大乘義章 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

In the Section on Doctrinal Dharmas, this fascicle contains seven chapters: (Chapter on the Three Portals to Liberation, also named Chapter on the Three Emptinesses; Chapter on the Three Conditioned [Dharmas]; Chapter on the Three Unconditioned [Dharmas]; Chapter on the Four Emptinesses; Chapter on the Four Udānas; Chapter on the Four Siddhāntas; Chapter on the Four Realities).

2.3

The Chapter on the Three Portals to Liberation is distinguished in eight sections: (1. Explaining the names; 2. Determining the nature; 3. Categorisation; 4. Establishing the designations; 5. Establishing the number; 6. The meaning of the sequence; 7. Distinguishing according to stages; 8. The meaning of doubled emptiness).

2.4

First, explaining the names. The three gates of liberation are: emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. As for the term "emptiness," the name is made clear in reference to principle: the quiescence of principle is called "emptiness." As for the term "signlessness," there are two senses in its explanation: first, the name is made clear in reference to principle: principle transcends all signs, hence it is called "signlessness"; second, it is explained in reference to the characteristics of the phenomenon of nirvāṇa: the phenomenon of nirvāṇa relinquishes and is separated from the ten signs, hence it is called "signlessness." As for the term "wishlessness," in the sūtras it is also called "actionlessness" and also called "non-arising." There are three senses in its explanation: first, the name is made clear in reference to principle: within principle there is no craving, seeking, wishing, or delighting, hence it is called "wishlessness"; within principle there is no functioning or accumulative arising, and therefore it is also called "actionlessness" and "non-arising." Second, it is explained in reference to the phenomenal characteristics of saṃsāra: the phenomena of saṃsāra are not to be wished for or sought, hence it is called "wishlessness." Third, it is discussed in reference to practice: not giving rise to wishing and seeking within saṃsāra, it is called "wishlessness"; not engaging in wishing and seeking, it is called "actionlessness"; not initiating wishing and seeking, it is called "non-arising." These three are called in the sūtras and treatises the "gates of liberation," and are also called the "three antidotes," and also called the "three emptinesses"; in terms of meaning, they are also stated to be the "three gates of samādhi." "Three liberations" and "three samādhis" are stated in common across sūtras and treatises; the single gate of "three antidotes" is as stated in the Daśabhūmika-śāstra; speaking of the "three emptinesses" is as stated in the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra]. Speaking of the "three liberations" is naming in contrast to the fruit: the fruit-virtue of nirvāṇa transcends bondages and is called "liberation"; emptiness, signlessness, and so forth serve as gates to liberation, hence they are called "gates of liberation." Therefore Nāgārjuna said: "Practicing these three dharmas, one can attain the fruit of liberation that is nirvāṇa." Hence they are called gates of liberation. The "antidote gates" are named in contrast to obstacles: as stated in the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, they are the antidotes to the three obstacles, hence they are called the three antidotes. Speaking of the "three emptinesses," the name is made clear in reference to principle: principle is like a single flavor, yet according to what expresses it there are distinctions, hence there are three kinds. The "three samādhis" are named in reference to practice: the former three is a count, and the latter three [syllables, san-mei] is an Indian term. Speaking of "samādhi," this translates as "correct concentration": by bringing the mind into accord with Dharma and departing from deviation and disturbance, it is called samādhi. Because of these distinctions, they are called "gates"; alternatively, that through which one accesses and enters is called a "gate." Such is the meaning of the names.

2.5

Second, discerning the nature. The three liberations, the three antidotes, and the three emptinesses take these dharmas as their essence. The three samādhis take practice as their essence, but within practice, wisdom is used as the principal factor. If discussing their retinue, it is of the nature of the five aggregates: the sovereign mind is consciousness, the mental factor of ideation is conception, the mental factor of feeling is sensation, the remaining mental factors are mental formations, and the unmanifest [form] arising concomitantly is the matter aggregate. Question: These three use wisdom as the principal factor; why are they spoken of in the sūtras as samādhis? Explanation: All minds and mental factors receive names mutually from one another, just as with the four applications of mindfulness: their essence is in truth wisdom, yet they are named mindfulness; this is also like that. Furthermore, Nāgārjuna said: "If these three wisdoms do not abide in samādhi, they are wild wisdom, falling mostly into deviated doubts and incapable of accomplishing anything." Because they abide in samādhi, they are able to destroy the afflictions; therefore, based on that which they rely upon, they are spoken of as samādhis. Furthermore, samādhi is called "correct concentration"; if all meditational absorptions lack these three, they retrogress and are unstable, not being called samādhi; by virtue of these three, they are correctly concentrated and non-retrogresing; based on their capability, they are named, and thus called samādhi. Such is their essential nature.

