俱舍論頌疏論本 8

English (machine translation) 8

Language: English

8.1

From here on, the third [chapter], clarifying the "Chapter on the World," has two parts: first, clarifying the world of sentient beings; second, clarifying the receptacle world.

8.2

Regarding the clarification of the world of sentient beings, there are two parts: first, a general explanation of sentient beings; second, an analysis of the distinctions among their groupings.

Regarding the general explanation of sentient beings, it is further divided into three sections: first, clarifying the arising of sentient beings; second, clarifying the abiding of sentient beings; third, clarifying the passing away of sentient beings.

8.4

Regarding the first, clarifying the arising of sentient beings, it is further divided into nine kinds: first, clarifying the three realms; second, clarifying the five destinies; third, clarifying the seven stations of consciousness; fourth, clarifying the nine abodes of sentient beings; fifth, clarifying the four stations of consciousness; sixth, clarifying the four modes of birth; seventh, clarifying intermediate existence; eighth, clarifying dependent origination; ninth, clarifying the four modes of existence.

8.5

Below this is the first, clarifying the three realms. The treatise says: "Having already distinguished minds and so forth according to the three realms, we should now explain what the three realms are. In each of them, how many distinct places are there?" The verse states:

8.6

"Hell beings, animals, ghosts,
humans, and the six heavens of desire
are named the twenty of the desire realm,
due to distinctions among hells and continents.
Above this are seventeen places
named the subtle-form realm, wherein
the [first] three dhyānas have three each,
and the fourth dhyāna has eight.
The formless realm has no location;
according to rebirth, there are four kinds;
relying on generic similarity and life-force,
they maintain the continuity of mind and the rest."

8.7

The explanation says: The first line clarifies the desire realm, the next line clarifies the subtle-form realm, and the last line clarifies the formless realm. The first two phrases list the names of the five destinies. In Sanskrit, *naraka*; here [in Chinese] rendered as "instruments of suffering," and translated by its meaning as "hell" (diyu), because there are prisons underground, which is not an exact translation. "Animals" (pārśvacara/tiryañc) are so called because they move horizontally. As for "ghosts" (preta), it means that in other lives they took pleasure in stealing others' possessions, or again, they are mostly ancestors sacrificed to by others, or again, they mostly seek after things to sustain themselves, or again, they are mostly timid and inferior by nature, with flighty minds and bodies; hence they are named "ghosts." As for "humans" (manuṣya), because they have much reflection (manana), they are named "humans." As for "gods" (deva), because they possess radiance, or because they are exalted, exercising sovereign divine powers and prayed to by the multitudes, they are named "gods." The six heavens of desire are: 1. The Heaven of the Four Great Kings; 2. The Heaven of the Thirty-Three; 3. The Yāma Heaven, translated here as "time divisions," meaning that in that heaven they frequently exclaim from time to time, "How delightful!"; 4. The Tuṣita Heaven, translated here as "contentment," because they give rise to a mind of joyful contentment regarding the pleasures of the five desires; 5. The Nirmāṇarati Heaven, because they transform the objects of the five desires themselves; 6. The Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven, because they obtain sovereignty over what is transformed by others.

8.8

The third phrase, "are named the desire realm," concludes the above. The receptacles and sentient beings of these five destinies above are collectively named the desire realm. "Twenty" clarifies that there are twenty locations within the desire realm. "Due to distinctions among hells and continents" clarifies the reason for the twenty. Among the five destinies above, due to the distinctions among the hells and the distinctions among the continents, twenty are formed. There are eight hells, called the distinctions among the hells: 1. The Saṃjīva Hell (Reviving Hell), meaning that although those sentient beings suffer various cuttings, stabbings, grindings, and poundings, when they momentarily meet a cool breeze blowing on them, they immediately revive as before; reviving equally to before, it is given the name Saṃjīva. 2. The Kālasūtra Hell (Black Rope Hell), where their limbs are first measured with black cords and then subsequently cut and sawn; hence it is named Kālasūtra. 3. The Saṃghāta Hell (Crushing Hell), where manifold instruments of torment simultaneously press upon their bodies, joining together to destroy one another; hence it is named Saṃghāta. 4. The Raurava Hell (Wailing Hell), where, pressed by manifold torments, various beings cry out in sorrow and emit wailing shrieks of anguish; it is named Raurava. 5. The Mahāraurava Hell (Great Wailing Hell), where, pressed by acute suffering, they emit loud cries, sorrowfully wailing and calling out grievances; hence it is named Mahāraurava. 6. The Tapana Hell (Heating Hell), where fire follows around their bodies, blazing fiercely on all sides, and the torment of heat is unbearable; hence it is named Tapana. 7. The Pratāpana Hell (Intense Heating Hell), where internally and externally, from their own bodies and from others' bodies, raging fire bursts forth, mutually burning and harming them; being the utmost in heat, it is named Pratāpana. 8. The Avīci Hell (Uninterrupted Hell), where they undergo suffering without interval, or where no pleasure intervenes in the suffering; hence it is named Avīci. As for the distinctions among the continents, there are four great continents: 1. South Jambudvīpa: on the southern side of this continent there is a jambu tree; the name of this continent is named either from the grove or from the fruit, hence it is called Jambudvīpa. 2. East Pūrvavideha, named East Superior Body Continent because their bodily form is superior, or their bodies are superior to those of Jambudvīpa. 3. West Aparagodānīya, named Cattle-Market Continent because cattle are used as currency. 4. North Uttarakuru, translated here as "Superior Place" or "Superior Birth," because among the four continents this place is the most supreme, it is named Superior Place, and because birth there is the most supreme, it is named Superior Birth. The hells and continents together make twelve; combined with the six heavens of desire, animals, and hungry ghosts, the places total twenty. As for the realm of sentient beings, from the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven down to the Avīci Hell, and as for the receptacle world, down to the wind disc, all are subsumed under the desire realm.

