大乘義章 8.31

8.31

次辨體相。色陰之體，離合不定。總唯一色。或分為二：一內、二外，眼等五根是其內色，色等六塵是其外色。或分為三，如《毘曇》說：一可見對，謂眼所行青黃等色；二不可見有對，謂耳鼻舌身所行之色；三不可見無對之色，意根所行無作之色。前二種色，為其對礙色根所對，故名有對；後一無作，不為對礙色根所對，故名無對。成實法中，宣說無作非色心故，唯有前二，略無第三。或分為六，所謂色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵色也。前五可知。法塵色者，若依《毘曇》，五根無作是法塵色。成實法中，過未五塵、五根四大假名之色是法塵色。或分為十，如《涅槃》說。故彼經中上下數處皆說十色，五根五塵是其十也。彼經何故不說無作？彼說無作但是色法，非是色事，成身相微，故陰不彰。或分十一，如《毘曇》說，五根、五塵及無作色，是其十一。彼說無作是身口業，性四大造，故色陰收。成實法中，色有十四，五根、五塵及與四大，為十四也。有人說言：成實法中，聲不成人，非是色陰。此言不然，陰積義異、成人法異，何得說言不成人故令聲非陰？云何陰異、成人法異？陰通內外，成人唯內；陰通色聲，成人唯色，是其異也。云何知聲是色陰？如彼《成實．色相品》說「言色陰者，所謂四大及大所因色香味觸，亦因四大所成五根，是等相觸故有聲生。」舉此以釋色陰體相，寧非色陰？又《毘曇》中說聲為陰，《成實》不非，明知失用。問曰：《毘曇》說無作色以為色陰，成實法中何故不論？釋言：《成實》宣說無作為非色心，行陰所收，色陰不攝，故此不論。問曰：《成實》根塵之外，別說四大以為色陰。毘曇法中何不如是？釋言：《成實》宣說四大是假名色，攬四塵成，能成五根。根塵不收，故別說之。毘曇法中，宣說四大是實法色，觸入所攝，故不別說。色陰如是。次明受陰。受陰體中，廣略不定。總唯一受。或分為二，一者身受、二者心受。如《地持》說：五識相應名為身受，意識相應名為心受。問曰：五識是心非身，何故與此相應之受名為身受？釋言：此從所依以名。五識依於五根之身而生意心，故所生受名為身受；意識依心，故所生受名為心受。又復苦樂亦得分二，惡果名苦、善果名樂，一切報受無出善惡二業果故。問曰：捨受何受中攝？釋言：樂攝，善業果故。或分為三：一苦；二樂；三不苦樂，亦名捨受。辨此三受，略有五門：一分三受、二定優劣、三明通局、四生過不同、五厭捨難易。就初門中，差別有六：一當相分別。如彼《成實．受相品》說，損惱身心名為苦受，增益身心名為樂受，非損非益名不苦樂。二對因分別。一切惡果斯為苦，一切善果說為樂捨。是義云何？依如《毘曇》，三禪已還下善業果名之為樂，四禪已上上善業果說以為捨，是則彼宗三禪已還無捨受報。若依《成實》，分善為二：一欲界散善、二上界定善。散善之中，增上業果說為樂受，微下業果名為捨受，以此微樂難覺知故。問曰：苦中亦有微下不善業果，何不名捨，偏說下樂為捨受乎？釋言：苦果違害之法，性與情返，微有即覺，故入苦中，不得名捨。樂果順情，非切心法，微者難覺，故分為捨。又復一切苦樂二受，皆用微細行苦為體，於行苦上宣說苦受。苦受必重，為心覺惱，故不名捨。於行苦上宣說樂受，樂受必微。於中上者，為心覺適，當相名樂；輕微之者，非心能覺，博名為捨。定善之中，下善業果名之為樂，四禪已上勝善業果說之為捨，以彼寂靜難覺知故。三對緣分別。緣有三種，謂違、順、中。違緣逼惱名為苦受，順緣生適名為樂受，中境所生名為捨受。四對想分別。適想所起名為樂受，不適想生名為苦受，中容想發名為捨受。五對行分別。生瞋是苦，起貪是樂，生癡是捨。六就時分別。於中約對三緣辨之。若對違緣，相應時苦，離時生樂，久離則捨。若對順緣，初受生樂，中受則捨，久受便苦。或有順緣，相應時樂，離時生苦，久離則捨。若對中緣，初受時捨，久受生苦，離時生樂。或有中緣，初受時捨，久受樂著則生樂受，離時生苦。以此六義，分受為三。次明三受優劣不同。苦受最劣，樂捨二受上中不定。若依《毘曇》，樂受定下，下善果故；捨受定上，上善果故。若依《成實》，在欲界地，捨受為中，樂受為上；在上二界，樂受為中，捨受為上。次明三受通局之義。依如《毘曇》，苦局欲界，樂通欲色，捨通三界。成實法中，麁同《毘曇》，以實細論並通三界。故彼文言「苦樂隨身至於四禪，憂喜隨心至於有頂。」次明三受生過不同。於中有二：一明三受生過多少。苦生過少，局在欲界，生瞋恚故；樂生過中，在欲色界，能生不善穢污法故；捨過最多，遍通三界，具生一切諸煩惱故。二明三受生過輕重。捨受最重，能起邪見，斷滅善根作闡提故。又生無明，能為一切生死本故。苦樂二受，輕重不定。若論所為，樂重苦輕，為求樂受多作罪故。若論所生，苦重樂輕，嗔恚大罪從苦生故。三受生過，不同如是。次明三受厭捨難易。於中有二：一明三受起厭難易。欲界地中所有三受，苦為易厭，人憎惡故；捨受次難，不煩惱故；樂受最難，保愛深故。若論上界樂捨二受，樂為易厭，以其麁動易憎惡故；捨受難厭，以其寂靜難覺知故。二明三受捨之難易。苦受易捨，得初禪時已遠離故。問曰：若言初禪離苦，何故經言二禪滅苦？釋言：初禪有眼耳身三種識在，此三識身苦根所依，所依未盡，是故不說初禪滅苦，理實苦受初禪滅盡。樂受次難，至四禪滅。捨受最難，涅槃時滅。三受如是。或分為五，所謂憂、苦、喜、樂及捨。此之五種，隨處不定。若在欲界，五識地中逼惱名苦，適悅稱樂；意識地中慮惱名憂，慶悅名喜；六識地中中容受心捨苦樂等，說之為捨。問曰：何故苦樂二受流至意地返名憂喜；捨不如是，六識地中通名為捨？釋言：苦樂從微想生，憂喜二受從強想發，為是須分；六識中捨同微想生，為是不分。欲界如是。若在初禪，眼耳及身三識，身中適悅名樂，意識地中慶悅名喜，四識身中中容受心說以為捨。三中喜受通定內外，餘二定外。初禪已上，無鼻舌識亦無憂苦，為是不論。在二禪地，唯就意識說喜說捨。在三禪中，唯就意地說樂說捨。既在意地，何不名喜，乃說為樂？是樂性故，雖在意地不得名喜。故《雜心》中說之以為樂根意行，《涅槃》中說下名為喜、上名為樂，麁況似此。四禪已上，唯有意捨，更無餘義。五受如是。或分為六，所謂六根所生受也。或分十八，六根所生各有苦、樂、不苦不樂，故有十八。又《成實》說十八意行，亦是十八，謂五意識、第六意識所生之受，各有憂、喜、不憂不喜，故為十八。或復分為三十六受，如《成實》說，六根所生各有苦樂不苦不樂，並通染淨，是故合為三十六受。或分百八，如龍樹說，前三十六，三世分別，故有百八。若廣分別，受乃無量。受陰如是。想陰體者，開合不定。總為一想。或分為三：一者適想、二不適想、三者非適非不適想，取順名適，取違不適，取中容者名為非適非不適想。或分為六，所謂六識相應想也。或分十八，六想之中，各有三種適不適等，為十八也。隨緣辨想，想亦無量。想陰如是。行陰體者，廣略不定。總唯一行。或分為二：一者心法、二非心法。心法之中，依如《毘曇》，汎爾具論有四十六，行陰所攝有四十四。四十六者，通地有十，想、欲、觸、慧、念、思、解脫、憶、定及受。善地有十，所謂無貪、無瞋、慚、愧、信、倚、不放逸、不害、精進及捨，通前二十。不善有二，謂無慚愧，以此通前為二十二。大煩惱中別數有五，不信、懈怠、無明、悼、放逸，以此通前為二十七。小煩惱中有其十種，所謂忿、恨、誑、慳、嫉、惱、諂、覆、高、害，以此通前為三十七。餘數有五，所謂覺、觀、睡、眠及悔，以此通前為四十二。十使之中別有四數，貪、瞋、慢、疑，以此通前為四十六。此等如前三有為中具廣分別。言四十四行陰攝者，就前四十六心法中，除受除想，自餘一切皆行陰攝。問曰：何故諸心法中偏分受想，別為兩陰，不入行中？《雜心》釋言「受為愛根，想為見本。以此二種輪轉生死，故分別之。」又復論言「受修諸禪，想修無色。以此二種別地義強，故別立陰。」《成實》法中，心法無量，除識、想、受，自餘一切皆行陰攝。心法如是。非心法中，依如《毘曇》，宣說十四不相應行為非色心，此亦如前三有為中具廣分別。成實法中，唯說無作以為色心不相應行。問曰：五陰通皆是行，以何義故偏說此一以為行陰？《雜心》釋言「行陰之中，有為行多，故偏名行。餘四陰中，攝行少故，更與異名。」行陰如是。次辨識陰。開合不定，總唯一識。或分為二：一者有漏、二者無漏。或分為三：一善、二惡、三者無記。或分為四：一善；二惡；三隱沒無記，謂欲界地身邊兩見，及上二界一切煩惱相應之心；四白淨無記，所謂報生、威儀、工巧、變化之心。或分為六，所謂六識，始從眼識乃至意識。或分為七，謂七心界，前六識上加以意根，是其七也。或分為九：一方便善心、二生得善心、三不善心、四陰沒無記、五報生心、六威儀心、七工巧心、八變化心、九無漏心。或分為十：一方便善心，所謂一切聞思修壽相應之心。二生得善心，過習所成信進念等相應之心。三不善心，謂欲界地，除身邊見，自餘一切不善結業相應之心。四隱沒無記，謂欲界中身邊見兩及上二界一切煩惱相應之心。五報生心，謂三界中報無記心。六威儀心，所謂一切行住坐臥見聞等心。七工巧心，所謂一切營生之心。八變化心，謂作是念：「我當化作如是事業。」如是之心。九者學心，謂三乘人因體無漏及學等見，三乘因中斷結無漏是學心體，遊觀無漏是學等見。十無學心，謂三乘人果體無漏及無學等見，三乘果中盡無生智是無學體，遊觀無漏是無學等見。或分十二，如《雜心》說，欲界有四：一者善心、二不善心、三隱沒無記、四白淨無記。色界有三，於前四中除不善心，有餘三種；無色亦然。此十有漏，并學無學為十二也。或分二十，欲界有八：一方便善、二生得善、三不善心、四隱沒心、五報生心、六威儀心、七工巧心、八變化心，謂依上禪為欲界化。色界有六，前八種中，除不善心及工巧心，一切上界無有不善及工巧故，有餘六種。無色有四，前八種中，除不善心、威儀、工巧及變化心，有餘四種，并學無學，為二十也。廣則無量。識陰如是（此二門竟）。

