瑜伽師地論略纂 15.66

15.66

論云「又此一分在未來，以過、未、現在為義」者，謂前無色根在未來，緣三世耶。「八色等根在未來，非未來為義」者，亦以根境俱在未來世故得。然境入現在、過去時，根在未來，說此當入過、現之境，故言未來，不緣未來也。此後解准同前釋。四，欲繫，以欲繫為義者，即苦、憂、男、女。憂、苦以唯欲界為義者，此據多分為論。又以影像相分從見分，從見分是欲界故。餘言通緣三界不繫者，此據本質為論，無相違也。又據依五根門緣者，一唯緣欲界。「二，欲、色繫，欲界繫為義」，謂鼻、舌雖欲、色，不有識緣，唯以欲繫為義。「三，欲、色界繫，義亦爾」，謂眼、耳、身。「二，欲、色界繫及不繫，以三界繫及不繫為義」者，謂喜、樂通欲、色界繫及無漏故。信等五、意、捨，七，三界繫及不繫，義亦爾。未知當知一種，色界繫及不繫為義。通三繫不繫者，謂決擇分及無漏智為此根體，已如前會。下二可知。信等五、三無漏假實合論，八，善，以三性為義。四受除憂，取意為五，通三性，三性為義。憂一，善、不善，三性為義。鼻、舌、身、男、女五，無記，唯以無記為義。眼、耳二，無記，以三性為義。此據表業假者。信等五、喜、樂、捨及意，九，通三學，以三學為義。七色，非學非無學，還以此為義。「苦根，通三學，非學非無學為義」者，謂苦體是有漏，若在學無學身中起，故言通三種境；唯非學非無學剋實為空無漏觀引起，言通也。憂非空觀引生，故不例苦，憂與煩惱俱多故。憂一如《對法》，初二無漏根為體，取十根，故言學及非學非無學，以三種為義。前文未知欲知九根者，九得無漏根說；此通善法欲以去，故言通學。初二無漏是學，以三種為義。具知是無學，以三種為義。「答：十四，一分見所斷，一分修所斷」者，七色及命，五受及意，是分別不善及此業果者，是見斷，餘修斷。「十二，一分修所斷，一分非斷，謂前十四中六及餘六」者，前中六，謂五受及意；餘六者，謂信等五及未知欲知根，以通漏無漏故。　問曰：何故憂、苦二根說不斷耶？苦根體是斷法，在無學身起，故如前說；憂根順離欲說，為初二無漏根體，二無漏根體不斷，相從說不斷。雖無學身無，以體善法故，唯斷緣縛，不是斷體，忻求涅槃故，亦名不斷。於第三果已去，非擇滅不起，故言修斷及不斷。又解：前六者，謂四受除憂，并意、命根，命根在無學身如苦根故，或如來無漏故。若爾，無學身五根如何通？餘二非斷者，即後二無漏根為體。若不爾者，憂根十亦得，同《對法》已知根取憂。此文證三惡趣善法非見道斷，後六唯修及不斷故。如別抄。「無色諸根，三種，見、修、非斷」者，如何苦根緣無斷耶？一云：此從多說，無色根中亦除苦根；苦根唯見、修為義，今從多分說。又解：約苦根自證分是見斷故，名緣無斷，前據見分，名緣欲界等，亦無相違。「幾根是雜染捨所顯？除諸善根」等，謂雜染即是所捨，清淨是能捨也。又解：捨謂捨根，除善性根外，餘根能生雜染捨根。即除八善根外，前五受善等一分，唯是善一分，即是清淨捨所顯。此約為所緣義能生雜染捨等也。六根是顛倒義，謂五受及意。是顛倒何不言一分也？又言六根者，謂眼等六根，此據於境起顛倒周盡故也。「顛倒自性，謂六少分」者，謂五受及意也。此中少分，故知取眼根等六為顛倒義勝。信等八，能治也。欲過失中，「或八」者，信等八，假實合論也；「或五」者，唯實信等五也；「一」者，意根也。又五者，五受，如修治摶食想，苦根亦有能治義。或一者，謂慧，能正對治也。下「四德」者，常、樂、我、淨。第三德，謂「牽引」者，初得也，得已修治，修治已用，用已棄捨，有此用自在轉變，故是我也。「未知欲知根，證第二、第三果依處」等者，此據超越人。

The treatise says: "Furthermore, one portion of these is in the future, having the past, future, and present as their object." This means: do the aforementioned non-material faculties in the future take the three periods of time as their object? As for "the eight material and related faculties, when in the future, do not have the future as their object," this is also possible because faculty and object are both in the future period. However, when the object enters the present or past while the faculty remains in the future, it is said that it will take those objects that are to enter the past or present; thus it is said that, being in the future, it does not take the future as an object. This latter explanation is in accord with the previous commentary. "Four are bound to the desire realm, taking what is bound to the desire realm as their object": namely, suffering, grief, the male faculty, and the female faculty. That grief and suffering take only the desire realm as their object is spoken of according to the majority portion. Moreover, this is because the mental image (nimittabhāga) follows the seeing-aspect (darśanabhāga), and the seeing-aspect belongs to the desire realm. Other statements saying they generally take the three realms and the unconditioned (unbound) as objects are stated according to the fundamental essence (vastu); there is no contradiction. Furthermore, in terms of taking objects via the doors of the five faculties, one takes only the desire realm. "Two are bound to the desire and form realms, taking what is bound to the desire realm as their object": namely, the nose and tongue, although belonging to desire and form realms, lack consciousness that takes them as objects, taking only what is bound to the desire realm as an object. "Three are bound to the desire and form realms, and their object is likewise": namely, eye, ear, and body. "Two are bound to the desire and form realms and unbound, taking what is bound to the three realms and unbound as their object": namely, joy and pleasure, because they are common to being bound to the desire and form realms and being undefiled (anāsrava). The five beginning with faith, the mental faculty, and equanimity—these seven—are bound to the three realms and unbound, and their objects are likewise. The single faculty of that which has not yet been known has what is bound to the form realm and the unbound as its object. In terms of being common to all three realms and unbound, the roots of good of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī and the undefiled wisdom constitute the substance of this