俱舍論頌疏論本 10

English (machine translation) 10

Language: English

10.1

From here onwards is the second major section, explaining individually, in which there are two parts: first, explaining four dharmas individually; second, pointing individually to the remaining text.

10.2

As for explaining the four dharmas individually: first, explaining ignorance; second, explaining name-and-form; third, explaining contact; fourth, explaining feeling.

10.3

Concerning the first, explaining ignorance, this is further divided into two: first, explaining the definition; second, citing proof.

First, as for explaining the definition, the treatise states: "What is the meaning of ignorance? (a question) It means its essence is not clear (reply: not the clarity of knowledge). If so, ignorance should be the eyes and so forth (an objection: the five sense faculties such as the eye are also not the clarity of knowledge, so they should be ignorance). If that is so, this meaning should signify the absence of clarity (this is a further separate explanation: where there is an absence of clarity is called ignorance). If so, the essence of ignorance would be non-existent (an objection: if where there is an absence of clarity is called ignorance, since it is merely the absence of something else, its essence would be non-existent). To show that it has a real essence, and that its meaning is not conflated with other things," the verse states (to show it has an essence differs from the second explanation; that its meaning is not conflated with other things differs from the first explanation):

10.5

"Ignorance is the antidote's opposite of vidyā, / Like non-friend, unreal, and so on."

10.6

Explanation: "Ignorance is the antidote's opposite of vidyā": vidyā (clarity/knowledge) has a real essence, meaning that this ignorance fails to understand the four truths. That which is directly opposed to vidyā is called avidyā (ignorance); only that which is contrary to vidyā is called ignorance—it is not that everything other than vidyā is ignorance, nor is it that where vidyā is absent is called ignorance.

10.7

"Like non-friend, unreal, and so on": this adduces analogies to establish the meaning. The treatise states: "Just as an enemy who opposes friends, being contrary to a friend, is called a 'non-friend' (amitra)—it is neither someone other than a friend nor the absence of a friend." Explanation: "Neither someone other than a friend" means calling an enemy a non-friend, not that everyone other than a friend is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance is not conflated with the eye and so on. "Nor the absence of a friend" means it is not that a place devoid of friends is called a non-friend; this illustrates that ignorance has a real essence. "Unreal" (anṛta): truthful speech is called real; the deceptive speech that opposes it is called unreal; it is not that everything other than the real is called unreal, nor is the absence of truth called unreal. "And so on" includes non-dharma (adharma), non-benefit (anartha), and non-affair (akārya). Just as unwholesome dharmas are called non-dharma, unwholesome meanings/benefits are called non-benefit, and unwholesome deeds are called non-affair—these are contrary to wholesome dharmas and so forth, and are therefore called non-dharma and so on. The treatise states: "Thus, ignorance has a separate real essence and is that which is opposed to vidyā; it is neither [merely] other [than vidyā] nor the absence [of vidyā]." Explanation: "Neither other" means it is not that everything other than vidyā is entirely ignorance. "Nor the absence" means it is not that the absence of vidyā is called ignorance. Furthermore, the sūtra states: "Ignorance conditions formations." Therefore, we know that it has a real essence. This is a brief demonstration.

10.8

From here is the second part, demonstrating extensively. The verse states:

10.9

"Because it is spoken of as a fetter and so forth, / Because it is not bad wisdom, which is view, / Because it is associated with views, / And because it is said to be able to defile wisdom."

10.10

Explanation: The first line cites scriptural evidence; the lower three lines refute different views. As for "Because it is spoken of as a fetter and so forth": "spoken of" means spoken of in the sūtras; "fetter" refers to the nine fetters (saṃyojana); "and so forth" includes the three bonds (bandhana), ten latent defilements (anuśaya), three outflows (āsrava), and four floods (ogha). The sūtras state that fetters and so on all possess ignorance; if it lacked a real essence, how could it be spoken of as a fetter and so on?

10.11

"Because it is not bad wisdom, which is view": this refutes the claim of other masters. Other masters say that ignorance takes bad wisdom (kuprajñā) as its essence. Thus they say: "Just as a bad wife is called 'wifeless', so bad wisdom should be called ignorance." The author of the treatise refutes this; hence he says, "because it is not bad wisdom, which is view." That is, defiled wisdom is called bad wisdom, and among it there are views (dṛṣṭi); hence it is not ignorance. For instance, the view of selfhood and so forth are bad views that are wisdom; since wisdom contains views, how could it be ignorance?

10.12

"Because it is associated with views": this refutes their further defense. That is, the other masters say: "If so, bad wisdom that is not a view should be admitted to be ignorance, just as the wisdom associated with greed and so forth is bad wisdom that is not a view. Since it is not a view, it should be ignorance." To refute this defense, he says, "Because it is associated with views." That is, since this ignorance is associated with views, we know that ignorance cannot be wisdom. If ignorance were wisdom, how could two wisdoms be mutually associated? Since it is admitted that ignorance is associated with views, we know that ignorance is not wisdom.

