俱舍論頌疏論本 19
English (machine translation) 19
- Language
- English
19.1
Explanation: Defilements such as greed are called anusaya (latent afflictions). Because they follow along with sentient beings and increase torpor and sluggishness, they are called anusaya. As this chapter extensively clarifies them, it is named "Analysis [of the Latent Afflictions]". Within this chapter there are two divisions: first, explaining the essential nature of delusion; second, explaining the cessation of delusion.
19.2
Under explaining the essential nature of delusion, there are three divisions: first, explaining the root defilements; second, analysis through various approaches; third, miscellaneous explanations of the various defilements.
19.3
Under explaining the root defilements, there are five divisions: first, explaining the numerical enumeration; second, explaining abandonment by vision and cultivation; third, explaining the five views; fourth, explaining the four inversions; fifth, explaining the seven and nine prides.
19.4
Under the first, explaining the numerical enumeration, there are four divisions: first, explaining the six anusayas; second, explaining the seven anusayas; third, explaining the ten anusayas; fourth, explaining the ninety-eight anusayas.
19.5
First, explaining the six anusayas, the treatise says: "It was said before that the differences in the world are all born from karma; karma is able to arise and grow only through anusayas; karma separated from anusayas has no power to bring about existence (statement of thesis). Why is that (inquiry)? How many anusayas are there (asking the count)?" The verse says:
19.6
"The anusayas are the root of all existence;
Their distinctions are sixfold:
Namely greed, anger, pride,
Ignorance, views, and doubt."
19.7
Explanation: "The anusayas are the root of all existence" means that because these anusayas are the root of all existence, karma without them has no power to bring about existence. "All existences" means the three existences. In brief, one should know that their distinctions are six: first, greed; second, greed-anger; third, pride; fourth, ignorance; fifth, views; sixth, doubt. The verse says "also" [implied by context], not merely that anger is called greed-anger; the intention is to show that pride and the others also, through the force of greed, latently increase with respect to their objects. Because the arising of all defilements is due to the force of greed, one should therefore speak of greed-anger, greed-pride, down to greed-doubt. The word "and" indicates that the six substances are each distinct.
19.8
Next is the second division, explaining the seven anusayas. The treatise says: "If the substance of the anusayas is only six, on what basis does the sūtra speak of seven anusayas?" The verse says:
19.9
"The six become seven through the division of greed:
Greed for existence is in the upper two realms;
Because it operates on the internal sensory door,
And in order to prevent the conception of liberation."
19.10
Explanation: "The six become seven through the division of greed: greed for existence is in the upper two realms" means that the former six anusayas, through the division of greed, are divided into seven kinds: first, desire-greed; second, existence-greed; hence it is called "division of greed." That is to say, greed in the desire realm is called desire-greed, and greed in the upper two realms is called existence-greed.
19.11
"Because it operates on the internal sensory door" explains the name "existence-greed". Greed in the upper two realms mostly operates relying on an internal sensory door and only in small part operates directed toward an external sensory door; therefore, the name "existence-greed" is established. The internal sensory door is meditative absorption: greed arises taking meditative absorption as its object, taking the internal as its doorway, and is called "operating on the internal sensory door"; that is to say, the upper two realms mostly give rise to greed for meditative absorption. "In small part operates directed toward an external sensory door" means that it also takes external sensory objects—forms, sounds, tastes, tangibles, and dharmas—as its objects.
19.12
"In order to prevent the conception of liberation": furthermore, because tīrthikas give rise to the conception of liberation with respect to the upper two realms, the Buddha, in order to prevent this, established the name "existence-greed" to reveal that their object is not true liberation. Herein, its intrinsic body is established with the name "existence"; "intrinsic body" refers to meditative absorption and the body that is its support. Sentient beings there mostly have greed for meditative attainments (absorption) and the supporting body; the absorption and the body are called "existence". Because it arises taking existence as its object, it is called existence-greed; it is the greed of existence, which is a genitive tatpuruṣa compound. By analogy, greed in the desire realm is called desire-greed because it is greed attached to the external sensory objects of the five desires; it is the greed of desire, which is also a genitive tatpuruṣa compound.
19.13
Next is the third division, explaining the ten anusayas. The treatise says: "These six kinds of anusayas mentioned above are again divided into ten in the basic treatise. How do they become ten?" The verse says:
19.14
"The six become ten through the division of views;
The divisions are: view of personal identity,
Extreme views, wrong view,
Attachment to views, and attachment to rules and rituals."
19.15
Explanation: The previous six anusayas are divided into ten kinds through the division of views. Five are of the nature of views: first, view of personal identity; second, extreme view; third, wrong view; fourth, attachment to views; fifth, attachment to rules and rituals. The other five—greed and the rest—are not of the nature of views.
19.16
Next is the fourth division, explaining the ninety-eight. The treatise says: "Furthermore, these six kinds of anusayas mentioned above are said to be ninety-eight in the basic treatise. On what principle are they said to be ninety-eight?" The verse says:
19.17
"The six differ by mode, category, and realm,
Hence they become ninety-eight.
