俱舍論記 23

English (machine translation) 23

Language: English

23.2

Chapter 6: Exposition of the Pudgalas (Part 2)

Regarding "Thus has been explained ... Because they remedy distortions, there are only four": from this point down is the third section, explaining the four foundations of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna). Within this, there are two parts: first, explaining the foundations of mindfulness with specific characteristics; second, explaining the foundations of mindfulness with general characteristics. Here it explains the foundations of mindfulness with specific characteristics, which is the second preparatory application (prayoga) among the seven preparatory applications. It sums up what precedes and introduces the query: Thus the two approaches of impurity and mindfulness of breathing, entering and cultivating, have been explained, by means of which the mind attains samādhi. Having attained samādhi, what else should one cultivate? In the verses that give the answer, the first verse indicates the name and presents the whole topic in general; the next two lines bring out their essence; the next line explains their sequence; and the final line explains why there are only four.

23.4

Regarding "The treatise says ... cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness": this explains the first two lines. Śamatha here means calm abiding (śamatha). Vipaśyanā here means special insight (vipaśyanā).

23.5

Regarding "How does one cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness?": this is a question.

23.6

Regarding "Namely, by means of specific and general characteristics ... excluding the three, the remaining dharmas": this cites the third and fourth lines in reply. Namely, by means of specific characteristics one contemplates the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas individually; and by means of general characteristics one contemplates the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas individually. Question: How is it known that one contemplates the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas individually through general characteristics? Answer: As Nyāyānusāra fascicle 60 states: "By means of specific and general characteristics, one contemplates each individually with respect to the objects of body and so forth." It also states: "Or, in the foundation of mindfulness of the body, contemplating specific characteristics means contemplating the distinct intrinsic nature of the body. Next, contemplating general characteristics in the foundation of mindfulness of the body means contemplating on the body its nature of being impermanent together with other conditioned phenomena, its nature of being suffering together with other contaminated phenomena, and its nature of being empty and non-self together with all other phenomena (feelings and so forth are understood accordingly)." Furthermore, the fifth fascicle of the Dharmaskandha-śāstra, in explaining the foundation of mindfulness of the body, explains that by means of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self, one contemplates the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas each individually. On the evidence of these treatises, we know that one contemplates the body and so forth individually by means of general characteristics. Excluding the three—body, feelings, and mind—all other dharmas are called the intrinsic nature of dharmas. The rest of the text is understandable.

23.7

Regarding "Tradition says that when in samādhi ... it should be understood as appropriate": this shows the mark of the completion of contemplation. The masters of the Vibhāṣā pass down the tradition: When in samādhi, contemplating the body distinctly down to a single subtle atom (paramāṇu) and down to a single moment (kṣaṇa) is called the fulfillment of the foundation of mindfulness of the body. Question: Since uninformative form (avijñapti-rūpa) does not consist of subtle atoms, how can it be said to reach fulfillment? Explanation: This passage is speaking temporarily based on obstructive form (pratigha-rūpa) reaching fulfillment. Or alternatively, this text also applies to uninformative form: although it has no subtle atoms, it has moments. The marks of fulfillment of the other three—feelings, mind, and dharmas—should be understood as appropriate. Since none of them are form, they have no subtle atoms. They are contemplated by moments; although unconditioned dharmas have no moments, this is stated based on conditioned phenomena according to the majority. Another explanation: conditioned phenomena are contemplated distinctly through momentary impermanence, while unconditioned phenomena are contemplated distinctly through emptiness and non-self; hence it says "it should be understood as appropriate."

23.8

Regarding "What is the intrinsic nature of the four foundations of mindfulness?": from here down explains the fifth and sixth lines. This is the question.

23.9

Regarding "These four foundations of mindfulness ... because of the distinction in their cognitive objects": this sets forth the general headings in reply. The Nyāyānusāra states: "For what reason are three kinds of foundations of mindfulness spoken of? For sentient beings who are confused about mental activity, requisites, and cognitive objects, three kinds are spoken of."

23.10

Regarding "The foundation of mindfulness as intrinsic nature ... the three kinds of foundations of mindfulness": this explains the first heading. The foundation of mindfulness as intrinsic nature takes the three prajñās of listening, reflecting, and cultivating as its essence; these three prajñās are also termed the three kinds of foundations of mindfulness. As for explaining the name: the intrinsic nature is prajñā; the reason it is called a foundation of mindfulness is that prajñā abides by means of mindfulness, or it causes mindfulness to abide, and therefore it is called the foundation of mindfulness as intrinsic nature.