faculty, as reconciled previously. The lower two may be known by analogy. The five beginning with faith and the three undefiled faculties, considered collectively as conventional and real, are eight; being wholesome, they take the three natures as their object. The four feelings excluding grief, taken together with the mental faculty as five, are common to the three natures and take the three natures as their object. Grief, which is one, is wholesome and unwholesome, taking the three natures as its object. The five consisting of nose, tongue, body, male, and female are morally indeterminate (avyākṛta), taking solely the morally indeterminate as their object. The two of eye and ear are morally indeterminate, taking the three natures as their object. This is spoken of according to the conventional status of informative karma (vijñapti-karma). The five beginning with faith, joy, pleasure, equanimity, and the mental faculty—these nine—are common to the three trainings, taking the three trainings as their object. The seven material faculties are neither training nor beyond-training, taking this likewise as their object. "The faculty of suffering is common to the three trainings, taking what is neither training nor beyond-training as its object": the substance of suffering is defiled (sāsrava), but if it arises in the persons of those in training or beyond-training, it is therefore said to be common to the three kinds of objects; speaking strictly of its real nature, it is induced by the contemplation of emptiness and the undefiled, which is why it is said to be common. Grief is not induced by the contemplation of emptiness and therefore is not analogous to suffering, because grief frequently co-occurs with defilement (kleśa). Grief as a single entity, as in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, has the first two undefiled faculties as its substance, comprising ten faculties; thus it is said to be training and neither training nor beyond-training, taking the three kinds as its object. The nine faculties of the desire to know what is not yet known in the earlier text are spoken of regarding the attainment of undefiled faculties; this extends from the desire for wholesome dharmas onward, and thus is said to be common to training. The first two undefiled faculties are training, taking the three kinds as their object. The faculty of having fully known is beyond-training, taking the three kinds as its object. "Answer: Fourteen are partially to be abandoned by seeing and partially to be abandoned by cultivation": the seven material faculties and vitality, along with the five feelings and the mental faculty, when they are conceptual unwholesome states and the karmic fruits thereof, are abandoned by seeing; the remainder are abandoned by cultivation. "Twelve are partially to be abandoned by cultivation and partially not to be abandoned, namely, six of the previous fourteen and an additional six": the six among the previous are the five feelings and the mental faculty; the additional six are the five beginning with faith and the faculty of the desire to know what is not yet known, because they are common to defilement and undefilement. Question: Why are the two faculties of grief and suffering said to be not to be abandoned? The substance of the faculty of suffering is a dharma to be abandoned, but it arises in the person of one beyond training, and therefore it is as stated above; the faculty of grief is spoken of as conforming to detachment, serving as the substance of the first two undefiled faculties, and as the substance of the two undefiled faculties is not to be abandoned, by association it is said to be not to be abandoned. Although absent in the person of one beyond training, because its substance is a wholesome dharma, it only abandons the bondage of conditions rather than abandoning its own substance; yearning for nirvāṇa, it is also called not to be abandoned. From the third fruit onward, it does not arise due to apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, and therefore it is said to be both abandoned