeds of consciousness are merely the basis of name-and-form and are not name-and-form itself, which differs from the \*Abhidharmasamuccaya\*. The meaning of the present sūtra agrees with what is said in the \*Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra\*, taking both, and thus it mentions both volitional formations and consciousness together. The treatise says: 'Here, the arising seeds of the mind indicate the essential nature of birth and aging-and-death,' meaning that the two future results take these consciousness-seeds as their direct cause. Next, 'having defilements and having grasping' establishes the meaning of the above seeds: namely, nominal seeds such as volitional formations and consciousness all extend to the undefiled, but here they are associated with the three defilements and so are called 'factors of existence' (bhava-aṅga). As in the First Ground, the seeds of the mind are aroused through the four floods such as desire. 'Having defilements' is craving, and 'having grasping' is grasping; being moistened by craving and grasping, they can bring about future existence. Next, from 'again arising' downward, it explains the link of name-and-form. The first two lines contain two meanings: First, they establish the meaning of the seeds above; because birth-and-death arises, the mind receives the name 'seed'. Second, they generally indicate the subsequent meaning: because manifest names and so forth all generate aging-and-death, this is the same as the First Ground's 'again generating the sprout of suffering in the field of the three realms'. The specific explanation from 'that is to say' downward also has two meanings: First, generally regarding the twelve \[links\], from this point up to the arising of the sprout of name-and-form, consciousness gives rise to name-and-form. Second, to show that the preceding ten causes are already complete, it explains that the factor of existence gives rise to birth-and-death, with name-and-form at the beginning, expounding them in sequence. That is, due to the five preceding seeds of the mind and so forth having defilements and having grasping, being moistened by craving and grasping, they again give rise to future existence; this marks the factor of existence giving rise to the two results, and now specifically reveals the characteristics of the factor of existence. The \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi\* says: 'Craving and grasping together moisten the projecting karma-seeds and projected causes, which are then designated as "existence" (bhava), because both can immediately produce the result of future existence.' Fascicle 10 of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states only that karma-seeds are named 'existence', because these directly produce the fruition of vipāka, as explained in the subsequent section. Fascicle 38 further states that only the five beginning with consciousness are named 'existence', because they directly produce the future five beginning with consciousness. In fact, eight links in total collectively establish the name 'existence'; excluding only ignorance, or including existence, there are nine. The present sūtra further adds ignorance, so that together with the preceding ten causes, they jointly bring about the two results. If the twelve are taken as the two results of the previous life, then within a single life all twelve are complete. Now regarding the factor of existence, the text has six conditions: First, karma is the field, which is the seed of volitional formations, serving merely as an empowering condition (adhipati-pratyaya) with respect to the results produced. Second, consciousness is the seed, which is the five seeds of consciousness and so forth, acting as the direct cause for subsequent birth-and-death. Just as planting in the world depends on the richness or barrenness of the field, yet beans and wheat grow according to their own seeds. The treatise summarizes this: 'Following and grasping actions of demerit, merit, and so on, karma acts as the earth.' This precisely explains that by following craving, it grasps the preceding seeds of volitional formations and consciousness to form the factor of existence. Third, the dark obstruction of ignorance: the treatise master takes the ignorance from the preceding sūtra text, hence saying, 'Because of the previously explained darkness and obstruction of non-wisdom, shrouded by ignorance.' This is because, depending on its ability to initiate, it serves as a distant support, and it also cites the previous life to exemplify the present life. Following the meaning of the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi\*, the ignorance that previously initiates karma is not the ignorance that shrouds karma. It is also subsumed under craving, being the delusion that is ignorant of external empowering results. Moreover, all afflictions are capable of moistening, because the ten causes are considered within the same life. Fourth, the water of craving serves as moisture: the treatise master points to the craving previously seeking existence and non-existence, which is citing an example, and is also the 'having defilements' previously indicated, because previously existence and craving were subsumed under ignorance. Fifth, the watering of conceit is the link of grasping, for it requires repeated watering before the sprout of existence can grow. Grasping at self-doctrines and so forth is conceit, because if one realizes selflessness, it might not arise. Sixth, the net of views increases, which is also the link of grasping, being subsumed under the grasping of views. With the view of self as the root, all views arise. Because it prevents undefiled dharmas from destroying them, it is called a 'net'. The treatise summarizes this: 'Living thus and giving rise to the mind thus,' which generally shows the arising of the sprout of name-and-form. Due to ignorance and craving, the aforementioned seeds of consciousness abide in the ground of karma, and the mind of name-and-form is born. Next, turning back to explain conceit, that sūtra says 'watered by the self-mind', and the treatise says, '"Self" and "what belongs to self" and the thought of self are conceit'; 'self' and 'what belongs to self' explains the word 'self', for one does not merely grasp a self, but also grasps actions and karma as being cultivated by the self. Next, 'the thought of self is conceit' explains the word 'mind'; 'mind' has the meaning of thought: based on the self, one gives rise to the thought of self to look down on others, so it is called 'conceit'. This is identical to the present sūtra. Next, explaining the net of views, it says 'I am born or not born'; 'born' is eternalism, and 'not born' is annihilationism. With annihilationism and eternalism as the root, the sixty-two views are fully present. The final sentence says: 'All such various views.' As in the First Ground, from ignorance at the beginning to the link of consciousness at the end, all are called false views. However, Master Yuangong and other virtuous masters all said that 'self and what belongs to self' means that at the time of taking rebirth, seeing one's own body is called 'self', and seeing the semen and blood of one's parents is called 'what belongs to self'. Furthermore, thinking of the parents as one's own husband and wife, when taking rebirth one competes with the parents for physical appearance, and thinking that one has won the contest, one then gives rise to a thought of superiority; hence it is called 'conceit'. 'My birth' means 'I am born only in this place, not anywhere else.' These all broadly take the craving for seeking birth in the intermediate state (antarābhava), which is logically without error. However, the above sentences all explain what can produce; the birth of the sprout of name-and-form is precisely the five results of the future retribution that are produced. The aggregates at the initial conception of life are the link of consciousness; now, because the preceding explanation of the seeds of consciousness hid the other four, the present explanation of the manifest omits the basis of the general retribution, wishing to reveal the meaning of the sequential mutual generation of consciousness and name-and-form. Furthermore, wishing to show that they pervade both seeds and manifests, there is hiding and revealing. However, name-and-form and the rest must have the fundamental consciousness on which they rely; hence the First Ground says: 'In the field of the three realms, the sprout of suffering is again generated, that is to say, co-arising with name-and-form.' The treatise says: 'Because it co-arises with the ālayavijñāna,' which is what the subsequent text calls 'co-arising with consciousness'. Next, from 'name-and-form increases' downward, it explains the eight links such as the six sense bases, as clarified in the subsequent section. However, this passage aims to answer the reason for taking rebirth, so it fully sets forth the distinctions between the hiding and revealing of the afflictions, and does not lie in revealing their characteristics. Revealing their characteristics lies in the subsequent section. Second, concluding with the response regarding selflessness in terms of the reverse contemplation: The first two lines explain selflessness in terms of arising: it is assembled only through ignorance and so forth, not through a self. Furthermore, the upper line excludes the absence of causes, while the lower line excludes heterodox causes. The latter two lines explain selflessness in terms of cessation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [39.7.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.39.7.4) 剎那性滅，無使之然。 三就人結觀。 如是觀者，即隨順緣起之理。 > Because its nature is momentary cessation, nothing causes it to be so. Third, concluding the contemplation in terms of the person: contemplating thus is to accord with the principle of pratītyasamutpāda. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.39.7.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.3.127) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.39.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.39.7) · Pramāṇa