Next, the distinguishing of their intrinsic nature and characteristics. The essence of the form aggregate admits of various divisions and combinations. In general, it is simply a single form. Alternatively, it is divided into two: first, internal; second, external. The five sense faculties, beginning with the eye, are its internal forms; the six sensory dusts, beginning with visible form, are its external forms. Alternatively, it is divided into three, as explained in the Abhidharma: first, visible and resistant, referring to the forms such as blue and yellow that are the domain of the eye; second, invisible and resistant, referring to the forms that are the domain of the ear, nose, tongue, and body; third, invisible and non-resistant forms, which are the unmanifest forms that are the domain of the mental faculty. The former two kinds of form are confronted by resistant material sense faculties, and are thus called "resistant"; the latter, unmanifest form, is not confronted by resistant material sense faculties, and is thus called "non-resistant." In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, because unmanifest form is explained as neither material nor mental, there are only the former two, and the third is omitted. Alternatively, it is divided into six, namely the forms of the six sensory dusts: visible form, sound, smell, taste, tangible, and dharmas. The first five are readily understood. As for the form that is a dharma dust: according to the Abhidharma, the unmanifest form of the five faculties constitutes the form of dharma dusts. In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, the five dusts of past and future, and the nominal forms composed of the five faculties and the four great elements, constitute the form of dharma dusts. Alternatively, it is divided into ten, as explained in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]; hence throughout that sūtra it repeatedly speaks of ten forms, the ten being the five faculties and five dusts. Why does that sūtra not mention unmanifest form? That sūtra explains that unmanifest form is merely a formal dharma, not a substantial form; its characteristic of forming a body is subtle, so it is not manifested as an aggregate. Alternatively, it is divided into eleven, as explained in the Abhidharma: the five faculties, the five dusts, and unmanifest form make eleven. That text explains that unmanifest form is physical and vocal karma, in nature created by the four great elements, and is therefore subsumed under the form aggregate. In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, form comprises fourteen: the five faculties, the five dusts, and the four great elements make fourteen. Someone has claimed: in the system of the Tattvasiddhi, sound does not constitute a person, so it is not the form aggregate. This statement is incorrect. The meaning of aggregating as an aggregate is distinct from the dharma of constituting a person; how could one say that because it does not constitute a person, sound is not an aggregate? How are the aggregate and the dharma constituting a person distinct? The aggregate extends to both internal and external, while constituting a person is only internal; the aggregate extends to visible form and sound, while constituting a person is only visible form—this is their difference. How is it known that sound belongs to the form aggregate? As stated in the chapter "Characteristics of Form" in that Tattvasiddhi: "The form aggregate refers to the four great elements and the visible form, smell, taste, and tangibles derived from the elements, as well as the five faculties formed by relying on the four great elements; when these collide with one another, sound is produced." If this is cited to explain the intrinsic nature and characteristics of the form aggregate, how could it not be the form aggregate? Furthermore, the Abhidharma explains sound as an aggregate, and the Tattvasiddhi does not reject this; thus it is clear that [the claim] errs in application. Question: