大乘義章 5.27

5.27

於境執著，名之為取。取別不同，離分四種：一名欲取；二名我取，《成實論》中名我語取；三名戒取；四名見取。名字如是。於中辨釋，諸論不同。若依《毘曇》，欲界一切諸鈍煩惱，緣五欲生，同名欲取。於中亦有取自身者，從多立名，故說欲取。上二界中諸鈍煩惱，縛自身起，同名我取。三界之中戒取之心，說為戒取。三界之中餘之四見，合為見取。問曰：何故餘之四見合為見取，獨一戒取為戒取乎？《雜心》釋言「以等擔故。云何等擔？謂彼戒取熾燃集業，及違正道，與餘四見功力齊等，故說等擔。云何違道？如諸外道，取不食等以為正道。佛諸弟子，取糞掃衣持戒行等以為正道。乖違八正，故名違道。」良以功力等餘四見，故獨為一。若依《成實》，取身見者，名我語取。以無我實，但取我名，故云我語，非緣內報名我語也。依此我見，起於邊見，取著斷常。若斷見者，則取五欲，名為欲取，以無後世，貪現樂故。若常見者，有利有鈍。若利根者，說神是常、苦樂不變，則無罪福，故起邪見，說為見取。若鈍根者，則取持戒，望後世樂，說為戒取。《成實》如是。論宗不同，各隨一義，難定是非。問曰：何故流縛等中皆說無明，四取之中不說無明？《雜心》釋云「執取之義，是捷疾行。彼無明心，非捷疾故，所以不說。」四取之義，略之云爾。

Adhering and grasping onto objects is called "clinging." Clingings are differentiated differently, being divided into four kinds: first, clinging to sensuality (kāmopādāna); second, clinging to self (ātmopādāna), which in the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* is called clinging to self-speech (ātmavādopādāna); third, clinging to precepts (śīlavratopādāna); fourth, clinging to views (dṛṣṭyupādāna). Such are the names. In explaining them, the various treatises differ. If relying on the *Abhidharma*, all dull defilements in the desire realm that arise in connection with the five sensual desires are collectively named clinging to sensuality. Among them there is also clinging to one's own body, but following the majority a name is established, hence it is called clinging to sensuality. The dull defilements in the upper two realms that arise binding one's own body are collectively named clinging to self. The mind of clinging to precepts within the three realms is called clinging to precepts. The remaining four views within the three realms are combined as clinging to views. Question: Why are the remaining four views combined as clinging to views, while clinging to precepts alone constitutes clinging to precepts? The *Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya* explains: "Because of an equal burden. What is an equal burden? It means that clinging to precepts blazes in accumulating karma and transgresses the correct path, having an equal strength and efficacy as the remaining four views; hence it is called an equal burden. How does it transgress the path? Just as non-Buddhists cling to not eating and so forth as the correct path, and disciples of the Buddha cling to refuse-rag robes, observing precepts, and practices as the correct path. Because it deviates from the eightfold noble path, it is called transgressing the path." Truly because its efficacy equals the remaining four views, it stands alone as one. If relying on the *Tattvasiddhi*, clinging to the view of self is called clinging to self-speech. Because there is no real self and one merely grasps the name "self," it is called "self-speech"; it is not because it takes internal retribution as its object that it is called self-speech. Based on this view of self, extreme views arise, grasping onto annihilation or permanence. If one holds the annihilation view, one grasps the five sensual desires, which is called clinging to sensuality, because there being no future life, one craves present pleasure. If one holds the permanence view, there are sharp and dull faculties. If of sharp faculties, one says the spirit is permanent and that pain and pleasure are unchanging, so that there is neither sin nor merit; thus false views arise, which is called clinging to views. If of dull faculties, one grasps the observance of precepts in the hope of future pleasure, which is called clinging to precepts. Such is the *Tattvasiddhi*. The doctrinal tenets of the treatises differ; each follows one rationale, making it difficult to determine right and wrong. Question: Why is ignorance mentioned in the contexts of the currents, bonds, and so forth, but ignorance is not mentioned among the four clingings? The *Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya* explains: "The sense of grasping and clinging is a swift movement. That mind of ignorance is not swift; therefore it is not mentioned." The meaning of the four clingings is briefly stated as such.