中觀論疏 4.29

4.29

上已觀六情，今復觀五陰者，以受悟不同，宜歷明觀行也。二者諸方等經明陰入界空，今欲釋經，歷諸空義故，上明界入空，今次觀五陰。問：經何故說陰入界空耶？答：《大集經》諸魔子令舍利弗舞。身子答云：「汝當舞，我當歌。」歌曰：「我今不求陰界入，無量世來虛妄故。若有貪求如是法，是人終不得解脫。」魔子聞之發菩提心。故知見陰界入不得解脫，知本性空便得道也。又如《大品》明菩薩習應波若，命初即云習色空受想行識空，是名與波若相應。佛在世利根直聞色空便能得道，今為鈍者廣解釋之，令與波若相應，是故觀於五陰。問：大小乘經論皆前明五陰、次十二入、後十八界。上〈六情品〉具破界入，偈云「此眼等六情行色等六塵」則是十二入義；後偈云「識等四法無」即明無六識，即是破十八界。今何故先破界入、後觀五陰？答〈因緣〉、〈去來〉釋八不始末，即辨一切法空。外人不受一切法空，故引佛說十二入攝一切法證一切法是有，故前破十二入及十八界。界入既竟，始得觀五陰空耳。二者鉤鎖接次相生者，〈因緣品〉明一切法無生，外人舉現事去來證有萬法。既破無所見去來，次舉能見之眼來救，是故次破六情之用。破用既竟，復引五陰法體證有於用，故今破陰體也。陰入開合者，依毘曇，十二入中十種色入，并法入中少分無作色以為色陰，意入即識陰，法入除無為，取想受為二陰，餘即行陰也。陰與界開合者，十八界中十色界及法界少分無作色為色陰，七心界為識陰，法界中除無為，取想受二數以為二陰，餘為行陰。界入開合者，五根五塵及法入二門相似，唯異開意入為七心界耳。問：何故偏取想受二數為二陰？答：略有二義。一者想能生見、受能生愛。二者想修無色、受修初禪。有此強力，故偏取也。《成實》明十四種色為色陰，五根、五塵及以四大。毘曇以四大是實法，故屬觸塵。《成實》觸是實法、四大是假，故離之也。曇摩多羅部但明十種色，無有無作，俱異數論。次大乘有三釋：一云佛果有色，故涅槃云「捨無常色獲得常色」。二云佛果無色，而經云有者，此是妙有炳然，故云色耳。三釋云從七地已還此即有色，八地以上無復有色亦無四心。故《地經》云「爾時過意界住在智業中」也。通稱陰者，謂陰蓋為義，有此五陰蓋於眾生不得解脫，如雀在瓶物覆其口故云陰。又云陰者，陰殺也。其義主殺，以此五法能害慧命，是故經中喻旃陀羅。羅什後翻名為五眾，以此五法共聚成人，目之為眾。又此五法各有眾多，如色陰有無量色，餘四亦爾，故名眾也。問：云何觀五陰耶？答：眾生已受五陰身，常為所害。如《涅槃》云「觀察五陰如五旃陀羅，乃至過旃陀羅。」而內道外道、小乘大乘更封執五陰，種種異說，或言前後或言一時、或言佛果有色或云無色，故內外大小互興諍論，各執己法為是、他說為非。如此之人不能除旃陀羅，而於五陰復生諸見，即旃陀羅上更起旃陀羅。論主今觀五陰畢竟不可得，既無五陰亦無不五、亦五不五、非五不五。如《大品》云「行亦不受，不行亦不受，行不行亦不受，非行非不行亦不受，乃至不受亦不受，是名菩薩無受三昧，不與聲聞辟支佛共。」問：五句不受，何所歸耶？答：若能如此悟者，歸於本鄉。是故經云「本際為鄉，絕句為里。」而眾生任運受此陰身已失本鄉，今大小學人於五陰法復起諍論，是為失內更復失矣，故去城踰遠、岐路逾多。又若能知五陰空，即是捨旃陀羅，又是捨無常色獲得常色，受想行識亦復如是。問：云何得爾？答：以了悟色陰生滅不可得即無常色不生，生滅色既不生即無生滅色便現。故《大品》云「諸法若生，波若即不生；波若生故，諸法即不生。」問：若觀五陰畢竟空者，佛經何故分別五陰？答：佛分別五者，欲因分別令知五陰是空。而封教之徒不領陰空、但存分別，故失佛意。又有所分別障慧眼，障慧眼故不能如實分別。若息分別即除分別障，故正觀眼開得實智慧，既得實智即得權智，能無分別中善巧分別，雖復分別未曾分別。故寶積歎云：「能善分別諸法相，於第一義而不動。」問：毘曇亦知五陰無常苦空無我。五陰從因生故無常；五陰為四相刀切之，違其住性故苦；以無常切之不得自在，故無我；無我故空。空與無我異者，無離陰我故云空；無即陰我，故為無我。與大乘觀行有何異耶？答：毘曇觀察五陰，但得人空、未得法空，故五旃陀羅都未滅也。大乘不但知五內無我，亦知無有五陰，故始離於五也。問：《成實論》云「知五陰所成，假名人空。」復明五陰實法亦空。與大乘何異？答：三藏多明人空、少明法空，大乘多明法空、少明人空。所以然者，小乘尚知人空，何況大乘，是以大乘多明法空，是故為異。以三藏經多明人空、少明法空，毘曇、成實俱學三藏，有得人空、有得法空。又小乘雖明二空，未得五陰本來寂滅。如《法華》云「諸法從本來，常自寂滅性，佛子行道已，來世得作佛。」以未得本來寂滅、故未到本鄉。是以二乘猶在門外、故猶受變易生死。又二乘雖知五陰空、不知五陰即在佛性。《涅槃經》云「眾生佛性住五陰中」。問：若五陰中別有佛性，與外道陰內有我何異？答：了其五陰本來寂滅名為佛性，不別有佛性住在陰身。

Having already contemplated the six sense faculties above, why contemplate the five aggregates now? Because people differ in their capacity to understand, it is proper to go through the objects of contemplative practice sequentially. Second, the various Vaipulya sūtras explain that the aggregates, sense fields, and realms are empty. Wishing now to explain the sūtras, through examining various meanings of emptiness, having previously explained the emptiness of realms and sense fields, we now next contemplate the five aggregates. Question: Why do the sūtras state that the aggregates, sense fields, and realms are empty? Answer: In the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra*, the sons of Māra told Śāriputra to dance. Śāriputra replied, "You shall dance, and I shall sing." His song said: "I do not now seek the aggregates, realms, or sense fields, because through measureless kalpas they have been false and vain. If anyone covets and seeks such dharmas, that person will never attain liberation." The sons of Māra heard this and gave rise to the bodhicitta. Therefore we know that viewing the aggregates, realms, and sense fields brings no liberation; knowing their original intrinsic nature to be empty, one then attains the Way. Furthermore, as the *Larger Sūtra* explains that the bodhisattva who trains in accordance with prajñā, at the very beginning of the chapter, it states that training in the emptiness of form, sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness—this is termed corresponding with prajñā. When the Buddha was in the world, those of sharp faculties could attain the Way directly upon hearing that form is empty; now, for those of dull faculties, this is explained broadly so that they may correspond with prajñā; therefore we contemplate the five aggregates. Question: Both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras and treatises explain first the five aggregates, next the twelve sense fields, and lastly the eighteen realms. The "Chapter on the Six Faculties" above comprehensively refuted the realms and