The Abhidharma explains unmanifest form as being the form aggregate; why is it not discussed as such in the system of the Tattvasiddhi? Answer: The Tattvasiddhi explains unmanifest form as being neither material nor mental; it is subsumed under the aggregate of formations and not included in the form aggregate, which is why it is not discussed here. Question: Apart from faculties and dusts, the Tattvasiddhi separately explains the four great elements as constituting the form aggregate. Why is it not like this in the Abhidharma system? Answer: The Tattvasiddhi explains that the four great elements are nominal forms, composed of the four dusts and capable of forming the five faculties. Since they are not subsumed under faculties or dusts, they are spoken of separately. In the Abhidharma system, it is explained that the four great elements are substantial forms, subsumed under the tangible base (āyatana), and therefore are not spoken of separately. Thus it is for the form aggregate. Next, to explain the sensation aggregate. Within the essence of the sensation aggregate, expansions and summaries vary. In general, it is simply a single sensation. Alternatively, it is divided into two: first, bodily sensation; second, mental sensation. As explained in the Bodhisattvabhūmi: that which is associated with the five consciousnesses is called bodily sensation; that which is associated with the mental consciousness is called mental sensation. Question: The five consciousnesses are mind, not body; why is the sensation associated with them called bodily sensation? Answer: This is named from its support. The five consciousnesses rely on the body of the five faculties to generate the intentional mind; therefore the sensation generated is called bodily sensation. The mental consciousness relies on the mind, and therefore the sensation generated is called mental sensation. Furthermore, it can also be divided into two as suffering and pleasure: the fruit of evil is called suffering, and the fruit of good is called pleasure, because the sensations of retribution for all karmas do not go beyond the fruits of the two karmas of good and evil. Question: Under which sensation is neutral sensation subsumed? Answer: It is subsumed under pleasure, because it is the fruit of good karma. Alternatively, it is divided into three: first, suffering; second, pleasure; third, neither suffering nor pleasure, which is also called neutral sensation. In distinguishing these three sensations, there are briefly five approaches: first, dividing into the three sensations; second, determining superiority and inferiority; third, clarifying scope and restriction; fourth, differences in the faults produced; fifth, the difficulty and ease of revulsion and relinquishment. Within the first approach, there are six distinctions: First, distinguishing according to intrinsic characteristics. As explained in the chapter "Characteristics of Sensation" in that Tattvasiddhi, that which harms and afflicts body and mind is called painful sensation; that which benefits body and mind is called pleasant sensation; that which neither harms nor benefits is called neither-painful-nor-pleasant sensation. Second, distinguishing with reference to causes. All evil fruits are suffering; all good fruits are explained as pleasure and neutrality. What is the meaning of this? According to the Abhidharma, the fruits of lower good karma from the third dhyāna down are called pleasure; the fruits of superior good karma from the fourth dhyāna up are explained as neutrality; thus, in that tradition, there is no retribution of neutral sensation from the third dhyāna down. According to the Tattvasiddhi, good is divided into two: first, the diffused good of the desire realm; second, the concentrated good of the higher realms. Within diffused good, the fruits of dominant karma are explained as pleasant sensation, while the fruits of subtle, lower karma are called neutral sensation, because this subtle pleasure is difficult to perceive. Question: Within suffering there are also fruits of subtle, lower unwholesome karma; why are they not called neutrality, while lower pleasure alone is explained as neutral sensation? Answer: The fruit of suffering is a dharma of opposition and harm; its nature runs contrary to feeling, and even if subtle, it is immediately perceived; thus it enters into suffering and cannot be called neutrality. The fruit of pleasure accords with feeling and is not an acute dharma; subtle ones are difficult to perceive, and are therefore distinguished as neutrality. Furthermore, all sensations of both suffering and pleasure take the subtle suffering of conditioned existence (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā) as their essence; painful sensation is explained on the basis of the suffering of conditioned existence. Painful sensation is inevitably heavy, perceived by the mind as affliction, and is therefore not called neutrality. Pleasant sensation is explained on the basis of the suffering of conditioned existence; pleasant sensation is inevitably subtle. Among them, the superior ones are perceived by the mind as agreeable and are named pleasure according to their characteristics; the slight and subtle ones cannot be perceived by the mind and are broadly termed neutrality. Within concentrated good, the fruits of lower good karma are called pleasure, and the fruits of superior good karma from the fourth dhyāna up are explained as neutrality, because that quiescence is difficult to perceive. Third, distinguishing with reference to conditions. Conditions are of three kinds, namely adverse, favorable, and neutral. Being pressed and afflicted by an adverse condition is called painful sensation; the arising of agreeableness from a favorable condition is called pleasant sensation; that generated from an intermediate object is called neutral sensation. Fourth, distinguishing with reference to conception. That which arises from an agreeable conception is called pleasant sensation; that generated from a disagreeable conception is called painful sensation; that generated from an intermediate conception is called neutral sensation. Fifth, distinguishing with reference to mental application. Generating hatred is suffering; giving rise to greed is pleasure; generating delusion is neutrality. Sixth, distinguishing with reference to time. Here it is distinguished in relation to the three conditions. If facing an adverse condition: at the time of contact there is suffering; at the time of separation pleasure arises; after long separation there is neutrality. If facing a favorable condition: upon initial experience pleasure arises; upon middling experience there is neutrality; upon prolonged experience there is suffering. Or, with some favorable conditions: at the time of contact there is pleasure; at the time of separation suffering arises; after long separation there is neutrality. If facing a neutral condition: upon initial experience there is neutrality; upon prolonged experience suffering arises; at the time of separation pleasure arises. Or, with some neutral conditions: upon initial experience there is neutrality; upon prolonged experience attachment arises, generating pleasant sensation; at the time of separation suffering arises. By these six meanings, sensation is divided into three. Next, to clarify the differences in superiority and inferiority among the three sensations. Painful sensation is the most inferior; pleasant and neutral sensations are variable between superior and intermediate. According to the Abhidharma, pleasant sensation is definitely lower, being the fruit of lower good; neutral sensation is definitely superior, being the fruit of superior good. According to the Tattvasiddhi, in the plane of the desire realm, neutral sensation is intermediate and pleasant sensation is superior; in the upper two realms, pleasant sensation is intermediate and neutral sensation is superior. Next, to clarify the scope and restriction of the three sensations. According to the