成唯識論掌中樞要 1.150

1.150

「敘自宗無為」中有二：初總標經說，舉數明之，後隨烈顯，後中有二解，二別故。初中有二：初顯依識變；後顯說為常解。依法性中有五：一、標依法性；二、顯法性體；三、顯依義；四、結依假；五、釋眾名。廢立門，應立一，謂真如，餘非實故；又可立二：順世間立二，謂空、非擇；真如立一或應立三：真為一，隨障斷為一，順世間為一。今順世間立二，隨障斷立三，真立一。隨其所應，開、合別說無為。以五門分別：一、諸教增減：或說三、四、六、八等。二、出體。三、三性分別：（一）善等三性，若本唯善，即真如故；若相通三性，許三性識變故。（二）所執等三性，第八卷說通三，此第二說唯二性。四、諦攝：（一）安立、非安立諦；（二）二諦，真、俗攝；（三）二、三諦；（四）四諦。五、釋難：於中有五門：（一）一、多：隨心言多，約體但一；（二）何因攝：十因、六因應思。六因中唯能作因，餘皆有為；十因通五：一、觀待因；二、攝受因，境界依處故；三、同事因，同為生等，一事業故；四、不相違因，令聖道生故；五、相違因，與礙法、生法染污相違，故說為滅，性離障等也。五果攝攝何？擇者謂離繫，虛空、非擇攝增上果。（三）凡聖得：虛空、非擇通聖、凡得；想受滅、擇滅、真如定唯聖者得；不動二說。（四）伏斷障得：想受滅通伏、斷、如常。何故擇滅不伏得？已不害隨眠故。其不動兩解：一、內道得，唯斷得；外道伏得，計為涅槃滅心、心所故，內道不然。又解：內道亦伏得，如想受伏得。此伏三禪已下，不得伏欲界；已二性煩惱增強故；如不伏得。第三禪已下障得想受滅，已變異受強故。以理而論，既有伏三禪下惑得不動，即此人伏四禪上得想受，斯有何失？二受強故，論不許之。若爾，更應伏欲界障，得不動滅。既許二性障令不得伏，得不動，三定下障伏，不能得想受何失。五、問答：何故擇滅三界唯立一，定障別開二？以變異、不變異相顯於煩惱故。問：何故伏惑得非擇，亦伏煩惱滅，亦得伏定障？何故不分二，唯分害隨眠耶？答：定障通於事，觀斷，亦有伏得者。煩惱要唯理觀除故，無伏得者。設有異生得定伏煩惱，亦名定障，本求定故，而未求理。聖得者隱而難知，故分別說，令易趣入。凡得者是可斷，又凡得易而相顯，更何須開。

