瑜伽論記 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

The nine stages explaining the cognitive object are divided into three: the first two stages are the essential nature of the object, because all have consciousness as their nature; the next three stages are the characteristics of the object, because coarse and fine differ; the final four stages are the states of the cognitive realm, according to whether they are with or without absorption, or with or without mind. The two [stages] of essential nature are ordered according to easy-to-know and difficult-to-know; the three [stages] of characteristics form three sets of three grades according to coarse and fine, determining their order; among the four [stages] of states, based on absorption and distraction, existence and nonexistence, the first two are ordered by superior and inferior, and the latter two by manifest and hidden. It is because the four stages below explain states that the text comes next.

4.4

Therein, the first stage is named samāhita, which is translated here as 'equipoise' (dengyin); the old translation was samādhi (sanmati), which is erroneous and abbreviated.

4.5

Master Ji explains: this has seven names:

4.6

First is samāhita. The Commentary explains: it refers to the stage of superior concentration free from sinking and agitation, which is able to induce equanimity, or induces equanimity, or is induced by equanimity; therefore it is named the stage of equipoise.

4.7

Later in this fascicle it says: 'It is not one-pointedness of mind in the desire realm, because this concentration and so forth are induced by lack of regret, joy, and bliss.' Thus equipoise is explained by three meanings: first, equally able to induce; second, inducing equanimity; third, induced by the expedient of equanimity; both the inducer and the induced are equal.

4.8

Second is samādhi, translated here as 'concentration' (dengchi); the old translation was sanmei, which is erroneous.

4.9

Third is samāpatti, translated here as 'meditative attainment' (dengzhi); the old translation was sanmabadi, which is erroneous.

4.10

Fourth is dhyāna, translated here as 'meditation' (jinglü); the old translation chan was not correct in meaning, or it was called chiana, which is erroneous.

4.11

Fifth is cittaikāgratā, translated here as 'one-pointedness of mind' (xinyijingxing); citta means 'mind,' eka means 'one,' āgra means 'point/object,' and tā means '-ness'; the old translation 'one mind' was abbreviated.

4.12

Sixth is śamatha, translated here as 'calm abiding' (zhi).

4.13

Seventh is 'pleasant abiding in the present life' (dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra).

4.14

In Fascicle Sixty-Three, concentration, one-pointedness of mind, calm abiding, and the meaning of abiding are explained. Among these names, regarding the stage of equipoise, there are three explanations: the true meaning extends to both states with-mind and mindless, referring exclusively to all merits within the state of absorption; because the three meanings of equipoise apply to it in principle, all distracted states are not this stage. The name samādhi designates the mental factor of concentration among the object-determining factors, and universally subsumes all states with-mind. One-pointedness of mind extends to both absorption and distracted states, as distinguished in the four permutations in the Commentary.

4.15

However, various sūtras and treatises, in terms of preeminence, only speak of emptiness, wishlessness, and so forth as samādhi. Samāpatti generally designates the essential nature of all concentrations in all states of absorption, whether with-mind or mindless.

4.16

In various sūtras and treatises, in terms of uniqueness, only concentrations associated with the five directly visible and so forth are named meditative attainments. Dhyāna extends to states with-mind and mindless, with taints and taintless, defiled and undefiled, and relies upon the four grounds of the form realm, not other realms.

4.17

However, the sūtras and treatises, speaking in terms of excellence, mostly designate the mind-endowed, purified virtues of the form stage as dhyāna. One-pointedness of mind is in its essence samādhi (equipoise), because it applies to both defiled and pure, and because one-pointedness of mind is used to explain samādhi. Śamatha belongs only to the states with mind and not to mindlessness, only to pure states and not to impure, and only to states of concentration and not to distracted mind. Abiding in bliss in the present life belongs only to the fundamental states of the four dhyānas and not to their access stages, and it is a pure and taintless mind, not distracted and not formless. Therefore, samāhita (equipoise) inclusively gathers all virtues belonging to the concentrated state, whether with mind or mindless; because it is universally broad and pervasive, it is exclusively established as the name of the stage. Master Jing says: 'Samāhita, also formerly called sanmei (samādhi), is a mistaken transliteration.' Tai says: 'Samādhi, also formerly called sanmabati (samāpatti), is a mistaken transliteration.' The statements of these two masters are contradictory. I now maintain that sanmei is indeed samādhi, which should follow Master Ji's explanation. The reason this is known is that the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* mentions 'the samādhi of the five noble knowledges', and fascicle twelve of this treatise mentions 'the five noble knowledges, samādhi'. Master Wonhyo of Silla says: 'Samādhi and sanmei differ in both name and meaning. The reason this is known is that, as the third fascicle of the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra* explains the concentrations of the ten stages, the concentrations of the first three stages are called sanmati, while the concentrations of the subsequent seven stages are called sanmei. If they were one and the same name with a correct versus corrupted translation, why would a single master translating a sūtra designate them sometimes as sanmei and sometimes as sanmati? Therefore, we know they are different.'

