俱舍論疏 23

English (machine translation) 23

Language: English

23.2

Chapter 6: Exposition of the Noble Ones and the Wise, Part Two

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “Having thus explained … what further is to be cultivated?” the following three stanzas constitute the third section: clarifying the four applications of mindfulness. The first two stanzas clarify the specific-characteristic applications of mindfulness, and the last stanza clarifies the general-characteristic applications of mindfulness. These two stanzas clarify the specific characteristics.

23.4

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “The treatise says … cultivates the four applications of mindfulness,” this generally explains the purpose of cultivating the applications of mindfulness. *Śamatha* is translated here as calming. *Vipaśyanā* is translated here as insight. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “Having perfected the cultivation of calming as a basis, one cultivates the four applications of mindfulness in order to rapidly accomplish insight, for one who has not attained samādhi cannot see things as they truly are.” Examining the meaning of that treatise, the fivefold mental pacifications are intended to stop distraction, emphasizing the cultivation of calming. At that time, fixing the mind on a single characteristic by conceptualizing the skeleton and so forth is called calming. The contemplation of the four applications of mindfulness grasps the differentiated characteristics of body, feeling, mind, and dharmas, and further grasps various differentiated characteristics within the body, eliminating the four inversions and giving rise to vision as it truly is; hence it is called insight.

23.5

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “How does one cultivate the four applications of mindfulness?” is the question.

23.6

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “That is, by way of specific and general characteristics … is called general characteristics,” is the answer. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “One contemplates body, feeling, mind, and dharmas through specific characteristics and general characteristics. That is, the practitioner concentrates the mind on a single aim, cultivating the four applications of mindfulness by contemplating each of the objects—body and so on—individually through specific and general characteristics. Discerning that this dharma has a distinct meaning from other dharmas is called contemplating specific characteristics; discerning that this dharma shares a non-distinct meaning with other dharmas is called contemplating general characteristics. To begin with, contemplating the specific characteristics in the application of mindfulness to the body means observing that the ten internal and external sense bases of the body are distinct in their intrinsic nature, from the eye through touch, each having the specific characteristic of its sense base. When correct cognition arises in this way with respect to those distinct dharmas, it is called contemplating specific characteristics. When this contemplation of specific characteristics is perfected, path form arises; only then is the designation ‘application of mindfulness to the body of the lineage of specific characteristics’ established. This also thoroughly knows the specific characteristics of those dharmas, whereby correct cognition arises distinctly for each, rather than a single cognition arising universally across all objects. Some say: In this contemplation of specific characteristics, one does not contemplate unmanifest form, because unmanifest form is extremely similar to the category of the formless. Some say: This contemplation also contemplates unmanifest [form], because path form arises. Next, contemplating the general characteristics in the application of mindfulness to the body means observing that although the characteristics of each sense base of the body are different, their bodily characteristic is identical. Moreover, at that time, one contemplates the eleven sense bases, all of which are forms without distinction, meaning none surpass being derived from the great elements. When correct cognition arises in this way with respect to those dharmas of a single category, it is called contemplating general characteristics. When this contemplation of general characteristics is perfected, path form arises; only then is the designation ‘application of mindfulness to the body of the lineage of general characteristics’ established. This also thoroughly knows the general characteristics of those dharmas, whereby a single correct cognition arises universally, rather than individual cognitions arising for each object. (The term ‘path form’ refers to form that is an object of samādhi).”

23.7

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “As for the intrinsic nature of the body … dharmas other than the three,” this brings forth the intrinsic natures of body, feeling, mind, and dharmas.

23.8

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “Tradition states that while in samādhi … should be understood as appropriate,” this explains perfection. “Should be understood as appropriate” means that, according to what is appropriate, being able to analyze part by part in this way and contemplate each separately is called the stage of perfection. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “The previous explanation is identical with this treatise. Alternatively, as explained previously regarding the characteristic of the culmination of contemplation, subsequent wholesome roots increase, like water overflowing and flooding across dikes. Some say: Suddenly, an unpleasant characteristic arises, which is of two kinds. What are the two? First, that which can arouse anger; second, that which causes discontent. Here, there is only the characteristic that causes discontent; for if one has not attained mastery over what one has practiced, one generates delight in order to seek perfection; but when one has already attained mastery over what has been practiced, longing ceases, and thus there is no delight.”

23.9

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “What is the essential nature of the four applications of mindfulness?” is the question.

23.10

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “These four applications of mindfulness … because their objects differ,” is the answer.

23.11

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “The application of mindfulness by intrinsic nature … three kinds of applications of mindfulness,” this takes up the first, intrinsic nature, to explain it. That is, the three wisdoms of hearing, thinking, and cultivating serve as its entity, and these three wisdoms are themselves termed the three applications of mindfulness. Saying “intrinsic nature” distinguishes it from the objective-support and the concomitant; having wisdom as its entity, it is called intrinsic nature. Unlike the concomitant and the objective-support, which are not themselves applications of mindfulness, [they are so called because they] mix with the application of mindfulness or serve as its objective-support, receiving the name ‘application of mindfulness’ from its intrinsic nature.

