中觀論疏 4.29

4.29

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.