Abhidharma, suffering is restricted to the desire realm; pleasure extends to the desire and form realms; neutrality extends to the three realms. In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, broadly it is identical to the Abhidharma, but if examined subtly according to reality, all three extend to the three realms. Hence that text states: "Suffering and pleasure accompany the body up to the fourth dhyāna; grief and joy accompany the mind up to the peak of existence (bhavāgra)." Next, to clarify the differences in the faults produced by the three sensations. In this there are two: first, clarifying the quantity of faults produced by the three sensations. Suffering produces few faults, being restricted to the desire realm, because it gives rise to anger; pleasure produces an intermediate amount of faults, existing in the desire and form realms, because it can produce unwholesome and defiled dharmas; neutrality produces the most faults, pervading the three realms, because it fully generates all defilements. Second, clarifying the lightness and heaviness of the faults produced by the three sensations. Neutral sensation is the heaviest, being capable of giving rise to wrong views, severing wholesome roots, and making one an icchantika. Furthermore, it generates ignorance, which serves as the root of all saṃsāra. For the two sensations of suffering and pleasure, lightness and heaviness are variable. In terms of motivation, pleasure is heavy and suffering is light, because in seeking pleasant sensation one commits many offenses. In terms of what is generated, suffering is heavy and pleasure is light, because the grave offense of anger arises from suffering. Such are the differences in the faults produced by the three sensations. Next, to clarify the difficulty and ease of revulsion and relinquishment regarding the three sensations. In this there are two: first, clarifying the difficulty and ease of generating revulsion toward the three sensations. Among the three sensations present in the plane of the desire realm, suffering is easy to feel revulsion toward, because people loathe it; neutral sensation is next in difficulty, because it is not troubling; pleasant sensation is the most difficult, because cherishing and attachment run deep. In terms of the two sensations of pleasure and neutrality in the higher realms, pleasure is easy to feel revulsion toward, because its coarseness and agitation make it easy to loathe; neutral sensation is difficult to feel revulsion toward, because its quiescence makes it difficult to perceive. Second, clarifying the difficulty and ease of relinquishing the three sensations. Painful sensation is easy to relinquish, because upon attaining the first dhyāna one has already departed from it. Question: If you say that the first dhyāna is free from suffering, why does the sūtra state that the second dhyāna extinguishes suffering? Answer: In the first dhyāna, the three consciousnesses of eye, ear, and body are present; the bodies of these three consciousnesses are the support of the faculty of suffering, and because the support is not yet exhausted, it is not said that the first dhyāna extinguishes suffering, but in truth painful sensation is completely extinguished in the first dhyāna. Pleasant sensation is next in difficulty, being extinguished upon reaching the fourth dhyāna. Neutral sensation is the most difficult, being extinguished at the time of nirvāṇa. Such are the three sensations. Alternatively, it is divided into five, namely grief, suffering, joy, pleasure, and equanimity. These five vary according to their location. In the desire realm, pressing affliction in the plane of the five consciousnesses is called suffering, and agreeableness is called pleasure; anxiety and affliction in the plane of mental consciousness is called grief, and rejoicing is called joy; an intermediate receptive mind in the plane of the six consciousnesses that relinquishes suffering, pleasure, and the like is called equanimity. Question: Why is