23.12

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “The concomitant application of mindfulness … having all dharmas as their entity,” this takes up the remaining two applications of mindfulness to explain them. Because the dharmas coexistent with wisdom and the entity of wisdom are mutually mixed, they are collectively termed the concomitant application of mindfulness. The objective-support application of mindfulness is the object of wisdom, and it also includes wisdom, because all dharmas are the objects of wisdom.

23.13

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “How is it known that the intrinsic nature is wisdom and not anything else?” is the question.

23.14

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “The sūtra says: with regard to the body … because of the function of sustained contemplation,” is the answer. Because the sūtra speaks of sustained contemplation of the body and so forth, which is impossible without wisdom, we therefore know that the application of mindfulness has wisdom as its entity.

23.15

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “For what reason is the name ‘application of mindfulness’ established for wisdom?” is the question. Since its entity is wisdom, why is it called mindfulness?

23.16

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “The Vaibhāṣikas [say] … held by the power of a peg,” is the answer. Wisdom is sustained by mindfulness, so wisdom is called the application of mindfulness; here the effect, wisdom, takes its name from the cause, mindfulness. Thus the *Nyāyānusāra* says: “Why is it that the abiding of wisdom depends on the power of mindfulness? Because in one who possesses mindfulness, wisdom becomes increasingly luminous.”

23.17

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “In truth, one should say … then it abides without error,” is the author’s explanation. Wisdom causes mindfulness to abide, hence it obtains the name application of mindfulness. Wisdom is the cause and the abiding of mindfulness is the effect; wisdom is called application of mindfulness because the cause receives the name of the effect. Citing two sūtras as proof, it is understandable from the text. The masters of the *Nyāyānusāra* accept both explanations. The Sanskrit name Aniruddha is translated here as Unextinguished.

23.18

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “However, there is a sūtra that says … the cessation of dharmas from craving,” this resolves an implicit objection. The implicit objection means: If the four applications of mindfulness have wisdom as their nature, why does [the sūtra] say they arise due to nutriment, contact, name-and-form, and attention? Cessation is likewise.

23.19

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “It should be known that that refers to … because they obtain stability,” this resolves it. What this sūtra calls body, feeling, mind, and dharmas is the objective-support application of mindfulness; it is because they take the body and so forth as objects that they are called applications of mindfulness. Because wisdom comes to abide with respect to that body and so forth, the body and so on are termed the applications of mindfulness to the body and so forth. Nutriment and so forth serve as causes for the body and so forth, and thus nutriment and so forth give rise to the body and so forth; it does not speak of the application of mindfulness by intrinsic nature.

23.20

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “Furthermore, regarding the distinctions among the applications of mindfulness … each has three kinds,” this divides the four applications of mindfulness into three each in terms of one's own continuum, another's continuum, and both. Thus the *Nyāyānusāra* says: “The applications of mindfulness to the body and so forth each have three kinds, due to the difference of taking internal, external, or both as objects. First, among the three kinds of application of mindfulness to the body, taking one's own continuum as object is called internal; taking another's body and so forth as object is called external; taking both as object is called internal-and-external. Because one who has self-love and is remiss should contemplate the internal body as if it were external. (According to the *Nyāyānusāra*, ‘taking another's body and so forth’ includes non-continua within the ‘and so forth’. This treatise text is concise and does not say ‘and so forth’).”

23.21

[On the *Śāstra*’s:] “These four applications of mindfulness are explained in the sequence of their arising,” this describes their order.

23.22

[On] the treatise's: "For what reason do they arise in such an order?", this asks about the order of arising.

23.23

[On] the treatise's: "Because one should first contemplate that whose object is coarse", this is the first explanation. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Or because they arise according to the coarseness and subtlety of their objects. Yet it is not on this account that mind is contemplated last, because within dharmas, nirvāṇa is extremely subtle."

23.24

[On] the treatise's: "Or because all craving for sensual pleasures... is in such an order", this is the second explanation, which can be understood from the text.

23.25

[On] the treatise's: "These four applications of mindfulness... neither increase nor decrease", this explains why there are only four applications of mindfulness. Because the four applications of mindfulness are established as counteragents to the four inversions, and since the inversions are only four, the applications of mindfulness are also only four. The Nyāyānusāra also says: "To counter the four nutriments."

23.26

[On] the treatise's: "Among the four, three kinds... are called mixed-object", this explains mixed-object and unmixed-object.

23.27

[On] the treatise's: "Having cultivated to maturity the mixed-object [contemplation of] body and so forth in this way", the next single verse line clarifies the general characteristic.