23.11

Regarding "The conjoined foundation of mindfulness ... taking coexistent phenomena as essence": this explains the second heading. The conjoined foundation of mindfulness takes prajñā and the other coexistent phenomena of prajñā as its essence. As for explaining the name: prajñā abides by means of mindfulness, or it causes mindfulness to abide, hence it is called a foundation of mindfulness. The phenomena associated with and coexistent with the foundation of mindfulness are conjoined with the foundation of mindfulness, hence it is called the conjoined foundation of mindfulness. Question: How is it known that the conjoined foundation of mindfulness also includes prajñā? Answer: As the Samayapradīpikā fascicle 30 states: "Among the three, the conjoined one can abandon defilements, while the other two cannot, because they are either too deficient or too broad. However, the term 'conjoined' also includes the essence of prajñā, because prajñā and its coexistent phenomena are conjoined with one another." Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra fascicle 60 states: "It is not that the foundation of mindfulness as intrinsic nature is incapable of abandoning defilements, because its essence is prajñā. However, it is called 'intrinsic nature' when considered without depending on anything else. When abandoning defilements, it must depend on other phenomena; therefore, at the stage of abandoning defilements, prajñā is designated with the name 'conjoined.' On this basis, the statement that the conjoined foundation of mindfulness can abandon defilements is well established in reason."

23.12

Regarding "The foundation of mindfulness as cognitive object ... taking all dharmas as essence": this explains the third heading. The foundation of mindfulness as cognitive object takes all dharmas that are the cognitive objects of prajñā as its essence, because there is no dharma that is not a cognitive object of prajñā. As for explaining the name: prajñā abides by means of mindfulness, or causes mindfulness to abide, hence it is called a foundation of mindfulness. Body, feelings, mind, and dharmas are the cognitive objects of the foundation of mindfulness, hence it is called the foundation of mindfulness as cognitive object.

23.13

Regarding "How is it known that the intrinsic nature is prajñā and nothing else?": this is a question. How is it known that the foundation of mindfulness as intrinsic nature is prajñā and nothing else?

23.14

Regarding "The sūtra says: with regard to the body ... because it functions as tracking and observing": this cites the reply and is easy to understand.

23.15

Regarding "For what reason is the name 'foundation of mindfulness' applied to prajñā?": this is a question. If its intrinsic nature is prajñā, it should be called 'foundation of prajñā'; for what reason is the name 'foundation of mindfulness' applied to prajñā?

23.16

Regarding "The masters of the Vibhāṣā ... supported by the power of a wedge": this is the answer. An axe, supported by a wedge, is able to split wood; prajñā, supported by mindfulness, is able to operate with respect to an object. This is naming it after its cause.

23.17

Regarding "In truth and reality, one should say ... then it abides without error": the author of the treatise explains: In truth and reality, one should say that prajñā causes mindfulness to abide; naming it after its effect, the designation 'foundation of mindfulness' is applied to prajñā. In accordance with what prajñā contemplates, mindfulness is able to remember clearly. In the treatises and sūtras cited, it is invariably because of the contemplation of prajñā that mindfulness comes to abide. 'Wumie' in Sanskrit is Aniruddha; previously rendered as Analü or Aniloudou, which were corruptions.

23.18

Regarding "However, there is a sūtra that says ... each has three kinds": this reconciles and explains the text of the sūtra. There is indeed a sūtra that says: "Question: Through what do these four foundations of mindfulness arise? Through what do they cease? The sūtra further replies: Through the arising of food, the body arises." By means of material food, the body increases. Through the arising of contact, feelings arise: through the cause of contact, the result of feeling can be produced. Through the arising of name-and-form, the mind arises: because name serves as associated and coexistent causes for the mind, and form serves as basis and cognitive object for the mind, the result of mind can be produced. Another explanation: in terms of the four stations of consciousness, the form skandha is form, while feeling, perception, and formations are name. Consciousness is that which abides, which is what arises; therefore consciousness is excluded. Through the arising of attention (manaskāra), dharmas arise: because of the occurrence of attention, other mental factors among these dharmas arise. If the four causes of food, contact, name-and-form, and attention cease, then correspondingly the four results of body, feelings, mind, and dharmas cease. If one follows this sūtra, the foundations of mindfulness are four; how then can one say that prajñā is their intrinsic nature? The author of the treatise explains: One should know that when speaking of three foundations of mindfulness, it is called the foundation of mindfulness as cognitive object because mindfulness abides steadily in them. Moreover, the individual names of the four foundations of mindfulness follow their cognitive objects. Within the cognitive objects, they either take the body of one's own continuum, or the body of another's continuum, or the body of both one's own and another's continua as an object, because there are three distinct types. 'Both' means taking both one's own and another's as object. Each single foundation of mindfulness taking one's own, another's, or both as object has three types respectively. Three times four becomes twelve foundations of mindfulness; therefore that sūtra speaks of the foundation of mindfulness as cognitive object. Although within the four foundations of mindfulness, body and dharmas also extend to what does not belong to a continuum, here it is temporarily discussed in terms of a continuum, or according to the majority.

23.19

Regarding "These four foundations of mindfulness are taught in the sequence in which they arise": this explains the seventh line, clarifying that the four arise in sequence.

23.20

Regarding "For what reason, then, do they arise in such a sequence?": this is a question.

