俱舍論疏 21

English (machine translation) 21

Language: English

21.2

Chapter Five: Investigation of the Anuśayas, Part Three.

The Śāstra says: "Having already analyzed in this way, up to 'or are there still others?'"—this concludes the previous four approaches and gives rise to the subsequent approach. The intent of the question is: With respect to distinctions in faults, the World-Honoured One spoke of the anuśayas and paryavasthānas as outflows, floods, yokes, and so forth. Are there only that many names for the faults? Or are different names established according to yet other meanings? From here below, the second half-verse establishes five further meanings. Impurities (mala) are neither paryavasthānas nor anuśayas, so they form a separate approach.

21.4

The Śāstra says: "The text says, up to 'five kinds are further spoken of'"—this lists the five names: first, fetters (saṃyojana); second, bonds (bandhana); third, anuśayas; fourth, secondary defilements (upakleśa); fifth, entanglements (paryavasthāna).

21.5

The Śāstra says: "First, what are the fetters?"—From here below, the five meanings together with impurities make six items in number. Below this, five and a half verses first explain the fetters. Among them are three kinds: first, the nine fetters; second, the five lower-portion fetters; third, the five higher-portion fetters. These two and a half verses explain the nine fetters.

21.6

The Śāstra says: "The text says, up to 'the ninth, the fetter of avarice'"—this lists the nine names.

21.7

The Śāstra says: "Herein, the fetter of craving, up to 'their characteristics should be distinguished'"—this brings out the fetter of craving. As for why these nine kinds are collectively named fetters, the Nyāyānusāra states: "Because they have the power to bind to objects and to rebirths, they are called fetters. Alternatively, because they exist, they join sentient beings to manifold suffering; hence they are called fetters, as they are the footing for manifold suffering and afflictions. Herein, the fetter of craving refers to attachment in the three realms; this is spoken of with respect to the basis and the objective support. Relying on a body of the three realms and taking objects of the three realms as objective support, attachment that is not yet free from the defilement of the three realms is called attachment in the three realms. What is called attachment refers to mental activity characterized by taking pleasure in agreeable signs—that is, delight and attachment arising with respect to realms of existence and the requisites for existence, which is called attachment. For what reason is this attachment called craving? Because this defiled mental factor follows pleasing objects." Regarding "the rest, as appropriate, their characteristics should be distinguished," this refers to the fetter of hostility and so forth. As explained elsewhere, their characteristics should be distinguished. The Nyāyānusāra explains: "Hostility refers to causing the mind to detest and turn away from activities grasped under repulsive notions and the desire for separation. Conceit refers to the seven conceits, as already explained before. The fetter of ignorance refers to non-knowledge in the three realms; this is said in terms of the basis, not the objective support, because unconditioned and untainted dharmas do not fall into the realms, and ignorance also takes them as objective support. This is differentiated in detail as in the 'Conditioned Arising' section. The fetter of view and the fetter of grasping both have the characteristic of false inference; their distinct characteristics are shown extensively as in the five views. In the previous analysis of the view of extreme grasping, it was said: among conditioned outflows grasped as 'mine', grasping at annihilation or permanence is called the view of extreme grasping. Therein, what does the annihilation view signify? It refers to grasping that after death, conditioned factors do not arise in succession. Is this not simply the wrong view that repudiates future existence? Although there is this objection, it is observed in the world that there are things whose modes of activity are the same while their essential natures are distinct, just as benevolence and attachment have distinct essential natures but identical modes of activity. How are their modes of activity identical while their essential natures are distinct? For instance, when initiating an exertion wishing to benefit another, if it belongs to a defiled mind, it arises from attachment; if it arises from benevolence, it belongs to an undefiled mind: this is termed identical modes of activity with distinct essential natures. Likewise, regarding conditioned factors, viewing them as not continuing to arise, if born from wrong means, belongs to the annihilation view; if arising independently of means, this belongs to wrong view. This also constitutes identical modes of activity with distinct essential natures. The means giving rise to these views of annihilation and permanence are as spoken of in the sixty-two views."

21.8

The Śāstra says: "The fetter of views refers to three views; the fetter of graspings refers to two graspings"—this divides the five views into two fetters.

21.9

The Śāstra says: "According to such a principle, up to 'the anuśayas increase in accord'"—below, it separately quotes the question and answer from the fundamental treatise. This is the question. "Is there any factor associated with views" refers to factors associated with the grasping of views and the grasping of precepts and vows, because these two graspings are two views among the five views. "Bound by the fetter of craving, yet not bound by the fetter of views, while it is not the case that the anuśaya of view does not increase in accord with it" means bound by the fetter of craving among the nine fetters, not bound by the fetter of views among the nine fetters, yet the anuśaya of view among the ten anuśayas increases in accord with it.

21.10

The Śāstra says: "[The reply] is: there is"—this is the answer.

21.11

The Śāstra says: "How?"—this asks again.