10.13

"And because it is said to be able to defile wisdom": this cites doctrinal authority as proof. As the sūtra states: "Greedy desire defiles the mind, preventing it from being liberated. Ignorance defiles wisdom, preventing it from being pure." Since this sūtra states that ignorance defiles wisdom, we know that the essence of wisdom is not ignorance. If ignorance were wisdom, how could the essence of wisdom defile wisdom itself? However, the essence of ignorance is the failure to comprehend the four truths, the Three Jewels, and wholesome and unwholesome karmas and their fruits; that is, it is a separate dharma that opposes comprehension. The Venerable Dharmatrāta said: "The essence of ignorance is the nature belonging to sentient beings that relies upon the self." Explanation: Ignorance arises relying on the self, which is of the class of the conceit of self (ātmamāna).

10.14

From here is the second part, explaining name-and-form (nāmarūpa). The treatise states: "What is the meaning of name-and-form? Form has been analyzed previously; now we analyze only name." The verse states:

10.15

"Name is the four non-material aggregates."

10.16

Explanation: "Name" refers to the four non-material aggregates, namely feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness. Question: "Name among the four aggregates is subsumed under the aggregate of formations; why are the four aggregates collectively called 'name'?" Answer: "The treatise has four explanations. First, it says that in accordance with the names established, by the force of faculties and objects they shift with respect to meanings, hence they are called 'name'. Question: 'How do they shift by the force of names?' Answer: 'In accordance with various conventional names established in the world, they shift to signify respective meanings, just like the names cow, horse, color, taste, and so forth.' Question: 'For what reason are they designated with the title "name"?' Answer: 'Because they shift to cognize respective objects.'" Explanation: The above is the treatise text. This master's intention is that just as present-day names follow the force of ancient names so as to be able to shift in signifying meanings—either signifying this object or signifying that object, where signifying respective objects is called 'shifting'—since names are like this, the four aggregates are also like this: the aggregates such as feeling shift to cognize objects by the force of faculties and objects; shifting like names, they are therefore designated with the title "name". The phrase "shifting to cognize" means cognizing this and cognizing that is called shifting cognition. The second explanation says: "Also, because they resemble names." The intention of this explanation is that all dharmas do not exceed two categories: first, the category of form; second, the category of non-form. The four aggregates and names both belong to the category of non-form; resembling names, the four aggregates are therefore called name. The third explanation says: "Because they are manifested by names." The intention of this explanation is that form dharmas are gross and distinct, some of which do not require names to be manifested, as when seen by the eye; the four aggregates are subtle, strictly requiring names to be manifested and necessarily depending on names, hence they are designated with the title "name". The fourth explanation says: Other masters state that when the four non-material aggregates abandon this body, they turn and proceed toward another rebirth; shifting like names, they are therefore designated with the title "name". Explanation: This master defines shifting in terms of abandoning the body, whereas the first master relies on cognizing objects as shifting; although "shifting" is the same word, the two explanations are different.

10.17

From here is the third part, explaining contact (sparśa), in which there are three parts: first, explaining the six contacts; second, explaining the two contacts; third, explaining the eight contacts.

10.18

First, explaining the six contacts: the treatise states, "What is the meaning of contact?" The verse states:

10.19

"Contacts are six, born of the meeting of three."

10.20

Explanation: "Contacts are six" means the contacts associated with the six consciousnesses, such as the eye-consciousness; that is, the contact associated with eye-consciousness up to the contact associated with mental consciousness. Although the essence of contact is one, according to the consciousnesses it is divided into six. "Born of the meeting of three" explains the meaning of contact. That is, born of the combination of the three—faculty, object, and consciousness—it is able to make contact, and hence is called contact. The treatise states: "Now, as for the arising of the five contacts, a meeting of three is possible, because faculty, object, and consciousness are admitted to arise simultaneously. But the mental faculty is past, dharmas may be future, and mental consciousness is present—how can there be a meeting?" Explanation: This text raises an objection. "Dharmas may be future" refers to cognizing future dharmas. The word "may" indicates indefiniteness; taking cognizing the future as an example, it also extends to cognizing other time periods, hence it says "may". The intention of this objection is: the three—mental faculty, dharma, and consciousness—each reside in a different time period; how could this be called a meeting? The treatise states: "This is indeed called a meeting, because the sense of cause and effect is accomplished, or because they have the same single fruit, hence it is called a meeting—meaning that faculty, object, and consciousness together conform to producing contact." Explanation: This answers the preceding question with two explanations. In the first explanation, the mental faculty and dharmas are causes and mental consciousness is the effect; since the sense of cause and effect is accomplished, it is called a meeting. In the second explanation, the three—faculty, object, and consciousness—share the same single fruit of contact; having the same fruit, it is called a meeting. These two explanations above do not define meeting in terms of the same time period. According to the Sarvāstivādins, apart from the meeting of the three, there is a separate entity of contact, which is a mental factor. In the Sautrāntika view, the meeting of the three is itself contact, with no separate entity. The treatise has reciprocal refutations, but they are verbose and not recounted here.

10.21

From here is the second part, explaining the two contacts. The treatise states: "The aforementioned six contacts are combined again into two. Why is this?" The verse states:

10.22

"Associated with the five is contact with resistance; / Concomitant with the sixth is contact with designation."