23.21

"In accordance with the coarseness of the objects ... [they arise in] such an order": this is the answer. Because one should first contemplate what is coarse according to the object, among the four kinds [of mindfulness], physical form is coarse and therefore contemplated first; among the latter three, feeling is coarse and therefore contemplated first, like pain in a hand or the like. Among the latter two, mind is coarse and therefore contemplated first; dharmas are the most subtle, and therefore they are contemplated last. Although within dharmas, ideation and the like are coarser than the mind, nirvāṇa within dharmas is exceedingly subtle, and because they are posited together with exceedingly subtle dharmas, speaking in terms of subtlety, they are therefore stated last. Alternatively, lustful desires operate with respect to the body, and therefore among the four applications of mindfulness, contemplating the body comes first. However, lust for the body arises from delighting in feeling—or because one delights in feeling—therefore contemplating feeling comes second. Delighting in feeling arises from the mind being untamed, and therefore the third is contemplating the mind. The mind being untamed arises because afflictions have not been eliminated, and afflictions are subsumed under dharmas, so the fourth is contemplating dharmas.

23.22

"These four applications of mindfulness ... neither increase nor decrease": this explains the eighth line, clarifying that there are only four. Among the four applications of mindfulness: contemplating the body as impure counters the distortion of purity; contemplating feeling as suffering counters the distortion of pleasure; contemplating the mind as impermanent counters the distortion of permanence; contemplating dharmas as non-self counters the distortion of self. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: "Alternatively, to counter the foods of morsel, contact, consciousness, and mental volition, the four applications of mindfulness on body and so forth are established in that order; hence there are only four, neither increasing nor decreasing."

23.23

"Of the four, three kinds ... are called miscellaneous objects": this shows that the four objects of focus include both miscellaneous and non-miscellaneous. Of the four, the first three, when contemplated individually and distinctively, are exclusively non-miscellaneous objects. The fourth object of focus comprises both miscellaneous and non-miscellaneous: if one contemplates only dharmas, it is called a non-miscellaneous object. With respect to the four—body and so forth—one may combine and contemplate two, combine and contemplate three, or comprehensively contemplate all four. Combining two by two yields six; combining three by three yields four; combining all four yields one: altogether there are eleven, which are called miscellaneous-object dharmas, because they are collectively termed dharmas. One first focuses non-miscellaneously on body, feeling, mind, and dharmas; immediately following the non-miscellaneous application of mindfulness on dharmas, the miscellaneous-object application of mindfulness on dharmas is induced.

