[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) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 1.86 # 成唯識論了義燈 1.86 成唯識論了義燈 1.86 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.86](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.86) 又明得造論及不得造論人，凡有四種四人。第一四人者：一、無智；二、疑惑；三、顛倒；四、已度。無智，即鈍根凡夫，於法及義，悉皆不解，故名無智。二、疑惑者，是聰明凡夫，雖解法義，而於四諦理猶有疑惑，未得入聖。三、顛倒者，有初果人，已通四諦，但有顛倒。顛倒有三種：一、時節；二、相；三、處所。時節者，無常是時節，於無常時，計有常故。二、相者，於無我中，計有我故。三、處者，於不淨處及於苦處，計為淨樂。初果雖除常、我二例，修惑未除。緣外塵境，猶起後二故，行非梵行，即猶計不淨為淨，無樂謂樂。四已度者，即已度前三煩惱，是無學人。前三人，初人是不肯知，第二人是迷路，第三人是僻路。此四人中，唯第四人，得造於論。若就事為語，凡夫菩薩，亦是第四人，故得造論。又四種：一、依言殊勝。但能誦文，而不解義。譬如鸚鵡，唯能誦語，而不解意，不能得道，最為下劣；二、依他勝。附依善人，則能行善，依惡人即唯行惡。譬如畫人，隨畫師意，若畫為坐，終日坐，若畫為立，即恒常立。雖爾可化，以值善友，可化入道，猶勝初人；三、依分別勝。有聞他說，一往不解，得解方悟，須為分別，如言諸行無常，是生滅法，是生必滅，寂滅為樂。如雖聞諸行無常，未解所以，是生滅故，釋彼無常，未來是生，過去是滅，現在是生滅。諸行既有三世，故是無常。是生必滅者，更釋未來是無常之意。若未來唯生不滅，則應是常。又釋云：待過去滅故，名未來為生。是生必有滅故，未來是無常。前三句是生死，第四句是涅槃。作此分別，第三人方解；四、開智勝者。智惠自能開通見理，不待分別。如舍利弗聞阿悅耆說半偈義，於半偈中，解千種義，即得聖道。此等即是開智勝也。譬如毒蛇，傷身如髮，以毒勢力，須臾遍身，此人又勝。此第四人正得造論，餘三人不應。舍利、目連、迦葉等類，皆獨覺性，由見佛故，方作聲聞，故在第四。第三有四種人者：一、自惱；二、惱他；三、自他俱惱；四、自他俱不惱。如常見外道，為未來報，自苦其身，坐臥荊棘等，是自惱。如斷見外道，不見未來果，於現世中，為自身安樂或奪他財食等，皆是惱他。常見外道，行自苦行為自惱，殺牛、羊等，縛不與食，用祭天等，是惱他。俱不惱者，得理之人，知慚愧故，知惱他得罪，自惱無福，為欲離罪，生福俱，不為惱。不惱他故，離斷見。不自惱故，離常見。唯第四人，可得造論。第四四種人者：一、向下道人，即一闡提，必入惡道；二、向生死道，即出家外道，起見戒取等故，迴轉六道；三、向自利者，即是二乘。二乘之人，乃識出離，但自怖苦，疲極化他，速求解脫故，言向自利；四、向利他者，即是菩薩。菩薩以兼濟為懷，恒欲利物故，言向利他。唯第四人，可得造論。四種第四人，即是四德，若其一人具此四德，方堪造論。一、已度德，離一闡提。闡提貪生死，若已度三，則識正道，故離闡提；二、自他俱不惱德，離外道執斷、常二見，以得理故。離斷常見故，不惱自他，離外道見；三、開智勝德，離聲聞乘。聲聞乘人，依他得悟，不能自達。大利根人，於一切法中，能通達無量義，故離聲聞；四、向利他德，離獨覺。獨覺根雖利，而無濟物之懷，大行之人，常欲利物，故離獨覺。又云：攝決定。《論》又明無四失人，則堪造論。一、不顯自德；二、無我慢；三、於同行中，有利他心；四、於眾生有慈悲心。若無顯自德心，則離闡提失。離闡提失，得已度德。無我慢心，則離外道失。離外道失，得自他俱不惱德。若見同行無利他方便，為其說他利方便者，離聲聞行失。離聲聞行失，得向開智德。若於眾生，有拔苦與樂心，則離獨覺行失。離獨覺行失，得利他德。既離四失，具足四德，即是菩薩，志求佛果。佛果有四德，為求四德故，行四德因。離一闡提，行淨德因。離外道，即行我德因。離聲聞，即行樂德因。離獨覺，即行常德因。既行四德因，欲自利利他，心不為煩惱所染，常能亡懷益物。若是此人，方堪造論。世親菩薩雖住地前，具前四德，亦堪造論。又復世尊說唯識教，名為作者，教之主故，世親等師，釋佛所說唯識之理，名為述者，依教起故，此經、論相對。若世親等造三十頌，名為作者。護法等釋名為述者，此論、釋相對。今者此中，但經、論相對，以護法等釋彼頌故，恭敬二師。故說諸論諸義之前，須說兩師名也。恭敬作者，即恭敬法。恭敬述者，即恭敬義。法是句、味、名。義是句、味、名所顯之理。作者先說句、味、名，言教在世。作者若已入涅槃，後人於此言教，不能得解，述者更造論解之，義意方顯。故恭敬作者應敬法，恭敬述者應敬義。 > Furthermore, explaining those who are qualified to compose a treatise and those who are not qualified to compose a treatise, in total there are four categories of four types of persons. As for the first four persons: 1. the ignorant; 2. the doubting; 3. the inverted; 4. those who have crossed over. The 'ignorant' are dull-rooted ordinary beings who do not understand either the Dharma or the meaning at all; therefore they are called 'ignorant.' Second, the 'doubting' are intelligent ordinary beings who, although they understand the Dharma and meaning, still have doubt regarding the principle of the four noble truths, and have not yet been able to enter noble status. Third, the 'inverted' are persons of the first fruition \[srotāpanna\] who have already comprehended the four noble truths, but still have inversion. There are three types of inversion: 1. \[regarding\] time; 2. \[regarding\] characteristic; 3. \[regarding\] locus. As for 'time': impermanence is time, and at the time of impermanence they conceptualize permanence. Second, as for 'characteristic': within non-self, they conceptualize a self. Third, as for 'locus': regarding impure places and painful places, they conceptualize them as pure and pleasurable. Although a person of the first fruition has eliminated the two instances of permanence and self, the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation have not yet been eliminated. In relation to external sensory objects, they still give rise to the latter two; therefore, practicing non-brahmacarya, they still conceptualize the impure as pure, and call what is devoid of pleasure 'pleasurable.' Fourth, 'those who have crossed over' are those who have crossed over the previous three afflictions; they are the people beyond training \[arhats\]. Among the former three persons, the first is one who refuses to know, the second has lost the way, and the third is on a deviant way. Among these four persons, only the fourth person is qualified to compose a treatise. If speaking in terms of actual reality, an ordinary bodhisattva is also counted as the fourth person, and is thus qualified to compose a treatise. Furthermore, there are four types: 1. those relying on words as superior: they can only recite the text but do not understand the meaning. Just as a parrot can only recite words without understanding their meaning and cannot attain the path, this is the lowest and most inferior; 2. those relying on others as superior: adhering to a virtuous person, they are then able to do good, while adhering to an evil person, they only do evil. Just as a painted person follows the painter's intention—if painted sitting, he sits all day; if painted standing, he always stands. Although like this, they can be transformed; by encountering a good friend, they can