[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) › 5.65 # 成唯識論了義燈 5.65 成唯識論了義燈 5.65 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.65) 《論》：非見所斷者。《疏》言彼不言善法斷緣縛者，名為見斷。雖無相定，所招異熟入聖名斷，定非見斷。不爾修道煩惱發業，亦招惡趣別報苦果。果雖見斷，修道煩惱豈見斷耶？既能縛在但約見斷，不生名斷，非約斷縛，不障見故。以此證知善非見斷。問：此引五十七，二十二根三斷之文，若非緣縛名為見斷，七色命根何名見斷？斷有幾種？答：斷有四種：一、自性斷；二、相應斷；三、緣縛斷；四、不生斷。言自性斷者，謂本隨惑，性是染故，及不善業，業雖是思，如似五見，非相應斷，相應斷。相應斷者，有漏八識、五遍行全、別境、不定二各少分，自性非染由與惑俱，斷相應時，心等解脫。故五十四云：又復諸識自性非染。《涅槃經》亦云：斷相應貪等，名心解脫。又五十九云：從彼相應及所緣故，煩惱可斷。然所緣斷，或不生斷攝，以無境故。或即不生，又由相應煩惱斷故，不為境縛，名所緣斷。故彼云：相應斷已，不復緣境。故從所緣，亦說名斷。緣縛斷者，一切有漏不染污法。不生斷者，惡趣異熟無想定等，第八卷中更當分別。問：此前說斷，依何斷說？答：依不生及緣縛斷，十四一分見所斷，據不生說。或通相應斷，與見或俱故說見斷。然不盡理，有非斷故，一分修斷據緣縛說，十二一分修所斷，一切約緣縛斷。八十七文又說四斷少同於此，故說一分修斷，以信等五未知，當知通漏無漏，無漏之者即非所斷，憂、苦二受性非無漏，以引無漏及無漏引說為非斷，實非無漏。問：若爾意、喜、樂、捨亦通無漏，何唯說斷無想定等？准第八說亦通見斷，此何不說？答：此後問《疏》中解訖，釋前難者。意、喜、樂、捨無漏之者實通非斷，以意及捨八識通說，非皆無漏，且據全說。問：在二乘身無漏非全，若在佛身七色根除女，五受除憂、苦，三無漏除二，皆通無漏，何故非全不說非斷？答：據三乘通，若約大乘得通非斷。問：諸有漏法非性染者，在二乘身無能緣惑，說為修斷。然法猶在，若佛身中總滅，不有是何斷攝？答：不生斷攝。問：何以得知？答：《集論》中說無學後蘊無種已生，准此因無果不生故。問：如八難身等所起信等，入見道已彼身不受，信等起不？若不起者是何斷收？若許起者無所依身，如何得起？答：二解。一云不起，不生斷攝，所依無故；一云得起，依現身故。然應分別，生得者不生無雜亂故，方便者起許雜亂故，界繫定故，身不定故。或容生得，界雖無雜趣許雜故，如人中造生天業等，通生得故。前第三云：不雜亂者據界地說。 > The treatise says: 'They are not abandoned by seeing.' The Commentary states: It does not mean that wholesome dharmas abandoned by severing the bondage to objects are called abandoned by seeing. Although the maturation induced by the absorption of non-conception is severed upon entering noble status, it is determinately not abandoned by seeing. If it were not so, the defilements of the path of cultivation, which initiate karma, would also induce the painful results of distinct retributions in bad destinies. Although the result is abandoned by seeing, could the defilements of the path of cultivation be abandoned by seeing? Since the binding \[defilement\] remains, it is only in terms of what is abandoned by seeing that not arising is called abandonment, not in terms of severing bondage, because they do not obstruct seeing. By this it is proven that the wholesome is not abandoned by seeing. Question: This cites the text on the three abandonments of the twenty-two faculties in \[fascicle\] fifty-seven; if it is not severing the bondage to objects that is called abandoned by seeing, why are the seven physical \[faculties\] and the life faculty called abandoned by seeing? How many kinds of abandonment are there? Answer: There are four kinds of abandonment: 1. abandonment of intrinsic nature; 2. abandonment of association; 3. abandonment of bondage to objects; 4. abandonment by non-arising. As for 'abandonment of intrinsic nature,' it refers to the fundamental and secondary defilements because their nature is defiled, as well as unwholesome karma; although karma is volition, like the five views, it is not abandonment of association. \[The second is\] abandonment of association: the eight defiled consciousnesses, the five universal \[mental factors\] in their entirety, and a portion each of the particular and indeterminate factors, whose intrinsic nature is not defiled, but because they coexist with defilements, when their association is severed, the mind and \[associated factors\] are liberated. Thus fascicle fifty-four states: 'Furthermore, the intrinsic nature of the consciousnesses is not defiled.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also states: 'Abandoning associated greed and the like is called mental liberation.' Furthermore, fascicle fifty-nine states: 'Defilements can be abandoned through their association and through their intentional objects.' However, abandonment of intentional objects is either subsumed under abandonment by non-arising, because there is no object, or it simply does not arise; moreover, because the associated defilements are severed, one is not bound by the object, which is called abandonment of intentional objects. Therefore it says there: 'Once association is severed, it no longer takes the object.' Hence from the perspective of the intentional object, it is also called abandonment. 'Abandonment of bondage to objects' refers to all undefiled sāsrava dharmas. 