23.28

[On] "The treatise says... suffering, emptiness, and non-self", this is the explanation. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Mixed-object applications of mindfulness on dharmas are of four kinds in all, because two, three, four, and five aggregates constitute distinct objects; only that which universally takes the five [aggregates] as its object is what is cultivated here. Dwelling in this, one cultivates the four aspects, universally contemplating all bodies, sensations, minds, and dharmas—namely, as impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self. Yet when cultivating this application of mindfulness, there are other roots of good that can serve as preliminary practice; one should cultivate them in sequence to bring them to present realization. That is, when one has cultivated to maturity the mixed-object application of mindfulness on dharmas and wishes to cultivate this [further] application of mindfulness, one should first universally take [them] as object and cultivate the practice of non-self; next contemplate arising and cessation; next contemplate dependent origination; because when a practitioner of contemplation first contemplates that conditioned phenomena arise and cease from causes, it is easy to enter the gateway of contemplation on the mutual connection of cause and effect. Or some maintain that one should first contemplate dependent origination, and thereafter give rise to the contemplation on the three topics. Immediately following this contemplation, one cultivates the seven skills; because one has attained skillfulness in the seven skills, one is able to establish the truths of cause and effect and observe them sequentially with respect to the objects previously seen. Having cultivated to maturity wisdom and concentration in this way, one is then able to establish the truths that conform to direct realization. That is, the suffering and so forth of the desire realm and higher realms are distinct; one contemplates them in sequence across these eight, cultivating the sixteen aspects never cultivated before. When, by means of wisdom arisen from hearing, one first gives rise to this contemplation of the sixteen aspects regarding the eight truths, it is like seeing various colors through sheer silk; up to this point is called the fulfillment of wisdom arisen from hearing. Wisdom arisen from reflection should be explained by analogy to this. Next, one gives rise to deep disgust and weariness toward saṃsāra, delights in the calm virtue of nirvāṇa, and thereafter frequently brings forward the contemplation of weariness; diligently cultivating preliminaries, increasing gradually and growing superior, one brings forth this most supreme root of good subsumed under wisdom arisen from reflection that conforms to the penetration [of the truths]—that is, the cultivated application of mindfulness on dharmas that universally takes the common characteristics as its object. (According to the text of the treatise above, this means that following the three topics, the seven skills, and so on, one gives rise to the application of mindfulness on the general characteristics and enters the stage of Heat. The contemplation on the three topics refers to the topics of the three categories: aggregates, bases, and elements. The seven skills are: knowing truly form as suffering, the origination of form, the cessation of form, the path leading to the cessation of form, the gratification of form, the peril of form, and the escape from form; and knowing truly sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness in seven [ways] likewise. Truly knowing form constitutes the four knowledges; 'knowing' refers to the dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, conventional knowledge, and knowledge of suffering. Question: Why in the seven skills are the first three repeated? One [explanation] is that the truth of the path is stated, and furthermore the [other] three truths have limits and therefore are stated again, while the truth of the path is limitless and therefore not stated again. Furthermore, the first four skills speak of the stage of the path of seeing, and because the path of seeing must fully contemplate the four truths, all four are stated. The latter three skills speak of the stage of the path of cultivation; the noble path cultivated in the stage of the path of cultivation is itself the truth of the path, and because one does not necessarily fully contemplate the four noble truths, only three are stated.)" The Vibhāṣā, fascicle two, says: "If merits are stated in sequential order, here one should first teach the contemplation of impurity or mindfulness of breathing, next teach the applications of mindfulness, next the contemplation on the three topics, next the seven skills, next teach Heat, and next teach Summits. (According to this text, following the applications of mindfulness, one gives rise to the contemplation on the three topics and the seven skills, and enters Heat.)" Now examining the differences between the Vibhāṣā, the Nyāyānusāra, and this treatise: regarding the sequential order of entering practice, after the five methods for stilling the mind and after the separate-object applications of mindfulness, one gives rise to the general-object [application] and enters the stage of Heat; in between these, one cultivates the contemplation on the three topics, the seven skills, and dependent origination; when about to enter Heat, one enters from the general application [of mindfulness]. Because the Vibhāṣā regards the applications of mindfulness as significant, it adduces the earlier applications of mindfulness and does not adduce the later; this treatise is brief, and therefore does not recount the intermediate stages; the Nyāyānusāra is somewhat more complete, teaching all three stages. Therefore, the meanings of these three treatises are not mutually contradictory.

23.29

[On] the treatise's: "Having cultivated this contemplation, what roots of good arise?", the fourth [section] below explains the four roots of good—Heat and so on—which are the last four expedients among the seven expedients. Therein: first, explaining the essence and so on of the roots of good; second, explaining the differences of the roots of good; third, explaining their supreme benefits; fourth, explaining their transitions; fifth, explaining the duration of cultivating their fruits. These three lines of verse explain the essence and so on.

23.30

[On] "The treatise says... it is named Heat", this explains the arising of Heat from the general characteristic. This arises from wisdom arisen from reflection or wisdom arisen from cultivation. Therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "If there is one who has previously separated from the defilement of the desire realm, relying on wisdom arisen from cultivation subsumed under the form realm, feeling disgust toward the place of birth and delighting in nirvāṇa, sequentially through attention conjoined with predominantly weary practice, he can induce the arising of the distinct root of good of Heat. All those who have not previously separated from sensual defilement induce the arising of the root of good of Heat relying on wisdom arisen from reflection."

23.31

[On] the treatise's: "This dharma is like heat... therefore it is named Heat", this explains the name 'Heat'. The undefiled truth of the path is like fire burning the fuel of afflictions. Reaching this stage, one first attains the precursor sign of fire; therefore it is named the dharma of Heat.

