成唯識論了義燈 5.23

5.23

以有漏言表漏俱故。有漏有三：一、體是漏為有所有，名為有漏，即三漏中言有漏。是有者三有，此說上界內身為有，以上二界緣身起愛，離外境貪，故有之漏名有漏。即二界煩惱，名為有漏，漏是所有。二、有他漏故名為有漏，即說能有。三者，漏性合故名為有漏，亦煩惱自體。由此漏在生死中故，即體有用，名為有漏。今者此間表漏俱者，取能有體，名為有漏，不取煩惱。故前偏難云。又善、無覆無記心時，若無我執，應非有漏。《瑜伽》但說有他漏故，《雜集》通說。問：若與漏俱，方成有漏，即與《雜集》第三、《瑜伽》六十五皆悉相違。彼二論文不唯漏俱名有漏，故二論云何？且《對法》云：「漏自性故，漏相屬故，漏所縛故，漏所隨故，漏隨順故，漏種類故。」初漏自性故，即煩惱體。漏性合故，名為有漏。由此自體漏，在生死名漏性合，餘之五種由此自性，名為有漏。漏相屬者，與漏相應及漏所依，即染污心、心所名相應，遍行、別境及前七識，與或俱者眼等五根，名漏所依。所縛者，謂有漏善法，由漏勢力招後有故，此中亦攝六外境、無記心，且據善說。若准《瑜伽》，過、未有漏法，善、無記心，皆非所縛，及現外境、非現量緣，亦非所縛者，彼據質說過、未無故，善、無記心非漏相應，漏心緣時在過、未故，現色若非現量心緣，不親杖質，說非所緣。《對法論》：據親相分及疎所緣，說亦成所緣，同六十六，斷緣縛說，各據一義，故不相違。漏所隨者，謂餘地法，不互相增故，漏隨順者，順決擇分，異地不增，同地得增，容漏俱故，若無漏者，非隨順故。有漏之者，雖增背有，然與漏俱，不爾漏俱非漏目故。或雖漏俱而不增益，稱損力益能轉故。然成有漏，言增益者，據餘漏說漏種類者，無學諸蘊，前生煩惱之所起故。《瑜伽》六十五說：「有漏差別，由五相故，謂事故、隨眠故、相應故、所緣故、生起故。」事謂清淨諸色、三性、心、心所，此是能有諸漏體事，隨其所應由餘四相，說名有漏，謂：隨眠故、相應故、所緣故、生起故，即前諸法煩惱未斷所有種子，說名隨眠，彼由此種，說名有漏。諸染心、心所，由相應故說名有漏。若諸有事現量所行，若有漏所生增上所起，如是一切漏所緣故，名為有漏。現在名有事，若依清淨色識所行，名現量所行，　此據貪等能現量緣彼色等境，名漏所緣，餘非所緣。《論》云：但由自分別所起相，起諸煩惱。非彼諸法為此分明所行境故，故如前會。由生起故成有漏者，隨眠未斷，順煩惱境現在前故，此據惑引。又云：從一切不善煩惱、諸異熟果及異熟果增上所引外事生起，亦生起故，說名有漏。此有漏果為依所生，亦名有漏。五聚之法於有漏位三性之中，依《雜集》六、《瑜伽》五義，各具幾義，名為有漏。如《樞要》下卷，解十二支三斷中辨。准此二文，不唯漏俱名為有漏？答：此據正因，被據別義，故不相違。

