成唯識論了義燈 2.14

2.14

Question: How is it known that identity view (satkāyadṛṣṭi) is twofold, and that the path of vision (darśanamārga) abandons [only] one? Answer: According to the second fascicle of the four-fascicle Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, it says that there are two kinds of identity view, namely innate (sahaja) and conceptually constructed (parikalpita). Down to saying that because the previous two conceptually constructed identity views are abandoned, doubts regarding teachings do not arise. Based on this sūtra passage, since it says that because the previous two conceptually constructed identity views are abandoned, doubts regarding teachings do not arise, it clearly states that identity view is twofold; the initial fruition abandons only the conceptually constructed identity view, not the innate one. There is no need for extensive explanation. Question: Is there anyone who, having abandoned the first six grades of afflictions of [the sphere of] neither-perception-nor-non-perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana), only thereafter abandons the last three grades of the desire realm? Answer: Yes. A person who surpasses the middle two fruitions to attain the fourth fruition is precisely such a case. Furthermore, take a sakṛdāgāmin abiding in his own fruition: having already abandoned six grades of afflictions of the desire realm, he only then turns his mind to attain the fruition of a pratyekabuddha. He cannot gradually abandon the remainder that has not yet been abandoned to attain the fruition of a pratyekabuddha, because the fruition of a pratyekabuddha accomplishes bodhi in thirty-four mind[-moments], and is moreover no different from the successive fourth fruition. Even if he has now attained the second fruition, he does not further combine it with the preceding to make thirty-four mind[-moments]. The thirty-four mind[-moments] are only spoken of based on one who undertakes it directly from the stage of an ordinary person. This second fruition only thereafter arouses nine uninterrupted paths (ānantaryamārga) and nine paths of liberation (vimuktimārga) to abandon the remaining afflictions—that is, the afflictions of the lower three grades of the desire realm, down through the afflictions below the sphere of nothingness (ākiṃcanyāyatana), which are suppressed by worldly paths. Arousing six uninterrupted and liberated [paths], having abandoned the first six grades of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and so forth, he only then abandons the previously suppressed [afflictions] of the lower desire [realm]. This is not like the path of vision, which is a single-grade path; alternatively, those suppressed in the previous stages are abandoned simultaneously and at once with the highest grade of afflictions of the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, because they were previously suppressed. But regarding what was said earlier, that a person surpassing to the fourth fruition abandons the first six grades of the formless [realm] before abandoning the subsequent grades of the lower stages—since no authoritative text has been seen, either of the two explanations may be accepted. Question: According to Hīnayāna, bodhi is attained in thirty-four mind[-moments]; what does the Mahāyāna say? Answer: According to the Mahāyāna, there are fifty-four mind[-moments]: the two kinds of sixteen mind[-moments] together with the nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation make fifty mind[-moments]. In the three-mind path of vision there are only two mind[-moments], merely dividing the afflictive obstacles into higher and lower abandonments without abandoning the cognitive obstacles (jñeyāvaraṇa), combined with two of the real vision—one uninterrupted and one liberated. Or there are fifty-two, excluding the upper and lower two minds in the three-mind path of vision, because persons of the two vehicles do not perform non-analytic contemplation. Question: For one heading toward the fruition of a śrāvaka, at the sixteenth mind of seeing the truths the fruition is established. Why is it not established for one heading toward a pratyekabuddha? Answer: Because he does not abide on the path, and his intended aspiration is distinct. Question: When the Mahāyāna discusses the Hīnayāna, [it says] they do not perceive the real vision because of its coarseness, and only know the approximated vision. Why is it that in the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) they perceive real uninterrupted and liberation [paths]? Answer: They themselves take them to be real uninterrupted and liberation [paths]; when the Mahāyāna discusses them, it views them as merely preceding preparatory applications (prayogamārga). Question: If the Mahāyāna discusses the Hīnayāna as having real and approximated paths of vision, why does it not say that the Hīnayāna has real and approximated paths of cultivation? Answer: Prior to the path of vision, preparatory applications are extensive, contemplation is trained in for a long time, and initial entry is difficult; because it is newly attained, the truths are re-contemplated, so there is an approximated path of vision. In the path of cultivation, one does not perform extensive modes of activity over a long time, because the grades of the nine stages are abandoned separately, and because it was previously attained, so one does not re-contemplate; therefore an approximated path of cultivation is not spoken of. Question: How is it in the Mahāyāna? Answer: Since there is subsequent non-outflow wisdom (pṛṣṭhalabdha-anāsravajñāna) that re-contemplates the preceding tathatā, its existence is also without fault. Because the station does not definitively require further re-contemplation, it is not established separately. Question: The initial fruition is only established at the sixteenth approximated [mind]; why are the latter three established at liberation? Answer: Upon initial entry into vision, one must re-contemplate the truths, and only at the sixteenth mind is the matter complete so that the fruition can be established. In subsequent attainments on the path of cultivation, re-contemplation is not needed; the matter is completed at the path of liberation, so the fruition is established. Question: When a śrāvaka has attained the state of non-learning (aśaikṣa) and then turns his inclination toward pratyekabuddhahood, what contemplative path does he enter and what kind of obstacle does he abandon when training his faculties? Answer: When one of the ultimate fruition heads toward pratyekabuddhahood, he