大乘義章 9.21

9.21

次就忍智分別治道。慧心安法，名之為忍。於境決斷，說之為智。依如《毘曇》，斷見諦惑，忍為無礙、智為解脫。斷修道惑，智為無礙、智為解脫。何故見惑忍為無礙不得名智？釋言：見解安理名忍，所斷惑得猶與心俱，心俱得中有其疑得帶疑不決，故不名智。何故見惑智為解脫？疑得已捨，心決了故。何故修惑智為無礙、智為解脫？疑唯障見、不障修道，修道治邊一向無疑，故皆名智。何故疑惑唯障見諦不障修道？釋言：疑是迷理煩惱，故唯障見。不迷事故，不障修道。問曰：若言疑迷理故唯障見者，聖人修道亦觀諦理，何故不障？釋言：聖人見諦道中，見理分明已捨疑得。修道門中雖重觀理，緣無不了，是故不為疑結所障。問曰：若言疑不迷事不障修者，現見有人迷事生疑，如夜見机，疑為是杌為是人等。云何說言不緣事生？釋言：此疑是不染法，不能障道，是故不論。問曰：聖人修道心邊一向無疑，無礙解脫俱名為智，義則可爾。凡夫所起八禪修道，亦斷疑得，得與心俱，何故無礙得名為智？釋言：凡夫所修八禪雖斷疑得，緣事斷結事麁易了，緣之心決故得名智。緣何等事？謂觀下地一切有漏為苦麁等。問曰：聖人觀下為苦，得名緣理；凡亦緣苦，何故名事？釋言：聖人觀彼念念微細行苦，行苦理通，故得名理。凡夫但觀生老病死愛別離等八苦事惱，故名緣事。問曰：緣事安能斷彼迷理之疑？釋言：雖不觀理明白斷彼疑得，而觀下疑為苦麁等，故能厭斷。《毘曇》如是。成實法中，一切治道通名為忍、通名為智，以心安法故通名忍，決斷無著故通名智。大乘法中，忍智亦通。如說五忍，該始至終。二諦智等通初及後，隨義具分非無義異，始觀名忍，終成曰智（此三門竟）。

Next, the counteractive paths are differentiated in terms of forbearance and knowledge. The mind of wisdom settling in the Dharma is called 'forbearance'; making a decisive determination regarding an object is called 'knowledge'. According to the Abhidharma, when severing the afflictions [abandoned by] seeing the truths, forbearance is the unobstructed [path] and knowledge is the [path of] liberation. When severing the afflictions of the path of cultivation, knowledge is the unobstructed [path] and knowledge is the [path of] liberation. Why is forbearance the unobstructed [path] and not capable of being called knowledge [when severing] the delusions of seeing? Explanation: The understanding of seeing settling upon the principle is called forbearance; the acquisition of the affliction to be severed is still present together with the mind, and within this acquisition accompanying the mind there is the acquisition of doubt, which entails doubt and indecision; hence it is not called knowledge. Why is knowledge the [path of] liberation [for] the delusions of seeing? Because the acquisition of doubt has already been abandoned, and the mind has achieved decisive comprehension. Why is knowledge the unobstructed [path] and knowledge the [path of] liberation [for] the afflictions of cultivation? Doubt obstructs only seeing, not the path of cultivation. In the counteraction of the path of cultivation, there is entirely no doubt, and therefore both are called knowledge. Why does the affliction of doubt obstruct only seeing the truths and not the path of cultivation? Explanation: Doubt is an affliction that is deluded about principle; hence it obstructs only seeing. Because it is not deluded about phenomena, it does not obstruct the path of cultivation. Question: If it is said that doubt, because it is deluded about principle, obstructs only seeing, then when noble ones on the path of cultivation also contemplate the principle of the truths, why does it not obstruct them? Explanation: On the noble ones' path of seeing the truths, seeing the principle clearly, they have already abandoned the acquisition of doubt. Although in the context of the path of cultivation they repeatedly contemplate the principle, there is nothing not understood regarding the object; therefore they are not obstructed by the knot of doubt. Question: If it is said that doubt is not deluded about phenomena and does not obstruct cultivation, we currently see people generating doubt by being deluded about phenomena, such as seeing a low table at night and doubting whether it is a tree stump or a person, and so forth. How can it be said that it does not arise with phenomena as its object? Explanation: This doubt is an undefiled dharma; it cannot obstruct the path, and for that reason it is not discussed here. Question: That in the noble one's path of cultivation there is entirely no doubt accompanying the mind, so that unobstructed and liberation paths are both called knowledge, may be logically acceptable; but when worldly persons generate the path of cultivation of the eight dhyānas, they also sever the acquisition of doubt, and that acquisition is present with the mind—why then can their unobstructed [path] be called knowledge? Explanation: Although the eight dhyānas cultivated by worldly persons sever the acquisition of doubt, they sever the knots by taking phenomena as objects; phenomena are coarse and easy to comprehend, and taking them as objects, the mind is decisive; hence it can be called knowledge. What phenomena do they take as objects? That is, contemplating all tainted states of lower stages as suffering, coarse, and so forth. Question: When noble ones contemplate lower [states] as suffering, it is called taking principle as the object; worldly persons also take suffering as the object—why is it called phenomena? Explanation: Noble ones contemplate that subtle suffering of conditioned existence moment to moment; the principle of the suffering of conditioned existence is pervasive, and therefore it is called principle. Worldly persons merely contemplate the eight phenomenal distresses of suffering—birth, old age, sickness, death, separation from loved ones, and so on; therefore it is called taking phenomena as objects. Question: How can taking phenomena as objects sever that doubt that is deluded about principle? Explanation: Although they do not contemplate principle clearly to sever that acquisition of doubt, by contemplating lower doubts as suffering, coarse, and so forth, they are able to revile and sever them. Such is the Abhidharma. In the Tattvasiddhi system, all counteractive paths are generally called forbearance and generally called knowledge: because the mind settles in the Dharma, they are generally called forbearance; because there is decisive determination without attachment, they are generally called knowledge. In the Mahāyāna, forbearance and knowledge are also pervasive. For instance, speaking of the five forbearances, they encompass from beginning to end; the knowledge of the two truths and so on pervasively apply to both the beginning and the end. While fully distinguishing according to meaning, they are not without difference in sense: the initial contemplation is called forbearance, and the ultimate consummation is called knowledge. (Here ends the third section.)