俱舍論頌疏論本 20
English (machine translation) 20
- Language
- English
20.1
From this sixth section, explaining that defilements are capable of binding, within which there are two parts: first, explaining capability to bind in terms of the time periods; second, explaining capability to bind in terms of abandonment.
20.2
Within explaining capability to bind in terms of the time periods, there are two parts: first, directly explaining binding in terms of the time periods; second, explaining the existence and nonexistence of the three time periods.
20.3
Below, first, directly explaining binding in terms of the time periods. The śāstra states: "When an anuśaya grows following sentient beings with respect to this matter (the object matter to which one is bound), it is said to bind [them] to this matter. It should be stated: Which anuśayas of past, present, and future can bind to what matter?" The verse states:
20.4
"If with respect to this matter, unabandoned greed, hatred, and pride
Have already arisen in past and present, while in the future those of the mental [consciousness] are universal;
The five that can arise [bind] in their own time period, and those that do not arise are also universal;
The remaining past and future are universal, while the present binds when currently taking [it] as object."
20.5
Explanation: The first line explains the matter to which one is bound; the subsequent seven lines explain the defilements that are capable of binding. The word 'unabandoned' in the second line and the words 'can bind' in the eighth line apply throughout the intermediate lines. To understand this verse, one must first know that anuśayas are twofold: first, specific characteristics, meaning that greed, hatred, and pride arise taking specific dharmas as objects, and are called specific characteristics. Second, common characteristics, meaning that views, doubt, and delusion arise taking many dharmas as objects, and are called common characteristics, taking objects with common characteristics. "If with respect to this matter" refers to the matter to which one is bound. "Unabandoned greed, hatred, and pride" are the defilements capable of binding. With respect to the matter bound, not having abandoned greed, hatred, and pride is called being capable of binding.
20.6
"Have already arisen in past and present": with respect to the matter bound, these [defilements of] greed, hatred, and pride having already arisen in the past and not yet abandoned, or having already arisen in the present, are able to bind to this matter. Because greed, hatred, and pride are defilements of specific characteristics, and do not necessarily arise for all sentient beings across all matters in the three time periods, they are not called universal. For the present already arisen, that it does not state 'unabandoned' is because its entity is present before one and is necessarily unabandoned; the meaning is necessarily present, so it is not stated. One should know that 'universal' must possess two meanings: first, universality of time periods, because it binds the three time periods; second, universality of matters, because it can bind all of its own objects. Although greed, hatred, and pride of the past and present mental consciousness are universal with respect to time periods, they lack universality with respect to matters, as they may take this object and not take other objects.
20.7
"While in the future those of the mental [consciousness] are universal": greed, hatred, and pride of the future mental consciousness pervade the three time periods, and as long as they are unabandoned, they are all capable of binding. Because the future mental consciousness binds the objects of the three time periods and all matters, it can bind universally and is called universal. Namely, because the objects of the future mental consciousness flow through the three time periods, it is called universal in time periods. Moreover, because the varieties of this mental consciousness are boundless, it necessarily binds universally with respect to the matters taken as objects; hence it is also called universal in matters.
20.8
As for "the five, capable of arising, [bind] their own time-period": if the attachment and anger associated with the five consciousnesses in the future are not yet severed and are capable of arising, they bind only their own time-period: while in the future time-period, they bind only the future; if they flow into the present, they bind only the present; if they fall away into the past, they bind only in the past, because their object must be simultaneous [with them].
20.9
As for "those that do not arise are also omnipresent": if the attachment and anger associated with the future five consciousnesses are not yet severed and do not arise, they also ubiquitously bind the three time-periods and all phenomena that are their own cognitive objects. That is, their cognitive objects may be in the future, or have flowed into the present, or have passed away into the past; though the consciousness is in the future, it does not arise because conditions are deficient, yet because it is not severed, its nature is capable of binding those objects of the three time-periods. Or they may simultaneously encompass varied time-periods: as when an eye-consciousness definitely arises having the three objects of blue, yellow, and red colors as its object, if any one object is lacking, that consciousness does not arise; and the lacking object may be one future, or one present, or one past; therefore it is said that the five consciousnesses ubiquitously bind the three time-periods. Saying "omnipresent regarding phenomena" means that the non-arising five consciousnesses are of boundless varieties and are definitely able to bind their own cognitive objects ubiquitously.
20.10
As for "the rest in past and future are omnipresent": "the rest" refers to views, doubt, and ignorance; being other than attachment and the like, they are called "the rest". If views, doubt, and ignorance are in the past or are in the future and not yet severed, all of them are able to ubiquitously bind all phenomena and objects of the three time-periods, because defilements of universal character definitely arise everywhere.
20.11
As for "the present, correctly cognizing, can bind": when views, doubt, and ignorance are in the present time-period and correctly cognizing their object, whichever object they accord with, they can bind that phenomenon. Although these present defilements possess both omnipresences, because they are not determinate, they are not called "omnipresent". The words "can bind" apply throughout the preceding clauses, as may be understood upon reflection.