it that when the two sensations of suffering and pleasure flow to the mental plane they are conversely named grief and joy, whereas equanimity is not so, being called equanimity throughout the six consciousnesses? Answer: Suffering and pleasure arise from subtle conception, while the two sensations of grief and joy arise from strong conception, which is why they must be distinguished; equanimity in the six consciousnesses uniformly arises from subtle conception, which is why it is not distinguished. Such is the desire realm. In the first dhyāna, agreeableness within the bodies of the three consciousnesses of eye, ear, and body is called pleasure; rejoicing in the plane of mental consciousness is called joy; an intermediate receptive mind within the bodies of the four consciousnesses is explained as equanimity. Among the three, the sensation of joy extends both inside and outside samādhi; the other two are outside samādhi. Above the first dhyāna, there are no nose and tongue consciousnesses, nor are there grief and suffering, which is why they are not discussed. In the plane of the second dhyāna, only joy and equanimity are spoken of in relation to the mental consciousness. In the third dhyāna, only pleasure and equanimity are spoken of in relation to the mental plane. Since it is on the mental plane, why is it not called joy, but rather explained as pleasure? Because it is of the nature of pleasure, even though it is on the mental plane it cannot be called joy. Thus the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya explains it as mental movement of the pleasure faculty, and the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] explains the lower as joy and the upper as pleasure, the coarse-to-subtle comparison being similar to this. From the fourth dhyāna up, there is only mental equanimity and no other meaning. Such are the five sensations. Alternatively, it is divided into six, namely the sensations generated by the six faculties. Alternatively, it is divided into eighteen: each of those generated by the six faculties has suffering, pleasure, and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure, hence there are eighteen. Furthermore, the Tattvasiddhi speaks of eighteen mental applications, which are also eighteen: namely, the sensations generated by the five mental consciousnesses and the sixth mental consciousness each have grief, joy, and neither-grief-nor-joy, thus making eighteen. Or again, it is divided into thirty-six sensations: as explained in the Tattvasiddhi, each of those generated by the six faculties has suffering, pleasure, and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure, and they all extend to both defiled and pure, so they combine into thirty-six sensations. Alternatively, it is divided into one hundred and eight: as Nāgārjuna explains, the preceding thirty-six distinguished across the three periods of time make one hundred and eight. If distinguished extensively, sensations are indeed measureless. Such is the sensation aggregate. The essence of the conception aggregate admits of various expansions and combinations. In general, it is a single conception. Alternatively, it is divided into three: first, agreeable conception; second, disagreeable conception; third, neither agreeable nor disagreeable conception. Grasping the favorable is agreeable; grasping the adverse is disagreeable; grasping the intermediate is called neither agreeable nor disagreeable conception. Alternatively, it is divided into six, namely the conceptions associated with the six consciousnesses. Alternatively, it is divided into eighteen: within the six conceptions, each has the three kinds of agreeable, disagreeable, and so forth, making eighteen. Distinguishing conception according to conditions, conceptions are also measureless. Such is the conception aggregate. The essence of the aggregate of formations admits of various expansions and summaries. In general, it is simply a single formation. Alternatively, it is divided into two: first, mental