大乘義章 13.46

13.46

初釋名辨相。八解脫者，經中亦名八背捨也。如龍樹釋「背淨五欲，捨離著心，故名背捨。」又背下過亦名背捨。免絕羈縛稱曰解脫。解脫不同，一門說八。八名是何？一內有色相觀外色、二內無色相觀外色、三淨色解脫、四空處解脫、五識處解脫、六無所有處解脫、七非想解脫、八滅盡解脫。八中初三，從色境為名。中四解脫，論者不同。若依《毘曇》，就體處彰名，彼論宣說四空處定為解脫故。龍樹亦爾。若依《成實》，就境處彰名，觀四空處得解脫故。第八解脫，當體為名，說滅盡法為解脫故。名字如是。相狀如何？宗別不同，所說各異。依《大智論》，內有色相觀外色者，自身名內、他身名外，於內外色未滅未壞，以不淨想觀內外色悉皆不淨，是初解脫。問曰：是中內外色皆未滅壞，何故偏說之內色為有？釋言：外色初三觀中一向未壞，有通前三，故就初中不偏說有。內色不爾，初有後無，為別後無故說初有。又問曰；是中於內外色皆觀不淨，何故名中偏言觀外？釋言：此是隱顯彰名。內中彰有，隱其觀義；外中說觀，隱其有義。互舉一邊，理實齊通。又不淨觀為厭自身，觀內易知，故隱不論。又此觀者，先取他身死尸等相用方己體，從初方便，故言觀外。內無色相觀外色者，預取己身未來死相、虫食火燒滅壞等相，以方現在作滅壞想，故曰內無。又於現在分離破壞，乃至微塵亦無所有，亦名內無。觀外不淨，名觀外色。問曰：何故不觀外無？釋言：自身無常危脆，無想易成，故說內無；外大地等安固難壞，難觀為無，故不說之。又復自身狹少易盡，故觀內無；色寬多，難可滅盡，要至空處方能滅之，故此觀中不觀外無。問曰：若言外色寬廣難觀無者，何故得觀外色不淨？釋言：不淨是其有觀，有順前境，為觀易成，故得觀外以為不淨；無觀難就，是以不得觀外為無。問曰：何故初門之中通觀內外以為不淨，此唯觀外？論言「前者觀心未細，難攝一處，故觀內外。此心轉細，易攝一處，故唯觀外。」又前門中內色未無，故觀內外；今此門中內色已無，故偏觀外。問曰：內無，誰觀外色？論曰「此是假想之觀，非是實無，故得觀外。」此前二門是不淨觀。淨解脫者，除去皮肉，唯觀白骨。又觀骨光，作其青黃赤白等想，名淨解脫。觀法云何？先取金銀諸寶等光用方骨相，後得見之。問曰：凡夫於不淨中取淨名倒，此亦觀於不淨為淨，何故非倒？論言「女色實是不淨，凡夫見淨，於中染著，所以是倒。此淨觀者唯觀白骨，骨望皮肉少有淨相，所以非倒。」又此觀中，捨其骨相唯觀骨光，骨光清淨，所以非倒。又此觀時，先取金銀諸寶色光以方骨色，所取寶色實是清淨，所以非倒。又雖觀淨，不生染著，是以非倒。此《涅槃》中名身證解脫。觀察淨身，證得解脫，名身證解脫。此三色觀。空處乃至非想解脫，如四空定，所言異者，龍樹釋言「彼四空定，凡聖俱得。此四解脫，唯聖人得，以其解脫更不迴故。」滅盡解脫者，於彼宗中滅定為體，故《大品經．六度相攝品》云「菩薩滅定為第八解脫。」《涅槃經》中亦同此說。滅定體相，廣如前釋。問：無想定以何義故不名解脫？論言「此是邪見人入，出則還退入邪見中，故非解脫。」毘曇法中，初三後一與龍樹同，四空解脫文相少異。異相如何？《大智論》中，四空解脫與四空定通局分異，定通凡聖，解脫唯聖。毘曇法中，寬狹分異，定義寬通，無礙解脫俱名為定；解脫義狹，不通無礙及命終心。故《雜心》除四空處、九無礙道及命終心，其餘善法盡說背捨。無礙下緣，故非背捨。命終心者，向受生處，亦非背捨。問曰：文異，其義云何？釋言：義齊，語之隱顯，龍樹多依阿毘曇義為所論故。亦可《毘曇》除九無礙及命終心為解脫者，龍樹共同。龍樹所說八解唯聖，《毘曇》不同，此義云何？如《雜心》釋言「除九無礙及命終心，其餘善法盡說背捨。」若凡所得非背捨者，不名盡說。《成實》所論與前全別，彼論初三觀察色空名為解脫，不以親察淨不淨等名為解脫。故《成實論．八解脫品》云「有人說言：初二不淨，第三解脫為淨觀者。是義不然。所以者何？無有淨觀及不淨觀得解脫故。」又復外道亦能觀察淨與不淨，明非解脫，但以空觀名為解脫。問曰：曰外道亦作空觀，云何不名解脫？論言「外道但信解觀，非真實觀，要實見空方名解脫。」然彼文中，初三解脫文相極隱。相傳釋言：內有色相觀外色者，自身名內、他身名外，於此內外五塵之色未見其空，但見內外四大五根假名色空，是初解脫。而名字中互舉一邊，有通內外，內中偏彰；觀通內外，外中偏說。與前所辨內有色相觀外不淨，其義相似。內無色相觀外色者，觀察內外五塵色空，是第二解脫。而名字中，內上云無、外上說觀，言綺互耳。此二觀察欲界色空。淨解脫者，觀察色界淨色為空。此三門中亦見心空，為別後故偏言觀色。次四解脫與前亦異，前者正用四空定體為四解脫；今此所論，聖人先得四空定已，隨依何禪發無漏觀，觀已所得四無色定為苦無常空無我等，於中離縛，名為解脫。故彼論言「聖人因得四無色定，能觀彼陰苦無常等，名解脫矣。」第八解脫與前亦異，前說滅定為第八解脫，成實法中滅定全非。故《成實》言「行者證得泥洹之時，諸煩惱滅、一切事訖，名第八解脫。」不說一切心心數滅為第八解脫，明知不同。又言「學人但得滅定，不得第八解脫。電光羅漢得第八解脫，不得滅定。」明知不同。彼論復言「滅盡解脫滅無明等，滅盡定者滅想受等。」明知不同。通而論之，無學所得二種涅槃及滅盡定，是第八解脫。如此解脫，大乘亦有。

First, explaining the names and distinguishing the characteristics. The eight liberations are also named in the sūtras as the eight masteries (vimokṣa/abhibhvāyatana, literally 'turning away and relinquishing'). As Nāgārjuna explains: 'Turning away from the defilement of the five desires and relinquishing the mind of attachment is therefore named turning away and relinquishing.' Furthermore, turning away from lower faults is also named turning away and relinquishing. Being freed from and severing bonds is called liberation. Because liberations differ, under one heading eight are spoken of. What are the eight names? First, having the mark of inner form, one contemplates outer form; second, having no mark of inner form, one contemplates outer form; third, liberation of pure form; fourth, liberation of the sphere of empty space; fifth, liberation of the sphere of consciousness; sixth, liberation of the sphere of nothingness; seventh, liberation of neither-perception[-nor-non-perception]; eighth, liberation of cessation. Among the eight, the first three take their names from material objects. Regarding the middle four liberations, the treatises differ. If one relies on the Abhidharma, they reveal their names with respect to their essence and sphere, because that treatise proclaims the four formless sphere samādhis as liberations. Nāgārjuna is also like this. If one relies on the Tattvasiddhi, they reveal their names with respect to the sphere of contemplation, because one obtains liberation by contemplating the four formless spheres. The eighth liberation takes its name directly from its essence, because it speaks of the dharma of cessation as liberation. Such are the names. What are their characteristics? Because doctrinal lineages differ, what they state varies. According to the Dazhidu lun: regarding 'having the mark of inner form, one contemplates outer form', one's own body is called inner, and others' bodies are called outer; when inner and outer form have not yet been destroyed or broken down, contemplating with the perception of impurity that inner and outer form