20.12
Next is the second [section], explaining the existence or non-existence of the three time-periods, within which there are two parts: first, stating the tenets; second, the direct refutation.
20.13
Within stating the tenets there are two parts: first, scriptural and rational proofs; second, recounting the explanations to settle the tenets.
20.14
First, as for scriptural and rational proofs: the Sarvāstivāda school states that the three time-periods exist, while the Sautrāntikas do not accept this; intending to refute them, the tenets are now first recounted. The treatise says: "One should briefly state the tenets and reveal their rational basis." The verse says:
20.15
"The existence of the three time-periods is due to teaching,
Because of the two, the [existence of an] object, and the fruit;
Because of stating the existence of the three time-periods,
It is accepted that they teach that all exists."
20.16
The explanation says: The upper two lines provide proof; the lower two lines conclude the tenets. "The existence of the three time-periods is due to teaching": the three time-periods are real existents because of what the sūtra teaches. The sūtra states: "Monks, you should know: if past form did not exist, the assembly of noble disciples of wide learning should not diligently cultivate revulsion and detachment toward it; because past form exists, the assembly of noble disciples of wide learning should diligently cultivate revulsion and detachment toward it. If future form did not exist, the assembly of noble disciples of wide learning should not diligently sever delight and seeking [for it]; because future form exists, the assembly of noble disciples of wide learning should diligently sever delight and seeking [for it]."
20.17
As for "Because of the two, the [existence of an] object, and the fruit": "the two" means that the sūtras state: "Consciousness arises dependent on two conditions; as it is said, eye-consciousness takes the eye and visible forms as two conditions, up to mental consciousness taking the mental faculty and mental objects as two conditions. The mental faculty is in the past, and mental objects extend through the three time-periods; if the past and future did not exist, the apprehending mental consciousness would lack two conditions. Because the past did not exist, it would lack the mental faculty; because the past and future did not exist, it would also lack the object of mental phenomena." The above is scriptural proof. As for "the [existence of an] object": below this there are two kinds of rational proofs, and this is the first reason. Because when consciousness arises there must be an object, when there is an object, consciousness arises, and without an object it does not arise—this principle is certain. If the past and future did not exist, because there would be no cognitive object, consciousness would also not exist. As for "the fruit": this is the second reason; furthermore, because past karma has a future fruit, if the past did not exist, the entity of that past karma would not exist; and because karma did not exist, the future fruit would not exist. Since karma has a fruit, we know that past and future must rationally be real existents. The lower two lines conclude the tenets: because they teach that the three time-periods are real existents, they are accepted as the Sarvāstivāda school.
20.18
Next is the second [part], settling the tenets. The treatise says: "Now in this school, how many distinctions are there (asking for the number)? Whose formulation of the time-periods is the best and can be relied upon (asking about the distinctions among the tenets)?" The verse says:
20.19
"Herein there are four kinds:
Differences of state, characteristic, position, and relativity.
The third, based on function,
Formulates the time-periods best of all."
20.20
The explanation says: The upper two lines answer the first question; the lower two lines answer the second question. Now in this school there are four distinctions: first, difference of state; second, difference of characteristic; third, difference of position; fourth, difference of relativity. The Venerable Dharmatrāta spoke thus: Due to differences of state, the three time-periods differ; that is, when moving from the future to the present, it abandons its future state and acquires its present state. If it flows from the present to the past, it abandons its present state and acquires its past state. Only the state differs, not that the entity has differences. Just as when breaking a gold vessel to make other items, although the shape is different, the color of the gold does not differ. The Venerable Ghoṣaka stated: Because characteristics are not the same, the three time-periods differ; that is, when a dharma is in the past, it is conjoined precisely with past characteristics, yet it is not called separated from present and future characteristics, but because the past characteristic is prominent it is merely called past; when in the present, it is conjoined precisely with present characteristics, yet it is not called separated from past and future characteristics; when in the future, it is conjoined precisely with future characteristics, yet it is not called separated from past and present characteristics—it receives its name according to what is prominent, following the explanation of the past. The Venerable Vasumitra stated: Because positions are not the same, the three time-periods differ: the position where function has not yet occurred is called the future; the position where function is currently taking place is called the present; the position where function has ceased is called the past; arriving at each respective position, different explanations are made. Just as when moving a single counting-stick, placing it in the units place makes it called one, placing it in the hundreds place makes it called one hundred, and placing it in the thousands place makes it called one thousand—as it passes through the positions there are distinctions, but the entity of the counting-stick is not different. The Venerable Buddhadeva stated: Because relativity is not the same, the three time-periods differ: "relativity" means relative viewing—viewing the earlier in relation to the later is called the past; viewing the later in relation to the earlier is called the future; viewing in relation to both earlier and later is called the present. Just as a single woman is called a daughter and called a mother: viewed in relation to her mother she is called a daughter, and viewed in relation to her daughter she is called a mother. The master of the treatise comments: Because Dharmatrāta posits that dharmas undergo transformation, he should be placed in the faction of the Sāṃkhya tīrthikas, since the Sāṃkhyas posit that dharmas undergo transformation. Ghoṣaka's formulation confuses the characteristics of the time-periods, because all three time-periods would have the characteristics of the three time-periods. Buddhadeva's formulation also causes confusion among the time-periods, for within the dharmas of the three time-periods there should be the three time-periods, namely that the past time-period contains many moments, and the earlier and later moments should be called past and future, while the middle is called present. The future and present would analogously be like this as well. Therefore, among these four, the third—Vasumitra's formulation of the time-periods—is the best, because it establishes the distinctions of the time-periods based on the positions of function.
