瑜伽師地論略纂 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

I pay homage to the Greatly Awakened Honoured One of devas and humans, / Whose merits and wisdom are completely perfected; / To the unsurpassed true and sublime Dharma of letter and meaning; / And to the community of worthy and noble [saṅgha] who train in and uphold correct wisdom. / I bow my head to the Invincible One, the Greatly Compassionate Maitreya, / Who, universally to benefit all sentient beings, / Extensively gathered the true essential meanings of numerous sūtras / And concisely taught the five divisions of the Yogācāra. / I take refuge in the power of the sublime samādhi of the flow of Dharma, / Which gave rise to the meritorious renown of Asaṅga, / Who was able, from the ocean of the noble, invincible one, / To draw forth the utmost nectar of the Dharma. / I prostrate to the lamp of wisdom, seeing it extinguished, / Who rekindled the torch of Dharma to illuminate the myriad beings, / Equally pouring down an inexhaustible rain of letter-blossoms, / Flourishing and nourishing the wish-fulfilling tree of the Muni. / I take refuge in and praise my original instructing master, / Who, unsparing of life and limb, sought the Dharma, / Nourished and satisfied himself, ascended to Tuṣita, / And moreover bequeathed benefit to our kind. / This treatise is supreme like a lotus flower, / Like a treasure store, like the great ocean; / It fully reveals the vast meanings of all the vehicles, / Well explaining their texts without leaving anything out. / From within these great meanings of the Yogācāra, / I now, according to my ability, explain a small part, / In order to make the true Dharma endure forever without end, / Benefiting and bringing peace and happiness to all sentient beings.

1.3

The textual passages and meanings of this treatise are manifold and vast, such that the source of their principles cannot be completely fathomed. As for difficult passages and meanings where they clash with the fundamental tenets, these are all fully explained section by section; the rest are all abridged. Prior to the Seventeen Bhūmis at the beginning of the treatise, there is already one fascicle of the Vibhāṣā; therefore, it is abridged here rather than elaborated. Difficulties and points not fully treated are now roughly brought forth and presented.

1.4

Being about to explain the text of the treatise, it is analysed through six sections: first, recounting what is intended [by its composition]; second, revealing the causes [for its composition]; third, clarifying the fundamental tenets; fourth, showing the inclusion within the piṭakas; fifth, explaining the title; sixth, interpreting the main text.

1.5

First, what is intended. The Vibhāṣā has ten explanations, concisely collected and presented as follows: dharmas and sentiments, opening up emptiness and existence; nature and penetration, lack of faith and delusion; brief and detailed, equal three and four; two and four, object, practice, and fruit. The rest are as in the Shuyao, and are therefore omitted here without elaboration.

1.6

Second, the causes [for its composition]. The Vibhāṣā explains: after the Buddha's nirvāṇa, when demonic incidents arose in confusion. That is to say, in the first hundred years after the Buddha's extinction, it was due to that Mahādeva disputing over the five points. Mahādeva's fame was high and his virtue great; the age at which he realized the fruits was young. Kings and nobles admired his style, and the monastic assembly revered his way. Since he was uniquely eminent and without peer, he was consequently envied by the worldly of that time, who slandered him as having committed the three heinous crimes, and added to this by amplifying the five points. Mahādeva spoke the verse: "Temptation by others, ignorance, / Doubt, being caused to enter by another, / And the path arising because of sound: / These are called the true Buddhist teaching." Mahādeva explained: As for all arhats, afflictions and emissions are both absent; being tempted by Māra, [Māra] smeared and soiled his garments with impurity, which appeared as if it were an emission. The various masters slandered him, saying: Mahādeva is an ordinary fool; delusion regarding sense objects gave rise to defilement; giving rise to thoughts at night, impurity soiled his garments, yet he pushed it onto the harassment of Māra. Consequently, discord arose. Mahādeva explained: As for those who see the truths, although doubts regarding afflictions and principles are entirely severed, factual doubts, such as mistaking a post for a man, still remain. The various masters slandered him, saying: Mahādeva is an ordinary fool who does not understand the true teaching, claiming that all noble ones still have afflictive doubts. Consequently, discord arose. Mahādeva explained: There are two kinds of ignorance, namely defiled and undefiled. As for all arhats, the defiled is completely exhausted, but the undefiled still remains. The various masters slandered him, saying: Mahādeva is an ordinary fool who does not understand the true teaching, claiming that arhats have undefiled ignorance. Consequently, discord arose. Mahādeva explained: Even those of sharp faculties such as Śāriputra were brought to enter the path by reliance on spiritual friends; that others should enter due to a cause is not confusing. The various masters slandered him, saying: Mahādeva is an ordinary fool who does not understand the scriptures and teachings, saying that those of sharp faculties such as Śāriputra were caused to enter the path by others and did not even know for themselves that they had attained the arhat fruit, so how much less the rest of you? Consequently, discord arose. Mahādeva explained: Those with past cultivation have practiced for many lifetimes; when approaching the realization of the fruit, relying on the Buddha's verbal teachings explaining suffering, emptiness, and so forth, upon hearing them they immediately enter the path and realize the noble fruit. Therefore, under the Buddha's words, many visibly realize the fruit; also, there are those who, repulsed by suffering, utter the sound of repulsion themselves, whereupon the noble path arises. The various masters slandered him, saying: Mahādeva committed heinous crimes; not severing wholesome roots and fearing that he would fall, he called out 'suffering' many times at night; his disciples thought he had caught an illness and inquired about his well-being in the morning. He answered: 'I have no illness.' They then asked: 'Why did you call out 'suffering'?' He then answered: 'In former days when I was young, entering the path was at will; today I am already old, and the arising of the path is difficult to follow. If I do not utter the sound of suffering with deep repulsion, there is no way for the noble path to arise.' Since such slanders arose, discord became tumultuous; hence it is said that after the extinction, demonic incidents arose in confusion. Competing for fame and gain is the same in both present and past; fabricating out of nothing is common to all ordinary beings. When the events spoken of involve suspicious traces, how could there not be such turmoil? Therefore, the various Hīnayāna schools, on account of the Mahāsāṃghika, were divided like several pieces of gold, or fragmented like pieces of fine white cloth; the Buddha's advance prophecy began from this. However, although the treatise has this primary cause, it lacked its secondary cause. Since the true Dharma gradually spread to the east, the years have been very long; although the name of the Treatise on the Seventeen Bhūmis was heard, they did not know what the seventeen were. The Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra is only one bhūmi of the Bodhisattva; the Viniscayasaṃgrahaṇī is the beginning of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī; beyond these, none had existed in the land of Han. In the twenty-second year of Zhenguan, the Great Master first began to translate it at the Hongfa Cloister of the Northern Palace. The one fascicle of mixed Vibhāṣā text was translated at Da Cien Temple in the first year of Yonghui.