be transformed to enter the path, which is still superior to the first person; 3. those relying on discrimination as superior: upon hearing others speak, they do not understand at first, and only awaken when an explanation is obtained; one must make discriminations for them. For instance, it is said: 'All conditioned factors are impermanent; they are phenomena of arising and cessation; having arisen, they must cease; calm cessation is bliss.' If, upon hearing that all conditioned factors are impermanent, they do not yet understand why they are phenomena of arising and cessation, one explains that impermanence: the future is arising, the past is cessation, and the present is arising and cessation. Since conditioned factors have the three times, they are impermanent. 'Having arisen, they must cease' further explains the meaning of the future being impermanent. If the future were only arising without cessation, it would be permanent. Furthermore, it is explained: depending on the cessation of the past, the future is called arising; having arisen, there must be cessation, so the future is impermanent. The first three lines are saṃsāra, and the fourth line is nirvāṇa. When such discriminations are made, this third person then understands; 4. those superior in opening wisdom: wisdom of itself is able to open up and perceive the principle, without waiting for discrimination. Just as Śāriputra heard Assaji speak the meaning of half a verse, and within that half verse understood a thousand meanings, immediately attaining the noble path. Such as this is one who is superior in opening wisdom. For example, a venomous snake wound on the body may be tiny as a hair, yet by the power of the venom it pervades the body in an instant; such a person is further superior. This fourth person is properly qualified to compose a treatise; the remaining three persons are not appropriate. Those like Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Kāśyapa, and the like all have the nature of a pratyekabuddha; it was only by seeing the Buddha that they became śrāvakas; hence they belong to the fourth. As for the third set of four persons: 1. those who afflict themselves; 2. those who afflict others; 3. those who afflict both themselves and others; 4. those who afflict neither themselves nor others. Just as tīrthikas holding eternalist views, for the sake of future retribution, torment their own bodies by sitting and lying on thorns and the like, this is afflicting oneself. Just as tīrthikas holding annihilationist views, not seeing future fruits, in the present world seek peace and happiness for their own bodies or rob others of wealth and food, these are all afflicting others. Eternalist tīrthikas, practicing self-mortification, afflict themselves, and by slaughtering cattle, sheep, and the like, binding them without food to sacrifice to the gods, afflict others. Those who afflict neither are persons who have attained the principle: because they know shame and conscience, they know that afflicting others produces guilt and afflicting oneself brings no merit; wishing to be free from guilt and produce merit, they afflict neither. Because they do not afflict others, they are free from annihilationism. Because they do not afflict themselves, they are free from eternalism. Only the fourth person may be qualified to compose a treatise. As for the fourth set of four persons: 1. a person heading toward the lower paths, that is, an icchantika, who will certainly enter the evil paths; 2. one heading toward the path of saṃsāra, that is, a renounced tīrthika, who, because of giving rise to views, attachment to precepts and vows, and the like, revolves in the six destinies; 3. one heading toward self-benefit, that is, the two vehicles. Persons of the two vehicles, although they recognize transcendence, only fear suffering for themselves, are exhausted by transforming others, and quickly seek liberation; therefore they are said to head toward self-benefit; 4. one heading toward benefiting others, that is, the bodhisattva. Bodhisattvas take universal salvation as their aspiration, and always wish to benefit sentient beings; therefore they are said to head toward benefiting others. Only the fourth person may be qualified to compose a treatise. These four types of the fourth person are precisely four virtues. If a single person is endowed with these four virtues, only then is he competent to compose a treatise. 1. The virtue of having crossed over, free from icchantikas. Icchantikas crave saṃsāra; if one has already crossed over the three \[afflictions\], one recognizes the correct path, and is thus free from icchantikas. 2. The virtue of afflicting neither oneself nor others, free from the tīrthikas' clinging to the two views of annihilation and permanence, because of having attained the principle. Free from annihilationist and eternalist views, one does not afflict oneself or others, and is free from tīrthika views. 