23.32

[On] the treatise's: "This root of good of Heat... sixteen aspects", this explains the truths and aspects. Because the time is long, one is able to fully contemplate the four noble truths as objects and the sixteen aspects. According to [the principle of] reducing objects, here one contemplates the four truths, and only after contemplating four aspects for each single truth does one change truths. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: "It is a differentiation of the application of mindfulness on dharmas that universally takes the common characteristics as its object. Although the application of mindfulness on common dharmas takes defiled [phenomena] as its object and contemplates them as suffering, empty, impermanent, and non-self, at the initial stage one first gives rise to the four aspects of suffering, and afterwards contemplates the truth of origination. There is no contradiction in principle."

23.33

[On] the treatise's: "Contemplating the noble truth of suffering... as will be explained later", this lists the names of the sixteen aspects. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Although all [stages of] Heat take the four truths as objects, they are said to be conjoined mostly with weary practice, because when arising then, ideations of the aggregates are numerous." According to this text, at the stage of Heat one predominantly contemplates suffering and origination.

23.34

[On] the treatise's: "This root of good of Heat... a different name is further established", this explains entering the stage of Summits from Heat. The Nyāyānusāra says: "The practitioner cultivates this root of good of Heat in lower, intermediate, and upper grades, gradually advancing, and gives rise to conforming faith in the suffering, origination, cessation, and path taught by the Buddha, observing that all realms of existence are constantly burned by fierce flames. With faith as foremost regarding the Three Jewels, there arises the next root of good, arisen from cultivation, of the aids to penetration, named the dharma of Summits, which is a differentiation of the application of mindfulness on dharmas that universally takes the common characteristics as its object."

23.35

[On] the treatise's: "Among the fluctuating roots of good... it is called Summit", this explains the name 'Summit'. Therein are two [meanings]: first, because it is supreme among fluctuating roots of good that can fall back, it is called a summit, like the crown of a person's head. Second, because it marks the two margins of advance and retreat, like a mountain peak, it is therefore called a summit. The Nyāyānusāra says: "The word 'summit' indicates that this is the most supreme point. Just as when an auspicious event reaches completion, worldly people say that this person has reached the summit; being supreme among fluctuating goods, it is therefore named Summit."

23.36

[On] the treatise's: "This also, like Heat... sixteen aspects", this explains that the contemplation of the truths and aspects is the same as the preceding Heat.

23.37

[On] the treatise's: "Such Heat and Summits... are only the application of mindfulness on dharmas", this explains both roots of good together. When first establishing a foothold, the practice cultivated is exclusively the mixed-object application of mindfulness on dharmas. The Nyāyānusāra says: "When first establishing a foothold, it is only the application of mindfulness on dharmas; in the subsequent advancing stage, all four are brought to present realization." Commentary: The contemplation of separate objects is inferior and incapable of shifting stages, whereas the strength of universal contemplation is superior and capable of shifting stages. For this reason, the initial stage is exclusively the application of mindfulness on dharmas.

23.38

[On] the treatise's: "For what reason... footprints of the four noble truths", this explains the initial establishment of a foothold.

23.39

[On] the treatise's: "When subsequently advancing, they possess all four applications of mindfulness", this explains that after establishing a foothold, whether in the lower, intermediate, or upper [grades], whether contemplating only form, or contemplating only sensation, or universally contemplating again, none are precluded.

23.40

[On] the treatise's: "Because of the absence of a mind of reverence... toward all that was previously attained", this explains that what was previously attained is not aroused again. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Because one induces this root of good through superior preliminary practice, one does not give rise to reverence toward what has already been attained. However, although this dharma of Summits takes the four truths as objects, faith taking the Three Jewels as objects is predominantly active."

23.41

[On] the treatise's: "This root of good of Summits... is named the dharma of Acceptance", this explains the arising of Acceptance from Summits.

23.42

[On] the treatise's: "Regarding the principle of the four truths... it is named the dharma of Acceptance", this explains the name 'Acceptance'. The roots of good in the preceding stages can also accept the principle of the four truths, yet because this [stage] is most supreme, it is uniquely designated with the name 'Acceptance'. Furthermore, although there was acceptance in the preceding stages, because there was falling back, this stage is without falling back and uniquely obtains the name 'Acceptance'. Question: If so, should the Supreme worldly dharmas not also be [called] Acceptance? The Nyāyānusāra says: "Although the supreme worldly dharmas can also accept the noble truths, because they are immediately and inevitably able to enter the path of seeing, they are certainly without falling back; yet they do not fully contemplate the principle of the four noble truths. Because this [stage] contemplates them fully, it uniquely obtains the name 'Acceptance'; therefore this alone is called Acceptance conforming to the truths."

23.43

[On] the treatise's: "This root of good of Acceptance... is distinct from the preceding", this clarifies the difference regarding whether the applications of mindfulness are comprehensive or restricted. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Because this gradually resembles the path of seeing, and in the stage of the path of seeing it is exclusively the application of mindfulness on dharmas."

23.44

[On] the treatise's: "Yet this dharma of Acceptance... because they are adjacent", this explains that the objects of the three [grades of] Acceptance are different. Lower and intermediate Acceptance fully contemplate the eight truths of the upper and lower [realms], each possessing four aspects; upper Acceptance is exclusively a single aspect of the truth of suffering of the desire realm, for a single moment.