2.6

Third, distinguishing their characteristics. According to the differences in phenomena, there are three stages: first, distinguishing the three gates by contrasting three phenomena; second, distinguishing the three gates by contrasting two phenomena; third, distinguishing the three gates by taking them up one by one in relation to a single phenomenon. Speaking of the three phenomena: the first is saṃsāra, the second is nirvāṇa, and the third is ultimate emptiness. In reference to that saṃsāra, one speaks of the gate of wishlessness, because saṃsāra has many faults and is not to be wished for; in reference to that nirvāṇa, one speaks of the gate of signlessness, because nirvāṇa is quiescent and separated from the ten signs; in reference to ultimate truth, one expounds the gate of emptiness. Next, distinguishing the three gates in reference to two phenomena. Within this, there are three distinctions: 1. Speaking of the three gates by contrasting the two phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Saṃsāra is vacuous and nonexistent, which is called "emptiness"; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "Emptiness is what is called all saṃsāra." The phenomenon of nirvāṇa is separated from the ten signs, hence it is spoken of as "signlessness"; being far removed from the wishing mind of grasping and discarding in saṃsāra, it is called "wishlessness"; hence the Vimalakīrti [Sūtra] says: "Non-wishing is bodhi, because there is no craving or attachment." Alternatively, the essence of saṃsāra is vacuous, which is called emptiness, while its characteristics are vile and evil, not to be wished for or delighted in, which is called wishlessness; signlessness is as before. 2. Speaking of the three gates by contrasting saṃsāra with the ultimate truth. In reference to the ultimate truth, one speaks of emptiness and signlessness; in reference to that saṃsāra, one expounds wishlessness. The essence of that ultimate truth is quiescent, which is called emptiness, and marvelously free of all signs, hence it is called signlessness; saṃsāra cannot be delighted in, which is designated wishlessness. 3. Speaking of the three gates by contrasting nirvāṇa with the ultimate truth. In reference to the ultimate truth, one speaks of its gate of emptiness; in reference to that nirvāṇa, one expounds signlessness and wishlessness. The meanings of signlessness and wishlessness in nirvāṇa do not differ from the previous explanation. Next, distinguishing the three gates in relation to a single phenomenon. Within this, there are three distinctions: first, only in reference to saṃsāra; second, only in reference to nirvāṇa; third, only in reference to principle. Within saṃsāra, there are again four kinds: 1. Speaking of the three gates only in reference to external objects. Within external objects, there are essence, characteristics, and function: the emptiness of the essence is called emptiness; the meaning of the emptiness of characteristics is called signlessness; the meaning of the emptiness of function is spoken of as actionlessness; and there being no function to be craved is also called wishlessness. 2. Distinguishing the three gates only in reference to the mind. The internal mind has three aspects: namely, mind, conception, and view. The essence of delusive conception is called "mind." Arising signs based on mind and discriminating in accordance with them is spoken of as "conception." Grasping based on conception and establishing a fixed nature is spoken of as "view." Because the mental essence is empty, it is called emptiness; because that conception is empty, it is spoken of as non-conception; because that view is empty, it is spoken of as wishlessness. 3. Speaking of the three gates with two [aspects of] objects and one of mind. The sūtra explains that saṃsāra essentially consists of only three things: first, names; second, signs; third, delusive conception. External objects have no essence and exist merely as names, hence they are spoken of as names; the distinctions of phenomenal characteristics are spoken of as signs; in reference to the internal mind, it is spoken of as delusive conception. The emptiness of the essence of those names is spoken of as the gate of emptiness; because phenomenal characteristics are nonexistent, it is spoken of as signlessness; the quiescence of the mind of delusive conception is spoken of as wishlessness. 4. Speaking of the three gates with two [aspects of] mind and one of objects. As stated in the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, there are three kinds of obstacles: first, the mind of discriminating delusive conception; second, signs, meaning external sensory objects arising based on delusive conception; third, wishes, which are minds of grasping and discarding that arise based on the preceding signs. The emptiness of that delusive conception is called the gate of emptiness; the emptiness of those signs is called the gate of signlessness; the emptiness of the wishes of grasping and discarding is spoken of as wishlessness. The above four gates are combined into the first [category], speaking of the three gates solely in reference to saṃsāra.

2.7

Next, speaking of the three gates in reference to nirvāṇa. Within nirvāṇa there are essence, characteristics, and function: naturally pure nirvāṇa serves as its essence; expedient nirvāṇa serves as its characteristics; and responsive nirvāṇa serves as its function. The quiescence of that essence is called the gate of emptiness; the meaning of the quiescence of characteristics is called signlessness; the quiescence of function is called actionlessness.

2.8

Next, speaking of the three gates in reference to the dharma of principle. As stated in the Tattvasiddhi, because the essence of principle is quiescent, it is called emptiness; within this principle of emptiness, because there are no signs, it is spoken of as signlessness; the absence of a mind of wishing and seeking is spoken of as wishlessness. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also agrees with this statement; hence that treatise says: "In the Mahāyāna, the three liberations are one, but by reason of practice, three gates are spoken of. Contemplating the emptiness of all dharmas is spoken of as the gate of emptiness; when, within this emptiness, one does not seize upon signs, at that time the gate of emptiness shifts to being named signlessness; when, within signlessness, there is no further action to be done, at that time signlessness shifts to being named actionlessness. This is because they share the same essence. If a person enters emptiness, they will ultimately not give rise to signs nor engage in action; even when entering that gate of actionlessness, they also understand the meaning of emptiness and do not seize upon signs; it is merely that according to the individual, their contemplation and entry differ, so three gates are established."