20.21
Next is the second [section], the Sautrāntikas' broad refutation. The verse says:
20.22
"What obstructs function? How is there function?
Without difference, the time-periods are ruined.
What [entity] is it that has not yet arisen or has ceased?
This nature of dharmas is exceedingly profound."
20.23
The explanation says: The first three lines are the Sautrāntika refutation; the fourth line is the Sarvāstivāda response. As for "What obstructs function? How is there function?": the word "function" is spoken twice: first, "what obstructs function?"; second, "how is there function?" As for "what obstructs function?": the Sautrāntika refutes them, saying: You state that the entities of dharmas in the three time-periods are permanently existent; then at all times they should be able to produce function; what dharma obstructs function so that it sometimes exists and sometimes does not? As for "how is there function?": you state that because of function, the entities of dharmas are distinguished into three time-periods; moreover, regarding this function, how can it be spoken of as past, future, and present? And within function, can yet another function be further posited? A function upon a function would then lead to an infinite regress.
20.24
As for "Without difference": this is the Sarvāstivāda rescue. Function is not separate from the entity, which is termed "without difference". Since function is the entity itself, and since the entity does not have the fault of an infinite regress, function also does not have the defect of an infinite regress. As for "the time-periods are ruined": this is a refutation; here the Sautrāntika refutes again. If you say they are without difference, the three time-periods are then ruined: since the entity is constant, the function should also be so; how could it at certain times be called past or future? Therefore, their posited meaning of the time-periods is refuted and ruined.
20.25
As for "What [entity] is it that has not yet arisen or has ceased?": they further refute it with reason. If one says that past and future are real existents like the present, they should all be called present. What entity not having arisen is called future? What entity having ceased is called past? Therefore, if you do not accept that a dharma previously did not exist and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence, then the meaning of the three time-periods cannot be established at all. Furthermore, the Sautrāntikas say: You Sarvāstivādins accept that the entity is constant, yet you say that its nature is impermanent; such an assertion is unprecedented. Based on such a meaning, there is a verse that says: "They accept that the entity of a dharma is constant, / Yet say its nature is impermanent; / Furthermore, the nature and the entity are without difference— / This is truly the work of Īśvara!" (This verse is the Sautrāntika mocking the Sarvāstivāda, meaning that just as tīrthikas say that Lord Īśvara creates all the worlds by himself, doing whatever he needs to do whenever he pleases).
20.26
As for "This nature of dharmas is exceedingly profound": this is the Sarvāstivāda rescue. If the difficulty just raised cannot be resolved by us, it is because the nature of dharmas is exceedingly profound and not an object of speculative reasoning; how could it be that just because one cannot explain it, one dismisses it as non-existent? The author of the treatise leaned toward the Sautrāntika, and therefore made this interpretation.
20.27
Next is the second [part], explaining disconnection from bondage with reference to severing. The treatise says: "Now it should be examined: when phenomena are severed, are they disconnected from bondage? Supposing phenomena are disconnected from bondage, are they severed (the question)? If phenomena are disconnected from bondage, they are definitely severed. There are phenomena that are severed, yet not disconnected from bondage (the answer). As for being severed yet not disconnected from bondage, what is the case (inquiring into it)?" The verse says:
20.28
"Regarding what is severed by seeing suffering,
Other omnipresent anuśayas,
And when earlier grades are severed,
The rest cognizing these still bind."
20.29
The explanation says: The upper two lines explain the path of seeing; the third line explains the path of cultivation; the fourth line applies to both stages. It should be stated: other omnipresent anuśayas cognizing these still bind, and when earlier grades are severed, the rest cognizing these still bind. As for "Regarding what is severed by seeing suffering, other omnipresent anuśayas": that is, when the knowledge of suffering has already arisen, but the knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen; because the knowledge of suffering has arisen, what is to be severed by seeing suffering is already severed; because the knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen, there are the remaining omnipresent anuśayas of the truth of origin. These omnipresent anuśayas under origin cognize this truth of suffering and still bind it; thus, although the truth of suffering is severed, the defilements of origin still bind it; this is called 'severed, yet not disconnected from bondage'.
