大乘義章 5.92

5.92

第五門中，約對三倒辨其同異。先明三倒，後辨同異。言三倒者，謂心、想、見。釋此三義，諸宗不同，乃有四別。一依毘婆闍婆提說，心心數法，體雖同時，用別前後，故分三種。彼說云何？先想、次心、後起見倒。初起微想，謂有常等，名為想倒。次重起心，緣前所想，取為定有，名為心倒。後見成就，於所取中執見分明，說為見倒。如《大智論．隨喜品》中亦同此說，故彼文言「先起想倒，次心，後見。」然彼文中，宣說小乘所斷三倒，不說大乘。大乘所斷，不同此說。二依達摩多羅所說，直就同時心心數法，義分三倒。心是心王，想是想數，見是慧數。此三之中，見是倒體。心想非倒，與見相應，為見所亂，通名為倒。見能濁亂一切心法，何故唯言亂心亂想？心是其主，故偏說心。想能取相，助見中強，故偏說想。又《雜心》云「心之與想，世人多說，故偏說之。」三准《成實》，約就四心以為三種。彼宗之中，識想受行四心前後。就此四中，說前三心以為三倒，識為心倒，想為想倒，受為見倒。良以受心覺境分明，故說為見。此心想見體非是倒，能生行中四顛倒見，以因從果，通名為倒。又此三中皆有取性，故名顛倒。問曰：此宗六識之中皆有四心，何識三心說為三倒？唯依前義，唯在意識，所成四倒唯在意故。若依後義，一切皆是。四依大乘，就七識心義分三倒。七識妄心，性是乖理顛倒之法，名為心倒。依是心故，便有一切妄境界起，如依夢心便有一切夢境界生，於此心境妄取分別，說為想倒。於所取法，違立定實，執見分明，說為見倒。故《華嚴經．十藏品》中，先說心倒，次想後見。又於諸法，初起微想，計之為有，名為想倒。重起心緣，名為心倒。執見分明，名為見倒。又復說就前見倒之中，隨義分別亦得說三。於諸法中建立法體，名為心倒，此倒猶是自性妄想。次於所取自性法中取差別想，謂此是色、此非色等，名為想倒，此倒猶是差別妄想。後於自性差別法中，取其和合業用之相，名為見倒，猶是攝受積聚妄想。三倒如是。次辨同異，先對有為四倒之心辨其同異。依如毘婆闍婆提說，有為四倒即是三倒。想中具四，心見亦然，唯有始終、增微為異。如是說者，立十二倒。若依達摩多羅所說，有為四倒即是見倒。心想非倒，與倒相應，相從名倒。依如《成實》，四倒三倒，一向差別。三倒是因，在前三心；四倒是果，在於行中。大乘法中，四倒三倒亦一向別。三倒是因，四倒是果。三倒是其迷理之倒，故說為因；四倒是其迷法相倒，故名為果。有為如是。次辨無為。若依毘婆闍婆提於說，無為三倒，與心想見三倒體一。想中具三，心見亦然。若依達摩多羅所說，無為法中無常無樂不淨三倒，體是見倒，非心非想。依如《成實》，心想見等三倒是因，在前三心；無為法中三倒是果，在於行心。大乘法中，無為四倒與心想見一向差別。心想見等，是迷理倒；無為四倒，迷法相倒，是故不同。問曰：向說大乘法中心想見等是迷理倒，說之為因；八倒是其迷法相倒，說之為果。相狀如何？先以三倒迷於如理，取立生死涅槃法相，立相迷如，說為三倒。於彼所立生死法中，不如實知，妄計常等，有為四倒因茲而生。復於所立涅槃法中，不如實知，橫計無常苦無我等，無為四倒因茲而起。是故三倒親迷於理，說之為因；八倒迷於染淨法相，名之為果。三倒八倒同異如是。