Abandoned in desire through seeing suffering and so on: ten, seven, seven, eight, and four,
Namely possessing all, and lacking respectively
Three, two views, and views and doubt.
In the form and formless realms, anger is excluded;
The rest are the same as described for desire."
19.18
Explanation: The first six lines explain the desire realm; the latter two lines explain the upper two realms. "The six differ by mode, category, and realm" is the thesis. "Mode" refers to the modes of views: the six anusayas, differing by the modes of views (mode means cognitive operation), are distinguished into ten. These ten kinds, differing by category and realm, become ninety-eight. "Category" refers to the five categories: the categories of what is abandoned by seeing suffering, seeing origin, seeing cessation, seeing the path, and by cultivation. "Realm" refers to the three realms of desire, form, and the formless.
19.19
"Abandoned in desire through seeing suffering and so on: ten, seven, seven, eight, and four" explains that the desire realm has thirty-six. "Suffering and so on" includes the remaining four categories. Ten means seeing suffering has ten anusayas. Seven and seven mean seeing origin and seeing cessation each have seven anusayas. Eight means the truth of the path has eight anusayas. Four means the path of cultivation has four anusayas.
19.20
"Namely possessing all, and lacking respectively three, two views, and views and doubt" explains the numbers above. "Possessing all" means seeing suffering possesses all ten. "Lacking three views" means origin and cessation each have seven, lacking the three views: identity view, extreme view, and attachment to rules and rituals. "Lacking two views" means the truth of the path has eight, excluding the two views of identity and extremes. "Lacking views and doubt" means the path of cultivation has four, excluding the five views and doubt. Therefore the verse speaks twice of the word "views": first, lacking three views; second, lacking two views. Synthesized like this, they make thirty-six kinds (under suffering there are fully ten; under origin and cessation each seven, twice seven is fourteen, which added to the former makes twenty-four; along with the path's eight it makes thirty-two; adding the path of cultivation's four, it makes thirty-six). The former thirty-two are called abandoned by vision, because as soon as one sees the truths, they are abandoned. The latter four of the path of cultivation are called abandoned by cultivation, because after seeing the four truths, in subsequent times repeatedly cultivating the path, they are then abandoned. The treatise says: "Herein, what characteristic is abandoned by seeing suffering, up to what characteristic is abandoned by cultivation? (Inquiry. As for 'herein', Master Guang explains: 'Among these ten anusayas.' Master Bao says: 'The preceding text of this treatise having matched the five views and doubt with the four truths, subsequently says the remaining four, greed and so on, each pervade the five categories; thus this question arises.' Therefore we know that 'herein' means among these four, greed and so on; Bao's explanation is preferable.) If they take what is abandoned by seeing this as their object, they are called abandoned by seeing this; the rest are called abandoned by cultivation. (Commentary: This is the answer. Master Guang says: 'This has two meanings: first, taking seeing this as object. "This" means these four truths; that is, the five views and doubt are directly deluded about the four truths, hence called taking seeing this as object. Second, taking what is abandoned by seeing this as object. What is abandoned refers to the five views and doubt; that is, the four, greed and so on, are not directly deluded about the truths, but only arise taking the five views and doubt as objects, hence called taking what is abandoned by seeing this as object.' The meaning here is that if the five views and doubt arise taking the truth of suffering as object, they are called abandoned by seeing suffering, up to if they arise taking the truth of the path as object, they are called abandoned by seeing the path. If the four, greed and so on, take the five views and doubt abandoned by seeing suffering as their object, they are called abandoned by seeing suffering; up to taking the three views and doubt abandoned by seeing the truth of the path as their object, they are called abandoned by seeing the truth of the path. Those that do not take seeing this as their object, nor what is abandoned by seeing this as their object, are called abandoned by cultivation. If following Master Bao's explanation: 'If these four, greed and so on, take what is abandoned by seeing this as their object, they are called abandoned by vision; if not taking what is abandoned by seeing this as their object, they are called abandoned by cultivation.') Among these thirty-six, views are divided into twelve: namely five views under suffering, two views each under origin and cessation, and three views in the truth of the path, thus making twelve. Doubt is divided into four, one for each of the four truths. The remaining four have five each: the remaining four, greed and so on, each pervade the five categories, four times five is twenty. Together with the former twelve views and four doubts, in the desire realm there are thirty-six.
19.21
"In the form and formless realms, anger is excluded; the rest are the same as described for desire" means that under each of the five categories in the form and formless realms, anger is excluded; the rest are identical with desire. Hence the form and formless realms each have thirty-one; the two realms combined make sixty-two. Added to the former thirty-six, the total count is ninety-eight anusayas. Further adding the ten entanglements, they are called the one hundred and eight defilements.
19.22
Next is the second division, explaining abandonment by vision and cultivation. The treatise says: "Among these ninety-eight abandoned items, the first eighty-eight are called abandoned by vision, because they are destroyed by patient acceptance; the last ten anusayas are called abandoned by cultivation, because they are destroyed by knowledge (general thesis). Is this statement of what is abandoned by vision and cultivation definitive (inquiry)? It is not (answer). How so (investigation)?" The verse says:
19.23
"The anusayas destroyed by patient acceptance
In the Peak of Existence are abandoned only by vision;
The rest are abandoned both by vision and cultivation;
Those destroyed by knowledge are abandoned only by cultivation."