4.18

I now maintain that this is not so. That sūtra's 'sanmati' is precisely what is now termed samāhita, translated here as 'equipoise' (dengyin); what it calls 'sanmei' was formerly translated as 'correct reception' (zhenggshou), which is what is now termed samādhi, translated as 'equipoise' (dengchi). Because their two meanings differ, the respective terms in the successive stages obliquely complement and illuminate each other. I only fear that Master Wonhyo did not distinguish the two characters di and ti, and thus raised this objection erroneously. Furthermore, upon checking the newly translated ten-fascicle *Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra*, the concentrations of the ten stages are all termed samādhi; this is merely a difference in the translators' understanding of the phonetic sounds.

4.19

Within this stage, it first summarizes the preceding and introduces the subsequent, and then opens out mutually to explain [the topics].

4.20

Herein, first it sets forth the list of five divisions; second, it explains them according to the divisions. The former also has two parts: first, a verse lists the five divisions; next, the prose correlates with the text of the verse; at the very end, the miscellaneous points are subsumed.

4.21

Fifth, the essential doctrines of the sūtras. In the essential doctrines, it explains the sūtras on the characteristics of various phenomena such as the eight liberations listed below; the miscellaneous points also explain various scattered and miscellaneous meanings in the sūtras. Because both explain sūtras, they together constitute a single division.

4.22

In the division on establishment, it explains only dhyāna, and does not explain liberation, samādhi, or samāpatti, because these three are only explained below in the essential doctrines.

4.23

In the explanation according to the divisions, there are four parts: 1. general presentation; 2. establishment; 3. mental application and cognitive object; 4. explanation of the sūtras. Because the third and fourth are clarified together, there are four [sections].

4.24

Having generally presented it, there are two parts: first, presenting the four divisions; subsequently, explaining each separately.

4.25

The names of the four dhyānas are explained as in the record of the fifth fascicle above; their omission, establishment, increase, and decrease are as in [fascicle] sixty-three. Within samādhi there are eleven divisions; it does not explain the eleventh because it is easy.

4.26

Furthermore, it is only explained in the Śrāvakabhūmi. The four cultivations of concentration are: 1. to attain abiding in bliss in the present life; 2. to attain knowledge and vision; 3. to attain discriminative wisdom; 4. to attain the exhaustion of taints.

4.27

The five noble knowledges are: knowledge of self-nature, knowledge of the person (pudgala), knowledge of purification, knowledge of the fruit, and knowledge of the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration.

4.28

The noble five factors are: abiding in bliss in the present life constitutes four, and thorough observation of the phenomena of dependent origination together with severing the bondages of other phenomena constitutes the fifth.

4.29

Regarding 'having causes and having equipment' of the noble and correct: right view, right thought, [right] speech, [right] action, and [right] livelihood—these five are called 'having causes'; right view, right effort, and right mindfulness—these three are called 'having equipment'. This is because these seven factors serve as causes for noble right samādhi.

4.30

In samāpatti there are six divisions. The eight bases of mastery and the ten totalities are explained by means of [their] causes; since liberations have already been briefly explained, they are not explained again. In the Viniścaya and elsewhere, the four formless [attainments] are explained as not different from the liberations, hence they are also not explained here.

4.31

Within the establishment, first is the general, and then the specific.

4.32

'Induced by non-regret, joy, and ease due to this concentration, etc.': this means that due to keeping the precepts, the mind has no regret; because there is no regret, there is joy; because there is joy, there is ease; because there is ease, one attains concentration. Therefore, this equipoise does not belong to the desire realm, nor is it that within the desire realm there is an utter absence of precise and correct observation of phenomena.

4.33

Within the specific, there are four parts: 1. establishing the joy and ease born of separation; 2. establishing the hindrances; 3. establishing the factors; 4. establishing the names of concentration.

4.34

Within the first, there are three parts: first, citing the sūtra to present [it]; next, explaining each separately; finally, under 'the World-Honoured One, regarding taintless means...', it resolves the difficulty concerning the sequence of samādhi and liberation. The joy and so forth induced by desire demonstrate what is to be separated from, because the unconditioned [state] of āśrayaparavṛtti that is realized is called 'separation'.

4.35

'Furthermore, the five phenomena being cultivated to completion' indicates the phenomena produced through āśrayaparavṛtti. Gladness and joy both have joyful feeling as their intrinsic nature: that induced by non-regret and that which is truly deep rejoicing are established as two distinct kinds. Ease and bliss both have pleasant feeling as their intrinsic nature: the smoothness induced by separation from coarse heaviness and the two kinds of pleasant fruit induced by smoothness are established as two distinct kinds. Fascicle five above states: 'the joy and ease born of separation; however, these two feelings are both pleasant, and since both are mind-born, they are collectively termed joy.' Therefore, this only speaks of the joy born of separation; otherwise, the various texts would conflict with one another.

4.36

In that which is induced by desire, equanimity is not mentioned because the equanimity induced by desire is neither delighted in nor disgusted by desire, and hence is not what is to be severed, whereas the equanimity induced by the unwholesome, because it is of an unwholesome nature, is precisely what is to be severed; thus their treatments are not the same.

4.37

Question: Killing living beings necessarily requires the culmination of the path of action of hatred and is conjoined with hatred; hatred is of a distressing nature—how can it be conjoined with joy?