by cultivation and not to be abandoned. Another explanation: the former six are the four feelings excluding grief, together with the mental faculty and the vitality faculty, because the vitality faculty in the person of one beyond training is like the faculty of suffering, or because the Tathāgata is undefiled. If so, how are the five faculties in the person of one beyond training reconciled? The remaining two that are not to be abandoned have the latter two undefiled faculties as their substance. If it were not so, the ten of the grief faculty would also be acceptable, identical with taking grief in the faculty of having known in the Abhidharmasamuccaya. This passage proves that wholesome dharmas of the three miserable realms are not abandoned by the path of seeing, because the latter six are only abandoned by cultivation and not to be abandoned. This is as explained in the separate commentary. "The non-material faculties are of three kinds: abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, and not to be abandoned." How can the faculty of suffering have what is not to be abandoned as its object? One explanation says: this is spoken of according to the majority; the faculty of suffering is also excluded from the non-material faculties; the faculty of suffering takes only what is abandoned by seeing and cultivation as its object, but here it is spoken of according to the majority. Another explanation: regarding the self-authenticating aspect (svasaṃvittibhāga) of the faculty of suffering being abandoned by seeing, it is called taking what is not to be abandoned as an object; the former was based on the seeing-aspect, being called taking the desire realm and so forth, and thus there is also no contradiction. "How many faculties are revealed by the equanimity of defilement? Excluding the wholesome faculties, etc.": this means that defilement is that which is abandoned, and purity is that which can abandon. Another explanation: equanimity refers to the faculty of equanimity; excluding the faculties of a wholesome nature, the remaining faculties can generate the equanimity faculty of defilement. That is, excluding the eight wholesome faculties, the wholesome portion of the aforementioned five feelings and so forth is solely a wholesome portion, which is revealed by the equanimity of purity. This is understood in the sense of being an object-condition able to generate defiled equanimity and so forth. Six faculties have the meaning of perversion (viparyāsa), namely the five feelings and the mental faculty. Being perversion, why does it not say 'a portion'? Furthermore, that it says 'six faculties' means the six faculties of the eye and so on, which is based on perversion arising exhaustively with respect to objects. "The intrinsic nature of perversion consists of a small portion of the six": this refers to the five feelings and the mental faculty. Because here it is a small portion, we know that taking the six beginning with the eye faculty as the meaning of perversion is superior. The eight beginning with faith are the antidotes. Among the faults of desire, "or eight" refers to the eight beginning with faith, considered collectively as conventional and real; "or five" refers solely to the real five beginning with faith; "one" refers to the mental faculty. Alternatively, the five are the five feelings, as in cultivating the perception of material food, where the faculty of suffering also possesses the function of being an antidote. Or the one is prajñā, which can serve as the direct antidote. The "four virtues" below are permanence, bliss, self, and purity. The third virtue, called "drawing forth," refers to initial attainment; having attained it, one cultivates and refines it; having refined it, one uses it; having used it, one abandons it. Possessing this sovereign transformation of function, it is therefore the self. "The faculty of desiring to know what is not yet known is the basis for realizing the second and third fruits," and so forth: this is said with respect to persons of direct transition (transcendence).