大般涅槃經疏 31.25

31.25

「眾生觀受」下，第二別答，明修觀解。文為五：一觀受、二觀想、三觀欲、四觀業、五觀十二因緣。此之五觀但成兩科：前四觀五陰、後一觀因緣。觀五陰中何故不觀識色兩陰？識初起時未別苦樂。論人云：識得實法，想得假名，未能分別是故不觀，色陰麁淺故亦不觀，三陰猛盛所以觀之。於三陰中受想不開，行陰開二，謂欲、業是。所以然者，行陰過重，是故開之。觀中一一例皆有四：一觀受體、二觀受因、三觀受果、四明修道。初觀受體，夫受心者只是果報。言近因者，以受是五果之末，從於此處復起三因生諸煩惱，名觸因緣。言因緣者，觸名不定無別自體，亦可說識為觸、亦可說想為觸，此是次第因緣。言無明觸，即是煩惱前心。言明觸者，即是無漏前心。言非明無明觸者，即是有漏諸善前心。「復當更觀」下，第二觀受因。前討受因，無所從生，後明從和合生。次「觀果報」下，即第三觀果。「若人能作如是」下，第四修道。文云觸有三種。一無明觸者，若行心作惡，即識想受三名無明觸；行心起善，即前三心名為明觸；行在無記。非善非惡。即前三心名非明無明觸。又一解：如次文云「明觸即入聖道，餘之二觸增長諸惡。」「復次善男子」下，第二觀想，例前為四。此言想者，非謂想陰，以行心中別有想倒。又思惟中名想倒心倒，見諦之中名為見倒。今乃總論，不得名見，通名為想。又云無色界為一切想者，無色界中乃有不用處，非謂一切，但前二是一切，故以為名。觀想體中又二：先正觀體、次問答（云云）。初問中云滅受想名解脫者，數人云：得解脫者不止滅此二心，滅一切心乃得解脫。今偏言二心者，過患多故。受心修禪，想修無色；受心味禪，想計無色以為涅槃。論家不爾，緣世諦名想受，緣真諦名慧心。世諦想心可滅得脫，真諦慧心不可滅，與數大同。故迦葉難云：滅一切法名為解脫。豈滅兩心得解脫耶？佛答：須滅一切方得解脫。佛或時總說即攝一切，或時別說。今說受想二滅即得解脫，此則總論已說一切。文中初云因眾生說聞者解法者，即是因於眾生說善惡等法，聞即得解。又云因法說眾生眾生得解者，先說善法須近、惡法須捨，眾生聞此即能得解。此兩意，正酬前問。次觀想因，亦二：先正觀因、次兩番問答。三觀果、四修道，悉如文。「復次智者觀欲」下，第三觀欲，即是煩惱門，亦例有四。此初觀欲體，正是內心。今但舉外塵者，能生心欲，故名塵為欲，此即因中說果。「倒想因緣便生於受」下，第二觀欲因。「次觀」下，三觀果報。「是故」下，四修道。「復次智者」下，第四觀業，亦為四。先觀體。文云受想觸欲是煩惱者，數論二解。一云：受想觸欲心王起時，數即隨起。此中云受想者，即是十通心數中四數，受即痛數。既屬通心，俱通善惡，心數起善即名為善，心數起惡即名煩惱，今據起惡言之。論云無王數異，此中云受想四者，即是四心，但無色陰。觸即是識，欲即行陰。若行起善即名為善，若行起惡即名煩惱，此中正明作惡義也。又言能作生業不作受業者，二釋：一云由此煩惱因緣不絕，故云生業；而不能分別五蓋果報諸受差別，故不作受。二云由此煩惱潤業得生，故言能作生業；而不能招。捨受二捨中容捨心，既是煩惱云何能潤生？於受樂受正是樂心，復不能潤。此並論潤業生義。與業共行則有二種者，欲出業體，比論業時猶有於惑，故言與業共行。而業法不同，故具為生受二業。又云身口二業亦名為業亦名果者，其能造作即名為業，復暢口意即名為果。意但是業，無自暢義，故不名果。又云正業是意，以意正是業體故也。期業為身口業者，以身口自然符會，有若期契，故云期業也。第三觀果報，又二：初正解四業、次兩番問答料簡。初如文。初番問如文。答中云無漏名果不名報者，或時云果報不異，此中判別。私謂：無漏是習果，故但云果，不得云報。次番問如文。答中云又言十不善法有上中下，重苦入地獄、輕苦入餓鬼、不重不輕在畜生。十善有四報在四洲，閻浮年命果報最劣，下業之果；而言上上者，取其修道行善邊勝。四「有智之人」下，修道。「復次智者觀業煩惱已」下，第五是觀十二緣。文亦有四，謂煩惱業有苦。但今文準前受想等皆具四門，今文但云煩惱等。私云：十二緣中體、因、果報三義具足。能觀之智即是修道，且依現文即是果報。以此文推，煩惱得苦，業亦得苦，不應云煩惱不能招報。《十地經》分十二因緣為三道，謂煩惱、業、苦。無明愛取是煩惱道，行有是業道，識等及老死是苦道。此中為四，長出於有，即指現在五果為有。生死為苦，苦之與有，此亦無定。而上文明八苦，不取識名色但取老死，故作此說。然此四句，若具存其相，一從煩惱生煩惱、二從煩惱生業、三從煩惱生有、四從煩惱生苦。次更約業，一從業生業、二從業生惑、三從業生有、四從業生苦。後兩句亦爾，即應十六句，今文但九句。亦有經本說十二句者，但九句少。十二句多。準理應有十一句。何者？十二因緣次第相生，如因無明生行，因行生識，乃至因生生老死，老死不知更生何等。若爾，只十一句。但出經者安十二時，意欲彰於十二因緣。今此不足，只是廣略不同。夫相生者，有前生後、後逆生前，復有跨節相生。且作初句煩惱生煩惱，無明是本，即是煩惱而生愛取。煩惱生業，即是無明生行。煩惱生有者，即是無明生識等。煩惱生苦，即生老死。第二句從業生業者，從行生有。從業生煩惱者，行生無明。從業生有者，行生識等。從業生苦者，即是行生老死。第三句，從有生有者，識生六入等。從有生煩惱者，即識生無明。從有生業者，識生行。從有生苦者，即識生老死。第四句，從苦生苦，是從生生老死。從苦生煩惱者，從老死生無明。從苦生業者，即老死生行有。從苦生有者，即識等五果。文云內外愛則有愛苦者，經有二文，一云「受苦」、二云「愛苦」。愛義稍弱，義解皆通。言受者，由此受故則受於苦。言愛苦者，經中多言恩愛為苦。就觀因緣，今亦準前四觀不同，體中為四：一明因果相生、二觀五道皆苦、三觀三界皆苦、四觀八苦。初又二：初正辨相生、後結十二義。相生九句並相關，如文。「有智之人觀地」下，第二觀五道苦。就五道中具有十二因緣，中煩惱等四地獄即是苦，煩惱即是煩惱，業即是業，體即是有。例餘道亦然。「智者深觀三界」下，第三觀三界皆苦。然三界未必皆苦，唯三塗是苦，人天至第三禪皆樂、第四禪是捨，此且一邊。若依如來初成道時，手指上下三界皆苦。「智者若能」下，第四觀八苦。「智者深觀」下，第二觀苦因。文云苦因即愛無明者，小乘中業煩惱為苦因，大乘中即愛有無明為苦因。小乘業為苦本，無明為旁，是故文云愛為集諦皆用煩惱為苦本。文云愛無明有內外者，有二義。且出愛內外者，見外色境，生心想著，名為外愛；自心起染，名為內愛。見他人身是外愛，見自己身是內愛。無明者，內心不了名內無明，不別外事即外無明。文云愛因緣取、取因緣愛者，此如十二因緣，順則愛緣取，逆則取緣愛。此二義者還是取愛互相因待，如無明緣行行緣無明，亦因亦果。三觀果報。四「智者」下，修道，如文。

From "a sentient being contemplates sensation" onward is the second part, which provides specific answers, clarifying the cultivation of meditative contemplation and understanding. The text has five sections: first, contemplating sensation; second, contemplating conception; third, contemplating desire; fourth, contemplating karma; and fifth, contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination. These five contemplations constitute only two headings: the first four contemplate the five aggregates, and the last contemplates dependent origination. Within contemplating the five aggregates, why are the two aggregates of consciousness and form not contemplated? When consciousness first arises, it has not yet distinguished suffering and pleasure. Masters of the treatises say: consciousness apprehends actual entities, whereas conception apprehends nominal designations; because it cannot yet make differentiations, it is therefore not contemplated. The aggregate of form is coarse and shallow, so it is also not contemplated. The three aggregates are intensely prominent, which is why they are contemplated. Among the three aggregates, sensation and conception are not divided, while the aggregate of volition is divided into two, namely desire and karma. The reason for this is that the faults of the aggregate of volition are grave; hence it is divided. Within each contemplation there are four items: first, contemplating the essence of sensation; second, contemplating the cause of sensation; third, contemplating the fruit of sensation; and fourth, clarifying the cultivation of the path. First, contemplating the essence of sensation: the mind of sensation is merely retributive