2.9

In the fourth gate, we provisionally formulate and establish their names in reference to saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and the principle of emptiness; the remainder can be known by analogy. "Formulating the name" refers to that which the establishment of the name relies upon. "Establishing the name" refers to determining its nominal characteristic. First, formulating and establishing their names in reference to the three liberations. The three gates of liberation directly take saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and the principle of emptiness as their essence. For the gate of emptiness of liberation, both formulating the name and establishing the name are done in reference to the essence. As for the gate of signlessness, formulating the name is in reference to the essence, because the phenomenon of nirvāṇa is spoken of as serving as a gate to that liberation; when establishing its name, it takes the dispelling of signs upon the essence as its designation. As for the gate of wishlessness, formulating the name is in reference to the essence, because the phenomenon of saṃsāra is spoken of as serving as a gate to that liberation; when establishing its name, it receives its title from revulsion upon the essence. Next, formulating and establishing their names in reference to the three antidotes: their meaning is the same as the three liberations, because they directly speak of saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and emptiness as antidotes. Next, formulating and establishing their names in reference to the three emptinesses: however, the three emptinesses take principle as their central tenet; within them, for the gate of emptiness, formulating the name and establishing the name are both done in reference to the essence. As for the gate of signlessness, formulating the name is done in reference to the expression, because signless nirvāṇa is the expression of emptiness; when establishing its name, it takes the dispelling of signs within the expression as its designation. As for the gate of wishlessness, formulating the name is done in reference to the expression, because the phenomenon of saṃsāra is the expression of emptiness; when establishing its name, it receives its title from revulsion within the expression. Next, formulating and establishing their names in reference to the three samādhis. However, the three samādhis take the practicing mind as their essence, while saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and ultimate emptiness are their cognitive objects. As for "wishlessness," formulating the name is done in reference to the essence: that samādhi mind does not give rise to wishing and delighting within saṃsāra, so it is called wishlessness; when establishing its name, it takes the dispelling of trouble upon the essence as its designation, because wishing and seeking for existences is the trouble, and the absence of such wishing and seeking is called dispelling trouble. As for "signlessness," formulating the name is done in reference to the cognitive object: signless nirvāṇa is the object of samādhi; establishing the title in reference to the object, it is called signlessness; when establishing its name, it takes the dispelling of signs upon the cognitive object as its designation. As for the "gate of emptiness," both formulating the name and establishing the name are done in reference to the cognitive object, because the principle of emptiness is the cognitive object of that samādhi. The establishments of these names vary in their orientations, each according to a particular sense.

2.10

In the fifth section, the number [of the gates] is established. There are five meanings in general: First, according to the distinction among dharmas. As the Bodhisattvabhūmi states, dharmas are of two kinds: first, existent; second, non-existent. Conditioned and unconditioned [dharmas] are termed existent; the absence of self and what belongs to a self is termed non-existent. The dharmas of saṃsāra are termed conditioned existence, the dharmas of nirvāṇa are termed unconditioned existence, and ultimate emptiness is termed non-existence. Regarding these three dharmas: toward conditioned existence, neither wishing for nor following it establishes the wishless gate; toward unconditioned existence, desiring, delighting in, and taking hold of it establishes the signless gate. Between these two, being neither wishing nor non-wishing is the view of non-existence regarding existence; based on this view, the emptiness gate is established. Because one sees emptiness, not wishing for nirvāṇa is called "non-wishing"; not revulsing from saṃsāra is called "not non-wishing"; relinquishing the former two existences is called the view of non-existence. Second, the three gates are established according to the distinction among faculties. Faculties are of three kinds: sharp, dull, and middling. For those of dull faculties, the wishless gate is taught in order to make them fearful; for those of middling faculties, the signless gate is taught in order to make them strive toward it; for those of sharp faculties, the emptiness gate is expounded in order to make them realize the truth. Third, according to the distinction among desires. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states, desires are of three kinds: first, delighting in aloofness, for which the wishless [gate] is taught; second, delighting in tranquility, for which the signless [gate] is taught; third, delighting in the truth, for which the emptiness gate is taught. Fourth, according to the distinction among practices. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states, practices are of three kinds: samādhi, prajñā, and upekṣā. To arouse the practice of samādhi, the emptiness gate is expounded in order to make the mind abide; to arouse the practice of prajñā, the wishless gate is taught in order to make one investigate and sever saṃsāra; to arouse the practice of upekṣā, the signless gate is taught in order to give the mind reliance. Fifth, according to the distinction in addressing afflictions. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states, afflictions are of two kinds: first, views; second, craving. For practitioners of views, the emptiness gate is expounded in order to make them abandon views. For practitioners of craving, the wishless gate is taught in order to make them revulse from saṃsāra and not wish for or seek it. For those with equal views and craving, the signless [gate] is taught: expounding that nirvāṇa is aloof from the signs of visible form, sound, smell, taste, and touch cures those practitioners of craving; being aloof from arising, abiding, and cessation cures those practitioners of views; being aloof from the signs of male and female encompasses both meanings. The distinctions in curing afflictions by the three gates are manifold; here we have merely discussed them thus.