20.30
As for "And when earlier grades are severed": regarding the nine grades of anuśayas in the stage of the path of cultivation, whichever of the first eight grades is severed is called 'earlier grades are severed'. When an earlier grade has been severed, the later grades have not yet been severed. Those that are capable of cognizing this earlier grade still bind that earlier grade; therefore, although the earlier grade is severed, the later grades still bind it; this is called 'severed, yet not disconnected from bondage'.
20.31
Next is the seventh major section, explaining the increase of defilements, within which there are two parts: first, directly explaining the increase of defilements; second, explaining consciousnesses that possess anuśayas.
20.32
First, directly explaining the increase [of defilements]: The treatise says: "In relation to what phenomena do how many anuśayas increase (the question)? If one were to answer separately according to each phenomenon, it would waste many words; therefore, one should compose a 'Brief Vibhāṣā'; by means of this, although exerting a little effort, one can cross over the great river of questions. That is, although dharmas are many, briefly there are sixteen kinds: namely, the five divisions of the three realms (three times five is fifteen) and the uncontaminated dharmas (adding to the former makes sixteen). The consciousnesses capable of cognizing them are also the same in number and designation (the consciousnesses are also sixteen). If one knows which dharma is the object of which consciousness, it is easy to reflect on what anuśayas increase in relation to what phenomenon (once the objects and consciousnesses are understood, the object is the phenomenon, and the increase of defilements upon the phenomenon will naturally be understood). Herein, first, one should know: Which dharma is the object of which consciousness?" The verse says (the above is the text of the treatise):
20.33
"What are abandoned by seeing suffering, [seeing] origin, and cultivation,
When bound to the desire realm,
Are the domain of three of their own realm, one of the form realm, and pure consciousness.
For the form realm, three each of its own and the lower,
One of the higher, and pure consciousness are the domains;
For the formless realm, they extend across the three realms,
With three each, and pure consciousness being their domains.
For what are abandoned by seeing cessation and the path,
Each adds the range of its own consciousness;
In the three realms and the pure [realm],
The latter three and pure consciousness are the domains."
20.34
Explanation: The first two lines of verse explain the domains of the three [categories of what is abandoned by seeing] suffering, [seeing] origin, and cultivation. In the subsequent line of verse, the first two phrases explain the domain of [seeing] cessation and the path, while the lower two phrases explain the pure domain. 'What are abandoned by seeing suffering, origin, and cultivation' generally designates the three categories across the three realms.
20.35
'When bound to the desire realm' differentiates them from the preceding three categories.
20.36
As for 'Are the domain of three of their own realm, one of the form realm, and pure consciousness': what are bound to the desire realm and abandoned by suffering, origin, and cultivation are each taken as an object by five consciousnesses; namely, three of their own realm, one of the form realm, along with pure consciousness, which are termed the five consciousnesses. 'Three of their own realm' refers to [those abandoned by seeing] suffering, origin, and cultivation as stated above. 'One of the form realm' refers to what is abandoned by cultivation, because what is abandoned by cultivation in the form realm can take the suffering, origin, and cultivation of the desire realm as an object. 'Pure consciousness' means that uncontaminated consciousness also takes the suffering, origin, and cultivation of the desire realm as an object.
20.37
As for 'For the form realm, three each of its own and the lower, one of the higher, and pure consciousness are the domains': what are bound to the form realm and abandoned by suffering, origin, and cultivation are each taken as an object by eight consciousnesses; namely, three of their own realm and three of the lower realm—'lower' meaning the desire realm, and 'three' meaning what are abandoned by suffering, origin, and cultivation as stated above—together with one of the higher realm, meaning the consciousness abandoned by cultivation in the formless realm because it can take the suffering, origin, and cultivation of the form realm as an object, in addition to the uncontaminated pure consciousness also taking what are abandoned by suffering, origin, and cultivation in the form realm as an object. Each of these eight consciousnesses can take what are abandoned by suffering, origin, and cultivation in the form realm as an object.
20.38
As for 'For the formless realm, they extend across the three realms, with three each, and pure consciousness being their domains': what are bound to the formless realm and abandoned by suffering, origin, and cultivation are each taken as an object by ten consciousnesses; namely, extending across the three realms, with three from each making nine—the three being [those abandoned by seeing] suffering, origin, and cultivation. Uncontaminated pure consciousness makes the tenth. Each of these ten consciousnesses can take what are abandoned by suffering, origin, and cultivation in the formless realm as an object.
20.39
As for 'For what are abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, each adds the range of its own consciousness': speaking with respect to the three realms, first, what are bound to the desire realm and abandoned by seeing cessation and the path are taken as an object by six consciousnesses: the five consciousnesses as before, with the further addition of a sixth, the consciousness abandoned by seeing cessation. What is abandoned by seeing the path is also taken as an object by six consciousnesses: the five consciousnesses as before, with the further addition of a sixth, the consciousness abandoned by seeing the path. The consciousness belonging to its own truth is called 'its own consciousness'. What are abandoned by seeing cessation and seeing the path in the form realm are each taken as an object by nine consciousnesses: the eight consciousnesses as before, each adding its own one. What are abandoned by seeing cessation and seeing the path in the formless realm are each [taken as an object by] eleven consciousnesses: the ten items as before, each adding its own one, by analogy to the explanation for the desire realm above.
