成唯識論了義燈 2.14

2.14

問：何以得知？身見有二，見道斷一。答：准四卷《楞伽經》第二云，身見有二種，謂俱生及妄想。乃至云，及先二身見妄想斷，故疑法不生。准此經文，既云及先二身見妄想斷，故疑法不生。即分明說身見有二，初果唯斷妄想身見，不斷俱生，不煩廣釋。問：頗有斷非想前六品惑已，然後方斷欲界後三耶？答：有如超中二果人，取第四果者，即其事也。又如斯陀含人，住自果者，已斷欲界六品惑已，方迴心取緣覺果者，不可漸斷所餘未斷，取緣覺果。以緣覺果三十四心成菩提故，又與次第四果無別，設今得二果已，不更兼前合為三十四心。三十四心但據從凡即作者說，此第二果但於此後，起九無間、九解脫道斷所餘惑，即欲界中後三品惑，及無所有處已下煩惱，以世道伏。起六無間、解脫，斷非想非非想等前六品已。方斷下欲先所伏者，不同見道，一品道故，或前諸地所伏之者，與非想地上，上品惑一時頓斷，先已伏故。但前說超第四果人，是斷無色前六品已，方斷下地後諸品者。未見正文二說任取，問：准小乘說，三十四心得成菩提，大乘云何？答：准大乘說有五十四心，兩種十六心并九無間、九解脫道，成五十心。三心見道中唯有二心，但分惑障為上下斷，不斷智障故，并真見二，無間一解脫一。或五十二，除三心見道中，上下二心，以二乘人不作非安立觀故，問趣聲聞果，見諦第十六心，即建立果。何故趣緣覺而不立耶？答：以不住道故，期心別故。問：准大談小不見真見，以麁故，但知相見。何故修道之中即見真無間、解脫？答：彼自將作真無間、解脫，大乘談彼，但見前加行。問：大談小乘有真、相見道，何不說小有真、相修道。答：見道之前加行廣故，長時學觀故，初入難故，以初得故，所以重觀有相見道。修道之中不作長時廣多行相，以其九地品別斷故，又曾得故，故不重觀，所以不說有相修道。問：大乘如何？答：既有後得無漏之智，重觀前如，有亦無失。位不決定須更重觀，故不別立。問：初果即於相第十六方始建立果，後三云何於解脫立？答：初得入見須重觀諦，第十六心事方，究竟始得立果。修道後得不須重觀，於解脫道事得究竟，故得立果。問：如聲聞人得無學已，迴趣緣覺，後練根時，入何觀道？斷何等障？答：如極果人趣緣覺時，但起九無間、九解脫，擬儀無間、解脫，非真無間等。但緣事觀，不入生空觀，以更無惑可斷可證，但行解心作無間、解脫道，數數思惟令彼極果，信等五根漸漸明利，更不斷惑而即得果；二云，設入生空，除其根障為無間等道，理亦無妨，令智明利，無惑可斷故。問：無學迴趣斷根障時，別得無為不？答：得與不得俱有何失？二俱有過。若言得者，云何言三乘同坐解脫床耶？答：此義不同，同得解脫者，同得惑不生解脫，不說無為亦同；若言不得者，云何《雜集論》云，斷下劣受得二無為？答：彼約永斷。唯在大乘，非二乘者，以不斷故，但伏得定故，約煩惱滅已解脫不別，如第十卷疏解十障中明。問聲聞取自果，轉成利根，為事、理觀耶？答：但作事觀，不作理觀。以其練根無惑可斷故，更不得果故，但為事觀不別得無為。若大乘菩薩練根，入法空觀斷所知障故，即與彼別。問：法觀是細，生觀麁，法觀必帶於生觀。生執是麁，法執細，斷法之時，生必斷。答：設爾何失？若爾何故論第九，三心見道之中，第二內遣諸法假智，唯斷法執，不斷生耶？耶答：據實斷法，必能斷生，以彼加行，期心別故，亦不違理。問：以見望於修，即許見道之中，法觀斷法不斷人，亦以修望於見，修道之中，斷人不斷法。答：思可知，難二障障見道，入見之時，前後斷。二障障無學，金剛之位二心斷。答：見道初智劣，二障前後斷。金剛道力強，二障俱時斷。問：定障是所知障收，許二乘人生空觀斷，可不如是？答：爾問所知障細生空麁，即許生空斷細障，亦應生空是麁法空細，生空起時帶法空，有解不例。且生執望法執，法執是細，若以生執望所知障，所知障即麁，何以故？以迷理是細，迷事是麁故，證生理斷我執時，兼能斷彼迷事定障。然法觀細，必帶生觀，生觀是麁，不帶法觀，此答意取迷理俱者，此釋不正。定障既與迷理煩惱俱起，亦隨煩惱俱迷於理耶。准第六云，貪嗔見、疑俱起之者，亦迷於理同一緣故，准知定障亦應同彼，俱起同迷是煩惱障攝，斷得擇滅，別起定障是下劣受，二乘伏而不斷，所知障攝故。故二乘人伏此定障，得二定時，得非擇滅、不得擇滅。故不可難生空是麁能斷細障，令生觀起帶於法空。

Question: How is it known that identity view (satkāyadṛṣṭi) is twofold, and that the path of vision (darśanamārga) abandons [only] one? Answer: According to the second fascicle of the four-fascicle Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, it says that there are two kinds of identity view, namely innate (sahaja) and conceptually constructed (parikalpita). Down to saying that because the previous two conceptually constructed identity views are abandoned, doubts regarding teachings do not arise. Based on this sūtra passage, since it says that because the previous two conceptually constructed identity views are abandoned, doubts regarding teachings do not arise, it clearly states that identity view is twofold; the initial fruition abandons only the conceptually constructed identity view, not the innate one. There is no need for extensive explanation. Question: Is there anyone who, having abandoned the first six grades of afflictions of [the sphere of] neither-perception-nor-non-perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana), only thereafter abandons the last three grades of the desire realm? Answer: Yes. A person who surpasses the middle two fruitions to attain the fourth fruition is precisely such a case. Furthermore, take a sakṛdāgāmin abiding in his own fruition: having already abandoned six grades of afflictions of the desire realm, he only then turns his mind to attain the fruition of a pratyekabuddha. He cannot gradually abandon the remainder that has not yet been abandoned to attain the fruition of a pratyekabuddha, because the fruition of a pratyekabuddha accomplishes bodhi in thirty-four mind[-moments], and is moreover no different from the successive fourth fruition. Even if he has now attained the second fruition, he does not further combine it with the preceding to make thirty-four mind[-moments]. The thirty-four mind[-moments] are only spoken of based on one who undertakes it directly from the stage of an ordinary