成唯識論了義燈 1.81

1.81

Previously, identifying the intrinsic nature of bowing the head strictly according to its precise nature, it was only said to be volition. If explained conceptually, in general whenever taking refuge and revering are discussed, there are two kinds: the manifest and the non-manifest. In terms of the manifest, these are the two actions of body and speech: through bodily homage, earnestness is definitely produced and manifested for others to see. The Abhidharmakośa relies on this to speak exclusively of bodily action. Although the body does not bow, merely uttering words to praise—expressing internal thought through names, phrases, and so forth—causes others to hear. In the verse of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, it is said to exclusively take vocal action. If according to the non-manifest, it exclusively takes mental action: producing earnest sincerity internally, although it is extremely weighty, other people do not perceive it, so the treatises do not mention it. The present treatise fully employs the three actions to take refuge and revere, completely exhausting both the manifest and non-manifest kinds. In terms of their distinctions, the three actions differ. As for bodily action, in reality it is superior volition conjoined with shame and the like that moves and initiates, while metaphorically it also includes manifest form (rūpa). Vocal action also uses superior volition conjoined with shame and the like that moves and initiates, while metaphorically it also includes sound. For the Sarvāstivādins, who hold that there is real wholesome and unwholesome form, based on retribution-form, there arises action-form, which is form of long and short, and this serves as its intrinsic nature. Master Saṅghabhadra, moreover, posited separate atoms of long and so forth. The Sammatīya masters posited a separate form of motion. The Dārṣṭāntika masters posited a separate form of motion that is neither color nor shape. All are as explained below. Now in the Mahāyāna, when in the Buddha-fruition, bodily and vocal form and sound may be admitted to be wholesome, but they are not the intrinsic nature of taking refuge. When in the causal stage, they are indeterminate. From the perspective of expressing the mind, they metaphorically encompass the wholesome and unwholesome; hence bodily and vocal actions take both the metaphorical and the real as their intrinsic nature. In mental action, there are two [perspectives]: first, in terms of action; second, in terms of diligent counteraction. In terms of action, there are two: intrinsic nature and accompanying factors. As for intrinsic nature, it exclusively takes volition conjoined with shame and the like among the omnipresent mental factors, taking the Three Jewels as its object, as its intrinsic nature. There are three kinds of volition: deliberative, resolute, and motive-initiating. Although the treatise text says the first two volitions are exclusively in the mental plane, while the latter volition is the bodily and vocal actions, now according to the doctrine, the mind can also have superior motive-initiating volition, because it is said to activate the mind and produce non-greed and so forth. In terms of accompanying factors, it is the twenty-three dharmas: the four other omnipresent factors, the five object-determining factors, the ten wholesome factors of the dispersed plane (adding pliancy when in concentration), the king of mind, investigation (vitarka), and examination (vicāra), which are conjoined with this volition. Next, in terms of counteraction, there are again two: intrinsic nature and conjoined factors. Intrinsic nature exclusively takes shame and embarrassment, which take the Three Jewels as object and are able to counteract contempt and arrogance, as its intrinsic nature. This has two meanings: first, superiority of intrinsic nature; second, conformity of meaning. Regarding superiority of intrinsic nature, the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: "Shame takes feeling ashamed of faults and evil with self-dominance and Dharma-dominance as its intrinsic nature." Embarrassment, the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: "Takes feeling ashamed of faults and evil with worldly-dominance as its intrinsic nature." The passages cited in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and the Abhidharmasamuccaya can be known. Regarding the second, conformity of meaning, the Abhidharmakośa says: "What is the difference between shamelessness (ahrīkya) and non-embarrassment (anapatrāpya)? Answer: Shamelessness and non-embarrassment... up to: toward all virtues and the virtuous, having no reverence, no esteem, no apprehension, and no subservience is called shamelessness." Following what can counteract this, it is precisely shame. Because this principle is conforming, when spoken in terms of counteraction, the intrinsic nature of taking refuge and revering is precisely shame and embarrassment. But strictly speaking, it is not. If one directly takes shame, shame is conjoined with the five consciousnesses—could what is conjoined with the five also be taking refuge and revering? It is said that the mental mode of shame is esteeming and honoring the worthy and good; the five consciousnesses cannot separately take the Three Jewels as an object. If one says it is not taken [in the five consciousnesses], what difference is there in the mental mode? Therefore, the three actions are properly the intrinsic nature of taking refuge and revering; one cannot [object] based on volition. Although [volition] is omnipresent in the five consciousnesses, action is not the five [consciousnesses'] volitions; what prevents shame from being widespread while reverence is exclusively in the mental [consciousness]? Why? The treatises determine the intrinsic nature of action, having already distinguished it; nowhere in determining taking refuge and revering is shame said to be the intrinsic nature. Accompanying factors are as above.