8.9

"Above this are seventeen places" designates the subtle-form realm. Above this desire realm are seventeen places, named the subtle-form realm.

8.10

"Three in each of the [first] three dhyānas, and eight in the fourth dhyāna" lists the names of the seventeen [places]. That is, the places of the [first] three dhyānas each have three, while the place of the fourth dhyāna alone has eight, together making seventeen places. The receptacle and sentient beings are collectively named the form realm. That the place of the first dhyāna has three: first is named the Brahmakāyika heaven, because they are the assembly governed by the Great Brahmā King. Second is named the Brahmapurohita heaven, because they attend upon and assist the Brahmā King, serving as his ministers and aides. Third is named the Mahābrahmā heaven; having been born of extensive goodness, they are named Brahmā, and this Brahmā being great, it is called Mahābrahmā. Because he has attained the intermediate meditation (dhyānāntara), is born first, passes away last, and is superior in majesty and virtue, he is named Mahābrahmā. That the second dhyāna has three heavens: first, the Parīttābha heaven, having the least light within the second dhyāna, is therefore named the Parīttābha (Limited Light) heaven. Second, the Apramāṇābha heaven; its radiance increases still more so that its measure is hard to limit, hence it is named the Apramāṇābha (Immeasurable Light) heaven. Third, the Ābhāsvara heaven; its radiance surpasses the previous ones and shines throughout its own plane, hence it is named Ābhāsvara (Utmost Light). That the third dhyāna has three heavens: first, the Parīttaśubha heaven; the pleasure of the mental ground is called purity, and within the third dhyāna this purity is least, so it is named Parīttaśubha (Limited Purity). Second, the Apramāṇaśubha heaven; this purity is ever more superior and its measure is hard to limit, hence it is named the Apramāṇaśubha (Immeasurable Purity) heaven. Third, the Śubhakṛtsna heaven; this purity is all-pervading, hence it is named Śubhakṛtsna (Pervasive Purity). That the fourth dhyāna has eight heavens: first, the Anabhraka heaven; below this, in the sky there is no land on which to dwell, [the clouds] condensing like clouds and therefore called "clouds," whereas the heavens above this have no such cloud-like land, being at the head of the cloudless, hence it is named Anabhraka (Cloudless). Second, the Puṇyaprasava heaven; only when ordinary beings possess further superior merit can they be reborn there, so it is named Puṇyaprasava (Merit-Born). Third, the Bṛhatphala heaven; among the births of ordinary beings in the form realm, this is the most sublime, hence it is named Bṛhatphala (Great Fruit). Fourth, the Avṛha heaven; "vṛha" means turmoil, and among those without turmoil this is the first, so it obtains the name Avṛha (Without Turmoil). Fifth, the Atapa heaven; having already attained meditation of the upper and middle grades of complex cultivation, they are able to skillfully subdue and remove the defilements of the upper and middle grades, their mental inclination is gentle, and they are free from all anguish, hence it is named Atapa (Without Heat). Sixth, the Sudṛśa heaven; having already attained the upper grade of meditation of complex cultivation, their state of fruition is easily manifested, hence it is named Sudṛśa (Skillfully Manifested). Seventh, the Sudarśana heaven; having already attained the superior upper grade of meditation of complex cultivation, free from obstacles to cultivated concentration, their remaining defilements being extremely subtle, their vision is supremely clear, hence it is named Sudarśana (Clear-Seeing). Eighth, the Akaniṣṭha heaven; among the heavens possessing form, there is no place that can surpass this, hence it is named Akaniṣṭha (Form Ultimate). These five heavens are named the Śuddhāvāsa (Pure Abode) heavens; only noble ones dwell there, without admixture of ordinary beings, hence they are called Pure Abodes. Establishing seventeen heavens in the form realm follows the Sautrāntika school. According to the Sarvāstivāda school, only sixteen heavens are established, excluding the Mahābrahmā heaven; that is, in the Brahmapurohita heaven there is a high tower named the Mahābrahmā heaven, where a single lord dwells, without any separate land. Just as when the World-Honoured One sits upon his seat surrounded by the fourfold assembly, a separate Mahābrahmā heaven is not established. As for excluding the Asañjñisattva heaven, within the Bṛhatphala heaven there is an elevated and superior place named the Asañjñisattva heaven, not a separately existing land, so it is not established. When the Sautrāntika masters establish the Mahābrahmā heaven, it is because, although the place of the Great Brahmā King is not different from that of the Brahmapurohitas and the rest, their bodily form and lifespan are not equal, so it must be separately established. That this Sautrāntika school excludes the Asañjñisattva heaven is because the body and lifespan of the Asañjñisattvas are equal to those of the Bṛhatphala heaven, so that the Asañjñisattva is subsumed into the Bṛhatphala and not separately established. As for the Sthavira school, they also establish the Mahābrahmā heaven, because the body and lifespan are different; and they also establish the Asañjñisattva heaven, because its cause and fruition differ from those of the Bṛhatphala. Therefore, in the form realm there are eighteen heavens.

8.11

"The formless realm has no location" explains that the formless realm has no spatial location whatsoever, because being non-material dharmas, they have no spatial direction or place.