dharmas; second, non-mental dharmas. Among mental dharmas, according to the Abhidharma, discussed fully in general there are forty-six, and those subsumed under the aggregate of formations are forty-four. As for the forty-six: there are ten omnipresent ground dharmas: conception, desire, contact, prajñā, mindfulness, intention, resolution, recollection, samādhi, and sensation. There are ten wholesome ground dharmas, namely non-greed, non-hatred, shame, modesty, faith, pliancy, diligence, non-harming, vigor, and equanimity, making twenty together with the previous ones. There are two unwholesome dharmas, namely shamelessness and impudence, making twenty-two together with the previous ones. Among the major defilements, there are five separate items: lack of faith, indolence, ignorance, agitation, and negligence, making twenty-seven together with the previous ones. Among the minor defilements, there are ten kinds, namely anger, resentment, deceit, stinginess, jealousy, affliction, flattery, concealment, pride, and injury, making thirty-seven together with the previous ones. There are five remaining items, namely initial thought, sustained thought, torpor, sleep, and regret, making forty-two together with the previous ones. Among the ten fetters, there are four separate items: greed, hatred, conceit, and doubt, making forty-six together with the previous ones. These are distinguished extensively as in the previous section on the three conditioned dharmas. As for the statement that forty-four are subsumed under the aggregate of formations: among the preceding forty-six mental dharmas, excluding sensation and conception, all the rest are subsumed under the aggregate of formations. Question: Why is it that among all the mental dharmas, sensation and conception alone are distinguished separately as two aggregates and not included within formations? The Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya explains: "Sensation is the root of craving; conception is the origin of views. Because it is by these two that one revolves in saṃsāra, they are distinguished." Furthermore, that treatise says: "By sensation one cultivates the dhyānas; by conception one cultivates the formless attainments. Because these two have powerful significance for distinct stages, they are separately established as aggregates." In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, mental dharmas are measureless; excluding consciousness, conception, and sensation, all the rest are subsumed under the aggregate of formations. Such are mental dharmas. Among non-mental dharmas, according to the Abhidharma, fourteen dharmas non-associated with the mind are explained as neither material nor mental; this is also distinguished extensively as in the previous section on the three conditioned dharmas. In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, only unmanifest form is explained as a formation non-associated with matter and mind. Question: The five aggregates are all formations (saṃskāra); for what reason is this one alone called the aggregate of formations? The Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya explains: "Within the aggregate of formations, conditioned activities are numerous, so it is uniquely named formations. In the other four aggregates, few formations are subsumed, so they are given different names." Such is the aggregate of formations. Next, to distinguish the consciousness aggregate. Its divisions and combinations vary; in general it is simply a single consciousness. Alternatively, it is divided into two: first, tainted; second, untainted. Alternatively, it is divided into three: first, wholesome; second, unwholesome; third, indeterminate. Alternatively, it is divided into four: first, wholesome; second, unwholesome; third, obscured indeterminate, referring to the two views of identity and extremes in the plane of the desire realm, as well as the mind associated with all defilements in the upper two realms; fourth, pure indeterminate, referring to the minds