大乘法苑義林章 2.41

2.41

第十問答分別者，問：此斷煩惱，三世之中於何說斷？答：薩婆多等所說不同，今依大乘。《瑜伽》第五十八云「非斷去來今，然說斷三世。非過去，有隨眠心任運滅故，性已無，何所斷？未來性未生，體現無，何所斷？現在有隨眠心，此剎那後性必不住，更何所斷？又有隨眠、離隨眠心二不和合，是故現在亦非所斷。然從他言音、內正作意二因緣故，正見相應，隨所治惑能治心生，諸有隨眠所治心滅。此心生時、彼心滅時平等平等。對治生滅，道理應知。」正見相應能對治心，於現在世無有隨眠，於過去世亦無隨眠，此剎那後離隨眠心，在未來世亦無隨眠。從此已後於已轉依，以斷隨眠身相續中所有，後得世間所攝善無記心，去來今位皆離隨眠，是故三世皆得說斷。問：所斷煩惱有退不退？答：依薩婆多，見道速疾道，斷已永不退。其無學道，住不動者不退，退種性者，退法、思法、護法、住法，必勝進本性不退，退法進成者退。大眾部等，退預流果，非阿羅漢，阿羅漢見修二道極堅牢故。見道不然，故退。今大乘聖道，斷隨眠必不退，伏者有退義。《涅槃經》言「若世俗道而斷煩惱，以還起故，說名無常。」《瑜伽》亦然。退等種姓，依定障建立，非退果。然菩薩等，以無漏道所伏，亦不退，自在故。如舍利弗至十信第六心猶退，以退起煩惱，先有漏伏故。問：云何名斷？若是現行，久已自滅。若種子者，道不可俱。云何名斷？答：五十八云「但斷隨眠，以煩惱纏先已捨故。斷隨眠故，說名為斷。何以故？雖纏已斷，未斷隨眠，諸煩惱纏數復現起。若隨眠斷，纏與隨眠畢竟不起，亦名斷纏。此說聖道，正斷隨眠。若伏斷者，折種子力令不生現，名伏現行。」隨眠雖復與道不俱，然如問前義說之為斷。三心真見道，法觀既細，必兼生觀，即斷生執。何故生執即三心斷？法唯二心，應細三心、麁二心故。答：法觀雖細必帶生觀，第二剎那不斷生執。如十地中斷惑法觀，習氣可斷，種不可除，不障此道故，加行之心不欣斷故。竝二品斷，不爾違論。問：為總緣作意能斷煩惱？為別緣作意能斷煩惱？答：《佛地論》中釋自共相，略有三說。有義：二量在散心位，不說定位，定位緣一切皆現量攝。此師雖言定心緣一切，不說斷惑定總別相。然准義知，唯共相斷，定心通緣自共故。第二師云：定心唯緣自相，然由共相方便所引，說緣共相。所顯理者，就方便說，名知共相。不如是者，名知自相。由此道理，或說真如名空無我諸法共相。或說真如二空所顯，非是共相。此師意說：就方便說可名共相，說觀中證可名自相。即顯斷惑唯自相觀，非共相也。第三師云：如實義者，彼因明論立自共相，與此少異。彼說一切法上實義皆名自相。以諸法上自相、共相各附已體不共他故。若分別心，立一種類能詮所詮通在諸法，如縷貫花名為共相。此要散心分別假立，是比量境。一切定心離此分別，皆名現量。雖緣諸法苦無常等，亦一一法各別有故，名為自相。真如雖是共相所顯，以是諸法自實性故，自有相故，亦非共相，不可以其與一切法不一不異即名共相，自相亦與一切共相不一異故。此義意言：總為無我共相所顯，一一別證體是自相，即可通為二觀能斷。能顯是共相，詮為唯識無我等故。據法竝自相，一一法真理皆能了知故。《緣起經》下卷言「真諦聖智於真智境非安立義，總相緣故，名頓現觀。一剎那中由加行引，能普遍知，名總相緣，非一一法真如妙理而不別知名為總相。」佛地自會，故不相違。問：此諸煩惱從何說斷？答：從彼相應及所緣故，煩惱可斷。所以者何？對治道生，煩惱不起，得無生法，是故說名斷彼相應。由本識中煩惱種子皆悉斷盡，心等起時無煩惱俱，名相應斷。相應斷已不復緣境，故從所緣亦說名斷。無能繫心縛所緣故，此文依斷煩惱障說。菩薩斷者，由修止觀能斷煩惱。由修此二觀於無相，故諸相縛皆得解脫，相縛脫故諸麁重縛亦得解脫。故世尊言：「相縛縛眾生，亦由麁重縛。善雙修止觀，方乃俱解脫。」問：云何次第斷諸煩惱？答：謂在家者，最初應斷不善事業及諸惡見；次後應斷樂出家障，謂欲、恚、害三種尋思；次後應斷不定心者三摩地障，謂即眷屬、國土、不死三種尋思；次斷得作意障，謂樂遠離品身諸麁重；次斷見道煩惱；次斷修道煩惱；次斷屬苦、屬憂、屬樂、屬喜、屬捨諸定障品障礙煩惱；次後別有應斷所知障品諸障。由前次第，應斷二障。問：見道、修道名正斷道，何頓何漸？答：〈見道章〉中當廣顯示。

Tenth, discriminating through questions and answers: Question: Among the three periods of time, in which is this abandoning of kleśas said to occur? Answer: The Sarvāstivādins and others explain this differently; here we rely on the Mahāyāna. Fascicle 58 of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "It is not that past, future, or present are abandoned, and yet it is said that the three periods of time are abandoned. It is not the past, because a mind possessing latent dispositions has already ceased spontaneously; its nature already does not exist, so what could be abandoned? The nature of the future has not yet arisen and its substance is presently non-existent, so what could be abandoned? In the present, a mind possessing latent dispositions will certainly not abide after this instant, so what further could be abandoned? Furthermore, a mind possessing latent dispositions and a mind free from latent dispositions do not coexist; therefore, the present is also not what is abandoned. However, due to the two conditions of speech from another and internal correct attention, associated with right view, the counteractive mind arises in correspondence with the kleśa to be counteracted, and the minds possessing latent dispositions that are to be counteracted cease. When this mind arises and that mind ceases, they are precisely equal. The principle of the arising and ceasing of the counteractive path should be understood in this way." The counteractive mind associated with right view has no latent dispositions in the present period of time, nor does it have latent dispositions in the past period of time; after this instant, the mind free from latent dispositions likewise has no latent dispositions in the future period of time. From this point onward, in the one who has already undergone the transformation of the basis, in the continuum of the body in which the latent dispositions have been abandoned, all subsequent good and indeterminate minds subsumed under the mundane are free from latent dispositions in their past, future, and present states; therefore, abandonment can be spoken of across all three periods of time. Question: Does the abandoned kleśa involve regression or non-regression? Answer: According to the Sarvāstivādins, the path of seeing is an expeditious path; once abandoned, there is never any regression. In the path of non-learning, those who abide in the immovable do not regress; among those of regressible disposition—those of the dharmas of regression, thought, guarding, and abiding—they certainly make superior progress so their original disposition does not regress, while those who regress through the dharma of regression and then advance to completion do regress. The Mahāsāṃghika and others hold that there is regression from the fruit of the stream-enterer, but not for the arhat, because the two paths of seeing and cultivation of the arhat are exceedingly firm and solid. The path of seeing is not like this, hence there is regression. Now, in the noble path of the Mahāyāna, when latent dispositions are abandoned there is definitely no regression; when they are merely suppressed, there is the possibility of regression. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "If kleśas are abandoned by the mundane path, because they arise again, it is called impermanent." The Yogācārabhūmi also states this. Regressible and other dispositions are established based on hindrances to absorption, not on regression from the fruit. However, for bodhisattvas and others, what is suppressed by the anāsrava path also does not regress, because of their mastery. As for Śāriputra still regressing at the sixth mind of the ten faiths, because he regressed and gave rise to kleśas, they had previously been suppressed only by sāsrava [means]. Question: What is meant by "abandonment"? If it is active manifestation, it has long since ceased on its own. If it is seeds, the path cannot coexist with them. How is it called abandonment? Answer: Fascicle 58 states: "One merely abandons latent dispositions, because the entanglements of kleśa have already been relinquished beforehand. Because latent dispositions are abandoned, it is called abandonment. Why? Although the entanglements have been severed, if the latent dispositions are not yet severed, the entanglements of kleśa will repeatedly manifest again. If the latent dispositions are abandoned, entanglements and latent dispositions will never arise again; this is also called abandoning entanglements. This speaks of the noble path directly abandoning latent dispositions. If it is suppression and abandonment, it crushes the power of the seeds so that they do not give rise to active manifestations; this is called suppressing active manifestations." Although latent dispositions indeed do not coexist with the path, yet according to the meaning explained before the question, it is spoken of as abandonment. In the three-mind true path of seeing, since the contemplation of phenomena is subtle, it necessarily entails the contemplation of sentient beings, which directly abandons the attachment to sentient beings. Why is the attachment to sentient beings abandoned in three minds, while that of phenomena requires only two minds, given that the subtle should be three minds and the coarse two minds? Answer: Although the contemplation of phenomena is subtle, it necessarily carries along the contemplation of sentient beings; in the second instant, it does not abandon the attachment to sentient beings. Just as in the contemplation of phenomena that abandons kleśas in the ten grounds, the latent impressions can be abandoned, but the seeds cannot be eliminated, because they do not obstruct this path, and the mind of preparatory practice does not seek to abandon them. Both are abandoned simultaneously in two grades; otherwise, it would contradict the treatises. Question: Does attention comprehensively taking cognitive objects as its conditions abandon kleśas? Or does attention individually taking cognitive objects as its conditions abandon kleśas? Answer: In the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra, in explaining particular and common characteristics, there are briefly three explanations. One position holds: The two pramāṇas exist in states of distracted mind, not in states of absorption; in states of absorption, taking all as cognitive objects is subsumed under direct perception (pratyakṣa). Although this master states that the mind in absorption takes all as cognitive objects, he does not state whether the absorption that abandons kleśas has common or particular characteristics. However, inferring from the principle, one knows that abandonment is only through common characteristics, because the mind in absorption comprehensively takes both particular and common characteristics as its cognitive objects. The second master says: The mind in absorption takes only particular characteristics as its cognitive objects; yet, because it is induced by the expedient means of common characteristics, it is said to take common characteristics as its cognitive objects. As for the principle that is revealed, speaking with respect to the expedient means, it is called knowing the common characteristics. That which is not like this is called knowing the particular characteristics. In accordance with this principle, it is sometimes said that tathatā is called the common characteristic of all phenomena—emptiness and non-self; or it is said that tathatā is revealed by the two emptinesses and is not a common characteristic. This master means: Speaking with respect to the expedient means, it may be called a common characteristic; speaking of realization within contemplation, it may be called a particular characteristic. This shows that the abandonment of kleśas is only through contemplation of particular characteristics, not common characteristics. The third master says: In accordance with the true meaning, the establishing of particular and common characteristics in that Hetuvidyā treatise differs slightly from this. It states that the actual meaning on all phenomena is in every case called a particular characteristic, because