成唯識論了義燈 1.80

1.80

Regarding identification of the intrinsic nature: In the Fayuan [yilinzhang], reverent homage takes the three actions as its intrinsic nature. Ximing takes shame (hrī) and embarrassment (apatrāpya) as its intrinsic nature. The Yaoji says: "We now take the former explanation—the three actions—as correct." Some say that based on the teaching, ten dharmas constitute its intrinsic nature: 1. volition (cetanā); 2. shame; 3. reverence; 4. affection; 5. faith; 6. non-arrogance; 7. equanimity; 8. the aggregate of form; 9. the aggregate of consciousness; 10. knowledge. Now I say this is not so. If one says that ten dharmas [include] reverence, affection, and non-arrogance, where are these among the hundred dharmas? The rest is unreasonable, as analyzed in the Yaoji, so I will not tire of recording it in full. The Yaoji says: "The word 'bowing the head' reveals superior bodily action. However, because one produces resolute resolve toward objects such as virtues and the virtuous, being resolute together [with it], once one has engaged in volition, pure faith arises immediately. Considering this, shame arises, esteeming and honoring the worthy and good. Due to this, one is able to produce pure bodily and vocal [actions]. Therefore, here volition encompasses all three actions, and shame is the intrinsic nature of reverence. Dharmas such as faith are the causes of reverence; bodily and vocal actions are the results of reverence; and volition encompasses both cause and result. What the Fayuan says—taking the three actions and embarrassment as the intrinsic nature of reverence—is also difficult to establish rationally. The intrinsic nature of the three actions is volition; volition is action, and the characteristic of reverence is subtle and hidden. Hence the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 34, says: 'Reverence takes shame as its intrinsic nature, because esteeming and honoring the worthy and good is the characteristic of reverence.'" Now examining this explanation, its reasoning is not necessarily so, and moreover it contradicts itself. First it quotes the Fayuan, taking volition as the intrinsic nature. Then in a certain explanation, [the author of the Yaoji] makes his own judgment taking the former [view of] the three actions as correct, yet here he again takes shame as the intrinsic nature of the homage-paying [reverence]. Which one is taken as correct? Nor can it be said that the earlier and later meanings differ, since both explain the meaning of bowing the head and paying reverent homage. Furthermore, if one takes shame as one's own correct position, the reasoning is certainly unacceptable. Why? If [one claims that] producing resolute resolve together with resolution, once one has engaged in volition, pure faith arises immediately, the reasoning is simply not so: volition is not the cause of faith. Fascicle six states: "Patience is said to be the cause of faith, and aspiration is its result." It does not state that volition conjoined with faith serves as the cause for faith to arise. If [it were so] because it is omnipresent, one should say attention (manaskāra), not volition. Moreover, it says: "Due to this, shame arises, esteeming and honoring the worthy and good; because of this, one can produce pure bodily and vocal [actions]. Therefore, here volition encompasses all three actions, and shame is the intrinsic nature of reverence." This also is not so. Does one take the three actions as the intrinsic nature of taking refuge and revering, or does one take only shame? If one takes only shame, why must one say, "Volition encompasses the three actions, and shame is the intrinsic nature of reverence"? For the nature of shame is not the intrinsic nature of the three actions. If it encompasses the three actions, then it is not solely shame. Why again say that dharmas such as faith are the causes of reverence, bodily and vocal actions are the results of reverence, and volition encompasses both cause and result? That would mean the three actions are merely the cause and result of reverence, not its intrinsic nature. If one says solely that shame is the intrinsic nature of reverence, the reasoning is also not so. This clarifies reverence; it may be that [reverence] is only shame, but since the text says "reverent homage," it clearly refers to the three actions. The three actions pay homage due to the cause of reverence and shame; nowhere is it said that shame also serves as the intrinsic nature of karma. Nor is it said that shame produces karma. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Therefore I with utmost sincerity, with body, speech, and thought repeatedly cultivate, unerringly taking refuge and paying homage." And Master Gopadatta says: "Paying homage with the three actions is intended to show that the Great Master possesses the divine eye, hence paying homage with bodily action," and so forth. In the Vinaya it says that being nearby in an illuminated place, one pays homage with bodily action, and so forth. Thus it is only volition; one cannot say shame is its cause. It may be that, just as greed and the like serve as preparatory cultivation to then produce the three actions, although the treatise says "cutting off life is called hatred," it ultimately never says greed and the like are the intrinsic nature of karma. Although it is said that regarding shame, one reveres virtues and the virtuous, when discussing the intrinsic nature of taking refuge and paying reverence, it is precisely the three actions. This principle is definitive; do not offer another explanation. Furthermore, in the Fayuan, it only speaks of the three actions, with no text saying embarrassment is the intrinsic nature of reverence. Poshen misread the text and should re-examine it more carefully.