19.24
Explanation: The first three lines explain the anusayas destroyed by patient acceptance; the fourth line explains the anusayas destroyed by knowledge. "The anusayas destroyed by patient acceptance in the Peak of Existence are abandoned only by vision": patient acceptance refers to the patient acceptances of the knowledge of dharmas and subsequent knowledge within the path of vision. The former eighty-eight are called anusayas destroyed by patient acceptance; among them, those belonging to the stage of the Peak of Existence are abandoned only by vision, because the defilements of the Peak of Existence can only be abandoned by the patient acceptance of subsequent knowledge.
19.25
"The rest are abandoned both by vision and cultivation" means that in the remaining eight stages, the anusayas destroyed by patient acceptance are abandoned both by vision and cultivation: if abandoned by a noble one, they are abandoned only by vision and not cultivation, because the patient acceptances of dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge abandon them as appropriate (the subsequent acceptances abandon those in the upper seven stages, and the dharma acceptances abandon those in the one stage of the desire realm). If abandoned by an ordinary being, they are abandoned only by cultivation and not vision, because they are abandoned by repeatedly cultivating conventional knowledge.
19.26
"Those destroyed by knowledge are abandoned only by cultivation" means that the last ten anusayas are called destroyed by knowledge and are abandoned only by cultivation, because all noble ones abandon them by using both unconditioned and conventional knowledges. If ordinary beings [abandon them], they can only be abandoned by conventional knowledge.
19.27
Next is the third division, explaining the five views. Within this there are two divisions: first, properly explaining the five views; second, separately explaining attachment to rules and rituals.
19.28
First, properly explaining the five views, the treatise says: "Due to differences in mode, views are divided into five. Their names having already been listed, what is their essential nature?" The verse says:
19.29
"[Regarding] self and what belongs to self, annihilation and permanence, denial,
Deeming the inferior to be superior,
And falsely deeming what is not the cause or the path [to be such]:
These are the essential nature of the five views."
19.30
Explanation: The first three lines present the essential nature [of each view], and the fourth line concludes and establishes them. Regarding "self and of self": grasping at a self and at what belongs to a self is called the view of an existing collection (satkāyadṛṣṭi). The body is that which exists, hence it is called "existing body" (satkāya), having the five grasping aggregates (upādānaskandha) as its essential nature. Taking the existing body as its object and grasping at a self and what belongs to a self—this grasping is itself a view. Because the view takes the existing body as its object, it is called the "view of an existing body"; "view of an existing body" is a dependent tatpuruṣa compound. In the Western countries it is called satkāyadṛṣṭi; here [in China] it is translated as "view of a destructible body" (satkāyadṛṣṭi), or called the "view of an existing body". Thus the treatise says: "Because it is destructible (sat), it is called sat; an accumulation is called kāya; that is, the meaning of impermanent and composite aggregates (impermanent is the meaning of destructible; composite is the meaning of accumulation). The kāya is itself sat, hence called satkāya, which is the five grasping aggregates (the essential nature of the kāya). This name was established in order to ward off the notions of permanence and oneness. For one must first have these notions before one grasps at a self. (The commentary explains: The above is the Sautrāntika explanation. To ward off the tīrthikas' conception of a notion of permanence, they establish the word sat. To ward off their conception of a notion of oneness, they establish the word kāya. Thus, it is the view of a destructible body, called the view of a destructible body.) The masters of the Vibhāṣā explain as follows: Because it exists, it is called sat; the meaning of body (kāya) is as before. Lest one conceive of a self and of self without an intentional object, it is therefore said that this view takes one's own body as an object; because this view arises taking the satkāya as its object, this view is designated satkāyadṛṣṭi. (The above is the text of the treatise explaining the view of an existing body.)" Regarding "annihilation and permanence": grasping at annihilation and permanence with respect to the self and what belongs to the self is called the view grasping extremes (antagrāhadṛṣṭi). Annihilation and permanence are called the "extremes", and the grasping is itself the view. Because grasping arises based on the extremes, it is the grasping of extremes—a dependent tatpuruṣa compound. The grasping of extremes is itself the view—a karmadhāraya compound.
19.31
Regarding "denial": denying cause and effect is called wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭi). That which is wrong is itself the view, hence it is called wrong view—a karmadhāraya compound. Regarding "judging the inferior as superior": judging what is inferior to be superior is called the attachment to views (dṛṣṭiparāmarśa). "Views" refers to the view of an existing collection, the view grasping extremes, and wrong view; because one grasps these three views as superior, it is called attachment to views; it is the attachment to views—a dependent tatpuruṣa compound. Apart from these three views, grasping other defiled [dharmas] as superior is also called attachment to views; in actual principle, the name "attachment to views and so forth" should be established, but omitting the word "and so forth", it is simply called attachment to views.