4.38

The explanation says: Below, the Viniścaya states that hatred is conjoined with joy, so there is no contradiction.

4.39

'Gladness: namely, one whose practice has been pure from the beginning contemplates the pure practices cultivated on the stage of equipment...': the intention here is to say that only in the stage of the path of preparation does one cultivate equipoise; hence, abiding in the equipment, one cultivates pure practices and purity of keeping precepts, giving rise to non-regret and so forth. At the time of cultivating concentration, the prior, distant means necessarily requires purity of precepts first, which is called the stage of equipment; it is not that one must enter the stage [of seeing] before cultivating equipoise.

4.40

In resolving the difficulty concerning sequence, there are three differing sūtras: 1. first speaking of samādhi, and afterwards speaking of liberation; 2. previously speaking of liberation, and afterwards of samādhi; 3. speaking of the two as simultaneous. That which was cited above on separating from the five evil phenomena—first speaking of liberation and the cultivation of the five phenomena, and afterwards speaking of samādhi—corresponds to the second sūtra. Since these are in conflict, it is now explained.

4.41

Here, the fundamental concentration is called samādhi, and the severing and subduing of afflictions is called liberation. Because in the taintless state one mostly severs afflictions based on the fundamental stage, it first speaks of samādhi and afterwards of liberation; it is not that one does not rely on the access stage to first sever afflictions and afterwards attain the fundamental. In the tainted state, one mostly relies on the access stage, first subduing afflictions by means of the six mental applications and entering the fundamental stage through the seventh mental application of the culmination of preparation; hence there is also the seventh mental application in the access stage serving as the path of liberation, after which one only then attains the fundamental. Therefore, it is said here that only when afflictions are severed by realizing the fruit of the mental application of the culmination of preparation does one attain the fundamental samādhi; otherwise, it would contradict what the *Abhidharma* and other texts say, that the seventh mental application is in the fundamental stage. In the simultaneous clause, both the mental application and the concentration are taintless. That which is simultaneous with liberation severs the seeds of affliction: that is, when the mental application of the culmination of preparation in the threshold concentration induces the fruit mental application to enter the fundamental concentration, it is termed 'within samādhi'; simultaneous with this concentration is the path of liberation realizing unconditioned liberation, and therefore it is said that samādhi is simultaneous with liberation, not that the concentration simultaneous with the mental application of the culmination of preparation is called samādhi. Regarding 'and in other samādhis of the uninterrupted path, etc.': this refers to the previous preliminary means in the threshold stage giving rise to the taintless uninterrupted path based on the fundamental stage. Within the samādhi conjoined with the path of liberation induced by these two, this [concentration] that can sever afflictions is called 'simultaneous with liberation'; it does not mean that the previous two tainted mental applications that can subdue afflictions are called the 'other uninterrupted path'. These are not simultaneous with samādhi, nor does the path of liberation induced by them enter the fundamental. Why are both tainted and taintless called 'means' (prayogika)? Not having attained the fulfillment of the fruit of the non-learner is called 'means'. Because severing afflictions is explained as liberation, it speaks of the initial 'joy born of separation'; the remaining 'born of concentration' and so forth can be understood by analogy. Alternatively, this simultaneous clause means that the uninterrupted path in the threshold stage is called samādhi; because this can liberate from hindrances, it is called liberation. Because their entities differ from the preceding samādhi and liberation, they are considered a simultaneous clause, as their references are distinct.

4.42

Second, in establishing the hindrances, there are two parts: first, clarifying the characteristics of the hindrances; second, clarifying food and non-food.

4.43

The characteristics of the hindrances are two: first, presenting the list; afterwards, explaining each separately.

4.44

In the hindrance of lethargy and sleepiness, first it explains their characteristics separately, and afterwards explains the reason they are combined into a single hindrance. Not guarding the sense faculties and so forth is as explained in the Śrāvakabhūmi; the mind being extremely dim and withdrawn is as explained in the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra*. In explaining the combination into a hindrance, it is explained by two alternative arguments.

4.45

In the hindrance of restlessness and regret, first it lists and explains the two characteristics, and afterwards explains the reason they are combined into a single hindrance. In the reason, there are two alternative arguments: first, it explains that because both cognize relatives and other such domains in the same way, they are combined into a single hindrance; second, it explains that because their modes of activity are similar, they are combined into a single hindrance.

4.46

In the earlier separate explanation of the characteristics of regret, there are three times: first, what is in secular life; next, 'for what reason did I go forth when young and small, etc.', which is at the initial time of going forth; finally, 'or due to recollecting what was previously experienced, etc.', which is the time after going forth.

4.47

The text explaining the similarity of modes of activity also has three parts: first, 'furthermore, regarding matters that should be done or should not be done, down to doing what should not be done and failing to do what should be done', which explains the regret of the first two times, since failing to do what should be done and doing what should not be done both apply to secular life and initial going forth; next, excepting the regret born of earlier remorse, the distinction of regret born subsequently.