'Abandonment by non-arising' refers to maturation in the bad destinies, the absorption of non-conception, and so forth, which will be further distinguished in the eighth fascicle. Question: According to which abandonment was the abandonment spoken of earlier asserted? Answer: It was based on abandonment by non-arising and abandonment of bondage to objects. That a portion of the fourteen are abandoned by seeing is stated based on non-arising. Or it may extend to abandonment of association, being called abandoned by seeing because they coexist with the defilements of views. Yet this is not exhaustive, because some are non-abandoned; that a portion is abandoned by cultivation is stated based on bondage to objects, and that a portion of the twelve are abandoned by cultivation is entirely based on abandonment of bondage to objects. The text of \[fascicle\] eighty-seven also explains the four abandonments slightly similarly to this, hence it speaks of a portion abandoned by cultivation. Because the five \[faculties\] beginning with faith and \[the faculty of\] knowing what is not yet known are common to sāsrava and anāsrava, those that are anāsrava are non-abandoned. The two sensations of grief and physical pain are by nature not anāsrava, but because they induce the anāsrava and are induced by the anāsrava, they are said to be non-abandoned; in reality, they are not anāsrava. Question: If so, mind, joy, pleasure, and equanimity are also common to anāsrava; why speak only of abandoning the absorption of non-conception and the like? Following the explanation of the eighth \[fascicle\], they are also common to being abandoned by seeing; why is that not stated here? Answer: This latter question has already been resolved in the Commentary. To resolve the prior objection: those of mind, joy, pleasure, and equanimity that are anāsrava are in reality common to non-abandonment; because mind and equanimity are spoken of generally across the eight consciousnesses, they are not entirely anāsrava, and \[the text\] speaks provisionally in terms of the whole. Question: In the persons of the two vehicles, anāsrava is not complete; if in the person of a Buddha, the seven physical faculties with the exception of female \[faculty\], the five sensations with the exception of grief and physical pain, and the three anāsrava \[faculties\] with the exception of two, are all common to anāsrava, why is it that being incomplete is not called non-abandoned? Answer: It is based on what is common to the three vehicles; if considered from the perspective of the Mahāyāna, they can be non-abandoned. Question: All sāsrava dharmas that are not defiled by nature, in the person of the two vehicles where there are no defilements capable of taking them as objects, are called abandoned by cultivation. Yet those dharmas still exist; if in the person of a Buddha they are completely eliminated and do not exist, under which abandonment are they subsumed? Answer: They are subsumed under abandonment by non-arising. Question: How is this known? Answer: The Abhidharmasamuccaya states that the final aggregates of an aśaikṣa, having no seeds, have already arisen; according to this, when the cause is absent, the result does not arise. Question: As for faith and the like arisen in bodies such as the eight difficulties, after entering the path of seeing, those bodies are not received; do faith and the like arise or not? If they do not arise, under which abandonment are they included? If it is admitted that they arise, when there is no supporting body, how can they arise? Answer: There are two explanations. One says they do not arise, being subsumed under abandonment by non-arising because there is no support. The other says they can arise, supported by the present body. However, a distinction should be made: innate ones do not arise because there is no confusion of realms; cultivated ones arise because confusion is permitted, since the realm bondage is determinate while the body is indeterminate. Or it is permissible for innate ones \[to arise\], because although realms are not confused, destinies are permitted to be confused, just as creating karma in the human realm for rebirth in heaven is common to innate \[factors\]. What was stated in the previous third \[fascicle\] that there is no confusion was said in terms of realms and grounds. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.64) - [Next: 5.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.66) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.5.65) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.65) · Pramāṇa