大乘義章 2.42

2.42

次約治論。治有二種：一有漏等智、二無漏聖智。依如《毘曇》，等智所斷有是有非，若依八禪攀上斷下，及修道時所斷之壅，是其數滅；增上忍時能令見惑永更不生，是非數滅。如是一切，後當廣辨。無漏所斷亦有是非，所斷一切煩惱業思，是其數滅。不退之人在修道中，無礙道時令所斷惑永更不生，是非數滅。退轉之人在修道中，至後轉根到不動時，令先所斷修道煩惱永更不生，亦非數滅。如是一切。此義如彼《毘婆沙》說。問曰：無漏轉根之時，所斷一切障根無知，是數滅不？釋言：非是。問曰：《毘曇》宣說，學人轉根之時，用一無礙一解脫道，以結未盡，求盡求利猛，求利猛故。無學轉根，用九無礙九解脫道，以其結盡，求利世貰故。此等既用無礙解脫斷障無知，何故所斷不名數滅？釋言：數滅滅相違法；非相違者，雖捨不滅。彼轉根時所捨無知，是無漏法，與後所得利根無漏同類相生，是自分因相資之功在於利中，為是不滅。又復鈍慧照境之功、治障之能，利中兼有，非全別異，故非數滅。如證果時捨向無漏，不名數滅；此亦如之。問曰：人說微細無明在於根中，說之以為障根無知。斷此無知，應名數滅，何故非乎？釋言：若有微細無明在於根中說為障者，轉根之時應捨無明，不捨無漏。轉根之時唯捨無漏，不言更有無明可捨，明知此中無別無明。但鈍無漏，不同利知，名曰無知。以鈍妨利，說之為障。體是無漏，是故離之，不名數滅，非數滅故。《毘婆沙》云「非數滅多。滅漏無漏，數滅是狹，唯滅有漏。」問曰：轉根既非數滅，何用無礙解脫道乎？釋言：轉時必觀諦理，始觀之心與鈍得俱，於彼諦境未得深明、未得決了，說為無礙；終時方得於境決了，說為解脫。與斷結同，故約斷結說為無礙、說為解脫。而其所無，非是數滅。《毘曇》如是。成實法中，有漏智斷皆非數滅，有漏唯伏不能斷故，無漏智斷方名斷滅。大乘法中須有分別。若說世俗八禪等智以為有漏，彼但伏結非是數滅，無漏永斷方是數滅。故《地持》云「若以世俗滅諸煩惱，彼非究竟，非解脫果。」《涅槃》亦云「先以定動，後以智拔。」若得涅槃不捨世間，證空隨有，名為有漏亦能永滅。依實慧起，故能永滅。彼何所滅？著有之見、迷空之闇，空觀滅之。著空之執、迷有無明，有智能滅。約治如是（此三門竟）。