19.32
Regarding "erroneously judging what is not the cause or the path": judging what is not the cause to be the cause, and judging what is not the path to be the path, is called the attachment to rules and vows (śīlavrataparāmarśa). "Rules" (śīla) refers to the five precepts and so forth within the Buddha's teaching; "vows" (vrata) refers to the tīrthikas' dog-vows, cattle-vows, and so forth. Grasping these rules and vows to be the cause and the path is called the attachment to rules and vows. It is the attachment of rules and vows—a dependent tatpuruṣa compound. The treatise says: "Just as regarding Maheśvara, Prajāpati, or other things that are not worldly causes (grasping a self and so forth as producing the world), one erroneously gives rise to the grasping of them as causes; or diving into water or fire and various other wrong practices which are not the causes for birth in heaven, one erroneously gives rise to the grasping of them as causes (the above is grasping what is not the cause as the cause), while undertaking rules and vows. Or regarding the knowledge associated with Sāṃkhya, which is not the path to liberation, one erroneously gives rise to the grasping of it as the path (the tīrthikas calculate that through the knowledge of Sāṃkhya one attains nirvāṇa). In actual principle, one should establish the name-rule of 'attachment to rules, vows, and so forth', but omitting the word 'and so forth', it is simply called the attachment to rules and vows. (The above is the text of the treatise; 'and so forth' includes grasping at other dharmas that are neither rules nor vows.)"
19.33
From this second [section], specifically clarifying the attachment to rules and vows: The treatise says: "If this is a view giving rise to [the judgment of] a cause with respect to what is not a cause, why is this view not abandoned by the vision of the origin (samudaya)? (The commentary explains: Since it arises from delusion regarding the cause, it ought to be abandoned by the vision of the origin.)" The verse says:
19.34
"With respect to Maheśvara and the like, / erroneously grasping a cause in what is not a cause
arises from the inversions of permanence and self; / therefore, it is abandoned solely by the vision of suffering."
19.35
Explanation: Those who grasp at Maheśvara and the like as producing the world must first conceive their substance to be permanent, giving rise to the inversion of permanence; and grasp them as a single self, giving rise to the inversion of self. Having grasped them as permanent and as a self, they only then give rise to the grasping of them as causes; therefore, the grasping of what is not a cause arises from permanence and self. The two inversions of permanence and self are abandoned solely by the vision of suffering; therefore, that grasping of what is not a cause as a cause is also abandoned solely by the vision of suffering. Because the inversions of permanence and self are subsumed under the view of an existing collection and the view grasping extremes, and are confused about coarse results, they are abandoned by the vision of suffering. However, the attachment to rules and vows has two general categories: first, grasping what is not a cause as a cause; second, calculating what is not the path as the path. Grasping what is not a cause as a cause also has two categories: first, arising from delusion in grasping an ātman as an eternal dharma; second, arising from delusion regarding austerities performed in previous lives and the like (calculating dogs and the like to be the cause of birth in heaven). Since both of these are confused about the result of suffering, they are both abandoned by the vision of suffering. Grasping what is not the path as the path also has two categories: first, grasping defiled precepts and the like as the path to liberation; because this is confused about coarse results, it is also abandoned solely by the vision of suffering. Second, grasping wrong view that slanders the path, along with doubt, as the pure path; because this attachment to rules and vows strongly opposes the noble truth of the path, it is abandoned by the vision of the path.
19.36
From this fourth [section], clarifying the four inversions (viparyāsa): The treatise says: "As said before, it arises from the inversions of permanence and self; are there only these two kinds of inversions? (A question.) It should be understood that there are four kinds of inversions in total: first, the inversion of grasping permanence in what is impermanent; second, the inversion of grasping pleasure in the various sufferings; third, the inversion of grasping purity in what is impure; fourth, the inversion of grasping a self in what is non-self. (An answer.) What is the essential nature of these four inversions?" The verse says:
19.37
"The essential nature of the four inversions / is said to derive from three views.
Because they are solely inverted, deliberative, and superimposing, / ideation and mind follow the power of view."
19.38
Explanation: The first two lines present the essential nature; the third line explains why they are established and others excluded; the fourth line reconciles this with the sūtra. Regarding "the essential nature of the four inversions is said to derive from three views": within the view grasping extremes, only the view of permanence is taken as the inversion of permanence; within the attachment to views, taking what calculates pleasure and purity is taken as the inversions of pleasure and purity; within the view of an existing collection, only the view of self is taken as the inversion of self.
19.39
Regarding "because they are solely inverted, deliberative, and superimposing": this adduces three causes to establish the four inversions. The three causes are: first, being completely inverted; second, having a deliberative nature; third, being a false superimposition. The attachment to rules and vows is not completely inverted, for grasping a defiled path as attaining pure nirvāṇa—although it does not definitively cut off defilements and realize cessation—can temporarily separate from defilement and realize cessation; taking minor purity as its object, it is not completely inverted. The view of annihilation and wrong view are not false superimpositions, because they operate through non-existence. The remaining [defilements], greed, anger, and so forth, cannot deliberate, because they do not have the nature of views. Therefore, the remaining defilements are not the essential nature of the inversions.