fruition. Regarding the "proximate cause": because sensation is the last of the five fruits, from here the three causes arise anew to generate all afflictions; this is called "contact as condition." Regarding "condition": the designation "contact" is unfixed and has no separate self-essence; consciousness can also be called contact, and conception can also be called contact; this is the sequential condition. "Ignorant contact" refers to the preceding mind of affliction. "Luminous contact" refers to the preceding mind of the uncontaminated. "Neither luminous nor ignorant contact" refers to the preceding mind of all contaminated wholesome states. From "one should further contemplate" onward is the second part, contemplating the cause of sensation. First, inquiring into the cause of sensation, it has nowhere from which it arises; later, it clarifies that it arises from harmonious combination. Next, from "contemplating retributive fruition" onward is the third part, contemplating the fruit. From "if a person can act thus" onward is the fourth part, cultivating the path. The text says that contact is of three kinds: First, ignorant contact: if the volitional mind produces evil, the three—consciousness, conception, and sensation—are called ignorant contact; if the volitional mind gives rise to good, these preceding three mental states are called luminous contact; if the volition is in the indeterminate, neither good nor evil, then the preceding three mental states are called neither luminous nor ignorant contact. Another explanation says: as the following text states, "Through luminous contact one enters the noble path; the other two contacts increase all evils." From "Furthermore, good son" onward is the second part, contemplating conception, which by analogy with the preceding has four items. What is here called "conception" does not refer to the aggregate of conception, because within the volitional mind there are separate cognitive perversions. Furthermore, in the realm of reflection it is called cognitive perversion and mental perversion, while in the realm of the vision of the truth it is called view perversion. Here it is discussed in general: it cannot be designated as "views," but is generally called "conceptions." Furthermore, it is said that the formless realm is "all conceptions"; within the formless realm there is indeed the stage of nothingness, so it does not literally mean all; but because the first two are "all," it is named accordingly. Within contemplating the essence of conception there are also two parts: first, directly contemplating the essence; next, the questions and answers, and so forth. In the first question, it says that the cessation of sensation and conception is called liberation. The Sarvāstivādin masters say: one who attains liberation does not merely cease these two mental states; only by ceasing all mental states does one attain liberation. Now, mentioning these two mental states in particular is because their faults and perils are numerous. With the mind of sensation one cultivates dhyāna; with conception one cultivates the formless states. With the mind of sensation one relishes dhyāna; with conception one grasps the formless states and takes them to be nirvāṇa. The Sautrāntika treatise masters do not hold this: perceiving conventional truth is called conception and sensation; perceiving ultimate truth is called the mind of wisdom. The conventional mind of conception can be eliminated to attain liberation, whereas the mind of wisdom directed toward ultimate truth cannot be eliminated; this is largely the same as the Sarvāstivādins. Therefore Kāśyapa objected: "Liberation is called the cessation of all dharmas; how could the cessation of two mental states be called liberation?" The Buddha answered that one must eliminate everything before attaining liberation. Sometimes the Buddha speaks generally, thus subsuming everything; sometimes he speaks specifically. Now he speaks of the cessation of the two—sensation and conception—as attaining liberation; this is speaking generally, already encompassing everything. In the text, it first says that explaining the teaching to sentient beings leads listeners to understand: this means explaining wholesome and unwholesome dharmas based on sentient beings, which upon hearing leads them to understanding. It also says that explaining sentient beings based on the Dharma leads sentient beings to understand: first explaining