大乘玄論 3.25

3.25

八倒第三。問：經明三修八倒。何等是三修比丘耶？答：三修者，一常無常、二苦樂、三我無我。常者，凝然也。無常者，遷流。樂者，怡愈。苦者，逼惱。我者，性實。無我者，不自在通稱。修者，習義也。然此三種相對合辨，名為三修，離說即是六修。若具足而應是四修，離即八修，謂淨不淨。所以除淨不淨，但明三修六修者，不淨觀是遠方便因中除不淨觀，故果中除淨觀。若對治八倒，應辨八修，因中苦無常無我不淨，果上取常樂我淨，故八修。有人言：六修皆是俗觀。又言：果上三修一向俗觀；因中前三修是俗，無我是真。今明：通皆是俗皆是真。八倒者，前倒常樂我淨，外道時起四倒，謂常倒、樂倒、我倒、淨倒。佛破四倒故，說無常、苦、無我、不淨。比丘佛果上更起苦、無常、無我、不淨，更起後四倒，謂無常倒、苦倒、無我倒、不淨倒。前倒後倒合論故有八倒。外道起生死，計有常樂我淨，佛初說四諦破四倒，說生死中但有苦無常無我不淨，無有常樂我淨。比丘聞此，非但生死苦無常無我不淨，佛果亦苦無常無我不淨，起後四倒。故《涅槃》云「但生死苦無常無我不淨，佛果是常樂我淨。」破其佛果苦無常無我不淨故，有八修八倒。若外凡夫起八倒者，是見諦煩惱。若學人起八倒者，是修道煩惱。若羅漢起八倒者，是界外煩惱。八倒體者，謂三倒是也，一心倒、二想倒、三見倒。謂一切心了別是心倒，一切心想像皆是想倒，一切心決了名見倒，今所用也。生死中四倒，正迷生死無常苦，傍迷佛果常樂。果上四倒，正迷佛果常樂，傍迷生死無常苦。所以然者，計生死常，非但不識無常，亦不識常。計佛無常者，非但不識常，亦則不識無常。問：若計常者，正迷無常、傍迷常法；計無常者，正迷常傍、迷無常者，得言解無常之解即解常、解常之解即解無常不？答：惑性浮慢，得言一惑兩迷。解性不漫，解無常解不解常、解常之解不解無常。起倒人者，外凡夫人起前四倒，入內凡位不復起之。後四倒者，入內凡位乃至羅漢起之。《智度論》云「三倒生時，前起想心、後起見倒。」此從輕至重。斷時，前斷見倒、後斷想心。四倒體者，《婆沙》云「以慧數為體。」前倒是凡夫、後倒是聖，合論具八倒也。外謂無常見常為倒、無常見無常不倒。今依《中論》，倒與不倒皆倒，前後八倒、前後八行皆倒，故十六倒。常、無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常四句皆倒，我樂淨皆四句，皆生死十六倒。佛果上苦無常無我各四句，合十六倒，并合三十二倒。問：前明斷伏，以何文證初地斷見諦與思惟？答：《十住論》云「初地斷見諦盡，又斷三界思惟。」問：以何文證初地以上斷十重無明？答：《相續解脫經》云「斷二十二愚。初地斷二愚，第十地斷二愚，金剛心斷二愚，合為二十二無明。」《攝論》云「斷十重無明，初地斷凡夫性無明。」問：何意初地斷凡夫性無明？答：地前猶有習故，離二種我，未真證生法二空。初地以上，真證生法二空。凡夫性無明，開為二：一者障一切法無明、二者潤三惡道無明。問：何為人斷伏耶？答：內凡夫伏惑，聖位斷也。有人言：十解六心為外凡夫，七心以上名內凡夫。今明：若就位退為論，十信六信為外凡夫，七信以上名內凡夫。若就發心為論，未入十信名外凡夫，十信初心名內凡夫。問：為空智斷？為有智斷？答：經云「佛為增上慢人說斷煩惱」，實不斷也。又經云斷，何者是也？若言有煩惱不能斷，無煩惱何所斷也？若言斷者為見惑斷，若見惑斷者，即明闇並，云何斷煩惱？若不見懸斷者，天竺燃燈，振旦闇皆破。如此推之，即畢竟不斷。如此了悟，即是斷也。有所得人，空解斷、有解不斷。今明：有所得人，空有俱不斷；無所得，空有俱斷。自有中伏假斷，如求性有無不可得故名非有非無，但伏性有無猶未斷也。次明假有假無，即性有無始斷。既識假有假無，知畢竟無有定性有無，故名假斷。次云假伏中斷者，對性有無說假有無，以伏性有無故云假伏。悟假有不有、假無不無，為中道，前性有無惑斷，故名假伏中斷。亦得假伏假斷、中伏中斷。如識假有無，即性有無永斷，名為假斷。自有識假有無但伏性也。問：金剛心斷惑盡耶？答：開善云佛地斷惑盡。《夫人經》云「佛智所斷，佛菩提智所斷。」今明：金剛心斷惑盡。《夫人經》云斷者，解脫道遮未來不生，正是金剛心無礙道中斷。問：得言地前為無礙、初地為解脫不？答：開善云爾。今謂不然，初地自開為無礙解脫。問：金剛為轉為謝耶？答：《毘曇》則謝，《成實》則轉。金剛若謝別有佛果，云何波若變名薩波若？轉金剛成者，云何轉無常而後常？今所明者，應有轉謝及不轉不謝。若了悟金剛本不生滅，即金剛是佛，故不轉不謝。經云「一切眾生本來寂滅，不復更滅。」於妄謂之心息生滅之見，故名為謝。得了悟之者，為生滅悟無生滅，故名為轉。

Third: the eight inversions. Question: The sūtras explain the three cultivations and the eight inversions. What are the three cultivations of a monk (bhikṣu)? Answer: As for the three cultivations, the first is permanence and impermanence, the second is suffering and bliss, and the third is self and non-self. Permanence means unchanging stillness; impermanence means shifting flux. Bliss means joy and ease; suffering means oppressive anguish. Self means real intrinsic nature; non-self is the collective term for lack of autonomy. Cultivation means repeated practice. Now, when these three kinds are combined and examined in contrast, they are called the three cultivations; when expounded separately, they are the six cultivations. If fully stated, there should be four cultivations, which separately are eight cultivations, namely pure and impure. The reason pure and impure are excluded so that only three cultivations or six cultivations are explained is that the contemplation of impurity is a remote expedient, and since in the causal stage the contemplation of impurity is removed, therefore in the resultant stage the contemplation of purity is removed. If one is counteracting the eight inversions, eight cultivations should be distinguished: suffering, impermanence, non-self, and impurity in the causal stage, while grasping permanence, bliss, self, and purity in the resultant stage—hence the eight cultivations. Some say: 'All six cultivations are conventional contemplations.' Others also say: 'The three cultivations in the resultant stage are purely conventional contemplations; in the causal stage, the first three cultivations are conventional, and non-self is ultimate.' Now it is clarified: collectively, they are all conventional and all ultimate. As for the eight inversions, in the former inversions [of taking things to be] permanent, blissful, self, and pure, non-Buddhists at that time gave rise to the four inversions, namely the inversion of permanence, the inversion of bliss, the inversion of self, and the inversion of purity. Because the Buddha refuted