are entirely impure is the first liberation. Question: Herein, inner and outer forms are both not yet destroyed or broken down; why then speak exclusively of inner form as existing? Explanation: Outer form is consistently unbroken throughout the first three contemplations; existence applies to the first three, and therefore in the first it is not exclusively spoken of as existing. Inner form is not so; it exists in the first and is absent later; in order to distinguish it from the subsequent absence, it is said to exist in the first. Question: Herein, one contemplates both inner and outer form as impure; why then does the name speak exclusively of contemplating outer? Explanation: This is revealing the name through implicit and explicit phrasing. In the inner, existence is revealed while its meaning of contemplation is implicit; in the outer, contemplation is stated while its meaning of existence is implicit. Each adduces one side, but in principle they actually apply equally. Furthermore, the contemplation of impurity is for revulsion against one's own body; contemplating the inner is easy to know, so it is concealed and not mentioned. Furthermore, in this contemplation, one first takes the marks of another's dead corpse and so forth to compare with one's own body; following this initial skillful means, it is therefore said to contemplate outer. Regarding 'having no mark of inner form, one contemplates outer form', one anticipates the future signs of death of one's own body, the signs of destruction by worms eating, fire burning, and so forth, and comparing them to the present, produces the perception of destruction; hence it is called 'inner absence'. Furthermore, in the present, dividing and breaking it down until even subtle dust particles no longer exist is also called 'inner absence'. Contemplating outer impurity is called 'contemplating outer form'. Question: Why not contemplate outer absence? Explanation: One's own body is impermanent, perilous, and fragile, so the perception of absence is easy to achieve; hence it is called 'inner absence'. Outer great earth and so forth are firm and hard to destroy, difficult to contemplate as non-existent, so they are not mentioned. Furthermore, one's own body is narrow, small, and easily exhausted, so one contemplates inner absence; form [externally] is vast and abundant, difficult to eradicate completely, requiring the sphere of empty space before one can eradicate it; hence in this contemplation one does not contemplate outer absence. Question: If you say outer form is vast and difficult to contemplate as non-existent, why can one contemplate outer form as impure? Explanation: Impurity is an existence-contemplation; existence conforms with the external object, so the contemplation is easily achieved, and thus one can contemplate the outer as impure. Absence-contemplation is difficult to accomplish; therefore one cannot contemplate the outer as non-existent. Question: Why is it that in the first heading one contemplatively penetrates both inner and outer as impure, whereas here one only contemplates the outer? The treatise states: 'Previously, the contemplating mind was not yet subtle and difficult to collect in one place, so one contemplated inner and outer. Here, this mind becomes subtler and easy to collect in one place, so one only contemplates the outer.' Furthermore, in the previous heading, inner form was not yet absent, so one contemplated inner and outer; now in this heading, inner form is already absent, so one exclusively contemplates the outer. Question: If the inner is absent, who contemplates outer form? The treatise says: 'This is a contemplation of conceptual imagination, not an actual absence, so one can contemplate the outer.' These preceding two headings are contemplations of impurity. As for the pure liberation, removing skin and flesh, one contemplates only white bones. Furthermore, contemplating the radiance of the bones, producing perceptions of blue, yellow, red, white, and so forth, is called pure liberation. What is the method of contemplation? First one takes the radiance of gold, silver, various jewels, and so forth to compare with the mark of the bones, and later attains seeing it. Question: When ordinary beings