1.7

Third, the fundamental tenets. The Vibhāṣā below states: Furthermore, the seventeen bhūmis fully subsume all texts and meanings in brief; the subsequent four divisions are all to explain the various essential texts and meanings in the seventeen bhūmis, and therefore they also do not depart from the bhūmis of the yogācāra. Therefore, this treatise takes the seventeen bhūmis as its main tenets. This is because tenet has the meaning of what is primary, what is revered, what is exalted, and what is valued.

1.8

Fourth, inclusion within the piṭakas. The Vibhāṣā below states: Although it generally clarifies the objects and so forth of all vehicles, nevertheless the speaker of the treatise, in questioning, answering, and determining the natures and characteristics of all dharmas, intends them for bodhisattvas, so that they may attain upāya-kauśalya in everything, cultivate and accomplish the Buddha fruit, and benefit inexhaustibly. Therefore, this treatise belongs to the Abhidharma of the Bodhisattva-piṭaka, because of wishing to cause bodhisattvas to obtain supreme wisdom. Therefore, although this treatise clarifies the two piṭakas of Bodhisattva and Śrāvaka, it is subsumed only under the Bodhisattva-piṭaka; although it also fully explains precepts, concentration, wisdom, and so forth, among the three piṭakas, it is subsumed only under the Abhidharma-piṭaka. According to this, its inclusion under the six piṭakas can be known.

1.9

Fifth, explaining the title, which has two parts: first, explaining the name; second, questions and answers. Regarding explaining the name, the Vibhāṣā provides an overall identification of the essence, stating: all dharmas such as objects, practices, and fruits of all vehicles are all called yoga, because they all have the meaning of being endowed with upāya-kauśalya. What is meant here is that all dharmas of object, practice, and fruit possessed by the three vehicles are all called yoga, because the object with practice and fruit, and the practice with the fruit dharmas, all have the meaning of being endowed with upāya-kauśalya. As for the essence of upāya-kauśalya, if relying on the ten pāramitās, it takes subsequently attained wisdom as its self-nature; because it reveals both internal and external forms of skillfulness, it takes only the specific mental factor of prajñā as its essence. Now, according to the subsequent text of the Vibhāṣā, this skillfulness has the two dharmas of manaskāra and prajñā as its nature. If one applies attention to this and further realizes and penetrates this, then object, practice, and fruit do not conflict, because focusing the mind and penetratingly unifying them do not diverge. However, in the Vibhāṣā, the three of object, practice, and fruit are each separately explained. Within the object, there are general and specific aspects. In the general, it says: all objects are of non-perverted nature, non-contradictory nature, compliant nature, and nature tending toward the ultimate, being in accordance with correct principle, teaching, practice, and fruit, and therefore they are called yoga. As ordered, the four objects are correlated without contradiction with principle, teaching, practice, and fruit. What all minds take as object is called object; what all wisdoms realize is called principle; principle is profound and the object is shallow. The non-perverted nature of the object grasped by the mind is that the parikalpita-svabhāva does not exist as unconditioned or conditioned existence; it is not in contradiction with the principle realized by wisdom, in that self and dharmas do not exist, and unconditioned dharmas do not not exist. As for the perverted nature of the object, emotional understanding deems it so, but it is not truly so, because it does not accord with correct principle. That the non-perverted nature of the object corresponds to principle, that the object does not contradict teaching, can comply with practice, and can tend toward the ultimate fruit, can be known by inference accordingly. Or, the four are simply the fourfold two truths. These fourfold two truths, these four objects, mutually correspond with principle, teaching, practice, and fruit. In the specific explanation of the object, there are five teachings and six texts. A verse summarizes this, saying: "The two kinds in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, / The Questions of Brahmā, the Laṅkāvatāra, / The Mahārtha and the Vipulārtha: / Five teachings make up the six objects." Among these, the first three are correlated in order with paratantra-svabhāva, parikalpita-svabhāva, and pariniṣpanna-svabhāva. These six objects all possess the four natures such as non-perversion, because they accord with the four kinds of dharmas. Within practice-yoga, there are also general and specific aspects. The general also has four, which can be known from the text. The specific has seventeen: the first thirteen kinds are practiced in common by the three vehicles; the latter four kinds are solely the Great Yoga. A verse summarizes this, saying: "Distinguishing the moon, the ocean of prajñā, / Revealing the two states of hearing and cultivation, / Virtuous conduct, precepts, and the great meaning, / Two prajñās and two other states." Within fruit-yoga, there are also general and specific aspects. The general text can be known; the specific has six kinds. A verse summarizes this, saying: "Distinguishing the supreme great meaning, / Discriminating, explaining, and clarifying the three vehicles, / Praising the Buddha and collecting the meanings: / Seven teachings are stated as the fruit." This explains object, practice, and fruit as being named yoga. As for "previously stating words such as 'and so forth' at the beginning", the Vibhāṣā further states: such noble teachings are also called yoga. This text can be understood; principle enters into the object, and therefore is not mentioned again. There is an opinion: it precisely takes the contemplative practice of the three vehicles as being named yoga, which accords with the text naturally. However, examining what has been explained above and below, past and present, they combine into four categories: first, taking only practice; second, taking the three of object, practice, and fruit; third, also taking teaching; fourth, these three together. As explained in the Vibhāṣā. The traditional interpretations previously handed down: first, object; second, principle; third, practice; fourth, fruit; fifth, once the fruit is attained and perfected, benefiting living beings and rescuing creatures, medicine and illness corresponding. Altogether there are four kinds earlier and later. "Master" (ācāra) has two meanings. "Bhūmi" has four meanings, namely sphere of activity, āśraya, what is practiced, and what is subsumed. Its object and practice each have only one interpretation; the two of āśraya and subsumption each have two interpretations. "Treatise" (śāstra) has one meaning, solely for the maintenance of the Dharma. The Kośa has teaching and admonishing disciples, which are both easy to know. The master possessing yoga is a bahuvrīhi compound. The master of yoga is a tatpuruṣa compound. The bhūmi of the master of yoga is also a tatpuruṣa compound. Yoga is itself the bhūmi; the two essences are not distinct. The bhūmi is what is expressed, and what expresses it is the treatise; the treatise of the yogācārabhūmi is also a tatpuruṣa compound. Combined as the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, there are three interpretations.