23.45

[On] the treatise's: "By implication of this principle... because there is no distinction", this explains by analogy. Heat and Summits fully contemplate the eight truths and sixteen aspects, because these three stages have no distinction in this regard.

23.46

The Śāstra says: "Namely, the yogin... is called the stage of intermediate acceptance (kṣānti)." Explanation: Progressively reducing aspects (ākāra) and reducing objects of cognition (ālambana), down to the point before two moments of just one aspect contemplating the suffering of the desire realm, is called the intermediate stage of acceptance. According to this Śāstra, it states: "With respect to the antidotal path of the form and formless realms, etc., the aspects and objects of each noble truth are progressively reduced and condensed." Thus we know that lower acceptance takes the eight truths of the upper and lower realms as objects, completely possessing four aspects each; once one aspect under the noble truth of the path of the form and formless realms is eliminated onward, it is called intermediate acceptance. When the aspects of the path are completely eliminated, it is called reducing the object. Next, after reducing the aspects under the path of the desire realm, down to having reduced the aspects and objects of the three aspects under suffering of the desire realm each, there remain only two moments of a single aspect, which is called intermediate acceptance. Fascicle five of the Vibhāṣā says: "Furthermore, because during the stage of acceptance, at certain times one contemplates the noble truths with twelve aspects, at certain times one contemplates the noble truths with eight aspects, and at certain times one contemplates the noble truths with four aspects. (Explanation: At times twelve aspects means removing the four aspects of the truth of the path. At times eight aspects means removing the four aspects each of cessation and the path. At times four aspects means removing the four aspects each of cessation, the path, and origination. Another explanation: At times twelve aspects means removing one aspect from each of the four truths. At times eight aspects means removing two aspects from each of the four truths. At times four aspects means removing three aspects from each of the four truths. According to the second contemplation of form, etc., in the seven stations of the skilled, the path is excluded; based on this textual evidence, the former explanation is superior. If one relies on the latter explanation, there is no textual evidence. According to the text of the Nyāyānusāra, the seven stations of the skilled are prior to the general-characteristic smṛtyupasthāna. According to one master of the Vibhāṣā: they are in the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā says: In the seven stations of the skilled, contemplating form involves four knowledges: dharma[-knowledge], subsequent[-knowledge], [knowledge of] suffering, and conventional [knowledge]. Furthermore, according to the Vibhāṣā, defiled knowledge contemplating the truths is generally called conventional knowledge, while undefiled knowledge contemplating the truths is called [knowledge of] suffering, origination, etc. According to the above text, the seven stations of the skilled for the truths apply to both defiled and undefiled)." Fascicle one hundred and ninety of the Vibhāṣā says: "Question: Which pudgala enters the path of seeing relying on the aspect of emptiness (śūnyatā)? Which pudgala enters the path of seeing relying on the wishless (apraṇihita)? Answer: If one is a practitioner inclined to views (dṛṣṭicarita), they enter relying on the aspect of emptiness; if one is a practitioner inclined to craving (tṛṣṇācarita), they enter relying on the wishless—with the sole exception of the bodhisattva, who, although inclined to craving, enters relying on emptiness. (Explanation: Practitioners inclined to views cling to a self, hence they enter relying on emptiness. Practitioners inclined to craving cling to existence, hence they enter relying on suffering and impermanence. Bodhisattvas have abundant compassion, hence they are called inclined to craving; in order to transform sentient beings, they do not loathe existence). Furthermore, practitioners inclined to views are of two kinds: those who cling to the view of self enter relying on the aspect of non-self; those who cling to the view of what belongs to self enter relying on the aspect of emptiness. Practitioners inclined to craving are also of two kinds: for those in whom self-pride is predominant, they enter relying on the aspect of impermanence; for those in whom indolence is predominant, they enter relying on the aspect of suffering. (Explanation: When one distinctively knows that the body is impermanent, one does not rely on oneself to generate pride. If one knows its aspect of suffering, one strives vigorously to seek escape)." Master Guṇaprabha of the Western Region, explaining the reduction of aspects, says: "The four aspects each of the eight truths, upper and lower, correspond symmetrically and are mutually bound according to their nominal sequence. For instance, if one later is to enter the path of seeing through the aspect of impermanence under the truth of suffering of the desire realm, then within its own truth, proceeding from the last toward the front, one first eliminates non-self, next emptiness, and then suffering. If one aims to enter the path of seeing through the aspect of suffering, one first eliminates non-self, next emptiness, and then impermanence. If one aims to enter the path of seeing through the aspect of emptiness, one first eliminates non-self, next suffering, and then impermanence. If one aims to enter the path of seeing through the aspect of non-self, one first eliminates emptiness, next suffering, and then impermanence. Just as it is for eliminating the four aspects of the suffering of desire, so it is also for eliminating the four aspects of the upper path." The rest follow this example; fearing prolixity, I will not detail them. What Guṇaprabha explains is overly intricate; since there is no textual basis, by what reason does one know they are definitively bound to each other? For example, if someone in whom the view of self is predominant generates the aspect of non-self to counteract the self, by what distinct reason would they preferentially generate the aspect of detachment, etc., under cessation, etc., and first contemplate the truth of cessation, etc.? Now I propose an explanation: From hearing and reflection when contemplating the four truths, every single truth possesses all four aspects; according to the nominal sequence, with respect to the upper path, etc., that which arises later ceases first, and that which arises first is reduced later. For one in whom the view of self is predominant, they preferentially generate non-self, and the remaining three aspects are reduced in sequence. Intermediate acceptance, higher acceptance, and the supreme mundane dharmas are identical in this single aspect, and it is precisely with this aspect that one enters the path of seeing. There is no contradiction with reason.

