大乘義章 6.9

6.9

第五約境隨界分別。先對境論。境謂理事，理謂四諦，事謂一切陰界入等。依如《毘曇》，身邊二見唯迷苦諦，果處起故。戒取次寬，迷苦及道，不迷集滅。何故如是？世間之人多謂苦行能盡往業，故說迷苦，如須跋等。或復有人，取著諸見及施戒等非真道法以為真道，說為能淨，迷覆真道，故說迷道。是故論言「內迷之者，見苦則斷；外迷之者，見道方除。」何者內外，而復說言迷內迷外？釋言：戒取緣有漏生，苦諦是其有漏法中之理理性故，說名為內；道諦是其有漏法外之理性故，說之為外。若人直謂現受苦果酬其往因而得脫者，名為內迷。良以受苦不能壞障得解脫故，取為能壞、取為能脫，故說為迷。若人取彼持戒等行以為真道，說為能淨，迷覆真道，故說為外迷。彼內迷者，見苦之時，知苦不能壞障得脫，彼見方斷。外迷之者，見真道時，方知戒等非真道故，彼見方斷。是故說為道非道淨。世間無人取集能淨故不迷集。戒取之人為求滅果，終不取滅為能淨因，故不迷滅。又說滅諦離過清淨，非顛倒見，故不迷滅。問曰：世人取苦能淨，名迷苦者。彼戒取人，取戒、取施、取諸見等以為能淨，彼戒施等體正是集，何故不得說為迷集？釋言：有義。外道即取苦為能淨，故名迷苦。戒、施、諸見體雖是集，外道之人不謂是集，取為能淨，轉之為道，方說能淨，是故但得說為迷道，不名迷集。何故如是？戒取之心，多傍教生。聖教之中，宣說懃苦能出生死，是故即取苦為能淨。佛經之中，不說集因是能淨，但說修道以為能淨。是故外道，不取為集說為能淨，轉之為道方說能淨。不類在斯。問曰：外道雖取戒等以之為道，本不緣道，云何得名迷道諦乎？執此乖彼，故說為迷。問曰：《毘曇》說理苦集為苦集諦，不論其事，滅道亦然。而彼外道所取苦行為能淨者，乃是事苦，取持戒等以之為道，乃迷事道。不迷於理，云何得名迷苦道諦？釋言：有義。彼雖迷事，以事類理，故得說為迷苦道諦。云何類乎？事苦既能治往業，理亦應然，故說迷理。道中亦爾。如佛所說，對治事道非真道故，理亦應非，故說迷理。何者是其事苦事道？何者是其理苦理道？而言迷事類迷於理？從彼過去業煩惱因，得六趣報，名為事苦。有為之法，念念生滅，前能生後，義說為集。後從前起，義說為苦，此是理苦。六道報別，名為事苦。一切有為有漏之法，但從前生，莫問遠近，斯名為果。於此果上，苦無常等四義莫通，說為理苦。就彼道中，三十七品戒定慧等，名為事道。即彼事中，道如迹乘四義窴通，說為理道。理事如是，故說事類迷於理。戒取如是。邪見、見取及與疑使，通迷四諦。邪見之心，謗無四諦，故名通迷。見邪取之心，於果五陰取為第一，名為迷苦。於因五陰，取為第一，名為迷集。取梵天等、無想天等以為涅槃，名為迷滅。於彼戒取所立之道，取為第一，名為迷道。又復取彼四諦之下邪見等心以為第一，從其所取，亦即名為迷四真諦。問曰：若使取四諦下諸見為勝，便從所取名迷四諦。戒取亦取四諦下見以為能淨，何故不言迷四諦乎？釋言：不類。彼見取者，即取諸見以為第一，不轉為道方說第一，故隨所取名迷四諦。戒取不爾，轉之為道方說能淨，故隨所立名迷道諦。問曰：論中宣說三見三隨轉，身見邊見隨，疑有邪見隨，戒取見取隨。云何戒取唯迷苦道，見取通四？彼言隨者，小分言耳。於苦道下，得言見取隨戒取生；集滅諦下，但隨邪見。若論疑使，通疑四諦。自餘一切貪嗔癡慢，通迷四諦，及障修道。若依《成實》，十使煩惱，通迷四諦。故彼《成實．雜問品》云「一切諸結，見滅諦時斷。滅者是其四諦之理，故通迷諦。」彼說如何？如彼身見，於果處起即是迷苦。見我是常，不從因緣生，即是迷集。言我不滅，即是迷滅。以計我常，無道能除，即是迷道。邊見亦爾。戒取之中，謂苦能治，即是迷苦。不知邪行是苦因緣，即是迷集。妄取邪行以為能淨，即是迷道。以說邪行為正道故，無心斷除趣向滅諦，即是迷滅。餘使如上。邪見見取及與疑心，唯迷四諦。貪嗔癡慢，通迷見修。大乘亦爾（此一門竟）。

Fifth, distinguishing them according to objective realm and realm [of existence]. First, discussing them with respect to the objective realm. The objective realm refers to principle and phenomena. Principle refers to the four noble truths; phenomena refer to all the aggregates, realms, sense bases, and so forth. According to the Abhidharma, the two views—personality view and extreme view—are deluded only regarding the truth of suffering, because they arise with respect to the effect. Attachment to rules and vows is next in breadth; it is deluded regarding suffering and the path, but not deluded regarding origination and cessation. Why is this so? People of the world mostly claim that ascetic practices can exhaust past karma; thus it is said to be deluded regarding suffering, as in the case of Subhadra and others. Or again, there are persons who grasp at various views, giving, morality, and other dharmas that are not the true path, taking them to be the true path, claiming they can purify, thereby being deluded about and obscuring the true path; thus it is said to be deluded regarding the path. Therefore the treatise says: "Those who are inwardly deluded are severed upon seeing suffering; those who are outwardly deluded are removed only upon seeing the path." What is internal and external, such that it is spoken of as deluded inwardly and deluded outwardly? Explanation: Attachment to rules and vows arises in objective relation to the tainted. The truth of suffering is the inherent principle within tainted dharmas; therefore it is called internal. The truth of the path is the inherent principle outside tainted dharmas; therefore it is called external. If a person simply claims that directly experiencing the retributive fruit of suffering repays past causes and thereby yields liberation, this is called inward delusion. Truly because experiencing suffering cannot destroy hindrances to obtain liberation, grasping it as capable of destroying and grasping it as capable of liberating is therefore called delusion. If a person grasps those practices of observing precepts and the like as the true path, claiming they can purify, thereby being deluded about and obscuring the true path, this is called outward delusion. For those who are inwardly deluded, when they see suffering and know that suffering cannot destroy hindrances to obtain liberation, that view is only then severed. For those who are outwardly deluded, when they see the true path, only then do they know that precepts and the like are not the true path; thus that view is only then severed. Therefore it is spoken of as purification through the path and non-path. No one in the world grasps origination as capable of purifying; hence they are not deluded regarding