23.24

"Having thus fully cultivated ... [contemplating them as] suffering, empty, and non-self": this is the second part, clarifying the application of mindfulness on general characteristics, which is the third preparatory application among the seven preparatory applications. That practitioner, dwelling in the application of mindfulness on dharmas that takes comprehensive miscellaneous objects, contemplates solely the four objective domains of body and so forth as objects of focus, cultivating four mental aspects: contemplating all conditioned phenomena as having the nature of impermanence; contemplating all sāsrava phenomena as having the nature of suffering; and contemplating all dharmas as having the nature of emptiness and non-self. The applications of mindfulness on dharmas with miscellaneous objects are of three kinds in total, namely two, three, and four; only the comprehensive focus on all four is designated as what is cultivated here. The preceding miscellaneous ones were not exclusively [all four], and therefore differ from this. Question: The Mahāvibhāṣā speaks of the contemplation of the three meanings and the sevenfold skillfulness; why does this treatise not mention them? The contemplation of the three meanings refers to contemplating the aggregates, sense bases, and elements in sequential order. The sevenfold skillfulness refers to contemplating the suffering of form, contemplating the origin of form, contemplating the cessation of form, contemplating the path of form, contemplating the gratification in form, contemplating the peril of form, and contemplating the escape from form. The first four contemplate the four noble truths of form; the statement 'gratification in form' repeatedly contemplates the origin of form; the statement 'peril of form' repeatedly contemplates the suffering of form; the statement 'escape from form' repeatedly contemplates the truth of the cessation of form. The reason origin is contemplated first is in accordance with the sequential order of exposition. The path is not mentioned because the faculties capable of contemplating are mostly the path. Feeling, ideation, mental formations, and consciousness each likewise have seven; one should speak of thirty-five, but because they do not exceed seven aspects, one simply speaks of the sevenfold skillfulness. Explanation: One should indeed state that they exist; that they are not mentioned is because they are abbreviated and not discussed. Another explanation: The three meanings and seven aspects are practiced by śrāvakas, but the Buddha and pratyekabuddhas do not practice them. Here, the text generally refers to the preparatory applications of the three vehicles; therefore it does not mention those two modes of contemplation. Question: At what stage do the contemplation of the three meanings and the sevenfold skillfulness arise? Explanation: These two kinds arise in the preparatory stage after the application of mindfulness on dharmas with miscellaneous objects and before the application of mindfulness on general characteristics. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 61, states: 'The treatise says: There are four kinds of applications of mindfulness on dharmas with miscellaneous objects in total, due to the distinction of taking two, three, four, or five aggregates as their object. Only the comprehensive focus on the five is designated as what is cultivated here. Dwelling in this, he cultivates the four mental aspects, comprehensively contemplating all bodies, feelings, minds, and dharmas—namely as impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self. However, when cultivating this application of mindfulness, there are other wholesome roots that can serve as expedients, which he should cultivate and bring into presence in sequence. That is to say, having already fully cultivated the application of mindfulness on dharmas with miscellaneous objects, when he is about to cultivate this application of mindfulness, he should first take a comprehensive object to cultivate the practice of non-self; next, contemplate arising and ceasing; next, contemplate dependent arising. This is because the practitioner, having first contemplated conditioned phenomena as arising and ceasing from causes, will then easily enter into the mode of contemplation on the mutual connection of cause and effect. Or, some would have him first contemplate dependent arising, and after this induce the contemplation focusing on the three meanings. Immediately following this contemplation, he cultivates the sevenfold skillfulness; because he attains skillfulness in the seven aspects, he is able to establish the truths of cause and effect to observe them sequentially with respect to the domains previously seen. Having thus thoroughly cultivated wisdom and concentration, he is then able to establish the truths that conform to direct realization—namely, the suffering and so forth of the desire realm and the higher realms separately. Sequentially contemplating these eight in accordance with their order, he cultivates the sixteen mental aspects never cultivated before. By means of wisdom arisen from listening, he initially gives rise to such contemplation of the sixteen mental aspects with respect to the eight truths, like seeing various colors through thin silk. Up to this point is termed the perfection of wisdom arisen from listening; wisdom arisen from reflection should be stated by analogy with this. Next, he generates profound revulsion toward saṃsāra and delights in the tranquil qualities of nirvāṇa; after this, he frequently induces the contemplation of revulsion to become present, cultivating it diligently through expedients, making it gradually increase and gradually excel. Inducing such supreme wholesome roots subsumed under [wisdom] arisen from reflection that are capable of conforming to decisive penetration is precisely the cultivated application of mindfulness on dharmas that comprehensively focuses on common characteristics.' Explanation: This shows that after the application of mindfulness on dharmas with miscellaneous objects and prior to the application of mindfulness on dharmas that comprehensively focuses on common characteristics, the preparatory stages are: first, cultivating the practice of non-self; second, contemplating arising and ceasing; third, contemplating dependent arising (or some would have him first contemplate dependent arising); fourth, the contemplation focusing on the three meanings; fifth, cultivating the sevenfold skillfulness; sixth, training to practice the contemplation of the sixteen mental aspects through wisdom arisen from listening; seventh, training to practice the contemplation of the sixteen mental aspects through wisdom arisen from reflection; eighth, profound revulsion toward saṃsāra and delight in nirvāṇa. These are all preparatory applications for general characteristics; from this, one is then able to induce such supreme wholesome roots subsumed under [wisdom] arisen from reflection that conform to decisive penetration, which is precisely the cultivated application of mindfulness on dharmas that comprehensively focuses on common characteristics. Here, it is provisionally based on one who has not yet detached from the defilements of desire, and therefore it is stated that general characteristics are subsumed under wisdom arisen from reflection; if one has already detached from desire, the application of mindfulness on general characteristics is then subsumed under wisdom arisen from cultivation. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 61, states: 'If one has previously detached from the defilements of the desire realm, relying on the wisdom arisen from cultivation subsumed under the form realm, feeling revulsion toward saṃsāra and delighting in nirvāṇa, with mental engagement predominantly accompanied by practices of revulsion, one is able sequentially to induce the arising of the distinct wholesome root of Heat. For all those who have not previously detached from the defilements of desire, they rely on wisdom arisen from reflection to induce the arising of the wholesome root of Heat; therefore, one should not hold an exclusive stance on that.'

23.25

"Having cultivated this contemplation ... are all wisdom; five, except attainment": from here down is the fourth section, clarifying the four wholesome roots such as Heat, which are the last four preparatory applications among the seven preparatory applications. Within this: first, clarifying the contemplative practice of the wholesome roots; second, distinguishing various categories; third, clarifying the superior benefits of the wholesome roots; fourth, clarifying the shifting of faculties in the three vehicles; fifth, clarifying the duration of time for cultivating the fruit. This [passage] clarifies the contemplative practice of the wholesome roots.

23.26

"The treatise says ... therefore it is called Heat": this explains the first line and can be understood.

23.27

"This wholesome root of Heat ... as will be distinguished later": this explains the second and third lines, and is also readily understandable.

23.28

"This wholesome root of Heat ... the sixteen mental aspects": this explains the fourth line, and this too can be understood.

23.29

"Such Heat and Summit ... are exclusively the application of mindfulness on dharmas": this explains the fifth line and the first 'dharma' in the sixth line.

23.30

"In what sense is it called 'initially setting foot'?": this is the question.

23.31

"That is, according to whichever wholesome root ... the footprints of the four noble truths": this is the answer.

23.32

"When later advancing ... due to a mind of deep reverence": this explains the latter four in the sixth line.

23.33

"This wholesome root of Summit ... differs from the preceding": this explains the seventh line. Because acquiescence in the principle of the four truths is supreme, it is therefore called Patience (kṣānti). Furthermore, because the patience at this stage is free from falling back, it is called the dharma of Patience. Moreover, the Nyāyānusāra states: "Although the supreme worldly dharmas are also able to acquiesce in the noble truths, because they are bound to enter the path of seeing without interruption, they are definitively free from falling back, yet they do not comprehensively contemplate the principles of the four noble truths. Because this [stage] comprehensively contemplates them, it alone obtains the name of Patience; hence this is specifically spoken of as patience conforming to the truths." The rest of the text can be understood.