8.12

"By rebirth there are four kinds": this explains that although the formless has no location, according to ripening-birth there are four differences: First, the Ākāśānantyāyatana heaven. Prior to cultivating this absorption, in the preparatory stage one tires of the material body, thinks upon boundless space, and forms the understanding of boundless space; it is named the Sphere of Boundless Space. Second, the Vijñānānantyāyatana: one tires of the previous external space, further contemplates internal consciousness, and forms the understanding of boundless consciousness; it is named the Sphere of Boundless Consciousness. Third, the Ākiñcanyāyatana: next, one tires of boundless consciousness, contemplates nothingness, and forms the understanding of nothingness; it is named the Sphere of Nothingness. Fourth, the Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana heaven: the essence of this absorption is not the coarse ideation of the previous seven planes, so it is named "neither ideation"; yet if ideation were entirely absent, it would be identical to dullness and ignorance, but subtle ideation exists, so it is named "nor non-ideation." The first three formless realms are named from their preparation. The fourth formless realm receives its designation from its own nature. Furthermore, the treatise states: "Again, how is it known that it has no spatial location? (A question.) Because where one attains that absorption, upon passing away one is reborn right in that place; and when passing away from there to be reborn in the desire or form realms, the intermediate existence arises right in that place." The explanation states (answering the preceding question): "where one attains that absorption" means whichever continent it was where one cultivated and attained the formless absorption. Reborn into the formless realm right where one cultivated the concentration upon passing away, later, when passing away from the formless to be reborn in the desire or form realms, the intermediate existence arises right in that place where one cultivated and attained the concentration in the past; hence one clearly knows that the formless has no spatial location.

8.13

"Relying upon generic similarity and life-force, it causes the mind and so forth to continue": this clarifies what is relied upon in the formless realm. The desire and form realms have a body, so the mind operates in reliance upon the body. The formless realm has no body, so the mind operates in reliance upon generic similarity (nikāyasabhāga) and the life-faculty (jīvitendriya).

8.14

Question: "Why is it named the 'desire realm' and so on?" Answer: "'Realm' is the general name, and 'desire' and the others are specific [names]. Applying the specific to the general, it is named 'desire realm' and so forth. Fully stated, one should say 'the realm belonging to desire is called the desire realm; the realm belonging to form is called the form realm; the realm belonging to the formless is called the formless realm.' Omitting the word 'belonging to,' they are simply named 'desire realm' and so forth. It is like saying 'black pepper drink' or 'diamond ring': 'drink' and 'ring' are both general names, while 'black pepper' and 'diamond' are specific designations; applying the specific to the general, they are called 'black pepper drink' and 'diamond ring.' Fully stated, one should say 'the drink belonging to black pepper' and 'the ring belonging to diamond'; omitting the word 'belonging to,' they are simply named 'black pepper drink' and so forth. The case of the dharmas may be understood by this analogy."

8.15

Question: "In this context, what dharma does the word 'desire' denote?" Answer: "Briefly stated, it denotes the greed induced by solid food and sexual intercourse (explanation: sexual greed and food greed are termed 'desire'). As a sūtra verse states: 'The world's exquisite objects are not true desire; / True desire is a person's conceptual greed. / Exquisite objects remain as they are in the world; / The wise have already eliminated desire regarding them.' (This verse was spoken by the Buddha, and Śāriputra recited it to others; the intention is to take the greedy mind as desire, not the objective objects.) An Ājīvika tīrthika then interrogated Śāriputra, saying: 'If the world's exquisite objects are not true desire, / And true desire is a person's conceptual greed, / Then a monk ought to be named a consumer of desire, / Because he gives rise to bad conceptual thoughts. (Explanation: this tīrthika's intention was to take external objects as the essence of true desire, and staying close by, he challenged Śāriputra.) If the world's exquisite objects are true desire, / And true desire is not a person's conceptual greed, / Then your teacher ought to be named a consumer of desire, / Because he constantly looks upon delightful, exquisite form.' (Explanation: this tīrthika's teacher actually looked upon delightful form; Śāriputra replied, saying: 'Your teacher actually looks upon delightful form, yet is not named a consumer of desire; clearly one knows that true desire is greed, and is not concerned with external objects.' The tīrthika thereupon departed in silence.)"

8.16

From here, the second part explains the five destinies. The treatise states: "The three realms have already been explained; what are the five destinies?" The verse says:

8.17

"Therein, hells and so forth,
By their own names, are stated as the five destinies.
Only unobstructed-neutral,
They are sentient beings, not intermediate existences."

8.18

Explanation: The first two lines list the names of the five destinies, and the lower two lines make distinctions according to various categories. "Therein, hells and so forth, by their own names, are stated as the five destinies": within the three realms there are the hells and so forth, which are named the five destinies. That is, the previously explained hells, animals, ghosts, humans, and devas: these are named the five destinies.

8.19

"Only unobstructed-neutral": distinguishing according to the three natures, the essence of these five destinies does not extend to the wholesome or the defiled, but is solely unobstructed-neutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta). Requisitioned by past karma, it is the ripened-birth neutral. If it extended to the wholesome and defiled, the five destinies would become intermingled, because within a single destiny the karma and defilements of all five destinies exist. Nor does it extend to the external receptacle, because the external receptacle is shared in common and enjoyed by the five destinies.