2.11

In the sixth section, their sequence is clarified. The sequence is threefold: First, the sequence of cultivation and entry. First, the wishless [gate] is taught to make one revulse from saṃsāra; next, the signless [gate] is taught to make one seek nirvāṇa; afterward, the emptiness gate is taught to make one realize and accord with it. Second, the sequence of root and branch based on final completion. Emptiness is the root of virtues, which bodhisattvas contemplate first; therefore, emptiness is clarified first. Because one sees emptiness, one does not see saṃsāra as something that could be greedily sought; therefore, wishlessness is expounded second. Because one realizes the meaning of emptiness and does not see saṃsāra, one then accords with the signlessness of nirvāṇa; therefore, signlessness is expounded third. Third, their sequence is clarified in terms of the substance, characteristics, functions, and so forth that are emptied. First, the emptiness gate is taught to empty the substance of all dharmas; next, the signless [gate] is taught to empty the characteristics of all dharmas; afterward, the unconstructed [gate] is taught to empty the functions of all dharmas. The sequence is like this.

2.12

In the seventh section, they are differentiated according to ground. In the Hīnayāna Dharma, the explanations are not uniform. Some expound that the three liberations and samādhis exist only in the four dhyānas, the preparatory [stage of the first dhyāna], the intermediate [dhyāna], and the three formless realms, because they are anāsrava. There are also those who state that the three liberations are entirely anāsrava, fully as discriminated above. The three samādhis, however, penetrate both sāsrava and anāsrava: the anāsrava samādhis are like the three liberations, while the sāsrava ones exist in eleven grounds, namely, the desire realm, the four fundamental dhyānas, the preparatory [stage], the intermediate [dhyāna], and the four formless attainments. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, both the three liberations and the [three] samādhis penetrate sāsrava and anāsrava: the sāsrava ones, fully as stated above, exist in eleven grounds; the anāsrava ones rely on ten grounds, namely, the eight dhyānas, the preparatory [stage], and the intermediate [dhyāna]. If discussed broadly, they also rely on the desire realm, because the Mahāyāna expounds that there is dhyāna-concentration within the desire-realm ground. The subsumption of grounds is like this.

2.13

In the eighth section, there are five distinctions in meaning: 1. Listing names and distinguishing characteristics; 2. Distinguishing sāsrava and anāsrava; 3. Distinguishing according to person; 4. Distinguishing according to realm; 5. Distinguishing according to ground. In the first section, the names are listed first. What are the names? They are called the emptiness-emptiness samādhi, signlessness-signlessness, and wishlessness-wishlessness. Revealing their names from the first, they are called the repeated-emptiness samādhi, and may also be called the repeated-signlessness and repeated-wishlessness [samādhis]. What are their characteristics? According to the Abhidharma, the sixteen holy practices of the four noble truths are divided into the three gates: under suffering, the two practices of emptiness and non-self are determined as the emptiness gate; next, ten practices are described as the wishless gate—under suffering there are two, namely, suffering and impermanence; under arising there are four: cause, arising, origin, and condition; under the path there are four: path, correctness, path of release, and vehicle—these ten kinds are described as the wishless gate; under cessation there are four practices: destruction, pacification, excellence, and departure, which are the signless gate. Regarding repeated emptiness: an arhat first observes the emptiness gate with the wisdom of the non-learner and the like, which is straightforwardly called the emptiness concentration; afterward, with sāsrava wisdom and the like, one observes that the preceding emptiness wisdom is also empty and non-self; this is called the emptiness-emptiness samādhi. This observes that upon the wisdom there is emptiness and non-self or person; it does not empty the substance of the wisdom. Regarding repeated wishlessness: one also first observes suffering and so forth with the wisdom of the non-learner and the like, which is straightforwardly called wishlessness; afterward, one observes that this wisdom is also impermanent and not to be wished for or sought, striking at the holy path; this is called wishlessness-wishlessness. Question: Why is it not struck at with suffering? Because it opposes the holy path. The path is not suffering; if one observed it as suffering, that would be delusion. Why is the holy path not struck at with cause, arising, origin, and condition? The treatises state that cause and the others accord with the holy path and are not called striking. Why is the holy path not struck at with path, correctness, path of release, and vehicle? Explanation: If one performs the contemplation of path, correctness, and so forth, that is delighting in the holy path; how could it be called striking?

2.14

Regarding repeated signlessness: one first observes destruction, pacification, excellence, and departure under cessation with the wisdom of the view of the non-learner and the like, which is straightforwardly called signlessness. Afterward, one observes that the locus where this wisdom is completely destroyed is non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), which is also tranquil pacification; striking at that holy path, this is called signlessness-signlessness. What is wisdom's destruction as apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha? How does it strike? When the wisdom contemplating cessation ought to arise but does not arise, that is its wisdom's destruction, apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Intending to strike at that wisdom, one first observes the locus where defilements do not arise: analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) is its tranquil pacification. Because it is tranquil pacification, it is to be wished for and delighted in. Because this tranquil pacification is to be wished for and delighted in, the defilements that were destroyed are to be revulsed from and detested. Afterward, one observes the locus where this wisdom does not arise: apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is also tranquil pacification, to be wished for and delighted in, identical with analytical cessation. Because the locus of wisdom's destruction is, like analytical cessation, to be wished for and delighted in, the destroyed wisdom is, like those defilements, to be revulsed from and detested; striking at it is like this. Question: Why is the holy path not struck at with excellence and departure, using the practice of pacification alone? Explanation: Because apratisaṃkhyā is not excellence or departure. Why is it not struck at with the practice of destruction? Because this would be confounded with impermanent destruction.