20.40
As for 'In the three realms and the pure [realm], the latter three and pure consciousness are the domains': uncontaminated phenomena are generally taken as an object by ten consciousnesses, namely, the latter three categories within each of the three realms—that is, the consciousnesses abandoned by seeing cessation, seeing the path, and cultivation—combined with uncontaminated consciousness to make the tenth. Each of these ten consciousnesses can take uncontaminated [phenomena] as an object. To summarize the preceding meaning, another verse is spoken:
20.41
"What are abandoned by seeing suffering, origin, and cultivation,
Bound to the desire, form, and formless [realms],
Should be known, in order,
To be objects of five, eight, and ten consciousnesses.
(Commentary says: the three categories of the desire realm are objects of five consciousnesses; the three categories of the form realm are objects of eight consciousnesses; the three categories of the formless realm are objects of ten consciousnesses, the meaning being as explained above.)
What are abandoned by seeing cessation and the path
Each add their own consciousness as object (being taken as objects by six consciousnesses, etc.);
Uncontaminated phenomena should be known
To be capable of being domains of ten consciousnesses."
20.42
The treatise says: 'Having thus understood the sixteen kinds of phenomena as the objective domains of the sixteen consciousnesses, we should now analyze in detail: on which entity do which latent defilements increase? If we were to explain each item separately, it is feared the text would be excessively elaborate; therefore, I shall merely provide a brief outline here. First, if someone asks: "On the entity to which it is bound, on the pleasure faculty, how many latent defilements increase?" One should observe that there are seven kinds of pleasure faculty in total: namely, one in the desire realm, which is abandoned by cultivation (since pleasure resides in the five consciousnesses, it is only abandoned by cultivation); five categories in the form realm (since the form realm possesses mental pleasure, it extends across all five categories); and the seventh, which is uncontaminated (meaning the uncontaminated pleasure of the third dhyāna). The uncontaminated pleasure faculty is not something on which latent defilements increase, as was already stated above. Among the seven, in accordance with what is appropriate, on the first six (namely, the one of the desire realm and the five of the form realm), what is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm and all universal [latent defilements increase], and all latent defilements of the form realm increase. (What is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm takes the pleasure of its own category as an object, and the universal latent defilements of suffering and origin can take the pleasure abandoned by cultivation as an object. Since the pleasure faculty of the form realm extends to all five categories, all consciousnesses take the pleasure faculty as an object. Saying "all" refers to the defilements of all five categories.) If someone asks: "On the consciousness that takes the pleasure faculty as an object, how many latent defilements increase? (The previous was regarding the pleasure faculty; this is regarding the consciousness directed toward the pleasure faculty)" One should observe that this consciousness has twelve kinds in total: namely, four in the desire realm, excluding what is abandoned by seeing cessation (Commentary says: the universal [defilements] of seeing suffering and seeing origin in the desire realm, as well as what is abandoned by cultivation, can take the pleasure faculty as an object; wrong view, doubt, and ignorance regarding the truth of the path in the desire realm can take uncontaminated pleasure as an object. The essence of the truth of cessation is not the pleasure faculty, so what is abandoned by [seeing] the truth of cessation does not take pleasure as an object); five categories in the form realm; and two in the formless realm, namely, [what are abandoned by] seeing the truth of the path and by cultivation. (Wrong view, doubt, and ignorance regarding the path in the formless realm take the uncontaminated pleasure of the lower third dhyāna as an object, so among what is abandoned by seeing the truth of the path in the formless realm, there is a consciousness taking pleasure as an object. The innately acquired and cultivated wholesome states abandoned by cultivation in the formless realm generally take the path of the category of subsequent knowledge of the nine stages as an object, so among what is abandoned by cultivation there, there can be a consciousness taking the uncontaminated pleasure faculty of the lower third dhyāna as an object.) The twelfth, the uncontaminated [consciousness], can also take the pleasure faculty as an object. (The above clarifies the consciousnesses that take pleasure as an object, amounting to twelve in total: four in the desire realm and five in the form realm make nine; two in the formless realm make eleven; adding uncontaminated consciousness makes twelve.) In accordance with what is appropriate, on this [consciousness], four categories of the desire realm, those of the form realm taking conditioned things as objects, two categories of the formless realm, and all universal latent defilements increase. (Commentary says: this text directly explains the increase of latent defilements on the consciousness taking pleasure as an object. The desire realm has four categories, excluding what is abandoned by seeing cessation. "Those of the form realm taking conditioned things as objects" takes the defilements taking conditioned things as objects under the five