8.20

"They are sentient beings, not intermediate existences": the five destinies are subsumed only under the category of sentient beings; their essence is not the intermediate existence. The destiny is that to which one goes, and the intermediate existence is that which goes; therefore the intermediate existence is not a destiny. The Prajñaptipādaśāstra speaks thus: "The four modes of birth subsume the five destinies, but the five destinies do not subsume the four modes of birth. What is not subsumed? Namely, the intermediate existence. (Explanation: the intermediate existence is apparitional birth, hence subsumed under the four modes of birth; being that which goes, it is not subsumed under destiny.)" What has been clarified above—that the five destinies do not extend to the wholesome, the defiled, the external receptacle, or the intermediate existence—clearly shows that realm is broad while destiny is narrow, because those wholesome, defiled, external receptacle, and intermediate existence factors are subsumed under the three realms. By this reasoning, whatever is the essence of a destiny must be subsumed under a realm, whereas there are things that belong to a realm but are not a destiny, namely the wholesome, the defiled, and so forth.

8.21

From here, the third part explains the seven stations of consciousness. The treatise states: "Right within the three realms and the five destinies, in their respective order, there are seven stations of consciousness. What are the seven?" The verse says:

8.22

"Different in body and different in ideation;
Different in body with one identical ideation;
The reverse of this; one in both body and ideation;
Together with the lower three of the formless:
Therefore the stations of consciousness are seven;
The rest are not, being subject to damage."

8.23

Explanation: "Different in body and different in ideation" is the first station of consciousness, namely all of the human destiny and one portion of the deva destiny. Thus the treatise states: "It is stated in the sūtra: 'There are sentient beings possessing form who are different in body and different in ideation, such as humans and a portion of devas'; this is the first station of consciousness. 'A portion of devas' refers to the devas of the desire realm and the first dhyāna, excluding those arising at the beginning of an eon. (Explanation: those arising at the beginning of an eon are the second station of consciousness, and therefore are now excluded; this will be distinguished next.)" Speaking of "different in body": because their appearances are different. Either by reason of different bodies, or because they have different bodies, it is named "different in body." Saying "by reason of different bodies" clarifies it according to essence. Saying "have different bodies" is spoken on the basis of possession. Speaking of "different in ideation": because their ideations of suffering, pleasure, and equanimity are distinguished. Either by reason of different ideations, or because they have different ideations, it is named "different in ideation." Saying "by reason of different ideations" clarifies it according to essence. Saying "have different ideations" is spoken on the basis of possession.

8.24

"The second line" refers to the second station of consciousness, which in the first dhyāna takes those [beings arisen] at the beginning of the kalpa. Thus the śāstra says: "There are sentient beings with form whose bodies are diverse and whose ideations are uniform; this is the second station of consciousness. Like the gods of the Brahmā-pāriṣadya, meaning those arisen at the beginning of the kalpa (Commentary: In truth this also takes the Mahābrahmās and Brahmā-purohitas; mentioning only the Brahmā-pāriṣadya gods is citing the first to encompass what follows). Why is that? Because at the beginning of the kalpa, those various gods of Brahmā's retinue produce this ideation: 'We were all produced by the Great Brahmā King.' At that time, the Great Brahmā also produces this ideation: 'These various gods of Brahmā's retinue were all produced by me.' Because they share the ideation of a single cause, it is called 'ideations are uniform.' The body of the Great Brahmā King is lofty and vast in measure, and in countenance, majesty, speech, and radiance, he differs in each respect from the gods of Brahmā's retinue; therefore, they are called 'bodies are diverse' (thus far the text of the śāstra)." Question: "Why do the Brahmā King and the gods of Brahmā's retinue produce the ideation of a single cause?" Answer: "At the beginning of the kalpa, the Great Brahmā King dwelt alone with no attendants or retinue. He then made an aspiration, saying: 'How might other sentient beings be caused to be born into my likeness?' At that time, the gods of the Ābhāsvara [Heaven], seeing this, had pity, and dying from that realm, were reborn as the retinue of Brahmā. Because as soon as the Brahmā King made the aspiration he saw the gods being born, the Great Brahmā King produced this ideation: 'I showed the capacity to produce them.' Those various gods of Brahmā's retinue, at first seeing the supreme majestic god of the Great Brahmā, and also recollecting and knowing that previously, because the Brahmā King made a vow, they came to be born here, for this reason the retinue of Brahmā produced this thought: 'We were all produced by the Great Brahmā King.'"

8.25

"The reverse of this, bodies and ideations uniform": within this one line there are two stations of consciousness. "The reverse of this" means reversing the above "bodies are diverse and ideations are uniform"; it should be "bodies uniform and ideations diverse," which is the third station of consciousness. Thus the śāstra says: "There are sentient beings with form whose bodies are uniform and ideations are diverse; like the gods of the Ābhāsvara [Heaven], this is the third station of consciousness (Commentary: In truth it also encompasses the Parīttābha and Apramāṇābha gods; mentioning only the Ābhāsvara is citing the last to encompass the first)." The visible forms and shapes of those gods are not different, and are therefore called "bodies uniform." Pleasant ideations and neither-painful-nor-pleasant ideations alternate, and are therefore called "ideations diverse." Tradition says that once those gods grow weary of the faculty of joy in the fundamental stage, they give rise to the manifest presence of the faculty of equanimity belonging to the threshold stage; once they grow weary of the faculty of equanimity in the threshold stage, they give rise to the manifest presence of the faculty of joy belonging to the fundamental stage. Just as a rich and noble person, having grown weary of sensual pleasure, then experiences the pleasure of the Dharma, and having grown weary of the pleasure of the Dharma, again experiences sensual pleasure. "Bodies and ideations uniform" is the fourth station of consciousness. The śāstra says: "There are sentient beings with form whose bodies are uniform and ideations are uniform; like the Śubhakṛtsna gods, this is the fourth station of consciousness (Commentary: In truth it also encompasses the Parīttaśubha and Apramāṇaśubha gods; mentioning only the Śubhakṛtsna gods is citing the last to encompass the first)." "Bodies uniform" means their appearances do not differ. "Ideations uniform" means their ideation is solely that of pleasant feeling. Furthermore, the śāstra says: "In the first dhyāna, on account of defiled ideation, it is said that 'ideations are uniform.' In the second dhyāna, on account of two wholesome ideations, it is said that 'ideations are diverse.' In the third dhyāna, on account of vipāka ideation, it is said that 'ideations are uniform' (Commentary: This text concludes the above, distinguishing the differences. 'On account of defiled ideation' refers to the shared ideation of a single cause, which is the clinging to rules and vows. 'On account of vipāka ideation' refers to the ideation of pleasant feeling, because it is brought about by karma)."

