成唯識論了義燈 5.180

5.180

《論》：然迷諦相有總有別。《雜心論》云：下苦具一切，二行離三見，道除於二見，上界不行恚。今大乘頌，欲迷四各十，隨行三八種，修六通行迷，上見、修除恚。然迷諦相有總有別，總有四句，一數總行別；二行總數別；三數總行總；四數別行別。數總行別，諦各有十，各迷自諦名為行別。行總數別者，即前頌中。然依一諦緣迷多諦名為行總。若數總行總者，諦各有十名數總。行總者，迷二三諦等，皆名為總。二二迷有六，即有六十。上二界諦各除其嗔，六九五十四，合一百八。三界總有一百六十八。若三三合有四句，欲有四十，上二界諦各三十六，合一百一十二。若四諦合三界，四諦有二十八。若數別行別，即前頌中各迷自諦。問：此中依別緣別從何說迷？答：從所緣迷，依非緣故。若爾應是所緣諦惑，何故說依？答：因彼生故，依彼起故。問：一百二十八依何者立？答：依數總行別，并修道惑。若依餘句即有增減，思可知之。問：依、緣何別？答：有二，一、云緣謂緣藉，即所依名緣；二、云依即依詫，緣所緣境，如起無明迷於苦、集。因此起疑，疑已即生邪見。總撥無其四諦，即所疑撥為所緣，無明即因依。問：各從何斷為從所依，為從所緣而說斷耶？答：從依、緣斷皆悉無過，以大乘中見惑頓斷，不同有部前後別斷，又有四句，有迷而不緣，謂二取；有緣而不迷，謂無漏智；有俱緣、迷，疑邪見等；有非緣、迷，緣龜毛等，非諦攝故。

The Treatise says: However, the mental aspects of confusion regarding the truths are both general and distinct. The Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya says: In the lower, suffering has all of them; two mental practices are free from three views; the path removes two views; in the higher realms, ill-will does not operate. Now the Mahāyāna verse says: Desires confused about the four each have ten; following the practices there are three and eight kinds; cultivating the six universally operates confusion; higher views and cultivation remove ill-will. However, the mental aspects of confusion regarding the truths are both general and distinct, having four alternatives in total: first, the number is general and the practices distinct; second, the practices are general and the number distinct; third, both number and practices are general; fourth, both number and practices are distinct. When the number is general and the practices distinct, each truth has ten [afflictions], each being confused about its own truth, which is called distinct practices. When the practices are general and the number distinct, that is as in the preceding verse. Relying on one truth while having cognitive objects confused about multiple truths is called general practices. When both number and practices are general: each truth having ten is called general number; general practices means that being confused about two or three truths, etc., is all called general. Confusion about pairs of two has six [combinations], yielding sixty. For the truths of the upper two realms, hatred is removed in each, making six times nine, fifty-four, combining to one hundred and eight. The three realms in total have one hundred and sixty-eight. If combined in groups of three, there are four alternatives: the desire realm has forty, and the truths of the upper two realms have thirty-six each, combining to one hundred and twelve. If all four truths are combined across the three realms, the four truths have twenty-eight. If both number and practices are distinct, that is each being confused about its own truth as in the preceding verse. Question: Here, when relying on the distinct and taking the distinct as an object, in what sense is confusion spoken of? Answer: Confusion is spoken of in terms of what is cognized, because reliance is not cognition. If so, they should be the afflictions of the truths cognized; why are they spoken of as relied upon? Answer: Because they arise caused by them, because they arise dependent on them. Question: On what basis is the one hundred and twenty-eight established? Answer: It is established on the basis of general number and distinct practices, together with the afflictions of the path of cultivation. If based on the other alternatives, there would be additions or subtractions, which can be understood upon reflection. Question: What is the difference between reliance (āśraya) and cognitive condition (ālambana)? Answer: There are two explanations: first, cognitive condition means depending as a condition, so the basis is called the cognitive condition; second, reliance means basing upon, while cognitive condition is the cognized sphere. For example, giving rise to ignorance confused about suffering and origin, based on this doubt arises, and having doubted, wrong view arises, universally repudiating the four truths; then what is doubted and repudiated is the cognitive object, and ignorance is the causal basis. Question: From which are they severed: are they severed from what is relied upon, or are they said to be severed from what is cognized? Answer: There is no fault whether severed from reliance or cognitive condition, because in Mahāyāna the afflictions [severed by] vision are severed頓 (abruptly/all at once), unlike the Sarvāstivāda where they are severed separately before and after. Furthermore, there are four alternatives: there is confusion without cognition, which refers to the two attachments [to views and vows]; there is cognition without confusion, which refers to undefiled wisdom; there is both cognition and confusion, such as doubt, wrong view, etc.; there is neither cognition nor confusion, such as cognizing the hair of a tortoise, etc., because it is not subsumed under the truths.