3. The virtue of superiority in opening wisdom, free from the śrāvaka vehicle. Persons of the śrāvaka vehicle awaken by relying on others, and cannot arrive at realization on their own. Persons of great, sharp faculties are able to comprehend boundless meanings in all phenomena, and are thus free from the śrāvakas. 4. The virtue of heading toward benefiting others, free from pratyekabuddhas. Although the faculties of a pratyekabuddha are sharp, they lack the aspiration to save sentient beings; a person of great practice always wishes to benefit sentient beings, and is thus free from pratyekabuddhas. Furthermore, the She jueding lun says: the treatise also explains that a person without four faults is competent to compose a treatise: 1. not displaying one's own virtues; 2. having no conceit; 3. having a mind to benefit others among fellow practitioners; 4. having a mind of loving-kindness and compassion toward sentient beings. If one has no mind to display one's own virtues, one is free from the fault of icchantikas. Free from the fault of icchantikas, one attains the virtue of having crossed over. If one has no conceit, one is free from the fault of tīrthikas. Free from the fault of tīrthikas, one attains the virtue of afflicting neither oneself nor others. If, seeing that fellow practitioners lack skillful means to benefit others, one explains skillful means to benefit others to them, one is free from the fault of śrāvaka practice. Free from the fault of śrāvaka practice, one attains the virtue of opening wisdom. If, toward sentient beings, one has the mind to relieve suffering and give happiness, one is free from the fault of pratyekabuddha practice. Free from the fault of pratyekabuddha practice, one attains the virtue of benefiting others. Having become free from the four faults and fully endowed with the four virtues, one is a bodhisattva aspiring to seek buddhahood. Buddhahood has four virtues; for the sake of seeking these four virtues, one practices the causes of the four virtues. Being free from icchantikas is practicing the cause of the virtue of purity. Being free from tīrthikas is practicing the cause of the virtue of selfhood. Being free from śrāvakas is practicing the cause of the virtue of bliss. Being free from pratyekabuddhas is practicing the cause of the virtue of permanence. Having practiced the causes of the four virtues, desiring to benefit oneself and others, the mind is not stained by afflictions, and one is constantly able to forget self-interest to benefit sentient beings. If one is such a person, only then is he competent to compose a treatise. Although Bodhisattva Vasubandhu resided in the stages prior to the \[ten\] bhūmis, he was fully endowed with the previous four virtues, and was also competent to compose a treatise. Furthermore, the World-Honoured One spoke the teaching of vijñapti-mātra and is named the 'author' (kartṛ), because he is the master of the teaching. Masters such as Vasubandhu explained the principle of vijñapti-mātra spoken by the Buddha, and are named 'commentators', because they arise depending on the teaching; this is the contrast between sūtra and śāstra. If Vasubandhu and others composed the Thirty Verses, they are named 'authors'; Dharmapāla and others explaining them are named 'commentators'; this is the contrast between the root treatise and its commentary. Now, herein, it is simply the contrast between sūtra and treatise; because Dharmapāla and others explained those verses, one pays reverence to both masters. Therefore, before expounding the various treatises and various meanings, one must state the names of both masters. Paying reverence to the author is paying reverence to the Dharma; paying reverence to the commentator is paying reverence to the meaning. The Dharma is the phrases, expressions, and names; the meaning is the principle revealed by the phrases, expressions, and names. The author first speaks the phrases, expressions, and names, and the verbal teaching exists in the world. If the author has already entered nirvāṇa and later people cannot attain understanding of this verbal teaching, the commentator further composes a treatise to explain it, and the import of the meaning is then revealed. Therefore, in paying reverence to the author one should revere the Dharma, and in paying reverence to the commentator one should revere the meaning. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.85](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.85) - [Next: 1.87](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.87) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.1.86) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.86](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.86) · Pramāṇa