大乘義章 6.12

6.12

次就諸使明十一遍。如《毘曇》說，苦集諦下見疑無明說為遍使，遍使不同離分十一。相狀如何？苦下有七，所謂五見、疑及無明。此無明者，唯取不共，及與疑等相應無明，不取貪等相應無明。集下有四，邪見、見取、疑及無明。無明差別，義如前判。此之十一，遍能緣縛自地之中五行煩惱，故名遍使。問曰：何故唯說此等以為遍使？有二種義：一緣真起，簡苦集下貪瞋及慢。然十一遍，親緣諦生；苦集諦下貪瞋慢等諸見後起，不親緣諦，故不說遍。問曰：縱使不親緣諦，說遍何傷？釋言：有以。苦集理通，貪瞋慢等不親緣故，緣縛不遍，是故不論。二苦集性，簡滅道下諸使煩惱。問曰：何故簡滅道下諸煩惱乎？彼緣滅道，不能遍縛五行煩惱，非是遍使，所以簡之。若依《成實》，四諦之下一切十使，斯名為遍。問曰：遍使、遍緣、遍因，有何差別？釋言：緣使二種相望，互有寬狹。緣則通於諸心心法，故名為寬。但緣外境不緣相應共有之法，故名為狹。使則通緣一切外境，及縛相應共有之法，故名為寬；局在見疑無明煩惱，不通諸餘心心數法，故名為狹。若以緣使望彼遍因，互為寬狹。使之與緣，縛三世一切有漏，故名為寬；局在心法，不通非色非心之法，故名為狹。設論遍因，通攝一切諸心心法及生住等非心之法，故名為寬；於三世中，前望於後，名之為因，非同時因，後非前因，故名為狹。遍因如是（此二門竟）。

Next, the eleven universal [proclivities] are explained with respect to the proclivities. As the Abhidharma explains, views, doubt, and ignorance under the truths of suffering and origination are spoken of as universal proclivities; the universal proclivities are differentiated and divided into eleven. What are their characteristics? Under suffering there are seven: namely, the five views, doubt, and ignorance. As for this ignorance, it includes only unshared [ignorance] and ignorance associated with doubt and the like; it does not include ignorance associated with greed and the like. Under origination there are four: wrong view, attachment to views, doubt, and ignorance. The distinctions of ignorance are interpreted in the same sense as above. These eleven can universally cognize and bind the afflictions of the five practices within their own stage; therefore, they are called universal proclivities. Question: Why are only these spoken of as universal proclivities? There are two meanings: First, they arise by cognizing the real, which excludes greed, hatred, and conceit under suffering and origination. The eleven universal ones directly cognize the truths and arise; greed, hatred, conceit, and the like under the truths of suffering and origination arise subsequently to the various views and do not directly cognize the truths; hence, they are not spoken of as universal. Question: Even if they do not directly cognize the truths, what harm is there in speaking of them as universal? Answer: There is a reason. The principles of suffering and origination are all-pervasive; because greed, hatred, conceit, and the like do not directly cognize them, their cognitive binding is not universal; for this reason, they are not considered so. Second, they have the nature of suffering and origination, which excludes the various proclivities and afflictions under cessation and the path. Question: Why exclude the various afflictions under cessation and the path? Because they cognize cessation and the path, they cannot universally bind the afflictions of the five practices; they are not universal proclivities, which is why they are excluded. According to the Tattvasiddhi, all ten proclivities under the four truths are called universal. Question: What is the distinction between universal proclivities, universal cognition, and universal causes? Answer: When the two kinds—cognition and proclivities—are compared with each other, they are mutually broader and narrower. Cognition extends generally to all mental states and mental factors, and is therefore called broader; but it only cognizes external objects and does not cognize dharmas associated and coexistent with it, and is therefore called narrower. Proclivities generally cognize all external objects and bind dharmas associated and coexistent with them, and are therefore called broader; but they are restricted to the afflictions of views, doubt, and ignorance, and do not extend to the other mental states and mental factors, and are therefore called narrower. If one compares cognition and proclivities with universal causes, they are mutually broader and narrower. Proclivities and cognition bind everything tainted across the three periods of time, and are therefore called broader; but they are restricted to mental dharmas and do not extend to dharmas that are neither matter nor mind, and are therefore called narrower. If one examines universal causes, they universally encompass all mental states, mental factors, and non-mental dharmas such as arising and abiding, and are therefore called broader; across the three periods of time, when the preceding is compared to the subsequent, it is called a cause—it is not a simultaneous cause, and the subsequent is not the cause of the preceding—and is therefore called narrower. Such is the universal cause. (This concludes the second section.)