4.48

Second, explaining the regret arisen at the time after going forth previously mentioned: 'excepting the regret born of earlier remorse, etc.'—'excepting' refers to the regret arisen in secular life; 'this entanglement of regret being not yet abandoned' refers to the regret arisen at the initial time of going forth being not yet abandoned; 'subsequently again giving rise to the regret of sorrow and longing' is because it is produced from recollecting past laughter, jesting, and such matters; this is another distinction of regret after having gone forth.

4.49

The above two kinds subsume all regret in the preceding three times. Regret in secular life can arise in its appropriate domain, and its object can be the same as restlessness. The mode of activity of regret initially arisen upon going forth arises where it should not, which is called 'inappropriate regret'. Therefore, the concluding text of the third [fascicle] of the treatise says: 'Inappropriate regret produced immediately before, and regret arisen at the time after going forth, although their domains are not equal to restlessness, yet their characteristics are similar; it is not only due to sharing the same object that regret, sorrow, and longing are combined with restlessness.' After going forth, their two objects are different, but because remorse is also sorrow and longing, they are combined to establish the hindrance; it is not that the entity of restlessness does not pervade defiled minds, but since its mode of activity is heightened and it does not exist at this time, it is said that their domains are not equal, which does not contradict the principles of consciousness-only.

4.50

In doubt: regarding the teacher refers to the two jewels of the Buddha and the Saṅgha; regarding the Dharma refers to the principle; regarding training refers to practice; regarding instruction refers to teaching; regarding realization refers to the fruit. That is, the four Dharma jewels of teaching, principle, practice, and fruit.

4.51

Because one harbors doubt regarding the Three Jewels, one is unable to enter the vigorous path of means and the truth of cessation, which is right severance and tranquility. Alternatively, means refers to the path of preparation, right severance refers to the truth of the path, and tranquility refers to the truth of cessation.

4.52

Below, it clarifies food and non-food: 'food' means nourishing and increasing the conditions that produce the hindrances; 'non-food' means the phenomena that extinguish and sever the hindrances. In 'if one is able to stay far away from a defiled mind regarding this, etc.', it only brings up the reason for the pure and subtle sign.

4.53

Regarding the nine grounds of annoyance, as explained in fascicle fifty-five: regarding 'the illumination of Dharma: that is to say, as someone, in accordance with what they have received, considered, or contacted...', these correspond respectively to the wisdoms arisen from hearing, contemplation, and cultivation; examining phenomena applies throughout these three wisdoms. Furthermore, regarding 'directly witnessing and examining, which is able to counteract the darkness of gloom and sleepiness', 'directly witnessing' refers to the wisdom of cultivating the Dharma; that is, touching and uniting with wisdom in meditative absorption is termed 'directly witnessing'. Due to the illumination of Dharma, the wisdoms of hearing and contemplation eliminate ignorance and doubt, and at the stage of the wisdom of cultivation, one is able to eliminate gloom and sleepiness. Because it can illuminate the nature of phenomena, it is called 'the illumination of Dharma' and is considered non-nutriment.

4.54

Regarding laughing: 'that is, like someone who, whether because of an open exposition, or because of a synthesized exposition...', speaking explicitly is called 'an open exposition', while speaking covertly through parables and synthesizing them to make someone understand is called 'a synthesized exposition'. Opening the mouth to laugh is called 'showing the teeth', and making a sound in the throat is called 'chortling'.

4.55

Regarding the nine states of mind, as explained in the thirtieth fascicle on the Śrāvakabhūmi, the tenth fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya], and elsewhere: regarding 'the conditionally arisen with conditions', 'conditionally arisen' refers to the result phenomena, and 'conditions' refers to the causal phenomena.

4.56

In the third section, the establishment of the factors [of dhyāna], there are two parts: first, establishing their number according to the stages, and second, explaining their inclusion and exclusion.

4.57

First, explaining the names: 'factors' means branches, as in the factors of awakening and the path. The Sarvāstivādins say: absorption is dhyāna and also a factor of dhyāna; the remaining are factors of dhyāna but not dhyāna. The true meaning is like the four divisions of an army, because each serves as an antidote: equanimity, mindfulness, and alertness, based on the stage of absorption, are equally able to remove hindrances and are thus called 'inner tranquility' because they purify all hindrances; the remaining names can be understood accordingly. Discerning their essence, there are seven. Because of the pleasant feeling in the first and second dhyānas, the essence of inner tranquility is not faith. The Tripiṭaka Master says: except for the unperturbed absorption, factors are established in the other two absorptions. In the pure absorption with defilements, investigation and reflection are accompanied by the wisdom of cultivation; whenever cultivating any virtue, one possesses investigation and reflection in the preliminary expedient means, but upon reaching the root [absorption], there is no investigation or reflection. In the eightfold noble path with defilements, the essence of investigation is established as right thought. In the taintless eightfold noble path, if accompanied by the subsequently attained wisdom, right thought is established within the mental factors of investigation and reflection because it produces speech. In the non-conceptual wisdom, the simultaneous eightfold path is spoken of as two based on one essence of wisdom: because it is free from wrong view, it is called right view; because it is free from wrong thought, it is called right thought. Because the directly witnessed wisdom is not the cause of speech, right thought is not established based on that essence of investigation. Since the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says, 'Why do pure, conscious persons...', we know that when the subsequently attained wisdom produces speech, it is conjoined with investigation. Joy and pleasure are spoken of in two aspects from a single essence: where it causes the mind of mental consciousness to be delighted and comfortable, it is called joy; where it causes the ālaya and physical body to be comfortable and delighted, it is called pleasure. This follows the text of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya]. If one follows the Yogācāra[bhūmi], it states: causing the supporting ālaya to be delighted is called pleasure. Although it is known that the ālaya is always accompanied by equanimity, nevertheless in painful realms such as the hells, it also causes the supporting ālaya to be largely uncomfortable; if in the pleasant realms of humans and devas, it causes the ālaya to be delighted and at peace. In the first and second dhyānas, although it is explained that joy and pleasure are both of the nature of the feeling of joy, when explaining the virtues and afflictions conjoined with feelings, it is only said that the first and second dhyānas are conjoined with the faculty of joy, not that they are accompanied by pleasure.