the particular characteristics and common characteristics on all phenomena each adhere to their own substance and are not shared with others. If a conceptualizing mind establishes a single category of expresser and expressed that pervades all phenomena, like a string threading flowers, this is called a common characteristic. This must be conventionally established by the conceptualization of a distracted mind, and is the domain of inference (anumāna). All minds in absorption are free from this conceptualization, and are all called direct perception. Although they take the suffering, impermanence, and so forth of all phenomena as cognitive objects, because each phenomenon distinctly exists, it is called a particular characteristic. Although tathatā is revealed by common characteristics, because it is the own-nature of all phenomena and has its own characteristic, it is also not a common characteristic; one cannot simply call it a common characteristic because it is neither one nor different from all phenomena, since particular characteristics are also neither one nor different from all common characteristics. What this position means is: It is comprehensively revealed by the common characteristic of non-self, yet realization of each individually is in substance a particular characteristic; thus it can be that both contemplations are capable of abandonment. What is capable of revealing it is the common characteristic, because it expresses it as mere-consciousness, non-self, and so forth. In terms of phenomena, all are particular characteristics, because the true principle of each individual phenomenon can be fully known. The lower fascicle of the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra says: "Because the noble wisdom of ultimate truth takes the unestablished meaning—the realm of true wisdom—as a cognitive object in its general characteristic, it is called sudden manifest realization. In a single instant, induced by preparatory practice, it can comprehensively know; this is called taking general characteristics as cognitive objects, not that it does not distinctly know the wondrous principle of tathatā of each individual phenomenon." The Buddhabhūmi-śāstra reconciles this on its own, so they do not contradict each other. Question: From what are these kleśas said to be abandoned? Answer: Kleśas can be abandoned in terms of their association and their cognitive objects. Why is this? When the counteractive path arises, kleśas do not arise, and one attains the state of non-arising of phenomena; therefore it is said to abandon their association. Because the seeds of kleśa in the fundamental consciousness are completely severed, when minds and so forth arise, no kleśa coexists with them; this is called abandoning association. Once association has been abandoned, they no longer take objects as conditions; thus, in terms of cognitive objects, they are also said to be abandoned. Because there is no mind capable of binding that binds to cognitive objects, this text speaks with respect to abandoning the hindrance of kleśa. When bodhisattvas abandon them, it is through the cultivation of śamatha and vipaśyanā that they can abandon kleśas. By cultivating these two contemplations on the signless, all bondages of signs are liberated; because the bondage of signs is liberated, all bondages of heavy crudeness are also liberated. Therefore the World-Honoured One said: "The bondage of signs binds sentient beings, and they are also bound by heavy crudeness. Only by skillfully cultivating both śamatha and vipaśyanā together will they be liberated from both." Question: What is the sequence in abandoning the kleśas? Answer: For a householder, first one should abandon unwholesome actions and evil views; next, one should abandon the hindrances to delighting in renunciation, namely the three kinds of vitarka: sensual desire, malice, and harming; next, one should abandon the hindrances to samādhi for one with an unsteady mind, namely the three kinds of vitarka: relatives, country, and immortality; next, one should abandon the hindrances to attaining attention, namely the various heavy crudenesses of the body belonging to the category of delighting in seclusion; next, one should abandon the kleśas of the path of seeing; next, one should abandon the kleśas of the path of cultivation; next, one should abandon the obstructive kleśas belonging to the category of hindrances to absorption associated with pain, sorrow, pleasure, joy, and equanimity; after that, there are separately the various hindrances belonging to the category of the hindrance to what is known that should be abandoned. In accordance with the preceding sequence, one should abandon the two hindrances. Question: The path of seeing and the path of cultivation are called the paths of direct abandonment; which is sudden and which is gradual? Answer: This will be explained in detail in the "Chapter on the Path of Seeing".