21.12

The Śāstra says: "When the knowledge of origin has already arisen, up to 'because they increase in accord with it'"—an extensive citation. This refers to the time when the knowledge of origin has already arisen and the knowledge of cessation has not yet arisen, identifying the essential nature of the factors associated with the two graspings abandoned by the path of seeing cessation and seeing the path. At the time when the knowledge of origin has already arisen, this means that the universal anuśayas abandoned by [seeing] suffering and origin have already been abandoned. The three fetters of view—namely the view of self-existence, the view of extremes, and wrong view—under suffering and origin have already been abandoned, and therefore cannot bind the factors associated with the two graspings under cessation and the path. Wrong view under cessation and the path is a non-universal fetter of view; because it takes the untainted as its objective support, it does not take as its objective support the factors associated with the two graspings under cessation and the path, nor is it associated with them. Hence, they are not bound by the fetter of view. However, because greed under cessation and the path takes them as objective support, they are bound by the fetter of craving through objective support. Since the five views are all called the anuśaya of view, the two graspings are subsumed within the anuśaya of view; being associated with them, there is increase in accord through association, and since they can also be taken as objective support, there is increase in accord through objective support.

21.13

The Śāstra says: "For what reason are three views [established as the fetter of views, and two graspings] established as the fetter of graspings?"—this is the question.

21.14

The Śāstra says: "Because the three views and two graspings, up to 'are established as two fetters'"—this is the answer. Because of two meanings, the views are divided into two fetters: first, because the entities are equal; second, because the graspings are equal. This can be understood from the text. The Nyāyānusāra states: "What benefit to the meaning is there in stating that these entities are equal? Because it is seen to be beneficial with respect to the meaning of a fetter. The meaning of this statement is: just as attachment, hostility, and so forth can each independently accomplish the function of a single fetter, the eighteen entities each of the three views and the two graspings combine to accomplish each the function of a single fetter. If it were otherwise, one ought to say that the five views are each an individual fetter, just like attachment, hostility, and so forth. Therefore, the eighteen entities each of views and graspings collectively establish a single fetter so as to match attachment and the rest. If so, the view of self-existence, the view of extremes, and the view of grasping have eighteen entities, and the grasping of precepts and vows and wrong view likewise have eighteen; are they not also equal in entities? Not so; the original explanation's reasoning is definitive. Why is this? Because the graspings are equal: the three views and so forth are that which is grasped, while the two graspings and so forth are that which grasps."

21.15

The Śāstra says: "Why among the entanglements, up to 'and not the remaining entanglements?'"—this is the question.

21.16

The Śāstra says: "The two are exclusively unwholesome, up to 'therefore only two are established'"—this is the answer. Among the ten entanglements, the four entanglements of avarice, jealousy, anger, and concealment arise through their own power and are exclusively unwholesome. Avarice and jealousy enter the fetters, while anger and concealment are not fetters. If eight entanglements are established, excluding anger and concealment, only the two entanglements of avarice and jealousy arise through their own power and are exclusively unwholesome; the remaining entanglements all lack these two meanings. Shamelessness and unconscionableness are exclusively unwholesome, but do not arise through their own power. Regret applies to both wholesome and unwholesome, and arises solely through its own power. The remaining lack both: sleep, restlessness, and torpor.

21.17

The Śāstra says: "If the entanglements were only eight, up to 'they also possess both meanings'"—this is an objection. If the entanglements were eight, and only avarice and jealousy possessed both and were additionally established as fetters, the meaning would not be contradictory. But if one admits that there are ten entanglements, anger and concealment possess both yet do not enter the fetters; for what reason would avarice and jealousy possess both and enter the fetters? Therefore, the explanation is unreasonable.

21.18

On the Śāstra's words, "Therefore, if it is accepted... and one's own group": this provides an alternative explanation. "It should be said that envy and stinginess have particularly grave faults" is the summarizing statement. "Because these two frequently manifest" explains the meaning of "particularly grave". The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "The explanation should be made as follows: only envy and stinginess have particularly grave faults; therefore, among the ten entanglements, two are established as fetters, because these two frequently manifest. That is, although beings born in the desire realm have nine, six, three, or no fetters, the sūtra speaks only of the two fetters of envy and stinginess troubling humans and devas. That is, though born in the two good destinies, they are yoked by the heavy suffering of lowliness and greed. It is visibly seen that those who are lowly and lacking in wealth are not respected or loved even by their closest kin. Furthermore, because the two comprehensively manifest the secondary afflictions—that is, secondary afflictions are generally of two kinds: first, those associated with distress, and second, those associated with joy; envy and stinginess comprehensively manifest these two characteristics. Furthermore, because these two can afflict two groups: that is, the householder community is intensely afflicted by envy and stinginess regarding wealth and position; while the monastic community is intensely afflicted by envy and stinginess regarding doctrine and practice. Or, they can afflict the hosts of devas and asuras, being intensely perturbed on account of physical beauty and sensory pleasures. Or, these can afflict the two groups of humans and devas, as the World-Honoured One said to Kauśika: 'Due to the fetters of envy and stinginess, humans and devas are troubled.' Or, these two can afflict one's own group and others' groups: due to envy one troubles opposing factions, and by harboring stinginess within one troubles one's own companions. Therefore, among the ten entanglements, two are established as fetters."