19.40
Regarding "ideation and mind follow the power of view": this reconciles with the sūtra. If only views are inversions, why does the sūtra say: "With respect to the impermanent, calculating it as permanent has three inversions: ideation, mind, and view. With respect to suffering, the impure, and non-self, there are likewise three inversions: ideation, mind, and view"? The answer: "In actual principle it should be known that only views are inversions; ideation and mind, following view, are also given the name of inversion because they are associated with view and have the same cognitive aspect (ākāra). According to the masters of the Vibhāṣā, these twelve inversions are permanently abandoned by the stream-enterer (srotāpanna), because view and what is associated with it are abandoned by vision. The Vibhajyavādins say: Eight are abandoned solely by vision, and four are common to abandonment by vision and cultivation; namely, within pleasure and purity each has ideation and mind; these four [inversions of] ideation and mind have not yet been abandoned by the stream-enterer. Hence they cite a verse saying: 'The Venerable Ānanda addressed that Venerable Vyākaraṇaprabha (a person of the first fruit), saying: "Due to having disturbed and inverted ideation, / therefore your mind burns with anguish. / Having distanced yourself from that ideation, / lust ceases and the mind is then pure." (Based on this verse, the noble ones still have the inversions of ideation and mind.) On account of the text of this verse, the Sautrāntikas say that the eight inversions of ideation and mind are not entirely abandoned by those in training (śaikṣa).'"
19.41
From this fifth [section], clarifying the seven and nine prides (māna), which is divided into two: first, directly clarifying the seven and nine prides; second, clarifying that which is not yet abandoned does not arise.
19.42
First, directly clarifying the seven and nine prides: The treatise says: "Are views the only latent defilements (anuśaya) that have many distinctions, or do the others also have them?" The verse says:
19.43
"Prides are seven; nine derive from three; / all are common to abandonment by vision and cultivation.
The noble one, as with the entanglement of killing and so forth, / has [some] abandoned by cultivation that do not occur."
19.44
Explanation: The first line directly answers; the second line clarifies abandonment by vision and cultivation; the lower two lines clarify that they do not occur on the path of cultivation. Now, the seven prides are: 1. pride (māna), 2. excessive pride (atimāna), 3. pride beyond pride (mānātimāna), 4. pride of self (asmimāna), 5. pride of presumption (adhimāna), 6. pride of inferiority (ūnamāna), 7. wrong pride (mithyāmāna). Causing the mind to be exalted is collectively given the name of pride; because their modes of activity differ, they are divided into seven kinds. Considering oneself superior to an inferior, or equal to an equal: although this accords with the intentional object, because the mind is exalted, it is called pride. Considering oneself superior to an equal, or equal to a superior: this is called excessive pride, because it exceeds the previous pride. Considering oneself superior to a superior: this is called pride beyond pride, because one acts with pride exceeding the other. Grasping at a self and what belongs to a self, causing the mind to be exalted, is called pride of self, because it arises relying on the self. Thinking one has attained what has not been attained is called pride of presumption. Thinking oneself only slightly inferior to one who is vastly superior is called pride of inferiority. Thinking oneself to possess virtue when one lacks virtue is called wrong pride; accomplishing evil deeds is called having no virtue, and being haughty relying on evil is called wrong pride. As for the nine prides, the Jñānaprasthāna says: "There are nine classes of pride: 1. the pride class 'I am superior', 2. the pride class 'I am equal', 3. the pride class 'I am inferior', 4. the pride class 'there are those superior to me', 5. the pride class 'there are those equal to me', 6. the pride class 'there are those inferior to me', 7. the pride class 'there are none superior to me', 8. the pride class 'there are none equal to me', 9. the pride class 'there are none inferior to me'." Regarding "derive from three": these nine classes of pride flow forth from three prides among the previous seven prides. Those three prides are pride, excessive pride, and pride of inferiority. The first, the pride class 'I am superior', arises from excessive pride. The second, the pride class 'I am equal', arises from the first pride. The third, the pride class 'I am inferior', arises from the pride of inferiority. The fourth, the pride class 'there are those superior to me', also arises from the pride of inferiority. The fifth, the pride class 'there are those equal to me', arises from the first pride. The sixth, the pride class 'there are those inferior to me', arises from excessive pride. The seventh, the pride class 'there are none superior to me', arises from the first pride. The eighth, the pride class 'there are none equal to me', arises from excessive pride. The ninth, the pride class 'there are none inferior to me', arises from the pride of inferiority. Question: "In the pride 'there are none inferior to me', what is the elevated aspect?" Answer: "It means that loving and delighting in an assembly of superior sentient beings, one reflects back upon one's own body: though knowing oneself to be extremely inferior, one still respects oneself; thus the pride 'there are none inferior to me' is accomplished."