origination. Persons with attachment to rules and vows seek the fruit of cessation; they never grasp cessation as a purifying cause, and hence are not deluded regarding cessation. Furthermore, it is said that the truth of cessation is free of fault and pure, not an inverted view; hence they are not deluded regarding cessation. Question: People of the world grasp suffering as capable of purifying, which is called being deluded regarding suffering. Those persons with attachment to rules and vows grasp precepts, giving, and various views as capable of purifying; the substance of those precepts, giving, and so forth is precisely origination. Why can it not be called delusion regarding origination? Explanation: There is a meaning [to this]. Non-Buddhists directly grasp suffering as capable of purifying; therefore it is called delusion regarding suffering. Although the substance of precepts, giving, and various views is origination, non-Buddhists do not deem them to be origination; grasping them as capable of purifying, they convert them into the path and only then say they can purify; therefore it can only be called delusion regarding the path, not delusion regarding origination. Why is this so? The mind of attachment to rules and vows mostly arises alongside teachings. In the sacred teachings, it is proclaimed that diligence and hardship can escape saṃsāra; hence they directly grasp suffering as capable of purifying. In the Buddha's sūtras, it is not taught that the cause of origination is capable of purifying, but only taught that cultivating the path is capable of purifying. Therefore, non-Buddhists do not grasp them as origination and say they can purify; they convert them into the path and only then say they can purify. The disparity lies herein. Question: Although non-Buddhists grasp precepts and the like taking them to be the path, originally they were not directed toward the path; how can it be called delusion regarding the truth of the path? [Answer:] Holding to this contradicts that; therefore it is called delusion. Question: The Abhidharma states that the principles of suffering and origination constitute the truths of suffering and origination, without discussing their phenomenal aspects; cessation and the path are also like this. But what those non-Buddhists grasp—ascetic practices as capable of purifying—is phenomenal suffering; grasping the observance of precepts and the like as the path is delusion regarding the phenomenal path. Since it is not delusion regarding principle, how can it be called delusion regarding the truths of suffering and the path? Explanation: There is a meaning [to this]. Although they are deluded about phenomena, by analogizing phenomena to principle, it can therefore be called delusion regarding the truths of suffering and the path. How does it analogize? Since phenomenal suffering can remedy past karma, the principle should also be so; thus it is said to be deluded regarding principle. It is also like this within the path. Just as the Buddha taught, because the phenomenal path of antidotes is not the true path, the principle must also not be so; thus it is said to be deluded regarding principle. What are phenomenal suffering and the phenomenal path? What are the principle of suffering and the principle of the path, such that one speaks of delusion regarding phenomena analogizing to delusion regarding principle? Receiving retribution in the six destinies from past causes of karma and defilement is called phenomenal suffering. Conditioned dharmas arise and cease from moment to moment; the prior can produce the subsequent, which is conceptually called origination; the subsequent arises from the prior, which is conceptually called suffering: this is the principle of suffering. The differences in retribution of the six destinies are called phenomenal suffering. All conditioned, tainted dharmas merely arise from the prior, regardless of whether distant or near; all these are called effects. Upon these effects, the four meanings of suffering, impermanence, and so forth are universally applicable; this is called the principle of suffering. In regard to the path, the thirty-seven factors of awakening, morality, samādhi, wisdom, and so forth are called the phenomenal path. Within those very phenomena, the four meanings of