1.10

In the questions and answers, the Vibhāṣā provides three explanations. According to the first explanation, only the first division is called a bhūmi, while the latter four are not called bhūmis. According to the latter two explanations, all five are called bhūmis; because the treatise is concise, it mentions only seventeen as bhūmis, but the latter four divisions are not unentitled to be called bhūmis. This is the second explanation. The third explanation can be understood from the text. If one were merely to say "the bhūmis of yoga", one would not know whose bhūmis they are, so the designation "master" (yogācāra) is introduced. If one were merely to say "the master's bhūmis" without saying "yoga", one would not know which master's bhūmis they are; hence it is called as a compound "Yogācārabhūmi" (The Bhūmis of the Yogācāra). If one were merely to say "yogācāra" without saying "bhūmi", one would not merely wish to explain yoga, but using the master nominally, one wishes to explain the bhūmi-teachings upon which that master relies, causing [students] to cultivate and learn in accord with them, so as to become such masters and realize such bhūmis.

1.11

Sixth, explaining the text. First, explaining the specific titles; second, explaining the text of the treatise. Regarding the specific titles: in this treatise there are five divisions in total. The first fifty fascicles are named the "Maulī Bhūmi" (Division on the Fundamental Bhūmis), which distinguishes in brief and in detail the meanings of the seventeen fundamental bhūmis of the three vehicles. The next thirty fascicles are named the "Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī" (Compendium of Ascertainment), which compendiously gathers the profound, hidden essentials among the seventeen bhūmis and ascertains them. The next two fascicles are named the "Vivaraṇasaṃgrahaṇī" (Compendium of Exegesis), which compendiously gathers the exegetical conventions of the sūtras within the seventeen bhūmis. The next two fascicles are named the "Paryāyasaṃgrahaṇī" (Compendium of Synonyms), which compendiously gathers and explains the names and meanings of dharmas in the sūtras of the seventeen bhūmis. The final sixteen fascicles are named the "Vastusaṃgrahaṇī" (Compendium of Matters), which compendiously gathers and explains the essential topics in the Tripiṭaka concerning the seventeen bhūmis. The titles of these five divisions are as explained in their own texts. The first explains the seventeen categories of the fundamental objects, practices, and fruits of the three vehicles, and is named the "Maulī Bhūmi". Within this division there are seventeen bhūmis; the bhūmi associated with the collection of the five consciousnesses stands at the head, and hence is called the first. The specific name will be fully explained below.

1.12

Regarding the explanation of the text of the treatise: this treatise consists solely of the main exposition, having no introductory or concluding sections. Within the "Maulī Bhūmi", the main text is divided into two parts: first, questions and answers that state and enumerate the names of the seventeen bhūmis; second, subsequent separate expositions of the meanings of the seventeen bhūmis. However, because the text stating and enumerating them is brief, it is introduced at the beginning of the "Bhūmi of the Five Consciousnesses". It does not, simply because it is stated in this bhūmi, belong exclusively to the bhūmi of the collection of the five consciousnesses. The initial text has five parts: first, a question; second, an answer; third, an investigation; fourth, an exposition; fifth, a conclusion. Within the exposition there are two parts: the verses and the prose. If one follows the Vibhāṣā, it is divided into four textual parts: first, the general question and answer; second, the further investigation and raising; third, the enumeration of names; fourth, the general conclusion. The question raises three causes, but answers only with the seventeen. It explains the third part by investigating which seventeen they are, and interprets the verse text. The explanations of the specific names of the seventeen bhūmis are all as found in the Commentary on the Treatise.