8.26

"Together with the lower three of the Formless [Realm]" excludes the peak of existence (bhavāgra). That is, the station of infinite space is the fifth station of consciousness, the station of infinite consciousness is the sixth station of consciousness, and the station of nothingness is the seventh station of consciousness.

8.27

"Therefore the stations of consciousness are seven" is the general conclusion. A "station of consciousness" (vijñānasthiti) means that in which consciousness takes delight in dwelling. If in the desire and form realms, the five aggregates are its substance; if in the formless realm, the four aggregates are its substance.

8.28

"The rest are not [stations of consciousness], because of damage and destruction" excludes what are not [stations of consciousness]. "The rest" refers to the three evil destinies, the fourth dhyāna, and the heaven of the peak of existence; all these places are not stations of consciousness. "Damage" excludes the three evil destinies, meaning that in the three evil destinies there is severe painful feeling that can damage consciousness. "Destruction" excludes the fourth dhyāna and the heaven of the peak of existence, meaning that in the fourth dhyāna there are the non-ideational absorption (asaṃjñisamāpatti) and the non-ideational state (āsaṃjñika), and in the heaven of the peak of existence there is the absorption of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), which can destroy consciousness and cause its continuity to be severed; hence they are not stations of consciousness. Furthermore, the śāstra says: "It is additionally said that in other places, sentient beings' minds delight in coming to dwell, and having arrived there, they do not seek to depart; therefore these are called stations of consciousness. In the various evil destinies, both meanings are absent. In the fourth dhyāna, the mind constantly seeks to depart: ordinary worldlings seek to enter the non-ideational state, while noble ones take pleasure in entering the pure abodes (śuddhāvāsa) or the formless realms. As for the gods of the pure abodes, they delight in realizing quiescence, while the peak of existence is obscure and weak; therefore they are not stations of consciousness (Commentary: In the fourth dhyāna, the three heavens of Anabhraka, Puṇyaprasava, and Bṛhatphala are common to both ordinary people and noble ones. If one is an ordinary worldling, one seeks to enter the non-ideational state. If one is a noble one who delights in wisdom, one seeks to enter the pure abodes; if one delights in absorption, one seeks to enter the formless realms. The rest may be understood)."

8.29

From here, the fourth part explains the nine abodes of sentient beings (sattvāvāsa). The śāstra says: "Having thus differentiated the seven stations of consciousness, following this, the nine abodes of sentient beings are further explained. What are the nine?" The verse says:

8.30

"One should know that, together with the peak of existence / and non-ideational sentient beings,
these are the nine abodes of sentient beings; / the rest are not, because they do not take delight in dwelling there."

8.31

The commentary states: The preceding seven stations of consciousness, together with the heaven of the peak of existence and the non-ideational realm, are designated as nine. Because sentient beings find joy and delight in dwelling only in these nine, they are established as abodes of sentient beings; all other places are not, because they do not delight in dwelling there. "Other places" refers to the various evil destinies, where sentient beings do not dwell out of their own delight, but are forced to stay by the rākṣasas of bad karma; hence, being like prisons, they are not established as abodes of sentient beings. In the fourth dhyāna, with the exception of the Non-Ideational Heaven (Asaṃjñisattva), the remaining eight heavens are not abodes of sentient beings, as explained under the stations of consciousness.

8.32

From here, the fifth part explains the four stations of consciousness. The śāstra says: "The sūtra cited previously spoke of seven stations of consciousness; again, another sūtra speaks of four stations of consciousness. What are the four?" The verse says:

8.33

"The four stations of consciousness, one should know, / are four aggregates, of their own stage alone;
it is taught that consciousness alone is not a station; / the defiled are encompassed by the four alternatives."

8.34

The commentary states: "The four stations of consciousness" marks the title. The two words "one should know" carry over into the next line. As the sūtra says: "Consciousness dwells tied to form; consciousness dwells tied to feeling; consciousness dwells tied to ideation; consciousness dwells tied to conditioning forces. The four are that which is dwelt in, and consciousness is that which dwells; because they are dwelt in by consciousness, they are called the four stations of consciousness." "One should know they are the four aggregates" distinguishes their substance. Form, feeling, ideation, and conditioning forces are called the four aggregates; the defiled four aggregates constitute the substance of the stations of consciousness. "Of their own stage alone" means taking only the four aggregates of their own stage as substance, because the aggregates of one's own stage are appropriated by craving; consciousness, following the power of craving, relies upon and clings to them, thereby receiving the name 'station of consciousness.' If in another stage, there is no appropriation by craving, and therefore they are not stations of consciousness. Thus the śāstra says: "Consciousness does not, through the power of craving, rely upon and cling to the aggregates of form, etc., in a different stage."