person. This second fruition only thereafter arouses nine uninterrupted paths (ānantaryamārga) and nine paths of liberation (vimuktimārga) to abandon the remaining afflictions—that is, the afflictions of the lower three grades of the desire realm, down through the afflictions below the sphere of nothingness (ākiṃcanyāyatana), which are suppressed by worldly paths. Arousing six uninterrupted and liberated [paths], having abandoned the first six grades of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and so forth, he only then abandons the previously suppressed [afflictions] of the lower desire [realm]. This is not like the path of vision, which is a single-grade path; alternatively, those suppressed in the previous stages are abandoned simultaneously and at once with the highest grade of afflictions of the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, because they were previously suppressed. But regarding what was said earlier, that a person surpassing to the fourth fruition abandons the first six grades of the formless [realm] before abandoning the subsequent grades of the lower stages—since no authoritative text has been seen, either of the two explanations may be accepted. Question: According to Hīnayāna, bodhi is attained in thirty-four mind[-moments]; what does the Mahāyāna say? Answer: According to the Mahāyāna, there are fifty-four mind[-moments]: the two kinds of sixteen mind[-moments] together with the nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation make fifty mind[-moments]. In the three-mind path of vision there are only two mind[-moments], merely dividing the afflictive obstacles into higher and lower abandonments without abandoning the cognitive obstacles (jñeyāvaraṇa), combined with two of the real vision—one uninterrupted and one liberated. Or there are fifty-two, excluding the upper and lower two minds in the three-mind path of vision, because persons of the two vehicles do not perform non-analytic contemplation. Question: For one heading toward the fruition of a śrāvaka, at the sixteenth mind of seeing the truths the fruition is established. Why is it not established for one heading toward a pratyekabuddha? Answer: Because he does not abide on the path, and his intended aspiration is distinct. Question: When the Mahāyāna discusses the Hīnayāna, [it says] they do not perceive the real vision because of its coarseness, and only know the approximated vision. Why is it that in the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) they perceive real uninterrupted and liberation [paths]? Answer: They themselves take them to be real uninterrupted and liberation [paths]; when the Mahāyāna discusses them, it views them as merely preceding preparatory applications (prayogamārga). Question: If the Mahāyāna discusses the Hīnayāna as having real and approximated paths of vision, why does it not say that the Hīnayāna has real and approximated paths of cultivation? Answer: Prior to the path of vision, preparatory applications are extensive, contemplation is trained in for a long time, and initial entry is difficult; because it is newly attained, the truths are re-contemplated, so there is an approximated path of vision. In the path of cultivation, one does not perform extensive modes of activity over a long time, because the grades of the nine stages are abandoned separately, and because it was previously attained, so one does not re-contemplate; therefore an approximated path of cultivation is not spoken of. Question: How is it in the Mahāyāna? Answer: Since there is subsequent non-outflow wisdom (pṛṣṭhalabdha-anāsravajñāna) that re-contemplates the preceding tathatā, its existence is also without fault. Because the station does not definitively