1.13

Regarding "uddāna": here it is translated as "gathering and bestowing" (ji-shi). -dāna means bestowing; ud- has the sense of gathering. Using concise words to gather many teachings and bestow them upon students so that they may easily uphold them, it is therefore called gathering and bestowing. Regarding "samādhi and its opposite together": although the Vibhāṣā explains this, it is not yet exhaustive; its intention is to reveal that the nature of the samāhita-bhūmi and others encompasses the five aggregates. If one merely said "samādhi" without saying "together", it would denote only the single mental factor of concentration and could not reveal that its nature encompasses the five aggregates; thus the word "together" is used to show that its scope is coextensive with the samāhita-bhūmi. It is only because it horizontally encompasses the five aggregates as an identical essence, and not because it vertically encompasses the three realms in an identical sense, why does it not say "samāhita and its opposite", but says "samādhi and its opposite together"? This is explained below in resolving objections. "What is established by them" means what is founded, that is, what is successfully established. "Fully endowed in this way": the Vibhāṣā has two meanings: first, referring to the immediate, pointing to the preceding practices, meaning that due to such practices as the bhūmis of hearing and so forth, one is fully endowed with the fruits of the three vehicles and the two cessations; second, referring broadly to the whole, pointing generally to the preceding, meaning that due to the various bhūmis of objects and practices explained above, one accomplishes the fruits of the three vehicles and the two cessations. Hence the word "in this way" applies to both [nirvāṇa with and] without remainder. This is generally distinguished through four headings: first, names; second, essence; third, matching the yogas of objects, practices, and fruits to the seventeen bhūmis; fourth, resolving objections. The enumeration of names is as in the treatise; the interpretation of names and extraction of essences are completely as in the Vibhāṣā's text.

1.14

The Vibhāṣā explains that naming the five consciousnesses after their sense faculties has three reasons: first, because they are uncommon; second, because they are immediate; third, because they are simultaneous. The Abhidharmasamuccaya and the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi state that they are named in accordance with the sense faculties because they possess five qualities. "Collection" (kāya) has three meanings: having physical obstruction, relying on the physical body, and meaning an aggregate of entities. The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī states: the bases of the five consciousnesses possess physical obstruction, and are therefore called "bodies" (kāya). If so, why are the eye and other faculties not individually called kāya, while only the body faculty is called kāya? The former four rely on the body, with the body being their support; hence it alone is called the body faculty (kāyendriya). If so, the mind also operates relying on the body; why is it not called kāya? In the form realm, the mind operates relying on the body, but in the formless realm this is not so. The eye and other faculties necessarily exist only by relying on the body faculty, and therefore may be called kāya. Furthermore, because it has the meaning of an aggregate of entities, they are all called collections (kāya), as in the six collections of volitions, the six collections of consciousness, and so forth. The former two are uncommon, while this is a common designation. "Associated" (saṃprayukta) has three meanings: first, the sense of reliance; second, equality of time, equality of basis, equality of locus, and equality of object-matter; third, the sense of subsumption.

1.15

The mental bhūmi (manobhūmi) has three meanings: first, the manas among the six sense faculties; second, the manovijñāna among the six consciousnesses; third, subsumption by the seventh manas. They correspond in this order. However, the six consciousnesses may also be called kāya. This is the second explanation. Just as mental feeling is called solely "mental" and not given the name of kāya, because consciousness is an aggregate of supports of its own essence, it can be called kāya; but since its basis is non-physical, it is called mental feeling. The first and last two explanations are concise, and thus do not use the words "associated with the collection", and for this reason they do not speak of bhūmis of mind (citta) or consciousness (vijñāna).

1.16

The bhūmis of having investigation (savitarka) and so forth have three meanings, and there is a definitive view. The second master says: regarding one who has separated from desire for investigation in the intermediate dhyāna, it is like entering the contemplation of impurity in the desire realm, temporarily suppressing craving through analysis, and not liberation by means of the six aspects of practice. The Vibhāṣā is rather difficult [here]; when explaining the names of the bhūmis in the fourth fascicle, this will be broadly clarified. The third master, explaining the passage cited by the first master, states that it speaks only of the three mindless states of the higher realms and does not speak of the mindless states of fainting and sleep in the lower realms; this is a brief explanation of coarse characteristics, whose meaning is apparent and understandable. That fascicle did not resolve it on its own; it will be fully clarified under the fivefold mindless states.