2.15

According to the Tattvasiddhi, the emptiness of the intrinsic nature of all dharmas is called the emptiness gate. In this emptiness, there are no characteristics to be grasped, which is called the signless gate. In emptiness, there is no yearning, seeking, wishing, or delight, which is called the wishless gate. When a holy person observes the emptiness of the five aggregates with wisdom, it is called the emptiness samādhi. Contemplating further that this wisdom is also empty is called emptiness-emptiness. Observing that in the emptiness of the aggregates there are no characteristics to be grasped is called the signless samādhi. Contemplating further that this wisdom is also empty and signless is called signlessness-signlessness. Observing that in the emptiness of the aggregates there is no yearning, wishing, or seeking is called the wishless samādhi. Contemplating further that this wisdom is also empty and wishless is called wishlessness-wishlessness. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the three gates are of manifold kinds, fully as discriminated above. If discussed in detail among them, they are sometimes the same as the Abhidharma or resemble the Tattvasiddhi. If the dharmas of saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and the principle of emptiness are expounded as the three gates, the characteristics are the same as the Abhidharma; if the three gates are differentiated in meaning with respect to the principle of emptiness, then it is the same as the Tattvasiddhi. The difference lies in depth and shallowness. The contemplation of repeated emptiness is mostly the same as the Tattvasiddhi. Why is this repeated-emptiness samādhi cultivated? The treatise states: "Just as when a person burns a corpse with a stick, once the dead corpse is consumed, the stick must also be burned. Wisdom is also like this: previously used to sever the bonds, once the afflictions of the bonds are gone, the wisdom must also be relinquished. Therefore, it must be cultivated." (This concludes the first section.)

2.16

Next is the distinction between sāsrava and anāsrava. According to the Abhidharma, the repeated-emptiness samādhi is exclusively sāsrava, because what it contemplates is not the principle of truth. In the Tattvasiddhi, it is anāsrava; therefore, that treatise states: "Among the repeated emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness samādhis, repeated emptiness is called supreme." How could it be sāsrava? In the Mahāyāna, it is anāsrava, the same as stated in the Tattvasiddhi. (This concludes the second section.)

2.17

Next is the discussion according to person. In the Abhidharma system, the repeated-emptiness samādhi is attained only by arhats of sharp faculties and not by other persons; because those learners (śaikṣa) possess afflictions, they cannot attain it at all. Because the samādhi attained by arhats of dull faculties is not fully sovereign, they are also unable to attain it. In the Tattvasiddhi system, all arhats and all learners attain it. Therefore, the Tattvasiddhi states that learners also attain it, because they have realized the cessation of all dharmas. Among Mahāyāna persons, all from the [stage of] lineage (gotra) and above attain it. If discussed broadly, those of the ten faiths also attain it. (This concludes the third section.)

2.18

Next is the discussion according to realm. "Realm" refers to the three realms. According to the Abhidharma, the repeated-emptiness samādhi arises only in the desire realm, not in the upper two realms. Within the desire realm, persons of the three continents are able to arouse this contemplation. Since its arising is spoken of thus, although the Tattvasiddhi has no explicit text, in principle it should apply everywhere. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, bodhisattvas possess sovereignty, and wherever their bodies may be within the three realms, they are able to cultivate and arouse it in all cases. (This concludes the fourth section.)

2.19

Next is the discussion according to ground. According to the Abhidharma, because the repeated-emptiness samādhi is sāsrava, beginning from the desire realm up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the minds of all grounds are able to cultivate and arouse it. The desire realm takes as its object only the anāsrava within the preparatory dhyāna for the repeated-emptiness contemplation; the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception takes as its object only the anāsrava within the sphere of nothingness, because they are contiguous. In the Tattvasiddhi system, because it is anāsrava, it can be cultivated and aroused only relying on the seven foundational concentrations from the first dhyāna to the sphere of nothingness. As discriminated in the Mahāyāna, the minds of all grounds are able to cultivate and arouse it. The repeated-emptiness samādhi has been broadly discriminated thus.

2.20

The meaning of the three conditioned [characteristics] is distinguished in two sections: 1. Explaining the names; 2. Distinguishing the characteristics.