10.23

Explanation: "Associated with the five is contact with resistance": the five contacts of the eye and so forth are called contacts with resistance (pratighasamsparśa). Although contact itself lacks resistance, because its bases—the eye and so forth—possess resistance, it is named after its base and called contact with resistance; 'the contact of resistance' is a genitive compound (tatpuruṣa).

10.24

Regarding "the sixth is together with increased expression": the sixth, mental contact, is called contact of increased expression (adhivacana-saṃsparśa). Why is this so? "Increased expression" is name (nāma). A name can express and designate, surpassing [mere] speech (vāc); therefore it is called "increased expression". A name is the primary extra object cognized by mental contact; thus, specifically referring to this name, it is called "contact of increased expression". Question: "Why is a name the extra object of mental consciousness?" Answer: "For instance, the visual consciousness can only cognize blue, but cannot cognize the name 'blue'. Mental consciousness cognizes blue and also cognizes the name 'blue'. Therefore, the name on top of blue is called 'extra' (or 'surplus'); 'extra' means that which is residual and surplus. Increased expression is the object, and contact is the subject that cognizes it; because it cognizes increased expression, it is called 'contact of increased expression'—the contact of increased expression being a tatpuruṣa compound. Thus the treatise says: 'The name contact of increased expression is established with respect to the intentional object.' Some say that mental consciousness is called increased expression because, with this speech as its predominant condition, mental consciousness operates toward the object, whereas the five [sensory] consciousnesses do not; therefore mental consciousness alone is called increased expression." Contact associated with this mental consciousness of increased expression is called contact of increased expression; thus the treatise says: "The name contact of increased expression is established with respect to association."

10.25

From this third, explaining the eight contacts, the treatise says: "These aforementioned six contacts, according to specific associations, further become eight kinds." The verse says:

10.26

"Luminous, ignorant, neither of the two,
Defiled, uncontaminated, and the rest,
Associated with attachment and aversion,
Agreeable and so forth conform to the three feelings."

10.27

Explanation: Regarding "luminous, ignorant, neither of the two": there are three contacts here: first, luminous contact (vidyā-saṃsparśa); second, ignorant contact (avidyā-saṃsparśa); third, neither luminous nor ignorant contact (naiva-vidyā-nāvidyā-saṃsparśa). When the verse says "neither of the two", this refers to the third contact.

10.28

Regarding "uncontaminated, defiled, and the rest": this explains the above three contacts. "The rest" refers to, apart from uncontaminated and defiled, the remaining contaminated wholesome and indeterminate [contacts]. Contact associated with the uncontaminated is called luminous contact; contact associated with the defiled is called ignorant contact; contact associated with contaminated wholesome and indeterminate is called neither luminous nor ignorant contact.

10.29

Regarding "associated with attachment and aversion": there are two contacts here: first, contact of attachment, which is associated with greed; second, contact of aversion, which is associated with anger. Because among the afflictions these two arise frequently, these two are established separately outside of ignorant contact.

10.30

Regarding "agreeable and so forth conform to the three feelings": subsuming all contacts under the three feelings, there are three contacts in total: first, associated with pleasant feeling, called contact conforming to pleasant feeling; second, associated with painful feeling, called contact conforming to painful feeling; third, associated with neutral feeling, called contact conforming to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Question: "Why are these contacts called 'conforming to feeling'?" Answer: "The treatise offers three explanations. The first says: 'Because these three are able to induce the three feelings of pleasure and so forth.' Explanation: this means that the inducer conforms to what is induced. The second says: 'Or because they are experienced by feelings such as pleasure.' Explanation: feeling experiences contact, so contact is called conforming to feeling; this refers to the experienced conforming to the experiencer. The third says: 'Or because they can serve as the basis for the mental aspect (ākāra) of feeling.' Explanation: the mental aspect of feeling arises in reliance on contact, so it is called conforming to feeling; this is based on the support conforming to the supported. Furthermore, the treatise says: 'How is contact that which is experienced by feeling and the basis for its mental aspect?' (questioning the second and third explanations). 'Because its mental aspect closely resembles contact, and arises in reliance on contact' (the answer). Explanation: 'its mental aspect closely resembles contact' answers how contact is experienced by feeling; just as in the worldly realm a child or grandchild who handsomely resembles the father is said to take after the father, feeling resembles the characteristics of contact, which is called experiencing contact. 'Arising in reliance on contact' clarifies that contact is the support of feeling." Thus, combined, there are sixteen kinds of contact: first explaining the six contacts, next explaining two contacts, again explaining three contacts such as luminous, next the two contacts of attachment and aversion, and finally three contacts conforming to pleasure and so forth; thus making sixteen.

10.31

From this, the fourth major section, explaining the branch of feeling: first, general; second, specific.

10.32

First, the general: the treatise says: "What is the meaning of feeling?" The verse says:

10.33

"From this arise six feelings;
Five belong to the body, the rest to the mind."

10.34

Explanation: regarding "from this arise six feelings": from these six contacts, six feelings can arise—namely, feelings produced with visual contact as condition, up to feelings produced with mental contact as condition.

