大乘義章 5.95

5.95

第八門中約境辨倒。境別無量，今且約就四諦、五陰二門分別。今先約境明有為倒，後辨無為倒。辨有為中，先約諦論，後對陰說。約諦如何？如《毘曇》說「唯迷苦諦，見苦斷故。」故《雜心》言「四倒不能遠尋至根，故不緣集。滅道妄言，集是苦本，故名為根。若尋至根，便知自身苦無常等，自然不起有為四倒，故不緣之。」成實法中，淨倒一種偏迷苦集，苦集二諦是不淨故。常樂二倒，迷苦集道。此三皆是無常及苦，故迷此三計常計樂，悉名顛倒。我倒一種，通迷四諦，彼宗四諦悉無我故。大乘亦爾。次對陰說，義有通別。別而論之，迷色計淨、迷受計樂、迷識計常、迷想迷行而計於我。通而論之，迷於五陰，通起常樂我淨四倒。有為如是。次辨無為，於中先約四諦以論，後對陰論。小乘法中，無常苦倒，唯迷滅諦。不淨倒者，通迷滅道滅道二諦，皆是淨故。其迷道者，唯得名為不淨之倒，而不得名為無為倒。所迷道諦，非無為故，小乘不說無我為倒，故癈不論。大乘法中，無為四倒通迷滅道，真實滅道皆是常樂我淨法故。言對陰者，小乘法中無常無樂迷於滅故，不緣陰生。不淨倒中，迷滅諦者不緣陰生。迷道諦者，緣五陰起，迷於無漏五陰法故。此緣陰者，亦不得稱為無為倒，所緣陰法非無為故。大乘法中，無常等四通緣如來五陰法起。於中通別，對前有為，相顯可知。

In the eighth section, distinguishing the inversions in relation to their cognitive objects. Cognitive objects are infinitely diverse; now we briefly distinguish them in relation to the two gates of the four noble truths and the five aggregates. We now first clarify the conditioned inversions in relation to cognitive objects, and afterward distinguish the unconditioned inversions. In distinguishing the conditioned, we first discuss them in relation to the truths, and afterward explain them in relation to the aggregates. How is it in relation to the truths? As the *Abhidharma* says: "They are confused only regarding the truth of suffering, because they are severed by seeing suffering." Thus the *Abhidharmahṛdaya* says: "The four inversions cannot search far to reach the root; therefore they do not take origin as a cognitive object. Cessation and path are spoken of falsely. Origin is the root of suffering, so it is called the root. If one searches to reach the root, one then knows one's own body to be suffering, impermanent, and so forth, and the four conditioned inversions naturally do not arise; therefore they do not take it as an object." In the doctrine of the *Tattvasiddhi*, the single inversion of purity is specifically confused about suffering and origin, because the two truths of suffering and origin are impure. The two inversions of permanence and bliss are confused about suffering, origin, and path. These three are all impermanent and suffering, so being confused about these three to conceive permanence and conceive bliss are all called inversions. The single inversion of self is universally confused about the four truths, because in that school all four truths are devoid of self. The Mahāyāna is also like this. Next, explaining them in relation to the aggregates, the meaning has universal and specific aspects. Speaking specifically: confusing form to conceive purity, confusing sensation to conceive bliss, confusing consciousness to conceive permanence, and confusing perception and formations to conceive a self. Speaking universally: being confused about the five aggregates universally gives rise to the four inversions of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Such are the conditioned [inversions]. Next, we distinguish the unconditioned [inversions]. Therein, we first discuss them in relation to the four truths, and afterward in relation to the aggregates. In the Hīnayāna doctrine, the inversions of impermanence and suffering are confused only about the truth of cessation. The inversion of impurity is universally confused about cessation and path, because both the truths of cessation and path are pure. That which is confused about the path can only be called the inversion of impurity, but cannot be called an unconditioned inversion. The truth of the path about which one is confused is not unconditioned; and the Hīnayāna does not speak of non-self as an inversion, so it is set aside and not discussed. In the Mahāyāna doctrine, the four unconditioned inversions are universally confused about cessation and path, because true cessation and path are both dharmas of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. As for explaining them in relation to the aggregates: in the Hīnayāna doctrine, impermanence and non-bliss, being confused about cessation, do not arise by taking the aggregates as cognitive objects. Among the inversions of impurity, that which is confused about the truth of cessation does not arise by taking the aggregates as cognitive objects; that which is confused about the truth of the path arises taking the five aggregates as cognitive objects, because it is confused about the untainted dharmas of the five aggregates. That which takes the aggregates as cognitive objects also cannot be called an unconditioned inversion, because the dharmas of the aggregates taken as cognitive objects are not unconditioned. In the Mahāyāna doctrine, the four [inversions] of impermanence and the rest universally arise taking the Tathāgata's five aggregate dharmas as cognitive objects. Therein, universal and specific aspects, when contrasted with the preceding conditioned ones, are manifest and may be known.