23.47

The Śāstra says: "Immediately after this stage... because there is no continuity." This explains the arising of higher acceptance from intermediate acceptance.

23.48

The Śāstra says: "Immediately after higher acceptance... is only a single moment." This explains the arising of the supreme mundane dharmas from higher acceptance, and clarifies that the supreme mundane dharmas and enhanced acceptance share identical objects and aspects.

23.49

The Śāstra says: "Because these are defiled... the supreme mundane dharmas." This explains the name.

23.50

The Śāstra says: "Because they possess human effort... hence called the most supreme." This resolves an objection. Fascicle three of the Vibhāṣā says: "Is this mind and its mental factors said to be supreme because they surpass other mundane dharmas entirely, or are they called supreme because they surpass them partially? If so, what is the flaw? If they are called supreme because they surpass them entirely, how could this surpass the conventional knowledge at the edge of direct realization (abhisamayāntika)? Yet the conventional knowledge cultivated at the edge of direct realization is an accompaniment of the path of seeing, and the intellectual power of the path of seeing is preeminent, whereas this dharma is not like that. Furthermore, how could this surpass the mingled cultivation of dhyāna? Yet those meditative attainments and the births they induce are not shared with ordinary worldlings (pṛthagjana), whereas this dharma is not like that. Furthermore, how could this surpass the wholesome roots cultivated at the time of the initial knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna)? Yet when cultivating those, the basis is purified and free from all obstructions, whereas this dharma is not like that. Furthermore, how could this surpass the three samādhis: emptiness of emptiness, wishless of the wishless, and signless of the signless? Yet those are even capable of loathing the noble path, much more so the defiled, whereas this dharma is not like that. If they are called supreme because they surpass them partially, then warmth, peaks, acceptance, etc., should also be called supreme, since each surpasses the wholesome roots of its respective lower stage. Some say: This dharma is called supreme because it surpasses entirely. However, this is spoken in terms of being able to open the gate of the noble path, not based on everything. That is to say, although conventional knowledge at the edge of direct realization and so forth have the preeminent qualities stated above, none of them has the power to open the gate of the noble path; this dharma alone can, and therefore it surpasses entirely. Or some say: This dharma is called supreme because it surpasses in all other matters; namely, whatever preeminent qualities conventional knowledge at the edge of direct realization and so forth have are all accomplished by this. Why? If this dharma did not open the gate of the noble path, the very substance of those preeminent qualities would not even be cultivated, much less have preeminent functions. It is only because this dharma opens the gate of the noble path that one then cultivates their substance and subsequently has preeminent functions. Since those preeminent qualities are accomplished through this, this surpasses all other matters. Other masters say: This dharma is called supreme because it surpasses partially. Question: If so, then warmth, etc., should also be called supreme. Answer: Because they are not the most supreme in either of the two parts. That is to say, mundane wholesome dharmas have two parts in all: one based on ordinary worldlings, and the second based on noble beings. Although the supreme mundane dharmas are not called the most supreme compared to the conventional knowledge and so forth of noble beings, they are the most supreme among all the wholesome [dharmas] acquired by ordinary worldlings; therefore, it alone is established as the supreme dharma. There is no critical evaluation." Question: If so, what is cultivated in the future cannot act as an equal-and-immediate condition (samanantarapratyaya) to induce the arising of the noble path; should it not be supreme? Answer: Fascicle two of the Vibhāṣā says: "Although it does not act as an equal-and-immediate condition, it can conform to the acquisition of what has already arisen. Just as a bhikṣu giving his consent (chanda) to the Saṅgha allows all other Saṅgha business to be accomplished as well. Question: The concurrent form and mind-dissociated formations of the supreme mundane dharmas do not act as an equal-and-immediate condition; how can they be named supreme mundane dharmas?" Fascicle two of the Vibhāṣā answers, saying: "Although they do not act as an equal-and-immediate condition, they can conform. Because they share one arising, one abiding, one cessation, one fruit, one outflow, and one maturation with this mind and its mental factors, they are closely associated."