21.19

On the Śāstra's words, "The Buddha, in another place, relying on differential gates": the two stanzas below this secondly explain the five lower fetters.

21.20

On the text from "The Śāstra says" to "like wardens and patrollers": this recounts the first explanation. This master's intention is: taking the desire realm as the lower division, because they facilitate and augment the desire realm they are called "fetters that accord with the lower division". The latter two do not let one depart, while the former three turn one back and make one enter; this can be known by considering the analogies.

21.21

On the Śāstra's words, "Other masters say... the designation 'according with the lower division'": this is the second explanation. This master intends to state: there are two kinds of 'lower': first, lower sentient beings, namely ordinary worldlings; second, the lower realm, namely the desire realm. Due to the first three, one does not transcend lower sentient beings; due to the latter two, one does not transcend the lower realm.

21.22

On the Śāstra's words, "Do all those who attain stream-entry... abandon three fetters?": this is a question. The fruit of stream-entry abandons six kinds of afflictions—view of self-existence, extreme view, attachment to rules and rituals, attachment to views, doubt, and wrong view. Why do the sūtras say that because of abandoning three fetters one attains the fruit of stream-entry?

21.23

On the Śāstra's words, "In truth it should be said... yet it speaks only of abandoning three": this briefly opens two approaches to answer the previous objection. Relying on this, the Buddha briefly spoke of three.

21.24

On the Śāstra's words, "Namely, among those to be abandoned... subsuming those three approaches": this takes up the former approach to explain that the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing generally comprise three classes: those belonging to one [division], those common to two, and those common to four divisions. That is, view of self-existence and extreme view belong only under [the truth of] suffering; attachment to rules and rituals is common to [the truths of] suffering and the path; and attachment to views, wrong view, and doubt are stated to be common to all four divisions. The view of self-existence subsumes one division. Attachment to rules and rituals subsumes two divisions. Doubt subsumes four divisions.

21.25

On the Śāstra's words, "Furthermore, among those to be abandoned... it has already been stated that six are abandoned": this is the second explanation. The afflictions to be abandoned by seeing consist of three conforming to the operation of three. That which is conformed to is the root of that which conforms; by speaking of that which is conformed to, that which conforms is simultaneously included. "Therefore, stating that three are abandoned already states that six are abandoned" concludes both explanations together.

21.26

On the Śāstra's words, "Some provide this explanation... therefore it speaks of abandoning three": this recounts an alternative explanation. "Due to the view of self-existence, one dreads liberation and does not wish to set forth": fearing that when nirvāṇa is attained the self will be annihilated, one does not wish to set forth. "Due to attachment to rules and rituals, one relies on and clings to a wrong path": because conceiving what is not the path to be the path is called attachment to rules and rituals. "Due to doubt, one harbors deep hesitation regarding the path": one doubts whether the right path is the path or not the path. Therefore the Buddha specifically spoke of three, and simultaneously revealed the rest; thus he spoke only of three and did not speak of six.

21.27

On the Śāstra's words, "The Buddha, in another sūtra, just like those according with the lower division": the single stanza below thirdly explains the five higher fetters.

21.28

On the text from "The Śāstra says" to "they are named 'according with the higher division'": this concludes the explanation. This is because they do not allow one to transcend the higher realms and they facilitate and augment the higher realms; hence they are named "fetters that accord with the higher division". That is, the higher realms are the higher division. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "These five kinds have eight substantial entities, because the three beginning with restlessness differ between the two realms; differentiated by the upper two realms they become six, and being abandoned only by cultivation they are named 'according with the higher division'. Because they facilitate and augment the higher division, they are named fetters that accord with the higher division. This is because it is only after abandoning what is to be abandoned by seeing that they manifest. When the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing have not yet been permanently abandoned, they can also support them so that they accord with the lower division. Therefore, when the afflictions of seeing have not yet been abandoned, the two desires of the higher realms as well as restlessness, conceit, and ignorance have the power to support one in being reborn down in the lower realm. Hence, it is only those that manifest after what is to be abandoned by seeing has been permanently abandoned that are called 'according with the higher division'." It also says: "For a few they are fetters, meaning for noble ones; for a few they are not fetters, meaning for ordinary worldlings. In certain states they are fetters, meaning when one has already parted from desire for sensual pleasures; in certain states they are not fetters, meaning when one has not yet parted from desire for sensual pleasures." It also says: "Because restlessness disturbs and troubles samādhi, it is established as a fetter among those according with the higher division. By this exact reasoning, torpor is not mentioned among those according with the higher division, as it accords with equipoise." The *Vibhāṣā* says: "Question: Why are only those to be abandoned by cultivation established as fetters according with the higher division? Answer: Those that cause one to go to higher rebirth are named according with the higher division. The fetters to be abandoned by seeing also cause one to fall below, so they are not established as fetters according with the higher division. Furthermore, that which is practiced by superior persons is named according with the higher division. Superior persons are noble ones, not ordinary worldlings; the fetters to be abandoned by seeing arise only in ordinary worldlings, so they are not established as fetters according with the higher division. Among noble ones, only the fetters that arise in non-returners are established as according with the higher division. Question, giving rise to further discussion: Why are the fetters that arise in stream-enterers and once-returners not according with the higher division? Answer: Those according with the higher division are those that cause one to go to higher rebirth; the fetters that arise in stream-enterers and once-returners also cause rebirth below, so they are not established as according with the higher division."