19.45
Regarding "all are common to abandonment by vision and cultivation": both the seven prides and the nine prides are abandoned by vision and cultivation. Those arising taking what is abandoned by vision as their object are called abandoned by vision; those arising taking concrete things (vastu) as their object are called abandoned by cultivation. As for prides abandoned by cultivation, when the noble one has not yet abandoned them, although he still possesses them, some may occur and some do not occur. That which does not occur is the single pride of self; the remaining six prides can occur for the noble one. The previous nine classes of pride also do not occur for the noble one; hence the verse says "has [some] abandoned by cultivation that do not occur", which refers to the nine classes of pride and the pride of self.
19.46
Regarding "the noble one, as with the entanglement of killing and so forth": this is an explanation by adducing an example. Just as the entanglement of taking life is abandoned by cultivation, and though the noble one has not yet abandoned it, it definitely does not occur. Since the entanglement of killing is like this, the classes of pride are also like this. The entanglement of taking life is anger. "And so forth" includes the entanglements of stealing, sexual misconduct, and deception, all cravings for non-existence (vibhavatṛṣṇā), and a portion of craving for existence (bhavatṛṣṇā). Regarding "non-existence": the three realms are impermanent; craving after this [destruction] is called craving for non-existence. A class of sentient beings, pressed by suffering, form this thought: 'May I be annihilated and cease to exist after death!' Therefore, they give rise to craving for non-existence. Regarding "a portion of craving for existence": there are ordinary persons who [wish]: 'May I become Airāvaṇa, the great dragon king, and so forth!' (Airāvaṇa is a dragon-elephant in the water; named from water, he is the mount of Śakra.) Giving rise to craving with respect to future existence is called craving for existence; wishing to become a dragon-elephant and so forth is a portion of craving within craving for existence. Because this portion of craving takes animals as its object, the noble one does not give rise to it. Because entanglements such as killing arise taking concrete things as their object, they are all abandoned by cultivation.
19.47
From this second [section], clarifying that which is not yet abandoned does not arise: The treatise says: "For what reason does [a defilement] not yet abandoned by a noble one not arise?" The verse says:
19.48
"The categories of conceit, and so forth, self-conceit,
And the unwholesome among remorse,
Though present in a noble one, do not become active,
Because they are fostered by view and doubt."
19.49
Explanation: 'The categories of conceit, and so forth' refers to the nine categories of conceit. 'And so forth' includes the entanglements such as killing, all desire for non-existence, and a portion of desire for existence. These categories of conceit and so forth, as well as self-conceit, along with unwholesome remorse among [forms of] remorse—that they are 'present in a noble one, but do not become active' means that these conceits and so forth above exist in a noble one yet do not become active.
19.50
'Because they are fostered by view and doubt' explains the reason why they do not become active. The nine conceits and self-conceit are fostered by the view of self. Entanglements such as killing are fostered by wrong view; it is due to giving rise to wrong view that one engages in killing and so forth. All desire for non-existence is fostered by the view of annihilation. A portion of desire for existence is fostered by the view of permanence. Unwholesome remorse is fostered by doubt. These views and doubt have already been abandoned forever by the noble one; therefore, the categories of conceit and so forth do not become active in a noble one. The treatise says: 'And because their spine has already been broken by view and doubt.' (The explanation states: The categories of conceit and so forth have view and doubt as their spine; that the noble one has abandoned view and doubt is called 'the spine has already been broken.')
19.51
From here begins the second major section, the distinctions by various headings, which comprises eight parts: first, explaining the universal and the non-universal; second, explaining [those with] tainted and untainted [objects]; third, explaining the two modes of increase; fourth, explaining the distinction between the two natures; fifth, explaining the faculties and non-faculties; sixth, explaining the defilements capable of binding; seventh, explaining the increase of defilements; eighth, explaining their arising in sequence.
19.52
First, as for explaining the universal and the non-universal: the treatise asks, 'Among the ninety-eight anuśayas, how many are universal? How many are non-universal?' The verse says:
19.53
"Those abandoned through seeing suffering and origination,
The views, what is associated with doubt,
And unshared ignorance,
Are universal throughout their own realm and stage.
Among them, excluding two views,
The remaining nine can have higher objects.
Excluding acquisitions, the other concomitants
Are also subsumed under the universal."
19.54
Explanation: 'Those abandoned through seeing suffering and origination' means that universal anuśayas exist only under the truths of suffering and origination.
19.55
'The views, what is associated with doubt, and unshared ignorance': the five views under suffering and the two views under origination are called 'the views'. 'Doubt' means the doubt under suffering and origination. 'Associated' refers to ignorance associated with view and doubt. 'Unshared' refers to the unshared ignorance under suffering and origination. In total there are seven views, two doubts, and two ignorances, which are named the eleven universal emissaries.
19.56
'Are universal throughout their own realm and stage' means that these eleven have the power to operate universally through all five classes of phenomena of their own realm and their own stage, hence called universal: first, they universally take the five classes as objects; second, they universally lie latent through the five classes; third, as causes they universally generate the five classes. In reliance on these three meanings, the designation 'universal' is established.