sense fields—the verse stating "These six faculties such as the eye engage six objects such as form" expresses the sense of the twelve sense fields; the later verse stating "Four dharmas such as consciousness do not exist" explains that the six consciousnesses do not exist, which is refuting the eighteen realms. Why does it now first refute the sense fields and realms and only later contemplate the five aggregates? Answer: The chapters "Causes and Conditions" and "Going and Coming" explain the beginning and end of the eight negations, which is to say, they discern the emptiness of all dharmas. Non-Buddhists do not accept the emptiness of all dharmas, and therefore cite the Buddha's teaching that the twelve sense fields encompass all dharmas to prove that all dharmas exist; hence we first refuted the twelve sense fields and eighteen realms. The realms and sense fields having been completed, we only then contemplate the emptiness of the five aggregates. Second, as for the interlocking causal progression: the "Chapter on Causes and Conditions" explained that all dharmas are unproduced; the opponent brought forth the present phenomena of going and coming to prove that all dharmas exist. Having already refuted what is seen—going and coming—they next brought forth the seer, the eye, to rescue their position; therefore we next refuted the function of the six sense faculties. The function having been refuted, they further cite the entity of the five aggregates to prove that function exists; therefore we now refute the entity of the aggregates. As for the expansion and contraction of aggregates and sense fields: according to the Abhidharma, among the twelve sense fields, the ten material sense fields, together with a small portion of unmanifest form within the dharma-sense field, constitute the form aggregate. The mind sense field is the consciousness aggregate. The dharma-sense field, excluding the unconditioned, takes perception and sensation as two aggregates, and the remainder is the formations aggregate. As for the expansion and contraction of the aggregates and the realms: among the eighteen realms, the ten material realms and a small portion of unmanifest form within the dharma realm constitute the form aggregate; the seven mind realms constitute the consciousness aggregate; within the dharma realm, excluding the unconditioned, taking the two mental factors of perception and sensation constitutes two aggregates, and the remainder is the formations aggregate. As for the expansion and contraction of realms and sense fields: the five faculties, five objects, and dharma-sense field are similar between the two systems, differing only in expanding the mind sense field into the seven mind realms. Question: Why are only the two mental factors of perception and sensation specifically singled out as two aggregates? Answer: Briefly, there are two reasons: First, perception can produce views, and sensation can produce craving. Second, perception cultivates the formless realms, and sensation cultivates the first dhyāna. Because they have such strong force, they are singled out. The *Tattvasiddhi* explains fourteen kinds of form as the form aggregate: the five faculties, the five objects, and the four great elements. The Abhidharma considers the four great elements to be real dharmas and thus subsumes them under tangible objects. In the *Tattvasiddhi*, tangible objects are real dharmas, and the four great elements are provisional, so they are separated. The Dharmottarīya school explains only ten kinds of form and has no unmanifest form; both differ from the Sarvāstivāda. Next, in the Mahāyāna there are three explanations: The first says that the Buddha-stage has form; therefore the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states, "relinquishing impermanent form, one attains permanent form." The second says that the Buddha-stage is without form, and that when sūtras speak of its existence, this refers to wondrous existence shining clearly, and is thus called form. The third explanation says that from the seventh bhūmi down there