1.17

Equanimity/samāhita has three meanings: first, equanimity capable of leading; second, leading to equanimity; third, what is led by equanimity. According to the correct view, the first two pertain only to states with mind, while the latter one applies also to states without mind. Samāhita and non-samāhita completely subsume all virtues belonging to the concentrated state, whether with mind or without mind; hence the verse says "together". The word "together" manifests the meaning of association. The three meanings of association are as previously stated. The essence of the bhūmis also has three meanings. There is a definitive view: the bhūmis with mind and without mind have five meanings, and there is a real meaning; the explanation of names is as in the Vibhāṣā. Thus it is shown that the bhūmi associated with the collection of the five consciousnesses, according to what is appropriate, in contaminated and uncontaminated stages, takes generally the contaminated and uncontaminated five aggregates as its nature, because its co-arising bases encompass the seventh and eighth [consciousnesses]. This treatise's text is concise and does not include unconditioned phenomena, because relative to the five consciousnesses they have no subsumption and their dynamic connection is remote. The mental bhūmi generally takes all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas as its essence, because the sixth mental consciousness can apprehend everything universally. The three bhūmis of having investigation and so forth all take solely conditioned dharmas, both contaminated and uncontaminated, according to all dharmas belonging to the three bhūmis above and below them, as their essence. The treatise extracts the essence of the three bhūmis based on the higher and lower bhūmis, and does not state that unconditioned dharmas are the three bhūmis. Or, as appropriate, what is realized in those bhūmis also extends to unconditioned dharmas. The samāhita-bhūmi generally takes the virtues of the five aggregates—with mind, without mind, contaminated, and uncontaminated—of the two higher realms as its essential nature. The treatise says "associated with samādhi"; "associated with" has the meaning of conjunction and subsumption. The Vibhāṣā also says: these two bhūmis completely subsume all virtues of the concentrated state, whether with mind or without mind. The asamāhita-bhūmi is not only in the desire realm, but also extends to the two higher realms, taking solely the contaminated conditioned five aggregates as its nature. Although the Vibhāṣā says that it is easily understood by reversing the previous one, examining the root text of that bhūmi in the treatise reveals that the contaminated seven modes of attention all belong to this bhūmi. The treatise states: or because it is not purified, it is called an unsettled bhūmi. It is because one has attained only mundane concentration and has not permanently destroyed the dormant tendencies of the minds and mental factors that all contaminated dharmas of the higher realms and the desire realm are taken as its intrinsic nature. For the two bhūmis with mind and without mind, the treatise has five alternative explanations. In terms of the real meaning, the bhūmi without mind takes solely the unconditioned nirvāṇa without remainder as its essence, while the bhūmi with mind generally takes all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas as its essence, because the treatise does not say that nirvāṇa with remainder is the essence of the bhūmi without mind. This is according to the two vehicles. If in the stage of a Buddha, the bhūmi without mind also extends to the two cessations and also extends to conditioned phenomena; since bodhi still remains and there is no contaminated mind, it is called "without mind". The remaining four headings are to be interpreted in accord with the text.

1.18

Regarding the two bhūmis of hearing and reflection, if spoken in terms of the two vehicles, they take the contaminated and uncontaminated five aggregates as their essence, according to what is appropriate. The Vibhāṣā explains: these three bhūmis take the minds, mental factors, and so forth belonging to the category of the three prajñās, as well as their attained fruits, as their intrinsic nature. The unconditioned is not an immediate fruit attained by the two prajñās of the two vehicles, and hence is not the essence of the bhūmi; uncontaminated dharmas are perfumed as seeds by those two prajñās, and hence serve as the nature of the bhūmi. If according to bodhisattvas, the two stages arisen from [hearing and reflection] also extend to the unconditioned. The Daśabhūmika-sūtra states: from the eighth bhūmi upward, all dharmas heard by bodhisattvas can be tolerated, reflected upon, and retained. Vasubandhu explains: these are the three prajñās, correlated respectively. Since in the uncontaminated continuum, the prajñā arisen from cultivation itself constitutes hearing and reflection, hearing and reflection in this thought-moment internally accomplish the unconditioned, and therefore it is the essence of the bhūmi; the prajñā arisen from cultivation logically extends to it, and thus does not need to be mentioned, because what is taken as the bhūmi's essence is the fruit attained. Master Tai says: from the eighth bhūmi upward, the essence takes solely the prajñā arisen from cultivation, while hearing and reflection are stated metaphorically; hearing and reflection are solely contaminated. Furthermore, it is just the prajñā arisen from cultivation: external hearing is called hearing, internal reflection is called reflection, and cultivation and realization are called cultivation; because they resemble hearing and reflection, borrowing their names, they are spoken of as hearing and reflection; hearing and reflection are solely contaminated. Master Jing says: from the eighth bhūmi upward, there is contaminated mind, and hence hearing and reflection are accomplished. If not, how could one listen to the Dharma in a pure land without giving rise to non-defined or unwholesome minds? Toward dharmas previously attained, one does not give rise to preparatory effort; toward what has not yet been attained, preceded by hearing and reflection, there is also preparatory effort. That which has no preparatory effort refers to what has previously been attained. Master Lingjun transmitted from the West: there are altogether two explanations: first, agreeing with the former view; second, agreeing with the latter view. Now, taking the uncontaminated continuum from the eighth bhūmi upward, the bodhisattvas of sharp faculties can give rise to the three functions within a single prajñā arisen from cultivation, which is precisely called the three prajñās, and logically this is also without fault. Just as in lower bhūmis the two sensations of joy and pleasure have distinct essences, yet in the first and second dhyānas they share the same essence; prior to the fourth bhūmi, the two knowledges of ultimate and conventional truth have distinct essences, yet after the fifth bhūmi they are acknowledged to share the same essence. Thus for the two vehicles and others, the two prajñās have distinct essences; while from the eighth bhūmi upward, their essences are identical. Other assertions that hearing and reflection are solely contaminated are spoken based on the two vehicles. The three bhūmis of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas, according to what is appropriate, each take their own seeds, actual manifestations, contaminated, uncontaminated, conditioned, and unconditioned wholesome dharmas conforming to their own vehicle as their essence; that the dharmas cultivated and accomplished by the indeterminate lineage serve as causes for subsequent vehicles is also without fault. In the Vibhāṣā's explanation of the name śrāvaka, there is only one's own vehicle, and no designation of "pāramitā-śrāvaka". In the Lotus Sūtra, causing all to hear through the voice of the Buddha-path constitutes the two.