4.58

Next, in the inclusion and exclusion: regarding 'investigation and reflection of the first dhyāna are for apprehending the cognitive object...', the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] clarifies three: namely, investigation and reflection are the antidote, joy and pleasure are the benefit, and absorption is the support. Here four are mentioned. Tai says: the factors of dhyāna are explained through three meanings in all, so the three of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] subsume these four. The factors mentioned here are summarily two: because of their great benefit, joy, pleasure, and the like are added for the benefit of practitioners; if a dharma has these two meanings, it is established as a factor of dhyāna. Other dharmas such as wisdom and volition do not have these two meanings, and are thus omitted and not mentioned. Ji says: here investigation and reflection are spoken of as apprehending the cognitive object, viewing the corresponding object as the antidote, absorption as the support, joy as receiving what has been attained, and pleasure as eliminating coarseness and weight. A delighted mental feeling is called joy; that which can bring comfort to the body is called pleasure. Coarseness and weight reside in the body; when pleasure arises, they perish, which is called 'eliminating', not that it eliminates lower afflictions. That which eliminates lower afflictions is only investigation and reflection. Thus it reveals that the beneficial factors mentioned in various places have two meanings: first, receiving the attained object; second, eliminating the hindrance of coarseness and weight.

4.59

In the third and fourth dhyānas, since receiving what is attained is itself the elimination of coarseness and weight, there is no other distinct essence; possessing two capabilities, they delight the faculties and abandon coarseness and weight. Although there are other dharmas within the dhyānas, because these are superior and of great benefit to those cultivating absorption, they are specifically established as factors. However, the extensive analysis of the meaning of these dhyāna factors will be explained further in fascicle sixty-three.

4.60

In the fourth section, the establishment of the names of meditative absorption, the specific names are explained first, followed by the general names.

4.61

In the first part, up to the fourth dhyāna, regarding 'the distinction of the purity of equanimity and mindfulness should be known', there are two explanations of this distinction: first, it generally clarifies the distinctions of the four dhyānas, such as with investigation and with reflection, the stillness of investigation and reflection, the stillness of joy, the stillness of pleasure, and the purity of equanimity and mindfulness; second, it clarifies the distinction solely in contrast to the third dhyāna. The third dhyāna also has equanimity and mindfulness, but they are not called pure because it has not yet abandoned the afflictions of higher realms. The fourth dhyāna, because it has completely abandoned hindrances, obtains the name 'purity of equanimity and mindfulness'; hence it says 'the distinction should be known'.

4.62

Next, the general names are explained in five: first, higher mind; second, dwelling happily in the present life; third, partial nirvāṇa; fourth, differentiated nirvāṇa; fifth, the matter of emerging from feelings. The text is divided into four parts, because the third and fourth are analyzed together.

4.63

Regarding 'higher mind': the essence of absorption is called mind. Thus, because the essence of absorption is pure, it can deliberate; alternatively, because the simultaneous mental king is pure, it causes that factor of absorption to correctly examine and deliberate.

4.64

In 'dwelling happily in the present life', it first explains 'pleasure', then 'dwelling in the present life', and finally why the formless realm is not so named.

4.65

Regarding 'receiving joy and pleasure': this refers to the feeling of joy and the feeling of peaceful pleasure; 'peaceful pleasure' is the pleasure of pliancy; 'pleasure of equanimity' is the pleasure and delight of the feeling of equanimity; 'pleasure of body and mind' is the pleasure that brings comfort.

4.66

Regarding 'dwelling happily': fascicle sixty-three says: because the mind is bound internally and does not scatter, the dwelling that can induce pleasure is called 'dwelling happily'. Therefore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: pleasure with defilements is bound to the three realms; taintless pleasure is subsumed under the unbound. Now, based on both body and mind possessing the four pleasures—the pleasure of joy, the pleasure of pleasure, the pleasure of pliancy, and the pleasure of equanimity—the four dhyānas obtain the name 'dwelling happily'. The desire realm lacks the latter two, and the formless realm lacks the former two; thus, although pleasure is present to them, it is not called 'dwelling happily'. Furthermore, the pleasure of joy is the pleasure of the first and second dhyānas, the pleasure of pliancy is the pleasure of the third dhyāna, and the pleasure of equanimity is the pleasure of the fourth dhyāna. 'Pleasure of body and mind' distinguishes why the formless realm is not a dwelling happily.