21.29

On the Śāstra's words, "The fetters have been analyzed; what are the bonds?": the single line below this explains the three bonds.

21.30

On the text from "The Śāstra says" to "makes this definitive statement": this explains it. That which ties and binds sentient beings is called a bond. For what reason are only these three stated to be bonds? On account of the three feelings. In terms of one's own mental continuum, there is increase [of defilement] through association and through cognitive objects; in terms of another's continuum, it is solely through cognitive objects. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Because they can tie and bind, the name 'bond' is established; this is precisely the meaning of being able to obstruct the departure toward dispassion. Although the characteristics of fetters and bonds have no difference, relying on the mātṛkā the bonds are said to be three: first, the bond of attachment; second, the bond of aversion; third, the bond of delusion. Because the other fetters are of identical categories, they are subsumed within these three. That is, the five views and doubt are of the category of delusion; the two fetters of conceit and stinginess are of the category of attachment; the fetter of envy is identical to aversion; all are subsumed in the three fetters. Furthermore, in order to show what remains to be done by those who have already seen the truths, the three bonds are spoken of. This is because they generally bind the six consciousness-bodies, placing them in the prison of saṃsāra. Furthermore, specifically for those of inferior intellect, the Buddha revealed the coarse characteristics of affliction; therefore he spoke only of the three bonds. Other masters say: induced by the force of conforming to the three feelings, the bonds are said to be three. That is, attachment for the most part increases [defilement] through both cognitive objects and association regarding one's own pleasant feeling; to a lesser extent, it also does so regarding neutral feeling; regarding one's own and others' painful feeling and others' pleasant and neutral feelings, it increases [defilement] solely through one kind, namely cognitive objects. Aversion also for the most part increases [defilement] through both cognitive objects and association regarding one's own painful feeling; to a lesser extent, it also does so regarding neutral feeling; regarding one's own and others' pleasant feeling and others' painful and neutral feelings, it increases [defilement] solely through one kind, namely cognitive objects. Delusion also for the most part increases [defilement] through both cognitive objects and association regarding one's own neutral feeling; to a lesser extent, it also does so regarding pleasant feeling and painful feeling; regarding all of others' feelings, it increases [defilement] solely through cognitive objects. Therefore, the World-Honoured One, relying on the principle of the majority, taught the establishment of the three bonds conforming to the three feelings. What kind of attachment and so forth, obstructing the departure toward dispassion, are called bonds? Namely, only active manifestations. If it were otherwise, since all would possess the three, they would definitively obstruct the departure toward dispassion." The latter explanation agrees with the *Abhidharmakośa*, while the former explanation holds that the three bonds pervade all afflictions and so forth. Specifically speaking of three is because they are the mātṛkā of the remaining defiled dharmas; speaking of three also subsumes the rest.

21.31

On the Śāstra's words, "The bonds have already been analyzed; what are the latencies?": the single line below this thirdly explains the latencies.

21.32

On the text from "The Śāstra says" to "as has been explained previously": this refers to the previous explanation.

21.33

On the Śāstra's words, "Latencies having already been explained, what are the secondary afflictions?": the half-stanza below this fourthly explains the secondary afflictions.

21.34

On the text from "The Śāstra says" to "as in the Miscellany": this explains the verse. Root afflictions are also named secondary afflictions, because they act to trouble and disturb the mind. Here the mind is that which is conformed to, and the afflictions are that which conforms. Furthermore, there are defiled mental factors other than these afflictions, such as wrath, which are subsumed under the aggregate of conditioning factors. Because they arise conforming to the afflictions, they are also named secondary afflictions. Here the root afflictions are that which is conformed to, and wrath and the rest are that which conforms. It is not that wrath and the rest are not called afflictions, but only that they conform to others. This is explained extensively as in the ninth fascicle of the *Dharmaskandha*, "Chapter on Miscellaneous Matters".

21.35

On the Śāstra's words, "Later we shall briefly discuss those subsumed as entanglements and defilements of affliction": this introduces the text below. Below, in explaining entanglements and defilements, it first analyzes entanglements; hence it says "first". From here down, there are two and a half stanzas that fifthly explain entanglements. The first stanza sets forth the names and substantial entities of the entanglements, and the latter stanza and a half explains what the entanglements arise from.