1.19

The Bhūmi with Remainder of Support has as its nature all contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas possessed by the aśaikṣas of the two vehicles. The Bhūmi without Remainder of Support has as its nature solely suchness for the two vehicles, because there is no remaining support. Regarding the Buddha-body's having remainder, there are earlier and later explanations—two explanations; regarding having no remainder, there are three explanations. Now, taking the correct position: the conditioned merits of the Buddha-body are subsumed under the having remainder of support; the unconditioned merits are subsumed under the without remainder of support. This is fully set forth in the treatise. Regarding the essences of the seventeen bhūmis explained herein, where they are present in the text of the treatise and the commentary, one explains them in reliance on the treatise and commentary; if the text is not explicit, taking them by reference to reasoning and texts such as the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi is likewise without fault.

1.20

Third, the matching of object, practice, and fruit in yoga to the seventeen bhūmis. The first nine bhūmis are the objects of the three vehicles; the next six bhūmis are the practices of the three vehicles; the last two bhūmis are the fruits of the three vehicles. This is because one awakens practice by contemplating objects, and only then realizes the fruit. The nine [bhūmis] of object form four [categories]: the first two bhūmis are the essence of the object, because all [phenomena] take consciousness as their essence, because they do not arise apart from consciousness, and because consciousness is supreme; the next three bhūmis are the characteristics of the object, because the characteristics of the objects differ as lower and higher, coarse and subtle; the next two bhūmis are the function, because the operations at times of concentration and distraction are distinct; the last two bhūmis are the states, because the two states of having mind and being without mind are distinct. Alternatively, the nine form three [categories]: the first five are as before, and the latter four bhūmis are collectively called function, because the order of their operational states differs two by two. The earlier essence can only arise relying on the characteristics, so their sequence of states differs. Furthermore, the earlier essences are categorized into two, ordered as easy to know and difficult to know; the coarse and subtle make three, ordered by the three grades; concentration and distraction make two, ordered as superior and inferior; having and lacking mind make two, ordered as manifest and concealed. Hence, the overall sequence of objects is thus. Among the six bhūmis of practice: the first three are common practices, because the three vehicles all cultivate the practices of the three prajñās, being ordered as arising initially, intermediate, and finally; the latter three are distinct practices, because capacities realize their own vehicles in accordance with the cultivated dharmas, ordered by inferior and superior, small and great, expedient and fundamental. Among the two bhūmis of fruit: if according to the two vehicles, causes and fruits perish, and the fruit is established in two aspects as earlier and later; if up to the Buddha-body, bodhi and nirvāṇa are divided into two distinct aspects as earlier and later.

1.21

Fourth, resolving objections and difficulties: The five consciousnesses are said to be 'associated with the body', whereas the mental consciousness is not said to be 'associated with the body', and they are not called 'mind-bhūmi' or 'consciousness-bhūmi'—all of this is explained in the commentary's exposition of the essences. The first question: Why are the five combined to establish a bhūmi, while set apart from the mind? This is also as explained in the commentary. However, the commentary says that the five consciousnesses are alike in being non-conceptual, whereas the mind-bhūmi is the reverse of this; could the eighth consciousness also have conceptualization as its essence? Because of this, it is further explained in reverse below. The second question: Why does it only speak of the bhūmis with searching and without searching, and not speak of bhūmis with concentration and without concentration, but instead says samāhita and non-[samāhita]? Answer: Samāhita is translated here as 'equipoise'; its essence encompasses both having mind and lacking mind, so it does not need to say 'having'. As for searching and the like, they are merely a single indeterminate mental factor, not encompassing mindlessness; using the word 'having' there indicates that it encompasses the five aggregates.

1.22

In the commentary, samādhi is contrasted with samāhita to form four propositions; the third, which speaks of 'concomitant', means either 'concomitant with samādhi' or 'the samāhita-bhūmi', referring to the minds and mental factors in the states of concentration with mind in the dhyānas and formless attainments, excluding samādhi itself, because the essence of samādhi is only a single distinct-object concentration factor. It is merely that because searching and investigation involve deduction and non-deduction, their coarse and subtle states differ, their essence is not among the three trainings, and they lack superior benefit, the word 'having' is used to reveal their states; the essence of concentration is a training and has superior benefit, so merely stating 'concentration and non-[concentration] bhūmi' reveals the distinction without needing to say 'having'. Because mind, alike to searching and investigation, also lacks distinct superior benefit in its essence and is not a training dharma, the word 'having' is likewise used to distinguish it, speaking of the bhūmis with mind and without mind. The third question: Why does the verse not say 'samāhita and non-', but says 'together with samādhi and non-'; what is the intention? Answer: The intention is to reveal the difference between samādhi and samāhita. Whatever is samāhita encompasses the merits of the five aggregates. Fearing that one might think samādhi also encompasses the five aggregates, it says 'together with samādhi', revealing that only with the word 'together' does it encompass the five aggregates. Samādhi is merely a single concentration factor, and is therefore not identical to samāhita; thus its name is listed. The verse and the prose commentary differ. Even though that reasoning holds, even if one said 'together with samādhi', it would still differ in scope from samāhita: samāhita is the five aggregates of the upper two realms, whereas the expression 'together with samādhi' has an essence encompassing all five aggregates of the three realms. Therefore, one should simply explain it according to the prior meaning. The fourth question: Why, when there are so many mental factors, are searching, investigation, and the presence or absence of concentration uniquely used to clarify distinctions in states, functions, and so forth, rather than using prajñā versus non-prajñā, delusion versus non-delusion, and so forth, to distinguish differences in states and functions? Answer: In principle it should be so, but because predominant states are indicated in brief, other factors are not mentioned. That is to say, because the higher and lower bhūmis of 'with searching' and so forth differ in coarseness and subtlety, and equipoise and non-equipoise differ in realms of higher and lower, concentrated and distracted, these two are predominant, so they are selectively established in brief. For this reason the commentary says: 'Here, brevity is preserved, and for now seventeen are stated. It is not that a bhūmi cannot be established based on other dharmas, because a yogācāra uses all dharmas as support and object.' The fifth question: Why does it not speak of bhūmis of wholesome mind and unwholesome mind, but only speaks of having mind and lacking mind? Answer: Because the general is superior, while the specific is inferior. The sixth question: Among the practices of the three vehicles, there are also practices of merit; why are only the three prajñās stated as bhūmis? Answer: Because prajñā is foremost and subsumes everything; hence the treatise names them the bhūmis formed by them, as prajñā is singularly predominant among supramundane practices. The seventh question: Why among the five vehicles are humans and gods not mentioned, but only the three vehicles? Answer: Because the most superior vehicles are stated, not the inferior; vehicles having lineage are stated, not those lacking lineage. The eighth question: Why, when there are four nirvāṇas as well as bodhi, are only two supports stated? Answer: Because they are common to the three vehicles, only the two cessations are stated; non-abiding [nirvāṇa] is solely the fruit of the Great Vehicle, and its self-nature is fundamentally established. Furthermore, they are completely subsumed: merely stating the two supports without stating the two nirvāṇas subsumes bodhi; generally stating the two supports without stating the two cessations subsumes all four. As for the inherently pure nirvāṇa, it is fundamentally and originally present and not newly attained now, so it is not stated as a fruit. The explanation of the initial introductory text is concluded.