23.34

"However, this dharma of Patience ... the sixteen mental aspects": this explains the eighth line. Patience has three grades: the lower and middle are the same as Summit, comprehensively contemplating the four truths and cultivating the sixteen mental aspects; this is stated in terms of general characteristics. If distinguished specifically, in the middle grade of Patience, although at first one comprehensively contemplates the eight higher and lower truths, the mental aspects are gradually abbreviated, and reaching the later stage, the truths are also gradually abbreviated. This will be explained immediately below.

23.35

Regarding 'The superior [grade] is different … because it is not continuous': this explains the ninth and tenth lines. The superior [grade of patience] is different: it observes only the suffering of the desire [realm], because it is immediately adjacent to the supreme worldly dharmas; therefore, this superior patience observes only the suffering of the desire [realm]. By this reasoning, the principle is established that the wholesome roots of warmth, summit, and inferior and middling patience are all fully capable of taking as their object the four truths of the three realms, because in the stages of warmth and so forth there is no distinction made [of restricting them]. From 'The yogi…' onwards, the demarcations of the two stages of middling and superior patience are shown. 'The antidote path and so forth': 'and so forth' includes the remaining seven truths; citing the later indicates the earlier. For each truth, there are thirty-two kinds of subjective aspects (ākāra) that can take objects, as well as the eight upper and lower truths that are the objective domains (ālambana). As appropriate, they are gradually reduced and curtailed until only two moments of mind contemplate the suffering of the desire [realm]. Up to this point it is called the stage of middling patience; the subsequent single kṣaṇa is called superior patience. Hence the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle sixty-one, says: 'How are inferior, middling, and superior patience distinguished? Now, inferior patience possesses eight classes of mind: namely, when a yogi observes the suffering of the desire realm with four aspects, that is called one class of mind; similarly he next observes the form and formless [realms]; and the truths of origination, cessation, and the path are also observed in this manner, constituting eight classes of mind—this is called inferior patience. Middling patience reduces and curtails the aspects and the objective domains: namely, when the yogi observes the suffering of the desire realm with four aspects, up to fully observing the path of the desire realm with four aspects, he reduces one aspect with respect to the path of the higher realms; from this point on, it is called the beginning of middling patience. In this manner, in proper sequence, he gradually reduces and curtails aspects and objective domains, until at the very least, with only two minds, he observes the suffering of the desire realm, like the stages of the dharma-receptive patience regarding suffering (duḥkhe dharma-jñāna-kṣānti) and the dharma-knowledge regarding suffering (duḥkhe dharma-jñāna); up to this point is called the fulfillment of the stage of middling patience. Superior patience observes only the truth of suffering of the desire realm, cultivates a single aspect, and lasts only a single kṣaṇa, because the arising of this wholesome root is not continuous.' Question: How does middling patience reduce aspects and reduce objective domains? The explanation is: There are thirty-two aspects and eight truths as objective domains: namely, desire-suffering and higher-suffering, desire-origination and higher-origination, desire-cessation and higher-cessation, desire-path and higher-path, each having four aspects; in their proper sequence, from the back to the front, aspects are reduced and objective domains are reduced. In the first cycle, one observes the suffering of the desire realm with four aspects, and so on up to observing the path of the desire realm with four aspects. Afterwards, one observes the path of the higher realms with three aspects, reducing the lowest single aspect of the path of the higher realms. In the second cycle, one observes the path of the higher realms with two aspects, again reducing one aspect. In the third cycle, one observes the path of the higher realms with one aspect, again reducing one aspect. In the fourth cycle, one observes the truth of the path of the desire realm with four aspects and does not observe the higher path; this is called reducing the objective domain. At the time of reducing the objective domain, although an aspect is also reduced, because it is subsumed under reducing the objective domain it is not called reducing an aspect. As with the truth of the higher path, so it is with the remaining seven truths; only among the objective domains one does not eliminate the suffering of the desire realm and a single aspect. In summary, across the eight upper and lower truths, for each truth three aspects are reduced; three times eight is twenty-four cycles of reducing aspects, and seven cycles of reducing objective domains, leaving only the suffering of the desire realm and a single aspect. Another explanation says: Twenty-four cycles only reduce aspects; seven cycles reduce aspects and also reduce objective domains. Looking from the side of the cognizing [aspect], it is called reducing aspects; looking from the side of the cognized domain, it is called reducing objective domains. Question: How is it known that under each and every truth one first reduces aspects and afterwards reduces objective domains? Answer: As the Nyāyānusāra says, 'He reduces one aspect with respect to the path of the higher realms; from this point on, it is called the