10.35

Regarding "five belong to the body, the rest to the mind": among the six, the first five are bodily feelings, because they rely on the physical sense faculties. A physical sense faculty is called "body" in the sense of an aggregation; feelings arising in reliance on the body are called bodily feelings—feeling of the body, which is a tatpuruṣa compound. The feeling produced by mental contact is called mental feeling; relying solely on the mind, it is called mental feeling—feeling of the mind, which is also a tatpuruṣa compound. Both of these above two feelings take their names from their basis; this is easily understood upon reflection. According to the Sarvāstivāda school, feeling and contact arise simultaneously; contact produces feeling as simultaneous cause and effect. According to the Sautrāntika school, since contact is the cause able to produce feeling, contact and feeling must not be simultaneous, as their school does not accept simultaneous cause and effect. The treatise refutes each other on this, but it is too tedious to recount.

10.36

From this second, explaining specifically, in which there are two parts: first, setting forth the fixed number; second, distinction of meaning.

10.37

First, setting forth the fixed number, the verse says:

10.38

"These further become eighteen,
Through the differences of mental explorations."

10.39

Explanation: regarding "these further become eighteen, through the differences of mental explorations": these aforementioned mental feelings, through the differences of mental explorations (manovicāra), are further divided into eighteen. It should be known that the word "further" indicates taking up what preceded to initiate what follows. That there are eighteen differences of mental exploration means: within mental feeling there are joy, grief, and equanimity; arising with reference to the six intentional objects, there are six explorations each, thus making eighteen. Specifically, joy with reference to the six objects has six explorations of joy; grief with reference to the six objects has six explorations of grief; equanimity with reference to the six objects has six explorations of equanimity. Question: "If by intrinsic nature, there should be only three, because the three intrinsic natures of joy, grief, and equanimity are distinct. If by association, there should be only one, because all are associated with the mind. If by intentional object, there should be only six, because the six objects such as form are the objects." Answer: "These becoming eighteen fully depends on all three: through the three meanings of intrinsic nature, association, and intentional object, they become eighteen. Among them, fifteen are called 'unmixed objects'—meaning that for the five such as form, the fifteen explorations have distinct objects respectively, hence they are called unmixed objects. The three explorations of mental phenomena (dharmas) both encompass two kinds. Dharmas comprise two kinds: first, distinct dharmas, meaning the remaining dharmas outside the five objects; second, common dharmas, meaning the five objects cognized together in pairs, up to all five cognized together, being mixed objects. These five objects are also called dharmas. When the three of joy, grief, and equanimity cognize distinct dharmas, they are called unmixed objects. When cognizing distinct dharmas while concurrently cognizing form and so forth, or exclusively cognizing the five objects such as form combined, they are called mixed objects. Therefore the explorations of mental phenomena encompass both kinds." Question: "By what meaning are these called 'mental explorations'?" Answer: "Tradition says: joy and so forth take the mind as their close condition, frequently roving among the objects. Some say: joy and so forth can serve as close conditions causing the mind to frequently rove among the objects. Bodily feeling is not called mental exploration precisely because bodily feeling has two kinds of supports: first, relying on the five faculties; second, relying on the mental faculty. Not relying solely on the mind, it is not called 'close' (mano-upavicāra); and being without conceptual differentiation, it is also not an 'exploration'. The pleasure of the third dhyāna relies solely on the mental faculty and also has conceptual differentiation; why is it not an exploration? Because the mental consciousness of the desire realm lacks the faculty of pleasure, and cognizing the desire realm originally lacks an exploration of pleasure; therefore pleasure of the higher realms is also not established as such. Furthermore, on the mental ground there are joy and grief, and being mutually opposed, each establishes explorations. Although the third dhyāna has mental pleasure, it lacks mental suffering; having no opposite counterpart, it does not establish an exploration."

10.40

From this second, distinction of meaning: first, distinction according to realm-bond and object; second, distinction according to contaminated and uncontaminated.

10.41

First, distinction according to realm-bond and object: the treatise says: "How many mental explorations are bound to the desire realm, and how many objects do the mental explorations of the desire realm take? The questions regarding the form and formless realms are also like this." The verse says:

10.42

"The desire [realm has] eighteen cognizing the desire [realm],
Twelve [cognizing] the form [realm], and three [cognizing] the higher [realm].
The two [dhyānas] have twelve cognizing the desire [realm],
Eight their own, and two the formless.
The latter two have six cognizing the desire [realm],
Four their own, and one cognizing the higher.
The preliminary stage of the first formless [realm]
Has four cognizing the form [realm] and one its own;
The four fundamental and three thresholds
Have only one, cognizing their own sphere."

10.43

Explanation: the first two lines explain the desire realm; the next four lines explain the form realm; the final four lines explain the formless realm. Regarding "the desire [realm has] eighteen cognizing the desire [realm]": the upper "desire" explains the eighteen bound to that realm, and the lower "desire" explains the eighteen objects cognized; that is, the desire-realm bond fully possesses eighteen, and cognizing desire-realm objects has the same number.