In "Expounding the Unconditioned of Our Own School," there are two parts: first, a general indication of the scriptural accounts, citing numbers to elucidate them; later, an unfolding of them sequentially. In the latter, there are two interpretations due to their twofold distinction. In the first part, there are two points: first, revealing that they depend on the transformations of consciousness; second, revealing the interpretation of them being called permanent. Under [the section on] depending on dharma-nature, there are five points: 1. indicating dependence on dharma-nature; 2. revealing the substance of dharma-nature; 3. revealing the meaning of dependence; 4. concluding their dependence on the provisional; 5. explaining their various designations. Regarding the category of elimination and establishment: one should be established, namely suchness, because the rest are not real; also, two may be established: conforming to the worldly, two are established, namely space and non-analytical [cessation], while for suchness one is established; or three should be established: the real as one, according to the eradication of hindrances as one, and conforming to the worldly as one. Now, conforming to the worldly, two are established; according to the eradication of hindrances, three are established; and the real is established as one. According to what is appropriate, the unconditioned are explained separately through expansion and contraction. They are differentiated by five gates: 1. Increases and decreases across teachings: sometimes three, four, six, or eight, etc., are spoken of. 2. Identifying their substance. 3. Differentiation by the three natures: (i) The three natures such as the wholesome: if the basis, it is solely wholesome, because it is suchness; if the image, it pervades the three natures, because it is admitted to be transformed by consciousness of the three natures. (ii) The three natures such as the conceptually constructed: fascicle eight states that they pervade all three, while here the second [passage] states only two natures. 4. Subsumption under the truths: (i) established and unestablished truths; (ii) the two truths, subsumed under the ultimate and the conventional; (iii) two and three truths; (iv) the four truths. 5. Resolving objections, within which there are five gates: (i) Singular or plural: according to mental designations, they are plural; considering the substance, there is only one. (ii) Subsumed under which causes: the ten causes and six causes should be considered. Among the six causes, only the efficient cause (kāraṇa-hetu), as the rest are conditioned; among the ten causes, they pervade five: 1. dependence cause (apekṣā-hetu); 2. reception cause (parigraha-hetu), as they are the support-basis of the cognitive object; 3. co-working cause (sahakāri-hetu), as they share a single enterprise such as production; 4. non-obstruction cause (avirodha-hetu), because they cause the noble path to arise; 5. contradiction cause (virodha-hetu), because they run contrary to obstructive phenomena, produced phenomena, and defilements—hence called cessation, their nature being free from hindrances, etc. Subsumed under which of the five fruits? Analytical [cessation] is called the fruit of disconnection (visaṃyoga-phala); space and non-analytical [cessation] are subsumed under the sovereign fruit (adhipati-phala). (iii) Attainment by ordinary persons and noble ones: space and non-analytical [cessation] are attained by both noble ones and ordinary persons; cessation of ideation and feeling, analytical cessation, and suchness are definitely attained only by noble ones; for the immovable, there are two explanations. (iv) Attainment by subduing or eradicating hindrances: cessation of ideation and feeling is common to subduing and eradicating, as is usual. Why is analytical cessation not attained by subduing? Because the latencies (anuśaya) are not yet destroyed. For the immovable, there are two interpretations: first, attained by those within the Buddhist path only through eradication, while tīrthikas attain it by subduing, conceiving it as nirvāṇa because mind and mental factors are ceased; within the Buddhist path it is not so. Another interpretation: within the Buddhist path it is also attained by subduing, like the cessation of ideation [and feeling] is attained by subduing. This subdues [the defilements of] the third dhyāna and below, but cannot subdue those of the desire realm, because the defilements of the two natures [wholesome and unwholesome/afflicted] are reinforced; just as it is not attained without subduing. Those below the third dhyāna hinder the attainment of the cessation of ideation and feeling because mutable feeling (pariṇāma-vedanā) is strong. Arguing by principle: since one who subdues the afflictions below the third dhyāna attains the immovable, if this same person subdues those above the fourth dhyāna to attain ideation and feeling [cessation], what fault would there be? Because the two feelings are strong, the treatise does not permit it. If so, one should further subdue the hindrances of the desire realm to attain the cessation of the immovable. Since it is admitted that the hindrances of the two natures prevent subduing to attain the immovable, what fault is there that when the hindrances below the third absorption are subdued, one cannot attain ideation and feeling [cessation]? (v) Questions and answers: Why is only one analytical cessation established for the three realms, while absorption-hindrances are separately divided into two? Because the mutable and immutable aspects are distinct in relation to the afflictions. Question: Why is non-analytical [cessation] attained when subduing afflictions, and also when subduing defilement-cessation, as well as when subduing absorption-hindrances? Why is it not divided into two, but only divided in terms of destroying latencies? Answer: Absorption-hindrances pertain to both concrete phenomena and analytical eradication, and there are also those attained by subduing. Afflictions must be eliminated solely through contemplation of principle, so none are attained by subduing. Even if an ordinary being attains absorption and subdues afflictions, it is still called an absorption-hindrance, because one originally sought absorption and had not yet sought the principle. That attained by noble ones is subtle and difficult to know, so it is explained distinctly to make it easy to enter. That attained by ordinary beings can be severed; moreover, that attained by ordinary beings is easy and its aspect is obvious, so why should it need to be divided further?