19.57
'Among them, excluding two views, the remaining nine can have higher objects' explains the nine defilements that take higher objects. Among the eleven, excluding the view of individuality and extreme views, the remaining nine anuśayas can take the higher realms and higher stages as objects, and are called the nine defilements with higher objects. Because one does not grasp a higher realm as self or belonging to self, the view of individuality does not take what is higher as object. Because extreme views necessarily arise in dependence on the view of individuality, extreme views also do not take what is higher as object. Taking higher realms as objects means that in the two higher realms, they take either one individually or both together as object. Taking higher stages as objects means that in the eight higher stages, they take each one individually, or two together, up to all eight stages together as object.
19.58
'Excluding acquisitions, the other concomitants are also subsumed under the universal': what are associated with and co-existent with the eleven anuśayas are called concomitants. These concomitants are also subsumed under the universal, because they are universal causes. The acquisitions of the anuśayas, because they do not have the same fruit as the anuśayas, are not called universal; therefore, acquisitions are excluded.
19.59
From here begins the second part, explaining the tainted and untainted as objects. The treatise asks, 'Among the ninety-eight anuśayas, how many have tainted objects? How many have untainted objects?' The verse says:
19.60
"Those abandoned through seeing cessation and the path,
Wrong view, what is associated with doubt,
And unshared ignorance—
Six can take the untainted as object.
Among them, those that take cessation as object
Take as object only the cessation of their own stage;
Those that take the path as object take six and nine stages,
Due to distinct counteragents and mutual cause.
Attachment, aversion, conceit, and the two attachments
All do not take the untainted as object,
Because their object should be abandoned, is not an enemy,
And is of a peaceful, pure, and supreme nature."
19.61
Explanation: The first stanza gives a general explanation, the second stanza gives a specific exposition, and the third stanza excludes phenomena. 'Those abandoned through seeing cessation and the path': regarding those abandoned through seeing cessation, it takes the three of wrong view, doubt, and ignorance; regarding those abandoned through seeing the path, it takes the three of wrong view, doubt, and ignorance. Each has three, making six. The verse stating 'associated' refers to ignorance associated with view and doubt.
19.62
'And unshared ignorance' collectively names ignorance.
19.63
'Six can take the untainted as object': these six defilements directly delude regarding cessation and the path, and thus are called having untainted objects. Excluding these six, the remaining defilements all have tainted objects, the meaning of which can be inferred accordingly.
19.64
'Among them, those that take cessation as object take as object only the cessation of their own stage': among the six defilements, those that take the truth of cessation as object take only the analytical cessation of their own stage as object, and do not take the analytical cessation of other stages as object, because when viewing the cessations of the nine stages from higher and lower perspectives, they are not cause and effect; therefore, they take their own stage as object, not other stages. That is to say, the three kinds of anuśayas bound to the desire realm take only the analytical cessation of the formations of the desire realm as object, up to the three kinds of anuśayas of the peak of existence taking only the analytical cessation of the formations of the peak of existence as object.
19.65
'Those that take the path as object take six and nine stages': among the six defilements, those that take the truth of the path as object take the path of six stages and nine stages as object. The treatise says: 'The three kinds of anuśayas bound to the desire realm take as object only the path of the category of dharma-knowledge of six stages (the six stages are the threshold, intermediate, and the four fundamental dhyānas; only these six stages have the category of dharma-knowledge); whether counteracting the desire realm or capable of counteracting the rest, all are their objects, because their category is the same. (The explanation states: Dharma-knowledge of the threshold stage can counteract the desire realm; the category of dharma-knowledge of the five stages such as the intermediate can counteract the other higher realms. 'All are their objects' means that although the counteragents of the category of dharma-knowledge of these six stages differ, all are objects of the three defilements of the desire realm, because being of the same category of dharma-knowledge, all can be taken as object.) Taking nine stages as object: the eight stages of the form and formless realms each have three kinds of anuśayas, and each can take the path of the category of subsequent knowledge of the nine stages as object (the nine stages are the threshold and so forth, adding the three formless stages, excluding the peak of existence). Whether counteracting their own stage or capable of counteracting the rest, all are their objects, because their category is the same.' (The above is the text of the treatise. The explanation states: 'Whether counteracting their own stage' means that the category of subsequent knowledge counteracts its own stage. 'Counteracting other stages' means that the category of subsequent knowledge counteracts the other seven stages. Although the paths of these nine stages differ in counteraction, all are objects of the three defilements of the eight stages, because they are equally of the category of subsequent knowledge.)
