瑜伽師地論略纂 9.55

9.55

論云「從此無間趣入苦行。作是思惟：如是諸行皆是無常等，乃至如是且由不可愛行趣入苦行」等者，准下文云於能隨順苦受諸行及苦受中，由不可愛行趣入苦苦，即以此行趣入三中苦苦也。此不可愛行中，攝前七苦，七苦皆是苦苦。若准《對法》及餘處文，七苦中，前五苦是苦苦，次二苦是壞苦。與此文相違者，且釋云：前七苦俱不可愛行，七不可愛中，前五苦是苦苦。今以不可愛行、結縛行、不安隱行，此三行與三苦相從收故，即相從收。不可愛中雖有壞苦，皆是苦苦門攝，少從多故，二苦俱苦苦也。又以此順生苦受等故，雖七，皆是苦苦。所以者何？以次第二、明結縛行中，由結縛行趣入壞苦，即於貪愛等結縛處生貪愛等，招生老病死等純大苦蘊。即七苦順生樂受者是壞苦，故知順生苦受者是苦苦，以順非苦樂受生捨受是行苦。下結趣入三苦。論文前後不同者，此以性相求，隨義便解。又攝義門別：彼論須約三苦攝八苦，故知五是苦苦；此論以三行攝八苦，故不可愛行是前七苦。今以三苦攝三行，故苦苦攝不可愛行是苦苦，不以苦苦攝不可愛行所攝七苦為苦苦也，故不相違。攝義門別。下明空、無我二行何別。空者，空於體；無我，無於用。即計有體名有，以空遣之；執有用名我，以無我遣之。

The treatise says: "Immediately following this, one enters into the practice [of contemplating] suffering. One reflects as follows: 'All such conditioned factors are impermanent,' and so on, up to: 'In this manner, one initially enters into the practice [of contemplating] suffering through the practice [of contemplating] what is undesirable.'" According to the text below, it states that with respect to the conditioned factors that accord with painful feeling and with respect to painful feeling itself, one enters into the suffering of suffering through the practice [of contemplating] what is undesirable; that is, through this practice, one enters into the suffering of suffering among the three [types of suffering]. In this practice [of contemplating] what is undesirable, the preceding seven sufferings are subsumed, and all seven sufferings are the suffering of suffering. If one accords with the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* and passages elsewhere, among the seven sufferings, the first five are the suffering of suffering, and the subsequent two are the suffering of change. As for its seeming discrepancy with this text, it is explained tentatively: the preceding seven sufferings are all practices [of contemplating] what is undesirable, and within the seven undesirables, the first five are the suffering of suffering. Now, because these three practices—the practice [of contemplating] what is undesirable, the practice [of contemplating] bondage, and the practice [of contemplating] lack of tranquility—are subsumed in correspondence with the three sufferings, they are accordingly subsumed. Although there is the suffering of change within what is undesirable, it is entirely subsumed under the category of the suffering of suffering; because the minority follows the majority, both sufferings are the suffering of suffering. Moreover, because this accords with giving rise to painful feeling and so forth, although they are seven, they are all the suffering of suffering. Why is that? Because next, in the second, explaining the practice [of contemplating] bondage, through the practice [of contemplating] bondage one enters into the suffering of change—that is, in objects of bondage such as craving, craving and the like are produced, which bring about the pure, great aggregate of suffering consisting of birth, aging, sickness, death, and so forth. That is to say, among the seven sufferings, those that accord with giving rise to pleasant feeling are the suffering of change; hence one knows that those that accord with giving rise to painful feeling are the suffering of suffering, and because according with non-painful-and-non-pleasant feeling gives rise to neutral feeling, it is the suffering of conditioned existence. Below, it concludes with entering into the three sufferings. As for the earlier and later discrepancies in the treatise's text: this is sought through nature and characteristics, and is readily explained according to the meaning. Furthermore, the approaches to subsuming meaning differ: that treatise necessarily subsumes the eight sufferings in terms of the three sufferings, and therefore knows that five are the suffering of suffering; this treatise subsumes the eight sufferings by means of the three practices, and therefore the practice [of contemplating] what is undesirable comprises the first seven sufferings. Now, by using the three sufferings to subsume the three practices, the suffering of suffering subsuming the practice [of contemplating] what is undesirable is the suffering of suffering; it does not treat the seven sufferings subsumed by the practice [of contemplating] what is undesirable as being the suffering of suffering purely through the suffering of suffering itself. Hence there is no contradiction. The approaches to subsuming meaning differ. Below, it clarifies the distinction between the two practices of emptiness and non-self. Emptiness means being empty of essence; non-self means lacking function. That is, conceiving an essence to exist is called "existence," which is dispelled by emptiness; grasping a function as existing is called "self," which is dispelled by non-self.