大乘義章 5.32

5.32

第二門中辨其體性。體性唯三：一見、二愛、三是無明。五中初一是其見惑，中三是愛，後一無明。煩惱無量，以何義故偏說此三？此三重故，所以偏說。唯說此三，諸結皆隨，譬如世間王來王去，餘眾皆隨。當知一切諸煩惱中，除見無明，自餘諸結悉入愛中。若使愛中備含諸結，以何義故偏名為愛？受生三界，愛力增強，從強立稱，故偏名愛。問曰，《成實》說除貪瞋，自餘煩惱皆癡使攝。今此何故攝入愛中？釋言：法門各異，不可一類。彼《成實》中，約別三受及三境界以別三毒，貪依樂受，順境而生；瞋依苦受，違境而發；癡依捨受，中容境起。除貪除瞋，自餘諸結皆依捨受中容境起，故攝癡中。今此為分，本末利鈍差別不同，是故諸結悉入愛中。相狀如何？此義如彼四縛章中具廣分別。無明是本，理別為一；餘皆是末，不得入中。復就末中，見是利使，理宜須別；自餘是鈍，不得入中。是以瞋慢疑等諸結，不入癡見，攝在愛中。受分為三，癡見各一，故有五住。見通三界，何故為一？釋有兩義：一、見是迷心，易可斷除，入見道時一處頓盡，故從治處攝之為一，是故論中說斷見惑猶如折石。二、見迷理生，理通不別，故從所迷合之為一。何故分愛以為三種？釋有兩義：一愛性纏綿難可斷除，治處非一，故別為三。是故論中說斷愛結如絕藕絲。二愛緣事生，事別內外色心之殊，故隨所緣分之三矣。三界無明治非一處，何故為一？良以無明微細難斷，若從治處，品別無量，不局在三。以是義故，不隨界別說為三耳。然復無明迷理闇惑，不緣事生，所迷之理平等一味，故從所迷說以為一。斯乃且就一門之中離合如是。若入餘門，癡之與見亦得分多，故彼九十八使門中，癡見之心分為多矣。體性如是。

In the second section, their essential nature is discerned. Their essential nature consists of only three: first, views; second, craving; third, ignorance. Among the five, the first is the affliction of views, the middle three are craving, and the last is ignorance. Afflictions are immeasurable; for what reason are only these three stated? Because these three are grave, they are stated in particular. When only these three are stated, all fetters follow along, just as in the world when a king comes and goes, all other multitudes follow him. One should know that among all afflictions, apart from views and ignorance, all remaining fetters enter into craving. If craving fully subsumes all the fetters, for what reason is it specifically named craving? In taking birth in the three realms, the power of craving is paramount; designations are established based on what is predominant, and therefore it is specifically named craving. Question: The Tattvasiddhi states that apart from greed and hatred, all remaining afflictions are subsumed under the anusaya of delusion. Why are they here subsumed into craving? Answer: The doctrinal frameworks are each different; they cannot be treated as uniform. In that Tattvasiddhi, based on distinguishing the three feelings and three objective realms, the three poisons are distinguished: greed is based on pleasant feeling and arises conforming to agreeable objects; hatred is based on painful feeling and arises in opposition to disagreeable objects; delusion is based on neutral feeling and arises in relation to neutral objects. Apart from greed and hatred, all remaining fetters arise based on neutral feeling and neutral objects, and are therefore subsumed within delusion. Here, because we are distinguishing fundamental and derivative, sharp and dull differences, all fetters enter into craving. What is its characteristic? This meaning is fully and extensively differentiated as in the chapter on the four bonds. Ignorance is the root and in principle is distinguished as one; the rest are all derivative and cannot enter into it. Further, among the derivative, views are sharp anusayas and by principle must be distinguished; the rest are dull and cannot enter into them. Therefore, fetters such as hatred, conceit, and doubt do not enter into delusion or views, but are subsumed within craving. Feelings are divided into three, while delusion and views are each one; thus there are five entrenchments. Views pervade the three realms; why are they treated as one? The explanation has two senses: First, views are deluded thoughts that are easily eradicated; upon entering the path of vision they are eliminated together at once, and so based on the locus of their remedy they are subsumed as one. Therefore, it is said in a treatise that severing the afflictions of views is like snapping a stone. Second, views arise by being deluded about principle; principle is pervasive and not differentiated, and so based on what is deluded about, they are combined into one. Why is craving divided into three kinds? The explanation has two senses: First, the nature of craving is tangled and difficult to eradicate, and the loci of its remedy are not one; therefore it is distinguished into three. Hence, it is said in a treatise that severing the fetters of craving is like snapping lotus fibers. Second, craving arises conditional upon phenomenal matters, and phenomenal matters differ in the distinction between internal and external, form and mind; therefore it is divided into three in accordance with what is conditioned. The ignorance of the three realms is not remedied in a single locus; why is it treated as one? Truly, because ignorance is subtle and difficult to eradicate, if considered according to the loci of remedy, its grades are immeasurable and not confined to three. For this reason, it is not spoken of as three in accordance with the realms. Furthermore, ignorance is dark confusion deluded about principle, not arising conditioned on phenomenal matters; the principle about which it is deluded is equal and of one taste, and therefore, based on what is deluded about, it is spoken of as one. This is merely the separation and combination within one single framework. If one enters other frameworks, delusion and views may also be divided into many; hence, in the section on the ninety-eight anusayas, the minds of delusion and views are divided into many. Such is their essential nature.