is form; from the eighth bhūmi up there is no longer form, nor are there the four mental aggregates. Therefore the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra* states, "At that time one transcends the mind realm and abides in wisdom-karma." The general term *yīn* (aggregate) has the meaning of "concealing cover" (ācchādana); these five aggregates cover sentient beings so that they cannot attain liberation, like a sparrow inside a pot whose mouth is covered by an object; hence they are called *yīn*. Furthermore, it is said that *yīn* means "destructive concealment"; its meaning is predominantly destructive, because these five dharmas can harm the life of wisdom; therefore in the sūtras they are compared to caṇḍālas. Kumārajīva later translated them as the five *zhòng* (heaps / skandhas), because these five dharmas gather together to form a person, which is designated as a heap. Moreover, each of these five dharmas has many instances: for example, the form aggregate has measureless forms, and so too for the other four; therefore they are called heaps. Question: How should one contemplate the five aggregates? Answer: Sentient beings have already received this body of the five aggregates and are constantly harmed by them. As the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states, "Contemplate the five aggregates as five caṇḍālas, and even worse than caṇḍālas." Yet non-Buddhists and Buddhists, Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, cling stubbornly to the five aggregates with all kinds of differing views, either saying they are sequential or simultaneous, or saying that the Buddha-stage has form or has no form; thus Buddhists and non-Buddhists, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, mutually raise disputes, each clinging to their own doctrine as correct and others' doctrines as wrong. Such people cannot eliminate the caṇḍālas, but on top of the five aggregates they further give rise to views, which is raising caṇḍālas upon caṇḍālas. The treatise master now contemplates the five aggregates as ultimately ungraspable; since there are no five aggregates, neither is there non-five, nor both five and non-five, nor neither five nor non-five. As the *Larger Sūtra* states: "Activity is not accepted, inactivity is not accepted, both activity and inactivity are not accepted, neither activity nor inactivity is not accepted, up to even non-acceptance is not accepted: this is called the bodhisattva's samādhi of non-acceptance, which is not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." Question: If these five clauses are not accepted, where does one return? Answer: If one can awaken in this way, one returns to the original homeland. Therefore the sūtra states, "The original limit is the homeland, and the cessation of propositions is the village." Yet sentient beings, naturally taking on this body of aggregates, have already lost their original homeland; now practitioners of the Great and Small Vehicles further raise disputes over the dharmas of the five aggregates, which is to lose the inner and then lose even more; therefore they go ever further from the city, and the branch roads become ever more numerous. Furthermore, if one can know the five aggregates to be empty, that is abandoning the caṇḍālas, and it is also relinquishing impermanent form and attaining permanent form; and the same applies to sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness. Question: How can that be? Answer: By understanding that the arising and cessation of the form aggregate are ungraspable, impermanent form does not arise; since form with arising and cessation does not arise, form without arising and cessation appears. Therefore the *Larger Sūtra* states, "If dharmas arise, prajñā does not arise; because prajñā arises, dharmas do not arise." Question: If one contemplates the five aggregates as ultimately empty, why do the Buddha's sūtras differentiate the five aggregates? Answer: The Buddha's differentiation of the five was intended to lead people, through differentiation, to know that the five