21.36

On the text from "The Śāstra says" to "further adds wrath and concealment": this recounts alternative explanations. Based on the sūtra saying that the entanglement of sensual desire acts as a condition, we know that root afflictions are also named entanglements. The *Prakaraṇapāda* states eight, and the *Vibhāṣā* ten. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "These ten kinds tie and bind conscious beings, placing them in the prison of saṃsāra; hence they are named entanglements. Or, with the ten as causes, one gives rise to evil actions that cause one to be confined to bad destinies; hence they are named entanglements."

21.37

On the Śāstra's words, "Shamelessness and lack of conscience have been explained previously": this refers to the previous explanation in the "Chapter on Faculties".

21.38

On the Śāstra's words, "Envy means toward another... as has been analyzed previously": this explains envy, stinginess, and remorse, referring to what was said previously.

21.39

On the Śāstra's words, "Sleep means causing the mind... is also as explained previously": this explains sleep, restlessness, and torpor, referring to the previous explanation. Remorse extends to good and bad, but here only the unwholesome is taken. Sleep extends to the three natures, but here only the defiled is taken as an entanglement. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Causing the mind to be dim and faint, associated with torpor, unable to support the body—this is the characteristic of sleep. Although sleep also exists unassociated with torpor, here only the entanglement is analyzed, and therefore this is said." It also says: "Sleep is not associated with the good [produced by] application, because their natures are contrary; it is associated only with innately acquired good, because its nature is weak and frail. It extends to the unwholesome and the obscured unmanifest." It also says: "The unobscured unmanifest is only born of maturation, because upon giving rise to craftsmanship and so forth sleep is broken. Other masters say: in the state of sleep, minds of bodily deportment and craftsmanship also arise, but they cannot immediately operate in the initial state, being able to operate only later within dreams." The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 37, says: "As for the unobscured unmanifest, it refers to deportment, craftsmanship, and born of maturation, not what is produced by supernormal powers. 'Deportment' is, for instance, deeming oneself to be walking and so forth in a dream. 'Craftsmanship' is, for instance, deeming oneself to be painting and so forth in a dream. 'Born of maturation' is, in a dream, other unmanifest mental states operating apart from what was previously mentioned. Other masters say: only born of maturation is unobscured unmanifest in sleep, because since the mind is dim and faint it does not initiate body or speech, and thus lacks the nature of deportment and craftsmanship."

21.40

On the Śāstra's words, "Apart from anger and harmfulness... is said to be concealment": this explains wrath and concealment.

21.41

On the passage in the treatise, "Among those stated here ... is the outflow of doubt": from here down, it explains that the ten entanglements are outflows of the fundamental defilements. For this reason they are called secondary defilements and are not called [fundamental] defilements.

21.42

On the passage in the treatise, "Some say that concealment is ... in that order": this recounts alternative explanations. It can be understood from the text.

21.43

On the passage in the treatise, "What are the characteristics of the remaining impurities of defilement?": from here down there is one and a half verses, which is the sixth [section], explaining the six impurities. The first half-verse presents the names and entities of the impurities, and the subsequent verse explains what they arise from.

21.44

On "The treatise says ... are called the impurities of defilement": this explains that they are the impurities of defilements; because their characteristics are coarse, they are separately given the name of "impurities." It explains the characteristics of the six impurities. The individual explanations of their characteristics can be understood. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Regarding the distinction between the characteristics of resentment and anger: like a fire of birch bark, whose character is fierce and sharp, yet its residual force is weak—this is called anger. Like the warmth of a winter room, whose character is slight, yet its residual force is strong—this is called resentment. Because of this, there is an explanation of the characteristics of resentment which says: 'Arising in continuation after anger has subsided, clouding the mind—this is called resentment.' Further, explaining the name of deceit, it says: 'It refers to contriving such expedients by prior deliberation to cause the other person to subsequently produce an inverted understanding; hence it is called deceit. However, worldly speech says that displaying appearances to delude others for gain or fame is called deceit: bodily and vocal actions induced by deceit are the fruits of deceit, and are therefore metaphorically designated with the name "deceit," just as the fruits of supernormal powers are spoken of using the name of the supernormal power.'"

21.45

On the passage in the treatise, "Among these six ... are the outflows of the views": this explains the six impurities as outflows from fundamental defilements. It can be understood from the text.

21.46

On the passage in the treatise, "These impurities and entanglements ... the name of secondary defilements": this explains the reason why the ten entanglements and six impurities are called secondary defilements.

21.47

On the passage in the treatise, "By what are these impurities and entanglements abandoned?": from here down is the third major section, analytical classification according to doctrinal categories. Within this, there are five [analyses]: first, by the three abandonments; second, by the three natures; third, by the three realms; fourth, by the six consciousnesses; fifth, by association with the five feelings. This single verse is the classification by the three abandonments.

21.48

On "The treatise says ... are abandoned by seeing this truth": this means that lack of shame, lack of conscience, torpor, restlessness, and sleep—these five are commonly associated with defilements abandoned by seeing and cultivation; therefore, they are commonly abandoned by seeing and cultivation.

21.49

On the passage in the treatise, "The remaining [defilements]—jealousy, avarice, regret ... are said to arise autonomously": this clarifies that they are abandoned only by cultivation. It can be understood from the text.