path, correctness, reaching, and vehicle are universally applicable; this is called the principle of the path. Principle and phenomena are like this; therefore it is said that phenomena analogize to delusion regarding principle. Attachment to rules and vows is like this. Wrong view, attachment to views, and the drive of doubt are universally deluded regarding the four truths. The mind of wrong view denies the existence of the four truths; therefore it is called universally deluded. The mind that grasps wrongly takes the five aggregates as an effect to be foremost; this is called delusion regarding suffering. Taking the five aggregates as a cause to be foremost is called delusion regarding origination. Grasping the Brahmā Heaven, the heaven of non-conception, and the like to be nirvāṇa is called delusion regarding cessation. Grasping the path established by that attachment to rules and vows to be foremost is called delusion regarding the path. Furthermore, grasping those minds of wrong view and the like under the four truths to be foremost, according to what is grasped, is also called delusion regarding the four noble truths. Question: If grasping the views under the four truths as superior is therefore called delusion regarding the four truths according to what is grasped, attachment to rules and vows also grasps the views under the four truths as capable of purifying; why is it not said to be deluded regarding the four truths? Explanation: It is not analogous. Attachment to views directly grasps views to be foremost without converting them into the path before claiming they are foremost; therefore, following what is grasped, it is called delusion regarding the four truths. Attachment to rules and vows is not like this; it converts them into the path and only then claims they can purify; therefore, following what is established, it is called delusion regarding the truth of the path. Question: In the treatises it is proclaimed that three views have three subsequent conformances: personality view has extreme view conforming to it; doubt has wrong view conforming to it; attachment to rules and vows has attachment to views conforming to it. Why is attachment to rules and vows deluded only regarding suffering and the path, whereas attachment to views is universal to the four? [Answer:] When they speak of conforming, it is only a partial statement. Under suffering and the path, one may say that attachment to views arises conforming to attachment to rules and vows; under the truths of origination and cessation, it only conforms to wrong view. As for discussing the drive of doubt, it universally doubts the four truths. All the remaining—greed, anger, ignorance, and pride—are universally deluded regarding the four truths and obstruct the path of cultivation. According to the Tattvasiddhi, the ten drives of defilement are universally deluded regarding the four truths. Thus the Chapter on Miscellaneous Inquiries in that Tattvasiddhi states: "All fetters are severed upon seeing the truth of cessation. Cessation is the principle of the four truths; therefore they are universally deluded regarding the truths." How does it explain this? As with that personality view, arising with respect to the effect is delusion regarding suffering. Viewing the self as permanent and not arisen from causes and conditions is delusion regarding origination. Saying that the self does not cease is delusion regarding cessation. Because it conceives the self as permanent and that no path can eliminate it, this is delusion regarding the path. Extreme view is also like this. Within attachment to rules and vows, claiming that suffering can remedy is delusion regarding suffering. Not knowing that wrong practice is the cause and condition of suffering is delusion regarding origination. Falsely grasping wrong practice as capable of purifying is delusion regarding the path. Because it claims that wrong practice is the correct path, having no intention to sever it and advance toward the truth of cessation is delusion regarding cessation. The remaining drives are as above. Wrong view, attachment to views, and the mind of doubt are deluded only regarding the four truths. Greed, anger, ignorance, and pride are universally deluded regarding seeing and cultivating. The Mahāyāna is also like this. (This completes the one section.)