[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [瑜伽師地論略纂](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829) › 12.120 # 瑜伽師地論略纂 12.120 瑜伽師地論略纂 12.120 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [12.120](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.12.120) 第六地論解十種法平等性云「謂於一切法，由有勝義自性無相平等性故等，乃至有無無二平等性故」等者，如舊《地持》有一、二等數標名，今此中有十一故字，不可如之。且准舊論云一者、第一義自性平等，當此中第一、「由有勝義自性無相平等性故」，即當經第一、一切法自性無相平等。此中意，謂由緣勝義理故，一切法平等。如舊論第二、無言說行無相平等，當今云「言說造作影像無相平等性故」，當經云第二、無相平等也。此中意，謂一切言說造作影像等皆由想，今此相亦無，相平等也，於理本無故，有是妄生故。如舊云三者、無生平等，當今云「即由此相自然不生平等性故」，當經云無生平等。此意謂即由此心想無故，自然無苦生。又即由此於言說造行依他性平等故，執有自然生者，此自然不生，但是因緣生，故言無生平等，無自然生也。前為勝。如舊論云四者、因緣不起平等，當今「因亦不生平等性故，自然與因皆不生故」，當經云無成平等，疏云以無生故，亦無苦性成起現前。法師云：因是能成，果是所成，執有自在天等為因，因既不能生，故言不成平等，以從因緣生故。自然與因皆不生者，謂執有自然生及自在天等為因生，皆不成也。今更解云：前不生平等，謂心相造作等無故，共自然不生；非但自然不生，今因亦無，故不成平等。自然與生皆不生者，即雙重解因果俱生義，即第三不生、第四不成平等也。如舊云第五、畢竟寂滅平等，當今云「畢竟本寂平等性故」，經云寂靜平等。舊解云：此第五也。以第六但有離諸虛偽之言，即判為第六本淨平等。今者不然，以第六是能照智故。此第五、第六皆約真如為論，法師故開此畢竟本寂平等性故一句成第五、第六，寂靜平等、本寂平等。次下句是別第七中。　問曰：此二何別？如舊解第五離染因，以第四、三是離染果故，今第六是明離淨相對治滅。今如何別？解云：畢竟本寂之言，俱是舊經第五、寂靜平等一句，正是真如。下現有體事能取正智離諸戲論平等性故，當舊云離諸虛偽平等，舊經本淨平等，即是正智離虛偽戲論也。　問曰：如舊論文可通，如經本淨即真如，云何通？此第六是正智故。義曰：如經亦是正智照本寂，故名本寂，非體是本寂。　又解：此現有體事等一句是經第七、無戲論平等。當舊經第八也，即是正智。其第五、第六，畢竟、本寂，開之如前。遠離一切取捨造作平等性故，即此煩惱眾苦雜染離繫解脫平等性故者，當《地持》第七、取捨平等，當經第八、無取捨等。若准經，以畢竟、本寂為二勝；若合為一，即開此故字為二。雖然不依經文，此中意者，謂煩惱眾苦得解脫，故一切取捨平等也。分別所執境界自性如幻化等平等性故，《地持》云九者、妄相境界如幻化平等，經云第九、如幻平等。破法定無，明信如幻也，即遍計所執；取所緣之法，即依他也。此等如幻平等。無分別智所行自性有無無二平等性故，《地持》云十者、妄相境界有無無二平等，經云有無無二平等，即雙破有無也。若遍計所執有無，此皆非有，故云無二即真如也。是謂十種法平等性。 > Regarding the treatise's explanation of the ten kinds of equality of phenomena in the Sixth Bhūmi, which states: 'namely, due to the equality of the signlessness of the intrinsic nature of the ultimate truth regarding all phenomena, etc., up to due to the equality of the non-duality of existence and non-existence,' etc.: In the older Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra, there were numbers such as first, second, etc., marking their names; now here there are eleven occurrences of the word 'due to' (故), so it cannot be aligned in that way. Taking the older treatise as a provisional standard: The first is 'equality of the intrinsic nature of the ultimate truth,' which corresponds to the first one here, 'due to the equality of the signlessness of the intrinsic nature of the ultimate truth,' which in turn corresponds to the sūtra's first, 'equality of the intrinsic nature of all phenomena being signless.' The meaning here is that because it takes the principle of the ultimate truth as object, all phenomena are equal. As for the older treatise's second, 'equality of the signlessness of practices beyond verbal expression,' it corresponds to what is now called 'due to the equality of the signlessness of verbal expressions, fabrications, and reflected images,' which corresponds to the sūtra's second, 'equality of signlessness.' The meaning here is that all verbal expressions, fabrications, reflected images, and so forth are due to conceptualization; now these signs are also absent, hence 'equality of signs' \[i.e., signlessness\], because in principle they are fundamentally absent, and their existence is spuriously produced. As for what the old \[translation\] calls the third, 'equality of non-arising,' it corresponds to what is now called 'due to the equality of the spontaneous non-arising through these very signs,' which corresponds to the sūtra's 'equality of non-arising.' This meaning is that precisely because of the absence of these mental conceptualizations, suffering does not arise spontaneously. Furthermore, precisely because there is equality regarding the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva) of practices fabricated through verbal expressions, for those who grasp that there is spontaneous arising, this spontaneous arising does not occur; there is only arising from causes and conditions; therefore it is called the equality of non-arising, meaning there is no spontaneous arising. The former interpretation is superior. As for the older treatise's fourth, 'equality of the non-origination from causes and conditions,' it corresponds to the present 'due to the equality of causes also not arising, because neither the spontaneous nor causes arise,' which corresponds to the sūtra's 'equality of non-formation.' The Commentary states that because there is no arising, neither does the nature of suffering become formed and arise into presence. The Dharma Master says: 'Cause' is that which can form, and 'fruit' is that which is formed. Grasping that there is Maheśvara or the like as a cause, since the cause cannot produce, it is therefore called the equality of non-formation, because things arise from causes and conditions. 'Neither the spontaneous nor causes arise' means that the grasp that there is spontaneous arising or that Maheśvara and so forth are causes of arising both fail to be formed. Now it is further explained: The preceding 'equality of non-arising' means that because mental signs, fabrications, and so forth are absent, spontaneous arising does not occur along with them; not only does spontaneous arising not occur, but now causes are also absent, hence 'equality of non-formation.' 