成唯識論了義燈 5.65

5.65

The treatise says: 'They are not abandoned by seeing.' The Commentary states: It does not mean that wholesome dharmas abandoned by severing the bondage to objects are called abandoned by seeing. Although the maturation induced by the absorption of non-conception is severed upon entering noble status, it is determinately not abandoned by seeing. If it were not so, the defilements of the path of cultivation, which initiate karma, would also induce the painful results of distinct retributions in bad destinies. Although the result is abandoned by seeing, could the defilements of the path of cultivation be abandoned by seeing? Since the binding [defilement] remains, it is only in terms of what is abandoned by seeing that not arising is called abandonment, not in terms of severing bondage, because they do not obstruct seeing. By this it is proven that the wholesome is not abandoned by seeing. Question: This cites the text on the three abandonments of the twenty-two faculties in [fascicle] fifty-seven; if it is not severing the bondage to objects that is called abandoned by seeing, why are the seven physical [faculties] and the life faculty called abandoned by seeing? How many kinds of abandonment are there? Answer: There are four kinds of abandonment: 1. abandonment of intrinsic nature; 2. abandonment of association; 3. abandonment of bondage to objects; 4. abandonment by non-arising. As for 'abandonment of intrinsic nature,' it refers to the fundamental and secondary defilements because their nature is defiled, as well as unwholesome karma; although karma is volition, like the five views, it is not abandonment of association. [The second is] abandonment of association: the eight defiled consciousnesses, the five universal [mental factors] in their entirety, and a portion each of the particular and indeterminate factors, whose intrinsic nature is not defiled, but because they coexist with defilements, when their association is severed, the mind and [associated factors] are liberated. Thus fascicle fifty-four states: 'Furthermore, the intrinsic nature of the consciousnesses is not defiled.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also states: 'Abandoning associated greed and the like is called mental liberation.' Furthermore, fascicle fifty-nine states: 'Defilements can be abandoned through their association and through their intentional objects.' However, abandonment of intentional objects is either subsumed under abandonment by non-arising, because there is no object, or it simply does not arise; moreover, because the associated defilements are severed, one is not bound by the object, which is called abandonment of intentional objects. Therefore it says there: 'Once association is severed, it no longer takes the object.' Hence from the perspective of the intentional object, it is also called abandonment. 'Abandonment of bondage to objects' refers to all undefiled sāsrava dharmas. 'Abandonment by non-arising' refers to maturation in the bad destinies, the absorption of non-conception, and so forth, which will be further distinguished in the eighth fascicle. Question: According to which abandonment was the abandonment spoken of earlier asserted? Answer: It was based on abandonment by non-arising and abandonment of bondage to objects. That a portion of the fourteen are abandoned by seeing is stated based on non-arising. Or it may extend to abandonment of association, being called abandoned by seeing because they coexist with the defilements of views. Yet this is not exhaustive, because some are non-abandoned; that a portion is abandoned by cultivation is stated based on bondage to objects, and that a portion of the twelve are abandoned by cultivation is entirely based on abandonment of bondage to objects. The text of [fascicle] eighty-seven also explains the four abandonments slightly similarly to this, hence it speaks of a portion abandoned by cultivation. Because the five [faculties] beginning with faith and [the faculty of] knowing what is not yet known are common to sāsrava and anāsrava, those that are anāsrava are non-abandoned. The two sensations of grief and physical pain are by nature not anāsrava, but because they induce the anāsrava and are induced by the anāsrava, they are said to be non-abandoned; in reality, they are not anāsrava. Question: If so, mind, joy, pleasure, and equanimity are also common to anāsrava; why speak only of abandoning the absorption of non-conception and the like? Following the explanation of the eighth [fascicle], they are also common to being abandoned by seeing; why is that not stated here? Answer: This latter question has already been resolved in the Commentary. To resolve the prior objection: those of mind, joy, pleasure, and equanimity that are anāsrava are in reality common to non-abandonment; because mind and equanimity are spoken of generally across the eight consciousnesses, they are not entirely anāsrava, and [the text] speaks provisionally in terms of the whole. Question: In the persons of the two vehicles, anāsrava is not complete; if in the person of a Buddha, the seven physical faculties with the exception of female [faculty], the five sensations with the exception of grief and physical pain, and the three anāsrava [faculties] with the exception of two, are all common to anāsrava, why is it that being incomplete is not called non-abandoned? Answer: It is based on what is common to the three vehicles; if considered from the perspective of the Mahāyāna, they can be non-abandoned. Question: All sāsrava dharmas that are not defiled by nature, in the person of the two vehicles where there are no defilements capable of taking them as objects, are called abandoned by cultivation. Yet those dharmas still exist; if in the person of a Buddha they are completely eliminated and do not exist, under which abandonment are they subsumed? Answer: They are subsumed under abandonment by non-arising. Question: How is this known? Answer: The Abhidharmasamuccaya states that the final aggregates of an aśaikṣa, having no seeds, have already arisen; according to this, when the cause is absent, the result does not arise. Question: As for faith and the like arisen in bodies such as the eight difficulties, after entering the path of seeing, those bodies are not received; do faith and the like arise or not? If they do not arise, under which abandonment are they included? If it is admitted that they arise, when there is no supporting body, how can they arise? Answer: There are two explanations. One says they do not arise, being subsumed under abandonment by non-arising because there is no support. The other says they can arise, supported by the present body. However, a distinction should be made: innate ones do not arise because there is no confusion of realms; cultivated ones arise because confusion is permitted, since the realm bondage is determinate while the body is indeterminate. Or it is permissible for innate ones [to arise], because although realms are not confused, destinies are permitted to be confused, just as creating karma in the human realm for rebirth in heaven is common to innate [factors]. What was stated in the previous third [fascicle] that there is no confusion was said in terms of realms and grounds.