成唯識論了義燈 5.68

5.68

慢類有九。《疏》云：過慢、慢、卑慢，如次起初三者，謂於等計己勝起我勝慢類。於勝計己等，雖亦是過慢，令言我勝，故除於彼，於等計等起我等類，不言於劣，計勝言我等故，依其卑慢，起我劣慢類。卑慢、慢、過慢，如次起中三者，此依卑慢，起有勝我慢類，於等計等，起有等我類，於等計勝起有劣我類。慢、過慢、卑慢，如次起後三者，於等計等起無勝類，於等計勝起無等類，依卑慢起無劣慢類，如《俱舍》第十九、《婆沙》一百九十九說。問：且我勝慢類，何故但依於等計勝，不言於勝計等？答：今既言我勝，明非於勝計己等者，餘准此知。問：何故不於慢過慢起？答：據多分說，不多於勝計己為勝，此依《發智論》說。依《品類足論》，亦於彼起，故《婆沙》一百九十九云。此依本《論》，所釋。如是依品類足《論》，我勝慢類中攝三種，若劣謂己勝，即是慢；於等謂己勝，即過慢；於勝謂己勝，是慢過慢。餘八慢類，如理應說。准此《發智》依多分說，《品類足論》據盡理言。然此九類三於過慢起，謂我勝、有劣、無等三於慢生，謂我等、有等、無勝俱於中品處生，餘三依下品處起，以於他勝計己劣故。問：慢類與慢有何差別？答：有二義，一要依我見後生，及俱二多不全，依《品類足》即復有過，如似過慢於勝，謂已等等計己勝，我勝但於等計己勝故不全分。依《品類足》我勝依三生，謂於劣、等、勝皆計己勝，故即是過。問：我、劣類三依卑慢起，既全非分與七何殊？答：有初一義。問：何故我見俱後起者為慢類，豈不許七慢依我見俱後生？答：不障七慢、我見俱後生，但行相別直，計我後起者為慢，計我勝等後起慢者，即是慢類，或不依我慢亦得生，類必依我，又由分及過，是彼七類，亦應說云：我見後起為慢，我所後起為類。計我有劣勝，劣勝屬我等，雖非即我所，行相似彼。西明云：九類三依三品生，三依上品生，三依中上生，我勝類中攝三種慢，謂於劣計勝，於等謂己勝，於勝謂己勝，如次慢、過慢、慢過慢。餘八慢類，應如理思。我等慢類，依中上生攝二慢。我劣但依上品，生攝一慢。有勝慢類同此我劣，無劣亦同。有等類同我等，有劣、無勝、無等類此三亦同我勝。今謂似誤，標云：三依三品生。復云：有劣、無勝、無等亦同我勝，即四依三品生，何得言三？准應無勝同彼我等中上品生。又復我劣等三慢類依下品生，何得依上？計己劣故。故《俱舍》十九云：於多分勝謂己小劣。卑慢可成，有高處故。無劣我慢，高處是何？（此問）謂於如是自所愛樂，勝有情聚，及顧己身，雖知極劣，而自尊重（此答）。既云：雖知極劣而自尊重。明非上品。