the four inversions, he spoke of impermanence, suffering, non-self, and impurity. Monks (bhikṣu) further gave rise, with respect to the Buddha's resultant stage, to suffering, impermanence, non-self, and impurity, thus further giving rise to the latter four inversions, namely the inversion of impermanence, the inversion of suffering, the inversion of non-self, and the inversion of impurity. Taking the former inversions and the latter inversions together, there are eight inversions. Non-Buddhists arose within saṃsāra and conjectured that it has permanence, bliss, self, and purity; the Buddha initially taught the four noble truths to refute these four inversions, teaching that within saṃsāra there are only suffering, impermanence, non-self, and impurity, and no permanence, bliss, self, or purity. When monks heard this, they thought that not only is saṃsāra suffering, impermanent, non-self, and impure, but the Buddha's resultant stage is also suffering, impermanent, non-self, and impure, giving rise to the latter four inversions. Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'It is only saṃsāra that is suffering, impermanent, non-self, and impure; the Buddha's resultant stage is permanence, bliss, self, and purity.' To refute their [imputation of] suffering, impermanence, non-self, and impurity to the Buddha's resultant stage, there are the eight cultivations and eight inversions. If external ordinary people give rise to the eight inversions, these are the afflictions [severed by] seeing the truths. If trainees give rise to the eight inversions, these are the afflictions [severed by] the path of cultivation. If arhats give rise to the eight inversions, these are the afflictions beyond the realm [of saṃsāra]. As for the essence of the eight inversions, they are the three inversions: first, inversion of mind; second, inversion of thought; third, inversion of view. Namely, all discrimination of mind is inversion of mind; all conceptual imagining of mind is inversion of thought; all decisive judgment of mind is called inversion of view. This is what is applied here. The four inversions within saṃsāra directly err regarding the impermanence and suffering of saṃsāra, and secondarily err regarding the permanence and bliss of the Buddha's resultant stage. The four inversions regarding the resultant stage directly err regarding the permanence and bliss of the Buddha's resultant stage, and secondarily err regarding the impermanence and suffering of saṃsāra. Why is this? Conjecturing saṃsāra to be permanent not only fails to recognize impermanence, but also fails to recognize permanence. Conjecturing the Buddha to be impermanent not only fails to recognize permanence, but also fails to recognize impermanence. Question: If one who conjectures permanence directly errs regarding impermanence and secondarily errs regarding the dharma of permanence, and one who conjectures impermanence directly errs regarding permanence and secondarily errs regarding impermanence, can one say that an understanding that understands impermanence is an understanding that understands permanence, and an understanding that understands permanence is an understanding that understands impermanence? Answer: Because the nature of delusion is frivolous and diffuse, one can say that a single delusion involves two errors. The nature of understanding is not diffuse: an understanding that understands impermanence does not understand permanence, and an understanding that understands permanence does not understand impermanence. As for the persons who give rise to the inversions, external ordinary people give rise to the former four inversions, and upon entering the rank of internal ordinary people, they do not give rise to them again. As for the latter four inversions, those entering the rank of internal ordinary people up to arhats give rise to them. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: 'When the three inversions arise, thought and mind arise first, and the inversion of view arises later.' This proceeds from the lighter to the heavier. When they are severed, the inversion of view is severed first, and thought and mind are severed later. As for the essence of the four inversions, the *Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā* says: 'It takes mental factor of wisdom as its essence.' The former inversions belong to ordinary people, and the latter inversions belong to noble ones; taken together, they comprise the eight inversions. Outsiders claim that seeing permanence in what is impermanent is an inversion, whereas seeing impermanence in what is impermanent is non-inversion. Now, relying on the *Madhyamakaśāstra*, both the inverted and the non-inverted are inversions; the former and latter eight inversions and the former and latter eight practices are all inversions, hence there are sixteen inversions. The catuskoṭi of permanence, impermanence, both permanence and impermanence, and neither permanence nor impermanence are all inversions; self, bliss, and purity each have a catuskoṭi, and all are the sixteen inversions of saṃsāra. In the Buddha's resultant stage, suffering, impermanence, and non-self each have a catuskoṭi, totaling sixteen inversions, and combining together they make thirty-two inversions. Question: It was previously explained that [afflictions are] severed and suppressed; by what text is it proven that the first ground severs [the afflictions of] seeing the truths and contemplation? Answer: The *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* says: 'The first ground exhausts the severing of [the afflictions of] seeing the truths, and furthermore severs contemplation in the three realms.' Question: By what text is it proven that from the first ground upward, the ten layers of ignorance are severed? Answer: The *Sandhinirmocanasūtra* says: 'Severing the twenty-two kinds of foolishness. The first ground severs two kinds of foolishness, the tenth ground severs two kinds of foolishness, and the vajra-like mind severs two kinds of foolishness, totaling twenty-two kinds of ignorance.' The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: 'Severing the ten layers of ignorance; the first ground severs the ignorance of ordinary-person nature.' Question: For what reason does the first ground sever the ignorance of ordinary-person nature? Answer: Because prior to the grounds there are still residual habit-energies, though free from the two kinds of self, one has not truly realized the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas. From the first ground upward, one truly realizes the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas. The ignorance of ordinary-person nature is divided into two: first, the ignorance that obstructs all dharmas; second, the ignorance that moistens [rebirth in] the three evil destinies. Question: What kinds of persons suppress and sever? Answer: Internal ordinary people suppress afflictions, and the noble stages sever them. Some say: 'The sixth mind among the ten understandings constitutes external ordinary people, and the seventh mind and above are called internal ordinary people.' Now it is clarified: if discussed with respect to retrogression of stage, the sixth faith among the ten faiths constitutes external ordinary people, and the seventh faith and above are called internal ordinary people. If discussed with respect to the initial resolve, not yet having entered the ten faiths constitutes external ordinary people, and the initial mind of the ten faiths is called internal ordinary people. Question: Are they severed by empty gnosis, or are they severed by existent gnosis? Answer: The sūtras state: 'The Buddha taught the severing of afflictions for people of overweening pride'; in truth, nothing is severed. Furthermore, when the sūtras say 'severed', what does it mean? If one says there are afflictions, they cannot be severed; if there are no afflictions, what is there to sever? If one says they are severed, is it by seeing the