require further re-contemplation, it is not established separately. Question: The initial fruition is only established at the sixteenth approximated [mind]; why are the latter three established at liberation? Answer: Upon initial entry into vision, one must re-contemplate the truths, and only at the sixteenth mind is the matter complete so that the fruition can be established. In subsequent attainments on the path of cultivation, re-contemplation is not needed; the matter is completed at the path of liberation, so the fruition is established. Question: When a śrāvaka has attained the state of non-learning (aśaikṣa) and then turns his inclination toward pratyekabuddhahood, what contemplative path does he enter and what kind of obstacle does he abandon when training his faculties? Answer: When one of the ultimate fruition heads toward pratyekabuddhahood, he merely arouses nine uninterrupted and nine liberated [minds], which are simulated uninterrupted and liberated [paths], not real uninterrupted [paths] and so forth. He merely contemplates phenomena and does not enter the contemplation of the emptiness of persons (pudgalanairātmya), because there are no further afflictions to abandon or to realize. He merely operates a mind of understanding as uninterrupted and liberated paths, repeatedly contemplating to make the five faculties of faith and so forth of that ultimate fruition gradually sharp and bright, thus attaining the fruition without abandoning any further afflictions. A second [view] states: even if he enters the emptiness of persons to eliminate the obstacle of his faculties as the uninterrupted path and so forth, in principle there is also no obstruction, because it makes wisdom sharp and bright, as there are no afflictions to abandon. Question: When one beyond learning turns his inclination to abandon the obstacle of faculties, does he separately attain unconditioned phenomena (asaṃskṛta)? Answer: What fault would there be whether he attains it or does not attain it? Both have faults. If you say he attains it, why is it said that the three vehicles sit together on the bed of liberation? Answer: The meaning here is different. Sharing the attainment of liberation means sharing the liberation of non-arising of afflictions; it does not say that the unconditioned phenomena are also the same. If you say he does not attain it, why does the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā say that by abandoning inferior feelings, two unconditioned phenomena are attained? Answer: That is stated in terms of permanent abandonment. It belongs solely to the Mahāyāna, not to the two vehicles, because they do not abandon them but merely suppress them to attain meditative absorption; in terms of the cessation of afflictions, their liberation is not different, as explained in the commentary to the tenth fascicle under the ten obstacles. Question: When a śrāvaka attains his own fruition and transforms to become of sharp faculties, does he engage in contemplation of phenomena or contemplation of principle? Answer: He merely engages in contemplation of phenomena, not contemplation of principle. Because in training the faculties there are no afflictions to abandon and no further fruition to attain, it is merely contemplation of phenomena, without separately attaining an unconditioned phenomenon. If a Mahāyāna bodhisattva trains faculties, he enters the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas (dharmanairātmya) to abandon cognitive obstacles, which is distinct from that. Question: Contemplation of dharmas is subtle, contemplation of persons is coarse, and contemplation of dharmas necessarily entails contemplation of persons. Grasping at persons is coarse, grasping at dharmas