10.44

Regarding "twelve [cognizing] the form [realm], and three [cognizing] the higher [realm]": this explains the number of objects of the higher realms cognized by the explorations of the desire realm. The desire realm cognizing the form realm has only twelve: namely, joy, grief, and equanimity each cognizing four [objects] of the form realm, three times four being twelve. That realm lacks smell and taste, excluding the six of smell and taste. "Three [cognizing] the higher": "higher" means the formless realm; the desire realm cognizing the formless realm can only have three, namely joy, grief, and equanimity each cognizing its dharmas. That realm lacks the five objects such as form, hence there are three [explorations of] dharmas.

10.45

Regarding "the two [dhyānas] have twelve cognizing the desire [realm]": "the two" means the first dhyāna and the second dhyāna. These first and second dhyānas are bound to only twelve: namely, six of joy and six of equanimity, only excluding the six of grief, because that realm lacks grief. In cognizing objects of the desire realm, there are also twelve in total, excluding the six grief objects.

10.46

Regarding "eight their own, and two the formless": the first and second dhyānas cognizing their own realm have eight—namely, their joy and equanimity each cognizing four objects, excluding the four of smell and taste. "Two the formless" means cognizing two of the formless realm: joy and equanimity each cognizing its dharmas.

10.47

Regarding "the latter two have six cognizing the desire [realm]": the third and fourth dhyānas are called "the latter two". The third and fourth dhyānas are bound to only six kinds: lacking the six joys, they have only six equanimities. In cognizing objects of the desire realm, they can also have six: the six such as form.

10.48

Regarding "four their own, and one cognizing the higher": the third and fourth dhyānas cognizing their own realm have four: equanimity cognizing four objects, excluding the two of smell and taste. "One cognizing the higher" means one cognizing the formless realm: the exploration of dharmas.

10.49

Regarding "the preliminary stage of the first formless [realm] has four cognizing the form [realm] and one its own": the preliminary stage (sāmantaka) of the sphere of infinite space is bound to only four kinds, and in cognizing objects of the form realm it also has four kinds; that is, the preliminary stage of the sphere of infinite space gives rise to the contaminated path, which can cognize the four objects such as form of the fourth dhyāna in the form realm. Since it cognizes four, its bonds are also four. Cognizing its own realm has one: solely the object of dharmas.

10.50

Regarding "the four fundamental and three thresholds have only one, cognizing their own sphere": the four fundamental stages (maula) of the sphere of infinite space and so forth, and the three preliminary stages of the sphere of infinite consciousness and so forth, are called the "three thresholds"; in these seven stages there is only one, namely dharmas. The fundamental formless [dhyānas] do not cognize the form realm, and their higher three thresholds also do not cognize the form realm, hence they have only the one exploration of dharmas. The meaning of not cognizing form will be analyzed in the Chapter on Samādhi.

10.51

From this second, distinction according to contaminated and uncontaminated: the treatise says: "Do these mental explorations extend to the uncontaminated?" The verse says:

10.52

"The eighteen are exclusively contaminated."

10.53

Explanation: Because these mental preoccupations (manovicāra) are bound to the three realms, they are exclusively contaminated (sāsrava) and do not extend to the uncontaminated (anāsrava). The Śāstra states: "Who accomplishes how many mental preoccupations? One born in the desire realm, if not yet having attained a wholesome mind of the form realm, accomplishes all [eighteen] of the desire realm; eight of the first and second dhyānas; four of the third and fourth dhyānas; and one of the formless realm. Those of the higher realms accomplished do not have the lower as their object, because they are exclusively defiled (Commentary: Sentient beings of the desire realm accomplish defilements of the three realms; thus, although they have not yet attained wholesome minds of the higher realms, they accomplish the defiled preoccupations of those stages)." The Śāstra states: "If one has already attained a wholesome mind of the form realm but has not yet abandoned desire-realm craving, one accomplishes all of the desire realm. Of the first dhyāna, one accomplishes ten: only the four joyful ones [as defiled] are accomplished, because defilement does not take the lower objects of smell and taste; equanimity is fully accomplished as six, because a wholesome mind in the threshold concentration (anāgamya) is capable of taking smell and taste as objects. The rest should be understood accordingly following this principle." Commentary: 'Not having abandoned desire-realm craving' indicates not yet having attained the fundamental [dhyāna]. Stating that one 'has attained that wholesome [mind]' refers only to the threshold concentration. But in the threshold stage, there is only equanimity and no joy; since one has attained wholesome equanimity, equanimity comprises six, as the wholesome takes the lower as object. Not having attained the fundamental, one accomplishes its defiled joy; therefore there are only four, because defilement does not take the lower as object. Furthermore, the Śāstra states: "If born in the form realm, one accomplishes only one mental preoccupation of equanimity with respect to the desire realm, namely, that associated with the mind of supernatural transformation (abhijñā-phala)." Commentary: This is because the mind of supernatural transformation is associated only with equanimity. That all eighteen preoccupations discussed above extend to the contaminated is the Vaibhāṣika tenet. However, according to the Sautrāntikas, among the contaminated they only take defilement to be named mental preoccupation: on the side of affection, they establish the preoccupation of joy; or on the side of aversion, they establish the preoccupation of grief; or on the side of non-deliberative neglect, they establish the preoccupation of equanimity. Because they are defilements, mental preoccupations are termed 'bases of indulgence' (geha-sita)—that is, defiled joy, grief, and equanimity. In order to remedy defilement, they establish the 'bases of renunciation' (naiṣkramya-sita)—namely, wholesome joy, grief, and equanimity. Therefore the Śāstra states: "Joy and the rest make up thirty-six teacher-phrases, differentiated by being bases of indulgence and bases of renunciation; because these diverse phrases were spoken by the Great Teacher. The bases of indulgence are the defiled feelings; the bases of renunciation are the wholesome feelings." Commentary: Contrasting defiled and wholesome, each has eighteen, forming thirty-six phrases.