that wholesome dharmas should be drawn close to and unwholesome dharmas abandoned, sentient beings upon hearing this are able to understand. These two senses directly respond to the preceding question. Next, contemplating the cause of conception also has two parts: first, directly contemplating the cause; next, two rounds of questions and answers. Third, contemplating the fruit; fourth, cultivating the path; all are as in the text. From "Furthermore, a wise person contemplates desire" onward is the third part, contemplating desire, which is the gateway of affliction, and likewise has four items. Here, first contemplating the essence of desire: this is properly the internal mind. Now, merely mentioning external sense objects is because they can generate desire in the mind; hence sense objects are called desire. This is speaking of the effect in terms of the cause. From "through the condition of perverted conception, sensation is generated" onward is the second part, contemplating the cause of desire. Next, from "next contemplates" onward is the third part, contemplating retributive fruition. From "therefore" onward is the fourth part, cultivating the path. From "Furthermore, a wise person" onward is the fourth part, contemplating karma, which also has four items. First, contemplating the essence. The text says that sensation, conception, contact, and desire are afflictions. The Sarvāstivādins and treatise masters have two explanations. One says: when the primary mind of sensation, conception, contact, and desire arises, the mental factors arise along with it. Here, mentioning sensation and conception refers to four factors among the ten universal mental factors; sensation is the factor of feeling. Since they belong to the universal factors, they are shared by both good and evil: when the mental factor gives rise to good, it is called good; when the mental factor gives rise to evil, it is called affliction. Here it is spoken with respect to the arising of evil. The treatise says that there is no distinction between primary mind and mental factors. Here, speaking of the four from sensation and conception means the four mental aggregates, merely omitting the aggregate of form: contact is consciousness, and desire is the aggregate of volition. If the volition produces good, it is called good; if the volition produces evil, it is called affliction. Here it directly clarifies the sense of doing evil. Furthermore, regarding the statement that it can perform generative karma but does not perform karma of experiencing retribution: there are two explanations. One says: because the causes and conditions of this affliction are uninterrupted, it is called generative karma; but because it cannot discriminate the different sensations of the retributions of the five hindrances, it does not perform experiencing retribution. The second says: because this affliction moistens karma so that it can be born, it is said that it can perform generative karma; yet it cannot summon it. Among the two indifferent sensations, how could an indifferent mind, being an affliction, moisten birth? Toward sensations, a pleasant sensation is precisely a mind of pleasure, which again cannot moisten. These all discuss the meaning of moistening karma for birth. Regarding "operating together with karma, there are two kinds": in seeking to elucidate the essence of karma, in comparison, when discussing karma there is still delusion present; hence it is said to "operate together with karma." However, the dharmas of karma are not the same, so it completely comprises the two karmas of generating and experiencing. It is also said that the two karmas of body and speech are called karma and are also called fruits: that which is capable of creating action is called karma; further, expressing through speech and intention is called fruit. The mind is merely karma, lacking the sense of self-expression, and hence is not called fruit. It is also said that primary karma is volition, because intention is properly the essence of karma. Taking intended karma as bodily and vocal karma is because body and speech naturally correspond, as if by agreement; hence it is called intended karma. Third, contemplating retributive fruition also has two parts: first, directly explaining the four karmas; next, two rounds of questions, answers, and analysis. The first is as in the text. The first round of questions is as in the text. The answer says that