categories, excluding wrong view, doubt, and ignorance under the truth of cessation, which take unconditioned things as objects. Wrong view, etc., taking the truth of cessation as an object are not consciousnesses taking the pleasure faculty as an object, so they must be excluded. The two categories of the formless realm refer to what are abandoned by the truth of the path and by cultivation: wrong view, doubt, and ignorance under the truth of the path are consciousnesses taking pleasure as an object, and greed, hostility, delusion, etc., beneath them arise taking wrong view, etc., as objects; hence greed, etc., under the truth of the path are called latent defilements increasing on the consciousness taking the pleasure faculty as an object. Since the consciousness abandoned by cultivation in the formless realm takes the pleasure faculty as an object, the afflictions abandoned by cultivation increase as latent defilements on the consciousness taking pleasure as an object. "And all universal" refers to the universal latent defilements under suffering and origin of the formless realm taking that consciousness of the pleasure faculty abandoned by the truth of the path and by cultivation as an object.) If someone further asks: "On the consciousness taking as an object the consciousness that takes the pleasure faculty as an object, how many latent defilements increase? (Commentary says: this asks about the increase of latent defilements on the consciousness taking the consciousness of the pleasure faculty as an object)" One should observe that this consciousness has fourteen kinds in total: adding two kinds to the preceding twelve, namely, what are abandoned by seeing suffering and origin in the formless realm (taking the universal ones). These fourteen consciousnesses can take the consciousness of the pleasure faculty as an object (can take the consciousness directed toward the pleasure faculty as an object). In accordance with what is appropriate, the desire and form realms are as above; in the formless realm, four categories excluding what is abandoned by seeing cessation increase as latent defilements. (This directly explains the increase. The text of the treatise is annotated in full above to make its meaning easy to understand for those consulting the treatise, which is why it is narrated here.)'
20.43
From here, the second part explains the mind possessed of latent defilements. The treatise says: 'If a mind is called "possessed of latent defilements" on account of them, do they definitely increase with respect to this mind? (This is a question.) This is not definite. In some cases they increase, meaning when they are associated with the mind and when they take the mind as an object without having been abandoned; when associated but already abandoned, they do not increase. It is based on this principle that this is stated.' The verse says:
20.44
"A mind possessed of latent defilements is of two kinds:
Namely, defiled and undefiled.
A defiled mind extends to both;
An undefiled [mind] is restricted to increasing."
20.45
Explanation: 'A mind possessed of latent defilements is of two kinds' presents [the subject]. 'Namely, defiled and undefiled' enumerates them. Minds possessed of latent defilements are of two kinds in total, distinguished into defiled and undefiled minds: being associated with defilement is called 'defiled'; among contaminated states, wholesome and neutral minds are called 'undefiled'.
20.46
'A defiled mind extends to both': a defiled mind is called 'possessed of latent defilements'; this being possessed of latent defilements extends to either increasing or not increasing, which is why it says 'both'. 'Increasing' refers to: first, a defiled mind associated with afflictions where the latent defilements have not been abandoned; second, where the latent defilements taking this defiled mind as an object have not been abandoned; therefore it is said to 'increase'. 'Not increasing' refers to: when what is associated with this defiled mind has already been abandoned, then it does not increase; yet it is still said to be 'possessed of latent defilements' because it was constantly associated [with them]. Because the nature of binding has been abandoned, it does not increase; because the nature of companionship is not severed, it was constantly associated. The accompanying nature cannot be severed; because of the nature of companionship, it is called 'possessed of latent defilements'.
20.47
'An undefiled [mind] is restricted to increasing': it excludes 'not increasing', which is why it is called 'restricted'. Because an undefiled mind is not associated with defilements, it is not called 'possessed of latent defilements' by virtue of the nature of companionship. It is called 'possessed of latent defilements' exclusively restricted to increasing: namely, because latent defilements take the undefiled mind as an object and those latent defilements have not been abandoned, it is called 'possessed of latent defilements'. The word 'unabandoned' conveys the meaning of increasing; therefore, it is exclusively restricted to increasing that it is called 'possessed of latent defilements'.
20.48
From here, the eighth part explains sequential arising, divided into two: first, directly explaining the sequence; second, explaining the causes for the arising of defilements.
20.49
First, directly explaining the sequence, the treatise says: 'When the ten kinds of latent defilements explained above arise in sequence, which comes before and which comes after?' The verse says:
20.50
"Ignorance, doubt, wrong [view], self-[view],
Extreme view, attachment to rules and vows, attachment to views,
Greed, conceit, and hostility, in order,
Arise with the preceding inducing the succeeding."