10.54

From here, the second section points to other texts for the remainder. The Śāstra states: "For what reason are the remaining factors of existence (bhavāṅga) not explained?" The verse says:

10.55

"The rest have been and will be explained."

10.56

Explanation: The four previously explained are ignorance and so forth; the remaining six factors have been or will be explained, and are therefore not discussed here. As for consciousness and the six sense spheres, they were already explained in the 'Chapter on the Elements' (Dhātu-nirdeśa): the earlier statement that consciousness is individual awareness refers to the consciousness factor; the names eye and the other four sense faculties refer to the factor of the six sense spheres. The two factors of formations (saṃskāra) and existence (bhava) will be explained in the 'Chapter on Karma' (Karma-nirdeśa). The two factors of craving and grasping will be explained in the 'Chapter on Latent Tendencies' (Anuśaya-nirdeśa). Birth and old-age-and-death are subsumed under consciousness and the rest, and therefore are not specifically indicated.

10.57

From here, the second major section presents a brief summary through similes. The Śāstra states: "These factors of dependent origination are briefly established as three: defilements (kleśa), actions (karma), and things that are maturation fruits (vipākaphala-vastu). External similes should be invoked to demonstrate their distinct functions." The verse says:

10.58

"Here, defilements are spoken of as like seeds and like dragons,
Like grass roots and tree trunks, and like husked grain.
Karma is like grain with husks, like medicinal herbs, and like flowers.
Things that are maturation fruits are like cooked food and drink."

10.59

Explanation: The first four lines demonstrate defilements through similes; the next two lines demonstrate karmic causes through similes; the final two lines demonstrate the resulting entities. 'Defilements are like seeds': just as sprouts, stems, and so forth arise from seeds, defilements, karma, and actual entities arise from defilements. 'Defilements are like dragons': just as a dragon dwelling in a pool keeps the water from ever drying up, defilements dwelling in karma induce fruits endlessly. 'Defilements are like grass roots': just as when grass roots are not pulled up, the shoots grow back after being cut, when the root of defilements is not pulled up, they arise again and again toward cessation. 'Like tree trunks': just as a tree trunk repeatedly puts forth branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits, from defilements arise repeatedly the afflictions, karma, and entities. 'And like husked grain': just as grain covered by husks can produce sprouts and so on, karma covered by defilements can induce further rebirths.

10.60

'Karma is like grain with husks': just as grain with husks can produce sprouts and so on, karma possessing defilements can bring about maturation. 'Karma is like medicinal herbs': just as with medicinal herbs their fruit's ripening is the end, once the fruit of karma has ripened, it no longer brings about maturation. 'Karma is like flowers': just as a flower is the proximate cause for the birth of fruit, karma is the proximate cause capable of producing maturation.

10.61

'Fruits are like cooked food and drink': just as cooked food and drink can only be consumed and cannot turn back into other food and drink, once the entities that are maturation fruits have ripened, they cannot again induce the maturation of another lifetime.

10.62

From here, the ninth major section clarifies the four states of existence. The Śāstra states: "The succession of lives in this dependent origination of defilements, karma, and entities does not exceed four states of existence: intermediate, arising, basic, and dying existence. As explained previously, their meanings of defiled and undefiled and their presence or absence in the three realms will now be briefly analyzed." The verse says:

10.63

"Among the four states of existence, arising existence is exclusively defiled
By the defilements of its own stage; the other three [are of three natures]; in the formless realm there are three."

10.64

Explanation: The first three lines and the two words 'other three' of the fourth line form the gate analyzing the three natures; the final three words analyze the three realms. 'Among the four states of existence, arising existence is exclusively defiled': when taking rebirth, the defilements of one's own stage are all capable of moistening rebirth. Thus the Abhidharmikas all state: "Among defilements, there is not a single defilement that lacks the function of moistening at the moment of connecting rebirth; however, connecting rebirth occurs only through the power of defilements, not through secondary afflictions (paryavasthāna) and stains (mala) arising of their own force." Commentary: Secondary afflictions of own-force are jealousy, stinginess, wrath, concealment, regret, and sleepiness. Stains refers to the six stains. Because these secondary afflictions and stains arise without relying on others, they are called 'own-force'. Because they act by own-force, they must depend on deliberate consideration before they manifest. At the moment of initial rebirth, body and mind are dim and weak; hence they do not arise. Shamelessness, lack of conscience, lethargy, and restlessness are accompanying secondary afflictions; because they necessarily accompany defilements when they arise, they also arise at the stage of connecting rebirth. Furthermore, the Śāstra states: "Although body and mind are dim and weak in this state, defilements manifest through the triggering power of frequent arising or recent manifestation." Commentary: Beginningless time is called 'frequent arising'; the previous lifetime is called 'recent manifestation'. Initial entry into the intermediate existence is also exclusively defiled, just like arising existence.