In the fifth section, distinguishing their similarities and differences in comparison to the three inversions. First the three inversions are clarified, and then the similarities and differences are distinguished. The 'three inversions' refer to citta, saṃjñā, and dṛṣṭi. The explanations of these three meanings differ across schools, into four distinctions: First, according to the Vibhajyavādin explanation, although the substance of citta and caitta dharmas is simultaneous, their functions differ in sequence, and hence they are divided into three types. What do they say? First is saṃjñā, next is citta, and afterwards the inversion of dṛṣṭi arises. First a subtle conception arises, claiming there is permanence and so forth; this is called the inversion of saṃjñā. Next, citta arises again, grasping the previously conceived as definitely existent; this is called the inversion of citta. Afterwards, dṛṣṭi is accomplished, forming a distinct view regarding what was grasped; this is called the inversion of dṛṣṭi. The 'Rejoicing Chapter' in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also agrees with this explanation, where it states: 'First arises the inversion of saṃjñā, next citta, and afterwards dṛṣṭi.' However, that text proclaims the three inversions severed in the Hīnayāna, not in the Mahāyāna. What is severed in the Mahāyāna is not identical to this explanation. Second, according to Dharmatrāta's explanation, the three inversions are differentiated in meaning directly within simultaneous citta and caitta dharmas. Citta is the primary mind, saṃjñā is the caitta of ideation, and dṛṣṭi is the caitta of prajñā. Among these three, dṛṣṭi is the intrinsic substance of the inversion. Citta and saṃjñā are not inversions; because they are associated with dṛṣṭi and confused by dṛṣṭi, they are generically called inversions. Dṛṣṭi can disturb all mental dharmas; why then are only citta and saṃjñā spoken of as disturbed? Citta is the master, hence citta is specifically spoken of. Saṃjñā can grasp marks and assists dṛṣṭi strongly, hence saṃjñā is specifically spoken of. Furthermore, the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya says: 'Citta and saṃjñā are spoken of often by worldly people, which is why they are specifically mentioned.' Third, based on the Tattvasiddhi, they are established as three types based on the four minds. In that school, the four minds of vijñāna, saṃjñā, vedanā, and saṃskāra are sequential. Within these four, the first three minds are explained as the three inversions: vijñāna is the inversion of citta, saṃjñā is the inversion of saṃjñā, and vedanā is the inversion of dṛṣṭi. Truly because the mind of vedanā perceives objects distinctly, it is spoken of as dṛṣṭi. The substances of this citta, saṃjñā, and dṛṣṭi are not inversions; they can generate the four inverted views within saṃskāra, and by naming the cause after the result, they are generically called inversions. Furthermore, all three contain grasping, hence they are called inversions. Question: In this school, all four minds are present within all six vijñānas; the three minds of which vijñāna are spoken of as the three inversions? Only according to the former meaning are they solely in manovijñāna, because the accomplished four inversions exist only in manovijñāna. If according to the latter meaning, all of them are. Fourth, according to the Mahāyāna, the three inversions are differentiated in meaning based on the mind of the seven consciousnesses. The deluded mind of the seven consciousnesses is intrinsically a dharma that is contrary to principle and inverted; this is called the inversion of citta. Based on this mind, all deluded cognitive objects arise, just as based on the dreaming mind all dream objects are born; the false grasping and discrimination regarding these mental objects is spoken of as the inversion of saṃjñā. Contrary [to reality], establishing what is grasped as definitively real and forming a distinct view is spoken of as the inversion of dṛṣṭi. Therefore, in the 'Chapter on the Ten Treasuries' in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, it first speaks of the inversion of citta, next saṃjñā, and afterwards dṛṣṭi. Furthermore, with regard to dharmas, first a subtle ideation arises, conceiving them as existent, which is called the inversion of saṃjñā. Mentation arising again to take them as object is called the inversion of citta. Forming a distinct view is called the inversion of dṛṣṭi. Furthermore, it is also said that within the aforementioned inversion of dṛṣṭi, three can also be explained according to their meanings: Establishing the substance of dharmas within dharmas is called the inversion of citta; this inversion is still the false conceptualization of intrinsic nature (svabhāva-parikalpa). Next, grasping conceptions of distinctions within the grasped dharmas of intrinsic nature, thinking 'this is form, this is non-form', and so forth, is called the inversion of saṃjñā; this inversion is still the false conceptualization of distinctions (viśeṣa-parikalpa). Afterwards, within dharmas of intrinsic nature and distinctions, grasping their marks of combination and active function is called the inversion of dṛṣṭi; this is still the false conceptualization of grasping and accumulating. Such are the three inversions. Next, distinguishing their similarities and differences: first, distinguishing their similarities and differences in comparison to the mind of the four inversions concerning the conditioned. According to the Vibhajyavādin explanation, the four inversions concerning the conditioned are precisely the three inversions. Within saṃjñā all four are present; so too with citta and dṛṣṭi, differing only in beginning and end, increase and subtleness. In this explanation, twelve inversions are established. If according to Dharmatrāta's explanation, the four inversions concerning the conditioned are precisely the inversion of dṛṣṭi. Citta and saṃjñā are not inversions; being associated with inversions, they are designated inversions by association. According to the Tattvasiddhi, the four inversions and the three inversions are completely different: the three inversions are causes, located in the preceding three minds; the four inversions are results, located in saṃskāra. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the four inversions and the three inversions are also completely different: the three inversions are causes, and the four inversions are results. The three inversions are inversions that obscure principle, hence they are spoken of as causes; the four inversions are inversions that obscure the marks of dharmas, hence they are called results. Thus it is for the conditioned. Next, distinguishing the unconditioned. If according to the Vibhajyavādin explanation, the three inversions concerning the unconditioned are of one substance with the three inversions of citta, saṃjñā, and dṛṣṭi: within saṃjñā all three are present, and so too with citta and dṛṣṭi. If according to Dharmatrāta's explanation, the three inversions of impermanence, non-bliss, and impurity within unconditioned dharmas have dṛṣṭi as their substance, not citta or saṃjñā. According to the Tattvasiddhi, the three inversions of citta, saṃjñā, and dṛṣṭi are causes, in the preceding three minds; the three inversions within unconditioned dharmas are results, in the mind of saṃskāra. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the four inversions concerning the unconditioned and those of citta, saṃjñā, and dṛṣṭi are completely different. Citta, saṃjñā, and dṛṣṭi are inversions obscuring principle; the four inversions concerning the unconditioned are inversions obscuring the marks of dharmas; therefore they are not the same. Question: Earlier it was said that in the Mahāyāna Dharma, citta, saṃjñā, and dṛṣṭi are inversions obscuring principle, spoken of as causes; and the eight inversions are inversions obscuring the marks of dharmas, spoken of as results. What is their manner? First, with the three inversions one obscures principle as it is, grasping and establishing the marks of the dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa; establishing marks and obscuring suchness is spoken of as the three inversions. Within those established dharmas of saṃsāra, not knowing in accordance with reality, one falsely conceives permanence and so forth; the four inversions concerning the conditioned arise from this. Furthermore, within the established dharmas of nirvāṇa, not knowing in accordance with reality, one improperly conceives impermanence, suffering, nonself, and so forth; the four inversions concerning the unconditioned arise from this. Therefore the three inversions directly obscure principle and are spoken of as causes; the eight inversions obscure the marks of defiled and pure dharmas and are called results. Such are the similarities and differences between the three inversions and the eight inversions.