seize upon purity within impurity, it is called inverted; here too one contemplates purity in impurity, so why is it not inverted? The treatise states: 'Female form is truly impure; ordinary beings see it as pure and produce tainted attachment within it, which is why it is inverted. This pure contemplation contemplates only white bones; when bones are compared to skin and flesh, they have a slight mark of purity, which is why it is not inverted.' Furthermore, in this contemplation, one relinquishes the mark of the bones and contemplates only the bone radiance; bone radiance is pure, which is why it is not inverted. Furthermore, when doing this contemplation, one first takes the color and radiance of gold, silver, and various jewels to compare with the color of the bones; the jewel colors seized upon are truly pure, which is why it is not inverted. Furthermore, although one contemplates purity, tainted attachment does not arise; therefore it is not inverted. In the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], this is called the liberation realized through the body. Closely observing the pure body and directly realizing liberation is called liberation realized through the body. These three are material contemplations. As for the liberations from the sphere of empty space up to neither-perception, they are like the four formless samādhis. Regarding the difference, Nāgārjuna explains: 'Those four formless samādhis are attained by both ordinary beings and noble ones. These four liberations are attained only by noble ones, because having been liberated they do not turn back.' As for the liberation of cessation, in that school the samādhi of cessation is its essence; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, in the 'Chapter on the Mutual Inclusion of the Six Pāramitās', states: 'The bodhisattva's samādhi of cessation is the eighth liberation.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also says the same. The essence and characteristics of the samādhi of cessation are broadly as explained before. Question: For what meaning is the samādhi of non-conception not named a liberation? The treatise states: 'This is entered by persons of wrong view; upon emerging, they fall back again into wrong views; hence it is not a liberation.' In the Abhidharma teachings, the first three and the last one are identical with Nāgārjuna, while the textual phrasing of the four formless liberations is slightly different. What is the difference? In the Dazhidu lun, the difference between the four formless liberations and the four formless samādhis lies in scope: samādhi applies to both ordinary beings and noble ones, whereas liberation applies only to noble ones. In the Abhidharma teachings, the difference lies in breadth and narrowness: the meaning of samādhi is broad, with both the unimpeded [path] and liberation called samādhi; the meaning of liberation is narrow, not extending to the unimpeded [path] or the dying mind. Thus the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya excludes the four formless spheres, the nine unimpeded paths, and the dying mind, and states that the remaining wholesome dharmas are all called 'turning away and relinquishing'. Because the unimpeded [path] takes lower [realms] as objects, it is not 'turning away and relinquishing'. The dying mind is directed toward the place of taking rebirth, so it is also not 'turning away and relinquishing'. Question: The texts differ; what of their meaning? Explanation: Their meaning is identical, merely implicit or explicit in expression, because Nāgārjuna mostly relies on the Abhidharma's meaning for his discussions. It may also be that the Abhidharma's excluding the nine unimpeded paths and the dying mind as liberation is shared by Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna states that the eight liberations are exclusively for noble ones, whereas the Abhidharma does not; what is the meaning of this? As the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya explains: 'Excluding the nine unimpeded paths and the dying mind, the remaining wholesome dharmas are all called turning away and relinquishing.' If what ordinary beings attained were not turning away and relinquishing, it could not be said that 'they