beginning of middling patience.' Ancient masters explained: Eliminating seven truths from among the eight truths is called seven cycles of reducing objective domains. Eliminating three aspects from the truth of suffering of the desire realm is called three cycles of reducing aspects. That there are seven cycles of reducing objective domains is indeed acceptable; but that there are three cycles of reducing aspects is not so. Question: If one first reduces aspects, one should not be able to cultivate those reduced aspects. Why does the Mahāvibhāṣā say: 'Question: Does increasing patience cultivate the sixteen aspects at all times? Answer: Not so. Sometimes sixteen, sometimes twelve, sometimes eight, sometimes four'? The explanation is: Although an aspect has been reduced, as long as it has not yet reached the point of reducing the objective domain, because one still takes the truth as an objective domain, one is also able to cultivate the reduced aspect; once it reaches the point of reducing the objective domain, one does not cultivate that aspect. Cultivating them is done because of admiration; since one no longer takes that truth as an objective domain, one therefore also does not cultivate its aspects. Hence the treatise says: 'As one curtails that objective domain, one does not cultivate its aspects; therefore, it can be that at times one cultivates sixteen, and there is no cultivation of fifteen, fourteen, or thirteen. It can be that at times one cultivates twelve, and there is no cultivation of eleven, ten, or nine. It can be that at times one cultivates eight, and there is no cultivation of seven, six, or five. It can be that at times one cultivates four, and there is no cultivation of three, two, or one.' Question: If one cultivates sixteen, what difference is there from inferior patience? The explanation is: Although the cultivation of acquisition (prāptibhāvanā) is the same, the cultivation of application (prayogabhāvanā) is different. Question: The eight upper and lower truths each have four aspects; since it is said that aspects are reduced, which aspect is reduced first? The explanation is: Across the eight upper and lower truths, each truth has four aspects, totaling thirty-two. Among them, only a single aspect of the suffering of the desire realm is retained in preparation for entering the path of vision; the remaining thirty-one, according to the order of their names, are gradually eliminated from the back to the front, reducing one per cycle until they are completely exhausted. Since objective domains are gradually eliminated from the back to the front, eliminating aspects should also be like this. Question: Among the four aspects of desire-suffering, which aspect is retained? The explanation is: For those about to enter the path of vision, there are two kinds of practitioners. First, practitioners of views, among whom there are two: those attached to the view of self produce the aspect of non-self; those attached to the view of what belongs to self produce the aspect of emptiness. Second, practitioners of craving, among whom there are two: those with prominent conceit of self produce the aspect of impermanence; those with prominent indolence produce the aspect of suffering. For these four persons, whichever aspect is intended to be used to enter the path of vision, that very aspect is retained. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred and nine, says: 'Question: Which pudgalas enter the certainty of right realization (samyaktva-niyāma) relying on emptiness? Which pudgalas enter the certainty of right realization relying on the wishless? Answer: If one is a practitioner of views, one enters the certainty of right realization relying on emptiness. If one is a practitioner of craving, one enters the certainty of right realization relying on the wishless. Except only for bodhisattvas, who, although they are practitioners of craving, enter the certainty of right realization relying on emptiness. Furthermore, practitioners of views are of two kinds: those attached to the view of self enter the certainty of right realization relying on the aspect of non-self; those attached to the view of what belongs to self enter the certainty of right realization relying on the aspect of emptiness. Practitioners of craving are also of two kinds: those with prominent conceit of self enter the certainty of right realization relying on the aspect of impermanence; those with prominent indolence enter the certainty of right realization relying on the aspect of suffering. Furthermore, those of sharp faculties mostly enter the certainty of right realization relying on emptiness; those of dull faculties mostly enter the certainty of right realization relying on the wishless (end of treatise citation).' Now, superior patience, the supreme worldly dharmas, and the dharma-receptive patience regarding suffering all have identical aspects; therefore this is cited as proof. Question: In the path of vision, under the remaining three truths there are four aspects each; which aspect does one produce? The explanation is: According to what was previously practiced, one produces that very aspect. Furthermore, according to the explanation of reducing aspects by the Western master Guṇaprabha: The eight upper and lower truths each have four aspects, and according to the order of their names, their intended correspondences are all mutually connected. For example, if at a later time one should enter the path of vision by means of the aspect of impermanence under the truth of suffering of the desire realm, under one's own truth, from the back to the front, one first eliminates non-self, next emptiness, and finally suffering. If one intends to enter the path of vision by means of the aspect of suffering, one first eliminates non-self, next emptiness, and finally impermanence. If one intends to enter the path