is subtle; when dharmas are abandoned, persons are necessarily abandoned. Answer: Suppose that is so; what fault is there? If so, why does fascicle nine of the treatise state that in the three-mind path of vision, the second—internally expelling the nominal wisdom of dharmas—abandons only grasping at dharmas and does not abandon [grasping at] persons? Answer: In actuality, abandoning dharmas necessarily can abandon persons; because his preparatory application and intended aspiration are distinct, this also does not contradict reason. Question: If, viewing cultivation from vision, one allows that in the path of vision contemplation of dharmas abandons dharmas without abandoning persons, then viewing vision from cultivation, in the path of cultivation one would abandon persons without abandoning dharmas. Answer: Reflect and it will be known. Challenge: The two obstacles obstruct the path of vision; upon entering vision, are they abandoned successively? The two obstacles obstruct non-learning; at the vajra-like stage, are they abandoned in two minds? Answer: The initial wisdom of the path of vision is inferior, so the two obstacles are abandoned successively. The power of the vajra-like path is strong, so the two obstacles are abandoned simultaneously. Question: Meditative obstacles are subsumed under cognitive obstacles; if one allows that persons of the two vehicles abandon them through contemplation of the emptiness of persons, could it be otherwise? Answer: It is so. Question: Cognitive obstacles are subtle, while the emptiness of persons is coarse; if one allows that the emptiness of persons abandons subtle obstacles, then since the emptiness of persons is coarse and the emptiness of dharmas is subtle, when the emptiness of persons arises, it should also entail the emptiness of dharmas. Some explain that they are not analogous. Grasping at persons viewed against grasping at dharmas: grasping at dharmas is subtle. But if grasping at persons is viewed against cognitive obstacles, cognitive obstacles are coarse. Why? Because delusion regarding principle is subtle, while delusion regarding phenomena is coarse. When realizing the principle of persons and abandoning self-grasping, one can simultaneously abandon those meditative obstacles of delusion regarding phenomena. However, subtle contemplation of dharmas necessarily entails contemplation of persons, whereas coarse contemplation of persons does not entail contemplation of dharmas. This answer's intention takes those co-arising with delusion regarding principle. This explanation is incorrect. Since meditative obstacles co-arise with afflictions deluded regarding principle, would they also follow the afflictions in being deluded regarding principle? According to fascicle six, those that co-arise with greed, anger, views, and doubt are also deluded regarding principle because they share the same objective support. From this we know that meditative obstacles should also be the same as those: those that co-arise and share delusion are subsumed under afflictive obstacles, and upon abandonment one attains analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha); separately arising meditative obstacles are inferior feelings, which the two vehicles suppress without abandoning, because they are subsumed under cognitive obstacles. Therefore, when persons of the two vehicles suppress these meditative obstacles to attain the two absorptions, they attain non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyānirodha), not analytical cessation. Therefore, one cannot challenge that the coarse emptiness of persons can abandon subtle obstacles, thereby causing the arising of contemplation of persons to entail the emptiness of dharmas.