2.21

Regarding the three conditioned [classes of phenomena], they refer to the three aggregates of phenomena: matter, mind, and that which is neither matter nor mind. What has physical obstruction is called matter; what contemplates and perceives is called mind; conditioning factors not associated [with mind] that run counter to the former two are called that which is neither matter nor mind. These three kinds are collectively called "conditioned" (saṃskṛta). "Conditioned" (wei) means gathering and arising, producing and making; because dharmas have production and making, they are called "conditioned." What does this mean? There are six kinds of explanations: First, explaining by contrasting cause against result. All causes and conditions are capable of gathering results, capable of performing actions (you suowei); hence they are called "conditioned." Second, explaining based on result contrasted with cause. Conditioned karmic results are all produced by causes, having these causes as their makers (you ci yin wei); hence they are called "conditioned." Third, explaining by contrasting the dharmas themselves with [the characteristics of] arising, abiding, cessation, and so forth external to the dharmas. Alongside dharmas such as matter, there are simultaneously four distinct characteristics of separate substance; through these four characteristics, dharmas such as matter are characterized: due to the characteristic of arising, dharmas such as matter arise, and so forth, until, due to the fourth characteristic of cessation, dharmas such as matter cease. These four characteristics are capable of performing actions; hence they are called "conditioned." Fourth, explaining matter and the like in contrast with those four characteristics external to the dharmas. Dharmas such as matter all have the actions performed by the four characteristics of arising and the rest; hence they are called "conditioned." Fifth, explaining "conditioned" based on the four characteristics occurring sequentially in the substance of the dharma. The sequential alteration of the four characteristics is called "action" (wei); the substances of dharmas such as matter possess this action; hence they are called "conditioned." Sixth, explaining "conditioned" based on the four characteristics being simultaneous and of identical substance. The nature of dharmas such as matter is like an illusion: illusory existence is called arising, illusory non-existence is called cessation, illusory establishment is called abiding, and illusory transformation is called alteration. These four share an identical substance and mutually condition and gather together, which is called "action" (wei). The substances of dharmas such as matter possess this action; hence they are called "conditioned." Such is the meaning of the name.

2.22

In the second section, their substantial characteristics are distinguished. First, material dharmas are distinguished; next, mental dharmas are revealed; and finally, dharmas that are neither matter nor mind are clarified. Within material dharmas, there are two sections of distinction: first, distinguishing their substantial characteristics; second, clarifying the nominal and the real. Regarding the substantial characteristics of matter, the treatises explain them differently. The Abhidharma teaches eleven kinds of matter as the aggregate of material dharmas. Which are the eleven? The five sense organs make five, the five sense objects make ten, and including unmanifest matter makes eleven. The eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body made of the pure four great elements are the five sense organs. Color-form, sound, odor, taste, and tangibility made of the external four great elements are the five sense objects. Within bodily and vocal karma, good, bad, and neutral unmanifest karma are unmanifest matter. Treatises such as the Da zhidu lun also share this explanation. The Tattvasiddhi teaches fourteen kinds of matter as the aggregate of material dharmas. Which are the fourteen? The five sense organs make five, the five sense objects make ten, and adding the four great elements makes the previous fourteen. The five sense organs are as above. As for where they differ: in the Abhidharma system, the substance of the five sense organs is real matter, made by the four great elements and possessing a distinct substance from the great elements, just as when a person paints a picture, the picture is distinct from the person. In the Tattvasiddhi system, the substance of the five sense organs is nominal matter, formed of the four great elements, and outside the sense organs there are no great elements, just as the aggregates form a person, and outside the person there are no aggregates; the sense organs are likewise. The five objects are as above. As for where they differ: in the Abhidharma system, the sense objects made by the great elements are distinct from the four great elements. In the Tattvasiddhi system, color-form, odor, taste, and tangibility can form the four great elements and are not made by the great elements; only the sound object arises from the four great elements. Such is their difference. Earth, water, fire, and wind, formed of the four sense objects, are the four great elements. Question: The Abhidharma speaks of unmanifest matter; why is it not discussed in the Tattvasiddhi system? The tenets differ, so their explanations vary. In the Abhidharma system, unmanifest karma is stated to be a material dharma, so it is discussed under matter. The Tattvasiddhi speaks of it as neither matter nor mind, so it is not discussed under matter. Question again: The Tattvasiddhi separately teaches the four great elements; why does the Abhidharma system not establish them [separately]? This also is due to differing tenets, so their explanations vary. How do their characteristics differ? The Abhidharma teaches that the four kinds of real tangibles—solid, moist, warm, and mobile—constitute the four great elements. These four great elements are subsumed within the tangible object; therefore, they are not separately taught. The earth, water, fire, and wind distinguished by the Tattvasiddhi gather the four sense objects to form themselves and can form the five sense organs. The organs are causes and the objects are results; since they are not subsumed by either organs or objects, they must be discussed separately. (This concludes the first section.)

2.23

Next, the nominal and the real are distinguished. In the Abhidharma system, all eleven kinds of matter are real dharmas. The Abhidharma mostly seeks within intrinsic nature and characteristics; therefore, there is no nominal matter. In the Tattvasiddhi system, the five sense objects are real, while the sense organs and the great elements are nominal, because the sense objects are gathered to form the great elements, and the great elements form the sense organs. If contrasted with the ultimate principle, all are nominal, because they are equally dharmas of conditioned designation.