23.51

The Śāstra says: "In this way, warmth, etc., ... because it does not reappear." This identifies the essential nature. It includes the co-existent dharmas, yet excludes their acquisition (prāpti). Fascicle three of the Vibhāṣā says: "Question: Why is the acquisition of a fruition of recluseship (śrāmaṇyaphala) itself a fruition of recluseship, whereas the acquisition of the supreme mundane dharmas is not a supreme mundane dharma? Answer: Because the fruition of recluseship is manifested through possession, the acquisition of a fruition of recluseship is a fruition of recluseship. The supreme mundane dharmas are manifested through an equal-and-immediate condition; since their acquisition is neither an equal-and-immediate condition nor conforms like their arising, etc., their acquisition is not a supreme mundane dharma. The acquisitions of warmth, peaks, and acceptance are also not warmth, etc., so that after obtaining the noble state they do not reappear. Some say: The acquisition is also a supreme mundane dharma. Other masters say: The acquisition arising together with it is a supreme mundane dharma. Evaluation: Whether arising together with it or arising subsequently, all acquisitions are not supreme mundane dharmas because they are of the same category; the same is true of warmth, etc. Therefore, the first explanation is good. Question: Why are the arising and other [characteristics] of the supreme mundane dharmas the supreme mundane dharmas, whereas their acquisition is not? Answer: Arising and others have the same fruit as it, accompany it and are not separated from it, and are always conjoined without before and after. The characteristic and what is characterized are never separated from one another; hence they are also the supreme mundane dharmas. The acquisition does not have the same fruit as that dharma, does not accompany it, is separated by nature and not conjoined, and may be prior or posterior. The acquisition and what is acquired are sometimes separated, just as bark is sometimes separated from a tree; therefore, the acquisition is not a supreme mundane dharma. The acquisitions of warmth, peaks, and acceptance are also like this." The Nyāyānusāra says: "However, because one has seen the truths, warmth, etc., are not permitted to reappear; for one who has already seen the truths, the manifestation of the preliminary practices (prayoga) would be useless." Now I propose an explanation: The prior fruit is not subsumed under the subsequent path of the candidate, so the acquisition arising after the candidate does not contradict reason. Warmth, etc., are the preliminary practices for that noble path; warmth, etc., arising after the path would contradict reason. Furthermore, attaining the noble state does not abandon warmth, which leads to the fault of warmth arising after the fruit. Attaining the fruit abandons the prior candidate, so after the fruit there is no acquisition of the candidate.

23.52

The Śāstra says: "Herein, the dharma of warmth... future." Fourth, this explains the quantity of aspects cultivated through practice and acquisition during the initial stage of warmth. Because in the initial stage one advances the wholesome roots, with respect to three truths one only cultivates the mixed application of mindfulness on dharmas. Cultivation through acquisition extends to both general and distinctive contemplation, hence one cultivates four applications of mindfulness. One cultivates the aspects of one's own truth, hence it extends to four aspects. Because there is no collateral cultivation, there are not sixteen aspects. With respect to the truth of cessation, there is only the unmixed application of mindfulness on dharmas, because body, feeling, and mind are absent. The two cultivations are only the application of mindfulness on dharmas; because there is no collateral cultivation, one does not cultivate the four applications of mindfulness of the other truths.

23.53

The Śāstra says: "Because from this lineage... can one then cultivate." This explains the reason why there is no collateral cultivation. The phrase "homogeneous" (sabhāga) refers to the same truth.

23.54

The Śāstra says: "In the subsequent stage of advancement... sixteen in the future." This explains cultivation through practice and acquisition in the advancing stage of warmth. Because the three truths all contain form, feeling, mind, and dharmas, and this is not the initial beginner stage, it allows for the manifest distinctive contemplation of form, feeling, mind, etc.; hence it says "any one application of mindfulness cultivated in the present." Although one can collaterally cultivate the applications of mindfulness of other truths, the number does not exceed four, hence it says "four." As for "any single aspect cultivated in the present cultivates sixteen in the future," it is because one collaterally cultivates the other truths. Because contemplating the truth of cessation lacks other applications of mindfulness, the application of mindfulness on dharmas is cultivated in the present. Because one collaterally cultivates other truths, there are four in the future. Cultivation through practice in both the beginning and later stages is identical in being the application of mindfulness on dharmas.

23.55

The Śāstra says: "Because from this lineage... can also cultivate." This explains the reason why one can collaterally cultivate. It can be understood according to the text.

23.56

The treatise says: "From the initial settling of the peak [summit stage] ... up to the sixteen in the future." This clarifies the initial entry into the summit stage. Because one is newly advancing into a different stage, cultivation of practice consists solely of the mindfulness of phenomena. Because when advancing through the stages the aspects are not selected, one cultivates according to any single aspect. As for "four and sixteen in the future," because lateral cultivation is admitted and because the four truths are the same, they are stated together.

23.57

The treatise says: "At the subsequent stage of increase and advance ... up to the sixteen in the future." This clarifies that in the stage of increase and advance, separate manifestation is admitted. Cultivating any single application of mindfulness in the present and [cultivating] the four, etc., in the future are as explained under the heat [stage]. Because the three truths are not the same, they are explained separately.

23.58

The treatise says: "From the initial settling of acceptance ... up to the sixteen in the future." This clarifies the stage of acceptance. Vibhāṣā, fascicle 188, states: "Question: Why are both the beginning and the end of acceptance solely the mindfulness of phenomena? Answer: Because acceptance is close to the path of seeing, it resembles the path of seeing (The commentator remarks: However, all of them resemble the path of seeing)."