21.50

On the passage in the treatise, "Among these secondary defilements, which possesses which nature?": the following half-verse is the second [section], classification by the three natures.

21.51

On "The treatise says ... are all exclusively unwholesome": this clarifies that the three—sleep, torpor, and restlessness—when associated with the view of selfhood or extreme views in the desire realm, are indeterminate; the rest are unwholesome. The remaining entanglements and impurities are all unwholesome in nature.

21.52

On the passage in the treatise, "In the upper two realms ... are subsumed under indeterminate nature": this clarifies that in the upper two realms they are exclusively indeterminate.

21.53

On the passage in the treatise, "Among these secondary defilements, which is bound to which realm?": the following half-verse is the third [section], classification by realm-bound status.

21.54

On "The treatise says ... now it is distinguished once again": this explains the reason why dissimulation and deceit pertain to two stages. It can be understood from the text.

21.55

On the passage in the treatise, "The three of torpor, restlessness, and arrogance ... are bound only to the desire realm": among the ten entanglements and six impurities, dissimulation and deceit pertain to two stages, and the three of torpor, restlessness, and arrogance pertain to the three realms; these five have already been distinguished as above, while the remaining eleven are bound only to the desire realm.

21.56

On the passage in the treatise, "Having distinguished the dormant defilements and secondary defilements": from here down there is one verse, which is the fourth [section], classification by the six consciousnesses.

21.57

On "The treatise says ... because there is no possibility of arising": this clarifies that there are three kinds associated exclusively with the mental consciousness: first, those abandoned by seeing; second, pride and sleep; third, the level of secondary defilements that arise by their own force. These three kinds of defilement have no possibility of arising in the five consciousnesses.

21.58

On the passage in the treatise, "All the remainder ... because they can all arise": this explains those that are common to the six consciousnesses. That is, attachment, hostility, and ignorance abandoned by cultivation, as well as lack of shame, lack of conscience, torpor, restlessness, and the secondary defilements subsumed under the great defiled ground, arise based on the six collections of consciousness.

21.59

On the passage in the treatise, "Regarding the five feelings of pleasure and so forth previously distinguished": from here down there are four verses, which secondly explain association with feelings. Within this there are two [parts]: first, explaining the fundamental defilements; second, explaining the secondary defilements. These two verses are the first, explaining the fundamental defilements.

21.60

On "The treatise says ... because they pervade the six consciousnesses": this clarifies the associations of the three: attachment, hostility, and ignorance. It can be understood from the text.

21.61

On the passage in the treatise, "Wrong view is common with ... karma of fault and merit": this explains the association of wrong view with feelings. If one previously created fault and later claims there is no cause and effect, the mind produces joy. If one previously created merit and later claims there is no cause and effect, the mind produces sadness.

21.62

On the passage in the treatise, "Doubt is associated with sorrow ... because the mind is grieved": this explains the association of doubt with feelings. A doubtful mind is hesitant and seeks determinate knowledge; when actively doubting, it is undecided regarding the object, and therefore sadness and grief arise.

21.63

On the passage in the treatise, "The remaining four views and pride ... because they belong only to the mental level": this clarifies that the four views and pride are associated [only with mental pleasure]. Because they operate through joyous activity and belong exclusively to the mental level, they are not common with physical pleasure. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Some other masters say: 'It should not be that these five are associated exclusively with joy, for it is observed in the world that during the active manifestation of these five, sorrow also exists. That is to say, it is observed in the world that one who grasps a self also feels sorrowful because "I am experiencing suffering." One who grasps the annihilation of the self also produces sorrow and grief; hence the sūtra says: "Fools produce terror in their minds toward the annihilation of the self." When one grasps one's own painful asceticism as pure and supreme, one's inner mind must harbor extreme sadness and grief. When one's learning, knowledge, lineage, and so forth are inferior and one is constantly slighted and insulted by others, when this arises together with pride, there must be sadness. Therefore, these five are also associated with sorrow.' What they say is not so, because they arise in different moments of mind. That is to say, when one feels sorrowful that 'I am experiencing suffering,' this is merely feeling sorrowful in dependence on suffering, and at that precise moment one does not grasp a self. If the view of self arises and is present before one, it must certainly operate with joyful activity toward the self. One who harbors the view of annihilation does not produce terror on account of the mark of annihilation, because they see the virtue of annihilation. One who harbors the view of permanence produces fear toward annihilation, yet in the state of producing fear, they do not conceptualize permanence. One who grasps painful asceticism as pure and supreme must, in a different moment of mind, produce sadness and grief in dependence on the various painful matters they personally experience; when they grasp painful asceticism as pure and supreme, they must produce joy, because they see its virtue. As for producing grief when slighted and insulted by others, such sorrow and grief must exist in a different moment of mind. Who would produce grief from being slighted by others, and yet immediately produce pride to despise others? Therefore, that the five are accompanied by mental pleasure is indeed a good statement."