1.23

In the initial fifty fascicles of the Maulī Bhūmi division, the first half of the first fascicle is the bhūmi associated with the five consciousness-bodies; from the middle of the first fascicle through the second and third fascicles, making two and a half fascicles in total, is the mind-bhūmi; the next seven fascicles are the three bhūmis with searching, investigation, and so on; the next two and a half fascicles are the samāhita-bhūmi; more than one sheet in the thirteenth fascicle is the non-samāhita-bhūmi; about one sheet in the thirteenth fascicle is the two bhūmis with mind and without mind; in the thirteenth fascicle and the fourteenth and fifteenth, making two and a half fascicles in total, is the bhūmi formed by hearing; the next four fascicles are the bhūmi formed by reflection; the next one fascicle is the bhūmi formed by cultivation; from the twenty-first to the middle of the thirty-fourth fascicle, making thirteen and a half fascicles in total, is the Śrāvaka-bhūmi; the latter half of the thirty-fourth fascicle is the Pratyekabuddha-bhūmi; from the thirty-fifth to the middle of the fiftieth fascicle, making fifteen and a half fascicles in total, is the Bodhisattva-bhūmi; more than two sheets in the fiftieth fascicle are the Bhūmi with Remainder of Support; the next two sheets and more are the Bhūmi without Remainder of Support. Those seventeen bhūmis are divided into fourteen sections, because the three bhūmis with searching and so forth are combined into one, and the two bhūmis with mind and without mind are combined into one. In the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, the first seven fascicles together analyze the bhūmi of the five consciousness-bodies and the mind-bhūmi; the next four fascicles together analyze the three bhūmis with searching and so forth; the next one and a half fascicles analyze the samāhita-bhūmi; more than one sheet in the sixty-third fascicle analyzes the non-samāhita-bhūmi; the next two sheets and more analyze the bhūmi with mind; the next two and a half sheets analyze the bhūmi without mind; the sixty-fourth fascicle analyzes the bhūmi of prajñā formed by hearing; the next two fascicles analyze the bhūmi of prajñā formed by reflection; about three sheets in the sixty-seventh fascicle analyze the bhūmi of prajñā formed by cultivation; from the lower part of the sixty-seventh fascicle, four and a half fascicles together analyze the Śrāvaka-bhūmi and Pratyekabuddha-bhūmi—in name, they analyze only the Śrāvaka-bhūmi and do not analyze the Pratyekabuddha-bhūmi; from the lower part of the seventy-second fascicle to the middle of the eightieth, eight and a half fascicles in total analyze the Bodhisattva-bhūmi; the latter half of the eightieth fascicle together analyzes the bhūmis with remainder and without remainder of support. Thus, these seventeen bhūmis are divided into twelve sections: because the five consciousness-bodies and the mind-bhūmi are combined into one, the three bhūmis with searching and so forth into one, the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha bhūmis into one, and the bhūmis with remainder and without remainder of support into one. Consequently, correlating the Maulī Bhūmi and the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, there should be four propositions: 1. combined at first and separated later, namely the bhūmis with mind and without mind; 2. separated at first and combined later, namely the five consciousness-bodies and the mind-bhūmi, the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha bhūmis, and the bhūmis with and without remainder of support; 3. combined both initially and later, namely the three bhūmis with searching and so forth; 4. separated both initially and later, namely the remaining six bhūmis, that is, the samāhita-bhūmi, the non-samāhita-bhūmi, the bhūmis formed by hearing, reflection, and cultivation, and the Bodhisattva-bhūmi. Readers of the treatise should know that, matching the fascicle counts of the upper and lower bhūmis and examining the upper and lower texts, because they speak by way of mutual implication and omission, either what is absent before is present later, or what is present before is absent later, being absent because it was fully explained; or the name is indicated before and the essence explained later, or it is diffusely explained before and briefly indicated later, being indicated because of inconvenience; or it is brief and implicit before and manifest and extensive later, or manifest and extensive before and implicit and brief later, because the explanation is roughly complete. One should search the text of the treatise relying on these three paradigms. Furthermore, relying on the five divisions, one explains names as appropriate in order to discern their meaning and understand all sūtras. When various sūtras are unresolved, all read this treatise to explain them, and there is nothing that is not understood, because this treatise explains the meaning of the five vehicles and three piṭakas completely. In this text of the treatise, sometimes names are listed in vain without knowing what their essence is; or although explained according to the name, one does not comprehend their characteristics; or although comprehending their characteristics, they conflict between earlier and later; or although not conflicting, the intended meaning is difficult to grasp. In that order, one may understand the four principles, and reading that text, there will be nothing one does not penetrate. The verse says: 'As names arise, understand the meaning; / Subsume dharmas under identical names; / Read through continuously connecting broad passages; / Separate or combine as appropriate.'