10.65

'The other three [are of three natures]; in the formless realm there are three': excluding arising existence, the remaining three existences all extend to the three natures—wholesome, defiled, and indeterminate—which is why they are called 'the other three'. 'In the formless realm there are three': in the formless realm there are only three states of existence, merely lacking intermediate existence. Because the verse does not mention the desire and form realms, one knows that they fully possess all four states of existence. This concludes the first major section explaining the birth of sentient beings.

10.66

From here, the second major section clarifies the maintenance of sentient beings. The Śāstra states: "The dependent origination of sentient beings has been extensively analyzed; by what are these sentient beings maintained?" The verse says:

10.67

"Sentient beings are maintained by food; physical food belongs to desire and has only three substances.
Color-form is not, because it cannot benefit its own sense faculty, and due to liberation.
Contact, volition, and consciousness are three foods; being contaminated, they extend to the three realms.
Mind-made, seeking rebirth, and scent-eating describe the intermediate existence arising.
The first two benefit this world, the support and the supported;
The latter two, for future existence, attract and produce, respectively."

10.68

Explanation: 'Sentient beings are maintained by food' presents the premise. The sūtra states that the World-Honoured One, having personally awakened to all dharmas, correctly understood and declared that all sentient beings, without exception, are maintained by food. There are four kinds of food: first, physical food (kavaḍīkārāhāra); second, contact (sparśa); third, volition (manosañcetanā); fourth, consciousness (vijñāna). There are two kinds of physical food: fine and gross. The fine is food for the intermediate existence of the desire realm, as scent serves as food; the food among the devas and of humans at the beginning of the kalpa is also called fine, because there is no excrement, as it disperses into the limbs and torso like oil poured into sand. Alternatively, fine sweat-parasites, infant food, and so forth are also called fine; that is, there are minute parasites in the body born from sweat, termed fine sweat-parasites.

10.69

'Physical food belongs to desire and has only three substances' clarifies the substance of physical food. Such physical food is bound exclusively to the desire realm, and its substance comprises only three sense data, namely scent, taste, and tangibles. It is called 'morsel/physical food' because it can be divided into portions to be eaten and drunk; that is, it is taken in portion by portion through the mouth and nose. Although light, shadow, warmth, cool, ointments, washing, and so forth lack portions, because they provide nourishment, they are also called food; therefore, the term 'physical/morsel food' is stated based on the majority. The reason light, shadow, warmth, and coolness are called food is that meeting sunlight when cold or encountering a fire, finding tree shade when hot, and feeling cool breezes all benefit a person; thus they are all called food.

10.70

'Color-form is not, because it cannot benefit its own sense faculty, and due to liberation' explains why visible form (rūpa) is not physical food. The Śāstra states: "Visible form can also be divided into portions to be eaten and drunk; for what reason is it not food? Because it cannot benefit its own corresponding faculty, and because of those who are liberated." Commentary: First, visible form does not benefit its own faculty: its own faculty is the eye, and when the eye sees visible form, there is no benefit. If it does not even benefit the primary elements of its own faculty, how much less could it benefit the primary elements of the other faculties? Hence, visible form is not food. 'Does not benefit those who are liberated': non-returners and arhats are free from craving for physical food, which is called 'liberated'; these non-returners and others are detached from craving for all visible form, scent, taste, and tangibles; although seeing delicious food does not benefit them, eating and drinking scents, tastes, and so forth immediately benefits them. With the same detachment from craving, seeing visible form brings no benefit; by this we know that visible form is not physical food.

10.71

'Contact, volition, and consciousness are three foods': contact refers to contact born from the conjunction of the three; volition refers to mental action; consciousness refers to the aggregate of consciousness. All are capable of sustaining the body, and are collectively called food.

10.72

'Being contaminated, they extend to the three realms': although contact, volition, and the third extend to the uncontaminated, here the nature of food takes only the contaminated, because it nourishes existence. If they were uncontaminated dharmas, they would destroy existences; therefore they are not food. The three foods of contact and so forth are subsumed across the three realms.