21.64

On the passage in the treatise, "Having [explained them] according to their distinct characteristics ... they must abide in the feeling of equanimity": this clarifies that all defilements are associated with the feeling of equanimity. It can be understood from the text.

21.65

On the passage in the treatise, "Since this is so in the desire realm ... are associated with various feelings": this explains the upper stages.

21.66

On the passage in the treatise, "If in the various stages ... therefore they are not separately stated": this further elaborates in full. In the first dhyāna there are four consciousnesses, and the feelings are mental pleasure, physical pleasure, and equanimity: mental pleasure belongs to the mind, physical pleasure belongs to three [sensory consciousnesses], and equanimity is common to all. From the second dhyāna upward there is only mental consciousness. In the second dhyāna there are the two feelings of mental pleasure and equanimity; in the third dhyāna there are the two feelings of physical pleasure and equanimity; in the fourth dhyāna and above there is only the feeling of equanimity. The defilements of the upper stages, according to what is appropriate, pertain to four consciousnesses or to one consciousness, and are associated with all feelings possessed by those consciousnesses. Fascicle twenty-seven of the Xianzong lun states: "For what reason are both kinds of doubt indeterminate, yet above, [doubt] can be associated with mental and physical pleasure, whereas doubt in the desire realm does not arise together with the feeling of mental pleasure? Because defilements in a stage free from desire, although indeterminate, are also free from sorrow and grief; although harboring a net of doubt, this does not hinder delight of mind. Just as in the human realm, when seeking and obtaining what one desires, although experiencing much fatigue, an idea of pleasure arises. Furthermore, it is said that mental and physical pleasure in the form realm can be associated with doubt because both are tranquil; association is established based on the meaning of equality. Since they are equally tranquil, there is no error in association. By contrast, the faculty of mental pleasure in desire arises in improper situations, so its character is not tranquil. Doubt is not like that, and hence there is no principle for mental pleasure and doubt to be associated. That is, it is observed in the world that there are poor and lowly people, lacking food and clothing, and furthermore weighed down by heavy burdens; although encountering such various hardships, they still have merriment, singing, dancing, and chanting, or seeing another's suffering, they contrarily produce joy. Thus, the faculty of mental pleasure can arise in improper situations, but doubt does not do so, so there is no meaning of equality. Because they are not equal, there is no principle for association. Some say: 'Although one harbors doubt in the form realm, within doubt the appearance of wholesome factors arises; therefore, it can be associated with mental and physical pleasure. That is, it is observed that for those who are free from desire, doubt can mostly lead to correct absorption.' Some say: 'In the first, second, and third dhyānas, arising together with doubt, there should be no feeling at all; therefore, it should only be accompanied by the feeling innate to the stage.'"

21.67

On the passage in the treatise, "Having distinguished the association of defilements with the various feelings": from here down there are two verses, which secondly explain the association of the secondary defilements with feelings.

21.68

On "The treatise says ... because they belong only to the mental level": the six secondary defilements—jealousy, regret, anger, malice, harmfulness, and resentment—operate exclusively through sorrowful activity, and are therefore associated with the faculty of sorrow; because they belong only to the mental level, they are not associated with suffering. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Some other masters say: 'Malice is associated with mental pleasure, being an outflow of clinging to views,' which is refuted below."

21.69

On the passage in the treatise, "Avarice is associated with mental pleasure ... because they are extremely similar": this note contains a different text regarding association with sorrow: when one obtains through avarice, there is mental pleasure; when one fails to obtain through avarice, there is sorrow. The above is the note.

21.70

On the passage in the treatise, "Deceit, dissimulation, sleep, and concealment ... sorrowful mental activity": these four are common to both activities, and are therefore associated with sorrow and mental pleasure; because they belong only to the mental level, they are not associated with physical suffering or physical pleasure. Sometimes when practicing dissimulation, deceit, sleep, or concealment with a joyful mind, they are associated with mental pleasure; sometimes when practicing these four with a sorrowful mind, they are associated with sorrow. In the Nyāyānusāra, some other masters say: "Since deceit is said to be an outflow of attachment, it should only operate joyfully, and should not be said to be associated with the faculty of sorrow; being an outflow of joy, it should not be sorrowful. Furthermore, at the very time of deceiving, one should not be sorrowful, or else deceit should be said to be an outflow of delusion."

21.71

On the passage in the treatise, "Arrogance is associated with mental and physical pleasure ... is associated with mental pleasure": this explains that arrogance pertains to the three realms. Because it operates through joyful activity, it is not associated with the faculty of sorrow. Because it belongs only to the mental level, in the lower stages it is not associated with the faculty of physical pleasure. Because it pertains to the upper stages, up to the third dhyāna it is associated with physical pleasure.

21.72

On the passage in the treatise, "All those stated above ... because they pervade in association": the various secondary defilements explained above are all universally associated with the feeling of equanimity. Below the third dhyāna, when intensifying they are as stated before, and when their continuum is interrupted, they are all associated with equanimity. In the fourth dhyāna and above, whether intense or about to be interrupted, they are all associated with equanimity, because the phenomena of that stage have no other feelings. Furthermore, equanimity pervades without obstruction in association with both joy and sorrow, in the six consciousnesses, and in the upper and lower stages, just as ignorance universally associates with all defilements.