1.24

In the bhūmi of the five consciousnesses, the main text has two parts: first, distinguishing the essence of the bhūmi, and second, generally explaining the dharmas and meanings. The first text has two parts: first, a general question and answer on the bhūmi, and next, distinguishing them individually. In distinguishing them individually there are two parts: first, generally presenting the five names, and second, individually presenting the five consciousnesses. As for the remaining five gateways of meaning, according to the Cheng weishi lun's nine gateways distinguishing the verses on the third transformation, there are not these three: uncommon support, object, and operation. Now, individually presenting the five gateways of meaning for the eye-consciousness constitutes five. 'Self-nature' is presenting the essence. Regarding 'discerning color relying on the eye', the Cheng weishi lun says: 'Here it provisionally speaks of what is discerned by the darśanabhāga in the state where the uncommon support has not yet transformed its basis; it is not the exhaustive principle.' The intention here is that the characteristics of consciousness are difficult to comprehend, so it presents the self-nature by adducing the causal support and the discerned fruit, since self-nature can also be cause and fruit. If in terms of āyatana gateways, consciousness is the fruit; in the dhātu gateway, it is the cause. Contrasted jointly with faculty and object, it encompasses both cause and fruit.

1.25

In explaining the basis (āśraya), there are three parts: first, a brief presentation of the three bases; second, subsuming them into two; and finally, re-identifying the entities of the three. The Vijñaptimātratā speaks of the sovereign-condition basis (adhipati-pratyaya-āśraya), the immediately antecedent condition basis (samanantara-pratyaya-āśraya), and the cause-condition basis (hetu-pratyaya-āśraya), which are designated according to the names of the four conditions. It also speaks of the simultaneous basis (sahabhū-āśraya), the opening-and-leading basis (samanantara-āśraya), and the seed basis (bīja-āśraya), the general import of which is the same as here. In the fourth fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun, they are ordered from proximate to remote; here they are ordered from manifest to hidden, so the sequence differs. Regarding the simultaneous basis, there are four interpretations in total; in clarifying the basis of the five consciousnesses there are only three interpretations, because the third master there agrees with the second. First, the five consciousnesses have no bases such as the eye, but rely solely on mental consciousness, 'eye' meaning seeds. Second, the five have two bases, namely the five physical faculties and simultaneous mental consciousness. Third, the five have four bases, which is taken as correct: namely the five physical faculties and the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses, distinguished as the basis sharing the object, the basis of discrimination, the basis of defilement and purification, and the fundamental basis. Here, [the text] only takes the one that shares the object, abbreviating by omitting the remaining bases; because the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses are somewhat more distant, they are abbreviated and not set forth. Regarding the immediately antecedent basis, there are three interpretations in total: first, the five consciousnesses rely solely on the sixth; second, the five consciousnesses take whichever among the preceding six consciousnesses is operative as their basis; third, the five consciousnesses each take only consciousness of their own kind as their basis, which is taken as correct. As for the seed basis, although there are two accounts, there is no difference in their interpretation of the first five consciousnesses. In the seventh fascicle, in explaining reliance on the fundamental consciousness, it says that 'reliance' means that the first six revolving consciousnesses take the fundamental consciousness as their shared and proximate basis: 'shared' means relying on the active [consciousness], and 'proximate' means relying on the seeds. Now, this text either speaks only of relying on the seeds of the eighth, or only of relying on the active consciousness of the eighth, or again broadly takes both as appropriated; there are three passages, as in the Weishi shu. There are three interpretations of this passage. The first says: seeds are what is appropriated, and what is appropriated is the basis; because they serve as the basis for the active [consciousness] and are not separate from the eighth consciousness, they are called maturation; also, because they mature through transformation, they are also called maturation, subsumed under the ālaya-consciousness. The second interpretation says: the eighth consciousness acquires two designations of 'seed': first, the proximate cause-condition, which is the seeds within consciousness; second, the sovereign condition, which is the consciousness holding the seeds. In the sense of being the fundamental producer relied upon, it is also called a seed. Because that treatise distinguishes the two conditions, it speaks of the active [consciousness] as falling under the simultaneous basis; this treatise, by virtue of the sense of being able to produce, says that the active eighth consciousness is also called a seed. Seeds are the appropriated dependent upon [it], and the active consciousness is the appropriator that is the basis, so there is no contradiction. The third interpretation says: the ālaya-consciousness serves as two conditions for defiled dharmas: one as seed and the second as basis; thus now both active consciousness and seeds serve as its simultaneous basis. The two explanations only apply in the re-explanation of the three bases. The eye has five senses: first, derived [matter]; second, a basis; third, translucent matter; fourth, invisible; fifth, possessive of resistance. Each has its distinct meaning and something it excludes. 'Mind' refers to the consciousness immediately past in relation to visual consciousness; the three explanations are as in the meaning of the Vijñaptimātratā cited above.

First 25 of 149 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

瑜伽師地論略纂 — Classical Chinese