'Neither the spontaneous nor arising arises' is a twofold re-explanation of the meaning of both cause and fruit arising, which refers to the third \[equality of\] non-arising and the fourth \[equality of\] non-formation. As for the old \[translation's\] fifth, 'equality of ultimate cessation,' it corresponds to what is now called 'due to the equality of fundamental, ultimate quiescence,' which the sūtra calls 'equality of tranquility.' The old commentary says: this is the fifth. Because the sixth only contains the words 'free from all falsity,' it was determined to be the sixth, 'equality of fundamental purity.' Now, this is not so, because the sixth is the illuminating wisdom. Both this fifth and sixth are discussed in terms of thusness (tathatā); the Dharma Master therefore divided this single phrase 'due to the equality of fundamental, ultimate quiescence' to make the fifth and sixth: equality of tranquility and equality of fundamental quiescence. The following clause belongs separately to the seventh. Question: What is the difference between these two? According to the old explanation, the fifth is freedom from the cause of defilement, because the fourth and third are freedom from the fruit of defilement; now the sixth explains cessation as the antidote to the sign of purity. How are they distinguished now? The explanation is: The words 'ultimate' and 'fundamental quiescence' both constitute the single phrase of the old sūtra's fifth, 'equality of tranquility,' which is precisely thusness. Below, 'due to the equality of the correct cognitive wisdom having an actual existing entity being free from all conceptual proliferation' corresponds to the old 'equality of freedom from all falsity' and the old sūtra's 'equality of fundamental purity,' which is precisely the correct wisdom being free from false conceptual proliferation. Question: While the text of the old treatise can be reconciled, how can it be reconciled with the sūtra where 'fundamental purity' is thusness, given that this sixth is correct wisdom? The theoretical explanation is: In the sūtra as well, it is correct wisdom illuminating fundamental quiescence, hence it is named 'fundamental quiescence,' not that its substance is fundamental quiescence. Another explanation: This clause 'having an actual existing entity,' etc., is the sūtra's seventh, 'equality of non-proliferation,' which corresponds to the old sūtra's eighth; that is, it is correct wisdom. Its fifth and sixth—'ultimate' and 'fundamental quiescence'—are divided as before. 'Due to the equality of being far removed from all grasping, rejecting, and fabricating,' that is, 'due to the equality of liberation from the bonds of the defilements of afflictions and manifold sufferings,' corresponds to the Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra's seventh, 'equality of grasping and rejecting,' and to the sūtra's eighth, 'equality of non-grasping and non-rejecting,' etc. If one follows the sūtra, it is superior to take 'ultimate' and 'fundamental quiescence' as two; if they are combined into one, then this word 'due to' (故) is divided into two. Although it does not follow the text of the sūtra, the meaning here is that because one attains liberation from afflictions and manifold sufferings, all grasping and rejecting are equal. 'Due to the equality of the intrinsic nature of the cognitive object grasped by conceptual construction being like an illusion or a magical creation, etc.,' corresponds to the Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra's ninth, 'equality of the objects of delusive signs being like an illusion,' and the sūtra's ninth, 'equality of being like an illusion.' This refutes the definitive non-existence of phenomena and clarifies the trust that they are like an illusion; that is, the parikalpita-svabhāva; and grasping the phenomenon that is the object of cognition is the paratantra-svabhāva. These are equal in being like an illusion. 'Due to the equality of the non-duality of existence and non-existence of the intrinsic nature traversed by non-conceptual wisdom,' corresponds to the Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra's tenth, 'equality of the non-duality of existence and non-existence of the objects of delusive signs,' and the sūtra's 'equality of the non-duality of existence and non-existence,' which simultaneously refutes both existence and non-existence. If it is the existence and non-existence of parikalpita-svabhāva, these are both non-existent; hence it says 'non-dual,' which is precisely thusness. These are called the ten kinds of equality of phenomena. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 12.119](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.12.119) - [Next: 12.121](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.12.121) - [Up: 12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.12) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829~en-mt.12.120) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [瑜伽論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.12.82) — Classical Chinese - [瑜伽師地論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.yogacarabhumi*zh-xuanzang.48.58) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.12.120](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.12.120) · Pramāṇa