of vision by means of the aspect of emptiness, one first eliminates non-self, next suffering, and finally impermanence. If one intends to enter the path of vision by means of the aspect of non-self, one first eliminates emptiness, next suffering, and finally impermanence. As the elimination of the four aspects of the truth of desire-suffering is like this, so also is the elimination of the four aspects of the truth of the higher path. For example, if one enters the path of vision by means of desire-realm impermanence, under the higher-realm path one first eliminates 'emergence', next 'practice', next 'proper', and finally 'path', because 'path' belongs to 'impermanence' and is therefore eliminated last. If one enters the path of vision by means of suffering, one first eliminates 'emergence', next 'practice', next 'path', and finally 'proper', because 'proper' belongs to 'suffering' and is therefore eliminated last. If one enters the path of vision by means of the aspect of emptiness, one first eliminates 'emergence', next 'proper', next 'path', and finally 'practice', because 'practice' belongs to 'emptiness' and is therefore eliminated last. If one enters the path of vision by means of the aspect of non-self, one first eliminates 'practice', next 'proper', next 'path', and finally 'emergence', because 'emergence' belongs to 'non-self' and is therefore eliminated last. Just as the aspects under desire-suffering are gradually eliminated from the back, the aspects under the higher-realm path should correspond to those desire-realm aspects, being eliminated earlier or later as explained for the desire realm. As with the elimination of the four aspects under the higher-realm path, the elimination of the four aspects under each of the remaining six truths is similarly applicable. Following this, one should know that among the aspects arisen in the path of vision, that which belongs to the aspect at the time of superior patience is the one that arises first. Furthermore, Guṇaprabha explains: Impermanence and suffering are the conduct of craving; emptiness and non-self are the conduct of views. As with the sequential order of reducing the four kinds of aspects of the truth of desire-suffering at a later time, the sequence of reducing the aspects of the remaining seven truths should also be known to be like this. As for reducing the four aspects under desire-suffering: if one intends to enter the path of vision by means of impermanence, one first eliminates emptiness, because emptiness eliminates what belongs to self and is therefore eliminated first; next one eliminates non-self, because it eliminates the self and is therefore eliminated later. These two are the conduct of views and are therefore eliminated first. Afterwards one eliminates the aspect of suffering, because this aspect of suffering shares the conduct of craving with the aspect of impermanence. If one intends to enter the path of vision by means of the aspect of suffering, the elimination of emptiness and non-self is as previously stated; afterwards one eliminates impermanence, because the aspect of impermanence shares the conduct of craving with this aspect of suffering. If one intends to enter the path of vision by means of the aspect of emptiness, one first eliminates suffering, because of prominent indolence; next one eliminates impermanence, because of prominent conceit of self, and because it carries a sense of self, it is intertwined with the conduct of views and is eliminated after suffering. These two are both arisen from practitioners of craving and are therefore eliminated first. Afterwards one eliminates non-self, because the aspect of non-self shares the conduct of views with this aspect of emptiness, and is therefore eliminated later. If one intends to enter the path of vision by means of the aspect of non-self, one first eliminates suffering and impermanence as previously stated; afterwards one eliminates the aspect of emptiness, because the aspect of emptiness shares the conduct of views with the aspect of non-self, and is therefore eliminated later. Just as the four kinds of aspects under desire-suffering have no fixed sequence and are eliminated as appropriate, the elimination of the four kinds of aspects of the remaining seven truths should also be known to be like this. As for eliminating the four aspects of the higher-realm path: if one enters the path of vision by means of desire-realm impermanence, under the path one first eliminates 'practice', because 'practice' belongs to 'emptiness'; next one eliminates 'emergence', because 'emergence' belongs to 'non-self'; next one eliminates 'proper', because 'proper' belongs to 'suffering'; and finally one eliminates 'path', because 'path' belongs to 'impermanence'. If one enters the path of vision by means of suffering, one first eliminates 'practice', next eliminates 'emergence', next eliminates 'path', and finally eliminates 'proper'. If one enters the path of vision by means of emptiness, one first eliminates 'proper', next eliminates 'path', next eliminates 'emergence', and finally eliminates 'practice'. If one enters the path of vision by means of non-self, one first eliminates 'proper', next eliminates 'path', next eliminates 'practice', and finally eliminates 'emergence'. All follow the previous explanation. Just as eliminating the four kinds of aspects of the higher path corresponds to the four kinds of aspects under desire-suffering, eliminating the four kinds of aspects of each of the remaining six truths should also be known to be like this. Following this, one should know that among the aspects arisen in the path of vision, that which corresponds and belongs to superior patience is the one that arises first. The explanation given by Guṇaprabha is superior in its reasoning; if it were not so, which aspect would arise among the four aspects of each truth?