2.24

Next, mental dharmas are distinguished. Within this, they are briefly distinguished through five sections: first, clarifying the identity or difference of the substance of mind and mental factors; second, distinguishing their characteristics through expansion and contraction; third, clarifying their breadth and narrowness; fourth, distinguishing their universal and restricted scopes; fifth, their differing associations. Regarding identity or difference: in the Tattvasiddhi system, mind and mental factors are of one substance, differentiated conceptually; it is not taught that there are distinct mental factors outside of mind. For example, it is said that the aggregate of consciousness is taken as mind, while the rest are called mental factors; or sensation is spoken of as mind, while the rest are called mental factors. All are like this. In the Abhidharma system, mind and mental factors are distinct: the six consciousnesses are mind, while the others, such as perception and sensation, are called mental factors. In the Mahāyāna system, in terms of the branch they are distinct, but exhausting the root they are one. What does this mean? In the Mahāyāna system, three kinds of consciousness are taught: First is true consciousness, in which mind and mental factors are one. Second is deluded consciousness; within this deluded consciousness, there are six coarse and subtle layers, beginning from ignorance and ending with continuing consciousness. Among these six layers, in the first four layers mind and mental factors are one, while in the latter two layers mind and mental factors are distinct. Because in the first four layers mind and mental factors are one, the treatise speaks of them as unassociated defilements; because the latter two are distinct, the treatise speaks of them as mind-associated defilements. Aśvaghoṣa explained: "Mind is distinct from thought; hence it is called associated." This meaning will be fully and broadly distinguished later in the chapter on the eight consciousnesses. Third is phenomenal consciousness, which invariably possesses all mental factors simultaneously, the same as in the Abhidharma. The identity and difference of mind and mental factors have been roughly distinguished. (This concludes the first section.)

2.25

Next, expansion and contraction are distinguished. The expansion and contraction of mental dharmas is not fixed between broad and brief. Sometimes they are subsumed into one, called the single aggregate of mind. Sometimes they are divided into two, called mind and mental factors: the six consciousnesses are mind, while perception and the like are mental factors. Sometimes they are divided into four, called sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness: the mental king is called consciousness, the mental factor of perception is called perception, the mental factor of sensation is called sensation, and the remaining mental factors are called formations. Sometimes they are divided into six, namely the six consciousnesses. Furthermore, according to what the Abhidharma teaches, there are forty-seven mental dharmas: the mental king is one, and among the mental factors there are forty-six. Which are these? There are ten of the universal ground; combining them with that mental king, they total eleven. As for the ten of the universal ground, as that treatise teaches: perception, desire, contact, wisdom, mindfulness, volition, determination, recollection, concentration, and sensation—these are called the universal ground. Grasping characteristics in an object is called perception. Wishing to experience toward a condition is called desire. Causing sense organ, sense object, and consciousness to harmonize is called contact. Decisiveness toward a condition is called wisdom. Remembering without forgetting is called mindfulness. Intending, willing, and acting toward good, bad, and the like is called volition. Constructing characteristics toward a condition, and experiencing the limits of those characteristics, is called determination; without determination, one would always hold to a single condition and be unable to let go of it. Awakening toward a condition is called recollection. Constantly focusing without distraction is called concentration. Experiencing the adverse, agreeable, or neutral is called sensation. These ten are universally present with all minds; hence they are called the great universal ground. There are ten of the wholesome ground; together with the preceding, they total twenty-one. Which are these? As that treatise teaches: the roots, possessing shame, remorse, faith, pliancy, diligence, non-harming, vigor, and equanimity, are present with all wholesome minds. As for "the roots", they refer to the wholesome roots of non-greed and non-anger. For what reason is non-delusion not mentioned? Non-delusion is wisdom, and is identical in substance with the mental factor of wisdom in the universal ground; therefore it is not discussed here. A mind devoid of greedy attachment toward other sentient beings and material possessions is called non-greed. A mind harboring no anger toward sentient and non-sentient beings is called non-anger. Self-loathing toward evil is called shame. Embarrassment before others regarding faults is called remorse. A pure mind without doubt regarding the Three Jewels and so forth is called faith. Body and mind free from evil is called pliancy. Giving rise to wholesome expedients and refraining from evil is called diligence. Not tormenting others is called non-harming. Severing evil, gathering good, and vigorously cultivating with effort is called vigor. An inner mind of impartiality is called equanimity. These ten are universally present in all wholesome states; hence they are called the great wholesome ground. In the unwholesome ground, there are two mental dharmas, namely lack of shame and lack of remorse; together with the preceding, they total twenty-three. Among the great defilements, ten are fully explained, but distinctly there are only five; together with the preceding, they total twenty-eight. Which are the ten? As that treatise teaches: wrong view, incorrect recollection, discordant knowledge, loss of mindfulness, non-faith, indolence, distraction, ignorance, restlessness, and negligence—these are the great defilement ground. Inverted determination is called wrong view. Incorrectly experiencing sense objects is called incorrect recollection. Inverted decisiveness is called discordant knowledge. Incorrect remembering and false experiencing is called loss of mindfulness. Wrong doubt and impurity regarding the Three Jewels and so forth is called non-faith. Not severing evil and cultivating good, and not exerting effort, is called indolence. Being pulled by sense objects and scattered along various conditions is called distraction. Not comprehending dharmas is called ignorance. Restlessness and agitation without cessation is called restlessness. Abandoning wholesome expedients is called negligence. These ten are universally present in all defilements; hence they are called the great defilement ground. Question: Drowsiness is also universally present in all defilements; why is it not called the great defilement ground? The treatise itself explains: "Drowsiness accords with correct absorption and can quickly initiate concentration; therefore, it is not mentioned."