20.51
Explanation: First ignorance, second doubt, third wrong view, fourth self-view, fifth extreme view, sixth attachment to rules and vows, seventh attachment to views, eighth greed, ninth conceit, tenth hostility. When afflictions arise, first due to ignorance there is non-comprehension of the truths. Because of non-comprehension, it next induces the arising of doubt, producing hesitation regarding the four noble truths. From this doubting mind, wrong view is induced, namely, definitively repudiating suffering, origin, cessation, and the path. Through repudiating the truths, the arising of self-view is induced, meaning that within the aggregates of suffering, having repudiated the principle of suffering, one definitively grasps this as a self. From this self-view, the arising of extreme view is induced, meaning relying on self-grasping to grasp the extremes of annihilation or permanence. From this extreme view, the arising of attachment to rules and vows is induced, as one conceives the previous grasping to be capable of purification. From attachment to rules and vows, the arising of attachment to views is induced, as having conceived it as capable of purification, one definitively grasps it as supreme. From this attachment to views, greed is next induced to arise, meaning deep emotional craving within one's own view. After this greed, conceit is next induced to arise, generating arrogance through relying on one's own view. After this conceit, hostility is next induced to arise, necessarily feeling hatred and aversion toward what contradicts one's own view. This is stated according to their sequential arising; for arisings outside the sequence, there is no fixed order of prior and posterior.
20.52
From here, the second part explains the causes for the arising of defilements. The treatise says: 'Through how many causes and conditions do the defilements arise?' The verse says:
20.53
"Due to unabandoned latent defilements,
The presence of an appropriate object,
And the arising of improper mental application,
The defilements are said to possess complete causes and conditions."
20.54
The commentary explains: Afflictions arise in the present due to three causes and conditions: First, due to unabandoned latent defilements (anuśaya), which are the cause of the afflictions. Second, through the presence of corresponding objects; "corresponding" means in accordance with what is appropriate, as when greed arises toward an agreeable object, or hatred arises toward a disagreeable object, and so forth; this is the objective realm of the afflictions. Third, due to improper mental application (ayoniśo-manaskāra), which is the preparatory effort that arouses the afflictions. By means of these three causes, afflictions arise in the present.
20.55
As for "afflictions are said to possess their causes and conditions," these above three causes refer to speaking provisionally of those that possess the full causes and conditions; or else there are some that arise solely by relying on the power of the objective realm, as in the case of arhats endowed with the faculty susceptible to fall.
20.56
From here, the third major section miscellaneously clarifies the arising of the afflictions. It is divided into three: first, clarifying the four portals of the effluents (āsrava) and so forth; second, clarifying the six portals of the fetters (saṃyojana) and so forth; third, clarifying the distinctions among the five hindrances (nīvaraṇa).
20.57
With respect to clarifying the four portals of the effluents and so forth, it is divided into two: first, stating the essential entities; second, explaining the names.
20.58
Below is the statement of the essential entities. The treatise states: "The latent defilements and entanglements explained above are taught in the sūtras as effluents (āsrava), floods (ogha), yokes (yoga), and graspings (upādāna). The effluents refer to the three effluents: first, the effluent of desire (kāmāsrava); second, the effluent of existence (bhavāsrava); third, the effluent of ignorance (avidyāsrava). The floods refer to the four floods: first, the flood of desire (kāmaugha); second, the flood of existence (bhavaugha); third, the flood of views (dṛṣṭyogha); fourth, the flood of ignorance (avidyaugha). The yokes refer to the four yokes, which are explained in the same way as the floods. The graspings refer to the four graspings: first, grasping at sensual desire (kāmopādāna); second, grasping at views (dṛṣṭyupādāna); third, grasping at rules and observances (śīlavratopādāna); fourth, grasping at the doctrine of self (ātmavādopādāna). What are the essential entities of these effluents and so forth?" The verse says:
20.59
"Afflictions of desire together with the entanglements, excluding delusion, are called the effluent of desire;
The effluent of existence consists of the upper two realms, only the afflictions excluding delusion.
Because they share in being non-defined, internal, and in the stage of concentration, they are united as one;
Ignorance is the root of all existences, and is therefore set apart as a single effluent.
The floods and yokes are also like this, but views are established separately because they are sharp;
Because views do not conform to remaining, they do not stand independently among the effluents.
The yokes of desire and existence together with delusion, and views divided into two, are named graspings;
Ignorance is not established separately, because it is not capable of grasping."
20.60
The commentary explains: The first two lines clarify the three effluents, the next one line clarifies the floods and yokes, and the last line clarifies the four graspings. "Afflictions of desire together with the entanglements, excluding delusion, are called the effluent of desire" means that these forty-one entities are called the substance of the effluent of desire; that is, the root afflictions bound to the desire realm are thirty-one, which together with the ten entanglements make forty-one.
20.61
"The effluent of existence consists of the upper two realms, only the afflictions excluding delusion" means that these fifty-two entities are the substance of the effluent of existence; that is, each of the upper two realms has twenty-six root afflictions, where hostility and delusion are excluded from each of the afflictions of the five categories. Taking both realms together, they thus make fifty-two. Although those upper two realms have the two entanglements of torpor and restlessness, they are not established as substances of the effluent, because the entanglements are few. Furthermore, these two entanglements arise following other factors and lack autonomy.