4.67

An objection asks: the fourth [dhyāna] has the feeling of equanimity, and the feeling of equanimity is called the pleasure of equanimity; the four formless absorptions also have the feeling of equanimity, so they should also be called the pleasure of equanimity. Therefore, it is now explained: those only have mental pleasure, whereas this has pleasure of both body and mind; hence only this is called 'dwelling happily', not the four formless absorptions.

4.68

Regarding 'a forest monk then raised a mocking debate, saying, "I now ask him about the tranquil liberation that transcends form and formlessness, but he cannot explain it..."': the intended meaning here is that the formless absorptions are called 'transcending form', and the taintless absorption is called 'transcending formlessness'; these two are called tranquil liberation. Now it is explained to him that the absorption of the formless realm is not a dwelling happily, while the four dhyānas of the form realm are called tranquil liberation and are dwellings happily in the present life.

4.69

Another explanation says: 'transcending form and formlessness' does not mean going beyond the external; it is called 'transcending' because it reaches the utmost limit, just as joy is the limit of the second dhyāna, and so on.

4.70

Regarding 'because of abandoning a portion of all afflictions and not being definitive, it is called partial nirvāṇa': pure absorption, taintless absorption, and attached absorption are called portions; abandoning that attached absorption is called 'abandoning a portion of all afflictions'. Because it possesses the meaning of tranquility, it is called nirvāṇa; because it is conditioned, swift, and fluctuating, and not the definitive, motionless tranquility of the unconditioned, it is called partial nirvāṇa. The essences of pure and taintless absorptions are conditioned and not actually nirvāṇa, but based on their lack of afflictions, they bear a slight resemblance to that nirvāṇa; because it is not definitive, it is called partial nirvāṇa. Alternatively, because active afflictions in the four pure dhyānas are partially abandoned, but their seeds are not yet abandoned and one subsequently falls back and is reborn, it is not definitive, and is therefore called partial nirvāṇa.

4.71

Regarding 'because it is not ultimate, it is called differentiated nirvāṇa': because of separating from afflictions, it is a tranquility according to one's portion and is provisionally called nirvāṇa; it is not the ultimate tranquility, and is therefore called differentiated nirvāṇa.

4.72

In the fifth name, 'the matter of emerging from feelings', there are four parts: first, marking the four emergences and citing sūtras to verify them; second, their mutual subsumption with the five realms conducive to renunciation; third, taking the occasion to explain the sūtra on the six realms of renunciation; fourth, explaining that freedom from faults is called the basis of renunciation. In the first part, there are three: first, marking the four renunciations; next, explaining the sūtra on renunciation; finally, discerning them through questions and answers.

4.73

Renunciation has three meanings: first, the meaning of non-occurrence; second, the meaning of extinguishing coarseness and weight; third, the meaning of detachment from desire.

4.74

The first dhyāna's renunciation of grief possesses all three meanings. The second dhyāna's renunciation of suffering possesses only the meaning of extinguishing coarseness and weight, because its defilement was already abandoned earlier, while it still occurs later. The latter three renunciations possess the meanings of extinguishing coarseness and weight and of detachment from desire. Signless renunciation of equanimity strictly requires the stage of the non-learner; in other stages it is only partial and does not obtain the name 'renunciation'.

4.75

In explaining the sūtras on renunciation, there are two parts: first, explaining the sūtra on the renunciation of grief; next, analogizing to the sūtras on the other renunciations, which is the passage 'thus should it be known regarding the rest as appropriate'.

4.76

Regarding 'knowing the prologue': 'prologue' means the root cause; 'those able to trigger the signs' refers to the faculties, objects, and so on.

4.77

Regarding 'the seeds of ignorance': because ignorant people mostly generate grief, these are all called the prologue. Even if it is not defiled grief, it is still said to arise due to delusion. Furthermore, the seeds of affliction are all able to generate grief, but with ignorance as the root, only those seeds are mentioned. Thus the nature of the unwholesome faculty of grief, being impaired by delusion, must be abandoned upon detachment from desire; the rest are also eliminated following the destruction of ignorance. Even if there is conceptual grief that is not innate, it is also abandoned upon detachment from desire, because its companions, the innate faculties of grief, are abandoned.

4.78

In the questions and answers there are three parts: first, the characteristics of the faculties; next, clarifying the faculty of suffering; finally, explaining the signless.

4.79

Regarding 'in the first dhyāna, the coarseness and weight of the faculty of suffering are not yet abandoned': because the faculties of grief are induced by ignorance and the like, when one detaches from that desire, none of them occur and their coarseness and weight are also abandoned; even yearning and sorrow over the unexcelled Dharma are induced by ignorance, and are thus abandoned upon detachment from desire. Because the faculties of suffering can arise without being induced by delusion, they still occur upon detachment from desire; thus their coarseness, weight, and unfitness are only extinguished in the second dhyāna.