affliction that one severs it? If seeing the affliction severs it, then light and darkness would coexist—how could that sever afflictions? If they are severed remotely without seeing them, then lighting a lamp in India would destroy all the darkness in China. Deducing it like this, there is ultimately no severing. Understanding it like this is precisely severing. For those who grasp attainment, an understanding of emptiness severs, and an understanding of existence does not sever. Now it is clarified: for those who grasp attainment, neither emptiness nor existence severs; with non-attainment, both emptiness and existence sever. There is also the Middle suppressing and the conventional severing: for instance, seeking intrinsic existence and non-existence being unobtainable, it is called neither existence nor non-existence; this merely suppresses intrinsic existence and non-existence, but does not yet sever them. Next, explaining conventional existence and conventional non-existence, intrinsic existence and non-existence are then severed. Having recognized conventional existence and conventional non-existence, one knows that ultimately there is no fixed intrinsic existence or non-existence; hence this is called conventional severing. Next, as for the conventional suppressing and the Middle severing: speaking of conventional existence and non-existence in contrast to intrinsic existence and non-existence, because it suppresses intrinsic existence and non-existence, it is called conventional suppression. Awakening to the fact that conventional existence is not existent and conventional non-existence is not non-existent constitutes the Middle Way, and the preceding delusion of intrinsic existence and non-existence is severed; hence it is called conventional suppression and Middle severing. It can also be conventional suppression and conventional severing, or Middle suppression and Middle severing. For example, recognizing conventional existence and non-existence, intrinsic existence and non-existence are permanently severed, which is called conventional severing. There are also cases where recognizing conventional existence and non-existence merely suppresses intrinsic nature. Question: Does the vajra-like mind exhaustively sever afflictions? Answer: Kaishan says that the Buddha-stage exhaustively severs afflictions. The *Śrīmālādevīsūtra* says: 'Severed by the Buddha's gnosis; severed by the Buddha's bodhi-gnosis.' Now it is clarified: the vajra-like mind exhaustively severs afflictions. When the *Śrīmālādevīsūtra* speaks of being severed, the path of liberation prevents future [afflictions] from arising, which is precisely the severing in the unimpeded path of the vajra-like mind. Question: Can one say that prior to the grounds is the unimpeded [path] and the first ground is liberation? Answer: Kaishan says this is so. Now I say it is not so; the first ground itself divides into the unimpeded [path] and liberation. Question: Does the vajra-like [mind] transform or perish? Answer: The Abhidharma holds it perishes; the *Tattvasiddhi* holds it transforms. If the vajra-like [mind] perishes and there is a separate Buddha-result, how does prajñā change its name to sarvajñā? If it transforms the vajra-like [mind] into fulfillment, how can what is impermanent transform into what is subsequently permanent? What is clarified now is that there should be both transforming and perishing, as well as neither transforming nor perishing. If one realizes that the vajra-like [mind] is originally unborn and unceasing, then the vajra-like [mind] is precisely the Buddha; hence it neither transforms nor perishes. A sūtra says: 'All sentient beings are originally in quiescent extinction, not to be extinguished further.' Regarding the mind of false imputation, views of arising and ceasing cease; hence it is called perishing. For one who attains realization, awakening from arising and ceasing to the absence of arising and ceasing is therefore called transforming.