8.35

"It is taught that consciousness alone is not a station": this clarifies that the aggregate of consciousness is not a station of consciousness. That is to say, this aggregate of consciousness is that which dwells, and it is impossible to establish that which dwells as that which is dwelt in; therefore, consciousness is not a station of consciousness. The śāstra says: "The consciousness that dwells cannot be called that which is dwelt in, just as the king himself cannot be called the king's throne. Or, if there is a dharma that consciousness mounts and directs—like the principle of a person and a boat—it is called a station of consciousness. Consciousness cannot mount and direct its own entity; therefore, consciousness is not spoken of as a station of consciousness. Such is what the Vaibhāṣikas teach (Commentary: The king is a metaphor for consciousness, which dwells; the king's throne is a metaphor for the four aggregates, which are dwelt in. As for the principle of a person and a boat, the person is a metaphor for the aggregate of consciousness, and the boat is a metaphor for the four aggregates of form, etc.; the meaning can be understood). Furthermore, the Buddha's intention was to teach that these four stations of consciousness are like fertile fields, and to say collectively that all consciousness accompanied by grasping is like a seed; a seed cannot be established as a fertile field. Looking upward to infer the Lord's teaching, such was his intention (thus far the text of the śāstra)."

8.36

"The defiled are encompassed by the four alternatives" clarifies their similarities and differences. As for similarity, both these four stations of consciousness and the seven stations of consciousness are encompassed by the defiled (sāsrava). As for difference, they are differentiated by four alternatives (catuṣkoṭi): the four stations of consciousness are broad in scope but narrow in substance, being broad in scope because they extend to the evil destinies, etc., and narrow in substance because they do not include the aggregate of consciousness. On the other hand, the seven stations of consciousness are broad in substance but narrow in scope, being broad in substance because they extend to the aggregate of consciousness as substance, and narrow in scope because they do not include the evil destinies, etc. Because they are mutually broad and narrow, they can form four alternatives: (1) there are [things that are] the seven stations of consciousness but not the four stations of consciousness, namely, consciousness within the seven [stations]—since it is included in the seven, it is a [member of the] seven stations of consciousness, but since it is the aggregate of consciousness, it is not one of the four stations of consciousness; (2) there are the four stations of consciousness but not the seven stations of consciousness, namely, the four aggregates of feeling, etc., in the three evil destinies, the fourth dhyāna, and the heaven of the peak of existence—since they are the four aggregates, they are the four stations of consciousness, but since they belong to the evil destinies, etc., they are not the seven stations of consciousness; (3) the third alternative of both: namely, the four aggregates within the seven [stations]; (4) the fourth alternative of neither: namely, excluding the previous characteristics, which is the aggregate of consciousness within the aforementioned evil destinies, etc.—since it belongs to the evil destinies, etc., it is not of the seven stations of consciousness, and since it is the aggregate of consciousness, it is not of the four stations of consciousness.

8.37

From here, the sixth part explains the four wombs/births (yoni). The śāstra says: "Among the various realms and destinies explained previously, it should be known that their births are briefly of four kinds. What are the four? Where is which present? (Here there are two questions)." The verse says:

8.38

"Among them there are four births / of sentient beings, namely egg-born and the rest.
Humans and animals possess all four; / hell-beings and the various gods,
as well as intermediate beings, are solely apparitional;
ghosts include both womb-born and apparitional."

8.39

The commentary states: The first two lines answer the first question; the lower four lines answer the second question.

8.40

"Among them there are four births" marks the number: within the three realms, birth is of four kinds.

8.41

"Sentient beings, namely egg-born and the rest" lists their names: sentient beings have four modes of birth: egg-born (aṇḍaja), womb-born (jarāyuja), moisture-born (saṃsvedaja), and apparitional (upapāduka). Such as peacocks and the like born from eggshells, these are called egg-born; such as cattle, horses, and the like born from the womb, these are called womb-born; such as moths and the like born from moisture, these are called moisture-born; such as the various gods whose sense faculties are fully endowed all at once, appearing suddenly from non-existence, these are called apparitional."