4.80

Question: When the faculty of suffering arises upon detachment from desire, its coarseness and weight are extinguished in the second dhyāna; when joy and pleasure are abandoned from lower realms, are their coarseness and weight eliminated in higher stages?

4.81

Answer: The support of the faculty of suffering as well as investigation and reflection exist in the first dhyāna, so it is extinguished in the second dhyāna; the supports of joy and pleasure have no separate induction, so at the time of detachment from desire their coarseness and weight perish. Regarding 'If the first dhyāna had already cut off the faculty of suffering, then when a practitioner enters the first dhyāna and the second, there would be no distinction in the dwellings produced by feelings...': the intended meaning here is that the first dhyāna extinguishes grief and the second dhyāna extinguishes suffering; thereby, although both are dwellings happily in the present life, a distinction is formed. If the first dhyāna had already extinguished suffering, the second dhyāna would have no difference, and their dwellings happily in the present life should be without distinction. The sūtra states that dhyānas emerge from the distinctions of feelings, so their dwellings form distinctions. Furthermore, because this cutting off of feelings has distinctions, in the first dhyāna investigation and reflection are not stilled and their coarseness and weight are not severed or extinguished; only in the second dhyāna are they stilled and their coarseness and weight severed and extinguished. If in the first dhyāna the faculty of suffering were already cut off, this distinction should not exist.

4.82

On "Furthermore, signless," and so forth: Jing says: The non-learner's untainted concentrated mind taking the realm of tathatā as its object is termed 'signless'. When associated with defilements, the faculty of equanimity is tainted by defilement, or else is bound by being the object of defilements—both are unrefined states (dauṣṭhulya) on the entity of the faculty of equanimity itself. Here it is said that the seed of affliction that can bind the faculty of equanimity is named 'dormant tendency' (anuśaya). Eradicating that seed of affliction in the signless concentration is called 'eradicating the dormant tendency'; it does not mean that eradicating active sensation is called eradicating the faculty of equanimity, because in the signless concentration sensation is necessarily present. Since sensation is not of the nature of defilement, the seeds of sensation are not called dormant tendencies. Hence it is said: It is not that those sensations possess dormant tendencies, yet because the defilements taking the sensation of equanimity as their object are abandoned, it is said that the sensation of equanimity is abandoned; those unrefined states belonging to the class of defilements are named dormant tendencies.

4.83

Tai says: In the non-learner, at the time of the contemplation of emptiness, when the faculty of equanimity takes signs, its seeds are permanently destroyed. The dormant tendencies, hard and pliable, are called unrefined states. Because unrefined states are abandoned without remainder, it is called the cessation of active manifestation. Why? Abiding in the signless concentration, there is necessarily equanimity taking signs as its object. Now, in designating the seeds of active entanglements that are abandoned as dormant tendencies, this is said according to nominal convention. It is not that those sensations of joy and pleasure possess unrefined dormant tendencies; they are called abandoned because the defilements admixed with them are abandoned; the seeds of sensations belonging to the class of those defilements are called dormant tendencies.

4.84

Ji says: The tainted seeds of equanimity, being bound by defilements, are metaphorically named unrefined states. When entering this concentration, they are said to be abandoned. The active untainted equanimity is metaphorically named an active entanglement, yet it still arises while in concentration. It is not that those sensations, being tainted by defilements, can possess dormant tendencies; it is precisely these dormant tendencies that are called unrefined states, but it is not that untainted sensation lacks seeds.

4.85

There is an explanation: 'Not eradicating active entanglements' means not eradicating the entity of the faculty of equanimity that is bound by defilement through association and objective bondage. That is to say, by citing the defilements that can associate and so forth, taking the bound faculty of equanimity is called an active entanglement; it does not mean eradicating this active entanglement. Moreover, this faculty of equanimity in reality pervades all nine stages, but here, in terms of stages of pure equanimity, five stages are spoken of.

4.86

Second, the mutual subsumption with the five elements conducive to escape has three parts in the text: first, restating and explaining the word 'escape'; second, resolving objections; third, miscellaneous explanations of the sutra.

4.87

On "Escape from desire, ill will, and harmfulness means, up to, the escape from the faculty of pleasure": the escape from desire first refers to the contemplation of impurity; next, the escape from ill will refers to the contemplation of benevolence; last, the escape from harmfulness refers to the contemplation of compassion. These three escapes are precisely the escapes from the four faculties of sorrow, suffering, joy, and pleasure, because benevolence and compassion can be attained throughout the four dhyānas. In the fourth dhyāna, benevolence and compassion are precisely the escape from the four sensations. On "Escape from form means the escape from the faculty of equanimity of the fourth dhyāna": this is because by attaining the concentration of the base of infinite space, desire for form is abandoned, which is the escape from the faculty of equanimity of the four dhyānas and so forth.

4.88

On "Through the cessation of the satkāya": that is, in the signless concentration, when the taints of the three realms are finally exhausted at the end, it is called the escape from the faculty of equanimity of the formless realm. These latter two are combined and named the escape from the faculty of equanimity. What is the meaning of the words 'conducive to escape'?