Because the phrase 'defiled' (sāsrava) expresses that which is together with outflows (āsrava). There are three kinds of 'sāsrava': First, its substance itself is an outflow and it is possessed by existence; hence it is called 'sāsrava'—namely, 'existence-outflow' (bhava-āsrava) among the three outflows. 'Existence' refers to the three realms of existence. Here, this refers to the inner body of the higher realms as 'existence', because in the upper two realms one gives rise to attachment with reference to the body, being detached from desire for external objects; thus the outflow of existence is called 'sāsrava'. That is, the afflictions of the two upper realms are called 'sāsrava', where the outflow is what is possessed. Second, because it possesses other outflows, it is called 'sāsrava'; that is, this refers to being that which is capable of possessing them. Third, because of conjunction with the nature of outflows, it is called 'sāsrava'; this is also the substance of the afflictions itself. Because this outflow is within saṃsāra, its substance has efficacy, and it is called 'sāsrava'. Now, here, in expressing that which is together with outflows, one takes that substance which is capable of possessing them to be called 'sāsrava', not taking the afflictions [themselves]. Therefore, the previous objection was raised specifically, saying: 'Furthermore, at the time of wholesome and unobstructed neutral minds, if there is no self-grasping, they would not be sāsrava.' The Yogācārabhūmi speaks only of possessing other outflows, whereas the Samuccaya speaks comprehensively. Objection: If only when together with outflows does it become sāsrava, then this contradicts both the third fascicle of the Samuccaya and the sixty-fifth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi. The treatises of both do not define sāsrava merely as being together with outflows. How do these two treatises explain it? First, the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] states: 'Because of the intrinsic nature of outflows, because of connection with outflows, because of being bound by outflows, because of being accompanied by outflows, because of according with outflows, and because of the category of outflows.' First, 'because of the intrinsic nature of outflows' refers to the substance of the afflictions. Being conjoined with the nature of outflows, it is called 'sāsrava'. Because this intrinsic nature is an outflow, residing in saṃsāra, it is called 'conjoined with the nature of outflows'. The remaining five kinds are called 'sāsrava' by virtue of this intrinsic nature. 'Connection with outflows' refers to association with outflows and serving as the support of outflows; that is, defiled minds and mental factors are called 'associated', while the omnipresent, the particular, and the first seven consciousnesses, along with the eye and other five sense faculties when accompanied by defilements, are called the 'support of outflows'. 'Being bound by them' refers to sāsrava wholesome dharmas, because through the power of outflows they invite future existence; here, the six external sense fields and neutral minds are also subsumed, though this is stated provisionally in terms of the wholesome. If according with the Yogācārabhūmi, past and future sāsrava dharmas, as well as wholesome and neutral minds, are all not 'bound', and present external sense fields when not cognized by direct perception are also not 'bound'. That treatise speaks in terms of external models (dharmas with substance), because past and future do not exist, and wholesome and neutral minds are not associated with outflows; when an outflow-mind cognizes them, they are in the past or future. When present form is not cognized by a mind of direct perception, it does not directly lean on a material model, and thus is said not to be an object-field. The Abhidharmasamuccaya, speaking in terms of both the immediate image-part and the distant objective support, states that they also constitute objective supports, which agrees with fascicle sixty-six on the explanation of abandoning the binding of object-support; each relies on a particular meaning, so they do not contradict one another. 'Being accompanied by outflows' refers to dharmas of other planes, which do not mutually augment one another. 'According with outflows' refers to the aids to penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya); they are not augmented by different planes, but can be augmented by the same plane, because it is possible for them to be together with outflows; if they were anāsrava, they would not be 'according with'. Those that are sāsrava, although their increase turns away from existence, are nevertheless together with outflows; otherwise, being together with outflows would not designate an outflow. Or, although together with outflows, they do not augment them, because they can transform in accord with diminishing power and increasing efficacy; yet they are established as sāsrava, and the statement about 'augmenting' is made in terms of the remaining outflows. 'The category of outflows' refers to the aggregates of the arhat, because they were generated by the afflictions of a prior life. The sixty-fifth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'The distinctions of sāsrava are due to five characteristics: namely, by reason of basis, by reason of dormant tendency (anuśaya), by reason of association, by reason of objective support, and by reason of arising.' 'Basis' refers to pure forms and the minds and mental factors of the three moral natures; these are the substantive bases capable of possessing all outflows. According to what is appropriate, they are termed 'sāsrava' by virtue of the other four characteristics: namely, by reason of dormant tendency, by reason of association, by reason of objective support, and by reason of arising. That is, the seeds of unabandoned afflictions belonging to the aforementioned dharmas are called 'dormant tendencies'; by reason of these seeds, those [dharmas] are called 'sāsrava'. Defiled minds and mental factors are called 'sāsrava' by reason of association. If all existent entities are the scope of direct perception, or if they are prominently generated from the production of sāsrava, all such things are called 'sāsrava' because they are the objective supports of outflows. The present is called 'existent entity'; when it is the scope of consciousness relying on pure form, it is called 'the scope of direct perception'. This is stated in terms of greed and other [defilements] directly cognizing forms and other objects, which are called the objective supports of outflows; the rest are not objective supports. The treatise states: 'It is only through the appearance generated by one's own conceptual discrimination that afflictions arise; it is not that those dharmas are the distinctly cognized object-domain of this [consciousness]'; hence it is reconciled as before. As for becoming sāsrava 'by reason of arising': because dormant tendencies have not been abandoned, objects that accord with afflictions become manifest; this is stated in terms of being induced by defilements. It also states: 'Arising from all unwholesome afflictions, the various maturation fruits, and external things predominantly induced by maturation fruits; also because of arising, they are called sāsrava.' Produced relying on these sāsrava fruits, they are also called 'sāsrava'. In the sāsrava state, among the three moral natures, how many of the six meanings according to the Samuccaya and the five meanings according to the Yogācārabhūmi does each of the five categories of dharmas possess so as to be termed 'sāsrava'? This is analyzed in the lower fascicle of the Pivotal Essentials (Zongyao), in the explanation of the twelve links and the three kinds of abandonment. Based on these two passages, how could it be that only being together with outflows is called sāsrava? Answer: This [treatise] is based on the primary cause, while those are based on distinct meanings; hence there is no contradiction.