21.73

On the passage in the treatise, "The remaining [defilements]—lack of shame, lack of conscience ... because they are subsumed under ground phenomena": this explains the remaining four. These four are universally associated with the five feelings. Lack of shame and lack of conscience belong to the unwholesome ground, and are therefore common to all unwholesome states. Unwholesome states are common to the six consciousnesses and the five feelings. Torpor and restlessness belong to the great defiled ground, and are therefore common to all defiled minds. All defiled minds are common to the six consciousnesses, the five feelings, and the upper and lower stages; therefore, they are common to the five feelings.

21.74

On the passage in the treatise, "Among the defilements and secondary defilements spoken of": from here down there is one verse, which is the fourth major section, explaining the five hindrances.

21.75

On "The treatise says ... fifth, the hindrance of doubt": this cites the sūtra to list the names and entities.

21.76

On the passage in the treatise, "Do those spoken of here ... pertain to the three realms?": this is a question. Since torpor, restlessness, and doubt pertain to the three realms, do they refer only to the desire realm, or do they also pertain to the upper realms?

21.77

The treatise says, "It should be known that these three […] not of the form or formless [realms]," which is the answer. Because they are exclusively unwholesome, they are established as the five hindrances (nīvaraṇa). Those of the higher [realms] are not unwholesome, and therefore are not established as hindrances. The Nyāyānusāra states: "In order to show that only those kinds of lethargy (styāna) and restlessness (auddhatya) that belong to the desire realm are established as hindrances, they are established in combination with drowsiness (middha) and regret (kaukṛtya), because drowsiness and regret are bound exclusively to the desire realm. In order to show that drowsiness and regret receive the designation of hindrance only when they are defiled, they are established in combination with lethargy and restlessness, because lethargy and restlessness are exclusively defiled by nature. Skepticism (vicikitsā) should be understood to belong to the desire [realm] following the precedent of the prior four."

21.78

The treatise asks, "For what reason are lethargy and drowsiness […] combined and established as one?"

21.79

The treatise says, "Because their nutriment (āhāra), antidote (pratipakṣa), and function (kāritra) are the same […] their nutriment and non-nutriment are the same," which is the brief answer.

21.80

The treatise says, "What are termed […] sinking and dullness of the mind?" explaining the hindrances of lethargy and drowsiness. Their nutriment and non-nutriment, as well as their activities and functions, are the same.

21.81

The treatise says, "Although restlessness and regret are two […] the two are combined into one," explaining that the three factors of restlessness and regret are the same, and summarizing. It can be understood according to the text. The Nyāyānusāra answers this question, saying: "The nutriment of the hindrance of sensual desire (kāmacchanda) is the agreeable sign (śubha-nimitta); the antidote to this hindrance is the contemplation of impurity (aśubha-saṃjñā). The nutriment of the hindrance of ill-will (vyāpāda) is the repulsive sign (pratigha-nimitta); the antidote to this hindrance is the wholesome root of benevolence (maitrī). The nutriment of the hindrance of skepticism is the three times, as a sūtra says: 'One generates such skepticism regarding the past,' up to the detailed explanation. The antidote to this hindrance is when one is able to realistically contemplate conditionality and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda)." The nutriments and so forth of the remaining two hindrances are as explained in the Kośa. It also states: "Alternatively, desire, ill-will, and skepticism are full afflictions (pūrṇa-kleśa); each individually is able to carry the function of a single covering. Lethargy, drowsiness, restlessness, and regret are not full afflictions; only when the two are combined can they carry the function of a single covering." This accords with the Vibhāṣā and others in that the meaning of a burden (bhāra) is the meaning of a hindrance.

21.82

The treatise asks, "[Given that there are] various afflictions and so forth […] why are only these five taught?"

21.83

The treatise answers, "Only these [act] against the five […] are established as hindrances." The Nyāyānusāra asks: "These five are called hindrances; what is the meaning of this? They are established with the name 'hindrance' because they definitely cover and obstruct the noble path and the preparatory application (prayoga) for the noble path. If so, then all afflictions and so forth ought to receive the name 'hindrance', because they all are able to cover and obstruct the noble path and its preparatory application. As the World-Honoured One addressed the monks: 'If one is covered and obstructed by a single dharma, one cannot understand that the eye is impermanent; the single dharma is greed,' and so on in detail, each being explained individually as in the Saṃyuktavastu. Why did the World-Honoured One teach that there are only five hindrances? In principle this should indeed be so. However, when establishing the category of hindrances, the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, taught only five because only these constitute superior obstructions against the five skandhas." Following the question and answer above to explain the name "hindrance", one should say that being able to cover and obstruct the noble path and its preparatory application is called a hindrance, or that covering the five skandhas is called a hindrance.

First 83 of 179 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論疏 — Classical Chinese