8.42

"Humans and animals possess all four": the human and animal destinies each possess all four types of birth. As for human egg-birth, it refers to cases such as Śaila and Upaśaila born from the eggs of a crane, the thirty-two sons born of the Mother of Mṛgāra, the five hundred sons of King Pañcāla, and so on. The explanation says: Śaila here means "Great Mountain"; Upaśaila here means "Little Mountain"; because they were born near a mountain, they were named after the mountain. The Vibhāṣā says: "In the past, on this continent, there was a merchant who went to sea and obtained a female crane whose appearance and color were majestic and beautiful; finding her extraordinary, he took pleasure in her. Subsequently she laid two eggs, and later when the eggs broke open, two boys were born, upright and intelligent. When they grew up, they went forth into homelessness and attained the fruit of arhatship. The elder was named Śaila, and the younger was named Upaśaila." The Mother of Mṛgāra is Lady Viśākhā. Viśākhā is the name of the constellation of the second month; she was named after the constellation. Here it is translated as "Nourishing," which means the growth of merit. She was the daughter-in-law of the elder Mṛgāra, and she had a son named Mṛga; therefore she was called the Mother of Mṛgāra, being named after her son. She laid thirty-two eggs, each of which produced a son. A consort of King Pañcāla gave birth to five hundred eggs; having given birth, she felt ashamed and feared a calamity, so she placed them in a small casket and abandoned it in the Gaṅgā River, where it drifted with the current. Downstream, the king of a neighboring country, looking out at the river water, saw the casket and sent someone to retrieve it. Seeing the eggs, they took them back into the city. After a few days, each produced a son; when reared, they were brave and fierce, subduing wherever they went, so that none dared oppose them. At that time, that neighboring king had a long-standing grudge against their father-king and wished to dispatch troops to subjugate him, first sending a letter announcing: 'We now wish to fight a decisive battle.' Soon after, the troops arrived, surrounded the city, and were about to destroy it. King Pañcāla was greatly alarmed and frightened. The queen consort inquired about the details and comforted the king, saying: 'Your Majesty need not grieve; these five hundred sons are all my children.' She recounted the earlier events in full: 'When the sons see their mother, their hostile intent will surely cease.' The consort herself ascended the city wall and told the five hundred sons the aforementioned circumstances: 'How can you now wish to commit a treasonous crime? If you do not believe me, each of you should open your mouth.' The consort pressed her two breasts, and five hundred streams of milk poured into each of their mouths. They immediately believed and submitted, whereupon peace was restored. The two countries established relations, and neither attacked the other. As for human womb-birth, it is like the people of the present age. As for human moisture-birth, it refers to Māndhātṛ, Cāru, Upacāru, Kapotamālā, and the Āmrapālī maiden. The explanation says: Māndhātṛ here means 'Nourished by Me.' He was born from a blister on the crown of King Poṣadha's head, possessing an upright and handsome countenance. The king carried him into the palace, and all the women in the palace said, 'I can nourish him,' hence his name. In old translations, it was rendered 'Peak-born' (Ding-sheng); this is a translation of the meaning, yet not the correct designation. When this king grew up, he became a gold wheel-turning king. Cāru here means 'Thigh-born.' Upacāru means 'Lesser Thigh-born.' On each of King 'Nourished by Me's' thighs, a blister grew, and each blister produced a son; they were named after the place of birth, with 'lesser' serving as a distinction, and they also became wheel-turning kings. As for Kapotamālā: formerly there was a king named Śāntadatta; a blister arose under the king's armpit, and a girl was born named Kapotamālā. Because she flew out like a dove (kapota), and the king valued her like a garland (mālā), she was named accordingly. The Āmrapālī maiden was born from the moisture of a mango (āmra) tree and was named after the tree. Human apparitional birth occurs only at the beginning of an eon. The three types of birth for animals are commonly seen by people. Apparitionally born [animals] are such as nāgas, garuḍas, and so on. The explanation says: [garuḍa] is translated as 'Crest-wen'; it is also called suparṇa, which means 'Fine Wings,' formerly called the golden-winged bird.

8.43

"Hell-beings, the gods, and intermediate existences have only apparitional birth": all hell-beings, gods, and intermediate existences have only apparitional birth. The ghost destiny is open only to the two births of womb and apparitional. As for ghosts born of the womb, it is as when the mother of hungry ghosts said to Maudgalyāyana: "At night I give birth to five sons, and as they are born I eat them all myself; in the daytime I also give birth to five, and although I eat them completely, I am never sated" (The explanation says: This is intended to indicate that there is womb-birth). The treatise says: "Among all births, which birth is the most supreme? It should be said that the most supreme is solely apparitional birth. If so, for what reason does a bodhisattva in their final existence, possessing mastery over rebirth, undergo womb-birth? Because seeing that undergoing womb-birth has great benefits: namely, to guide the vast family and relatives of the Śākya clan, taking this connection as the cause to lead them to enter the true Dharma; also to lead other classes of beings to know that the bodhisattva comes from a lineage of wheel-turning kings, so that they generate a mind of respect and longing, and through this are able to abandon heterodoxy and take refuge in the true Dharma; furthermore, to cause those to be converted to generate a superior mindset: 'Since he is a human being and can accomplish such a great matter, we are also like this; why can we not, by generating right effort, devote ourselves to practicing the true Dharma?'; again, if it were not so, his clan and lineage would be difficult to know, and people might suspect him of being a magical illusion, a deva, or a ghost, just as a tīrthika treatise slanderously concocted: 'After the passage of a hundred eons, a great illusion will appear in the world.' Therefore, he undergoes womb-birth to put an end to all doubts and slanders. Other masters say: 'To leave behind the corporeal relics (dhātu), he undergoes womb-birth, so that immeasurable humans and various different classes of beings, once raising offerings, may be reborn in heaven a thousand times and realize liberation. If he underwent apparitional birth, because there would be no external seed, as soon as the body perished, there would be no remaining form left, just as when the light of a lamp is extinguished, nothing further is seen' (The above is the text of the treatise. In Sanskrit it is dhātu, translated here as 'element', the corporeal relics of the Buddha; it is also called śarīra, translated here as 'body', the Buddha's physical remains. The old term sheli was an error. The rest may be known accordingly)."

8.44

From this, the seventh section explains intermediate existence. Herein there are two parts: first, directly explaining intermediate existence; second, directly refuting the tīrthikas.

8.45

In explaining intermediate existence, it is subdivided into three sections: first, directly explaining intermediate existence; second, proving the existence of intermediate existence; third, distinguishing it according to various gates.

8.46

Now, first, regarding directly explaining intermediate existence, the treatise says: "Here, what dharma is called 'intermediate existence'? For what reason is intermediate existence not directly called 'birth'? (These are two questions.)" The verse says:

8.47

"Between the two existences of death and birth,
The five skandhas are called intermediate existence.
Because it has not arrived at the place it should arrive,
Intermediate existence is not 'birth'."

8.48

Explanation: The upper two lines answer the first question; the lower two lines answer the second question. "Between the two existences of death and birth, the five skandhas are called intermediate existence": that is, after death-existence and before birth-existence, the five skandhas arise in between the two existences; in order to reach the place of birth, this body arises, and between the two destinies it is called intermediate existence.

