[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘百法明門論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837) › 2.14 # 大乘百法明門論疏 2.14 大乘百法明門論疏 2.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837.2.14) 論云：「根本煩惱六：一、貪，二、嗔，三、無明，四、慢，五、見，六、疑。問：『是諸煩惱，幾世俗有？幾實物有？』答：『見是世俗有，是慧分故。餘是實物有，別有心法故。』」隨煩惱為假為實者，若依《瑜伽．決擇分》中，不定四法亦入隨煩惱中，合二十四總名隨煩惱分，亦無邪欲、邪勝解二法，但〈本地分〉中有二十六，更加邪欲、邪勝解故。〈決擇分〉中云：「復次，隨煩惱自性云何？謂忿、恨、覆、惱、嫉、慳、誑、諂、憍、害、無慚、無愧、惛沈、掉舉、不信、懈怠、忘念、放逸、散亂、不正知、惡作、睡眠、尋伺。如〈本地分〉已廣宣說，如是等類，名隨煩惱自性。復次，此煩惱，幾世俗有？幾實物有？謂無慚、無愧、不信、懈怠，此四種是實物有，餘是假有。謂忿、恨、惱、嫉、害五，是嗔分故，皆世俗有，慳、憍、掉舉三，是貪分故，示世俗有。覆、誑、諂、惛沈、睡眠、惡作、忘念、散亂、惡慧九法，是癡分故，皆是世俗有。放逸是貪、嗔、癡分，亦是假世俗有。尋、伺二種，是身、語、意加行分故，及慧分故，俱是假有。」若依《瑜伽》，二十七是實有，二十四是假有。若依《對法論》文，二十二是實物有，餘并假有。言二十二實物有者，謂遍行五、別境五、善十一中，七是實有，四是假有。故《對法論》云：「無癡者，謂報教證智，決擇為性。報教證智者，謂生得聞、思、修所生慧，如次應知。決擇者，謂慧勇勤俱。故知無癡，用慧為性，更無別體。」不放逸、捨並云：「依止正勤，無貪、嗔、癡，是故依此四法假立。」言不害者，是無嗔善根一分，心悲愍為體。當知不害、不離無嗔，故亦是假。根本煩惱為有十中，五是實有，謂貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑。五是假有，謂五見，離慧之外無別性故。隨煩惱及不定合二十四，皆是假立。故論云：「當知忿等是假建立，離嗔等外無別性故。」謂忿、恨、惱、嫉、害此五是嗔一分，與《瑜伽》同，慳、憍是貪一分，掉舉是貪一分，此三是貪分，亦《瑜伽》同。放逸中依止懈怠及貪嗔癡四法假立，亦《瑜伽》同。無慚、無愧、二數是貪、嗔、癡分假立，不信、懈怠二數是癡分，竝是假立，與《瑜伽》不同。謂《瑜伽》說此四是實物有，今《對法》言無慚、無愧二數是貪、嗔、癡分，不信、懈怠二數是愚癡分，故不同《瑜伽》。諂、誑二數是貪、癡一分。散亂一數是貪、嗔、癡分。忘念、不正知是煩惱中念慧為性，覆、睡眠、惡作是愚癡分。尋、伺二數或是思性，或是慧性，謂推度、不推度有差別故。《大乘瑜伽論》中云：「隨煩惱中九數，謂覆、誑、諂、惛沈、睡眠、惡作、忘念、散亂、惡慧，竝是癡分。」今《對法》中唯覆、惛沈、睡眠、惡作四是愚癡分，餘五不同。謂散亂一數是貪、嗔、癡分，諂、誑二數是貪、癡一分，失念、不正知是煩惱中念慧一分。當知並是作論者意異，各說一義。西國諸德並云：「隨煩惱中七是實有，謂無慚、無愧、惛沈、掉舉、不信、懈怠、心亂，此七數並別有體。」 > The treatise says: “The root kleśas are six: first, rāga; second, pratigha; third, avidyā; fourth, māna; fifth, dṛṣṭi; sixth, vicikitsā. Question: ‘Among these kleśas, how many are conventionally existent? How many are substantially existent?’ Answer: ‘Dṛṣṭi is conventionally existent, because it is a portion of prajñā. The rest are substantially existent, because they are distinct citta-dharmas.’” Regarding whether the upakleśas are nominal or substantial: if one relies on the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi, the four aniyata dharmas are also subsumed under the upakleśas, combining into twenty-four collectively named the upakleśa category; nor are there the two dharmas of wrong desire and wrong resolve, but there are twenty-six in the Maulībhūmi, because it adds wrong desire and wrong resolve. The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī says: “Furthermore, what is the intrinsic nature of the upakleśas? It is krodha, upanāha, mrakṣa, pradāsa, īrṣyā, mātsarya, māyā, śāṭhya, mada, vihiṃsā, āhrīkya, anapatrāpya, styāna, auddhatya, āśraddhya, kausīdya, muṣitasmṛtitā, pramāda, vikṣepa, asamprajanya, kaukṛtya, middha, vitarka, and vicāra. As has already been broadly expounded in the Maulībhūmi, such classes are called the intrinsic nature of the upakleśas. Furthermore, among these upakleśas, how many are conventionally existent? How many are substantially existent? Āhrīkya, anapatrāpya, āśraddhya, and kausīdya—these four kinds are substantially existent; the rest are conventionally existent. Specifically, krodha, upanāha, pradāsa, īrṣyā, and vihiṃsā, being five portions of pratigha, are all conventionally existent; mātsarya, mada, and auddhatya, being three portions of rāga, are shown to be conventionally existent. Mrakṣa, māyā, śāṭhya, styāna, middha, kaukṛtya, muṣitasmṛtitā, vikṣepa, and bad prajñā—these nine dharmas, being portions of moha, are all conventionally existent. Pramāda is a portion of rāga, pratigha, and moha, and is also conventionally existent. Vitarka and vicāra, being both portions of the preparation of body, speech, and mind, as well as portions of prajñā, are both conventionally existent.” If one relies on the Yogācārabhūmi, twenty-seven are substantially existent and twenty-four are conventionally existent. If one relies on the text of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, twenty-two are substantially existent, and the rest are all conventionally existent. When it says twenty-two are substantially existent, it refers to the five sarvatragas, five viniyatas, and of the eleven kuśalas, seven are substantially existent and four are conventionally existent. Therefore the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: “Amoha is discernment, having for its nature the wisdom of retribution, teaching, and realization. ‘Wisdom of retribution, teaching, and realization’ refers respectively to the prajñā born of birth, listening, reflection, and cultivation, as should be understood in sequence. ‘Discernment’ means prajñā accompanied by courage and vigor. Therefore we know that amoha takes prajñā as its nature, having no separate substance.” As for apramāda and upekṣā, it says of both: “Relying on right effort, alobha, adveṣa, and amoha, they are therefore nominally established on the basis of these four dharmas.” As for ahiṃsā, it is a portion of the wholesome root of adveṣa, having the mind’s compassion as its substance. One should know that ahiṃsā is not separate from adveṣa, so it too is nominal. Among the ten root kleśas, five are substantially existent: rāga, pratigha, moha, māna, and vicikitsā. Five are conventionally existent: the five views, having no separate nature apart from prajñā. The upakleśas and aniyatas together make twenty-four, all of which are nominally established. Hence the treatise says: “One should know that krodha and so forth are nominally established, because they have no separate nature apart from pratigha and so forth.” That is, the five—krodha, upanāha, pradāsa, īrṣyā, and vihiṃsā—are a portion of pratigha, in agreement with the Yogācārabhūmi. Mātsarya and mada are a portion of rāga, and auddhatya is a portion of rāga; these three are portions of rāga, which also agrees with the Yogācārabhūmi. Pramāda is nominally established based on the four dharmas of kausīdya, rāga, pratigha, and moha, which also agrees with the Yogācārabhūmi. The two items of āhrīkya and anapatrāpya are nominally established as portions of rāga, pratigha, and moha, while the two items of āśraddhya and kausīdya are portions of moha, both being nominally established, which differs from the Yogācārabhūmi. That is, the Yogācārabhūmi says these four are substantially existent, but here the Abhidharmasamuccaya says the two items of āhrīkya and anapatrāpya are portions of rāga, pratigha, and moha, and the two items of āśraddhya and kausīdya are portions of moha, and hence it differs from the Yogācārabhūmi. The two items of śāṭhya and māyā are portions of rāga and moha. The one item of vikṣepa is a portion of rāga, pratigha, and moha. Muṣitasmṛtitā and asamprajanya have smṛti and prajñā within the defilements as their nature. Mrakṣa, middha, and kaukṛtya are portions of moha. The two items of vitarka and vicāra have either cetanā as their nature or prajñā as their nature, because there is a difference between investigation and non-investigation. In the Mahāyāna Yogācārabhūmi it says: “Nine items among the upakleśas—namely mrakṣa, māyā, śāṭhya, styāna, middha, kaukṛtya, muṣitasmṛtitā, vikṣepa, and bad prajñā—are all portions of moha.” Here in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, only the four of mrakṣa, styāna, middha, and kaukṛtya are portions of moha; the other five are different. Specifically, the one item of vikṣepa is a portion of rāga, pratigha, and moha; the two items of śāṭhya and māyā are a portion of rāga and moha; muṣitasmṛtitā and asamprajanya are portions of smṛti and prajñā within the defilements. One should know that these are simply differences of intent among the treatise-makers, each stating a single meaning. The various masters of the Western lands all say: “Seven among the upakleśas are substantially existent: āhrīkya, anapatrāpya, styāna, auddhatya, āśraddhya, kausīdya, and mental distraction; these seven items all have separate substances.” > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837.2.13) - [Next: 2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837.2.15) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837~en-mt.2.14) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽師地論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.yogacarabhumi*zh-xuanzang.55.104) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837.2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1837.2.14) · Pramāṇa