are all called' so. What is discussed in the Tattvasiddhi is completely different from the preceding: that treatise considers contemplating the emptiness of form in the first three as liberation, and does not consider directly contemplating pure, impure, and so forth as liberation. Thus the Tattvasiddhi's 'Chapter on the Eight Liberations' says: 'Some people say: the first two are impure, and the third liberation is a pure contemplation. This meaning is not so. Why? Because there is no pure contemplation or impure contemplation that attains liberation.' Furthermore, non-Buddhists can also contemplate pure and impure, which makes it clear that they are not liberations; only empty contemplation is named liberation. Question: Non-Buddhists also perform empty contemplation; why is it not named liberation? The treatise states: 'Non-Buddhists have only contemplation of resolute faith, not real contemplation; one must truly see emptiness before it is called liberation.' However, in that text, the textual phrasing of the first three liberations is extremely obscure. Traditional explanations state: regarding 'having the mark of inner form, one contemplates outer form', one's own body is called inner, and others' bodies are called outer; not yet seeing the five sense-objects of inner and outer form as empty, but only seeing the nominal form of the inner and outer four great elements and five sense faculties as empty, is the first liberation. In the names, each mentions one side: existence applies to inner and outer, but is explicitly indicated in the inner; contemplation applies to inner and outer, but is exclusively stated in the outer. Its meaning is similar to what was previously distinguished as having the mark of inner form and contemplating outer impurity. Regarding 'having no mark of inner form, one contemplates outer form', contemplating the emptiness of the five sense-objects of inner and outer form is the second liberation. In the names, 'absence' is stated above inner, and 'contemplation' is stated above outer, which is merely mutual stylistic variation. These two contemplate the emptiness of form in the desire realm. As for pure liberation, it contemplates the pure form of the form realm as empty. In these three headings one also sees the emptiness of mind, but to distinguish them from what follows, one exclusively speaks of contemplating form. The next four liberations also differ from the previous: previously, the essence of the four formless samādhis was directly used as the four liberations; now in this discussion, after a noble one has first attained the four formless samādhis, depending on whichever dhyāna he generates untainted contemplation, and having contemplated the four formless samādhis he has attained as suffering, impermanent, empty, non-self, and so forth, he becomes free from bondage therein, which is named liberation. Hence that treatise says: 'Because noble ones have attained the four formless samādhis, they are able to contemplate those aggregates as suffering, impermanent, and so forth, which is named liberation.' The eighth liberation is also different from the previous: previously, the samādhi of cessation was stated as the eighth liberation, whereas in the Tattvasiddhi doctrine, the samādhi of cessation is completely rejected [as being it]. Thus the Tattvasiddhi states: 'When a practitioner directly realizes nirvāṇa, all defilements are extinguished and all matters are finished, which is named the eighth liberation.' It does not speak of the cessation of all mind and mental factors as the eighth liberation, which clearly shows they differ. Furthermore, it says: 'A trainee (śaikṣa) only attains the samādhi of cessation, not the eighth liberation. The lightning-like arhat attains the eighth liberation, but not the samādhi of cessation.' This clearly shows they differ. That treatise further states: 'The liberation of cessation extinguishes ignorance and so forth, while the samādhi of cessation extinguishes perception, feeling, and so forth.' This clearly shows they differ. Generally speaking, the two kinds of nirvāṇa and the samādhi of cessation attained by the one beyond training (aśaikṣa) are the eighth liberation. Such a liberation also exists in the Mahāyāna.