8.49

"Because it has not arrived at the place it should arrive, intermediate existence is not 'birth'": this answers the second question. Although intermediate existence has arisen, it is not called 'birth' because it has not yet reached that future place it should arrive; therefore, intermediate existence is not called 'birth'. The treatise says: "What is meant by the future place it should arrive? (This is the question.) It refers to when the projected vipāka is completely and distinctly realized; this is called the future place it should arrive. (This is the answer.)" The explanation says: Because intermediate existence is seen only by the divine eye, it is obscure, weak, and indistinct.

8.50

From this, the second section proves the existence of intermediate existence. According to the Mahāsāṃghikas, intermediate existence is not established. Thus the treatise says: "Other schools say that from death to birth, a spatial gap is permissible, and therefore there is no intermediate existence (this sets forth the tenet of the Mahāsāṃghika school). This should not be accepted (the author of the treatise rejects it entirely). Why is this? (The Mahāsāṃghika asks for the reason.) Because of reason and scripture (a summary answer). What are reason and scripture?" The verse says:

8.51

"As in the continuity of grain and the like,
Arising successively without a break in space;
Since an image is not established as real,
It is unequal [to the subject], hence not an analogy;
Two [forms] cannot coexist in one place,
Nor do two arise in succession.
Because it is spoken of as having gandharvas,
And because of the five and seven sūtras."

8.52

Explanation: The first six lines prove it through reason; the seventh and eighth lines prove it through scripture. The first two lines formulate an inference (anumāna) to refute the Mahāsāṃghikas. "As in the continuity of grain and the like": just as when grain and other seeds are planted in spring and harvested in autumn, there must be a continuity of sprouts and so forth in between. "Arising successively without a break in space": since the fruit from the grain seed is a continuity, it must arise successively moment by moment without a break in space. "Without a break" means there is no gap between the seed and fruit, with the sprout, stalk, and so forth in between. Just as in the continuity of grain and the like there is no spatial gap, the continuity of sentient beings should logically be the same. The death and birth of sentient beings are continuous dharmas; how could there be a gap such that one claims there is no intermediate existence? Here there is an inference: "like grain and the like" is the example (dṛṣṭānta); "without a break in space" is the property of the thesis (sādhya); "arising successively" is the reason (hetu). The formulation is: Death and birth are the subject (pakṣa); necessarily being without a spatial break is the property to be proved; the reason is: because of arising successively; the similar example (sādharmyadṛṣṭānta) is: just like seed and fruit. The seed and fruit arise successively, and seed and fruit are without a spatial break; death and birth arise successively, so death and birth are without a spatial break. "Since an image is not established as real, it is unequal, hence not an analogy": this refutes the defense of the Mahāsāṃghikas. The treatise says: "Do we not visually see that a phenomenon arises in succession, yet among them there is also a spatial gap? Just as, depending on a mirror or the like, an image appears from the original form. In this way, although there is a spatial gap between the death-existence and birth-existence of sentient beings, what prevents them from arising successively?" The explanation says: This is the defense of the Mahāsāṃghikas. They claim that with 'arising successively' as the reason, there is the fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika) in the reason. Are death-existence and birth-existence like a seed and fruit, necessarily without a break because of arising successively? Or are they like an original form and its image, which also have a break despite arising successively? They argue: The original form and image arise in succession, yet an image is accepted as having a break. Death and birth arise in succession, so death and birth also have a break. In order to refute this defense, this verse is stated. There are two lines of reasoning that refute it: first, the alleged real existence of the image is unestablished; second, the analogy of the image is not equal to the phenomenon. Due to these two lines of reasoning, it is not a valid analogy. Therefore the treatise says: "What is called an image is the arising of a distinct form; its real entity is logically unestablished. Even if it were established, it is not equal [to the subject], and thus cannot serve as an analogy. Two do not coexist in one place." This explains the line "Since an image is not established as real." The treatise has four points explaining "Two do not coexist in one place." The first says: In one place, the color of the mirror and the image are both seen before us; two forms cannot coexist in the same place, because they rely on different great elements (The explanation says: In the place of a single mirror, it is impossible for the image and the mirror's form to arise simultaneously as real entities; since the two arise together, the image is not real). The second says: Moreover, over narrow water, the forms and shapes of both banks appear simultaneously in the same place as two images; people dwelling on both banks clearly see each other, yet two forms have never been seen together in one place; one should not say that these two forms arise side by side (The explanation says: In the single place of the water, the images of both banks arise; since the two images arise together, one knows that the images are not real entities). The third says: Moreover, shadow and light have never existed in the same place; yet a mirror has been seen suspended within a shadow, and an image of light clearly appears on the mirror's surface; one should not say that these two arise together here (The explanation says: The obstruction of the arising of light is called shadow; therefore one knows that light should not exist in the place of a shadow. Since an image of light in the mirror is seen within a shadow, the image is not real). The fourth says: Alternatively, regarding 'two do not coexist in one place', the surface of the mirror and the image of the moon are spoken of as two, seen distinctly as near and far, like looking into well water. If they arose together, how could they be seen distinctly? Hence one knows that all images are logically non-existent (The explanation says: In the single place of a mirror, there are two images—of the face and of the moon; viewing the face-image it is near, while viewing the moon-image it is far. If the two images were real, how could near and far be viewed distinctly in a single place?). Furthermore, the treatise says: "However, through the power of the combination of various causes and conditions, they are seen like this; because the distinct functions of the nature of dharmas are inconceivable (The explanation says: 'caused to be seen like this' means that through the power of the mirror, the original form, etc., one sees back one's original face; in reality there is no image)."

First 52 of 57 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論頌疏論本 — Classical Chinese