Next is the discussion with respect to antidotes. There are two kinds of antidotes: first, tainted conventional cognition; second, untainted noble cognition. According to the Abhidharma, among what is severed by conventional cognition, there are those that are [cessation through deliberation] and those that are not: if one clings to the higher and severs the lower relying on the eight dhyānas, as well as the obstructions severed at the time of the path of cultivation, this is cessation through deliberation; when [relying on] supreme forbearance, causing the afflictions of view never to arise again is cessation without deliberation. All such cases will be broadly distinguished later. Among what is severed by the untainted, there are also those that are and those that are not: all affliction, karma, and volition that are severed are cessation through deliberation. For a person of non-retrogression during the path of cultivation, causing the severed afflictions never to arise again during the unobstructed path is cessation without deliberation. For a person susceptible to retrogression during the path of cultivation, when they subsequently transform their faculties to reach the [state of being] immovable, causing the previously severed afflictions of the path of cultivation never to arise again is also cessation without deliberation. All such cases are like this. This meaning is as explained in that Vibhāṣā. Question: When transforming faculties through the untainted, is all the ignorance that obstructs the faculties and is severed considered cessation through deliberation, or not? Answer: It is not. Question: The Abhidharma teaches that when a trainee transforms their faculties, they use one unobstructed path and one path of liberation, because their fetters are not yet exhausted, and they seek exhaustion and seek keenness and sharpness. When an arhat transforms their faculties, they use nine unobstructed paths and nine paths of liberation, because their fetters are exhausted, and they seek keenness in a worldly, gradual manner. Since these [practitioners] use the unobstructed path and the path of liberation to sever the ignorance that obstructs their faculties, why is what is severed not called cessation through deliberation? Answer: Cessation through deliberation extinguishes contrary dharmas; as for what is not contrary, though it is relinquished, it is not extinguished. The ignorance relinquished when transforming their faculties is an untainted dharma; it is of the same category and co-arises with the untainted keen faculties obtained later; it is a cause of the same class whose supportive efficacy resides within the keen [faculties], and therefore it is not extinguished. Furthermore, the efficacy of dull prajñā in illuminating objects and its capacity to counteract obstructions are simultaneously possessed within the keen; they are not entirely distinct, and therefore it is not cessation through deliberation. Just as when realizing the fruit, relinquishing the untainted [faculties] of the approach is not called cessation through deliberation; this too is like that. Question: People say that subtle ignorance resides within the faculties and describe it as the ignorance that obstructs the faculties. Severing this ignorance ought to be called cessation through deliberation; why is it not? Answer: If there were subtle ignorance residing within the faculties that was described as an obstruction, then when transforming faculties, one ought to relinquish ignorance and not relinquish the untainted. When transforming faculties, one only relinquishes the untainted, and it is not said that there is any further ignorance to be relinquished; clearly we know that there is no separate ignorance here. It is merely that the dull untainted differs from keen knowledge, and is called 'ignorance.' Because the dull impedes the keen, it is described as an obstruction. Its essence is untainted; therefore, separating from it is not called cessation through deliberation, because it is cessation without deliberation. The Vibhāṣā says: 'Cessation without deliberation is broad; it extinguishes both the tainted and the untainted. Cessation through deliberation is narrow; it extinguishes only the tainted.' Question: Since transforming faculties is not cessation through deliberation, why are the unobstructed path and the path of liberation used? Answer: When transforming, one must contemplate the principle of the truths. The initial contemplating mind is accompanied by the attainment of dullness; with respect to that objective realm of the truths, it has not yet attained profound clarity and has not yet attained decisive comprehension, which is described as 'unobstructed'; only at the end does it attain decisive comprehension of the realm, which is described as 'liberation.' Because this is the same as severing fetters, it is described in terms of severing fetters as unobstructed and as liberation. Yet what is absent is not cessation through deliberation. Such is the Abhidharma. In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, all that is severed by tainted cognition is not cessation through deliberation, because the tainted only suppresses and cannot sever; only severance by untainted cognition is called severance and cessation. In the Mahāyāna system, a distinction must be made: If one describes the conventional eight dhyānas and equivalent cognition as tainted, they merely suppress the fetters and are not cessation through deliberation; only untainted permanent severance is cessation through deliberation. Hence the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'If one extinguishes afflictions by worldly means, that is not ultimate, not the fruit of liberation.' The Nirvāṇa-sūtra also says: 'First shake them with samādhi, then uproot them with prajñā.' If one attains nirvāṇa without abandoning the mundane, realizing emptiness while according with existence, it is called tainted, yet it can also permanently extinguish [afflictions]. Because it arises relying on authentic prajñā, it can permanently extinguish them. What does it extinguish? The view of clinging to existence and the darkness of being deluded about emptiness are extinguished by the contemplation of emptiness. The grasping that clings to emptiness and the ignorance deluded about existence can be extinguished by cognition of existence. The discussion of antidotes is like this. (These three sections are concluded.)