成唯識論了義燈 6.18

6.18

On the Śāstra's statement: "The preceding three formless [absorptions]," etc., the original commentary explains: they lack preparatory practice (prayoga), and furthermore active anāsrava has never arisen there before; therefore, those previously cultivated and attained by a pṛthagjana are called "adjuncts of realization" (abhisamayāntika). Although they do not become active, they are also subsumed under this faculty and can arise in the path of cultivation. Now, based on the text of Fascicle Sixty-Nine, they also increase in the [stages of] provisions (saṃbhāra), preparatory practice, and the path of vision, and arise within the path of cultivation. In explaining the order of arising in the beginning, middle, and end of conventional cognition (saṃvṛtijñāna), it says: "The five views, greed, and so forth are defiled, etc.; all such conventional cognitions should be abandoned. One should know that in order to produce their antidotes, non-erroneous view is produced, which is subsumed under wholesome sāsrava conventional cognition..." up to: "Furthermore, relying precisely on that conventional cognition subsumed under the supreme mundane dharmas, one is able to enter the path of vision. When ascending to the path of vision, all the seeds of the wholesome conventional cognition previously cultivated become completely purified through that perfuming, which is also called cultivation. These are called the conventional cognitions at the adjunct of the realization of the truths (satyābhisamayāntika). Having emerged from the path of vision, one gives rise to this cognition and realizes the liberation of the phenomena abandoned by seeing." This passage speaks universally of their arising in all three vehicles; hence the text immediately below says: "Furthermore, one is able to know: 'I have already attained the fruit of a srotāpanna,' and so forth." Thus we know that in Mahāyāna, before the path of vision, in the state conducive to liberation (mokṣabhāgīya), wholesome states of the formless are produced and rebirth is also taken in the formless; thus we know that in the stage of provisions, one extensively cultivates the formless. As for incidental cultivation (anuśikṣā) upon entering vision, the śāstra does not say that incidental cultivation occurs only in the fundamental state and is solely anāsrava; according to the later explanation of the śāstra, the formless also possesses the three anāsrava faculties. Fascicle Fifty-Seven states that the lower three formless [attainments] have eleven faculties; therefore they encompass both sāsrava and anāsrava. In accordance with this, Mahāyāna differs from the Sarvāstivāda: after entering the path of vision, they never again become active. Question: If the four wholesome roots and so forth can all arise again in the path of cultivation, why is there no confusion [of stages]? Answer: That is also not the case, because the stages are distinct. If in the stage of the path of cultivation they are not called wholesome roots, just as seeds of the path of vision later also produce cultivation—otherwise, from what seeds would the path of cultivation arise? Although produced from seeds of vision, it is not called vision; so too, although produced from those seeds in the subsequent path of cultivation, it is not called wholesome roots. Furthermore, original anāsrava seeds in the stages of provisions and preparatory practice are also called those paths. The Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā says they are subsumed under the truth of the path; because in all cases they are admitted not to be confused, this is also the case here. Question: In the fundamental state, when one incidentally cultivates conventional [cognition], does it also get called "fundamental"? Answer: What fault is there in calling it fundamental? If it is objected that it is a fault because it is not anāsrava, the answer is: speaking of anāsrava is based on active manifestation, and based on the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, not with respect to seeds. The Yaoji states: "Conventional [cognition] is not anāsrava and cannot be named fundamental"; then likewise, the formless has no path of vision and should not be named fundamental, yet although it lacks the path of vision it is spoken of as fundamental. Although it is subsumed under sāsrava, it is called fundamental by association; thus there is no fault. Question: The śāstra says that those who turn towards the Great [Vehicle], in order to realize the emptiness of phenomena (dharmanairātmya), give rise to [realization of] the emptiness of persons (pudgalanairātmya), which favorably assists [the realization of] the emptiness of phenomena and can be subsumed under this faculty; why should sāsrava, which does not favorably assist it, also be subsumed here? Answer: Among the two vehicles' [attainments of] the emptiness of persons, some do not favorably assist it; but merely speaking of those turning towards the Mahāyāna, all the sāsrava they cultivate favorably assists the path of vision, so what fault is there in incidental cultivation serving as a faculty? Therefore the Yaoji states: "Those of incidental cultivation only take anāsrava; conventional cognition and the like do not assist the path of vision"—its merits and faults should be scrutinized. The Yaoji and others state: "Before the bodhisattva grounds, anāsrava does not arise; the anāsrava cognition of the emptiness of persons in the two vehicles belongs to their lineage and is not that of a bodhisattva; this is established by syllogism: anāsrava [cognition] of the emptiness of persons does not arise prior to the grounds." Now I say this is not so: this śāstra explicitly states that when those in the stages of the two vehicles turn towards the Great [Vehicle], what is produced prior to the grounds to realize the emptiness of phenomena—the anāsrava [cognition] of the emptiness of persons subsumed under the nine grounds—is entirely subsumed under this faculty of the bodhisattva. To deny it now, would that not contradict [the śāstra]? How could holy persons of the two vehicles who direct their minds toward the Mahāyāna fail to give rise to anāsrava cognition? Since they are already called bodhisattvas prior to directing their minds, why would the anāsrava they produce not belong to this faculty? The Lotus Sūtra says: "What you are practicing is the bodhisattva path." Based on those of indeterminate [lineage], all belong to this faculty.