23.59

The treatise says: "However, in the increase and advance ... one does not cultivate those aspects." This clarifies that in the middle and highest acceptance, according to whatever objective condition is eliminated, one does not cultivate those aspects. The Nyāyānusāra explains: "That is to say, when fully taking the four [truths] as condition, one fully cultivates the sixteen [aspects]. If one takes three, two, or one as condition, one cultivates twelve, eight, or four, respectively."

23.60

The treatise says: "The supreme mundane dharmas ... because they resemble the path of seeing." This clarifies the extent of practice in the supreme mundane dharmas. Because they resemble the path of seeing, lack diverse modes of cultivation, and do not cultivate other aspects. The Vibhāṣā says: "Question: Is there any case where abiding in a single moment, one will acquire the supreme mundane dharma, but not its objective condition? Where one will acquire its objective condition, but not the supreme mundane dharma? Where one will acquire both the supreme mundane dharma and its objective condition? Where one will acquire neither the supreme mundane dharma nor its objective condition? Answer: There is such an abiding. At the time of highest acceptance, a fourfold proposition should be formed. To begin with, for one who enters the realization of certainty based on the unarrived absorption (anāgamya), while abiding in highest acceptance, they will acquire the supreme mundane dharma. 'Not its objective condition' refers to, among the supreme mundane dharmas subsumed by the unarrived absorption, excluding the supreme mundane dharma that takes as its condition the support that is to become present, those supreme mundane dharmas that take the remaining objects as condition. 'Acquiring its objective condition but not the supreme mundane dharma' refers to, among the supreme mundane dharmas subsumed by the upper five stages, those that take as condition the support that is to become present. 'Acquiring both the supreme mundane dharma and its objective condition' refers to, among the supreme mundane dharmas subsumed by the unarrived absorption, that which takes as condition the support that is to become present. 'Acquiring neither the supreme mundane dharma nor its objective condition' refers to, among the supreme mundane dharmas subsumed by the upper five stages, excluding that which takes as condition the support that is to become present, those supreme mundane dharmas that take the remaining objects as condition. As based on the unarrived absorption, so it is with the remaining five stages (The commentator remarks: This speaks of the cultivation through acquisition of the supreme mundane dharma having different conditions. If it is cultivation through practice, it necessarily takes all of them together as condition. The 'support' is the personal support of the supreme mundane dharma. Because it is a body of the desire realm, it is also an objective condition and will also be acquired. The 'objective condition' is all conditioned contaminated phenomena of the desire realm. Among them, if it is the support, it is then also that which will be acquired. All other objective conditions are not what is acquired. Because all supreme mundane dharmas of the same stage and so forth are all acquired in cultivation, those of different stages and so forth are definitely not acquired). Question: Is there any case where one accomplishes the supreme mundane dharma but does not accomplish its possession of disjunction? Answer: A fourfold proposition should be formed. 'Accomplishing the supreme mundane dharma but not accomplishing its possession of disjunction' refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, and has not yet separated from the defilement of this stage. 'Accomplishing its possession of disjunction but not accomplishing the supreme mundane dharma' refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, and at the end of life is born into an upper stage. 'Accomplishing the supreme mundane dharma and also accomplishing its possession of disjunction' refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, has already separated from the defilement of this stage, and does not at the end of life take birth in an upper stage. 'Accomplishing neither the supreme mundane dharma nor its possession of disjunction' refers to: if one is not yet able to enter the realization of certainty, in the state with remainder of support, regarding its contaminated possession of disjunction. Such a statement is made. Question: Is there any noble one who accomplishes the supreme mundane dharma but does not accomplish its possession of disjunction? Answer: A fourfold proposition should be formed. 'Accomplishing the supreme mundane dharma but not accomplishing its possession of disjunction' refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, and has not yet separated from the defilement of this stage. 'Accomplishing its possession of disjunction but not accomplishing the supreme mundane dharma' refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, and at the end of life is born into the immediately higher stage. 'Accomplishing the supreme mundane dharma and also accomplishing its possession of disjunction' refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, has already separated from the defilement of this stage, and does not at the end of life take birth in an upper stage. 'Accomplishing neither the supreme mundane dharma nor its possession of disjunction' refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, and at the end of life leaps over the immediately higher stage to be born into another upper stage, regarding all supreme mundane dharmas with remainder of support and all their possessions of disjunction. Such a statement is made. Question: Is there any case where one accomplishes the supreme mundane dharma but does not accomplish its possession of disjunction? Answer: A fourfold proposition should be formed. The first proposition refers to: if, based on the unarrived absorption or the intermediate dhyāna of the first dhyāna, one enters the realization of certainty, and has not yet separated from the defilement of the first dhyāna. The second proposition refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, and at the end of life is born into an upper stage; or if, not having attained the supreme mundane dharma, one is born into the desire or form realm, having already separated from the defilement of the first dhyāna, or is born into the sphere of boundless space. The third proposition refers to: if, based on this stage, one enters the realization of certainty, has already separated from the defilement of the first dhyāna, and does not at the end of life take birth in an upper stage. The fourth proposition refers to: excluding the previous characteristics."

First 60 of 203 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論疏 — Classical Chinese