23.36

Regarding 'Immediately after superior patience … therefore it is called supreme': this explains the eleventh line. Immediately after superior patience, the [worldly] supreme [dharmas] arise. Like superior patience, it takes the truth of suffering as its objective domain, cultivates a single aspect, and lasts only a single kṣaṇa; being sāsrava, it is called 'worldly', and because it is superior, it is 'supreme'. It can act as the immediately antecedent condition (samanantara-pratyaya), possessing virile activity (puruṣakāra), and, separated from homogeneous causes (sabhāga-hetu), induces the arising of the noble path; therefore it is called supreme.

23.37

Regarding 'Such [roots of good as] Heat and so forth... because they do not become manifest again': this explains the twelfth pāda. The roots of good such as Heat all have wisdom (prajñā) as their essential nature; if accompanied by their associates, they are all of the nature of the five skandhas. However, their acquisition (prāpti) is excluded, lest these roots of good such as Heat become manifest again in noble ones (āryas). Originally, one generates Heat and the rest in order to seek the noble path; once one has already attained the noble [state], it is unreasonable that one should generate preparatory (prayogika) roots of good, because they are useless. Yet, after having attained the noble [state], there is the possession (samanvāgama) of Heat and the rest. If acquisition were their essential nature, then there would be the fault of Heat and the rest becoming manifest again; for this reason, Heat and the rest do not have acquisition as their essential nature. Question: Why is the acquisition of the four fruits of asceticism (śramaṇaphala) itself a fruit of asceticism, whereas the acquisition of Heat and the rest is not Heat and the rest? Explanation: Because the essential nature of the fruits of asceticism is manifested through possession, their acquisition is the fruit of asceticism. Because the noble ones do not re-arise the roots of good such as Heat, their acquisition is not Heat and the rest. Question: If acquisition is the fruit of asceticism, when one initiates the path toward a subsequent fruit, the acquisition of the previous fruit is active, so they ought to become confused and mixed together. Explanation: Although the acquisition of the fruit arises, the dharma of the attained fruit itself does not become active; therefore, they do not become mixed together. Hence the Nyāyānusāra (fascicle 61) says: 'Furthermore, although the continuous acquisitions of the fruits of asceticism are also admitted to be the essence of the fruits of asceticism, there is no fault of confusion among the stages of the eight noble persons, because for those who abide in the path to a higher fruit, the dharmas attained that are subsumed by the [previous] fruit definitely do not become active, and for those who abide in a fruit, all the dharmas attained that are subsumed by the path to a higher fruit are also not possessed.'

23.38

Regarding 'Herein, the dharma of Heat... because they are also able to cultivate': from this point down, the text distinguishes cultivation through activity (prayogabhāvanā) and cultivation through acquisition (prāptibhāvanā) of the applications of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna) and their aspects (ākāra). This explains the initial cultivation and subsequent cultivation of the dharma of Heat. In the stage of the initial cultivation of Heat, because this lineage (gotra) has never been attained before, and it arises initially observing the truths, its strength is feeble; only what is of the same category (sabhāga) can be cultivated, and therefore it cannot laterally cultivate the applications [of mindfulness] and aspects of the remaining truths. Later, when progressing, because this lineage has already been attained previously and has already observed the truths, its strength is robust; what is of a different category (visabhāga) can also be cultivated, and therefore it can laterally cultivate the applications [of mindfulness] and aspects of the remaining truths. In general, the factors leading to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya) all accord with the path of seeing (darśanamārga); in the stage of the path of seeing, there is only the application of mindfulness to dharmas (dharma-smṛtyupasthāna), so in the initial stage, in the present [moment] only mindfulness of dharmas is cultivated. Hence the Vibhāṣā says: 'However, because the roots of good of the factors leading to penetration accord with the path of seeing, in the stage of their initial arising, in the present [moment] all of them cultivate only the application of mindfulness to dharmas' (end of śāstra passage). Later, being slightly more at ease, according to circumstances the four applications of mindfulness are cultivated in the present. Furthermore, because suffering, origination, and the path have form, sensation, mind, and other dharmas, they possess the four applications of mindfulness; cessation is solely unconditioned (asaṃskṛta), so it has only the mindfulness of dharmas. Furthermore, in the stage of progression, one should say that thirteen applications of mindfulness are cultivated, namely four applications of mindfulness for each of suffering, origination, and the path, while the truth of cessation is only dharmas. Because they do not exceed four, they are called cultivating the four applications of mindfulness.

23.39

Regarding 'When Summits first establish their footing... future sixteen': this explains the cultivation of the applications of mindfulness and aspects in the two stages of initial and subsequent Summits (mūrdhan). Initially, according with the path of seeing, in the present [moment] there is only mindfulness of dharmas; because of prior habituation, it can laterally cultivate the applications of mindfulness and other aspects of the remaining truths. In the subsequent stage, being at ease, according to circumstances the four applications of mindfulness are cultivated in the present.

23.40

Regarding 'When Forbearances first establish their footing... they do not cultivate those aspects': this explains the applications of mindfulness and aspects that can be cultivated in the initial and subsequent stages of Forbearances (kṣānti). As they gradually approach the path of seeing and resemble the path of seeing, both initial and subsequent Forbearances cultivate solely the mindfulness of dharmas. Hence the Vibhāṣā (fascicle 188) says: 'Question: Why is it that in both the initial Forbearance and the stage of increase, only the application of mindfulness to dharmas is cultivated in the present? Answer: Because Forbearance is close to the path of seeing and resembles the path of seeing; just as in the path of seeing only the application of mindfulness to dharmas is cultivated in the present, so it is with Forbearance' (end of śāstra passage). Because of prior cultivation, it laterally cultivates the applications of mindfulness and aspects of the remaining truths. However, in the stage of progression, when curtailing the objects of observation, according as it curtails those objects of observation, it does not cultivate those aspects. Because the mind's aspiration draws forth and causes [them] to arise, in curtailing the objects of observation the mind abandons something, and therefore cannot cultivate [them]. If it curtails the objects of observation, it does not cultivate those aspects, whereas before reaching the curtailing of objects, it can cultivate the aspects in full. Hence the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Speaking of distinctions, when curtailing the objects of observation, according as it curtails those objects of observation, it does not cultivate those aspects. That is, observing four in full, it cultivates sixteen in full. If it observes three, two, or one, it cultivates twelve, eight, or four' (end of śāstra passage). What is called 'progression' refers to the stage from repeated observation onward. Alternatively, from the curtailing of objects and aspects onward is called progression.

First 40 of 154 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論記 — Classical Chinese