There are nine classes of conceit. The Commentary explains: "Excessive conceit (atimāna), conceit (māna), and inferior conceit (ūnamāna) give rise respectively to the first three." This means that regarding an equal, thinking oneself superior gives rise to the class of conceit that "I am superior." Regarding a superior, thinking oneself equal is also excessive conceit; however, since [the text] now says "I am superior," that is excluded. Regarding an equal, thinking [oneself] equal gives rise to the class that "I am equal"; it does not refer to regarding an inferior, because regarding an inferior, to say one is equal is conceiving oneself as superior. Based on inferior conceit, one gives rise to the class of conceit that "I am inferior." / "Inferior conceit, conceit, and excessive conceit give rise respectively to the middle three": based on inferior conceit, one gives rise to the class of conceit that "there is someone superior to me"; regarding an equal, thinking [oneself] equal, one gives rise to the class that "there is someone equal to me"; regarding an equal, thinking [oneself] superior, one gives rise to the class that "there is someone inferior to me." / "Conceit, excessive conceit, and inferior conceit give rise respectively to the last three": regarding an equal, thinking [oneself] equal, one gives rise to the class that "there is none superior [to me]"; regarding an equal, thinking [oneself] superior, one gives rise to the class that "there is none equal [to me]"; based on inferior conceit, one gives rise to the class of conceit that "there is none inferior [to me]," as stated in fascicle 19 of the Kośa and fascicle 199 of the Vibhāṣā. / Question: Why is the class of conceit that "I am superior" based only on thinking oneself superior regarding an equal, and does not mention thinking oneself equal regarding a superior? / Answer: Since it now says "I am superior," it is clear that this does not refer to thinking oneself equal regarding a superior. The others are to be understood accordingly. / Question: Why does it not arise based on conceit of excessive conceit (mānātimāna)? / Answer: This is stated according to the predominant cases; one does not predominantly consider oneself superior regarding a superior. This is stated according to the Jñānaprasthāna. According to the Prakaraṇapāda, it also arises regarding that, as stated in fascicle 199 of the Vibhāṣā. This is the explanation according to the root treatise. Thus, according to the Prakaraṇapāda-śāstra, three types are subsumed under the class of conceit that "I am superior": if, regarding an inferior, one considers oneself superior, that is conceit (māna); regarding an equal, considering oneself superior is excessive conceit (atimāna); regarding a superior, considering oneself superior is conceit of excessive conceit (mānātimāna). The remaining eight classes of conceit should be explained in the same logical manner. From this it follows that the Jñānaprasthāna speaks according to the predominant cases, while the Prakaraṇapāda-śāstra speaks according to exhaustive principle. / However, among these nine classes, three arise from excessive conceit: namely, "I am superior," "there is someone inferior [to me]," and "there is none equal [to me]." Three arise from conceit: namely, "I am equal," "there is someone equal [to me]," and "there is none superior [to me]"; both arise regarding intermediate situations. The remaining three arise based on inferior situations, because regarding someone superior, one considers oneself inferior. / Question: What is the difference between the classes of conceit (māna-vidha) and the [root] conceits (māna)? / Answer: There are two meanings. First, they must arise following the view of self (satkāyadṛṣṭi) or concomitantly with it; second, they are mostly partial [applications of the root conceits], and according to the Prakaraṇapāda, there is also an excess. For example, excessive conceit is, regarding a superior, considering oneself equal, and regarding an equal, considering oneself superior; "I am superior," however, is only considering oneself superior regarding an equal, and is therefore not the full scope. According to the Prakaraṇapāda, "I am superior" arises based on three—namely, regarding an inferior, an equal, and a superior, one considers oneself superior—and is therefore an excess. / Question: The three classes—"I am inferior," ["there is someone superior," and "there is none inferior"]—arise based on inferior conceit; since they are entirely the same, not merely partial, how do they differ from the seven [types of conceit]? / Answer: They possess the first meaning. / Question: Why are those that arise following or concomitant with the view of self called "classes of conceit"? Do we not accept that the seven conceits also arise following or concomitant with the view of self? / Answer: We do not deny that the seven conceits arise following or concomitant with the view of self. But their mental aspects differ: that which arises directly after conceiving a self is conceit; that which arises as conceit after conceiving that "I am superior," etc., is a class of conceit. Alternatively, [conceit] may also arise without depending on "I-conceit" (asmimāna), whereas the classes necessarily depend on the "I". Furthermore, because of being partial or excessive, they are classes of those seven. One should also explain it thus: arising after the view of self is conceit; arising after [the view of] what belongs to a self is a class of conceit. Conceiving that "I have inferiority or superiority," inferiority and superiority pertain to the self; though this is not strictly what belongs to a self, its mental aspect resembles it. / Ximing says: "The nine classes [are classified as follows]: three arise based on three grades; three arise based on the superior grade; three arise based on the intermediate and superior grades. Within the class of conceit 'I am superior,' three kinds of conceit are subsumed: namely, regarding an inferior, conceiving oneself superior; regarding an equal, conceiving oneself superior; regarding a superior, conceiving oneself superior; which are, respectively, conceit, excessive conceit, and conceit of excessive conceit. The remaining eight classes of conceit should be considered in the same logical manner. The class of conceit 'I am equal' arises based on the intermediate and superior grades and subsumes two conceits. 'I am inferior' arises based only on the superior grade and subsumes one conceit. The class of conceit 'there is someone superior [to me]' is identical to 'I am inferior'; 'there is none inferior [to me]' is also the same. The class 'there is someone equal [to me]' is identical to 'I am equal.' The classes 'there is someone inferior [to me],' 'there is none superior [to me],' and 'there is none equal [to me]'—these three are also identical to 'I am superior.'" / Now I say this seems to be an error. He asserts: "Three arise based on three grades." Then he states: "'There is someone inferior,' 'there is none superior,' and 'there is none equal' are also identical to 'I am superior'"—that would make four arising based on three grades; how could he say three? By deduction, "there is none superior" must be identical to "I am equal," arising based on intermediate and superior grades. Furthermore, the three classes of conceit, such as "I am inferior," arise based on inferior situations; how could they arise based on the superior? Because one considers oneself inferior. Thus fascicle 19 of the Kośa says: "Regarding one who is largely superior, one considers oneself slightly inferior. Inferior conceit can be established because there is an elevated aspect. In the conceit 'there is none inferior to me,' what is the elevated aspect?" (This is the question.) "It means that regarding such an assemblage of superior sentient beings whom one loves, and regarding one's own body, though one knows it to be extremely inferior, one still respects oneself." (This is the answer.) Since it says, "though one knows it to be extremely inferior, one still respects oneself," it is clear that this is not the superior grade.