20.62
"Because they share in being non-defined, internal, and in the stage of concentration, they are united as one" clarifies that the upper two realms are combined into the effluent of existence: first, they share the nature of being non-defined; second, they share an internal activity (taking concentration and the body as their objects is called operating internally); third, they share in belonging to the stage of concentration. Due to these three meanings, the latent defilements of the two realms are united into a single effluent.
20.63
"Ignorance is the root of all existences, and is therefore set apart as a single effluent" means that ignorance in the three realms has five kinds each, and here these fifteen entities constitute the effluent of ignorance; that is, because ignorance is the root of the three existences, it is set apart as a single effluent.
20.64
"The floods and yokes are also like this" means that the substances of the floods and yokes are the same as those of the effluents, which is why it is said they are "also like this." That is, when the various views are separated out from the aforementioned effluent of desire, it is called the flood of desire and the yoke of desire. Likewise, when the various views are separated out from the effluent of existence, it is called the flood of existence and the yoke of existence. When the various views are separated out, they are called the flood of views and the yoke of views. In this way, twenty-nine entities have already been shown as being named the flood of desire: greed, hostility, and pride each have five kinds (amounting to fifteen), doubt has four (doubt under the four truths, which added to the previous makes nineteen), and there are ten entanglements (which added to the previous makes twenty-nine). Twenty-eight entities are named the flood of existence: greed and pride have ten each (five in each of the upper two realms, totaling twenty), and doubt has eight (four doubts in each of the upper two realms make eight, which added to the previous makes twenty-eight). Thirty-six entities constitute the flood of views: each of the three realms has twelve views (five views under suffering, two views each under origination and cessation making four, which added to the previous makes nine, and three views under the truth of the path, thus making twelve). Fifteen entities constitute the flood of ignorance: ignorance in the three realms has five each. One should know that the four yokes are explained in the same way as the floods.
20.65
"Views are established separately because they are sharp" means that the various views are separated out and distinctively named the flood of views and the yoke of views because the nature of views in investigating and seeking is fierce and sharp.
20.66
"Because views do not conform to remaining, they do not stand independently among the effluents" means that causing one to remain in saṃsāra is the meaning of "effluent." The nature of views is fierce and sharp, which does not conform to the meaning of remaining; because of this, they do not stand under an independent name among the effluents, but can only be spoken of as effluents together with the rest.
20.67
"The yokes of desire and existence together with delusion, and views divided into two, are named graspings" clarifies that the substances of the four graspings are the same as the four yokes. The yoke of desire together with delusion is called grasping at sensual desire; the yoke of existence together with delusion is called grasping at the doctrine of self; the yoke of views is divided into two: one is called grasping at rules and observances, and the second is called grasping at views. One should know that thirty-four entities constitute the substance of grasping at sensual desire: greed, hostility, pride, and ignorance each have five (four times five is twenty), doubt has four (added to the previous making twenty-four), together with the ten entanglements (added to the previous making thirty-four). Thirty-eight entities constitute the substance of grasping at the doctrine of self: greed, pride, and ignorance each have ten, and doubt has eight (treating the upper realms together). Six entities constitute the substance of grasping at rules and observances: the three realms each have two kinds of grasping at rules and observances, thus making six (one under suffering, one under the path). Thirty entities constitute the substance of grasping at views: the three realms each have ten kinds of views (excluding the two graspings at rules and observances from the twelve views). The afflictions of the upper realms are called grasping at the doctrine of self because "the doctrine of self" refers to the internal body based on which a self is spoken of; hence, the afflictions of the upper realms mostly take the internal body as their object, and are called grasping at the doctrine of self. Grasping of the doctrine of self is a genitive tatpuruṣa compound (ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣa). Grasping at rules and observances is established separately among the various views because it alone is an enemy to the noble path, and because it doubly deceives both householders and renunciants: householders take self-starvation and the like to be the heavenly path, while renunciants take abandoning desirable objects to be the path of purity.
20.68
"Ignorance is not established separately, because it is not capable of grasping" means that ignorance is not established separately as a grasping because it is by being capable of grasping existences that it is called "grasping." Ignorance refers to the characteristic of non-comprehension; because it is not capable of grasping, it is not established as a grasping, but can only be spoken of as grasping together with the rest. These four graspings above are explained according to the Sarvāstivāda school. If one relies on the Sautrāntikas, the four graspings take greed as their essential nature: greed arising with the objects of the five desires as its object is called grasping at sensual desire; greed arising with the sixty-two views as its object is called grasping at views; greed arising with rules and observances as its object is called grasping at rules and observances; and greed arising with the doctrines of self of the three realms as its object is called grasping at the doctrine of self. Therefore, for them the four graspings take greed as their substance.
First 68 of 75 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 俱舍論頌疏論本 — Classical Chinese