of retribution-born, deportment, craftsmanship, and transformation. Alternatively, it is divided into six, namely the six consciousnesses, starting from the eye consciousness up to the mental consciousness. Alternatively, it is divided into seven, referring to the seven mental elements (dhātu): the six preceding consciousnesses with the addition of the mental faculty make seven. Alternatively, it is divided into nine: first, the mind of expedient wholesome; second, the mind of innately acquired wholesome; third, the unwholesome mind; fourth, the obscured indeterminate mind; fifth, the retribution-born mind; sixth, the deportment mind; seventh, the craftsmanship mind; eighth, the transformation mind; ninth, the untainted mind. Alternatively, it is divided into ten: first, the mind of expedient wholesome, referring to all minds associated with hearing, reflection, cultivation, and life. Second, the mind of innately acquired wholesome, referring to minds associated with faith, vigor, mindfulness, and so forth formed through past habituation. Third, the unwholesome mind, referring to all minds associated with unwholesome fetters and karmas in the plane of the desire realm, excluding the views of identity and extremes. Fourth, the obscured indeterminate mind, referring to the two views of identity and extremes in the desire realm and the minds associated with all defilements in the upper two realms. Fifth, the retribution-born mind, referring to the retribution indeterminate minds in the three realms. Sixth, the deportment mind, referring to all minds of walking, standing, sitting, lying down, seeing, hearing, and so forth. Seventh, the craftsmanship mind, referring to all minds of livelihood activities. Eighth, the transformation mind, referring to the mind that forms the thought: "I shall magically create such works." Ninth, the mind of the learner (śaikṣa), referring to the untainted causal essence of the persons of the three vehicles as well as the views of the learner; the untainted severance of fetters in the causal stage of the three vehicles is the essence of the learner's mind, and the roaming, contemplative untainted is the view of the learner. Tenth, the mind of the non-learner (aśaikṣa), referring to the untainted fruition essence of the persons of the three vehicles as well as the views of the non-learner; the wisdom of exhaustion and non-arising in the fruition stage of the three vehicles is the essence of the non-learner, and the roaming, contemplative untainted is the view of the non-learner. Alternatively, it is divided into twelve, as explained in the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya: the desire realm has four: first, the wholesome mind; second, the unwholesome mind; third, the obscured indeterminate mind; fourth, the pure indeterminate mind. The form realm has three: among the preceding four, excluding the unwholesome mind, there are the remaining three kinds; the formless realm is also like this. These ten are tainted, which together with the learner and non-learner make twelve. Alternatively, it is divided into twenty: the desire realm has eight: first, expedient wholesome; second, innately acquired wholesome; third, the unwholesome mind; fourth, the obscured mind; fifth, the retribution-born mind; sixth, the deportment mind; seventh, the craftsmanship mind; eighth, the transformation mind, which refers to transformations in the desire realm relying on the higher dhyānas. The form realm has six: among the preceding eight, excluding the unwholesome mind and the craftsmanship mind—since in all higher realms there is neither unwholesome nor craftsmanship—there are the remaining six kinds. The formless realm has four: among the preceding eight, excluding the unwholesome mind, deportment, craftsmanship, and the transformation mind, there are the remaining four kinds; these together with the learner and non-learner make twenty. Extensively, they are measureless. Such is the consciousness aggregate (here ends the second section).