aggregates are empty. But those who cling to the teaching do not grasp that the aggregates are empty and only preserve the differentiations; thus they lose the Buddha's intention. Moreover, having differentiations obstructs the wisdom eye; because the wisdom eye is obstructed, one cannot differentiate in accordance with reality. If one ceases differentiation, the obstacle of differentiation is eliminated; therefore the eye of correct contemplation opens and one attains real wisdom; having attained real wisdom, one then attains expedient wisdom, capable of skillful differentiation within non-differentiation; though differentiating, one has never differentiated. Therefore the *Ratnakūṭa* praises: "Skillfully differentiating the characteristics of all dharmas, / Yet unmoved with respect to the ultimate truth." Question: The Abhidharma also knows that the five aggregates are impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self. The five aggregates arise from causes, hence they are impermanent; the five aggregates are severed by the knife of the four characteristics, contradicting their abiding nature, hence they are suffering; being severed by impermanence, they do not possess autonomy, hence they are non-self; because they are non-self, they are empty. As for the difference between empty and non-self: there is no self apart from the aggregates, hence "empty"; there is no self identical with the aggregates, hence "non-self". What difference is there between this and Mahāyāna contemplative practice? Answer: When the Abhidharma contemplates the five aggregates, it attains only the emptiness of persons and has not attained the emptiness of dharmas; therefore the five caṇḍālas are not yet eliminated at all. The Mahāyāna not only knows that there is no self within the five, but also knows that the five aggregates do not exist; thus it only then departs from the five. Question: The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says, "Knowing what is constituted by the five aggregates is the emptiness of the provisionally named person," and it further explains that the real dharmas of the five aggregates are also empty. How does this differ from the Mahāyāna? Answer: The Tripiṭaka mostly explains the emptiness of persons and rarely explains the emptiness of dharmas; the Mahāyāna mostly explains the emptiness of dharmas and rarely explains the emptiness of persons. Why is this? The Small Vehicle already knows the emptiness of persons, how much more so the Great Vehicle! Therefore the Mahāyāna mostly explains the emptiness of dharmas; hence the difference. Because the Tripiṭaka sūtras mostly explain the emptiness of persons and rarely explain the emptiness of dharmas, the Abhidharma and *Tattvasiddhi* both study the Tripiṭaka, and one attains the emptiness of persons while the other attains the emptiness of dharmas. Furthermore, although the Small Vehicle explains both emptinesses, it has not attained the original quiescence of the five aggregates. As the *Lotus Sūtra* states, "All dharmas from the very beginning / Are constantly and naturally of the nature of quiescence; / Having practiced the path, the Buddha's disciples / Will become buddhas in a future life." Because they have not attained original quiescence, they have not reached their original homeland. Therefore the two vehicles are still outside the gate, and consequently still undergo the transmigration of inconceivable transformation. Furthermore, although the two vehicles know that the five aggregates are empty, they do not know that the five aggregates are themselves within the Buddha-nature. The *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states, "The Buddha-nature of sentient beings abides within the five aggregates." Question: If there is a distinct Buddha-nature within the five aggregates, how does this differ from non-Buddhists asserting a self inside the aggregates? Answer: Comprehending that the five aggregates are originally quiescent is called the Buddha-nature; there is no separate Buddha-nature abiding inside the body of the aggregates.