19.66
'Due to distinct counteragents and mutual cause' explains the taking of six and nine stages of the path as objects above: first, due to distinct counteragents; second, due to mutual cause. 'Due to mutual cause' means that in viewing one another they serve as similar causes: if taking dharma-knowledge as object, they then take the six stages as object, because the paths of the six stages serve mutually as similar causes. If taking subsequent knowledge as object, they then take the nine stages as object, because the paths of the nine stages serve mutually as similar causes. 'Due to distinct counteragents' means that the category of subsequent knowledge does not counteract the desire realm, which is called a distinct counteragent. Although dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge also serve as mutual causes, the category of subsequent knowledge does not counteract the desire realm; therefore, the category of subsequent knowledge is not an object of the three [defilements] of desire. The treatise says: 'Since the category of dharma-knowledge can counteract the form and formless realms, it should be an object of the three [defilements] in each of the eight stages (this is a question). It is not that these can all counteract the form and formless realms, because the categories of dharma-knowledge of suffering and origination are not their counteragents (this is the answer. The explanation states: Suffering and origination of the higher realms are subtle, while suffering and origination of the desire realm are coarse; taking the coarse as object cannot abandon the subtle; therefore, taking suffering and origination of the desire realm as object cannot counteract what is higher; taking the subtle as object can abandon the coarse; therefore, dharma-knowledge of cessation and the path can counteract what is higher).' The treatise further says: 'Nor can it entirely counteract the form and formless realms, because it cannot counteract what is abandoned through seeing therein. (The explanation states: Because defilements abandoned through seeing in the higher realms are abandoned only by subsequent patience. If abandoned by an ordinary being, they are abandoned only by worldly knowledge; and only the stage of the peak of existence is not abandoned by ordinary beings. Therefore, dharma-knowledge of cessation and the path cannot entirely counteract them.)' The treatise further says: 'Because the two beginnings are absent, it is not their object. (The explanation states: This answers the previous question. First, among the four truths, the initial suffering and origination are absent. Second, between what is abandoned through seeing and through cultivation, the initial abandoned through seeing is absent. Therefore it says
19.67
'Attachment, aversion, conceit, and the two attachments all do not take the untainted as object': under the truth of cessation: attachment, aversion, conceit, and grasping at views; and under the truth of the path: attachment, aversion, conceit, grasping at views, and grasping at precepts and vows—these defilements do not take cessation and the path as object, and are called not having untainted objects. 'Should be abandoned' explains why attachment does not take cessation and the path as object, because the anuśaya of attachment should be discarded and abandoned. If one loves cessation and the path, that is desire for wholesome phenomena, not attachment.
19.68
'Its object is not an enemy' explains why aversion does not take cessation and the path as object, because aversion takes an inimical object, and cessation and the path are not enemies; hence they are not objects of aversion. 'Peaceful' explains that cessation and the path are not objects of conceit. Conceit takes the coarse and agitated as object, while cessation and the path are quiescent; hence they are not objects of conceit. 'Pure' explains that the truths of cessation and the path are not objects of grasping at precepts and vows; grasping what is not pure as pure is grasping at precepts and vows, while cessation and the path are truly pure; hence they are not objects of grasping at precepts and vows. 'Supreme nature' explains that cessation and the path are not objects of grasping at views. Cessation and the path are truly supreme, and grasping them as supreme is not grasping at views. Therefore, attachment and so forth do not take the untainted as object.
19.69
From here begins the third part, explaining the two modes of increase. The treatise asks, 'Among the ninety-eight anuśayas, how many increase by way of their object? How many increase by way of association?' The verse says:
19.70
"Unabandoned universal anuśayas
Increase by way of their object in regard to all in their own stage;
Non-universal ones, in regard to their own class.
Not those with untainted or higher objects,
Because they do not grasp them and they are contradictory.
In conformity with associated phenomena,
They increase by way of association."
19.71
Explanation: The first stanza explains increase by way of object; the next two lines exclude phenomena; the last two lines explain increase by way of association. 'Unabandoned universal anuśayas increase by way of their object in regard to all in their own stage': for defilements to increase, they must be unabandoned; therefore, the head of the first stanza puts forward the word 'unabandoned', which applies to the subsequent positions as well. 'Universal anuśayas in regard to all in their own stage' refers to the five classes. Universal anuśayas increase by way of their object in regard to the phenomena of all five classes of their own stage; taking the five classes universally as their objects, the defilements capable of taking objects abide in conformity with and increase in relation to their objective spheres; hence it is called 'increase'.
19.72
'Non-universal ones, in regard to their own class': non-universal anuśayas take only their own class as object; therefore, they increase by way of object in regard to their own class.
19.73
'Increase by way of their object' belongs with the preceding two lines.
19.74
'Not those with untainted or higher objects': the six defilements with untainted objects and the nine defilements with higher objects do not increase by way of their object; therefore it says 'not'.
19.75
"Because there is no appropriation and because of contradiction" explains the above meaning of absence of growth following [an object]. In unconditioned phenomena and higher realms' objects, there is no appropriation as one's own by the view of individuality or craving; this is called "no appropriation." Because there is no appropriation, there is no growth following [them as] an object. Just as when a garment is moist, dust adheres to it—the garment represents phenomena, moisture represents craving, and the adhering dust represents the growth of the defilements following [it]. "Because of contradiction": furthermore, unconditioned dharmas and the objects of higher spheres are in contradiction with these defilements. Although they are taken as objects by the defilements, because they are contradictory, there is no growth following [them]. Just as upon a burning stone the foot does not stay—the burning stone represents unconditioned phenomena and higher realms' objects, and not staying represents the absence of growth following [them].
First 75 of 100 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 俱舍論頌疏論本 — Classical Chinese