成唯識論了義燈 5.23

5.23

Because the phrase 'defiled' (sāsrava) expresses that which is together with outflows (āsrava). There are three kinds of 'sāsrava': First, its substance itself is an outflow and it is possessed by existence; hence it is called 'sāsrava'—namely, 'existence-outflow' (bhava-āsrava) among the three outflows. 'Existence' refers to the three realms of existence. Here, this refers to the inner body of the higher realms as 'existence', because in the upper two realms one gives rise to attachment with reference to the body, being detached from desire for external objects; thus the outflow of existence is called 'sāsrava'. That is, the afflictions of the two upper realms are called 'sāsrava', where the outflow is what is possessed. Second, because it possesses other outflows, it is called 'sāsrava'; that is, this refers to being that which is capable of possessing them. Third, because of conjunction with the nature of outflows, it is called 'sāsrava'; this is also the substance of the afflictions itself. Because this outflow is within saṃsāra, its substance has efficacy, and it is called 'sāsrava'. Now, here, in expressing that which is together with outflows, one takes that substance which is capable of possessing them to be called 'sāsrava', not taking the afflictions [themselves]. Therefore, the previous objection was raised specifically, saying: 'Furthermore, at the time of wholesome and unobstructed neutral minds, if there is no self-grasping, they would not be sāsrava.' The Yogācārabhūmi speaks only of possessing other outflows, whereas the Samuccaya speaks comprehensively. Objection: If only when together with outflows does it become sāsrava, then this contradicts both the third fascicle of the Samuccaya and the sixty-fifth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi. The treatises of both do not define sāsrava merely as being together with outflows. How do these two treatises explain it? First, the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] states: 'Because of the intrinsic nature of outflows, because of connection with outflows, because of being bound by outflows, because of being accompanied by outflows, because of according with outflows, and because of the category of outflows.' First, 'because of the intrinsic nature of outflows' refers to the substance of the afflictions. Being conjoined with the nature of outflows, it is called 'sāsrava'. Because this intrinsic nature is an outflow, residing in saṃsāra, it is called 'conjoined with the nature of outflows'. The remaining five kinds are called 'sāsrava' by virtue of this intrinsic nature. 'Connection with outflows' refers to association with outflows and serving as the support of outflows; that is, defiled minds and mental factors are called 'associated', while the omnipresent, the particular, and the first seven consciousnesses, along with the eye and other five sense faculties when accompanied by defilements, are called the 'support of outflows'. 'Being bound by them' refers to sāsrava wholesome dharmas, because through the power of outflows they invite future existence; here, the six external sense fields and neutral minds are also subsumed, though this is stated provisionally in terms of the wholesome. If according with the Yogācārabhūmi, past and future sāsrava dharmas, as well as wholesome and neutral minds, are all not 'bound', and present external sense fields when not cognized by direct perception are also not 'bound'. That treatise speaks in terms of external models (dharmas with substance), because past and future do not exist, and wholesome and neutral minds are not associated with outflows; when an outflow-mind cognizes them, they are in the past or future. When present form is not cognized by a mind of direct perception, it does not directly lean on a material model, and thus is said not to be an object-field. The Abhidharmasamuccaya, speaking in terms of both the immediate image-part and the distant objective support, states that they also constitute objective supports, which agrees with fascicle sixty-six on the explanation of abandoning the binding of object-support; each relies on a particular meaning, so they do not contradict one another. 'Being accompanied by outflows' refers to dharmas of other planes, which do not mutually augment one another. 'According with outflows' refers to the aids to penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya); they are not augmented by different planes, but can be augmented by the same plane, because it is possible for them to be together with outflows; if they were anāsrava, they would not be 'according with'. Those that are sāsrava, although their increase turns away from existence, are nevertheless together with outflows; otherwise, being together with outflows would not designate an outflow. Or, although together with outflows, they do not augment them, because they can transform in accord with diminishing power and increasing efficacy; yet they are established as sāsrava, and the statement about 'augmenting' is made in terms of the remaining outflows. 'The category of outflows' refers to the aggregates of the arhat, because they were generated by the afflictions of a prior life. The sixty-fifth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'The distinctions of sāsrava are due to five characteristics: namely, by reason of basis, by reason of dormant tendency (anuśaya), by reason of association, by reason of objective support, and by reason of arising.' 'Basis' refers to pure forms and the minds and mental factors of the three moral natures; these are the substantive bases capable of possessing all outflows. According to what is appropriate, they are termed 'sāsrava' by virtue of the other four characteristics: namely, by reason of dormant tendency, by reason of association, by reason of objective support, and by reason of arising. That is, the seeds of unabandoned afflictions belonging to the aforementioned dharmas are called 'dormant tendencies'; by reason of these seeds, those [dharmas] are called 'sāsrava'. Defiled minds and mental factors are called 'sāsrava' by reason of association. If all existent entities are the scope of direct perception, or if they are prominently generated from the production of sāsrava, all such things are called 'sāsrava' because they are the objective supports of outflows. The present is called 'existent entity'; when it is the scope of consciousness relying on pure form, it is called 'the scope of direct perception'. This is stated in terms of greed and other [defilements] directly cognizing forms and other objects, which are called the objective supports of outflows; the rest are not objective supports. The treatise states: 'It is only through the appearance generated by one's own conceptual discrimination that afflictions arise; it is not that those dharmas are the distinctly cognized object-domain of this [consciousness]'; hence it is reconciled as before. As for becoming sāsrava 'by reason of arising': because dormant tendencies have not been abandoned, objects that accord with afflictions become manifest; this is stated in terms of being induced by defilements. It also states: 'Arising from all unwholesome afflictions, the various maturation fruits, and external things predominantly induced by maturation fruits; also because of arising, they are called sāsrava.' Produced relying on these sāsrava fruits, they are also called 'sāsrava'. In the sāsrava state, among the three moral natures, how many of the six meanings according to the Samuccaya and the five meanings according to the Yogācārabhūmi does each of the five categories of dharmas possess so as to be termed 'sāsrava'? This is analyzed in the lower fascicle of the Pivotal Essentials (Zongyao), in the explanation of the twelve links and the three kinds of abandonment. Based on these two passages, how could it be that only being together with outflows is called sāsrava? Answer: This [treatise] is based on the primary cause, while those are based on distinct meanings; hence there is no contradiction.