the uncontaminated is called fruit but not called retribution: sometimes it is said that fruit and retribution are not different, but here a distinction is drawn. I personally suggest: the uncontaminated is the fruit of practice; therefore it is only called fruit and cannot be called retribution. The second round of questions is as in the text. The answer says that it is also said that the ten unwholesome actions have higher, middling, and lower grades: severe suffering enters hell, light suffering enters hungry ghosts, and neither severe nor light is among animals. The ten wholesome deeds have four retributions across the four continents; the lifespan and retributive fruit in Jambudvīpa are the most inferior, the fruit of lower karma; yet speaking of it as supreme takes the aspect of cultivating the path and practicing goodness as superior. Fourth, from "a person of wisdom" onward is cultivating the path. From "Furthermore, after a wise person contemplates karma and affliction" onward is the fifth part, which contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination. The text also has four items, namely affliction, karma, existence, and suffering. But the present text, by analogy with the preceding contemplations of sensation, conception, and so forth, completely possesses the four gateways, whereas the present text merely mentions affliction and so forth. I personally say: within the twelve links of dependent origination, the three meanings of essence, cause, and retributive fruition are fully complete. The wisdom capable of contemplating is cultivating the path; relying provisionally on the present text, it is retributive fruition. Inferring from this text, affliction obtains suffering, and karma also obtains suffering; one should not say that affliction cannot summon retribution. The Daśabhūmika Sūtra divides the twelve links of dependent origination into three paths: affliction, karma, and suffering. Ignorance, craving, and grasping are the path of affliction; volitional formations and existence are the path of karma; consciousness through aging-and-death are the path of suffering. Here there are four, adding an extra "existence," pointing to the present five fruits as existence. Birth-and-death is suffering; the distinction between suffering and existence is not fixed. Moreover, the preceding text clarifies the eight sufferings without taking consciousness and name-and-form, taking only aging-and-death; hence it makes this statement. However, for these four phrases, if their characteristics are fully preserved: first, from affliction arises affliction; second, from affliction arises karma; third, from affliction arises existence; fourth, from affliction arises suffering. Next, regarding karma: first, from karma arises karma; second, from karma arises delusion; third, from karma arises existence; fourth, from karma arises suffering. The latter two phrases are also like this; there should thus be sixteen phrases, yet the present text only has nine phrases. There are also sutra manuscripts that speak of twelve phrases; nine phrases are too few, twelve phrases are too many. Conforming to principle, there should be eleven phrases. Why? The twelve links of dependent origination arise sequentially from one another: as formations arise from ignorance, consciousness arises from formations, up to aging-and-death arising from birth; it is not known what aging-and-death gives rise to further. If so, there are only eleven phrases. However, when the translator arranged twelve, the intention was to illuminate the twelve links of dependent origination. The present lack is merely a difference of breadth and brevity. When things arise from one another, there are those where the former produces the latter, where the latter inversely produces the former, and where they arise across intermediate links. Taking the first phrase, "affliction produces affliction": ignorance is the root, which is affliction, and produces craving and grasping. Affliction producing karma is ignorance producing volitional formations. Affliction producing existence is ignorance producing consciousness and so forth. Affliction producing suffering produces aging-and-death. In the second phrase, "from karma arises karma" is from formations arising existence. "From karma arises affliction" is formations producing ignorance. "From karma arises existence" is formations producing consciousness and so forth. "From karma arises