大乘義章 4.46

4.46

次辨七十七智差別。七十七智，如《成實》說。論文但言「如經中說，現在世中生緣老死，不離生緣老死，過未亦然，是法住智。滅相觀者，是泥洹智。如是次第乃至無明，皆悉同然。」不廣分別，為是論家種種異釋，窮其體相。此智猶是七方便中第二集觀，及無常等三觀所攝。以何義故，七方便中偏為集觀？十二緣法因緣為宗，集是緣義，故偏為之。集觀之中有六十六，三觀之中有其十一，彼此合說有七十七。前六十六，觀因生果，住持不滅，名法住智。後之十一，觀苦無常空無我等，趣向涅槃，名泥洹智。故論說言「增長生死名法住智，損減生死名泥洹智。」相狀如何？現在世中，十二因緣次第相生，因果相屬有十一對，過未亦然，便有三十三對因緣。今先就彼三世之中生緣老死辨其觀相，餘類可知。現在世中生緣老死，有二集觀：一生緣老死、二者不離生緣老死。此二何別？《毘婆沙》云「初是正觀，後是審觀。」何故須審？《成實》釋言「諸外道人多迷因緣，或說冥性為眾生因，或說梵天以為因等。佛為破之，彰因作果是實不虛，故說不離現在世中生緣老死。」既有此二，過未同然，即分為六。此六集觀在聞思地四現忍中，總觀三世生緣老死，作三種觀，謂無常苦及空無我。三觀雖殊，同趣涅槃，總攝為一，名泥洹智。以此通前，合有七智。問曰：何故集觀之中三世分六，泥洹智中三世為一？釋言：集觀觀因生果，生果不同，世別分之。泥洹智者，破生死相，趣向寂滅。寂滅平等，三世合一。三世之中生緣老死既有此七，次第逆推，乃至無明緣行亦然。十一對中皆有七智，是故合有七十七智。問曰：何不從無明行乃至老死，先從老死至無明行？因緣法中有二次第：一順、二逆，從始至終是順次第，從終至始是逆次第。觀法多途，不可一定。復此是聲聞觀法。聲聞鈍根，從末尋本，其觀易成，是故然矣。又問：因緣相生無窮，老死望後，何故不說緣生之義？老死望後，更無所生，是故不說。若爾，何故《地經》之中宣說老死與後作因？釋言：老死轉望未來，實有因義。菩薩能見，故彼說之。七十七智聲聞觀法，老死為因，聲聞不見，故此不論。又復聲聞亦知老死緣生後義，今此且據一分為言，是故不說（此四門竟）。

Next, the distinction of the seventy-seven knowledges will be explained. The seventy-seven knowledges are as expounded in the Tattvasiddhi. The text of the treatise merely states: "As spoken in the sūtra: in the present world, birth conditions aging and death; not apart from birth conditioning aging and death; the past and future are also like this—this is the knowledge of the stability of phenomena (dharmasthiti-jñāna). Contemplating the characteristic of cessation is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. In such a sequence, proceeding all the way to ignorance, all are likewise identical." It does not differentiate them extensively; for this reason, the treatise masters gave various different explanations, examining their essential natures and characteristics exhaustively. These knowledges are likewise subsumed under the second contemplation of arising among the seven expedients, as well as the three contemplations of impermanence and so forth. For what reason is the contemplation of arising specifically singled out among the seven expedients? The doctrine of the twelve links takes cause and condition as its central tenet, and arising is the meaning of condition; therefore it is specifically singled out. Within the contemplations of arising there are sixty-six, and within the three contemplations there are eleven; spoken together, there are seventy-seven. The former sixty-six contemplate cause giving rise to fruit, abiding and sustained without cessation, which is termed the knowledge of the stability of phenomena. The latter eleven contemplate suffering, impermanence, emptiness, non-self, and so forth, tending toward nirvāṇa, which is termed the knowledge of nirvāṇa. Therefore the treatise states: "Increasing birth-and-death is termed the knowledge of the stability of phenomena; diminishing birth-and-death is termed the knowledge of nirvāṇa." What is their manner of manifestation? In the present world, the twelve causal conditions arise sequentially, and cause and fruit correlate to form eleven pairs; the past and future are also like this, so that there are thirty-three pairs of causes and conditions. Now we first explain the characteristics of contemplation with respect to birth conditioning aging and death across the three times; the rest may be understood by analogy. In the present world, birth conditioning aging and death has two contemplations of arising: first, birth conditions aging and death; second, not apart from birth conditioning aging and death. What is the difference between these two? The Vibhāṣā states: "The first is correct contemplation; the second is precise contemplation." Why is precision necessary? The Tattvasiddhi explains: "The various non-Buddhists are mostly confused about cause and condition, either asserting that the primordial nature (pradhāna) is the cause of sentient beings, or asserting that the god Brahmā is the cause, and so forth. In order to refute them, the Buddha revealed that cause producing fruit is real and not false, and therefore stated: 'not apart from birth conditioning aging and death in the present world.'" Since there are these two, and the past and future are also like this, they are accordingly divided into six. These six contemplations of arising, being within the four direct forbearances of the stage of hearing and reflection, broadly contemplate birth conditioning aging and death in the three times and perform three kinds of contemplation, namely: impermanence and suffering, and emptiness and non-self. Although the three contemplations differ, they equally tend toward nirvāṇa and are collectively subsumed as one, termed the knowledge of nirvāṇa. Combining this with the preceding, there are altogether seven knowledges. Question: Why is it that within the contemplations of arising, the three times are divided into six, whereas in the knowledge of nirvāṇa, the three times are unified into one? Explanation: The contemplations of arising contemplate cause giving rise to fruit; as the arising of fruits differs, they are distinguished according to time. The knowledge of nirvāṇa shatters the characteristics of birth-and-death and tends toward quiescent cessation. Quiescent cessation is equal and uniform; hence the three times are combined into one. Since birth conditioning aging and death across the three times already has these seven, then, proceeding sequentially in reverse all the way to ignorance conditioning formative action, it is also like this. In each of the eleven pairs there are seven knowledges; therefore altogether there are seventy-seven knowledges. Question: Why does one not proceed from ignorance and formative action all the way to aging and death, but rather begin with aging and death and go back to ignorance and formative action? Within the dharma of causal conditions there are two sequences: first, forward; second, reverse. Going from beginning to end is the forward sequence; going from end to beginning is the reverse sequence. Contemplative methods have many pathways and cannot be strictly fixed. Furthermore, this is a contemplation method of the śrāvakas. Śrāvakas have dull faculties; by tracing the root from the branch, their contemplation is easily accomplished; therefore it is so. Another question: The mutual generation of causes and conditions is endless. Looking forward from aging and death, why is the meaning of condition-arising not stated? Looking forward from aging and death, there is nothing further produced; therefore it is not stated. If so, why does the Daśabhūmika Sūtra proclaim that aging and death serves as a cause for what follows? Explanation: When aging and death is viewed as turning toward the future, it truly possesses the meaning of a cause. Bodhisattvas are able to see this, and therefore it is spoken of there. The seventy-seven knowledges are a contemplation method of the śrāvakas; that aging and death acts as a cause is not seen by śrāvakas, and therefore it is not discussed here. Furthermore, śrāvakas also know that aging and death conditions the arising of what follows; here we merely speak on the basis of one aspect, and therefore it is not stated. (These four approaches are concluded.)