merely arouses nine uninterrupted and nine liberated [minds], which are simulated uninterrupted and liberated [paths], not real uninterrupted [paths] and so forth. He merely contemplates phenomena and does not enter the contemplation of the emptiness of persons (pudgalanairātmya), because there are no further afflictions to abandon or to realize. He merely operates a mind of understanding as uninterrupted and liberated paths, repeatedly contemplating to make the five faculties of faith and so forth of that ultimate fruition gradually sharp and bright, thus attaining the fruition without abandoning any further afflictions. A second [view] states: even if he enters the emptiness of persons to eliminate the obstacle of his faculties as the uninterrupted path and so forth, in principle there is also no obstruction, because it makes wisdom sharp and bright, as there are no afflictions to abandon. Question: When one beyond learning turns his inclination to abandon the obstacle of faculties, does he separately attain unconditioned phenomena (asaṃskṛta)? Answer: What fault would there be whether he attains it or does not attain it? Both have faults. If you say he attains it, why is it said that the three vehicles sit together on the bed of liberation? Answer: The meaning here is different. Sharing the attainment of liberation means sharing the liberation of non-arising of afflictions; it does not say that the unconditioned phenomena are also the same. If you say he does not attain it, why does the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā say that by abandoning inferior feelings, two unconditioned phenomena are attained? Answer: That is stated in terms of permanent abandonment. It belongs solely to the Mahāyāna, not to the two vehicles, because they do not abandon them but merely suppress them to attain meditative absorption; in terms of the cessation of afflictions, their liberation is not different, as explained in the commentary to the tenth fascicle under the ten obstacles. Question: When a śrāvaka attains his own fruition and transforms to become of sharp faculties, does he engage in contemplation of phenomena or contemplation of principle? Answer: He merely engages in contemplation of phenomena, not contemplation of principle. Because in training the faculties there are no afflictions to abandon and no further fruition to attain, it is merely contemplation of phenomena, without separately attaining an unconditioned phenomenon. If a Mahāyāna bodhisattva trains faculties, he enters the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas (dharmanairātmya) to abandon cognitive obstacles, which is distinct from that. Question: Contemplation of dharmas is subtle, contemplation of persons is coarse, and contemplation of dharmas necessarily entails contemplation of persons. Grasping at persons is coarse, grasping at dharmas is subtle; when dharmas are abandoned, persons are necessarily abandoned. Answer: Suppose that is so; what fault is there? If so, why does fascicle nine of the treatise state that in the three-mind path of vision, the second—internally expelling the nominal wisdom of dharmas—abandons only grasping at dharmas and does not abandon [grasping at] persons? Answer: In actuality, abandoning dharmas necessarily can abandon persons; because his preparatory application and intended aspiration are distinct, this also does not contradict reason. Question: If, viewing cultivation from vision, one allows that in the path of vision contemplation of dharmas abandons dharmas without abandoning persons, then viewing vision from cultivation, in the path of cultivation one would abandon persons without abandoning dharmas. Answer: Reflect and it will be known. Challenge: The two obstacles obstruct the path of vision; upon entering vision, are they abandoned successively? The two obstacles obstruct non-learning; at the vajra-like stage, are they abandoned in two minds? Answer: The initial wisdom of the path of vision is inferior, so the two obstacles are abandoned successively. The power of the vajra-like path is strong, so the two obstacles are abandoned simultaneously. Question: Meditative obstacles are subsumed under cognitive obstacles; if one allows that persons of the two vehicles abandon them through contemplation of the emptiness of persons, could it be otherwise? Answer: It is so. Question: Cognitive obstacles are subtle, while the emptiness of persons is coarse; if one allows that the emptiness of persons abandons subtle obstacles, then since the emptiness of persons is coarse and the emptiness of dharmas is subtle, when the emptiness of persons arises, it should also entail the emptiness of dharmas. Some explain that they are not analogous. Grasping at persons viewed against grasping at dharmas: grasping at dharmas is subtle. But if grasping at persons is viewed against cognitive obstacles, cognitive obstacles are coarse. Why? Because delusion regarding principle is subtle, while delusion regarding phenomena is coarse. When realizing the principle of persons and abandoning self-grasping, one can simultaneously abandon those meditative obstacles of delusion regarding phenomena. However, subtle contemplation of dharmas necessarily entails contemplation of persons, whereas coarse contemplation of persons does not entail contemplation of dharmas. This answer's intention takes those co-arising with delusion regarding principle. This explanation is incorrect. Since meditative obstacles co-arise with afflictions deluded regarding principle, would they also follow the afflictions in being deluded regarding principle? According to fascicle six, those that co-arise with greed, anger, views, and doubt are also deluded regarding principle because they share the same objective support. From this we know that meditative obstacles should also be the same as those: those that co-arise and share delusion are subsumed under afflictive obstacles, and upon abandonment one attains analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha); separately arising meditative obstacles are inferior feelings, which the two vehicles suppress without abandoning, because they are subsumed under cognitive obstacles. Therefore, when persons of the two vehicles suppress these meditative obstacles to attain the two absorptions, they attain non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyānirodha), not analytical cessation. Therefore, one cannot challenge that the coarse emptiness of persons can abandon subtle obstacles, thereby causing the arising of contemplation of persons to entail the emptiness of dharmas.