suffering" is formations producing aging-and-death. In the third phrase, "from existence arises existence" is consciousness producing the six sense fields and so forth. "From existence arises affliction" is consciousness producing ignorance. "From existence arises karma" is consciousness producing formations. "From existence arises suffering" is consciousness producing aging-and-death. In the fourth phrase, "from suffering arises suffering" is from birth arises aging-and-death. "From suffering arises affliction" is from aging-and-death arises ignorance. "From suffering arises karma" is aging-and-death producing formations and existence. "From suffering arises existence" is the five fruits of consciousness and so forth. The text says that through internal and external craving there is the suffering of craving: the sutra has two variants, one reading "experiencing suffering" and the other "the suffering of craving." The meaning of "craving" is slightly weaker, though both interpretative explanations are coherent. Saying "experiencing" means that on account of this sensation, one experiences suffering. Saying "suffering of craving" is because the sutras often speak of affectionate attachment as suffering. Regarding the contemplation of dependent origination: here too, by analogy with the preceding four contemplations, it is different. Within its essence there are four parts: first, clarifying that cause and fruit arise from one another; second, contemplating that the five destinies are all suffering; third, contemplating that the three realms are all suffering; fourth, contemplating the eight sufferings. The first also has two parts: first, directly distinguishing their mutual generation; later, concluding with the twelve meanings. The nine phrases of mutual generation are all interrelated, as in the text. From "a person of wisdom contemplates the earth" onward is the second part, contemplating the suffering of the five destinies. Within the five destinies, the twelve links of dependent origination are fully possessed: among the four—affliction and the rest—hell is suffering, affliction is affliction, karma is karma, and the essence is existence. By analogy, the other destinies are also like this. From "a wise person deeply contemplates the three realms" onward is the third part, contemplating that the three realms are all suffering. However, the three realms are not necessarily all suffering: only the three evil paths are suffering; from humans and devas up to the third dhyāna is all pleasant, and the fourth dhyāna is neutral indifference; this is one side of the matter. If we rely on the Tathāgata when he first achieved enlightenment, pointing upward and downward with his fingers, the three realms are all suffering. From "if a wise person can" onward is the fourth part, contemplating the eight sufferings. From "a wise person deeply contemplates" onward is the second part, contemplating the causes of suffering. The text says that the cause of suffering is craving and ignorance: in the Hīnayāna, karma and affliction are the causes of suffering; in the Mahāyāna, craving, existence, and ignorance are the causes of suffering. In the Hīnayāna, karma is the root of suffering and ignorance is secondary; therefore the text says that craving is the noble truth of the origin, all using affliction as the root of suffering. The text says that craving and ignorance have internal and external aspects; this has two meanings. First, setting forth the internal and external of craving: seeing external visual objects and generating mental attachment is called external craving; one's own mind giving rise to defilement is called internal craving. Seeing another's body is external craving; seeing one's own body is internal craving. As for ignorance: the internal mind failing to understand is called internal ignorance; not discriminating external things is external ignorance. The text says that craving conditions grasping, and grasping conditions craving: this is like the twelve links of dependent origination; in the forward order, craving conditions grasping; in the reverse order, grasping conditions craving. These two meanings show that grasping and craving mutually depend on one another, just as ignorance conditions formations and formations condition ignorance, being both cause and fruit. Third, contemplating retributive fruition. Fourth, from "a wise person" onward, cultivating the path, as in the text.