2.26

As for there being distinctly only five, they are non-faith, indolence, ignorance, restlessness, and negligence. These five kinds have substances distinct from other mental factors; therefore, they are now taken to make forty-seven. The remaining five are not distinct, and therefore are not mentioned. Why are they not distinct? What is called wrong view is identical with the mental factor of determination in the universal ground. Incorrect recollection is identical in substance with the mental factor of recollection in the universal ground. Discordant knowledge is identical in substance with the mental factor of wisdom in the universal ground. Loss of mindfulness is identical in substance with the mental factor of mindfulness in the universal ground. Distraction is identical in substance with the mental factor of concentration in the universal ground. Question: If wrong view, incorrect recollection, and the like are identical with the mental factors in the universal ground, why bother to speak of them again as the defilement ground? Because their power in giving rise to delusion is equal. Question: Why are sensation, perception, contact, and desire from the universal ground not spoken of as the defilement ground? Because they are unequal, their great ground is not evident, so they are not mentioned. How are they unequal? Perception is stronger in producing views, while sensation, contact, and desire are stronger in producing craving; hence they are called unequal. Question again: Why is the mental factor of volition not spoken of as the defilement ground? Volition is the master of all activities, so it is not spoken of exclusively as the defilement ground. Furthermore, volition is also stronger in producing craving; hence it is not mentioned. Question: If you say that sensation, perception, contact, and so forth are not spoken of as the defilement ground because they give rise to delusion unequally, wisdom is stronger in producing views; why is it spoken of as the defilement ground? The explanation is: Within views, wisdom is not separately discussed; therefore, wisdom cannot be said to be stronger. Because wisdom is not stronger, it is spoken of as a ground.

2.27

In the category of minor defilements (parīttakleśabhūmika), there are distinctly ten, which together with the preceding makes thirty-eight. What are they? As that treatise says: anger (krodha), enmity (upanāha), deceit (śāṭhya), stinginess (mātsarya), jealousy (īrṣyā), affliction (pradāsa), flattery (māyā), concealment (mrakṣa), arrogance (mada), and harmfulness (vihiṃsā)—these are called the minor-ground [dharmas]. As the commentary of the treatise explains: "Regarding benefit and non-benefit: what should be done is not done, and what should not be done is contrarily done." Anger arising in continuity is called anger. Pleasurable matters benefit others; painful matters do not benefit others. When beneficial matters that should be done are intentionally not done, and non-beneficial matters that by principle should not be done are contrarily and intentionally done, the continuous arising of an angry disposition is called anger. Regarding the desirable and the undesirable: what should be done is not done, and what should not be done is contrarily done. Enmity arising in continuity is called enmity. Pleasurable matters are desired by others; painful matters are not desired by others. When what is desirable and should be done is intentionally not done, and what is undesirable and by principle should not be done is contrarily and intentionally done, the remaining knot of anger is called enmity. Pretending to serve is called deceit. Parsimoniously begrudging wealth and Dharma is called stinginess. Resenting another's reputation, gain, skills, and merits is called jealousy. The burning agitation of the mind upon contemplating meeting enemies or separating from loved ones is called affliction. Concealing one's true nature and crookedly complying with the circumstance is called flattery. Hiding one's own faults and evils is called concealment. Obstructing others to elevate oneself is called arrogance. Wishing to oppress others is called harmfulness. These ten kinds exist only in the mental ground, do not extend to the five consciousnesses, are restricted to abandonment through cultivation, do not extend to the seeing of the truths, and arise separately without accompanying each other; therefore they are called the minor ground. Among the remaining caittas there are further five caittas, which together with the preceding makes forty-three: namely, gross investigation (vitarka), subtle analysis (vicāra), torpor (styāna), sleep (middha), and regret (kaukṛtya). Coarse thinking is called gross investigation. Fine thinking is called subtle analysis. The state where all defilements slumber upon an object is called torpor. The body and mind being dim and indistinct, cursorily taking an object, is called sleep. Remorse over a change is called regret. Among the ten fetters (anuśaya), there are further four caittas, which together with the preceding makes forty-seven: namely, greed (rāga), hatred (pratigha), pride (māna), and doubt (vicikitsā). Clinging attachment is called greed. Wrath is called hatred. Disdain for others is called pride. Hesitation is called doubt. The five views are prajñā; because they are identical with the prajñā caitta in the universal ground, they are eliminated and not treated separately. The fetter of delusion is identical with the caitta of ignorance in the great defilements; hence it is not mentioned [separately]. Although the substance of this fetter of ignorance is identical with the caitta of ignorance in the great defilements, there is a divergence in meaning. The caitta of ignorance in the great defilements is universal throughout all fetters, entanglements (paryavasthāna), and defilements (mala). The fetter of ignorance is restricted to the gate of fetters and does not extend to entanglements and defilements. Furthermore, the caitta of ignorance in the great ground is solely conjoined (saṃprayukta) and does not extend to the unshared (āveṇika), because it universally accompanies all defilements. The fetter of ignorance subsumes both the conjoined and the unshared: therein, if one is confused regarding an object without accompanying any of the other fetters, that is its unshared aspect; if it is not a distinct object and accompanies the other nine fetters, that is its conjoined aspect. Such is the Abhidharma.

First 27 of 91 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大乘義章 — Classical Chinese