4.89

On "Because one who abides in this is able to escape, it is called 'conducive to escape'": one who abides in this contemplation is a non-learner, and conforming to this contemplation is called 'conducive to escape'. When it does not speak of 'escaping from that by means of this', it does not mean that ordinary worldlings and learners escape from desire, ill will, harmfulness, and so forth by means of these five contemplations. The words 'for the sake of being free from desire' mean: this element is taught for the sake of those who have already become free from the desire of the three realms, setting forth these five elements conducive to escape.

4.90

In resolving objections: On "Although those escapes are simultaneous," and so forth: although the three—desire, ill will, and harmfulness—are abandoned simultaneously, yet three distinct escapes are established in terms of the distinct cultivation of three kinds of antidotes in the preparatory stage.

4.91

Below, based on three kinds of persons separately cultivating the three contemplations, three escapes are established. In accordance with the predominant increase of defilements in those three persons, each engages in one contemplation—either benevolence or compassion—which can lead to escape from desire, ill will, harmfulness, and so forth. Above, there is only a single category of antidote; therefore, on "subsequent escapes have no distinctions": the fourth, escape from form, distinctly relies on the base of infinite space, taking form as empty as a single category of antidote; the fifth distinctly cultivates the untainted contemplation of emptiness with regard to the body of the four aggregates as a single category of antidote. The earlier and later antidotes differ; unlike the first three, which are simultaneous escapes with multiple distinctions, it is therefore said that they have no distinctions.

4.92

Below, on "What is meant by 'one of sharp vision'?" and so forth, in explaining the sutra, there are twenty-eight clauses. The first thirteen clauses concern the preparatory path for freedom from desire; the last fifteen clauses, from "contradictory to this" onward, concern the path of actual freedom from desire. The meaning of this sutra is to show that through the preceding preparatory application and the subsequent path of freedom from desire, tainted sensation does not operate in the body of an arhat and the host of afflictions does not arise, just like water droplets not clinging to a red lotus; hence cultivating the five contemplations is called 'conducive to escape'. Among the first thirteen clauses, the first clause generally marks the person, namely 'one of sharp vision'; the subsequent twelve clauses individually explain their contemplation. In the first part, on "namely, by means of the attention of examination": among the seven attentions, this is the attention of examination, and this statement is general.

4.93

The attention to superior things explains recollection of desires. The attention of sharp exertion explains one of sharp vision. Below, on "What is meant by 'with regard to desires'?" in individually explaining the twelve clauses, the first eight clauses are contemplations of non-attachment to desires, and the last four clauses are contemplations of revulsion toward desires.

4.94

Question: Why does the text only speak of the attention of examination and not mention the attention of comprehending characteristics and the rest?

4.95

Ji says: It now speaks of the arhat who has completely abandoned the desires of the three realms by performing five kinds of contemplation; that is, the preparatory ultimate attention for abandoning the taints of the formless realm, because the preceding preparatory path is the attention of examination. By analogy with this, in the subsequent text on the path of actual abandonment, it explains their mind 'having gone well'.

4.96

Why? Because it says 'abiding in preparatory ultimate attention'. Among the last fifteen clauses, the four beginning with 'attention entering into' invert each of the preceding ones in turn, and the textual phrasing is readily understood.

4.97

On "namely, abiding in preparatory ultimate attention": this is the ultimate attention of attention that abandons the taints of the formless realm. At this time, when properly abandoning all afflictions, one will attain the ultimate wondrous path of the mind's passage, which is called 'having gone well'. On "namely, because of well cultivating the remaining attentions": that is, well cultivating the preceding attention of examination and so forth; Master Jing broadly takes the preceding five attentions as 'the remaining'. This speaks of the stage of abandonment and the stage of the preparatory path of abandonment: that is, it concludes by showing the stage of abandonment of the uninterrupted path of preparatory ultimate attention, and the stage of the preparatory path of abandonment of the attention of examination and so forth. 'Released' means released from the bondage of unrefined states. 'Freed' means freed from the bondage of signs; both are active manifestations. 'Separated from fetters' means separated from the fettering seeds of the two preceding bondages. On "the outflows arisen from conditions of desires, excluding desire-greed": because in the preceding preparation it was already specifically reviled, it is therefore excluded.

4.98

On "deprivation and deficiency": the bad destinies are called 'deprivation'; lacking good fruits is called 'deficiency'. On "being released, having transcended, and separated from fetters with respect to them: namely, according to the preceding order, being released from entanglements, objective supports, and dormant tendencies": Ji says: being released from entanglements is called 'having transcended'; being released from objective supports is called 'having escaped'; being released from dormant tendencies is called 'separated from fetters'.

4.99

Now it is explained: 'with respect to them' refers to what was stated above, namely outflows, deficiency, burning afflictions, and so forth. 'Being released, having transcended, and separated from fetters': namely, according to the preceding order, being released from entanglements is called 'being released'; being freed from the signs of objective supports is called 'having transcended'; being released from dormant tendencies is called 'separated from fetters'. On "namely, relying on the objects of desire that are about to be attained, being attained, and recollected, and so forth": that is, future, present, and past objects of desire, respectively.

First 99 of 405 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

瑜伽論記 — Classical Chinese