10.73

"Mind-made and seeking birth, gandharva, intermediate, and arising"—this corresponds to the five names for the intermediate state mentioned in the sūtras. That is, a sūtra says: "There are four kinds of food that enable bhūtas—sentient beings—to abide, and that benefit those who seek birth." The explanation says: The term "bhūta" means "already born"; having been born into any of the five destinies, they are all called "already born," hence the word "bhūta" encompasses the five destinies. "Those who seek birth" refers to the intermediate state, because the World-Honoured One spoke of the intermediate state with five names: first, it is called "mind-made" (manomaya), because it is produced from mind and is not constituted by external conditions such as semen and blood; second, it is called "seeking birth" (saṃbhaveṣin), because it constantly takes pleasure in seeking and examining its place of future birth; third, it is called "gandharva" (gandharva, fragrance-eater), because it takes fragrance as its food; fourth, it is called "intermediate state" (antarābhava), because its skandhas exist between two destinies; fifth, it is called "arising" (abhinirvṛtti), because it temporarily arises facing toward future birth. Furthermore, a sūtra states: "There is destruction of existence through the arising of its own-body, and there is destruction of existence through birth in the world." The explanation says: "Arising" refers to the intermediate state; "birth" refers to the birth-state (upapattibhava). Because these two are impermanent and destructible, they are called "destruction of existence." The intermediate state is not non-existent, and so is designated by "own-body"; the birth-state has many faults, and so is called "the world." Furthermore, a sūtra states: "There is a person (pudgala) who has severed the bond of arising but has not severed the bond of birth." In this sūtra, four alternatives are expounded in detail: the upward-streamer is the first alternative, meaning the upward-streamer to the formless realm. In the formless realm, one does not take on an intermediate state, so one has severed the bond of arising; but one still undergoes birth, so one has not severed the bond of birth. One who attains nirvāṇa in the intermediate state is the second alternative: currently dwelling in the intermediate state, one has not severed the bond of arising; but since one will not take on further birth, one has severed the bond of birth. Arhats are the third alternative, because they have no further birth. Excluding the previous characteristics constitutes the fourth alternative. The purpose of citing the sūtra above is to prove that the intermediate state is named "arising." Furthermore, "bhūta" means "non-birth," referring to arhats who do not take on birth. Those who have craving for existence are said to be "seeking birth," because they take on further birth.

10.74

As for the latter four lines of the verse, they explain the establishment and exclusion of the foods. Question: "Since all defiled phenomena support and augment existence, why did the World-Honoured One say that food is only fourfold?" Answer: "Although that is so, it is spoken of as four in terms of their pre-eminence, without error." Question: "What is their pre-eminence?" Answer: The verse says, "The first two benefit this life: the basis and that which relies on it"—this explains the pre-eminence of the first two foods. "This life" refers to the present life. "The basis" refers to the body endowed with faculties; morsel food can provide benefit to it. "That which relies on it" refers to mind and mental factors; contact-food can provide benefit to them. In this way, these two foods possess the function of benefiting the already-born body and are the most pre-eminent.

10.75

"The latter two, with respect to future existence, lead and bring about in the same way"—this explains the pre-eminence of the latter two foods. "Future existence" refers to future birth. Volition-food is karma, which can lead to future existence. After volition-food has led it, the force of the seeds of consciousness can bring about future existence; only by the force of the seeds of consciousness perfumed by karma does future existence arise. Therefore, these two foods can benefit future birth and are the most pre-eminent. Hence, although all defiled things support and augment existence, only four foods are spoken of in terms of their pre-eminence. The first two are like a nursing mother, nurturing what is already born; the latter two are like a birth mother, giving birth to what is not yet born. Furthermore, the text of the treatise analyzes morsel food into four alternatives: the first alternative is that which is a morsel but not food, referring to what is drunk and eaten functioning as a condition to damage the faculties and great elements; the second alternative is that which is food but not a morsel, referring to the three foods of contact and so forth; the third alternative is that which is both a morsel and food, referring to what is drunk and eaten functioning as a condition to benefit the faculties and great elements; the fourth alternative refers to what excludes the previous characteristics. The three foods of contact and so forth also each have four alternatives; among them, that which is contact and so forth but not food refers to undefiled contact and defiled contact functioning as conditions to damage the faculties and great elements; the rest can be understood by analogy. The treatise says: "The five destinies and the four types of birth all possess the four foods." Question: "How can there be morsel food in the hells?" Answer: "Swallowing molten iron pellets and the like, although damaging after being eaten, can temporarily relieve hunger and thirst; having the characteristic of food, it is also called food. Moreover, in the solitary hells, eating and drinking are like those of humans; hence all five destinies possess the four foods."

10.76

From here, the third major section explains the passing away of sentient beings. The treatise says: "Now it should be properly determined: What consciousness is present? What feeling is associated when death and rebirth occur?" The verse says:

10.77

"Severing the roots of good and reconnecting them,
Detachment, falling away, death, and birth
Are accepted as occurring only within mental consciousness;
Death and birth are associated only with neutral feeling.
They are not in absorption, nor in the unconscious; these two;
Nirvāṇa is entered through two non-defined [consciousnesses].
In gradual death: feet, navel, heart;
The mental consciousness ceases last;
In the lower, humans, gods, and the unborn;
Severance of the marmans by water and so forth."

10.78

The commentary says: The first two lines mark the six phenomena: first, severing the roots of good; second, reconnecting the roots of good; third, the state of detachment; fourth, the time of falling away from defilement; fifth, death; sixth, birth.

10.79

"Are accepted as occurring only within mental consciousness" means that in these six states, association is accepted only with the sixth, the mental consciousness.

First 79 of 89 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論頌疏論本 — Classical Chinese